Arrival (2016)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 262 reviews)
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, Tzi Ma
From: Paramount
I got to see this film on the big screen last night at a new theatre in the Tampa area. It was Xscape in Riverview; Xscape is new and only has a few locations across the country. It is one of those luxury theatres with the leather reclining seats, which is such a hot trend this year that even older places have retrofitted them in. Will that get people to the cineplex... I am not so sure about that. Anyhow, Arrival is worth seeing anywhere. I explain why below:
One reason why I saw Prisoners a few days ago was that the buzz surrounding this was so strong, I had to see this on the big screen and I might as well watch another Denis Villeneuve joint before I do that. After seeing Arrival, I had to think about the movie and what I thought about it, as it wasn't what I was expecting and it definitely had its surprises. A comparison with a certain movie suddenly made more sense to me. Then I realized that this is great and it deserves the high praise that many have given it.
I won't reveal much of the plot besides what the trailers stated: 12 mysterious alien objects land across the world, one of them in the state of Montana. The federal government asks linguist Amy Adams (who has to deal with the ramifications of a big event in her life) and mathematician Jeremy Renner to assist in understanding what the aliens are trying to say. To reveal more would be criminal.
I've never read the short story this was based on (Story of Your Life, by Ted Chiang) so I went into the movie blind and thankfully nothing was spoiled for me. As I watched it I wondered why some things were so cliché; by the end I realized what it was all about, and it was masterfully done as I had no inkling before the reveal. While I wouldn't have minded more of a look into how they were able to crack the code and start communicating with the aliens, I realize that wouldn't have been what most of the mainstream audience would have cared for, so I'll accept what was explained about it. The film still explains pretty well the magic of language and how because it's so complex, that is why it would be so incredibly difficult to try and communicate with an alien species, even one far advanced of humanity.
The movie is always persuasive as it references and deals with similar themes that were brought up in cerebral classics like 2001 or Solaris. While it presents a sadly believable scenario of what would happen in real life if the world had to deal with “First Contact” with a sentient alien species, the message concerning humanity is still a positive one, and yet it is not saccharine or cloying. What helps is that it was nicely directed, the cinematography from Bradford Young looked real nice (even if the color palate wasn't exactly vibrant), and the score from Johann Johannsson was properly ethereal for this material.
But it is the quality cast that helps make this as great as it is. While people like Renner and Forest Whitaker did a real swell job, Adams was outstanding in the lead. As she's the strongest focus of the movie, thank goodness she was able to deliver. I am also thankful that unless the director's other work I have seen, the movie is neither nihilistic nor does it make its female characters one dimensional and/or make them incidental to the story. If you want to see a mainstream science fiction movie that is nonetheless still smart, this is a must-watch.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Prisoners
Prisoners (2013)
81% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 231 reviews)
Runtime: An overlong 153 minutes
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo
From: Warner Bros
Unfortunately, this is another case where I watch a heavily hyped movie from the past few years and I felt underwhelmed. I did not hate the movie... I just feel disappointed. I talk all about it below:
Man, I wish I could have loved this movie like most people do...
I was thinking of what to watch last night, and I was stumped. I certainly had no shortage of options. I won't go into all the machinations that led me to this, except that I realized the movie starts on Thanksgiving so what better weekend for me to check this out? I heard that this wasn't the easiest film to watch and I agree, although I've definitely had rougher experiences with films (yeah, I am referring to some examples from South Korea) and that was not my problem with this movie.
Things start off well enough. You get to see the anguish of both Hugh Jackman and Terrence Howard as they had their young daughters vanish in their neighborhood during Thanksgiving. You feel horrible for them as they can't do anything to help aside from talking to the police and search the area. You also see Jake Gyllenhaal (as Detective Loki; I heard the reason why he was given such a name. It's pretentious, not to mention giggle-worthy. I haven't even seen The Avengers but of course I am going to think of Tom Hiddleston wearing a black cloak) investigate the case. I am not quite sure if the procedural stuff we witness here is exactly like how the police really do it, but maybe things are different in Pennsylvania, I don't know. Even when Hugh Jackman does some rather preposterous s---, I realized that this movie was making a statement about religion (his character of Keller Dover was rather religious; him being a carpenter was not done by happenstance) and it's not the only time where this happens. It did not make for the most pleasant of viewing, but at least I was still engaged in the story and seeing who was behind it all. Then the final act hits...
Personally, finding out what the movie was all about and what exactly happened to those two little girls, it was so ludicrous, so goofy Hollywood BS, it soured the movie for me. It did not feel like a good reward for watching an overlong movie where Hugh Jackman acts like a real A-hole and Jake G. is a cop who is happy to bend or even break the rules, so it's not like there are plenty of sympathetic characters to go around. What doesn't help either is that the wives who had just lost their kids (Maria Bello and Viola Davis) were not portrayed in the best light either... they were irrational, shrill harpies who did some inexplicable things... I mean, I understand going crazy because of such an unspeakable tragedy, but how they acted went beyond that; they acted pretty stupid because the script asked them to.
It's a shame, as it is well-shot (the cinematographer was Roger Deakins, so of course it was. He was a big asset in keeping me engaged even as things got more and more inane) and the cast does a great job with what they were given. It's just that the story is so absurd, I couldn't believe it. I understood what the message of the movie was; it was as obvious as a blow from a hammer to your face, so it was impossible to miss. I just found it to be hokey nonsense. I'll stick to the true crime shows that are on TV. At least they show real life criminal acts.
Unfortunately this is also part of what happens in Hollywood too often these days, which is “stories that make no damn sense if you even do a modicum of examination of the plot”. To mention a similarly dour and overlong movie from recent times, Gone Girl was awful, and the plot was so bad, even random fools who still comment on the Internet Movie Database noted accurately how the story is as thin as tissue paper and it completely falls apart upon closer examination. This movie wasn't that bad; Gone Girl was a miserable experience for me to watch... at least I could watch this and not have the desire to shut it off in disgust. It's just that the plot holes were pretty obvious and there were way too many coincidences. The story could have presented its themes and message in a small scale way where the culprit or culprits weren't so unbelievable, nor make me feel really sorry for the family of Keller Dover in that I wouldn't want a nutjob like him as a dad. Subtlety would have really helped here.
The only other movie from the director I saw was Sicario; I thought it was a lot better but its dourness and mean-spirited nature (albeit in a different way than the dourness and mean-spirted nature we got in this flick) means it's not something I'm going to revisit often. Thankfully, Arrival sounds like something more palpable to my tastes so it will be something I watch in the future.
81% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 231 reviews)
Runtime: An overlong 153 minutes
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo
From: Warner Bros
Unfortunately, this is another case where I watch a heavily hyped movie from the past few years and I felt underwhelmed. I did not hate the movie... I just feel disappointed. I talk all about it below:
Man, I wish I could have loved this movie like most people do...
I was thinking of what to watch last night, and I was stumped. I certainly had no shortage of options. I won't go into all the machinations that led me to this, except that I realized the movie starts on Thanksgiving so what better weekend for me to check this out? I heard that this wasn't the easiest film to watch and I agree, although I've definitely had rougher experiences with films (yeah, I am referring to some examples from South Korea) and that was not my problem with this movie.
Things start off well enough. You get to see the anguish of both Hugh Jackman and Terrence Howard as they had their young daughters vanish in their neighborhood during Thanksgiving. You feel horrible for them as they can't do anything to help aside from talking to the police and search the area. You also see Jake Gyllenhaal (as Detective Loki; I heard the reason why he was given such a name. It's pretentious, not to mention giggle-worthy. I haven't even seen The Avengers but of course I am going to think of Tom Hiddleston wearing a black cloak) investigate the case. I am not quite sure if the procedural stuff we witness here is exactly like how the police really do it, but maybe things are different in Pennsylvania, I don't know. Even when Hugh Jackman does some rather preposterous s---, I realized that this movie was making a statement about religion (his character of Keller Dover was rather religious; him being a carpenter was not done by happenstance) and it's not the only time where this happens. It did not make for the most pleasant of viewing, but at least I was still engaged in the story and seeing who was behind it all. Then the final act hits...
Personally, finding out what the movie was all about and what exactly happened to those two little girls, it was so ludicrous, so goofy Hollywood BS, it soured the movie for me. It did not feel like a good reward for watching an overlong movie where Hugh Jackman acts like a real A-hole and Jake G. is a cop who is happy to bend or even break the rules, so it's not like there are plenty of sympathetic characters to go around. What doesn't help either is that the wives who had just lost their kids (Maria Bello and Viola Davis) were not portrayed in the best light either... they were irrational, shrill harpies who did some inexplicable things... I mean, I understand going crazy because of such an unspeakable tragedy, but how they acted went beyond that; they acted pretty stupid because the script asked them to.
It's a shame, as it is well-shot (the cinematographer was Roger Deakins, so of course it was. He was a big asset in keeping me engaged even as things got more and more inane) and the cast does a great job with what they were given. It's just that the story is so absurd, I couldn't believe it. I understood what the message of the movie was; it was as obvious as a blow from a hammer to your face, so it was impossible to miss. I just found it to be hokey nonsense. I'll stick to the true crime shows that are on TV. At least they show real life criminal acts.
Unfortunately this is also part of what happens in Hollywood too often these days, which is “stories that make no damn sense if you even do a modicum of examination of the plot”. To mention a similarly dour and overlong movie from recent times, Gone Girl was awful, and the plot was so bad, even random fools who still comment on the Internet Movie Database noted accurately how the story is as thin as tissue paper and it completely falls apart upon closer examination. This movie wasn't that bad; Gone Girl was a miserable experience for me to watch... at least I could watch this and not have the desire to shut it off in disgust. It's just that the plot holes were pretty obvious and there were way too many coincidences. The story could have presented its themes and message in a small scale way where the culprit or culprits weren't so unbelievable, nor make me feel really sorry for the family of Keller Dover in that I wouldn't want a nutjob like him as a dad. Subtlety would have really helped here.
The only other movie from the director I saw was Sicario; I thought it was a lot better but its dourness and mean-spirited nature (albeit in a different way than the dourness and mean-spirted nature we got in this flick) means it's not something I'm going to revisit often. Thankfully, Arrival sounds like something more palpable to my tastes so it will be something I watch in the future.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Tommy Boy
Tommy Boy (1995)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Peter Segal
Starring: Chris Farley, David Spade, Bo Derek, Rob Lowe, Julie Warner
From: Paramount
First off, last night I rewatched Judge Dredd. I feel the same about it as I did when I saw it back in 2012; it's average overall. I actually watched this Thanksgiving night. I was happy to see this again; as a lot of people did who are now in their mid 30's, this was a popular and beloved film to watch. Thankfully in 2016 I can still enjoy this despite the ups and downs that this sometimes has. I give my thoughts below:
Of course I saw this film when I was a teenager in the 90's; my era of Saturday Night Live (along with a lot of other people) is the early to mid 90's, when he was there with Spade, Sandler, Myers, Carvey, Hartman, Nealon, Rock, and the rest. The day that it was announced Farley passed away... it was a big deal. It was during my high school days and there were plenty of my classmates upset over this news. I was too, mind you. I always found this movie amusing and while it definitely is uneven, it still provided enough belly-laughs where I can say I still dig it.
It's cliché but that is OK; Farley is dimwit-who thinks that Herbie Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence, for example-Tommy Callahan who has to save his father's auto parts company from being taken over and everyone working there being laid off... while working with the typical smarmy jerk that David Spade can probably do in his sleep, and meanwhile there's Bo Derek and Rob Lowe looking to rip off the company too. There's plenty of pratfalls and Farley & Spade not getting along due to being polar opposites, but of course things change...
