Sunday, December 31, 2017
I Bid Adieu To 2017
Last night I rewatched the giallo/poliziotteschi What Have They Done to Your Daughters?, which I saw and reviewed before... that can be read here. I don't know if I'll watch anything tonight but for sure I will tomorrow night so I'll be back either Monday or Tuesday night. I can't believe 2017 is over already either.
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Fantasia
Fantasia (1940)
Runtime: 124 minutes
Directed by: A bunch of Disney animators
Starring: The only people you see are members of the Philadelphia Orchestra, composer Leopoldo Stokowski, and host Deems Taylor
From: Disney
It was about time I rewatched this as an adult as I now fully appreciate this is a great movie, a unique experience that everyone should view at least once. See me sing its praises below:
As happens occasionally, what I watch for a review depends on what is about to leave a streaming service. On the 5th of January (2018) this will be gone from Netflix Instant so it was the time to watch something I hadn't seen in many years.
Not even all film fans of today love this unique experiment, a strong marriage between famous classical music pieces of the Western world and beautiful animation. Only a few of the 8 segments had a story of any kind; the rest had random (but still interesting to me) things happening, and none of the segments had any characters that spoke, and only introductions from someone that everyone today will think is “a random old white dude” provide any kind of context. In other words, I understand those that feel this way. But I was fine with all that as I thought all the segments were captivating to watch. Even the introductions I was fine with, as Deems Taylor was a respected composer and music critic of the time and I had no problem with what he said matter of factly.
What I enjoyed the most is that there was a variety; the most famous bit was The Sorcerer's Apprentice-which definitely had a defined story-but there was also a segment where the changing of the seasons was shown, a mix of Greco and Roman mythologies, the first few billion years of Earth's history in what I presume is less pretentious than The Tree of Life and Voyage of Time, and a truly frightening final piece involving angels & demons, including a dude named Chernabog that I understand was in one of those Kingdom Hearts games. The music you'll likely recognize a lot of it even if you did not know it by name; to be frank, that's because it's been overused in media since I've been alive. A shame, as those tunes are great and the Philadelphia Orchestra was well conducted by Leopold Stokowski.
I say this should be seen by everyone at least once; even if you find it to be too dull or not engaging enough, at least how bold and ahead of the time the picture is should be respected. You may also think there are some absolutely stunning moments. A major entity attempting to make a work of art that the common person can appreciate... no surprise to me it's not for all tastes and it found the most acclaimed in the years after its initial release.
Runtime: 124 minutes
Directed by: A bunch of Disney animators
Starring: The only people you see are members of the Philadelphia Orchestra, composer Leopoldo Stokowski, and host Deems Taylor
From: Disney
It was about time I rewatched this as an adult as I now fully appreciate this is a great movie, a unique experience that everyone should view at least once. See me sing its praises below:
As happens occasionally, what I watch for a review depends on what is about to leave a streaming service. On the 5th of January (2018) this will be gone from Netflix Instant so it was the time to watch something I hadn't seen in many years.
Not even all film fans of today love this unique experiment, a strong marriage between famous classical music pieces of the Western world and beautiful animation. Only a few of the 8 segments had a story of any kind; the rest had random (but still interesting to me) things happening, and none of the segments had any characters that spoke, and only introductions from someone that everyone today will think is “a random old white dude” provide any kind of context. In other words, I understand those that feel this way. But I was fine with all that as I thought all the segments were captivating to watch. Even the introductions I was fine with, as Deems Taylor was a respected composer and music critic of the time and I had no problem with what he said matter of factly.
What I enjoyed the most is that there was a variety; the most famous bit was The Sorcerer's Apprentice-which definitely had a defined story-but there was also a segment where the changing of the seasons was shown, a mix of Greco and Roman mythologies, the first few billion years of Earth's history in what I presume is less pretentious than The Tree of Life and Voyage of Time, and a truly frightening final piece involving angels & demons, including a dude named Chernabog that I understand was in one of those Kingdom Hearts games. The music you'll likely recognize a lot of it even if you did not know it by name; to be frank, that's because it's been overused in media since I've been alive. A shame, as those tunes are great and the Philadelphia Orchestra was well conducted by Leopold Stokowski.
I say this should be seen by everyone at least once; even if you find it to be too dull or not engaging enough, at least how bold and ahead of the time the picture is should be respected. You may also think there are some absolutely stunning moments. A major entity attempting to make a work of art that the common person can appreciate... no surprise to me it's not for all tastes and it found the most acclaimed in the years after its initial release.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Taxi
Taxi (1998)
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Gerard Pires
Starring: Samy Naceri, Frederic Diefenthal, Marion Cotillard, Manuela Gouray, Emma Wiklund
From: Several French companies
As I made it home last night, I can say I enjoyed my trip but it is also nice to be back on familiar ground. Amazon continues to deliver with the sort of things that I'd want to see. This French film has fans all around the world. I don't love it yet I can't say it was bad either. I explain it below:
As I sometimes have to do, I have to explain to a worldwide audience how something may be surprisingly not popular or not even known in the United States. While plenty around the world know the Taxi trilogy, they definitely were never theatrically released in America and even on disc they are hard to come by over here; thus, I had never seen any of them (the only film clip seen beforehand was the opening to the third one, as it was online at the time and I had to see Sly Stallone cameo in a wacky French action picture) and I only recently discovered the first in the quartet of films was on Amazon, available for rental.
