Countdown (1968)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Robert Altman (!)
Starring: James Caan, Robert Duvall, Joanna Moore, Barbara Baxley, Charles Aidman
From: William Conrad Productions
Here's a random movie, despite it involving a few pretty famous names. Unfortunately it's only about average, as I explain below:
Tuesday night, TCM showed several James Caan movies; I decided to see one I hadn't even heard of until a few days beforehand; this is despite it also starring Robert Duvall and the director being... Robert Altman! Yes, he once dabbled in science fiction.
This is not The Final Countdown and they are not heading for Venus; instead, it's a race to the moon. In short, because of reasons, civilian scientist Caan replaces astronaut Duvall in a solo mission to the lunar surface where Caan will be able to stay there for a few months as a capsule will already have been sent there. Yep, unfortunately for this movie, a few years later, the actual Apollo program and how they did the moon landings made this movie rather misguided in how such things would be done. Anyhow, of course they are feuding with the Soviets here too and are racing with them to get there first, and of course Robert is resentful he isn't going to space so there's friction between the two.
Caan, Duvall, and Joanna Moore (as Jimmy's wife) all do swell jobs, there are several stressful moments in space-as of course things don't always go right-and I am not against a lot of the focus being the prep for space rather than spending time on the moon; regrettably, a lot of this movie isn't terribly exciting and it has a rather abrupt ending. That and it maybe not giving you what you want... a shame. For fans of the director, there is plenty of yelling and people talking over each other. Even then, maybe it's not a surprise this movie isn't known to even a lot of film fans.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Beneath The Planet Of The Apes
Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Ted Post
Starring: James Franciscus, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, Linda Harrison, for a short amount of time, Charlton Heston
From: 20th Century Fox
What a movie this is... as I explain below:
Next week I'll finish watching the rest of the Apes sequels but it fit my schedule to check this out last night, which I did... and what a film it is. Hollywood being incredibly risk-averse and having awful crap like “focus groups” for a long time now means that it isn't common for movies from big studios to be really weird and out-there like this was. Heck, to show how different things were then, this film was a big release from 20th Century Fox, made because the studio was on its ass due to having a few big flops in a row. This wasn't a hit like the original but it still did well at the box office. I don't want to reveal too much, but later I'll mention a few of the loony things this movie has. What an era in Hollywood, where you can have the big studios release things like this, Myra Breckenridge, Zardoz, and other things completely off the wall.
The first half, talk about “retread”. Another spaceship from the 1970's ends up there, just so happening to figuratively slip on a banana peel; this time, it's only James Franciscus (Brent) that survives. He looks a lot like Charlton Heston; Heston returns as Taylor, but in a small role. Brent meets the main characters from the original, hangs out with Taylor's girl Nova, and it's not as good as the first one by any means.
As an aside, while it's told instead of shown, apparently Ape City is in a state of famine. Donald Trump Ape convinces them to explore The Forbidden Zone, due to mysterious happenings there. Now, I am not talking about Dr. Zaius, even though his hair is definitely Trumpian; rather, I am referencing General Ursus. He used bluster and rhetoric for the purposes of making an emotional appeal, has only circumstantial evidence at best that the area has the resources they need, he loves showing off his alleged military might... to me it's an apt comparison.
Anyhow, that's the first half. The second half, what a perplexing left turn they made. The title is “Beneath” as there is an underground city, and its denizens have rather odd powers. From there, there's hymns about an atomic bomb, upside down crucified apes (!), and a lot more. It often doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it but I for certain wasn't bored, as I eagerly waited to see what other bizarre moment would happen next. Then there was the ending...
How it ended was definitely audacious and definitely something you'd never see in a big Hollywood release. Yet, I understand that most of the people who worked on the film did not like how it turned out and they really did not like the ending either, as “bleak” does not begin to describe it. Heston was the one who actually suggested it, but it was more for his personal interests rather than his belief that it was the most logical way to conclude the story.
I wish I could have liked this more than I did. I wasn't bored and the most memorable moments have to be seen to fully be appreciated-including a black character being credited as NEGRO-but it's not a great movie by any means.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Ted Post
Starring: James Franciscus, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, Linda Harrison, for a short amount of time, Charlton Heston
From: 20th Century Fox
What a movie this is... as I explain below:
Next week I'll finish watching the rest of the Apes sequels but it fit my schedule to check this out last night, which I did... and what a film it is. Hollywood being incredibly risk-averse and having awful crap like “focus groups” for a long time now means that it isn't common for movies from big studios to be really weird and out-there like this was. Heck, to show how different things were then, this film was a big release from 20th Century Fox, made because the studio was on its ass due to having a few big flops in a row. This wasn't a hit like the original but it still did well at the box office. I don't want to reveal too much, but later I'll mention a few of the loony things this movie has. What an era in Hollywood, where you can have the big studios release things like this, Myra Breckenridge, Zardoz, and other things completely off the wall.
The first half, talk about “retread”. Another spaceship from the 1970's ends up there, just so happening to figuratively slip on a banana peel; this time, it's only James Franciscus (Brent) that survives. He looks a lot like Charlton Heston; Heston returns as Taylor, but in a small role. Brent meets the main characters from the original, hangs out with Taylor's girl Nova, and it's not as good as the first one by any means.
As an aside, while it's told instead of shown, apparently Ape City is in a state of famine. Donald Trump Ape convinces them to explore The Forbidden Zone, due to mysterious happenings there. Now, I am not talking about Dr. Zaius, even though his hair is definitely Trumpian; rather, I am referencing General Ursus. He used bluster and rhetoric for the purposes of making an emotional appeal, has only circumstantial evidence at best that the area has the resources they need, he loves showing off his alleged military might... to me it's an apt comparison.
Anyhow, that's the first half. The second half, what a perplexing left turn they made. The title is “Beneath” as there is an underground city, and its denizens have rather odd powers. From there, there's hymns about an atomic bomb, upside down crucified apes (!), and a lot more. It often doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it but I for certain wasn't bored, as I eagerly waited to see what other bizarre moment would happen next. Then there was the ending...
How it ended was definitely audacious and definitely something you'd never see in a big Hollywood release. Yet, I understand that most of the people who worked on the film did not like how it turned out and they really did not like the ending either, as “bleak” does not begin to describe it. Heston was the one who actually suggested it, but it was more for his personal interests rather than his belief that it was the most logical way to conclude the story.
I wish I could have liked this more than I did. I wasn't bored and the most memorable moments have to be seen to fully be appreciated-including a black character being credited as NEGRO-but it's not a great movie by any means.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Planet Of The Apes (The Original)
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Franklin J. Schaffner
Starring: Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, James Whitmore
From: 20th Century Fox
It was about time I actually watched all of this famous movie, which does deserve its famous reputation, as I explain below:
Would people believe it when I saw that it wasn't until last night that I saw this movie in full? Whether or not you do, it is true. From now until War for the Planet of the Apes comes out in a little over two weeks, I'll go through the original Apes series... and if I am a masochist, I'll watch the Tim Burton Apes disaster.
I don't want to just presume that everyone knows the general plot, or the most famous line from the movie, or its twist ending. The ending I've known since a kid as it's parodied and talked about often; I can't complain about knowing this beforehand as the movie telegraphs it. Anyhow, Charlton Heston and some other astronauts go travel light-speed on a spaceship in 1973; Einstein's Paradox is used, so them traveling at that speed for 18 months means that while they are only a year and a half older, 2,000 years have passed on Earth. They crash-landed on a mysterious planet that is ruled by talking bipedal apes, and humans are low-intelligence creatures seen as incredibly inferior.
Sure, the movie is kind of ridiculous, it's heavy-handed and also on the silly side. Yet, it's well-made, has a Jerry Goldsmith score that is way trippier than I had ever heard from him, is a parable about various interesting/important topics, is never boring, has some exciting action, and it does have a bleak ending, although I've heard that the sequels have far darker conclusions. I do see why this movie was a big hit at the time and it can still be enjoyed today.
There were some things that made me laugh, and I am not sure if that was the intent. Heston's character of Taylor is a dick in the beginning, but that was by design as it's part of character development for Taylor and how he changes from having to go through this bizarre ordeal. Him falling in love with a hot brunette human native and him dragging her around is wackier, and what an awkward moment he had near the end involving a kiss... but even then, the movie has a lot to say that is still applicable to today-unfortunately for us in 2017, plenty of it is negative comments-and this motion picture is more than just its most iconic moments.
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Franklin J. Schaffner
Starring: Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, James Whitmore
From: 20th Century Fox
It was about time I actually watched all of this famous movie, which does deserve its famous reputation, as I explain below:
Would people believe it when I saw that it wasn't until last night that I saw this movie in full? Whether or not you do, it is true. From now until War for the Planet of the Apes comes out in a little over two weeks, I'll go through the original Apes series... and if I am a masochist, I'll watch the Tim Burton Apes disaster.
I don't want to just presume that everyone knows the general plot, or the most famous line from the movie, or its twist ending. The ending I've known since a kid as it's parodied and talked about often; I can't complain about knowing this beforehand as the movie telegraphs it. Anyhow, Charlton Heston and some other astronauts go travel light-speed on a spaceship in 1973; Einstein's Paradox is used, so them traveling at that speed for 18 months means that while they are only a year and a half older, 2,000 years have passed on Earth. They crash-landed on a mysterious planet that is ruled by talking bipedal apes, and humans are low-intelligence creatures seen as incredibly inferior.
Sure, the movie is kind of ridiculous, it's heavy-handed and also on the silly side. Yet, it's well-made, has a Jerry Goldsmith score that is way trippier than I had ever heard from him, is a parable about various interesting/important topics, is never boring, has some exciting action, and it does have a bleak ending, although I've heard that the sequels have far darker conclusions. I do see why this movie was a big hit at the time and it can still be enjoyed today.
There were some things that made me laugh, and I am not sure if that was the intent. Heston's character of Taylor is a dick in the beginning, but that was by design as it's part of character development for Taylor and how he changes from having to go through this bizarre ordeal. Him falling in love with a hot brunette human native and him dragging her around is wackier, and what an awkward moment he had near the end involving a kiss... but even then, the movie has a lot to say that is still applicable to today-unfortunately for us in 2017, plenty of it is negative comments-and this motion picture is more than just its most iconic moments.