I can look past the unevenness and things being kind of ridiculous often & enjoy this for what it is. Farley and Spade made for a nice odd couple pairing. Besides the laughs there were some nice poignant moments too; Tommy is goofy but he has a heart of gold and it is nice to see someone try to stop the bad corporate decision to buy something but only for the name and screw over the employees of that something. Brian Dennehy does a nice job for the limited screen time he has. I still chuckle at the best bits from the movie... Fat Guy in a Little Coat, Spade being caught pleasuring himself and the subsequent masturbation-related puns, Tommy's sales pitches, Tommy having trouble pumping gas, the one liners, and all the rest. There definitely is some nice physical comedy.
This may be the best thing that Spade and Farley ever did, at least in motion pictures. Farley's movies may not have been the best but I certainly do miss him and the wacky yet lovably characters he played. In a few weeks, he will have been dead for 19 years, which does not even seem possible. What a shame that he wasn't happy even when he played such beloved figures as Matt Foley, the lunch lady, and the prospective Chippendale dancer, that so many of us dug.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Peter Segal
Starring: Chris Farley, David Spade, Bo Derek, Rob Lowe, Julie Warner
From: Paramount
First off, last night I rewatched Judge Dredd. I feel the same about it as I did when I saw it back in 2012; it's average overall. I actually watched this Thanksgiving night. I was happy to see this again; as a lot of people did who are now in their mid 30's, this was a popular and beloved film to watch. Thankfully in 2016 I can still enjoy this despite the ups and downs that this sometimes has. I give my thoughts below:
Of course I saw this film when I was a teenager in the 90's; my era of Saturday Night Live (along with a lot of other people) is the early to mid 90's, when he was there with Spade, Sandler, Myers, Carvey, Hartman, Nealon, Rock, and the rest. The day that it was announced Farley passed away... it was a big deal. It was during my high school days and there were plenty of my classmates upset over this news. I was too, mind you. I always found this movie amusing and while it definitely is uneven, it still provided enough belly-laughs where I can say I still dig it.
It's cliché but that is OK; Farley is dimwit-who thinks that Herbie Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence, for example-Tommy Callahan who has to save his father's auto parts company from being taken over and everyone working there being laid off... while working with the typical smarmy jerk that David Spade can probably do in his sleep, and meanwhile there's Bo Derek and Rob Lowe looking to rip off the company too. There's plenty of pratfalls and Farley & Spade not getting along due to being polar opposites, but of course things change...
I can look past the unevenness and things being kind of ridiculous often & enjoy this for what it is. Farley and Spade made for a nice odd couple pairing. Besides the laughs there were some nice poignant moments too; Tommy is goofy but he has a heart of gold and it is nice to see someone try to stop the bad corporate decision to buy something but only for the name and screw over the employees of that something. Brian Dennehy does a nice job for the limited screen time he has. I still chuckle at the best bits from the movie... Fat Guy in a Little Coat, Spade being caught pleasuring himself and the subsequent masturbation-related puns, Tommy's sales pitches, Tommy having trouble pumping gas, the one liners, and all the rest. There definitely is some nice physical comedy.
This may be the best thing that Spade and Farley ever did, at least in motion pictures. Farley's movies may not have been the best but I certainly do miss him and the wacky yet lovably characters he played. In a few weeks, he will have been dead for 19 years, which does not even seem possible. What a shame that he wasn't happy even when he played such beloved figures as Matt Foley, the lunch lady, and the prospective Chippendale dancer, that so many of us dug.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Happy Thanksgiving
I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving today. To read my Top 10 List of 2015 (yes, I just compiled this list now) click on this link.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Moonlight
Moonlight (2016)
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Barry Jenkins
Starring: The likes of Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes, Andre Holland, Naomie Harrie and Janelle Monae
From: A24
You may not have heard this movie before, but it's gotten an incredible amount of attention online. The buzz was so strong, I had to see it on the big screen, which I did yesterday. Well, it does deserve all the high praise it has received. I try to explain why I felt this way below without revealing too much:
Late February of 2017 I know that I will participate in what AMC Theatres has been doing for at least the past decade now, and that is show all the Best Picture Oscar nominees over the span of two weekends. I'll see one of the two blocks of movies, anyhow. Trying to figure out what will likely be nominated so I can put off seeing it then vs. seeing something now vs. watching to watch anything (even if it is a regular film with no chance of being nominated)... I know, “first world problems” but it's still a struggle. Despite all that, the praise I heard about this film here and elsewhere meant that I better make sure I see this on the big screen.
It was a wise decision.
On paper the story doesn't sound complicated (we follow a young black man in Miami as a kid, a teenager then a young adult) and once you see it laid out, it's not Byzantine in nature. Yet it's the execution that makes this outstanding. Those that are in a similar boat to our protagonist Chiron (a.k.a. Little and Black) will of course relate the most but many of us will relate to part of this film. As for moi, I unfortunately know what it is like to be “different”; it's not like how Chiron is different but the pain will forever be remembered by me. I also was a quiet type who did not have many friends and I certainly dealt with my share of bullying. While I had a more stable family life and did not grow up poor, the scars from all that bullying will never fully heal. Parts of the movie did hit pretty close to home for me.
As we follow those three distinct acts, Chiron's journey is always compelling. Unfortunately he has a messed up situation at home but he befriends some interesting characters, including one you wouldn't at first suspect as a surrogate father figure type but he does provided some wise sage advice. Unfortunately, there were difficult questions that he could not answer and he was put in a difficult bind, but you do feel for him as it's a bad situation and those questions, no one could adequately answer. He's not completely isolated from his peers; he also knows a compatriot, Kevin. The performances all around are great; the people who play Chiron and Kevin (Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes for the former; Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome and Andre Holland for the latter) all do a swell job as those characters, but also delivering noteworthy performances are Naomie Harris, Janelle Monae, and Mahershala Ali.
The way it's directed and shot... magnificent. The movie takes its time and you enjoy it all as it's so compelling, and the images are usually so soothing. It's also a treat aurally: the soundtrack is pretty rad, and it was nice to hear tunes such as Barbara Lewis's Hello Stranger. But believe me, it's a lot easier to experience the movie yourself rather than me attempt to explain how they nailed it so well, used silence at the right moments, paid attention to detail and got all the minutiae right. No matter your background and the type of childhood you had, in some way you'll likely relate even a small amount to Chiron and his struggles.... it also works if you really can relate to what he goes through. The movie manages to say a lot about such things as being black in America, drug addiction, sexuality, bullying, and the way the law is enforced. Believe the hype: this is as great as many here and elsewhere has said it is. It may very well be my top movie of 2016.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Barry Jenkins
Starring: The likes of Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes, Andre Holland, Naomie Harrie and Janelle Monae
From: A24
You may not have heard this movie before, but it's gotten an incredible amount of attention online. The buzz was so strong, I had to see it on the big screen, which I did yesterday. Well, it does deserve all the high praise it has received. I try to explain why I felt this way below without revealing too much:
Late February of 2017 I know that I will participate in what AMC Theatres has been doing for at least the past decade now, and that is show all the Best Picture Oscar nominees over the span of two weekends. I'll see one of the two blocks of movies, anyhow. Trying to figure out what will likely be nominated so I can put off seeing it then vs. seeing something now vs. watching to watch anything (even if it is a regular film with no chance of being nominated)... I know, “first world problems” but it's still a struggle. Despite all that, the praise I heard about this film here and elsewhere meant that I better make sure I see this on the big screen.
It was a wise decision.
On paper the story doesn't sound complicated (we follow a young black man in Miami as a kid, a teenager then a young adult) and once you see it laid out, it's not Byzantine in nature. Yet it's the execution that makes this outstanding. Those that are in a similar boat to our protagonist Chiron (a.k.a. Little and Black) will of course relate the most but many of us will relate to part of this film. As for moi, I unfortunately know what it is like to be “different”; it's not like how Chiron is different but the pain will forever be remembered by me. I also was a quiet type who did not have many friends and I certainly dealt with my share of bullying. While I had a more stable family life and did not grow up poor, the scars from all that bullying will never fully heal. Parts of the movie did hit pretty close to home for me.
As we follow those three distinct acts, Chiron's journey is always compelling. Unfortunately he has a messed up situation at home but he befriends some interesting characters, including one you wouldn't at first suspect as a surrogate father figure type but he does provided some wise sage advice. Unfortunately, there were difficult questions that he could not answer and he was put in a difficult bind, but you do feel for him as it's a bad situation and those questions, no one could adequately answer. He's not completely isolated from his peers; he also knows a compatriot, Kevin. The performances all around are great; the people who play Chiron and Kevin (Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes for the former; Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome and Andre Holland for the latter) all do a swell job as those characters, but also delivering noteworthy performances are Naomie Harris, Janelle Monae, and Mahershala Ali.
The way it's directed and shot... magnificent. The movie takes its time and you enjoy it all as it's so compelling, and the images are usually so soothing. It's also a treat aurally: the soundtrack is pretty rad, and it was nice to hear tunes such as Barbara Lewis's Hello Stranger. But believe me, it's a lot easier to experience the movie yourself rather than me attempt to explain how they nailed it so well, used silence at the right moments, paid attention to detail and got all the minutiae right. No matter your background and the type of childhood you had, in some way you'll likely relate even a small amount to Chiron and his struggles.... it also works if you really can relate to what he goes through. The movie manages to say a lot about such things as being black in America, drug addiction, sexuality, bullying, and the way the law is enforced. Believe the hype: this is as great as many here and elsewhere has said it is. It may very well be my top movie of 2016.
Lone Wolf And Cub: Sword Of Vengeance
Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance (Kozure Okami: Ko Wo Kashi Udekashi Tsukamatsuru) (1972)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Kenji Misumi
Starring: Tomisaburo Wakayama, Fumio Watanabe, Tomoko Mayama, Shigeru Tsuyuguchi, Asao Uchida
From: Toho
I finally saw this samurai classic again after not having seen it in years. It's still a grand old time. I write all about it below, and note that late tonight I'll have another review:
On the 8th of this month, I got via Amazon the brand new Criterion Collection release of all six Lone Wolf and Cub movies from the 70's plus the cult favorite Shogun Assassin. I paid less than the 100 dollar MSRP. Amazon screwed up and had a lower price listed and I purchased it at that price; thankfully Amazon honored that price. I'll just say it was even lower than what I would have paid had I purchased it at half price during the twice a year Criterion sale at Barnes & Noble. Yet it took me this long to see a movie from the set. That's me and my quirks.
I had watched this first movie in the series long ago; that and Shogun Assassin are the only movies I've seen before. This entry shows the origins of our anti-hero Ogami Itto, his toddler son Daigoro (w/ very unfortunate haircut), and the wacky wooden baby cart he rides in. He was the official executioner to the Shogun but he is set up by rivals so he is forced to go it alone and be a ronin. Also, we see him get hired to defend a Lord against several rivals. As he is the best with his sword, that is why no one has been able to kill him and in fact, various people are petrified of him.
The Blu does look very good. While it causes some of the special effects to look rather obvious (such as, hanging wires or a hose that is the source of spurting blood), I can look past that and enjoy this over the top journey for what it is. The claret often shoots out with great fury and there's an oddly beautiful moment where you see a body that's just been decapitated do a sort of dance before falling down, all in slow motion and blood spurting out the entire time. It's quality entertainment and it was nicely put together also. You enjoy the artful touches and how the camera moves about as you see all that carnage.