One day I may see the sequels via less ethical means. And before anyone panics, I've never seen the 2004 Hollywood remake, which OF COURSE Hollywood screwed up. Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon going after Brazilian supermodel bank robbers is definitely wacky but I understand it's also pretty putrid.
I am sure by now many know how the plot revolves around a speed demon taxi cab driver having to escort a police officer/poor driver around as he tries to capture German bank robbers, so I won't spend much time recapping that. Even I knew the basic story beforehand, along with there being only one person in the cast I recognized. The movie, it's quite silly and also more than a little dopey. Yet I can say this was fine. The camera leers at both Marion Cotillard (who'd I like to “develop photos” with) and Emma Wiklund... this was not too unusual for genre movies of the time.
I've been told the action scenes were better in the sequels... what I saw here, there were still shootouts and car chases to marvel at. But comedy is the focus rather than the action or the police/detective work. Not a cinematic masterpiece or the best of its type... I am not that surprised this became so popular in France and a few other countries.
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Gerard Pires
Starring: Samy Naceri, Frederic Diefenthal, Marion Cotillard, Manuela Gouray, Emma Wiklund
From: Several French companies
As I made it home last night, I can say I enjoyed my trip but it is also nice to be back on familiar ground. Amazon continues to deliver with the sort of things that I'd want to see. This French film has fans all around the world. I don't love it yet I can't say it was bad either. I explain it below:
As I sometimes have to do, I have to explain to a worldwide audience how something may be surprisingly not popular or not even known in the United States. While plenty around the world know the Taxi trilogy, they definitely were never theatrically released in America and even on disc they are hard to come by over here; thus, I had never seen any of them (the only film clip seen beforehand was the opening to the third one, as it was online at the time and I had to see Sly Stallone cameo in a wacky French action picture) and I only recently discovered the first in the quartet of films was on Amazon, available for rental.
One day I may see the sequels via less ethical means. And before anyone panics, I've never seen the 2004 Hollywood remake, which OF COURSE Hollywood screwed up. Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon going after Brazilian supermodel bank robbers is definitely wacky but I understand it's also pretty putrid.
I am sure by now many know how the plot revolves around a speed demon taxi cab driver having to escort a police officer/poor driver around as he tries to capture German bank robbers, so I won't spend much time recapping that. Even I knew the basic story beforehand, along with there being only one person in the cast I recognized. The movie, it's quite silly and also more than a little dopey. Yet I can say this was fine. The camera leers at both Marion Cotillard (who'd I like to “develop photos” with) and Emma Wiklund... this was not too unusual for genre movies of the time.
I've been told the action scenes were better in the sequels... what I saw here, there were still shootouts and car chases to marvel at. But comedy is the focus rather than the action or the police/detective work. Not a cinematic masterpiece or the best of its type... I am not that surprised this became so popular in France and a few other countries.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
How The Grinch Stole Christmas
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Ron Howard
Starring: Jim Carrey, Taylor Momsen, Jeffrey Tambor, Christine Baranski, Bill Irwin
From: Universal
At least I got to see something while on vacation. The details are below:
I am still on vacation in Kansas. My 5 year old twin nephews don't watch a lot of films and instead it's random shows for toddlers like Team Umizoomi, Max & Ruby, and Paw Patrol. However, the previous night's showing of the film on NBC was DVR'ed so it was watched earlier today. Of course the 60's cartoon was seen on CBS by me a few times as a kid but by the time this came out I was a young adult. Why check out something I thought looked garish? Having finally seen this... yes, the movie is pretty garish, not to mention filled with moments and lines I am not sure I wanted to have my nephews watch and hear.
I knew that of course there needed to be more material added to the Dr. Seuss story in order for this to be a feature film; the Grinch being the Grinch because he was bullied because he needed to shave his face as an 8 year old and it went awry so he had small pieces of shaving tape on his face and everyone laughed at him... I did not predict that beforehand. The rest of it is what you'd expect, although Cindy Lou Who had a more prominent role.
It is easy to see why many Grinch fans don't like this, as the tone is just creepy and to be frank, many of the characters look horrifying. The twins were fine with it but it was too Uncanny Valley for me how the Whovians looked. Plus, did there REALLY need to be a romantic subplot for the Grinch? Then there was how most of them acted like real A-holes and I did not find it too appealing. Jim Carrey... definitely a bravura performance from him but how the character was written and portrayed I say wasn't right for me.
While things appear to be oddly underlit-adding to the creepy tone-at least the sets were lavish and colorful; the production design wasn't one of this film's many problems. But the entire thing is full of goofy sentimentality and I am not sure why Ron Howard thought “children's film” meant “Dutch angles”. Sure, this did show the message of how Christmas shouldn't be so materialistic (which some have said is actually an anti-capitalistic screed which attack the members of the bourgeoisie) but the book and the 60's special narrated by Boris Karloff do that too and I say those should be read and watched before consuming this bizarre, gaudy piece of entertainment.
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Ron Howard
Starring: Jim Carrey, Taylor Momsen, Jeffrey Tambor, Christine Baranski, Bill Irwin
From: Universal
At least I got to see something while on vacation. The details are below:
I am still on vacation in Kansas. My 5 year old twin nephews don't watch a lot of films and instead it's random shows for toddlers like Team Umizoomi, Max & Ruby, and Paw Patrol. However, the previous night's showing of the film on NBC was DVR'ed so it was watched earlier today. Of course the 60's cartoon was seen on CBS by me a few times as a kid but by the time this came out I was a young adult. Why check out something I thought looked garish? Having finally seen this... yes, the movie is pretty garish, not to mention filled with moments and lines I am not sure I wanted to have my nephews watch and hear.