Monday, June 26, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
Eating Raoul
Eating Raoul (1982)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Paul Bartel
Starring: Paul Bartel, Mary Woronov, Robert Beltran, Susan Saiger
From: Quartet Films
Wednesday night, I watched this for the first time on TCM, right after the channel showed Freaks, a film I've seen a few times before and reviewed here way back when. I may not do a review at all for the next few days as I may be preoccupied with other things. For now, let me talk about this cult classic:
This was the second movie I saw on Turner Classic Movies Wednesday night as they spent the entire night showing cult classics. It is another film I have known of for many years but I never saw; I did not know more than its basic premise until relatively recently. Turns out, it's a pretty funny dark comedy, and one that feels still relevant today, especially the opening, which highlights how such beliefs as self-indulgence and self-gratification are bad, a message I wish more Americans would have received long ago.
Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov play characters named Paul and Mary; they are Mr. and Mrs. Bland, a couple with an appropriate surname. They are squares straight out of the 60's, and stick out in the wild and woolly 1980's. They wish to open a restaurant out in the country but run into trouble after dealing with real A-holes. They stumble upon the idea to kill swingers and people who are real sleazebags. Things are complicated when the titular Raoul shows up and butts his way into their lives.
Things are quite deadpan throughout, there are obvious tonal shifts and not every aspect works. Yet, this was a passion project, done incrementally for an entire year; all its successes for failures is on the shoulders of director/star/co-writer Bartel. While I understand those that don't care for the movie, I say that its flaws give it character, and make it unique. Certainly, a darkly humorous tale involving the murder of skeevy people by people stuck in the past who end up changing into the type of individuals they so strongly dislike, and the kills are straight from a cartoon and are not the tremendously bloody affairs that they naturally would be,.. it definitely stands out. I won't spoil all the surprises the movie has, but there's not only a small appearance from The Real Don Steele, there's also a song from Los Lobos, a half-decade before they became famous.
Bartel and Woronov worked very well together and the fact that they were so enjoyable playing out of touch people helped make this a fun watch despite the macabre subject matter. Like I said, it's not for all tastes-pun intended-but for a segment of film fans this will be gravy.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Paul Bartel
Starring: Paul Bartel, Mary Woronov, Robert Beltran, Susan Saiger
From: Quartet Films
Wednesday night, I watched this for the first time on TCM, right after the channel showed Freaks, a film I've seen a few times before and reviewed here way back when. I may not do a review at all for the next few days as I may be preoccupied with other things. For now, let me talk about this cult classic:
This was the second movie I saw on Turner Classic Movies Wednesday night as they spent the entire night showing cult classics. It is another film I have known of for many years but I never saw; I did not know more than its basic premise until relatively recently. Turns out, it's a pretty funny dark comedy, and one that feels still relevant today, especially the opening, which highlights how such beliefs as self-indulgence and self-gratification are bad, a message I wish more Americans would have received long ago.
Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov play characters named Paul and Mary; they are Mr. and Mrs. Bland, a couple with an appropriate surname. They are squares straight out of the 60's, and stick out in the wild and woolly 1980's. They wish to open a restaurant out in the country but run into trouble after dealing with real A-holes. They stumble upon the idea to kill swingers and people who are real sleazebags. Things are complicated when the titular Raoul shows up and butts his way into their lives.
Things are quite deadpan throughout, there are obvious tonal shifts and not every aspect works. Yet, this was a passion project, done incrementally for an entire year; all its successes for failures is on the shoulders of director/star/co-writer Bartel. While I understand those that don't care for the movie, I say that its flaws give it character, and make it unique. Certainly, a darkly humorous tale involving the murder of skeevy people by people stuck in the past who end up changing into the type of individuals they so strongly dislike, and the kills are straight from a cartoon and are not the tremendously bloody affairs that they naturally would be,.. it definitely stands out. I won't spoil all the surprises the movie has, but there's not only a small appearance from The Real Don Steele, there's also a song from Los Lobos, a half-decade before they became famous.
Bartel and Woronov worked very well together and the fact that they were so enjoyable playing out of touch people helped make this a fun watch despite the macabre subject matter. Like I said, it's not for all tastes-pun intended-but for a segment of film fans this will be gravy.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
The Racket
The Racket (1928)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost, G. Pat Collins, George E. Stone
From: Paramount
This is a random silent film I saw last night on TCM, and thankfully it was worth seeing, even if I wouldn't rate it as “great”. I say a few words about it below:
It's been awhile since I've watched a silent film so I decided I should take advantage of TCM showing some films of Louis Wolheim, who is best known for playing Kat in All Quiet on the Western Front. Here, he played the mobster villain. This is like a precursor to the gangster movies of the early 1930's; it's not as great as them but this is still entertaining. And yes, it was remade into a 1951 film starring Robert Mitchum.
The story is basic: an idealistic cop (Thomas Meighan) wishes to take out the bootlegging gangster villain Scarsi, but Scarsi has paid off the prosecutor and various cops, so the task is pretty difficult and he has to find other ways to get the task done. There are the expected shootouts but for a silent, it's rather wordy. I mean, the title cards have plenty of dialogue. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise considering this was the dying days of the silent before “the talkies” fully took over.
This film was feared lost for decades, a sad fate that many silent movies have faced. However, Howard Hughes was the producer and after his death, it was discovered that he had the only print hidden in his vault; that is a very Howard Hughes thing to do. It was restored and I am glad this was saved, as like I said I was entertained.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost, G. Pat Collins, George E. Stone
From: Paramount
This is a random silent film I saw last night on TCM, and thankfully it was worth seeing, even if I wouldn't rate it as “great”. I say a few words about it below:
It's been awhile since I've watched a silent film so I decided I should take advantage of TCM showing some films of Louis Wolheim, who is best known for playing Kat in All Quiet on the Western Front. Here, he played the mobster villain. This is like a precursor to the gangster movies of the early 1930's; it's not as great as them but this is still entertaining. And yes, it was remade into a 1951 film starring Robert Mitchum.
The story is basic: an idealistic cop (Thomas Meighan) wishes to take out the bootlegging gangster villain Scarsi, but Scarsi has paid off the prosecutor and various cops, so the task is pretty difficult and he has to find other ways to get the task done. There are the expected shootouts but for a silent, it's rather wordy. I mean, the title cards have plenty of dialogue. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise considering this was the dying days of the silent before “the talkies” fully took over.
This film was feared lost for decades, a sad fate that many silent movies have faced. However, Howard Hughes was the producer and after his death, it was discovered that he had the only print hidden in his vault; that is a very Howard Hughes thing to do. It was restored and I am glad this was saved, as like I said I was entertained.
Monday, June 19, 2017
The Assignment
The Assignment (2016)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Walter Hill
Starring: Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shaloub, Anthony LaPaglia, Caitlin Gerard
From: SBS Films
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Walter Hill
Starring: Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shaloub, Anthony LaPaglia, Caitlin Gerard
From: SBS Films
This movie... it may sound outrageous on the surface but boy is it not a lot of fun to watch. I explain why below:
This assignment, I give it... a failing grade.
If I did one line reviews, this is what I would say. As that is not my style, I'll explain more why this really did not work for me. Ever since I first heard about this movie a few years ago (back when it was first announced) I knew that it wasn't the best of ideas in this day and age. I mean, this is a film set in modern times where a mad doctor character-yes, really-performs an unwilling sex change operation on a hitman and the now hitwoman is looking for revenge. Naturally, a segment of people would not be happy with that, and indeed they were not. But, despite all the bad things I had heard (including all the previous titles this had: Tomboy, Tomboy: A Revenger's Tale and (Re)assignment), I wanted to give it a shot. While I haven't seen all of the movies that Walter Hill has directed, the ones I've seen I have all thought they were at least good. That streak was broken in spectacular fashion.
Like I said, this is about a hitman named FRANK KITCHEN (which at least is acknowledged as a fake name) who runs afoul of some people, and mad doctor Sigourney Weaver performs the sex change, and the character now known as Tomboy is looking for revenge. Note that playing both Frank and Tomboy was Michelle Rodriguez. Yes. Frank wears a beard, and a bearded Michelle Rodriguez is absolutely preposterous and impossible to take seriously. Even worse, they went for shock value by showing Frank take a shower, and Michelle was a hairy dude, and you saw his penis! Her being hairy with a prosthetic wanger likely will get a few people's rocks off, but for everyone else it will inspire much laughter.
The worst sin of all: this movie is incredibly boring. I am not a member of the trans* community as I am a heterosexual white male but my personal tastes were not offended. I was more offended by how pointless the whole thing was. The sex change doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's just a cheap gimmick. The original story was from the late 70's, and it was far different: the surgery happened on a young punk who killed a surgeon's wife, and he did it as revenge, but the now woman is still killing people. That sounds more interesting than what we got here.
Hell, imagine if a movie from Hong Kong, South Korea, or Japan did the same premise. It wouldn't be politically correct but it'd be lunacy and definitely entertaining. Instead, this was a slog to get through as it was amazingly dull. It looks very cheap, and the CG blood was not realistic in the slightest. What action we do get was as basic and uncreative as possible; John Wick, Frank/Tomboy was not.
Even though I did get those unintended laughs and the cast had some other names I recognized (like Tony Shaloub and Anthony LaPaglia), no way could I ever recommend this. There are plenty of Walter Hill flicks to see for the first time or watch again before you watch this cinematic Ambien, where its premise is squandered-for example, Tomboy only uses her newfound feminine sexuality to her advantage once-and the movie is not as smart as it likes to think it is. Weaver being “wise” by quoting Shakespeare and Poe doesn't impress me much. Neither did the same comic book transitions that ruined the Director's Cut of The Warriors that regrettably is the easiest version of the cult classic to track down and watch. The nonlinear storytelling did not do anything to improve the bland plot either. Watch a Hill film like The Driver or 48 Hrs. instead.
An American Werewolf In London
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: John Landis
Starring: David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne, John Woodvine, Lila Kaye
From: PolyGram
I hadn't seen this in a very long time. I was happy to revisit it on Saturday night. Peep the details below:
Remember how I said on Friday in my last review that I would be gone for a few days due to an Internet issue?
I lied.
Actually, that's being too harsh. Early on Saturday, my cable provider (also my Internet provider) was called and they suggested that it was the router which was the issue. Well, they were right. It was very old anyhow so it was time to replace it. Clearly, the nearby lightning strike screwed it up; I am thankful that nothing else electronic was affected. Anyhow, the new router is great and performs far better than the old one. But onto the review...