December and the first half of 2017, I should be able to go through the rest of the movies in the set.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Kenji Misumi
Starring: Tomisaburo Wakayama, Fumio Watanabe, Tomoko Mayama, Shigeru Tsuyuguchi, Asao Uchida
From: Toho
I finally saw this samurai classic again after not having seen it in years. It's still a grand old time. I write all about it below, and note that late tonight I'll have another review:
On the 8th of this month, I got via Amazon the brand new Criterion Collection release of all six Lone Wolf and Cub movies from the 70's plus the cult favorite Shogun Assassin. I paid less than the 100 dollar MSRP. Amazon screwed up and had a lower price listed and I purchased it at that price; thankfully Amazon honored that price. I'll just say it was even lower than what I would have paid had I purchased it at half price during the twice a year Criterion sale at Barnes & Noble. Yet it took me this long to see a movie from the set. That's me and my quirks.
I had watched this first movie in the series long ago; that and Shogun Assassin are the only movies I've seen before. This entry shows the origins of our anti-hero Ogami Itto, his toddler son Daigoro (w/ very unfortunate haircut), and the wacky wooden baby cart he rides in. He was the official executioner to the Shogun but he is set up by rivals so he is forced to go it alone and be a ronin. Also, we see him get hired to defend a Lord against several rivals. As he is the best with his sword, that is why no one has been able to kill him and in fact, various people are petrified of him.
The Blu does look very good. While it causes some of the special effects to look rather obvious (such as, hanging wires or a hose that is the source of spurting blood), I can look past that and enjoy this over the top journey for what it is. The claret often shoots out with great fury and there's an oddly beautiful moment where you see a body that's just been decapitated do a sort of dance before falling down, all in slow motion and blood spurting out the entire time. It's quality entertainment and it was nicely put together also. You enjoy the artful touches and how the camera moves about as you see all that carnage.
December and the first half of 2017, I should be able to go through the rest of the movies in the set.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Straight Outta Compton
Straight Outta Compton (2015)
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 210 reviews)
Runtime: I saw the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long
Directed by: F. Gary Gray
Starring: O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Neil Brown Jr., Aldis Hodge
From: Universal/Legendary/New Line Cinema
It was about time I saw this movie. On Thursday, I'll do something else that is long overdue. Read all about it below:
On Thanksgiving, I will FINALLY post a Best of 2015 list. I know, 2016 is almost over, but that got pushed to the back burner and some of the highly regarded movies from last year I've seen, I did not particularly like, so it's taken some time to find 10 worthwhile entries. I can say that this movie will be on that list. I can't adequately explain why I did not see this sooner, let alone not watch it on the big screen, as it always sounded interesting to me and it got all those rave reviews. Finally, I saw the movie last night, and it was the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long. It did not seem like it was almost 3 hours long.
Considering this is a true life story where a group of young men came from poor inner-city life and had to deal with such things as police harassment but due to being tremendously skilled in the art of rapping became famous around the world and because they invented the genre of gangsta rap and spoke bluntly about various controversial topics scared the authorities and even got the FBI mad at them... only to let money and jealousy (along with probably being ripped off by their white manager) drive them apart... then there's a reconciliation, a tragic death, and two members of the group are still successful today (in music and outside of it), no wonder this eventually became a movie, as it's a hell of a story. Of course, things are slanted because it was produced by Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E's widow but I will presume it's reasonably accurate-although I do not know if Jerry Heller was as crooked as the movie made him out to be; likewise, I have no trouble believing everything the film said about Suge Knight-so I won't dwell too much on this.
The movie is well-filmed by veteran director F. Gary Gray and the young cast did a swell job as Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella; as everyone noted already, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as swell as his own dad Cube; it was not just a cute gimmick or nepotism. The rest also did a nice job, with Paul Giamatti a standout as the late Heller. Besides the classic songs from the group/them as solo artists, you also hear funk songs that not only inspired the members of NWA but were among the many songs of the era that were sampled for NWA tunes and other ditties done by those who were part of the West Coast/G Funk scene. It is an exciting movie from beginning to end which captures very well the feeling of the Southern California setting and how things were back then; sometimes you see actual news clips of such things as the Rodney King riots and the drug war, among other hot topics. The era was captured perfectly and it was important, as that was a big part of the movie and its vibe.
I'll be honest in that I may be biased because for years I've enjoyed the songs of NWA, Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E. It sure as hell is a lot better than much of the garbage that is the popular rap game of the 21st century. Desiigner, Lil Yachty and D.R.A.M? Get the hell out of here with that crap! But no matter that, this is not a dull and staid and cliché autobiography. I mean, it could have been even longer in order to cover various things that weren't given too much attention or glossed over which I knew about beforehand. That said, this is still a biopic I am glad was made and I am happy it was a far bigger hit worldwide than expected.
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 210 reviews)
Runtime: I saw the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long
Directed by: F. Gary Gray
Starring: O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Neil Brown Jr., Aldis Hodge
From: Universal/Legendary/New Line Cinema
It was about time I saw this movie. On Thursday, I'll do something else that is long overdue. Read all about it below:
On Thanksgiving, I will FINALLY post a Best of 2015 list. I know, 2016 is almost over, but that got pushed to the back burner and some of the highly regarded movies from last year I've seen, I did not particularly like, so it's taken some time to find 10 worthwhile entries. I can say that this movie will be on that list. I can't adequately explain why I did not see this sooner, let alone not watch it on the big screen, as it always sounded interesting to me and it got all those rave reviews. Finally, I saw the movie last night, and it was the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long. It did not seem like it was almost 3 hours long.
Considering this is a true life story where a group of young men came from poor inner-city life and had to deal with such things as police harassment but due to being tremendously skilled in the art of rapping became famous around the world and because they invented the genre of gangsta rap and spoke bluntly about various controversial topics scared the authorities and even got the FBI mad at them... only to let money and jealousy (along with probably being ripped off by their white manager) drive them apart... then there's a reconciliation, a tragic death, and two members of the group are still successful today (in music and outside of it), no wonder this eventually became a movie, as it's a hell of a story. Of course, things are slanted because it was produced by Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E's widow but I will presume it's reasonably accurate-although I do not know if Jerry Heller was as crooked as the movie made him out to be; likewise, I have no trouble believing everything the film said about Suge Knight-so I won't dwell too much on this.
The movie is well-filmed by veteran director F. Gary Gray and the young cast did a swell job as Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella; as everyone noted already, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as swell as his own dad Cube; it was not just a cute gimmick or nepotism. The rest also did a nice job, with Paul Giamatti a standout as the late Heller. Besides the classic songs from the group/them as solo artists, you also hear funk songs that not only inspired the members of NWA but were among the many songs of the era that were sampled for NWA tunes and other ditties done by those who were part of the West Coast/G Funk scene. It is an exciting movie from beginning to end which captures very well the feeling of the Southern California setting and how things were back then; sometimes you see actual news clips of such things as the Rodney King riots and the drug war, among other hot topics. The era was captured perfectly and it was important, as that was a big part of the movie and its vibe.
I'll be honest in that I may be biased because for years I've enjoyed the songs of NWA, Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E. It sure as hell is a lot better than much of the garbage that is the popular rap game of the 21st century. Desiigner, Lil Yachty and D.R.A.M? Get the hell out of here with that crap! But no matter that, this is not a dull and staid and cliché autobiography. I mean, it could have been even longer in order to cover various things that weren't given too much attention or glossed over which I knew about beforehand. That said, this is still a biopic I am glad was made and I am happy it was a far bigger hit worldwide than expected.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Time After Time
Time After Time (1979)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Nicholas Meyer
Starring: Malcolm McDowell, David Warner, Mary Steenburgen, Charles Cioffi, Kent Williams
From: Warner Bros.
I saw this movie due to a messageboard convo. Yep, this scenario happened again. That is OK, as this was pretty enjoyable... and it will be a television show on ABC in 2017? I kid you not. Hear all about the movie here:
Again, me seeing this movie came about because of a messageboard discussion. Recently, this was talked about and it was pointed out that TCM would show it this past last afternoon, so I figured it was time to check it out. What a great hook it has: H.G. Wells was not only a famous author but he actually built a time machine... and he knows Jack the Ripper and Jack steals the time machine so he has to go into the future to bring him back... and they end up in 1979 San Francisco instead of London (there is an explanation as to why)... it's quite the distinctive plot.
I was hoping that Malcolm McDowell would look tremendous as Wells and I was not disappointed between the hair, the giant mustache and the glasses. Then again, so did David Warner as Jack the Ripper, especially the 70's clothes he wore. I am amused that Mary Steenburgen was in more than one movie where she fell in love with a time traveler. It is a pretty entertaining movie, usual time travel goofiness and outdated sexual attitudes (not to mention sexual terms) aside.
I admit that it is silly when you see Wells dealing with the 20th century and how he's befuddled by such things as “motorcars” and a garbage disposal, or for how for a period of time he gave his name as “Sherlock Holmes”. Yet I can look past that and enjoy the movie for what it is. Even the romance aspect was tolerable for me as I was not annoyed or bored by Wells' relationship with Amy Robbins; her instantly falling for him is part of the “outdated sexual attitudes” I was talking about. The story was pretty entertaining as you see Wells attempt to track down then stop his old pal. Indeed, I was amused at how Herbert George was crestfallen at how the future wasn't the utopia he was hoping, while Old Jack loved how violent things had become. Imagine what they'd think if they arrived in the hellscape that is late 2016... it was also nicely directed by Nicholas Meyer, who would go on to bigger things in the 80's.
Oh, and I just learned that the Cyndi Lauper song Time After Time was actually taken from this movie; it was only meant to be a placeholder until they could think of something else, only for something else to not work as well. A few other things... I did spot both M.C. Gainey as a London cop and Corey Feldman as a young boy in the museum. And I only discovered this last night: this property is actually going to become a television series real soon. Talk about random. It will be on in the United States on ABC. As far as I can tell, Wells will be chasing Jack the Ripper throughout many different periods of time. Considering all the garbage that's on fictional television (and I am not talking about the fictional crap that is “reality” TV), this has as much of a chance as anything at being worthwhile.
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Nicholas Meyer
Starring: Malcolm McDowell, David Warner, Mary Steenburgen, Charles Cioffi, Kent Williams
From: Warner Bros.
I saw this movie due to a messageboard convo. Yep, this scenario happened again. That is OK, as this was pretty enjoyable... and it will be a television show on ABC in 2017? I kid you not. Hear all about the movie here:
Again, me seeing this movie came about because of a messageboard discussion. Recently, this was talked about and it was pointed out that TCM would show it this past last afternoon, so I figured it was time to check it out. What a great hook it has: H.G. Wells was not only a famous author but he actually built a time machine... and he knows Jack the Ripper and Jack steals the time machine so he has to go into the future to bring him back... and they end up in 1979 San Francisco instead of London (there is an explanation as to why)... it's quite the distinctive plot.
I was hoping that Malcolm McDowell would look tremendous as Wells and I was not disappointed between the hair, the giant mustache and the glasses. Then again, so did David Warner as Jack the Ripper, especially the 70's clothes he wore. I am amused that Mary Steenburgen was in more than one movie where she fell in love with a time traveler. It is a pretty entertaining movie, usual time travel goofiness and outdated sexual attitudes (not to mention sexual terms) aside.
I admit that it is silly when you see Wells dealing with the 20th century and how he's befuddled by such things as “motorcars” and a garbage disposal, or for how for a period of time he gave his name as “Sherlock Holmes”. Yet I can look past that and enjoy the movie for what it is. Even the romance aspect was tolerable for me as I was not annoyed or bored by Wells' relationship with Amy Robbins; her instantly falling for him is part of the “outdated sexual attitudes” I was talking about. The story was pretty entertaining as you see Wells attempt to track down then stop his old pal. Indeed, I was amused at how Herbert George was crestfallen at how the future wasn't the utopia he was hoping, while Old Jack loved how violent things had become. Imagine what they'd think if they arrived in the hellscape that is late 2016... it was also nicely directed by Nicholas Meyer, who would go on to bigger things in the 80's.