I knew that of course there needed to be more material added to the Dr. Seuss story in order for this to be a feature film; the Grinch being the Grinch because he was bullied because he needed to shave his face as an 8 year old and it went awry so he had small pieces of shaving tape on his face and everyone laughed at him... I did not predict that beforehand. The rest of it is what you'd expect, although Cindy Lou Who had a more prominent role.
It is easy to see why many Grinch fans don't like this, as the tone is just creepy and to be frank, many of the characters look horrifying. The twins were fine with it but it was too Uncanny Valley for me how the Whovians looked. Plus, did there REALLY need to be a romantic subplot for the Grinch? Then there was how most of them acted like real A-holes and I did not find it too appealing. Jim Carrey... definitely a bravura performance from him but how the character was written and portrayed I say wasn't right for me.
While things appear to be oddly underlit-adding to the creepy tone-at least the sets were lavish and colorful; the production design wasn't one of this film's many problems. But the entire thing is full of goofy sentimentality and I am not sure why Ron Howard thought “children's film” meant “Dutch angles”. Sure, this did show the message of how Christmas shouldn't be so materialistic (which some have said is actually an anti-capitalistic screed which attack the members of the bourgeoisie) but the book and the 60's special narrated by Boris Karloff do that too and I say those should be read and watched before consuming this bizarre, gaudy piece of entertainment.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Color Of Night
Color of Night (1994)
Runtime: I saw the 140 minute version
Directed by: Richard Rush
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jane March, and plenty of other famous faces
From: Hollywood Pictures
In some circles this film has a lot of infamy; I now know why that is the case... the movie is really off the wall. You can discover this yourself if you look below:
Oh Lord... what the hell is this movie? I've known of this film and its infamous reputation for a long while now. Last night I finally watched Color of Night, as I wanted to see the full 140 (!) minute version and that was recently made available on Amazon Video. What a film to watch before I leave for my winter vacation and may not review anything here for the next week or so.
I'll copy and paste what Amazon Video said about the film: "A successful New York psychologist is haunted by the bizarre suicide of a patient. Relocating to Los Angeles, he becomes entangled in an explosive, erotic relationship with a mysterious beauty who leads him through a web of murder, passion, and intrigue."
That is part of the story, and what a torrid love affair they have. Among other things, the longer versions (there are several different cuts floating around all around the world) There's also how the psychologist is Bruce Willis and while he's in Los Angeles, he takes over the Monday night group therapy session run by this successful old college buddy Scott Bakula, as Bakula was murdered in a crime of passion by a masked figure. Yes, takes over despite his own issues.
This movie, I ask again what in the hell this was, and I am not fully sure myself. I can tell you it is wildly over the top, many of the characters usually at 11 and not too many subtle things to be seen. There are many off-the-wall moments and scenes... I mean, bizarre. The five patients have different hang-ups... one is trans*, one can't get over the death of his wife/child, there's a nymphomaniac/klepto, someone who is into S&M, and the last has severe OCD. None of those afflictions are treated delicately, either in the film nor is it portrayed delicately by the film.
Then, there's how the “bizarre suicide” is one of his patients jumping out of the window of his practice to her death, and as her dress was green and she ended up bloody... somehow that makes him red/green colorblind. Really. I don't know if trauma causes such a thing but maybe it does, I don't know. Also, Ruben Blades plays a detective and he's so off-kilter, I was surprised he wasn't the sixth patient at the therapy session, which Willis did suggest should be the case. I dare not spoil all of the wacky moments.
I recently heard it described as “a giallo meets Showgirls” and that is an apt description. There were plenty of times I had no trouble imaging this zaniness coming from Italy and being directed by, say, Massimo Dallamano. And this was directed by Richard Rush; how was this his first since The Stunt Man? Why did he direct it? What a cast they pulled in too (the people already mentioned, Jane March, Lesley Anne Warren, Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen, Kevin J. O'Connor, Eriq La Salle) for such a tawdry tale, where the mystery wasn't too hard for me to solve but no matter that, there are some elements of the story that are pretty gross and done to be titillating.
The movie is technically pretty bad and yet it looks nice with the production design and having an actual director (Richard Rush) helps; I have no idea why this was his first film after cult favorite The Stunt Man. But honestly, it is most memorable for how how often hilarious it is, even for unintentional reasons. Perverse entertainment, that's what this is.
Runtime: I saw the 140 minute version
Directed by: Richard Rush
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jane March, and plenty of other famous faces
From: Hollywood Pictures
In some circles this film has a lot of infamy; I now know why that is the case... the movie is really off the wall. You can discover this yourself if you look below:
Oh Lord... what the hell is this movie? I've known of this film and its infamous reputation for a long while now. Last night I finally watched Color of Night, as I wanted to see the full 140 (!) minute version and that was recently made available on Amazon Video. What a film to watch before I leave for my winter vacation and may not review anything here for the next week or so.
I'll copy and paste what Amazon Video said about the film: "A successful New York psychologist is haunted by the bizarre suicide of a patient. Relocating to Los Angeles, he becomes entangled in an explosive, erotic relationship with a mysterious beauty who leads him through a web of murder, passion, and intrigue."