This is another one of those films that I had seen before, but the last viewing was many years ago. I remembered it as being very good, and after last night I still feel that way. I imagine most have seen this too so I don't need to spent too much time recapping the plot of what happens to backpackers David and Jack in England. I will say that this movie manages to blend sadness, comedy, and horror together very well. As the movie takes its time and the infamous transformation-still utterly horrifying 36 years later-doesn't happen until an hour in, you have time to know all the major characters and by the final act, you feel very awful for David, especially when he realizes that he is in the twilight of his short life and he has become resigned to his fate... that's pathos. There are darkly humorous moments, which contrasts with the horror beats and all the gory moments. Seeing your undead friend a few times, and he is gradually decomposing... it's probably all three.
There are rumors that there will be a remake, and as it's modern Hollywood, I have zero faith it'll be any good. And that's even with Max Landis attached, who is a pretty awful human being but not a bad screenwriter and you'd hope he would want to do a great version of his dad's movie. I know the transformation would happen within the first half hour, the humor wouldn't be as funny (and heavens knows, the dark discussion about how David should kill himself wouldn't be there), the joke of having several Moon songs on the soundtrack-including three classic renditions of Blue Moon-would be gone... the incredible Rick Baker effects would be replaced by CG that would look atrocious in comparison and hell, there'd probably be a remake of Blue Moon by some talentless schlubs like Imagine Dragons, Lana Del Rey, D.R.A.M., Lil Yachty... hell, they'd probably all collaborate together for a true contender for the worst popular music song of the 21st century.
But anyway... even today people argue over if this or The Howling is “the best” werewolf movie; I say this is a little better but both definitely should be watched. I understand those that prefer Howling due to them not like AWIL's humor or how it is oddly paced. To think that they came out within 6 months of one another. Besides those two and the Lon Chaney The Wolf Man, there's plenty of arguing over which ones are the next best; there's certainly a consensus in that there are plenty of terrible werewolf flicks out there and who knows how many more years it'll be until we get another classic. If Universal's disastrous Dark Universe actually continues, I have already designated their Wolf Man to not be a classic. Sigh... at least this movie will always be around for people to watch.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: John Landis
Starring: David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne, John Woodvine, Lila Kaye
From: PolyGram
I hadn't seen this in a very long time. I was happy to revisit it on Saturday night. Peep the details below:
Remember how I said on Friday in my last review that I would be gone for a few days due to an Internet issue?
I lied.
Actually, that's being too harsh. Early on Saturday, my cable provider (also my Internet provider) was called and they suggested that it was the router which was the issue. Well, they were right. It was very old anyhow so it was time to replace it. Clearly, the nearby lightning strike screwed it up; I am thankful that nothing else electronic was affected. Anyhow, the new router is great and performs far better than the old one. But onto the review...
This is another one of those films that I had seen before, but the last viewing was many years ago. I remembered it as being very good, and after last night I still feel that way. I imagine most have seen this too so I don't need to spent too much time recapping the plot of what happens to backpackers David and Jack in England. I will say that this movie manages to blend sadness, comedy, and horror together very well. As the movie takes its time and the infamous transformation-still utterly horrifying 36 years later-doesn't happen until an hour in, you have time to know all the major characters and by the final act, you feel very awful for David, especially when he realizes that he is in the twilight of his short life and he has become resigned to his fate... that's pathos. There are darkly humorous moments, which contrasts with the horror beats and all the gory moments. Seeing your undead friend a few times, and he is gradually decomposing... it's probably all three.
There are rumors that there will be a remake, and as it's modern Hollywood, I have zero faith it'll be any good. And that's even with Max Landis attached, who is a pretty awful human being but not a bad screenwriter and you'd hope he would want to do a great version of his dad's movie. I know the transformation would happen within the first half hour, the humor wouldn't be as funny (and heavens knows, the dark discussion about how David should kill himself wouldn't be there), the joke of having several Moon songs on the soundtrack-including three classic renditions of Blue Moon-would be gone... the incredible Rick Baker effects would be replaced by CG that would look atrocious in comparison and hell, there'd probably be a remake of Blue Moon by some talentless schlubs like Imagine Dragons, Lana Del Rey, D.R.A.M., Lil Yachty... hell, they'd probably all collaborate together for a true contender for the worst popular music song of the 21st century.
But anyway... even today people argue over if this or The Howling is “the best” werewolf movie; I say this is a little better but both definitely should be watched. I understand those that prefer Howling due to them not like AWIL's humor or how it is oddly paced. To think that they came out within 6 months of one another. Besides those two and the Lon Chaney The Wolf Man, there's plenty of arguing over which ones are the next best; there's certainly a consensus in that there are plenty of terrible werewolf flicks out there and who knows how many more years it'll be until we get another classic. If Universal's disastrous Dark Universe actually continues, I have already designated their Wolf Man to not be a classic. Sigh... at least this movie will always be around for people to watch.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Black Magic
Black Magic (Jiang Tou) (1975)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Ho Meng-Hua
Starring: Ti Lung, Tanny Tien, Lily Li, Ku Feng, Lo Lieh
From: Shaw Brothers
It's been far too long since I had seen some Shaw Brothers; this is unique in that it's a 1970's horror film set in the 1970's. It's greatly 70's, which of course I love. Read all the details below:
Last night I realized that once again, it's been far too long since I've seen a Shaw Brothers movie. Many of them can legally be seen online, so I should check them out more often. Naturally, most of those are their bread and butter of period martial arts films. However, they of course dabbled in other genres and yet not a lot of that can legally be rented or streamed for free via Amazon Prime. In the horror genres, films like Seeding of a Ghost and The Boxer's Exile are pretty outrageous (at least from what I hear) so on that front, hiding those is understandable. Thankfully, this movie was available on the usual sites so I saw it via Prime.
This is a mild version of what they would do later in this genre. I say that and this has gross-out moments & magic spells that usually require breast milk as an ingredient-yeah, several women appear topless. Basically, in a modern times setting (meaning, mid 1970's) an evil sorcerer creates various spells and one of them is a love potion (number 9?) that a horrible rich woman wants so a guy she has the hots for will fall in love with her and he would ditch his bride to be. There is also a good wizard who occasionally does battle with the sorcerer; their final confrontation, ooh boy those special effects... “charmingly bad” is how I would describe it. There is even Lo Lieh in a supporting role as a real lout.
As my mind is on other things, I won't continue prattling on about the movie, except that while it's not bugf*** insane as later entries from the studio, it is still a good time and if you enjoy the 1970's milieu in general like I do, you'll enjoy all the wacky wallpaper and clothing on display. I guess I should mention that the score (from Yung-Yu Chen) repeats a familiar motif often yet at times is electronic noise, which does make it intriguing.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Ho Meng-Hua
Starring: Ti Lung, Tanny Tien, Lily Li, Ku Feng, Lo Lieh
From: Shaw Brothers
It's been far too long since I had seen some Shaw Brothers; this is unique in that it's a 1970's horror film set in the 1970's. It's greatly 70's, which of course I love. Read all the details below:
Last night I realized that once again, it's been far too long since I've seen a Shaw Brothers movie. Many of them can legally be seen online, so I should check them out more often. Naturally, most of those are their bread and butter of period martial arts films. However, they of course dabbled in other genres and yet not a lot of that can legally be rented or streamed for free via Amazon Prime. In the horror genres, films like Seeding of a Ghost and The Boxer's Exile are pretty outrageous (at least from what I hear) so on that front, hiding those is understandable. Thankfully, this movie was available on the usual sites so I saw it via Prime.
This is a mild version of what they would do later in this genre. I say that and this has gross-out moments & magic spells that usually require breast milk as an ingredient-yeah, several women appear topless. Basically, in a modern times setting (meaning, mid 1970's) an evil sorcerer creates various spells and one of them is a love potion (number 9?) that a horrible rich woman wants so a guy she has the hots for will fall in love with her and he would ditch his bride to be. There is also a good wizard who occasionally does battle with the sorcerer; their final confrontation, ooh boy those special effects... “charmingly bad” is how I would describe it. There is even Lo Lieh in a supporting role as a real lout.
As my mind is on other things, I won't continue prattling on about the movie, except that while it's not bugf*** insane as later entries from the studio, it is still a good time and if you enjoy the 1970's milieu in general like I do, you'll enjoy all the wacky wallpaper and clothing on display. I guess I should mention that the score (from Yung-Yu Chen) repeats a familiar motif often yet at times is electronic noise, which does make it intriguing.
An Update
Friday, I experienced a problem with my Internet due to a lightning strike right by where I live. Saturday, I discovered it was because the router (which was very old anyhow) went on the fritz after the strike. Thus, I got a new one and it works great.
In the past few days, I rewatched Avatar because that same day I went to the new Avatar section of Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom; it was breathtaking. Tonight I'll post a review and tomorrow I'll post two reviews. After that I'll be call caught up here.
In the past few days, I rewatched Avatar because that same day I went to the new Avatar section of Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom; it was breathtaking. Tonight I'll post a review and tomorrow I'll post two reviews. After that I'll be call caught up here.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Friday The 13th: Part VII: The New Blood
Friday the 13th: Part VII: The New Blood (1988)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: John Carl Buechler
Starring: The typical random names you got in these movies, plus Terry Kiser
From: Paramount
I watched this on Tuesday night, for reasons I explain in the review. I don't rate this too highly; after all, I am not sure where in the lore of telekinesis is the idea that those people also see into the future... ???
As yesterday (June 13) is the canon birthday of Jason Voorhees, what better time than to see a Jason movie I hadn't reviewed here before? That, and the Friday videogame was recently released. I've heard mixed reviews about it, but once I get a modern gaming system years in the future, I know I'll play it. This has never been my favorite in the franchise; it's a shame as part of it was its legendary battle with the MPAA, where TNB got its ass kicked as at the time, the MPAA was real anal about horror movies so all the kills were neutered and the original version was destroyed years ago and it's a darn shame as a rough VHS copy exists of a few deaths and not seeing them on the big screen is a load of hogwash.
Unfortunately, the movie has other issues besides that. The movie basically being Carrie vs. Jason (they tried to do Freddy vs. Jason back then but not too surprisingly, things went awry and what a long and sordid tale it was before the film finally happened) is definitely wacky and something different, but it has always fallen a little flat to me. Sure, Terry Kiser did what he's good at and play a real jerk but him trying to exploit the telekinetic powers of teenager Tina doesn't work like it should. The fact that the other teenagers you see (aside from the amazingly bitchy Melissa) are incredibly bland and forgettable doesn't help either. The acting overall isn't always the best, but aside from Kiser I can say that Lar Park-Lincoln (as Tina) did a nice job. And of course, so did fan favorite Kane Hodder in his debut as Jason.