Oh, and I just learned that the Cyndi Lauper song Time After Time was actually taken from this movie; it was only meant to be a placeholder until they could think of something else, only for something else to not work as well. A few other things... I did spot both M.C. Gainey as a London cop and Corey Feldman as a young boy in the museum. And I only discovered this last night: this property is actually going to become a television series real soon. Talk about random. It will be on in the United States on ABC. As far as I can tell, Wells will be chasing Jack the Ripper throughout many different periods of time. Considering all the garbage that's on fictional television (and I am not talking about the fictional crap that is “reality” TV), this has as much of a chance as anything at being worthwhile.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Russian Ark
Russian Ark (Russkiy Kovcheg) (2002)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Aleksander Sokurov
Starring: Hundreds of people
From: Seemingly hundreds of different production companies across 6 countries
This movie is now currently off of Netflix Instant, where I saw it on Thursday night. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, but stuff happens. I did rewatch the poliziotteschi film Rulers of the City, which I do still dig. As for this film, it is quite unique and it is far from traditional... despite it being more about gimmick than anything else. I am glad I still watched it. All the details are below:
Here is yet another case of me watching something because it will soon be gone from Netflix Instant. Ever since I heared about this movie from Letterboxd, I was intrigued. Sure, it's more gimmick than actual story, but it is something I am glad I finally watched.
This fantastical tale is about an unseen man who wanders through what is the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is with a mysterious man that is apparently some 19th century French dude known as Marquis de Custine, who traveled to Russia in his life... and judging by the movie, was a pompous A-hole. They go through the various rooms and the settings represent the past several hundred years of Russian life and both real & fictional characters are seen, including Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, and both Tsar Nicholas I & Tsar Nicholas II. At least there's sites like Wikipedia that can fill in some of the details if you are not an expert in Russian history; it helps clarify various things, you know. Oh, and did I say that this production involved a few thousand people in front of the camera and behind it... and this was all done in ONE TAKE with a Steadicam?*
Like I said, it's more about the incredible gimmick than the fanciful story, although at least you get to see many different paintings, learn various things about Russia, and get to see how those people dressed. While the audio was done in post-production, that does not diminish how they had to do this all in one day as that Winter Palace (where the monarchs lived) is now part of a museum. In addition, the entire hour and a half long shot was done from beginning to end on the 4th take. It's incredible that they actually pulled it off with no complications and the biggest gripe you can make is that some of the actors look right at the camera. When you have a big ballroom dance sequence for a few minutes and it goes swell, I won't gripe too much about little errors.
I really was not quite sure how to rate this. I finally came to 4 stars as the technical achievement was great and despite how curious it is and how it is a strange way to advertise the Hermitage Museum (they were among the many producers)... I was compelled by this oddity and depending on how you feel about the current Russian political climate, you might wish to travel to St. Petersburg in order to visit the Winter Palace yourself.
* Since the release of this film, only a small number of (mostly) obscure foreign films have been filmed in a one true take format. Aside from a Bela Tarr movie about Macbeth-as of course Bela Tarr would try to do such a thing in the 80's-this was the first movie to do such a thing.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Aleksander Sokurov
Starring: Hundreds of people
From: Seemingly hundreds of different production companies across 6 countries
This movie is now currently off of Netflix Instant, where I saw it on Thursday night. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, but stuff happens. I did rewatch the poliziotteschi film Rulers of the City, which I do still dig. As for this film, it is quite unique and it is far from traditional... despite it being more about gimmick than anything else. I am glad I still watched it. All the details are below:
Here is yet another case of me watching something because it will soon be gone from Netflix Instant. Ever since I heared about this movie from Letterboxd, I was intrigued. Sure, it's more gimmick than actual story, but it is something I am glad I finally watched.
This fantastical tale is about an unseen man who wanders through what is the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is with a mysterious man that is apparently some 19th century French dude known as Marquis de Custine, who traveled to Russia in his life... and judging by the movie, was a pompous A-hole. They go through the various rooms and the settings represent the past several hundred years of Russian life and both real & fictional characters are seen, including Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, and both Tsar Nicholas I & Tsar Nicholas II. At least there's sites like Wikipedia that can fill in some of the details if you are not an expert in Russian history; it helps clarify various things, you know. Oh, and did I say that this production involved a few thousand people in front of the camera and behind it... and this was all done in ONE TAKE with a Steadicam?*
Like I said, it's more about the incredible gimmick than the fanciful story, although at least you get to see many different paintings, learn various things about Russia, and get to see how those people dressed. While the audio was done in post-production, that does not diminish how they had to do this all in one day as that Winter Palace (where the monarchs lived) is now part of a museum. In addition, the entire hour and a half long shot was done from beginning to end on the 4th take. It's incredible that they actually pulled it off with no complications and the biggest gripe you can make is that some of the actors look right at the camera. When you have a big ballroom dance sequence for a few minutes and it goes swell, I won't gripe too much about little errors.
I really was not quite sure how to rate this. I finally came to 4 stars as the technical achievement was great and despite how curious it is and how it is a strange way to advertise the Hermitage Museum (they were among the many producers)... I was compelled by this oddity and depending on how you feel about the current Russian political climate, you might wish to travel to St. Petersburg in order to visit the Winter Palace yourself.
* Since the release of this film, only a small number of (mostly) obscure foreign films have been filmed in a one true take format. Aside from a Bela Tarr movie about Macbeth-as of course Bela Tarr would try to do such a thing in the 80's-this was the first movie to do such a thing.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
The Dead Zone
The Dead Zone (1983)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Starring: Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Martin Sheen
From: Paramount
Would you believe I had never seen this movie in full before I saw it on TV late Tuesday night? I swear this is true. I do think it's pretty good. Hear all about it below:
I wasn't planning on seeing this but at almost the last moment I saw that it was on the El Rey Network and I figured it was finally time to see this film; sure, I've seen homages and even the parody that Walken did on Saturday Night Live, but I had somehow never seen this in full until Tuesday night.
I presume most are familiar with the plot of how Christopher Walken is John Smith, a teacher who is in a bad car wreck, is in a coma for 5 years, then when he awakens he has psychic powers that work when he grabs a hold of someone. It's more a curse than a good thing, though... once news gets out, everyone wants him to answer various mysteries about their loved ones, and he has vivid visions of many horrible things, as those visions are of bad & traumatic events. Then there's a candidate for a senatorial position named Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen)... I have to be honest here, his campaign speeches are pretty much of the “Make America Great Again!” tenor, so I couldn't help but think of the obvious there. Looking around online, I am not the first person to realize this, believe me. Let's just hope the horrific version as seen by Smith when he touches Stillson does not come true in real life with our President-elect, but who knows for certain...
Anyhow, I thought this was a pretty good movie; there are other Cronenberg movies I like more, but this is still pretty good. It was as nicely directed as you would expect, the Michael Kamen score was suitably creepy, the story always intrigues, and the cast full of familiar faces delivered. While I'll always wonder what it would have been like if BILL MURRAY would have been the lead-as originally planned-Walken ended up being perfect. He is so off-kilter in general, it is not hard to believe he would suddenly gain psychic powers, or he would freak out when he gets those visions.
What a final act it has also, as I alluded to. It has quite the horrifying final vision (although the most terrifying moment for me... I'll just say it involved a pair of scissors. Holy crap) and it raised quite the philosophical question. The ending scene itself, talk about haunting. I've never read the Stephen King story this was based upon but even he said that the movie did it better than the book. With such a gimmick, I am not surprised that this became a cable TV show in the early 2000's. Hopefully the show was as restrained with the visions and did not show them all the time; you only see them a few times in the film. I shudder to think what a remake would be like... let's hope it never happens.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Starring: Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Martin Sheen
From: Paramount
Would you believe I had never seen this movie in full before I saw it on TV late Tuesday night? I swear this is true. I do think it's pretty good. Hear all about it below:
I wasn't planning on seeing this but at almost the last moment I saw that it was on the El Rey Network and I figured it was finally time to see this film; sure, I've seen homages and even the parody that Walken did on Saturday Night Live, but I had somehow never seen this in full until Tuesday night.
I presume most are familiar with the plot of how Christopher Walken is John Smith, a teacher who is in a bad car wreck, is in a coma for 5 years, then when he awakens he has psychic powers that work when he grabs a hold of someone. It's more a curse than a good thing, though... once news gets out, everyone wants him to answer various mysteries about their loved ones, and he has vivid visions of many horrible things, as those visions are of bad & traumatic events. Then there's a candidate for a senatorial position named Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen)... I have to be honest here, his campaign speeches are pretty much of the “Make America Great Again!” tenor, so I couldn't help but think of the obvious there. Looking around online, I am not the first person to realize this, believe me. Let's just hope the horrific version as seen by Smith when he touches Stillson does not come true in real life with our President-elect, but who knows for certain...
Anyhow, I thought this was a pretty good movie; there are other Cronenberg movies I like more, but this is still pretty good. It was as nicely directed as you would expect, the Michael Kamen score was suitably creepy, the story always intrigues, and the cast full of familiar faces delivered. While I'll always wonder what it would have been like if BILL MURRAY would have been the lead-as originally planned-Walken ended up being perfect. He is so off-kilter in general, it is not hard to believe he would suddenly gain psychic powers, or he would freak out when he gets those visions.
What a final act it has also, as I alluded to. It has quite the horrifying final vision (although the most terrifying moment for me... I'll just say it involved a pair of scissors. Holy crap) and it raised quite the philosophical question. The ending scene itself, talk about haunting. I've never read the Stephen King story this was based upon but even he said that the movie did it better than the book. With such a gimmick, I am not surprised that this became a cable TV show in the early 2000's. Hopefully the show was as restrained with the visions and did not show them all the time; you only see them a few times in the film. I shudder to think what a remake would be like... let's hope it never happens.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The Crowd Roars
The Crowd Roars (1932)
Runtime: 70 minutes (at least that's the version available on disc and shown on TCM; apparently there's an 85 minute version but who knows how that could be seen, if it's even possible to see now)
Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Ann Dvorak, Eric Linden, Guy Kibbee
From: Warner Bros.
I watched this random movie yesterday. It's not a must-see and yet it was still fine. I talk about it below:
This is a film I watched on TCM early yesterday evening. The cast and plot did intrigue me so I decided to give it a lap around the track, metaphorically speaking.
James Cagney is famous racecar driver Joe Greer. He returns to his hometown for an exhibition race, where he discovers that his younger brother Eddie (Eric Linden) has also entered the profession; Joe is not happy due to how dangerous racing a car is... understandable, as they are far different from any sort of racecar people would know today. It is an open-air vehicle where people have to wear goggles. It's far from F-1, NASCAR, or anything else. Unfortunately, Joe also has misogynistic views; he does not always treat his gal Lee (Ann Dvorak) well and he interferes in Eddie's budding relationship with Lee's pal Anne (Joan Blondell). “Overly protective” is the phrase to use here.
There aren't too many surprises in this film; I was able to look over the predictable nature of it all due to the fact that the cast was nice (Guy Kibbee also has a supporting role), it was a typical solid Warner Brothers production from the era, and the director was Howard Hawks. The fact that you get some very exciting race footage (filmed with actual drivers from the era) also helps quite a bit. The most memorable moment was rather ghoulish; someone gets into a wreck during a race. The car explodes and is a veritable fireball. As drivers go by the wreck, they plug their noses, and I don't think it's because of the strong gasoline smell or the stench of the car burning up... yeah, yikes. You can understand why this would haunt Joe Greer and have a negative impact on his career.