That is part of the story, and what a torrid love affair they have. Among other things, the longer versions (there are several different cuts floating around all around the world) There's also how the psychologist is Bruce Willis and while he's in Los Angeles, he takes over the Monday night group therapy session run by this successful old college buddy Scott Bakula, as Bakula was murdered in a crime of passion by a masked figure. Yes, takes over despite his own issues.
This movie, I ask again what in the hell this was, and I am not fully sure myself. I can tell you it is wildly over the top, many of the characters usually at 11 and not too many subtle things to be seen. There are many off-the-wall moments and scenes... I mean, bizarre. The five patients have different hang-ups... one is trans*, one can't get over the death of his wife/child, there's a nymphomaniac/klepto, someone who is into S&M, and the last has severe OCD. None of those afflictions are treated delicately, either in the film nor is it portrayed delicately by the film.
Then, there's how the “bizarre suicide” is one of his patients jumping out of the window of his practice to her death, and as her dress was green and she ended up bloody... somehow that makes him red/green colorblind. Really. I don't know if trauma causes such a thing but maybe it does, I don't know. Also, Ruben Blades plays a detective and he's so off-kilter, I was surprised he wasn't the sixth patient at the therapy session, which Willis did suggest should be the case. I dare not spoil all of the wacky moments.
I recently heard it described as “a giallo meets Showgirls” and that is an apt description. There were plenty of times I had no trouble imaging this zaniness coming from Italy and being directed by, say, Massimo Dallamano. And this was directed by Richard Rush; how was this his first since The Stunt Man? Why did he direct it? What a cast they pulled in too (the people already mentioned, Jane March, Lesley Anne Warren, Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen, Kevin J. O'Connor, Eriq La Salle) for such a tawdry tale, where the mystery wasn't too hard for me to solve but no matter that, there are some elements of the story that are pretty gross and done to be titillating.
The movie is technically pretty bad and yet it looks nice with the production design and having an actual director (Richard Rush) helps; I have no idea why this was his first film after cult favorite The Stunt Man. But honestly, it is most memorable for how how often hilarious it is, even for unintentional reasons. Perverse entertainment, that's what this is.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out!
Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out! (1989)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Monte Hellman
Starring: Samantha Scully, Bill Moseley, Richard Beymer, Eric DaRe, Robert Culp
From: Quiet Films Inc.
What a film to watch during the holiday season. See if it filled me with yuletide cheer below:
I'll be gone in a few days on a now-customary trip out of state to hang out with some family members for the Christmas season, and I won't have much time for film-watching; I was hoping to see more holiday-related flicks but I'll be happy with just seeing a few before December 25. Seeing Christmas horror, might as well? The first two Silent Night, Deadly Night films were the only ones I had seen until last night. This one, it's from a filmmaker who had done actual movies before (Monte Hellman) and for all you David Lynch fans, it has to be noted that this has Dick Beymer, Laura Harring AND Eric DaRe.
This film: pretty wacky. Laura is a teen psychic who also happens to be blind, because why the hell not. At least the movie makes it clear early on she is sight-impaired, which is more than I can say about The Hills Have Eyes Part II and its lead heroine, where most people probably don't figure it out until like halfway through. Laura is not Daredevil; she still needs help getting around. She goes to a crazy doctor who also happens to be the host of Ricky, the killer from the second movie and brother of the original's crazed Santa.
After the second film, he's in a coma-for 6 years-and as part of trying to fix him, he wears what I've heard described as an “electronic salad bowl” on his head which covers his otherwise-exposed brain; again, why the hell not? Laura, her metalhead-looking brother (hilariously, played by DaRe) and his cheap date go over the hills and through the woods to grandmother's house, and so does Mr. Salad Bowl... of course he awakens from his coma, and he walks around even better than Seagal did once he woke up from his 7 year coma in Hard to Kill. Even better, he's played by Bill Moseley.
The movie is pretty dumb. Of course Laura's powers are intermittent and convenient to the plot. Even worse, you see footage from the first film and they make it seem as if the footage involving Billy was actually what happened with Ricky. Some of the main characters seem nonplussed about the weird things that happen at granny's house, and even when Ricky shows up they don't get too excited about it. It's just bizarre.
Yet I can still say the film's average. Some of the bad acting can at least be laughed at and the film is never boring. The moments with cop Robert Culp and crazy doctor Beymer were simply delightful-light in tone and humorous. Although, the funniest aspect was seeing DaRe w/ an 80's hair metal rocker hairdo.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Monte Hellman
Starring: Samantha Scully, Bill Moseley, Richard Beymer, Eric DaRe, Robert Culp
From: Quiet Films Inc.
What a film to watch during the holiday season. See if it filled me with yuletide cheer below:
I'll be gone in a few days on a now-customary trip out of state to hang out with some family members for the Christmas season, and I won't have much time for film-watching; I was hoping to see more holiday-related flicks but I'll be happy with just seeing a few before December 25. Seeing Christmas horror, might as well? The first two Silent Night, Deadly Night films were the only ones I had seen until last night. This one, it's from a filmmaker who had done actual movies before (Monte Hellman) and for all you David Lynch fans, it has to be noted that this has Dick Beymer, Laura Harring AND Eric DaRe.
This film: pretty wacky. Laura is a teen psychic who also happens to be blind, because why the hell not. At least the movie makes it clear early on she is sight-impaired, which is more than I can say about The Hills Have Eyes Part II and its lead heroine, where most people probably don't figure it out until like halfway through. Laura is not Daredevil; she still needs help getting around. She goes to a crazy doctor who also happens to be the host of Ricky, the killer from the second movie and brother of the original's crazed Santa.