The final battle between Tina and Jason is pretty cool. I can't complain about the fight where Tina does various things to try and stop the unstoppable zombie killer... until Mr. Voorhees is finally dispatched. Yikes. I know that wasn't how it was originally drawn up, but stupidity led to what we got. I feel bad for director John Carl Buechler; he had done special effects for low-budget horror movies for years, and he directed the first Troll movie. He got a plum job and look at all the nonsense he had to deal with, between a goofy story, the movie being censored to death, and certain people meddling when they shouldn't have. He deserved better.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: John Carl Buechler
Starring: The typical random names you got in these movies, plus Terry Kiser
From: Paramount
I watched this on Tuesday night, for reasons I explain in the review. I don't rate this too highly; after all, I am not sure where in the lore of telekinesis is the idea that those people also see into the future... ???
As yesterday (June 13) is the canon birthday of Jason Voorhees, what better time than to see a Jason movie I hadn't reviewed here before? That, and the Friday videogame was recently released. I've heard mixed reviews about it, but once I get a modern gaming system years in the future, I know I'll play it. This has never been my favorite in the franchise; it's a shame as part of it was its legendary battle with the MPAA, where TNB got its ass kicked as at the time, the MPAA was real anal about horror movies so all the kills were neutered and the original version was destroyed years ago and it's a darn shame as a rough VHS copy exists of a few deaths and not seeing them on the big screen is a load of hogwash.
Unfortunately, the movie has other issues besides that. The movie basically being Carrie vs. Jason (they tried to do Freddy vs. Jason back then but not too surprisingly, things went awry and what a long and sordid tale it was before the film finally happened) is definitely wacky and something different, but it has always fallen a little flat to me. Sure, Terry Kiser did what he's good at and play a real jerk but him trying to exploit the telekinetic powers of teenager Tina doesn't work like it should. The fact that the other teenagers you see (aside from the amazingly bitchy Melissa) are incredibly bland and forgettable doesn't help either. The acting overall isn't always the best, but aside from Kiser I can say that Lar Park-Lincoln (as Tina) did a nice job. And of course, so did fan favorite Kane Hodder in his debut as Jason.
The final battle between Tina and Jason is pretty cool. I can't complain about the fight where Tina does various things to try and stop the unstoppable zombie killer... until Mr. Voorhees is finally dispatched. Yikes. I know that wasn't how it was originally drawn up, but stupidity led to what we got. I feel bad for director John Carl Buechler; he had done special effects for low-budget horror movies for years, and he directed the first Troll movie. He got a plum job and look at all the nonsense he had to deal with, between a goofy story, the movie being censored to death, and certain people meddling when they shouldn't have. He deserved better.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Two Thousand Maniacs!
Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Herschell Gordon Lewis
Starring: Connie Mason, William Kerwin, Jeffrey Allen, Shelby Livingston, Ben Moore
From: Friedman-Lewis Productions
I've seen this charming (well, at least in terms of splatter flicks) movie before, but it was time for me to finally give this a proper review, which I did below:
In the past I've seen both this and its remake (2005's 2001 Maniacs) and while the latter was alright, it did not have the charm that this did, one of the first gory films, definitely low-budget and definitely filled with over-acting, but simply fun to watch.
The plot has a town in the South of the United States getting revenge on “the Yankees” from the northern part of the U.S.; I presume most know about the American Civil War and what it was about so I'll spare those details, but that town is celebrating the centennial... of the town being wiped off the map by the North. A wacky plot twist at the end explains all this. Anyhow, the townspeople raise hell on two carloads of people (six people total) and what inventive ways they have of bloody murder.
The movie is pretty silly, is filled with broad stereotypes, is grating at times and boy does it ever run out of gas in the third act... once you hear the opening/closing credits song-a tremendous banjo tune called The South is Gonna Rise Again-and you see those people killed in increasingly wild and over the top ways, I personally say that this picture is fine. It does deliver the splatter goodness that shocked people back then and now can be admired for its charms.
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Herschell Gordon Lewis
Starring: Connie Mason, William Kerwin, Jeffrey Allen, Shelby Livingston, Ben Moore
From: Friedman-Lewis Productions
I've seen this charming (well, at least in terms of splatter flicks) movie before, but it was time for me to finally give this a proper review, which I did below:
In the past I've seen both this and its remake (2005's 2001 Maniacs) and while the latter was alright, it did not have the charm that this did, one of the first gory films, definitely low-budget and definitely filled with over-acting, but simply fun to watch.
The plot has a town in the South of the United States getting revenge on “the Yankees” from the northern part of the U.S.; I presume most know about the American Civil War and what it was about so I'll spare those details, but that town is celebrating the centennial... of the town being wiped off the map by the North. A wacky plot twist at the end explains all this. Anyhow, the townspeople raise hell on two carloads of people (six people total) and what inventive ways they have of bloody murder.
The movie is pretty silly, is filled with broad stereotypes, is grating at times and boy does it ever run out of gas in the third act... once you hear the opening/closing credits song-a tremendous banjo tune called The South is Gonna Rise Again-and you see those people killed in increasingly wild and over the top ways, I personally say that this picture is fine. It does deliver the splatter goodness that shocked people back then and now can be admired for its charms.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Foxbat
Foxbat (Woo Fook... yes, that was its original title) (1977)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Po-Chih Leong... and Terence Young
Starring: Henry Silva, Vonetta McGee, Rik Van Nutter, Roy Chiao, James Yi Lui
From: Bang Bang Film Productions
What a movie this was; I could have written a lot more about it but I figured I shouldn't be so long-winded. Hopefully I've explained enough as to why this movie is so off the wall:
This is yet another movie I had never even heard of before I stumbled upon it while browsing on Amazon Prime. The cast and the daffy plot description Amazon provided piqued my interest. And at least a small amount of the movie was directed by Terence Young; yes, the director of Thunderball and From Russia With Love.
Here's what Amazon said about it: “Veteran James Bond director Terence Young helped direct this actioner that has several agents and bad guys going after a Hong Kong chef who swallowed a microfilm (thinking it was candy) that contains top secret blueprints for new stealth jet fighter the Foxbat, that Henry Silva took photos of with a camera hidden in his left eyeball!”
I read that and I wondered “what in the hell is this?” After seeing the movie, I am really asking it... something got lost in translation here, or maybe a lot was edited out. What a weird, random movie filled with weird random things. The general story isn't hard to follow once it gets going, but it's filled with a lot of strange moments. Henry Silva is a CIA agent who goes rogue after he took those eyeball photos in Japan after that MiG 25 randomly lands there, then he randomly goes to Hong Kong to sell those photos to the highest bidder, before that chef mucked things up, and now several different people are out for the chef.
Before I give examples, I'll explain that this movie was originally titled WOO FOOK (no, really) but its American title is Foxbat because that was the NATO name for the Soviet aircraft whose plans everyone wants; it's officially known as the MiG 25, and it was a hell of an airplane at the time. Now, let me list some examples of the kookiness I saw last night:
* Silva has a fake eyeball that takes pictures and is pretty much the predecessor to Rhona Mitra's fake eyeball in Doomsday.
* He also has a fight with a sumo wrestler. He is normal-sized and not gigantic like, say, Akebono, but he was tougher than Red Grant so Silva got his ass kicked.
* A disco fashion show
* Roy Chiao is DOCTOR VOD, an expert in mind control
*“CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia” is shown as three tall office buildings, probably in Los Angeles
* Silva fights two thugs and unfortunately, afterwards refer to them as a homophobic slur
* That Hong Kong chef is wacky, and it's proven in its introduction... he teaches cooking to American women in Hong Kong and his big advice to them is an acronym, and that acronym is PISS
*There are entire scenes that aren't dubbed into English; I don't know if they were supposed to be or not
Then, there's the interesting setpieces this has, from normal scenes to ones that are action-oriented. Much of the movie takes place in Hong Kong and it was interesting for me to see that area in its late 70's glory, and
Oh, and the movie was an obvious VHS rip; the opening frame is black but you can faintly see something I remember well from my youth, the display that pops up on your TV when you start playing a VHS tape. If it wasn't for that, it being in fullscreen and there being occasional tracking problems would make that obvious to me.
Oh, and most of the movie was directed by Po-Chih Leong, who did various films in his native Hong Kong (including some with Chow-Yun Fat) and he did 2006's The Detonator, a Wesley Snipes joint I know nothing about, but in 2004 he actually directed one of Steven Seagal's many DTV films. It was Out of Reach, which I've never seen but it has what sounds like a screwy plot too. After all, he discovers that his teenage girl penpal is actually kidnapped and involved in human trafficking, and I understand it's just as nonsensical as most of his 21st century work.
Like I said, what a baffling movie... which still has its entertaining moments and some nice action beats. I guess rating it as average is the way to go. One day I should perhaps track down the widescreen release that Code Red put out, and at least that would be a better way of seeing this zaniness.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Po-Chih Leong... and Terence Young
Starring: Henry Silva, Vonetta McGee, Rik Van Nutter, Roy Chiao, James Yi Lui
From: Bang Bang Film Productions
What a movie this was; I could have written a lot more about it but I figured I shouldn't be so long-winded. Hopefully I've explained enough as to why this movie is so off the wall:
This is yet another movie I had never even heard of before I stumbled upon it while browsing on Amazon Prime. The cast and the daffy plot description Amazon provided piqued my interest. And at least a small amount of the movie was directed by Terence Young; yes, the director of Thunderball and From Russia With Love.
Here's what Amazon said about it: “Veteran James Bond director Terence Young helped direct this actioner that has several agents and bad guys going after a Hong Kong chef who swallowed a microfilm (thinking it was candy) that contains top secret blueprints for new stealth jet fighter the Foxbat, that Henry Silva took photos of with a camera hidden in his left eyeball!”
I read that and I wondered “what in the hell is this?” After seeing the movie, I am really asking it... something got lost in translation here, or maybe a lot was edited out. What a weird, random movie filled with weird random things. The general story isn't hard to follow once it gets going, but it's filled with a lot of strange moments. Henry Silva is a CIA agent who goes rogue after he took those eyeball photos in Japan after that MiG 25 randomly lands there, then he randomly goes to Hong Kong to sell those photos to the highest bidder, before that chef mucked things up, and now several different people are out for the chef.