Anyway, this ended up being a fine watch-despite the story not being the most original-due to the people involved.
Runtime: 70 minutes (at least that's the version available on disc and shown on TCM; apparently there's an 85 minute version but who knows how that could be seen, if it's even possible to see now)
Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Ann Dvorak, Eric Linden, Guy Kibbee
From: Warner Bros.
I watched this random movie yesterday. It's not a must-see and yet it was still fine. I talk about it below:
This is a film I watched on TCM early yesterday evening. The cast and plot did intrigue me so I decided to give it a lap around the track, metaphorically speaking.
James Cagney is famous racecar driver Joe Greer. He returns to his hometown for an exhibition race, where he discovers that his younger brother Eddie (Eric Linden) has also entered the profession; Joe is not happy due to how dangerous racing a car is... understandable, as they are far different from any sort of racecar people would know today. It is an open-air vehicle where people have to wear goggles. It's far from F-1, NASCAR, or anything else. Unfortunately, Joe also has misogynistic views; he does not always treat his gal Lee (Ann Dvorak) well and he interferes in Eddie's budding relationship with Lee's pal Anne (Joan Blondell). “Overly protective” is the phrase to use here.
There aren't too many surprises in this film; I was able to look over the predictable nature of it all due to the fact that the cast was nice (Guy Kibbee also has a supporting role), it was a typical solid Warner Brothers production from the era, and the director was Howard Hawks. The fact that you get some very exciting race footage (filmed with actual drivers from the era) also helps quite a bit. The most memorable moment was rather ghoulish; someone gets into a wreck during a race. The car explodes and is a veritable fireball. As drivers go by the wreck, they plug their noses, and I don't think it's because of the strong gasoline smell or the stench of the car burning up... yeah, yikes. You can understand why this would haunt Joe Greer and have a negative impact on his career.
Anyway, this ended up being a fine watch-despite the story not being the most original-due to the people involved.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The Sorrow And The Pity
The Sorrow and the Pity (Le Chagrin Et La Pitie) (1969)
Runtime: 251 minutes (that's right)
Directed by: Marcel Ophuls
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Several French TV stations
I have known of this for years, so I am glad I finally was able to see this last night, via TCM. The four hour length did not bother me. Read all about this great documentary below:
I've been busy with various things the past few days but things have calmed down now and I definitely could not turn down the rare opportunity to see this famous documentary; the main thing discussed is the collaboration between the French government and the Nazi government during World War II, which was denied at the time but after seeing this and hearing all those people interviewed, it's pretty conclusive.
That's not what the movie is all about, though. Many different people are interviewed, from French to German to Englishmen that tried to assist the Resistance, and many different viewpoints are presented as this is a complex topic. You see some enlist in the German army and help fight their fights, while others were part of the Resistance and others simply tried to keep the status quo despite the big change with their country. A lot of the action is focused on those who lived in and around the city of Clermont-Ferrand, in the middle of France. There, a wide variety are interviewed; rich, poor and everyone else... Communists, soldiers, regular folk, etc. Fear of Communism is a reason why some people performed the actions they did, and yet some in the Resistance had to fight alongside Communists. Sadly, Antisemitism is also part of the equation. Between that and talk of how the Nazi ideology could return in the future under that name or another name... sadly, such talk is still relevant today in late 2016.
This is an excellent documentary. Besides presenting a lot of information about the war and showing how things were back then (plenty of stock footage augments what the interviewees are saying), you get to understand why everyone acted the way they do... even the Waffen SS people. It is not only educational in understanding what the scene was in France during those dark days, you also get to learn some things about humanity in general as you follow these interesting people. If you are a history nerd, this is a must-see.
Runtime: 251 minutes (that's right)
Directed by: Marcel Ophuls
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Several French TV stations
I have known of this for years, so I am glad I finally was able to see this last night, via TCM. The four hour length did not bother me. Read all about this great documentary below:
I've been busy with various things the past few days but things have calmed down now and I definitely could not turn down the rare opportunity to see this famous documentary; the main thing discussed is the collaboration between the French government and the Nazi government during World War II, which was denied at the time but after seeing this and hearing all those people interviewed, it's pretty conclusive.
That's not what the movie is all about, though. Many different people are interviewed, from French to German to Englishmen that tried to assist the Resistance, and many different viewpoints are presented as this is a complex topic. You see some enlist in the German army and help fight their fights, while others were part of the Resistance and others simply tried to keep the status quo despite the big change with their country. A lot of the action is focused on those who lived in and around the city of Clermont-Ferrand, in the middle of France. There, a wide variety are interviewed; rich, poor and everyone else... Communists, soldiers, regular folk, etc. Fear of Communism is a reason why some people performed the actions they did, and yet some in the Resistance had to fight alongside Communists. Sadly, Antisemitism is also part of the equation. Between that and talk of how the Nazi ideology could return in the future under that name or another name... sadly, such talk is still relevant today in late 2016.
This is an excellent documentary. Besides presenting a lot of information about the war and showing how things were back then (plenty of stock footage augments what the interviewees are saying), you get to understand why everyone acted the way they do... even the Waffen SS people. It is not only educational in understanding what the scene was in France during those dark days, you also get to learn some things about humanity in general as you follow these interesting people. If you are a history nerd, this is a must-see.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Alive
Alive (1993)
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Frank Marshall
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Vincent Spano, Josh Hamilton, Bruce Ramsay, John Newton
From: Touchstone/Paramount
This is a film I don't have too much to say about. At least this is fine and it is more than just “that one movie based on a true story where some people became cannibals, but only to survive”. I talk all about it below:
I saw this recently on Netflix Instant; it belongs in the category of “movies I hadn't seen in at least 20 years”. I mean, the only time was shortly after it came out on VHS, so it's been like 23 years. The only thing I remembered was the most infamous aspect of the movie, and one that got a lot of buzz at the time, which was how cannibalism became part of the plot. The true story aspect of how a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes Mountains and how some of them were able to survive for so long before being rescued is harrowing... but the fact that the survivors had to eat the dead bodies or else they'd die of starvation, that is why the story became so renowned.
I haven't seen the Mexican exploitation film Survive! It was also based on this true story but I understand it was more exploitative, which understandably made some people quite upset. The movie starts off on a pretty good note as the plane crash is still pretty horrifying, as is seeing the immediate aftermath with all those people killed or seriously hurt, and how the survivors had to deal with such a difficult situation. Indeed, different people reacted in different ways. You felt bad when various people died, then there was the horrifying decision to become cannibals in order to not die.
Unfortunately, the movie starts to run out of steam in the second half and it is not as strong as the first half. At least I can say it is fine overall. Of course, not everyone in the movie who was Hispanic (i.e. much of the cast) was actually played by a Hispanic person, but that's Hollywood for you. I know some noted that the cast did not look like they were nearly starved to death by the time that they were rescued... I am OK with them not being so realistic there. They did not need to be like Christian Bale in The Machinist, after all. "Chapped lips" is fine enough by my tastes. At least the film is more than just a shocking plot point.
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Frank Marshall
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Vincent Spano, Josh Hamilton, Bruce Ramsay, John Newton
From: Touchstone/Paramount
This is a film I don't have too much to say about. At least this is fine and it is more than just “that one movie based on a true story where some people became cannibals, but only to survive”. I talk all about it below:
I saw this recently on Netflix Instant; it belongs in the category of “movies I hadn't seen in at least 20 years”. I mean, the only time was shortly after it came out on VHS, so it's been like 23 years. The only thing I remembered was the most infamous aspect of the movie, and one that got a lot of buzz at the time, which was how cannibalism became part of the plot. The true story aspect of how a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes Mountains and how some of them were able to survive for so long before being rescued is harrowing... but the fact that the survivors had to eat the dead bodies or else they'd die of starvation, that is why the story became so renowned.
I haven't seen the Mexican exploitation film Survive! It was also based on this true story but I understand it was more exploitative, which understandably made some people quite upset. The movie starts off on a pretty good note as the plane crash is still pretty horrifying, as is seeing the immediate aftermath with all those people killed or seriously hurt, and how the survivors had to deal with such a difficult situation. Indeed, different people reacted in different ways. You felt bad when various people died, then there was the horrifying decision to become cannibals in order to not die.
Unfortunately, the movie starts to run out of steam in the second half and it is not as strong as the first half. At least I can say it is fine overall. Of course, not everyone in the movie who was Hispanic (i.e. much of the cast) was actually played by a Hispanic person, but that's Hollywood for you. I know some noted that the cast did not look like they were nearly starved to death by the time that they were rescued... I am OK with them not being so realistic there. They did not need to be like Christian Bale in The Machinist, after all. "Chapped lips" is fine enough by my tastes. At least the film is more than just a shocking plot point.
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Oh, you should know all the details by now.
A few days ago I got a region free Blu set of all the Indiana Jones pictures. I saw Raiders again-which I reviewed here before-and it's still awesome. After that, I finally recently revisited this film. I hadn't seen it in a long while. I still think it's pretty good. I give the deets below:
This is another movie that I saw a decent amount of times in my youth, but the last time I saw it in full was way back in 2008; a screen in Orlando was showing it. While a beat-up original film print, in these days of digital, I can remember such things through the lens of nostalgia.
This is not as great as Raiders or The Last Crusade (which followed the general blueprint of Raiders) but I can still say that this prequel is pretty good. The wacky trio of Indy, annoying shrill lady singer Willie and young Chinese boy Short Round end up in rural India and end up trying to help a small village which was devastated by a Thuggee cult taking their children and a sacred stone.
I admit that it has its faults. Willie is an aggravating character; I know that being a carbon copy of Marion wouldn't have worked either, but I imagine that her demeanor had something to do with how both Spielberg and Lucas were going through divorces when they came up with this script. There aren't always flattering stereotypes of Indian people; aside from the whole “ripping the beating hearts out of someone, who somehow then stays alive” thing, why were they portrayed as people who ate really gross and bizarre things, such as monkey's brains? This has some weird humor that does not always work. Let's not even get into the whole “white savior” thing. Also, personally... as a kid, the stuff with all those bugs was a giant NOPE; admittedly, even as an adult now, it is still a giant NOPE.
All that said, it's still a pretty entertaining picture. It is a grand adventure which also visits Shanghai; the cast does a swell job and there are still great action setpieces, especially the mine cart chase, as improbable as it may be. Because of what I mentioned about the life problems of the screenwriters, this has a rather dark tone; as an adult I appreciate it more now than I did as a kid. Plus, while I imagine some could be annoyed by Short Round also, I never thought that way. Thus, that is why I say that this is still pretty good despite some valid complaints.
Oh, you should know all the details by now.
A few days ago I got a region free Blu set of all the Indiana Jones pictures. I saw Raiders again-which I reviewed here before-and it's still awesome. After that, I finally recently revisited this film. I hadn't seen it in a long while. I still think it's pretty good. I give the deets below:
This is another movie that I saw a decent amount of times in my youth, but the last time I saw it in full was way back in 2008; a screen in Orlando was showing it. While a beat-up original film print, in these days of digital, I can remember such things through the lens of nostalgia.
This is not as great as Raiders or The Last Crusade (which followed the general blueprint of Raiders) but I can still say that this prequel is pretty good. The wacky trio of Indy, annoying shrill lady singer Willie and young Chinese boy Short Round end up in rural India and end up trying to help a small village which was devastated by a Thuggee cult taking their children and a sacred stone.