After the second film, he's in a coma-for 6 years-and as part of trying to fix him, he wears what I've heard described as an “electronic salad bowl” on his head which covers his otherwise-exposed brain; again, why the hell not? Laura, her metalhead-looking brother (hilariously, played by DaRe) and his cheap date go over the hills and through the woods to grandmother's house, and so does Mr. Salad Bowl... of course he awakens from his coma, and he walks around even better than Seagal did once he woke up from his 7 year coma in Hard to Kill. Even better, he's played by Bill Moseley.
The movie is pretty dumb. Of course Laura's powers are intermittent and convenient to the plot. Even worse, you see footage from the first film and they make it seem as if the footage involving Billy was actually what happened with Ricky. Some of the main characters seem nonplussed about the weird things that happen at granny's house, and even when Ricky shows up they don't get too excited about it. It's just bizarre.
Yet I can still say the film's average. Some of the bad acting can at least be laughed at and the film is never boring. The moments with cop Robert Culp and crazy doctor Beymer were simply delightful-light in tone and humorous. Although, the funniest aspect was seeing DaRe w/ an 80's hair metal rocker hairdo.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Two Seconds
Two Seconds (1932)
Runtime: 67 minutes
Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy
Starring: Edward G. Robinson, Vivienne Osborne, Preston Foster, Guy Kibbee, J. Carrol Naish
From: Warner Bros./First National
This was a random film, which thankfully was fine. I explain why below:
This was another film I watched via TCM's streaming service; if your cable provider offers it, you can sign in and watch some films from the preceding week, and they are only available for a week's time. I had heard some praise for this before so I figured it was worth a watch... plus it is only 67 minutes long.
Edward G. Robinson is a man on death row, and in fact is about to be executed. This is a Pre-Code movie; among other things, the title refers to how long he'll live once the electricity is turned on, and in those two seconds we find out how he ended up getting the electric chair. Morbid. As it's an old-timey movie based on a stage play, besides there being plenty of talking (which I am not complaining about) and it being rather over-dramatic and over the top, this guy's downfall is OF COURSE a woman.
To be specific, Robinson plays John Allen, a riveter... that means he works on the crew that builds steel skyscrapers. He has a gregarious pal named Bud. Bud ropes him into a double date but as his woman would be a “fire wagon” (quite the term for an overweight girl), that goes awry and he ends up in a dance hall. From this film I learned there were once taxi dance halls, where guys buy tickets and if you give a ticket to a girl that works there, you get to dance with her for the length of a song. John meets one of those women, named Shirley. They form a relationship, despite Bud's protests. Melodramatic things happen because of that evil woman and John does something which results in him getting the chair. These days that wouldn't happen and especially after his deranged soliloquy in the courtroom, he would be at a mental hospital instead.
While it's ridiculous, at least I can say it's fine. Some of the other faces I recognized (Guy Kibbee, Preston Foster, Vivienne Osborne) but it was Robinson whose star shone the brightest here. His natural charisma helped make this pretty enjoyable to watch.
Runtime: 67 minutes
Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy
Starring: Edward G. Robinson, Vivienne Osborne, Preston Foster, Guy Kibbee, J. Carrol Naish
From: Warner Bros./First National
This was a random film, which thankfully was fine. I explain why below:
This was another film I watched via TCM's streaming service; if your cable provider offers it, you can sign in and watch some films from the preceding week, and they are only available for a week's time. I had heard some praise for this before so I figured it was worth a watch... plus it is only 67 minutes long.
Edward G. Robinson is a man on death row, and in fact is about to be executed. This is a Pre-Code movie; among other things, the title refers to how long he'll live once the electricity is turned on, and in those two seconds we find out how he ended up getting the electric chair. Morbid. As it's an old-timey movie based on a stage play, besides there being plenty of talking (which I am not complaining about) and it being rather over-dramatic and over the top, this guy's downfall is OF COURSE a woman.
To be specific, Robinson plays John Allen, a riveter... that means he works on the crew that builds steel skyscrapers. He has a gregarious pal named Bud. Bud ropes him into a double date but as his woman would be a “fire wagon” (quite the term for an overweight girl), that goes awry and he ends up in a dance hall. From this film I learned there were once taxi dance halls, where guys buy tickets and if you give a ticket to a girl that works there, you get to dance with her for the length of a song. John meets one of those women, named Shirley. They form a relationship, despite Bud's protests. Melodramatic things happen because of that evil woman and John does something which results in him getting the chair. These days that wouldn't happen and especially after his deranged soliloquy in the courtroom, he would be at a mental hospital instead.
While it's ridiculous, at least I can say it's fine. Some of the other faces I recognized (Guy Kibbee, Preston Foster, Vivienne Osborne) but it was Robinson whose star shone the brightest here. His natural charisma helped make this pretty enjoyable to watch.
Monday, December 18, 2017
Real Life
Real Life (1979)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Albert Brooks
Starring: Albert Brooks, Charles Grodin, Frances Lee McCain, J.A. Preston, Matthew Tobin
From: Paramount
What an interesting movie this turned out to be. I explain it all below:
Last night this was on Turner Classic Movies and as this is about a topic I have griped about here a few times (and many more times elsewhere), this sounded like a must-watch for me. Considering this was released in 1979, this was incredibly prescient of what has been popular in 21st century television, which I am not a fan of, but I'll get to that in a moment.