Before I give examples, I'll explain that this movie was originally titled WOO FOOK (no, really) but its American title is Foxbat because that was the NATO name for the Soviet aircraft whose plans everyone wants; it's officially known as the MiG 25, and it was a hell of an airplane at the time. Now, let me list some examples of the kookiness I saw last night:
* Silva has a fake eyeball that takes pictures and is pretty much the predecessor to Rhona Mitra's fake eyeball in Doomsday.
* He also has a fight with a sumo wrestler. He is normal-sized and not gigantic like, say, Akebono, but he was tougher than Red Grant so Silva got his ass kicked.
* A disco fashion show
* Roy Chiao is DOCTOR VOD, an expert in mind control
*“CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia” is shown as three tall office buildings, probably in Los Angeles
* Silva fights two thugs and unfortunately, afterwards refer to them as a homophobic slur
* That Hong Kong chef is wacky, and it's proven in its introduction... he teaches cooking to American women in Hong Kong and his big advice to them is an acronym, and that acronym is PISS
*There are entire scenes that aren't dubbed into English; I don't know if they were supposed to be or not
Then, there's the interesting setpieces this has, from normal scenes to ones that are action-oriented. Much of the movie takes place in Hong Kong and it was interesting for me to see that area in its late 70's glory, and
Oh, and the movie was an obvious VHS rip; the opening frame is black but you can faintly see something I remember well from my youth, the display that pops up on your TV when you start playing a VHS tape. If it wasn't for that, it being in fullscreen and there being occasional tracking problems would make that obvious to me.
Oh, and most of the movie was directed by Po-Chih Leong, who did various films in his native Hong Kong (including some with Chow-Yun Fat) and he did 2006's The Detonator, a Wesley Snipes joint I know nothing about, but in 2004 he actually directed one of Steven Seagal's many DTV films. It was Out of Reach, which I've never seen but it has what sounds like a screwy plot too. After all, he discovers that his teenage girl penpal is actually kidnapped and involved in human trafficking, and I understand it's just as nonsensical as most of his 21st century work.
Like I said, what a baffling movie... which still has its entertaining moments and some nice action beats. I guess rating it as average is the way to go. One day I should perhaps track down the widescreen release that Code Red put out, and at least that would be a better way of seeing this zaniness.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Soylent Green
Soylent Green (1973)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Richard Fleischer
Starring: Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young, Edward G. Robinson, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters
From: MGM
Man, what a bleak movie this is... and as a kid I learned what the shocking twist of this movie was. At least I can still say it's good, as I explain below:
This was a random watch last night; I figured I should see something different, a film that I had never seen before. Now, I don't know about “this generation”, but in the past, the big mystery of what Soylent Green was (it is food made in the dystopian future this movie is set in) was more well-known and while not ideal, I had heard many years ago the big M Night-like plot twist this film has. I won't reveal it for those that don't know already.
This is a combination police procedural and sci-fi picture; Charlton Heston is Frank Thorn, a police detective who has the misfortune of living in New York City, 2022... it has been a common theme in science fiction for decades now but the world of the future is pretty miserable due to people of the current era F'ing up the environment; in this case, it was because of pollution. The greenhouse effect has taken place-in the daytime, there's a constant haze in the air-and thus for most people the world sucks. It's hot all the time, resources are depleted, most food is processed foodstuffs such as wafers (made by the ubiquitous Soylent Corporation) and such things as running water and paper are unobtainable luxuries for all but only a tiny segment of rich people in an otherwise overcrowded hellhole New York City, where this is set. Not that such a fate could possibly strike us in our 2022, only a few years away...
(looks into camera like I am in The Office)
Anyhow, Thorn investigates the murder of Simonson (Joseph Cotten), a very wealthy man who is connected with Soylent. It ends up being a paranoid conspiracy thriller thing as the murder is tied to something pretty big. Thorn is occasionally helped by a wise old friend he has, Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson in his last film role; he died mere days after filming ended) and there's also Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young), Simonson's concubine. Thorn takes a shine to her, which is understandable as she lives in nice digs and also, there is her appearance...
I was amused at how gruff Frank acted throughout. It is understandable considering the state of that world but he happily steals items from rich people, drinks their drinks, takes a puff from their cigarettes... like I said, I was amused. I especially laughed at a “Well, THAT escalated quickly” moment involving Thorn. I was glad I could laugh at that or especially “The Scoops” because otherwise this was a bleak movie to watch. Seeing all those people live in such bad conditions did make me feel sad, and knowing that in our 2017, the world has plenty of problems, from the environment being screwed up to The Other 98% to everything else; this is not as far-fetched as it was back in 1973. Then, there's how Robinson had terminal cancer yet he was able to hide it and no one else knew. It was a nice performance from him, although his last scene ended up being sadder than what was planned.
I can say there was nice world-building that happened; you were able to see just how bad things were. The few times you got to see the 2% of this universe, it was the typical groovy 70's view of how the future would be, which is something I am always charmed by. Otherwise, it was like a terrible version of the early 70's, which is understandable if things suddenly went to hell. This film does not rise about being good and there is definitely 1970's sexism present. Yet, I can still say that this is good and I am glad I finally saw this... even if I did feel a little depressed afterwards.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Richard Fleischer
Starring: Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young, Edward G. Robinson, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters
From: MGM
Man, what a bleak movie this is... and as a kid I learned what the shocking twist of this movie was. At least I can still say it's good, as I explain below:
This was a random watch last night; I figured I should see something different, a film that I had never seen before. Now, I don't know about “this generation”, but in the past, the big mystery of what Soylent Green was (it is food made in the dystopian future this movie is set in) was more well-known and while not ideal, I had heard many years ago the big M Night-like plot twist this film has. I won't reveal it for those that don't know already.
This is a combination police procedural and sci-fi picture; Charlton Heston is Frank Thorn, a police detective who has the misfortune of living in New York City, 2022... it has been a common theme in science fiction for decades now but the world of the future is pretty miserable due to people of the current era F'ing up the environment; in this case, it was because of pollution. The greenhouse effect has taken place-in the daytime, there's a constant haze in the air-and thus for most people the world sucks. It's hot all the time, resources are depleted, most food is processed foodstuffs such as wafers (made by the ubiquitous Soylent Corporation) and such things as running water and paper are unobtainable luxuries for all but only a tiny segment of rich people in an otherwise overcrowded hellhole New York City, where this is set. Not that such a fate could possibly strike us in our 2022, only a few years away...
(looks into camera like I am in The Office)
Anyhow, Thorn investigates the murder of Simonson (Joseph Cotten), a very wealthy man who is connected with Soylent. It ends up being a paranoid conspiracy thriller thing as the murder is tied to something pretty big. Thorn is occasionally helped by a wise old friend he has, Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson in his last film role; he died mere days after filming ended) and there's also Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young), Simonson's concubine. Thorn takes a shine to her, which is understandable as she lives in nice digs and also, there is her appearance...
I was amused at how gruff Frank acted throughout. It is understandable considering the state of that world but he happily steals items from rich people, drinks their drinks, takes a puff from their cigarettes... like I said, I was amused. I especially laughed at a “Well, THAT escalated quickly” moment involving Thorn. I was glad I could laugh at that or especially “The Scoops” because otherwise this was a bleak movie to watch. Seeing all those people live in such bad conditions did make me feel sad, and knowing that in our 2017, the world has plenty of problems, from the environment being screwed up to The Other 98% to everything else; this is not as far-fetched as it was back in 1973. Then, there's how Robinson had terminal cancer yet he was able to hide it and no one else knew. It was a nice performance from him, although his last scene ended up being sadder than what was planned.
I can say there was nice world-building that happened; you were able to see just how bad things were. The few times you got to see the 2% of this universe, it was the typical groovy 70's view of how the future would be, which is something I am always charmed by. Otherwise, it was like a terrible version of the early 70's, which is understandable if things suddenly went to hell. This film does not rise about being good and there is definitely 1970's sexism present. Yet, I can still say that this is good and I am glad I finally saw this... even if I did feel a little depressed afterwards.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Hot To Trot
Hot to Trot (1988)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Michael Dinner
Starring: Bobcat Goldthwait, Dabney Coleman, Virginia Madsen, Jim Metzler & the voice of John Candy
From: Warner Bros.
Thursday night I saw this movie; it was something I had seen as a youth, meaning “many years ago”. Maybe it's nostalgia but I'll say this is OK. See why below:
The funniest moment of this movie: seeing that one of the writers of the script was named Stephen Neigher. Yes, NEIGHer; this was really his destiny.
This is another movie I saw in my childhood (more than once, in fact) and the last time I viewed it was many years ago so I figured it was about time I gave it a new viewing and see what my opinion is as an adult. I discovered that this is technically not a good movie, but it's so goofy and dopey, I can't get too mad at it, so I'll say it is average.
After all, it's a talking horse movie where that horse (named Don and voiced by John Candy; I understand it was originally voiced by Elliot Gould but test audiences hated the movie so Candy was brought in, where he ad-libbed all of his lines) helps Bobcat Goldthwait-acting exactly like how you'd expect him to act in an 80's film-with his work at a brokerage firm as he does battle with his stepdad Dabney Coleman (wearing fake buck teeth) and Don is his late mom's horse. There are also plenty of unexpected moments but I've given the basic story.
Like I said this movie is pretty dumb but I can't get too mad at it. I say that and as it was a PG movie in the late 80's and things hadn't changed yet despite PG-13 being around for a few years, there was more cursing than I remembered, several ribald lines and even a comment from Don about a horse with a Hispanic name not having a green card! The 80's were a weird time, man... you even get to see Bobcat act like a yuppie. He doesn't plow through a mountain of drugs like Jordan Belfort and Donnie Azoff did, but I guess it can be presumed... and it would explain the manic personality of his character.
Then again, there were times that I did laugh, there is such wackiness as Burgess Meredith voicing Don's dad, there's a talking horsefly, and if you like horses, of course you'll enjoy seeing all of them and the things that Don does, such as sitting on a couch and drinking a pitcher of Tab... again, the 80's were a weird time. There's also vintage Virginia Madsen, which I know will be appealing to some. Coleman was great at playing scumbag bosses, so no surprise he did fine here, even with the fake teeth. There is also the hilarity of how Bobcat gets his big break at the firm by Don calling him (we don't see him dialing a phone, unfortunately) about information he overheard about a business acquisition... yes, Don and his new pal just committed insider trading and the movie totally glosses over it and acts like this is a legal thing for stockbrokers to do. I can't believe I watched something like this as a kid, either.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Michael Dinner
Starring: Bobcat Goldthwait, Dabney Coleman, Virginia Madsen, Jim Metzler & the voice of John Candy
From: Warner Bros.