I admit that it has its faults. Willie is an aggravating character; I know that being a carbon copy of Marion wouldn't have worked either, but I imagine that her demeanor had something to do with how both Spielberg and Lucas were going through divorces when they came up with this script. There aren't always flattering stereotypes of Indian people; aside from the whole “ripping the beating hearts out of someone, who somehow then stays alive” thing, why were they portrayed as people who ate really gross and bizarre things, such as monkey's brains? This has some weird humor that does not always work. Let's not even get into the whole “white savior” thing. Also, personally... as a kid, the stuff with all those bugs was a giant NOPE; admittedly, even as an adult now, it is still a giant NOPE.
All that said, it's still a pretty entertaining picture. It is a grand adventure which also visits Shanghai; the cast does a swell job and there are still great action setpieces, especially the mine cart chase, as improbable as it may be. Because of what I mentioned about the life problems of the screenwriters, this has a rather dark tone; as an adult I appreciate it more now than I did as a kid. Plus, while I imagine some could be annoyed by Short Round also, I never thought that way. Thus, that is why I say that this is still pretty good despite some valid complaints.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Timecop
Timecop (1994)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Mia Sara, Ron Silver, Bruce McGill, Gloria Reuben
From: Largo Entertainment
What a day yesterday was... I'll leave it at that. Let me direct you to my review of this movie, which is below:
So yeah, yesterday's United States Presidential Election...
I won't get into my political views as that can only lead to trouble. I will just say for the people around the world who may possibly read this, it was an ugly election cycle and with this result, a lot of Americans are shocked and also petrified at what may happen with President Trump, a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. If Hillary won things probably would be heated the other way as you can argue about various controversies she's been a part of, but as things are now... like I said, many Americans are feeling scared at what potentially could happen. I hope the United States doesn't tear itself apart.
This is yet another movie I had watched before, but the last viewing was a long while ago (I think around 8 or so years) so when I saw that the El Rey Network was (appropriately) playing this on the night before the Presidential Election, I had to check it out. Now, I realize that plenty of people wish they had a time machine so they could go back and... well, do things to try and get a different result. Either that, or try and figure out where the Butterfly Effect happened that allowed it to happen.
The plot: in 1994, time travel is invented, and a committee (the Time Enforcement Commission, or TEC for short) is established to try and control it and prevent catastrophe from happening. Jean-Claude Van Damme is Max Walker. In '94 he is a cop, but after his wife is killed by mysterious figures. In 2004, Walker (w/ an amazing head of hair) is now part of the TEC. Turns out, there's an evil senator (imagine that) who is trying to change time in order to get enough money to participate in a Presidential Campaign-sad to say, someone actually does need a lot of dough to even try and make a run at the White House-and it's up to Van Damme to stop him.
It's a time travel movie so you don't want to think too hard about it, lest you get a headache. At least the rules here are simple enough to understand and are in general what you expect from the genre. It is important to know that multiple versions of yourself can't touch, or else it creates something quite gruesome. Van Damme is his usual self meaning that his performance was acceptable and his martial arts was entertaining to watch, with the highlight being the splits he did in the kitchen. It helps that there are more established actors who round out the main cast, such as Mia Sara, Bruce McGill, and the true highlight as the evil senator McComb, Ron Silver. He was great at being an awful human being. It also does help that this is directed by a veteran in Peter Hyams.
As I've seen others mention in the past, it is interesting how there are several films where JCVD plays twins and in this movie, you get to see both '94 and '04 Van Damme at the same time. It's an interesting trope. Anyway, if you want to see a random JCVD movie, you might as well check this out as it's one of the better ones.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Mia Sara, Ron Silver, Bruce McGill, Gloria Reuben
From: Largo Entertainment
What a day yesterday was... I'll leave it at that. Let me direct you to my review of this movie, which is below:
So yeah, yesterday's United States Presidential Election...
I won't get into my political views as that can only lead to trouble. I will just say for the people around the world who may possibly read this, it was an ugly election cycle and with this result, a lot of Americans are shocked and also petrified at what may happen with President Trump, a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. If Hillary won things probably would be heated the other way as you can argue about various controversies she's been a part of, but as things are now... like I said, many Americans are feeling scared at what potentially could happen. I hope the United States doesn't tear itself apart.
This is yet another movie I had watched before, but the last viewing was a long while ago (I think around 8 or so years) so when I saw that the El Rey Network was (appropriately) playing this on the night before the Presidential Election, I had to check it out. Now, I realize that plenty of people wish they had a time machine so they could go back and... well, do things to try and get a different result. Either that, or try and figure out where the Butterfly Effect happened that allowed it to happen.
The plot: in 1994, time travel is invented, and a committee (the Time Enforcement Commission, or TEC for short) is established to try and control it and prevent catastrophe from happening. Jean-Claude Van Damme is Max Walker. In '94 he is a cop, but after his wife is killed by mysterious figures. In 2004, Walker (w/ an amazing head of hair) is now part of the TEC. Turns out, there's an evil senator (imagine that) who is trying to change time in order to get enough money to participate in a Presidential Campaign-sad to say, someone actually does need a lot of dough to even try and make a run at the White House-and it's up to Van Damme to stop him.
It's a time travel movie so you don't want to think too hard about it, lest you get a headache. At least the rules here are simple enough to understand and are in general what you expect from the genre. It is important to know that multiple versions of yourself can't touch, or else it creates something quite gruesome. Van Damme is his usual self meaning that his performance was acceptable and his martial arts was entertaining to watch, with the highlight being the splits he did in the kitchen. It helps that there are more established actors who round out the main cast, such as Mia Sara, Bruce McGill, and the true highlight as the evil senator McComb, Ron Silver. He was great at being an awful human being. It also does help that this is directed by a veteran in Peter Hyams.
As I've seen others mention in the past, it is interesting how there are several films where JCVD plays twins and in this movie, you get to see both '94 and '04 Van Damme at the same time. It's an interesting trope. Anyway, if you want to see a random JCVD movie, you might as well check this out as it's one of the better ones.
Anita: Swedish Nymphet
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (1973)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Torgny Wickman
Starring: Christina Lindberg, Stellan Skarsgard, Daniele Vlaminck, Michel David, Erika Wickman
From: Alpha France/Swedish Film Production (SFP)
So, about that election... but let's not talk politics here, as that can only lead to trouble. Instead, let me mention that I was inspired to watch this softcore film from Sweden not just because I find the lead to be rather attractive, but also because she was brought up on a messageboard I frequent a few days ago. It was better than I expected. Read all about it below:
It was a messageboard conversation that inspired me to see another Christina Lindberg movie... then again, you don't need to twist my arm too hard to see one of her movies. This one happens to have an English subtitled print on Amazon Instant so it is quite easy to track down. To give some sort of idea on what this movie is about, let me list some of its alternate titles:
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (as it's known on IMDb)
Anita: The Shocking Account of a Young Nymphomaniac (its DVD title)
Anita: The True Story of a 17 Year Old Nymphomaniac (the translated title given on the print I watched)
Yep, she plays a nymphomaniac who sleeps around with guys (and sometimes with girls) and her parents not only do not understand, they treat her awfully and make her feel stupid; you do have sympathy for poor Anita and wish she could be cured. A young college student accidentally runs into her (literally) and they become pals. He resists her advances, realizes what her problem is, and reasons that she needs an orgasm to cure her affliction... really. I am not sure if that's a legit cure for the problem, but let's go with it. As she wants nothing to do with the people she makes it with, this young student Erik just can't try the obvious and attempt the cure himself.
To me it's hilarious who Erik is played by; it is someone who became much more famous later and is still someone we all know: STELLAN SKARSGARD. Yes, he went on from this softcore picture to appear in Disney and Marvel movies. I've never seen the movie Nymphomaniac, but everything I know, it definitely seems to be inspired by Anita, as much as von Trier apparently tries to deny it. Stellan even plays almost a carbon copy of the character in the 2013 movie, so you can decide on your own how valid his denials really are. I am also amused that a respected director like him took inspiration from a Christina Lindberg movie where you see and hear a trumpet player walk into a room she's in and from sound only, you know that he just started receiving “oral gratification”.
It's about what you expect but it is watchable. While there's plenty of titillation, the story was interesting to me and as I understand, another similarity with the von Trier movie is that both are told in a non-linear fashion. I was entertained even without the T&A and over the top moments. While not wild and a cult classic like Thriller: A Cruel Picture, I still thought it was fine, w/ both leads putting in respectable performances. Also, it's more of a drama-which examines the ramifications of the affliction on a young lady who had no idea why she was so sex crazed-than a comedy, although there's both intentional and unintentional humor.
If you enjoy seeing the lead-both dressed and undressed-or want to be amused at what a famous actor did early in his career, like I said it's on Amazon where it can be rented for only a few bucks.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Torgny Wickman
Starring: Christina Lindberg, Stellan Skarsgard, Daniele Vlaminck, Michel David, Erika Wickman
From: Alpha France/Swedish Film Production (SFP)
So, about that election... but let's not talk politics here, as that can only lead to trouble. Instead, let me mention that I was inspired to watch this softcore film from Sweden not just because I find the lead to be rather attractive, but also because she was brought up on a messageboard I frequent a few days ago. It was better than I expected. Read all about it below:
It was a messageboard conversation that inspired me to see another Christina Lindberg movie... then again, you don't need to twist my arm too hard to see one of her movies. This one happens to have an English subtitled print on Amazon Instant so it is quite easy to track down. To give some sort of idea on what this movie is about, let me list some of its alternate titles:
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (as it's known on IMDb)
Anita: The Shocking Account of a Young Nymphomaniac (its DVD title)
Anita: The True Story of a 17 Year Old Nymphomaniac (the translated title given on the print I watched)
Yep, she plays a nymphomaniac who sleeps around with guys (and sometimes with girls) and her parents not only do not understand, they treat her awfully and make her feel stupid; you do have sympathy for poor Anita and wish she could be cured. A young college student accidentally runs into her (literally) and they become pals. He resists her advances, realizes what her problem is, and reasons that she needs an orgasm to cure her affliction... really. I am not sure if that's a legit cure for the problem, but let's go with it. As she wants nothing to do with the people she makes it with, this young student Erik just can't try the obvious and attempt the cure himself.
To me it's hilarious who Erik is played by; it is someone who became much more famous later and is still someone we all know: STELLAN SKARSGARD. Yes, he went on from this softcore picture to appear in Disney and Marvel movies. I've never seen the movie Nymphomaniac, but everything I know, it definitely seems to be inspired by Anita, as much as von Trier apparently tries to deny it. Stellan even plays almost a carbon copy of the character in the 2013 movie, so you can decide on your own how valid his denials really are. I am also amused that a respected director like him took inspiration from a Christina Lindberg movie where you see and hear a trumpet player walk into a room she's in and from sound only, you know that he just started receiving “oral gratification”.
It's about what you expect but it is watchable. While there's plenty of titillation, the story was interesting to me and as I understand, another similarity with the von Trier movie is that both are told in a non-linear fashion. I was entertained even without the T&A and over the top moments. While not wild and a cult classic like Thriller: A Cruel Picture, I still thought it was fine, w/ both leads putting in respectable performances. Also, it's more of a drama-which examines the ramifications of the affliction on a young lady who had no idea why she was so sex crazed-than a comedy, although there's both intentional and unintentional humor.