It is eerie how this predicted reality television years before it became a thing. The plot is that a smarmy filmmaker chose a family to film for a year for a documentary. The idea was borrowed from something shown on public television earlier in the decade. An American Family (screened on PBS) was a 1973 series that ran for 12 episodes and chronicled the Loud family. The idea was so shocking at the time no surprise there was controversy. It is best known not only for Mr. and Mrs. Loud divorcing during filming, but their teenage son Lance was openly gay. For those in the UK, there was a similar 1974 program called The Family.
An American Family did have some controversy as the Loud family was not exactly happy with how the documentary turned out; in what is not so shocking in these modern times, the producers emphasized the negative and crafted a certain narrative in order to tell a certain story. Plus, even if unintentional, the presence of cameras will change how people act. Real Life is a mockumentary about the Yeager family being filmed for a year but the smarmy director (Albert Brooks) ends up being more and more obtrusive in their lives in order to have a certain story told.
I've mentioned before that I not only don't watch reality television, but I hate it. It's a scourge upon the airwaves where everything's staged & phony, and obviously so. That is gross enough in something called “reality”; another aspect that's bad is how negative it is, everyone acting like A-holes and being incredibly rude. I have no interest in those fake dating shows (The Bachelor) or programs about talentless people I somehow am supposed to care about (The Kardashians) or Pawn Stars or Storage Wars or The Real World or any of that garbage.
Anyhow, the film has plenty of droll humor (and also absurd moments) and I found it to be very funny. “Reality” TV is not the only thing it satirizes. Plus, there were several other moments that seem more timely now. There was the late 1970's version of both flat screen televisions and digital cameras, although the latter was done in an over the top fashion for laughs by being incredibly large & obvious. I haven't watched Get Out but I know the biggest theme is how plenty of white people act differently to blacks and they try hard to relate and be sympathetic to them but come off as incredibly condescending instead. I mention that as there was a scene where Brooks interacted uncomfortably with a black psychologist.
Like I said I thought this was pretty funny as the parents of the Yeager family (led by Charles Grodin and Frances Lee McCain) were both unforgettable in their performances, as was Brooks as he slowly but surely lost grip of his sanity during this boondoggle of a production. The film is worth seeing, even if it was an unfortunate harbinger of things to come in our real lives.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Albert Brooks
Starring: Albert Brooks, Charles Grodin, Frances Lee McCain, J.A. Preston, Matthew Tobin
From: Paramount
What an interesting movie this turned out to be. I explain it all below:
Last night this was on Turner Classic Movies and as this is about a topic I have griped about here a few times (and many more times elsewhere), this sounded like a must-watch for me. Considering this was released in 1979, this was incredibly prescient of what has been popular in 21st century television, which I am not a fan of, but I'll get to that in a moment.
It is eerie how this predicted reality television years before it became a thing. The plot is that a smarmy filmmaker chose a family to film for a year for a documentary. The idea was borrowed from something shown on public television earlier in the decade. An American Family (screened on PBS) was a 1973 series that ran for 12 episodes and chronicled the Loud family. The idea was so shocking at the time no surprise there was controversy. It is best known not only for Mr. and Mrs. Loud divorcing during filming, but their teenage son Lance was openly gay. For those in the UK, there was a similar 1974 program called The Family.
An American Family did have some controversy as the Loud family was not exactly happy with how the documentary turned out; in what is not so shocking in these modern times, the producers emphasized the negative and crafted a certain narrative in order to tell a certain story. Plus, even if unintentional, the presence of cameras will change how people act. Real Life is a mockumentary about the Yeager family being filmed for a year but the smarmy director (Albert Brooks) ends up being more and more obtrusive in their lives in order to have a certain story told.
I've mentioned before that I not only don't watch reality television, but I hate it. It's a scourge upon the airwaves where everything's staged & phony, and obviously so. That is gross enough in something called “reality”; another aspect that's bad is how negative it is, everyone acting like A-holes and being incredibly rude. I have no interest in those fake dating shows (The Bachelor) or programs about talentless people I somehow am supposed to care about (The Kardashians) or Pawn Stars or Storage Wars or The Real World or any of that garbage.
Anyhow, the film has plenty of droll humor (and also absurd moments) and I found it to be very funny. “Reality” TV is not the only thing it satirizes. Plus, there were several other moments that seem more timely now. There was the late 1970's version of both flat screen televisions and digital cameras, although the latter was done in an over the top fashion for laughs by being incredibly large & obvious. I haven't watched Get Out but I know the biggest theme is how plenty of white people act differently to blacks and they try hard to relate and be sympathetic to them but come off as incredibly condescending instead. I mention that as there was a scene where Brooks interacted uncomfortably with a black psychologist.
Like I said I thought this was pretty funny as the parents of the Yeager family (led by Charles Grodin and Frances Lee McCain) were both unforgettable in their performances, as was Brooks as he slowly but surely lost grip of his sanity during this boondoggle of a production. The film is worth seeing, even if it was an unfortunate harbinger of things to come in our real lives.
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 297 reviews
Ah, you should know the rest, including this being too long at 2 1/2 hours
I watched this on Friday night but I finally had the time today to complete this review. Most Star Wars movies are awesome in my eyes... boy did I not feel that way about The Last Jedi. I am not red-faced in anger like many of the most devoted fans are, but I am crestfallen I don't love the film like many do. Read all the details below, which do include some spoiler-ish material at the end:
NOTE: As this is always important when a Star Wars movie comes out, I will talk about spoilers, but only in the last part of this review and I will note when SPOILERS are coming and you can stop reading if you're one of the few not to have seen this already. It is awfully ironic that Disney had a pair of commercials which tell people not to spoil certain moments... then they show brief clips which beforehand I figured were taken out of context or misleading but I noticed played upon popular rumors I heard speculated months beforehand by some hardcores, meaning it was just speculation and nothing confirmed. I don't actively seek out such info, but sometimes I stumble across it. I won't reveal if those ads were misleading or not.