Thursday night I saw this movie; it was something I had seen as a youth, meaning “many years ago”. Maybe it's nostalgia but I'll say this is OK. See why below:
The funniest moment of this movie: seeing that one of the writers of the script was named Stephen Neigher. Yes, NEIGHer; this was really his destiny.
This is another movie I saw in my childhood (more than once, in fact) and the last time I viewed it was many years ago so I figured it was about time I gave it a new viewing and see what my opinion is as an adult. I discovered that this is technically not a good movie, but it's so goofy and dopey, I can't get too mad at it, so I'll say it is average.
After all, it's a talking horse movie where that horse (named Don and voiced by John Candy; I understand it was originally voiced by Elliot Gould but test audiences hated the movie so Candy was brought in, where he ad-libbed all of his lines) helps Bobcat Goldthwait-acting exactly like how you'd expect him to act in an 80's film-with his work at a brokerage firm as he does battle with his stepdad Dabney Coleman (wearing fake buck teeth) and Don is his late mom's horse. There are also plenty of unexpected moments but I've given the basic story.
Like I said this movie is pretty dumb but I can't get too mad at it. I say that and as it was a PG movie in the late 80's and things hadn't changed yet despite PG-13 being around for a few years, there was more cursing than I remembered, several ribald lines and even a comment from Don about a horse with a Hispanic name not having a green card! The 80's were a weird time, man... you even get to see Bobcat act like a yuppie. He doesn't plow through a mountain of drugs like Jordan Belfort and Donnie Azoff did, but I guess it can be presumed... and it would explain the manic personality of his character.
Then again, there were times that I did laugh, there is such wackiness as Burgess Meredith voicing Don's dad, there's a talking horsefly, and if you like horses, of course you'll enjoy seeing all of them and the things that Don does, such as sitting on a couch and drinking a pitcher of Tab... again, the 80's were a weird time. There's also vintage Virginia Madsen, which I know will be appealing to some. Coleman was great at playing scumbag bosses, so no surprise he did fine here, even with the fake teeth. There is also the hilarity of how Bobcat gets his big break at the firm by Don calling him (we don't see him dialing a phone, unfortunately) about information he overheard about a business acquisition... yes, Don and his new pal just committed insider trading and the movie totally glosses over it and acts like this is a legal thing for stockbrokers to do. I can't believe I watched something like this as a kid, either.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Siren
Siren (2016)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Gregg Bishop
Starring: Chase Williamson, Hannah Fierman, Justin Welborn, Hayes Mercure, Michael Aaron Milligan
From: Several low-budget companies
I saw this horror movie last night; it was average, as I'll explain below... by the way, if you ever do see this, you'll understand why it's called “Siren”.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Gregg Bishop
Starring: Chase Williamson, Hannah Fierman, Justin Welborn, Hayes Mercure, Michael Aaron Milligan
From: Several low-budget companies
I saw this horror movie last night; it was average, as I'll explain below... by the way, if you ever do see this, you'll understand why it's called “Siren”.
I figured it was about time I saw this; I've seen V/H/S twice before, and the second time was so I could remember Amateur Night, a segment (a rare segment in the whole franchise that wasn't awful) which featured Hannah Fierman as Lily, a character who meets up with three young men in New Orleans and the men are horndog tools and it turns out that Lily... well, the men regret meeting up with her. This movie also features Fierman as Lily, and as I know it will matter to people, unlike the V/H/S movies, this is NOT found footage.
This story has some goofballs getting together for a bachelor party and as the biggest douche of the group said, they should have driven down to Tampa, Florida and visit one of a plethora of strip clubs they have down there (I live in Florida, but I've never been to one of those places... at least not in Tampa...); instead they go to the fictitious Garden City, Georgia, which is not exactly Paradise City... then they meet up with a weird dude, who takes them to a bizarre place in the middle of nowhere, and among other things, they also meet up with Lily.
The movie is not great but at least it's not unwatchable crap, as it very well could have been. The story greatly expands the mythology presented in Amateur Night (thus it's not required viewing before you see this, plus you'll be surprised once this film reveals what Lily is) and a lot is left unexplained-ambiguity is fine but in this case, some of it really needed to be explained as otherwise it came off as contrived-and some of it is really goofy. Oh, and as expected in a low-budget production, some of the CG doesn't look too great. Yet, at least I can say this is average. As in Amateur Night, Fierman did a swell job in her role. There are some real entertaining moments and there is some CG gore too. While I called those guys goofballs, at least they weren't complete asshats like the guys in the V/H/S segment.
In short, if you had to suffer through the first V/H/S but enjoyed Amateur Night, you might as well watch this too as you likely won't think it's bad. As an aside, I'll mention the strangest moment I had in a strip club; I won't name where it was but it was almost 10 years ago. A young lady danced to... MR. ROBOTO. Yes, the whole song, including the long intro. It was as incredible as it sounds.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Wonder Woman
Wonder Woman (2017)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 268 reviews)
Eh, I am sure you know all the details by now
I have a lot to say about this movie; yes, I did go and see it last night despite my still not being a fan of the genre in general. I don't love this but it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, as I explained below:
NOTE: This will be one of the lengthier reviews from me. Also, as I've said often I am not a comic book/superhero fan in general so my rating does reflect that and if you are a fan of the genre, you should rate this higher.
As I saw a new Marvel movie last month, it's fair that I see a DC entry also in 2017. In other reviews I've noted that I haven't seen too many comic book films in the 21st century, as they don't do much for me. Until this year, the last Marvel one I saw was Iron Man 2 (which I thought was crap) and the last DC one was The Dark Knight Rises (which I also thought was crap) and in the future, I'll do new proper reviews of the ones that I have seen and I'll explain why I liked or did not like them. I haven't even bothered with any of the previous films in this new DCEU; I haven't watched the Marvel ones due to apathy but the DCEU I've heard a lot of dire things about. From various reliable people and detailed reviews, they just sound like absolute messes, totally confused where obvious post-production meddling made things even worse and the iconic characters seem totally different to how they were presented on page.
I was glad to hear that there was finally a worthwhile movie in that universe and it's not yet another expensive boondoggle. Of course it's also nice that this iconic character finally got a movie of her own after all of these years and it's something that women can enjoy, a film from their perspective. I do have to laugh that some men have been dudebros about it... the controversy over one Alamo Drafthouse having two women-only screenings and some men flipping their sh*t and having a gigantic meltdown about it... talk about pathetic. Alamo responding by having even more women-only screenings, a great middle finger to those asshats.
Anyhow, after all the strong reviews for this I figured it was worth a shot. While it does have some nonsense (especially in the final act), I can still give this a nice rating. I won't reveal much about the plot, except that it's the lady who will soon be known as Diana Prince in her Amazonian homeworld, chillin' until World War I enters their universe, because... well, I don't know why, but it happens. She leaves that world so she can go to World War I in Europe and try to find the God of War Ares, who she believes is there in disguise. She gets to hang out with Chris Pine and some other characters we get to meet along the way.
Yeah, it's a film where WW does superhuman things and people in general accept it and don't see it as a sign that PERHAPS she is not a regular human being. Then again I can say that about other films in the genre. I can only best compare this to the Nolan Batman movies, which I've seen. I have many problems with that trilogy; I'll always give The Dark Knight a high rating but that is mainly due to Ledger's Joker and how amazing he was. That is still a stupid movie with gigantic plotholes and things that happen due to coincidence and sheer luck and The Joker apparently having precognitive abilities. The other two are either dull as hell or also stupid and filled with plotholes and me wondering such things as how Bruce Wayne made that gigantic journey back to Gotham undetected. I was thankful that here, things were simpler and you understood what both Diana wanted to do and what Chris Pine's character Steve Trevor wanted to do, and once the plot started it was either trying to find a destructive villain or trying to stop something that will cause millions to die.
Also nice is that you enjoy the lead characters; both Gal Gadot and Chris Pine were swell as the two stars in roles that weren't always easy. I don't know WW from the comics but here she starts off as naive to how things are in this world but she still wants to help people and that is naturally likable. By the end shes does become a hero who stays here and helps humanity despite us being naturally flawed. I was one of those who wasn't sure when Gal was hired as WW a few years ago. While I do find her to be quite attractive, she is a scrawny supermodel who hasn't done a lot of acting. Turns out, she now is built more like an Amazonian woman and she brought it in this role, which was not always easy as she has to juggle plenty of different emotions and feelings.
As an aside, I even hate saying this because some people may misconstrue this as me being a fedora-wearing MRA assclown when I am not like this at all, but I was glad when Diana left her home because many of her fellow Amazons came across as real A-holes to me. Sorry, but it's true. At least not a lot of time was spent in that world, those women still do some awesome things and both their home and World War I Europe look great and nicely brought to life, for decidedly different reasons.
As another aside, the tone of the movie. I know that DC is darker than Marvel, and to me that's fine as it differentiates the two. From hearsay, that is not the reason why their past three movies have received such a frosty reception. Multiple people have said that this is similar to Captain America: The First Avenger; I can only take their word for it. I can say that there are dark PG-13 moments which show how horrible of a war World War I was, and it was clear why WW was so affected by what she saw and why she wanted to help so badly.
I am glad that this was a movie worthy of seeing on the big screen... that it was a big hit with a woman lead and woman director... and it's been well-received by most people, and even a n00b like me isn't totally lost while watching it I am suddenly not a comic book fan and I don't plan on seeing most of the releases in that genre; but, if something seems worthwhile, I am more willing to give it a chance.
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 268 reviews)
Eh, I am sure you know all the details by now
I have a lot to say about this movie; yes, I did go and see it last night despite my still not being a fan of the genre in general. I don't love this but it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, as I explained below:
NOTE: This will be one of the lengthier reviews from me. Also, as I've said often I am not a comic book/superhero fan in general so my rating does reflect that and if you are a fan of the genre, you should rate this higher.
As I saw a new Marvel movie last month, it's fair that I see a DC entry also in 2017. In other reviews I've noted that I haven't seen too many comic book films in the 21st century, as they don't do much for me. Until this year, the last Marvel one I saw was Iron Man 2 (which I thought was crap) and the last DC one was The Dark Knight Rises (which I also thought was crap) and in the future, I'll do new proper reviews of the ones that I have seen and I'll explain why I liked or did not like them. I haven't even bothered with any of the previous films in this new DCEU; I haven't watched the Marvel ones due to apathy but the DCEU I've heard a lot of dire things about. From various reliable people and detailed reviews, they just sound like absolute messes, totally confused where obvious post-production meddling made things even worse and the iconic characters seem totally different to how they were presented on page.