If you enjoy seeing the lead-both dressed and undressed-or want to be amused at what a famous actor did early in his career, like I said it's on Amazon where it can be rented for only a few bucks.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Son In Law
Son in Law (1993)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Steve Rash
Starring: Pauly Shore, Carla Gugino, Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams
From: Hollywood Pictures
Yep, this is something I watched as a kid. I hadn't seen it in many years. Netflix Instant fixed that problem last night. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as I feared. Peep all the details below... dude:
This is yet another one of those films in the category of “things I haven't watched in at least 20 years”; yeah, when I was a kid I did see this film, more than once. While my tastes are different now than they were back then, I can say that this is at least fine.
Pauly Shore is definitely best in small doses-if you even want to see anything by him-but this may be him at his most tolerable. Sure, he's a weirdo who speaks surfer lingo but for the most part his character is a nice guy. It's a standard fish out of water tale where we first see farmer's daughter Rebecca (the always lovely and talented Carla Gugino) leave her small South Dakota town to attend a Southern California university and there's a natural culture clash, until a guy known as Crawl (who else but Shore could play a character with such a name?) helps her out and gets her acclimated to her surroundings. For Thanksgiving he has nowhere to go so she takes him and general wackiness happens, and of course things go sour with the boyfriend she left behind in South Dakota.
While this is full of cliches and does not have a surplus of surprises, I have to say that it made me laugh often enough where I can give it a fair grade. There are also some basic lessons that are learned which are nice for the audience, as both parties learn from one another; it also shows that farming is not an easy job and those fine bucolic folk deserve a tip of my cap. It helps that you have fine actors in the film, from Gugino and Lane Smith to Mason Adams and Cindy Pickett. I was also pretty amused by Patrick Renna as the stereotypical “smartass little brother”. I was also amused thinking that in several ways, Smith as the patriarch of the family reminded me of my own dad; we didn't grow up on the farm but my parents were on the conservative side, would have been horrified too at the sites they saw in California and they definitely would not have liked Crawl either, at least at first.
It is pretty silly and goofy, admittedly. While nostalgia may be part of it, I do think that is is an acceptable watch and may not be as painful as some thing it would be given the star (who was a real product of his time during the height of his popularity) and the premise.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Steve Rash
Starring: Pauly Shore, Carla Gugino, Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams
From: Hollywood Pictures
Yep, this is something I watched as a kid. I hadn't seen it in many years. Netflix Instant fixed that problem last night. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as I feared. Peep all the details below... dude:
This is yet another one of those films in the category of “things I haven't watched in at least 20 years”; yeah, when I was a kid I did see this film, more than once. While my tastes are different now than they were back then, I can say that this is at least fine.
Pauly Shore is definitely best in small doses-if you even want to see anything by him-but this may be him at his most tolerable. Sure, he's a weirdo who speaks surfer lingo but for the most part his character is a nice guy. It's a standard fish out of water tale where we first see farmer's daughter Rebecca (the always lovely and talented Carla Gugino) leave her small South Dakota town to attend a Southern California university and there's a natural culture clash, until a guy known as Crawl (who else but Shore could play a character with such a name?) helps her out and gets her acclimated to her surroundings. For Thanksgiving he has nowhere to go so she takes him and general wackiness happens, and of course things go sour with the boyfriend she left behind in South Dakota.
While this is full of cliches and does not have a surplus of surprises, I have to say that it made me laugh often enough where I can give it a fair grade. There are also some basic lessons that are learned which are nice for the audience, as both parties learn from one another; it also shows that farming is not an easy job and those fine bucolic folk deserve a tip of my cap. It helps that you have fine actors in the film, from Gugino and Lane Smith to Mason Adams and Cindy Pickett. I was also pretty amused by Patrick Renna as the stereotypical “smartass little brother”. I was also amused thinking that in several ways, Smith as the patriarch of the family reminded me of my own dad; we didn't grow up on the farm but my parents were on the conservative side, would have been horrified too at the sites they saw in California and they definitely would not have liked Crawl either, at least at first.
It is pretty silly and goofy, admittedly. While nostalgia may be part of it, I do think that is is an acceptable watch and may not be as painful as some thing it would be given the star (who was a real product of his time during the height of his popularity) and the premise.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Alone In The Dark (No, Not The Uwe Boll Motion Picture)
Alone in the Dark (1982)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Jack Sholder
Starring: Jack Palance, Martin Landau, David Schultz, Erland van Lidth, Donald Pleasence
From: New Line Cinema
Last night on TCM Underground I saw this cult favorite, which has grown in popularity these past few years. I did not love it but I was entertained. See why below:
This is a movie I have heard of for years now and I've seen various people praise it, yet it's not the easiest movie to track down, at least legally. Thus, when TCM Underground showed it last night, I couldn't turn down the chance to finally give it a whirl. After seeing this... suddenly I am not so surprised the second A Nightmare on Elm Street turned out as weird as it did, as this movie is from the same director, Jack Sholder, and this is also pretty weird.
The cast definitely always had my attention from the first time I ever heard about the film. I mean, Dwight Schultz takes over at a psych ward for Donald Pleasence (who seems almost as off-kilter as his patients), and the four dangerous lunatics who escape from there are Jack Palance, Martin Landau, Dynamo from The Running Man, and a fourth character who I won't reveal, because reasons. I don't think I need to clarify that this is not a nuanced measured take on what it is like to suffer from serious mental health issues.
I mean, Palance is a paranoid former POW soldier, Erland van Lidth is a child molester and Landau is the incredible combination of a pyromaniac preacher. Aside from the plot, how it is laid out and a lot of the humor being odd are two of the reasons why I say this is strange. I can't say I wasn't entertained, though, with those old pros hamming it up and such moments as seeing a punk band called The Sic F*cks perform; they're exactly what you'd expect from the name and description. In addition, one of the killers briefly wears a hockey mask; as this came out a few months after the third Friday the 13th came out. I'll say it was just a coincidence. One part of this reminded me of You're Next, and I am sure that Adam Wingard & Simon Barrett were familiar with this before they made You're Next.
I can say that this is smarter than the average slasher, and there definitely are some disturbing moments to go along with the typical slasher mayhem. I mean, the molester gets to spend some time with a little girl... talk about frightening. “The big reveal” also was nice as it was subtle and yet if you were paying attention you may have been able to figure it out beforehand. A good portion of the movie takes place during a blackout, so while there's naturally light in the day... when the sun sets, the title is appropriate. I mean, part of this is a home invasion thriller, pretty much. There is also enough kills and gory moments for those that are big into such things. The final scene... I'll just say it's hilarious for a variety of reasons. You see and hear things you never thought would be together.
I know some really love this; I don't feel that strongly about it but it was still a fine picture.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Jack Sholder
Starring: Jack Palance, Martin Landau, David Schultz, Erland van Lidth, Donald Pleasence
From: New Line Cinema
Last night on TCM Underground I saw this cult favorite, which has grown in popularity these past few years. I did not love it but I was entertained. See why below:
This is a movie I have heard of for years now and I've seen various people praise it, yet it's not the easiest movie to track down, at least legally. Thus, when TCM Underground showed it last night, I couldn't turn down the chance to finally give it a whirl. After seeing this... suddenly I am not so surprised the second A Nightmare on Elm Street turned out as weird as it did, as this movie is from the same director, Jack Sholder, and this is also pretty weird.
The cast definitely always had my attention from the first time I ever heard about the film. I mean, Dwight Schultz takes over at a psych ward for Donald Pleasence (who seems almost as off-kilter as his patients), and the four dangerous lunatics who escape from there are Jack Palance, Martin Landau, Dynamo from The Running Man, and a fourth character who I won't reveal, because reasons. I don't think I need to clarify that this is not a nuanced measured take on what it is like to suffer from serious mental health issues.
I mean, Palance is a paranoid former POW soldier, Erland van Lidth is a child molester and Landau is the incredible combination of a pyromaniac preacher. Aside from the plot, how it is laid out and a lot of the humor being odd are two of the reasons why I say this is strange. I can't say I wasn't entertained, though, with those old pros hamming it up and such moments as seeing a punk band called The Sic F*cks perform; they're exactly what you'd expect from the name and description. In addition, one of the killers briefly wears a hockey mask; as this came out a few months after the third Friday the 13th came out. I'll say it was just a coincidence. One part of this reminded me of You're Next, and I am sure that Adam Wingard & Simon Barrett were familiar with this before they made You're Next.
I can say that this is smarter than the average slasher, and there definitely are some disturbing moments to go along with the typical slasher mayhem. I mean, the molester gets to spend some time with a little girl... talk about frightening. “The big reveal” also was nice as it was subtle and yet if you were paying attention you may have been able to figure it out beforehand. A good portion of the movie takes place during a blackout, so while there's naturally light in the day... when the sun sets, the title is appropriate. I mean, part of this is a home invasion thriller, pretty much. There is also enough kills and gory moments for those that are big into such things. The final scene... I'll just say it's hilarious for a variety of reasons. You see and hear things you never thought would be together.
I know some really love this; I don't feel that strongly about it but it was still a fine picture.
The Taking Of Beverly Hills
The Taking of Beverly Hills (1991)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Sidney J. Furie
Starring: Ken Wahl, Matt Frewer, Harley Jane Kozak, Robert Davi, Lee Ving
From: Nelson Entertainment
This is a goofy as heck action movie that I saw once before, albeit more than 20 years ago. Should it be a surprise that I barely remembered the movie? It's not great but it's not awful either. I mean, besides what I said below, it also has a wacky early 90's soundtrack... everything from an odd Jan Hammer score to random songs popular at the time, such as EMF's Unbelievable and Faith No More's Epic:
This is a random watch, but I actually did see this film once before; however, that was more than 20 years ago so I really remembered nothing about it. I figured it was time to see a dopey action movie, and dopey this is. I mean, it's about a fake chemical spill (if a tanker truck says “toxic chemicals” on the side in big red letters, it's probably not legit) in Beverly Hills that is done by corrupt ex-cops in order to rob all the rich A-holes who live there and the ones to try and stop this are a bad cop turned good (Matt Frewer!) and a professional football quarterback named Boomer Hayes (Ken Wahl, w/ spectacular mullet). It's a high-concept sort of thing and not much more. And of course it's simply preposterous to think that cops or former cops in the Los Angeles area would be unscrupulous...
To be honest here, the movie is really stupid; you don't want to think about the plot too much. Don't even ask how all of the real cops are disposed of... although it's uncomfortably close to the stupid way the cops are dealt with in The Dark Knight Rises! Also, the cops (past and present) in the area wouldn't know who the quarterback for the pro football team is, especially if he has a distinctive nickname like Boomer? Some of the attempted humor is really bad. Yet I can't hate this goofy piece of crap.
I mean, there's plenty of explosions, a SWAT team tank destroying buildings, a flamethrower, homemade Molotov cocktails, random Ninja stars, opportunities shoehorned in for the quarterback to toss random objects, and a nice lineup of familiar faces, at least to me: Harley Jane Kozak, Robert Davi (shock of shocks, he was a villain), Branscombe Richmond, Lee Ving, George Wyner, and even Meat from Porky's. It's lame and does not rise about its concept but if you dig the low budget action movies of the past, there definitely are plenty of worse options to go with than this one.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Sidney J. Furie
Starring: Ken Wahl, Matt Frewer, Harley Jane Kozak, Robert Davi, Lee Ving
From: Nelson Entertainment
This is a goofy as heck action movie that I saw once before, albeit more than 20 years ago. Should it be a surprise that I barely remembered the movie? It's not great but it's not awful either. I mean, besides what I said below, it also has a wacky early 90's soundtrack... everything from an odd Jan Hammer score to random songs popular at the time, such as EMF's Unbelievable and Faith No More's Epic:
This is a random watch, but I actually did see this film once before; however, that was more than 20 years ago so I really remembered nothing about it. I figured it was time to see a dopey action movie, and dopey this is. I mean, it's about a fake chemical spill (if a tanker truck says “toxic chemicals” on the side in big red letters, it's probably not legit) in Beverly Hills that is done by corrupt ex-cops in order to rob all the rich A-holes who live there and the ones to try and stop this are a bad cop turned good (Matt Frewer!) and a professional football quarterback named Boomer Hayes (Ken Wahl, w/ spectacular mullet). It's a high-concept sort of thing and not much more. And of course it's simply preposterous to think that cops or former cops in the Los Angeles area would be unscrupulous...