Also when talking about something from this franchise, I have to mention that since a kid I've been a big fan. No I was never a superfan who read any of the books or other media in the extended universe, but the original trilogy was awesome to me as a child... and is still awesome now. Nostalgia did play a part in me giving such high marks to both The Force Awakens and Rogue One, but even though both are flawed I thought they were a lot of fun. The prequels I never liked. If I was a kid when I saw them, perhaps. But I was 18, 21, and 24 years old when I saw them so it was easy to be critical.
I watched this on Friday night and somehow I dodged spoilers as if I was Han Solo piloting the Millennium Falcon through that asteroid field in The Empire Strikes Back. I noticed that people on Letterboxd were over the moon or thought it was mediocre, while I was told beforehand by someone I know who had already seen it and looked on the #LastJedi hashtag on Twitter... besides people revealing the biggest moments, plenty were not happy with the film. I can understand why some would feel that way, and I even can understand why someone else I know-who is a huge franchise fan-hated the movie and was flummoxed over feeling this way, and he was not the only person at that level of fandom who had those feels. This being as polarizing as a DC film not named Wonder Woman was NOT what I was expecting beforehand but here we are.
Me, “hate” is not the word I'd use. “Disappointment” is a more accurate term for me. I did not like how this turned out, for the most part. It's not because “this was different”; I was fine beforehand hearing the early reviews say this was not the standard Star Wars tale. My issue was with the story, all its plot holes & moments of illogic, the bizarre off-putting bits, it being too long, some pointless plot threads, and one element I'll mention in the spoilers section. That is even with the strong moments you do get, pretty visuals and some nice acting from the leads. I will mention that no one ever says “I've got a bad feeling about this”, which is incredible to me. That alone will make some of the most devoted fans seething with rage.
Me not loving a Star Wars film (excluding the prequels) is incredibly unfortunate and yet I have to be honest here. It can be argued this is a microcosm of how modern Hollywood is but I don't want to go down that road here. I am sure I'll see it again on the big screen; if my opinion changes I'll do another review. If not... I don't fault people for loving the film; I just don't fully understand why, that's all.
HERE BE SPOILERS; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Plenty of people have (rightfully, in my opinion) slagged the story as it does have a lot of problems and not all of it makes any sense. Yet I haven't seen too many people anywhere on the Internet note my biggest issue. I haven't looked everywhere by any means but my biggest problem was with all the humor. It tries to be WAY funnier than the other films. Besides it being jarring and not even the sort of humor you got in the other films, a lot of the jokes were just dumb and unfunny. My sense of humor is off-kilter compared to most but I was incredibly aggravated by all the “funny” one-liners and jokes. It literally did ruin the dramatic moments of too many scenes. It was just dopey and totally unneeded. If I wanted to see a quip-filled space romp, I'd just rewatch Guardians of the Galaxy, which did it better and did not crap over a beloved franchise. It was actually worse than such things as Leia flying through outer space as if she was Mary Poppins and Luke milking an alien that has four human-like breasts in order to drink green milk, and those moments were real stupid.
It's a shame the movie has all those insufferable moments-including plenty of bits I won't reveal-as there are also strong moments and the idea of Luke, Rey and Kylo all being conflicted: great, even if it isn't always realized well. But then you get stupid crap like the biggest mysteries of The Force Awakens being flushed down the toilet and Kylo being shirtless in one scene, seemingly so everyone can make the “I hear Kylo Ren's shredded! I hear he has an 8-pack!” reference. No, just no.
93% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 297 reviews
Ah, you should know the rest, including this being too long at 2 1/2 hours
I watched this on Friday night but I finally had the time today to complete this review. Most Star Wars movies are awesome in my eyes... boy did I not feel that way about The Last Jedi. I am not red-faced in anger like many of the most devoted fans are, but I am crestfallen I don't love the film like many do. Read all the details below, which do include some spoiler-ish material at the end:
NOTE: As this is always important when a Star Wars movie comes out, I will talk about spoilers, but only in the last part of this review and I will note when SPOILERS are coming and you can stop reading if you're one of the few not to have seen this already. It is awfully ironic that Disney had a pair of commercials which tell people not to spoil certain moments... then they show brief clips which beforehand I figured were taken out of context or misleading but I noticed played upon popular rumors I heard speculated months beforehand by some hardcores, meaning it was just speculation and nothing confirmed. I don't actively seek out such info, but sometimes I stumble across it. I won't reveal if those ads were misleading or not.
Also when talking about something from this franchise, I have to mention that since a kid I've been a big fan. No I was never a superfan who read any of the books or other media in the extended universe, but the original trilogy was awesome to me as a child... and is still awesome now. Nostalgia did play a part in me giving such high marks to both The Force Awakens and Rogue One, but even though both are flawed I thought they were a lot of fun. The prequels I never liked. If I was a kid when I saw them, perhaps. But I was 18, 21, and 24 years old when I saw them so it was easy to be critical.