I was glad to hear that there was finally a worthwhile movie in that universe and it's not yet another expensive boondoggle. Of course it's also nice that this iconic character finally got a movie of her own after all of these years and it's something that women can enjoy, a film from their perspective. I do have to laugh that some men have been dudebros about it... the controversy over one Alamo Drafthouse having two women-only screenings and some men flipping their sh*t and having a gigantic meltdown about it... talk about pathetic. Alamo responding by having even more women-only screenings, a great middle finger to those asshats.
Anyhow, after all the strong reviews for this I figured it was worth a shot. While it does have some nonsense (especially in the final act), I can still give this a nice rating. I won't reveal much about the plot, except that it's the lady who will soon be known as Diana Prince in her Amazonian homeworld, chillin' until World War I enters their universe, because... well, I don't know why, but it happens. She leaves that world so she can go to World War I in Europe and try to find the God of War Ares, who she believes is there in disguise. She gets to hang out with Chris Pine and some other characters we get to meet along the way.
Yeah, it's a film where WW does superhuman things and people in general accept it and don't see it as a sign that PERHAPS she is not a regular human being. Then again I can say that about other films in the genre. I can only best compare this to the Nolan Batman movies, which I've seen. I have many problems with that trilogy; I'll always give The Dark Knight a high rating but that is mainly due to Ledger's Joker and how amazing he was. That is still a stupid movie with gigantic plotholes and things that happen due to coincidence and sheer luck and The Joker apparently having precognitive abilities. The other two are either dull as hell or also stupid and filled with plotholes and me wondering such things as how Bruce Wayne made that gigantic journey back to Gotham undetected. I was thankful that here, things were simpler and you understood what both Diana wanted to do and what Chris Pine's character Steve Trevor wanted to do, and once the plot started it was either trying to find a destructive villain or trying to stop something that will cause millions to die.
Also nice is that you enjoy the lead characters; both Gal Gadot and Chris Pine were swell as the two stars in roles that weren't always easy. I don't know WW from the comics but here she starts off as naive to how things are in this world but she still wants to help people and that is naturally likable. By the end shes does become a hero who stays here and helps humanity despite us being naturally flawed. I was one of those who wasn't sure when Gal was hired as WW a few years ago. While I do find her to be quite attractive, she is a scrawny supermodel who hasn't done a lot of acting. Turns out, she now is built more like an Amazonian woman and she brought it in this role, which was not always easy as she has to juggle plenty of different emotions and feelings.
As an aside, I even hate saying this because some people may misconstrue this as me being a fedora-wearing MRA assclown when I am not like this at all, but I was glad when Diana left her home because many of her fellow Amazons came across as real A-holes to me. Sorry, but it's true. At least not a lot of time was spent in that world, those women still do some awesome things and both their home and World War I Europe look great and nicely brought to life, for decidedly different reasons.
As another aside, the tone of the movie. I know that DC is darker than Marvel, and to me that's fine as it differentiates the two. From hearsay, that is not the reason why their past three movies have received such a frosty reception. Multiple people have said that this is similar to Captain America: The First Avenger; I can only take their word for it. I can say that there are dark PG-13 moments which show how horrible of a war World War I was, and it was clear why WW was so affected by what she saw and why she wanted to help so badly.
I am glad that this was a movie worthy of seeing on the big screen... that it was a big hit with a woman lead and woman director... and it's been well-received by most people, and even a n00b like me isn't totally lost while watching it I am suddenly not a comic book fan and I don't plan on seeing most of the releases in that genre; but, if something seems worthwhile, I am more willing to give it a chance.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Who's Harry Crumb?
Who's Harry Crumb? (1989)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Paul Flaherty
Starring: John Candy, Jeffrey Jones, Annie Potts, Tim Thomerson, Shawnee Smith
From: Tri-Star... and somehow, NBC
I realize this is a random movie to watch, but as I explain below, there was a reason why:
I realize this is a really random movie to review but it was inspired by a messageboard discussion, as sometimes happens. Someone mentioned that they saw this movie as a kid and enjoyed it... but when they saw it for the first time in years in presenting it to their children, they suddenly realized that the movie had more sexual humor and moments that must have went over their head as a kid. Then again, the same goes for me; I only saw this once as a kid (it had to be at least 25 years ago) and even then I wasn't a big fan. Seeing it again, it's not awful but it's not good either. By the way, it does have its fair share of sexual humor and moments.
The title of the movie is uttered quite early, and you find out that Harry Crumb is John Candy, descended from a line of great private detectives... but aside from some rare brilliant moments, he's a stumbling, bumbling buffoon. There is a reason why he was chosen in particular to investigate the kidnapping of a young rich woman. He's usually assisted by the young rich woman's sister... Saw fans, you'll be happy to hear that the teenager who assisted Crumb was a 19 year old Shawnee Smith.
I can't say I didn't laugh at times and there are plenty of pratfalls from Candy; that said, the movie is usually stupid and not as funny nor clever as it thinks it is. It's a shame as it could have at least been fine with its plot involving some stock characters (the ignored sister, the gold-digging trampy woman, the dumb tennis pro, etc.) and the star being someone who I still think is awesome; I am a kid of the 1980's and 1990's so of course I've seen plenty of John Candy's films and I'll always have fond memories of him. Here, there are only a few funny one-liners from him; sure, there's some slapstick but there's also him trying to be like Fletch and sometimes dressing up in wacky costumes... the one you definitely wouldn't see in most movies made today was him putting brown shoe polish & a fake beard on his face and playing an Indian, as in from India... it's as stereotypical as you'd expect.
I know that there are plenty of Candy's other films I'd watch or watch again before ever giving this a third viewing. I guess I can say it has a wacky late 80's jazz-pop soundtrack, including a closing credits title song from THE TEMPTATIONS... not the highlight of a legendary group's career when they've done tunes like Papa Was a Rollin' Stone, My Girl, and I Can't Get Next To You. Also, I did not remember that Lyle Alzado appears in one scene, and totally randomly James Belushi shows up for like 15 seconds, and as you see him reading an issue of Variety magazine, I'll presume it was James Belushi playing himself.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Paul Flaherty
Starring: John Candy, Jeffrey Jones, Annie Potts, Tim Thomerson, Shawnee Smith
From: Tri-Star... and somehow, NBC
I realize this is a random movie to watch, but as I explain below, there was a reason why:
I realize this is a really random movie to review but it was inspired by a messageboard discussion, as sometimes happens. Someone mentioned that they saw this movie as a kid and enjoyed it... but when they saw it for the first time in years in presenting it to their children, they suddenly realized that the movie had more sexual humor and moments that must have went over their head as a kid. Then again, the same goes for me; I only saw this once as a kid (it had to be at least 25 years ago) and even then I wasn't a big fan. Seeing it again, it's not awful but it's not good either. By the way, it does have its fair share of sexual humor and moments.
The title of the movie is uttered quite early, and you find out that Harry Crumb is John Candy, descended from a line of great private detectives... but aside from some rare brilliant moments, he's a stumbling, bumbling buffoon. There is a reason why he was chosen in particular to investigate the kidnapping of a young rich woman. He's usually assisted by the young rich woman's sister... Saw fans, you'll be happy to hear that the teenager who assisted Crumb was a 19 year old Shawnee Smith.
I can't say I didn't laugh at times and there are plenty of pratfalls from Candy; that said, the movie is usually stupid and not as funny nor clever as it thinks it is. It's a shame as it could have at least been fine with its plot involving some stock characters (the ignored sister, the gold-digging trampy woman, the dumb tennis pro, etc.) and the star being someone who I still think is awesome; I am a kid of the 1980's and 1990's so of course I've seen plenty of John Candy's films and I'll always have fond memories of him. Here, there are only a few funny one-liners from him; sure, there's some slapstick but there's also him trying to be like Fletch and sometimes dressing up in wacky costumes... the one you definitely wouldn't see in most movies made today was him putting brown shoe polish & a fake beard on his face and playing an Indian, as in from India... it's as stereotypical as you'd expect.
I know that there are plenty of Candy's other films I'd watch or watch again before ever giving this a third viewing. I guess I can say it has a wacky late 80's jazz-pop soundtrack, including a closing credits title song from THE TEMPTATIONS... not the highlight of a legendary group's career when they've done tunes like Papa Was a Rollin' Stone, My Girl, and I Can't Get Next To You. Also, I did not remember that Lyle Alzado appears in one scene, and totally randomly James Belushi shows up for like 15 seconds, and as you see him reading an issue of Variety magazine, I'll presume it was James Belushi playing himself.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
The Muthers
The Muthers (1976)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Cirio H. Santiago
Starring: Jeannie Bell, Rosanne Katon, Trina Parks, Tony Carreon, Jayne Kennedy
From: Dimension Pictures
I finally returned to the world of Filipino sleaze, and this was pretty entertaining, as I explain below:
As this movie was on TCM Underground late last night, I figured it was time to check this film out; I've heard some rave reviews from elsewhere. I knew this would be Filipino trash and I knew that the director-the late Cirio H. Santiago-was quite prolific, making plenty of trashy B-movies, sometimes in conjunction with Roger Corman. This wasn't one of those; I knew the star Jeannine Bell as she was the star of Santiago's T.N.T. Jackson, which I saw a few years ago and I have a real short review of that here... I was not a fan. Thankfully I did enjoy this more.
This movie managed to have elements of several trends popular around this time... blaxploitation, martial arts, women in prison, jungle exploitation, and pirate movies. It's set in South America but yes it was filmed in The Philippines, which offers plenty of scenic scenery. A small band of pirates led by some women (including Bell) go to a coffee plantation that uses the slave labor of kidnapped women in order to rescue Bell's sister.
The movie is highly ridiculous and you don't watch such things for acting ability or cogent storytelling. Rather, there is plenty of sleaze (along with bare boobs) and action scenes where plenty of people are shot and killed. If you've seen at least one old women in prison film, those beats will be familiar, including failed attempts to escape and a head of the prison that is a loathsome son of a bitch. You even get to hear a certain phrase uttered that Bill Maher just got into trouble for saying...