To be honest here, the movie is really stupid; you don't want to think about the plot too much. Don't even ask how all of the real cops are disposed of... although it's uncomfortably close to the stupid way the cops are dealt with in The Dark Knight Rises! Also, the cops (past and present) in the area wouldn't know who the quarterback for the pro football team is, especially if he has a distinctive nickname like Boomer? Some of the attempted humor is really bad. Yet I can't hate this goofy piece of crap.
I mean, there's plenty of explosions, a SWAT team tank destroying buildings, a flamethrower, homemade Molotov cocktails, random Ninja stars, opportunities shoehorned in for the quarterback to toss random objects, and a nice lineup of familiar faces, at least to me: Harley Jane Kozak, Robert Davi (shock of shocks, he was a villain), Branscombe Richmond, Lee Ving, George Wyner, and even Meat from Porky's. It's lame and does not rise about its concept but if you dig the low budget action movies of the past, there definitely are plenty of worse options to go with than this one.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Trainspotting
Trainspotting (1996)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremmer, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle
From: Several British companies
Yep, I haven't been around for a few days. It was to relax and yes, Wednesday night I watched the Cubs and their historic win. Last night, I decided to see this movie, as it's certainly been long enough since the first viewing. I talk all about this below via my Letterboxd review:
This is a film I saw once before; however, that was like 14 years ago so my memories were quite hazy. Not as hazy as being in a stupor doing to injecting some “horse” but honestly, the only two things I remembered clearly were the disgusting toilet and the 10 or so minutes where Renton “reaps what he sows”. The impetus of me finally seeing this a second time was not only the release of the trailer for T2: Trainspotting but noticing I could stream it for free because of Amazon Prime.
I presume most people know the plot of this being about a group of lads (most of whom are heroin users) in late '80's Edinburgh, Scotland and aside from the horrors of being addicted to the drug, there's also social commentary about the haves vs. the have nots in the city. It is a blunt and hard-edged look at that lifestyle, where you get to see “the worst toilet in Scotland” and all the horrors that come with being addicted to smack. Yet, among all the tragedy and harsh moments you see on screen-one of which is quite horrifying-it is still darkly humorous (you learn such things as, “You probably shouldn't have a dab of speed before a job interview unless you want to screw up on purpose”), and you see that while they have some troubling issues, those pals still joke around with each other and converse about such things as Sean Connery/Bond movies and what is known in the UK as football. You hope for the best when you think of these chaps, even if they are bums who are addicted to an awful drug.
Besides it being a compelling story filmed with great style and pep by Danny Boyle, the performances help seal the deal. The cast as a whole does a swell job but it is McGregor as Renton who is the most memorable. It is not too surprising that Ewan became a big star, along with Boyle. Another important part of the movie being a success is the great soundtrack that fits what you see on screen like a glove. Iggy Pop's Lust for Life starting off the movie was awesome; besides it being a song about being hooked on the H, what you witness explains the main characters quite well as Mark Renton narrates and says all the things that people can choose to do. The other tunes are from the likes of Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Brian Eno, New Order and to great effect, Underworld's Born Slippy (Nuxx) & Dark and Long.
This is definitely not an easy movie to watch at times; yet, it is a great film and I now wish I would have seen it again much sooner than I did. I won't make any statements about drugs, as I know a good number of people online and in person who have dabbled with it to various degrees. That said, I think people should watch this before they even think of trying heroin, because wow does it look like a wretched drug to be hooked on. “Choose Life” seems like a better idea, you know. I have no idea what to expect of T2: Trainspotting. Even with Boyle in the director's chair again, things could go awry. I'll just hope for A Perfect Day once I do check it out.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremmer, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle
From: Several British companies
Yep, I haven't been around for a few days. It was to relax and yes, Wednesday night I watched the Cubs and their historic win. Last night, I decided to see this movie, as it's certainly been long enough since the first viewing. I talk all about this below via my Letterboxd review:
This is a film I saw once before; however, that was like 14 years ago so my memories were quite hazy. Not as hazy as being in a stupor doing to injecting some “horse” but honestly, the only two things I remembered clearly were the disgusting toilet and the 10 or so minutes where Renton “reaps what he sows”. The impetus of me finally seeing this a second time was not only the release of the trailer for T2: Trainspotting but noticing I could stream it for free because of Amazon Prime.
I presume most people know the plot of this being about a group of lads (most of whom are heroin users) in late '80's Edinburgh, Scotland and aside from the horrors of being addicted to the drug, there's also social commentary about the haves vs. the have nots in the city. It is a blunt and hard-edged look at that lifestyle, where you get to see “the worst toilet in Scotland” and all the horrors that come with being addicted to smack. Yet, among all the tragedy and harsh moments you see on screen-one of which is quite horrifying-it is still darkly humorous (you learn such things as, “You probably shouldn't have a dab of speed before a job interview unless you want to screw up on purpose”), and you see that while they have some troubling issues, those pals still joke around with each other and converse about such things as Sean Connery/Bond movies and what is known in the UK as football. You hope for the best when you think of these chaps, even if they are bums who are addicted to an awful drug.
Besides it being a compelling story filmed with great style and pep by Danny Boyle, the performances help seal the deal. The cast as a whole does a swell job but it is McGregor as Renton who is the most memorable. It is not too surprising that Ewan became a big star, along with Boyle. Another important part of the movie being a success is the great soundtrack that fits what you see on screen like a glove. Iggy Pop's Lust for Life starting off the movie was awesome; besides it being a song about being hooked on the H, what you witness explains the main characters quite well as Mark Renton narrates and says all the things that people can choose to do. The other tunes are from the likes of Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Brian Eno, New Order and to great effect, Underworld's Born Slippy (Nuxx) & Dark and Long.
This is definitely not an easy movie to watch at times; yet, it is a great film and I now wish I would have seen it again much sooner than I did. I won't make any statements about drugs, as I know a good number of people online and in person who have dabbled with it to various degrees. That said, I think people should watch this before they even think of trying heroin, because wow does it look like a wretched drug to be hooked on. “Choose Life” seems like a better idea, you know. I have no idea what to expect of T2: Trainspotting. Even with Boyle in the director's chair again, things could go awry. I'll just hope for A Perfect Day once I do check it out.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
The Fog
The Fog (2005)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Rupert Wainwright
Starring: Tom Welling, Maggie Grace, Selma Blair, DeRay Davis, Kenneth Walsh
From: Revolution Studios
Whoops, I was supposed to say on Sunday what I thought of the Evil Dead remake in unrated form. Well, it's still pretty bad; the different cuts don't matter, as I think that both stink. Stick with the original instead, which I can also say about The Fog remake.
On Halloween, I first rewatched Sleepaway Camp (still a perversely entertaining movie, whether or not the filmmakers intended it for the film to be so perversely entertaining) then on Netflix Instant I watched this infamous film, something I've only heard the most toxic things about. To be honest, I agree with those people; this is indeed quite bad, even in the realm of horror remakes. I try to explain why below:
Yes, I actually make an effort to see this movie. I've always heard the most dire things about this film, and yet that was why I wanted to see the film, if it was as horrible as everyone said it was.
Well, it was. While I did not see the unrated version on disc and instead saw the theatrical version on Netflix Instant, I highly doubt that'd change my opinion.
I've seen the original film before and while not my favorite Carpenter, I do dig it. It is great at mood and atmosphere as it tells its spooky story. This... early on I could see why this is reviled. The character names are the same, entire lines of dialogue are lifted and the plot is similar, but this is God-awful crap designed for teens who had never even heard of the OG flick, and populated with “pretty faces”. Selma Blair tries to be as sultry as Adrienne Barbeau, and it did not work. And Tom Welling sure as hell ain't no Tom Atkins. He didn't even drink any beer while driving his truck! Then you have characters like Spooner... “awful black stereotype” is the best descriptor. I guess he was supposed to be like the Buck Flower character, and what an insult that is. Let's not even talk about what they did with Father Malone.
Then again, this is a film where instead of radio station KAB playing old jazz and other similar tunes, we get alternative music, some of it alright and some not so much... I am looking at Fall Out Boy when it comes to the latter. It's really all so lame and boring. The original did it SO much better. Not only is the CGI pretty bad, the movie isn't even scary. A problem when you can't nail that, mood, or atmosphere... nor can you tell the original plot points with any sort of competency. Then, there's a twist ending that certainly wasn't present in the Carpenter film. This... this was really stupid, a dunderheaded decision if there ever was one. It's a groaner, definitely. Wikipedia will tell you if you are dying to know.
I'll be happy to sound the foghorn and tell everyone who hasn't seen this: never watch The Fog remake.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Rupert Wainwright
Starring: Tom Welling, Maggie Grace, Selma Blair, DeRay Davis, Kenneth Walsh
From: Revolution Studios
Whoops, I was supposed to say on Sunday what I thought of the Evil Dead remake in unrated form. Well, it's still pretty bad; the different cuts don't matter, as I think that both stink. Stick with the original instead, which I can also say about The Fog remake.
On Halloween, I first rewatched Sleepaway Camp (still a perversely entertaining movie, whether or not the filmmakers intended it for the film to be so perversely entertaining) then on Netflix Instant I watched this infamous film, something I've only heard the most toxic things about. To be honest, I agree with those people; this is indeed quite bad, even in the realm of horror remakes. I try to explain why below:
Yes, I actually make an effort to see this movie. I've always heard the most dire things about this film, and yet that was why I wanted to see the film, if it was as horrible as everyone said it was.
Well, it was. While I did not see the unrated version on disc and instead saw the theatrical version on Netflix Instant, I highly doubt that'd change my opinion.
I've seen the original film before and while not my favorite Carpenter, I do dig it. It is great at mood and atmosphere as it tells its spooky story. This... early on I could see why this is reviled. The character names are the same, entire lines of dialogue are lifted and the plot is similar, but this is God-awful crap designed for teens who had never even heard of the OG flick, and populated with “pretty faces”. Selma Blair tries to be as sultry as Adrienne Barbeau, and it did not work. And Tom Welling sure as hell ain't no Tom Atkins. He didn't even drink any beer while driving his truck! Then you have characters like Spooner... “awful black stereotype” is the best descriptor. I guess he was supposed to be like the Buck Flower character, and what an insult that is. Let's not even talk about what they did with Father Malone.
Then again, this is a film where instead of radio station KAB playing old jazz and other similar tunes, we get alternative music, some of it alright and some not so much... I am looking at Fall Out Boy when it comes to the latter. It's really all so lame and boring. The original did it SO much better. Not only is the CGI pretty bad, the movie isn't even scary. A problem when you can't nail that, mood, or atmosphere... nor can you tell the original plot points with any sort of competency. Then, there's a twist ending that certainly wasn't present in the Carpenter film. This... this was really stupid, a dunderheaded decision if there ever was one. It's a groaner, definitely. Wikipedia will tell you if you are dying to know.
I'll be happy to sound the foghorn and tell everyone who hasn't seen this: never watch The Fog remake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)