Oh, and this also has an at times 70's funky soundtrack. This is a nice grindhouse experience if you feel like seeing a few of those movies during a long night.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Cirio H. Santiago
Starring: Jeannie Bell, Rosanne Katon, Trina Parks, Tony Carreon, Jayne Kennedy
From: Dimension Pictures
I finally returned to the world of Filipino sleaze, and this was pretty entertaining, as I explain below:
As this movie was on TCM Underground late last night, I figured it was time to check this film out; I've heard some rave reviews from elsewhere. I knew this would be Filipino trash and I knew that the director-the late Cirio H. Santiago-was quite prolific, making plenty of trashy B-movies, sometimes in conjunction with Roger Corman. This wasn't one of those; I knew the star Jeannine Bell as she was the star of Santiago's T.N.T. Jackson, which I saw a few years ago and I have a real short review of that here... I was not a fan. Thankfully I did enjoy this more.
This movie managed to have elements of several trends popular around this time... blaxploitation, martial arts, women in prison, jungle exploitation, and pirate movies. It's set in South America but yes it was filmed in The Philippines, which offers plenty of scenic scenery. A small band of pirates led by some women (including Bell) go to a coffee plantation that uses the slave labor of kidnapped women in order to rescue Bell's sister.
The movie is highly ridiculous and you don't watch such things for acting ability or cogent storytelling. Rather, there is plenty of sleaze (along with bare boobs) and action scenes where plenty of people are shot and killed. If you've seen at least one old women in prison film, those beats will be familiar, including failed attempts to escape and a head of the prison that is a loathsome son of a bitch. You even get to hear a certain phrase uttered that Bill Maher just got into trouble for saying...
Oh, and this also has an at times 70's funky soundtrack. This is a nice grindhouse experience if you feel like seeing a few of those movies during a long night.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
The Man Who Knew Too Much
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: I presume most people know it's Hitchcock
Starring: Leslie Banks, Edna Best, Peter Lorre, Hugh Wakefield, Nova Pilbeam
From: Gaumont
It's about time I saw another Hitchcock movie; this one is not one of his many classics but at least it's not bad, as I explain below:
It's been way too long since I've seen a movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock so when I saw that Turner Classic Movies would be playing this yesterday afternoon, this was the perfect time to review this for the first time... heck, I had never even seen this before. Then again I haven't seen the 1956 remake also done by Hitch, so you won't see me compare the two.
The plot is that a family vacations in Switzerland, with the matriarch of the family participating in a skeet shooting contest... if you want, you can snicker. The parents get to know someone, who is then soon shot and killed, but not before passing along a message, and it's important as it relates to the planned assassination of a country's head of state. The bad guys kidnap their daughter in an attempt to keep them quiet.
The movie is fine but when you compare it to all the classics that Hitch would do later... at least I can still say that this is fine, even if it's not one of his great movies. The story is not as engrossing as in those classics nor are the characters as well-defined and memorable. Admittedly, the daughter can be annoying; it's not the actress, but rather the role. At least I can say that the scene where the planned assassination attempt happened (the legendary Royal Albert Hall in London) was well-done and one of the villains happened to be Peter Lorre, in his English language debut, no less. His presence was welcomed by me because as typical, he did a swell job.
At least Hitch paid his dues in his native England before becoming a legend in Hollywood, and he honed his style in these early days and was able to figure out what worked vs. what didn't work. As is, this movie has everything from dentists to a random scene where a bunch of chairs were thrown. As this was only 76 minutes long, at least it was an easy watch.
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: I presume most people know it's Hitchcock
Starring: Leslie Banks, Edna Best, Peter Lorre, Hugh Wakefield, Nova Pilbeam
From: Gaumont
It's about time I saw another Hitchcock movie; this one is not one of his many classics but at least it's not bad, as I explain below:
It's been way too long since I've seen a movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock so when I saw that Turner Classic Movies would be playing this yesterday afternoon, this was the perfect time to review this for the first time... heck, I had never even seen this before. Then again I haven't seen the 1956 remake also done by Hitch, so you won't see me compare the two.
The plot is that a family vacations in Switzerland, with the matriarch of the family participating in a skeet shooting contest... if you want, you can snicker. The parents get to know someone, who is then soon shot and killed, but not before passing along a message, and it's important as it relates to the planned assassination of a country's head of state. The bad guys kidnap their daughter in an attempt to keep them quiet.
The movie is fine but when you compare it to all the classics that Hitch would do later... at least I can still say that this is fine, even if it's not one of his great movies. The story is not as engrossing as in those classics nor are the characters as well-defined and memorable. Admittedly, the daughter can be annoying; it's not the actress, but rather the role. At least I can say that the scene where the planned assassination attempt happened (the legendary Royal Albert Hall in London) was well-done and one of the villains happened to be Peter Lorre, in his English language debut, no less. His presence was welcomed by me because as typical, he did a swell job.
At least Hitch paid his dues in his native England before becoming a legend in Hollywood, and he honed his style in these early days and was able to figure out what worked vs. what didn't work. As is, this movie has everything from dentists to a random scene where a bunch of chairs were thrown. As this was only 76 minutes long, at least it was an easy watch.
Friday, June 2, 2017
A 007 Double Feature
Wednesday night I went to the AMC Theatres at Disney Springs; at select AMC locations they showed a double bill of The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. It was a nice tribute to the late Roger Moore; half the money went to UNICEF, which is always a good cause to support. The crowd wasn't the largest but at least they weren't a rude audience. Both movies I rate highly so it was great seeing them back to back theatrically.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
The Dark
The Dark (1979)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John “Bud” Cardos... and Tobe Hooper
Starring: William Devane, Cathy Lee Crosby, Richard Jaeckel, Keenan Wynn, Warren J. Kemmerling
From: Film Ventures International
Tuesday night, I watched this lousy movie on Amazon Prime, which has a lousy version of it, print-wise... it's fullscreen and looks directly ripped from VHS. Even in a better print, this would still be lousy, as I explain below:
This was another movie I watched on Amazon Prime, although this is something I've known of for years. I only saw it last night due to it having a rather rotten reputation. I'll note that the copy you can stream on Amazon is fullscreen and the print looks like a direct rip from VHS; that said, if I had seen this in a 4K scan done by Criterion and released by them on Blu-ray, I'd still say this was a bad motion picture.
The important thing to say about this movie was that it had its production woes. Tobe Hooper was the original director; I understand he was fired because he was “working too slow”, but I have heard that in the past he had various issues with various things that affected his ability to direct well-and I'll leave it at that-and maybe that was part of it too. Then, the original plot was-according to what I hear-about an autistic person who was locked in a house his entire life and after a fire he escapes, but not before dying... it is mentioned multiple times that he was a ZOMBIE.
Late into shooting, because Alien was popular, they did reshoots and the killer changed, but they left in the references to “zombie”! Instead he was a 10 foot tall alien... who happens to look like a rotting human being that usually was normal-sized. This “alien” shot laser beams out of his eyes. I realize that sounds like a real good time; trust me, it is not, at all. Those effects are howlingly bad and it leads to a hilarious finale, but that's about it for entertainment value.
Really, this movie is poorly made and also boring as hell. Scenes appear to be put together at random, scenes flow together in a rather unnatural way, it appears as if entire reels of the movie are missing. What you end up seeing is a bunch of nonsense that just about put me to sleep, killings mainly done in the dark or off-camera, William Devane being a dad who is after the killer because the first victim was his daughter (in the beginning he looks like a burnout hippie, making me laugh as I imagined him as Charles Rane having lost his mind after the events of Rolling Thunder; in actuality, the character is an author who people speculate was based on Stephen King, believe it or not), Cathy Lee Crosby as a TV reporter, a psychic is involved, somehow the alien has a telepathic relationship with a young actor... utter nonsense. If they had left the killer a zombie and hadn't done those reshoots, this still would be a giant piece of crap.
In short, despite a decent cast and the kitsch value of Dick Clark being one of the producers (which is why CASEY KASEM had a small role), there is no real reason to see a movie that should have been better, or at least actually scary.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John “Bud” Cardos... and Tobe Hooper
Starring: William Devane, Cathy Lee Crosby, Richard Jaeckel, Keenan Wynn, Warren J. Kemmerling
From: Film Ventures International
Tuesday night, I watched this lousy movie on Amazon Prime, which has a lousy version of it, print-wise... it's fullscreen and looks directly ripped from VHS. Even in a better print, this would still be lousy, as I explain below:
This was another movie I watched on Amazon Prime, although this is something I've known of for years. I only saw it last night due to it having a rather rotten reputation. I'll note that the copy you can stream on Amazon is fullscreen and the print looks like a direct rip from VHS; that said, if I had seen this in a 4K scan done by Criterion and released by them on Blu-ray, I'd still say this was a bad motion picture.
The important thing to say about this movie was that it had its production woes. Tobe Hooper was the original director; I understand he was fired because he was “working too slow”, but I have heard that in the past he had various issues with various things that affected his ability to direct well-and I'll leave it at that-and maybe that was part of it too. Then, the original plot was-according to what I hear-about an autistic person who was locked in a house his entire life and after a fire he escapes, but not before dying... it is mentioned multiple times that he was a ZOMBIE.
Late into shooting, because Alien was popular, they did reshoots and the killer changed, but they left in the references to “zombie”! Instead he was a 10 foot tall alien... who happens to look like a rotting human being that usually was normal-sized. This “alien” shot laser beams out of his eyes. I realize that sounds like a real good time; trust me, it is not, at all. Those effects are howlingly bad and it leads to a hilarious finale, but that's about it for entertainment value.
Really, this movie is poorly made and also boring as hell. Scenes appear to be put together at random, scenes flow together in a rather unnatural way, it appears as if entire reels of the movie are missing. What you end up seeing is a bunch of nonsense that just about put me to sleep, killings mainly done in the dark or off-camera, William Devane being a dad who is after the killer because the first victim was his daughter (in the beginning he looks like a burnout hippie, making me laugh as I imagined him as Charles Rane having lost his mind after the events of Rolling Thunder; in actuality, the character is an author who people speculate was based on Stephen King, believe it or not), Cathy Lee Crosby as a TV reporter, a psychic is involved, somehow the alien has a telepathic relationship with a young actor... utter nonsense. If they had left the killer a zombie and hadn't done those reshoots, this still would be a giant piece of crap.
In short, despite a decent cast and the kitsch value of Dick Clark being one of the producers (which is why CASEY KASEM had a small role), there is no real reason to see a movie that should have been better, or at least actually scary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)