I watched this on Friday night and somehow I dodged spoilers as if I was Han Solo piloting the Millennium Falcon through that asteroid field in The Empire Strikes Back. I noticed that people on Letterboxd were over the moon or thought it was mediocre, while I was told beforehand by someone I know who had already seen it and looked on the #LastJedi hashtag on Twitter... besides people revealing the biggest moments, plenty were not happy with the film. I can understand why some would feel that way, and I even can understand why someone else I know-who is a huge franchise fan-hated the movie and was flummoxed over feeling this way, and he was not the only person at that level of fandom who had those feels. This being as polarizing as a DC film not named Wonder Woman was NOT what I was expecting beforehand but here we are.
Me, “hate” is not the word I'd use. “Disappointment” is a more accurate term for me. I did not like how this turned out, for the most part. It's not because “this was different”; I was fine beforehand hearing the early reviews say this was not the standard Star Wars tale. My issue was with the story, all its plot holes & moments of illogic, the bizarre off-putting bits, it being too long, some pointless plot threads, and one element I'll mention in the spoilers section. That is even with the strong moments you do get, pretty visuals and some nice acting from the leads. I will mention that no one ever says “I've got a bad feeling about this”, which is incredible to me. That alone will make some of the most devoted fans seething with rage.
Me not loving a Star Wars film (excluding the prequels) is incredibly unfortunate and yet I have to be honest here. It can be argued this is a microcosm of how modern Hollywood is but I don't want to go down that road here. I am sure I'll see it again on the big screen; if my opinion changes I'll do another review. If not... I don't fault people for loving the film; I just don't fully understand why, that's all.
HERE BE SPOILERS; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Plenty of people have (rightfully, in my opinion) slagged the story as it does have a lot of problems and not all of it makes any sense. Yet I haven't seen too many people anywhere on the Internet note my biggest issue. I haven't looked everywhere by any means but my biggest problem was with all the humor. It tries to be WAY funnier than the other films. Besides it being jarring and not even the sort of humor you got in the other films, a lot of the jokes were just dumb and unfunny. My sense of humor is off-kilter compared to most but I was incredibly aggravated by all the “funny” one-liners and jokes. It literally did ruin the dramatic moments of too many scenes. It was just dopey and totally unneeded. If I wanted to see a quip-filled space romp, I'd just rewatch Guardians of the Galaxy, which did it better and did not crap over a beloved franchise. It was actually worse than such things as Leia flying through outer space as if she was Mary Poppins and Luke milking an alien that has four human-like breasts in order to drink green milk, and those moments were real stupid.
It's a shame the movie has all those insufferable moments-including plenty of bits I won't reveal-as there are also strong moments and the idea of Luke, Rey and Kylo all being conflicted: great, even if it isn't always realized well. But then you get stupid crap like the biggest mysteries of The Force Awakens being flushed down the toilet and Kylo being shirtless in one scene, seemingly so everyone can make the “I hear Kylo Ren's shredded! I hear he has an 8-pack!” reference. No, just no.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
The Postman Always Rings Twice (The Original)
The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Tay Garnett
Starring: Lana Turner, John Garfield, Cecil Kellaway, Hume Cronyn, Leon Ames
From: MGM
NOTE: The rest of my week is going to be busy and thus I doubt I'll be reviewing any films the next few days. Friday night I am supposed to see The Last Jedi and either on Saturday or Sunday (as I may not have any time to on Saturday) I'll give my take on something I hope is incredible.
Last night Turner Classic Movies showed this famous film noir, and as it was new to me I couldn't turn down that opportunity. It is not my favorite genre effort and yet I can say it is pretty good. It did not need to be 113 minutes long but the story was an entertaining yarn perfect for noir and the cast is talented & did a nice job.
The plot should sound familiar: a boy meets a girl and they conspire to kill her husband, only for it to go awry. To be specific, John Garfield shows up at a gas station/restaurant run by a husband and wife. The wife is Lana Turner and her initial appearance is her wearing a great pair of white shorts and no wonder he becomes smitten with her. Her husband is a few decades older than his wife, and the Garfield/Turner pair wish to kill off the old man so they can continue their torrid fiery passionate love affair, only it goes wrong, and along the way you find out why this story has such a title; it is not a random collection of words put together, as some titles appear to be in modern times.
Like I said it's an entertaining yarn and I dare not spoil any of the twists & turns. I'll just mention that there are supporting roles for Hume Cronyn and Leon Ames as opposing attorneys and they are both a lot of fun as they interact with the other characters. It is shot like how you'd expect it to and if you are a fanboy or fangirl of the genre, you probably should get around to it anyhow. Sometime in the future I'll watch the 1981 Bob Rafelson remake; besides the talent involved-such as Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange-the original novel this was adapted from was way too hot for 1940's movie standards, so that is in fact an acceptable explanation to have a remake.
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Tay Garnett
Starring: Lana Turner, John Garfield, Cecil Kellaway, Hume Cronyn, Leon Ames
From: MGM
NOTE: The rest of my week is going to be busy and thus I doubt I'll be reviewing any films the next few days. Friday night I am supposed to see The Last Jedi and either on Saturday or Sunday (as I may not have any time to on Saturday) I'll give my take on something I hope is incredible.
Last night Turner Classic Movies showed this famous film noir, and as it was new to me I couldn't turn down that opportunity. It is not my favorite genre effort and yet I can say it is pretty good. It did not need to be 113 minutes long but the story was an entertaining yarn perfect for noir and the cast is talented & did a nice job.
The plot should sound familiar: a boy meets a girl and they conspire to kill her husband, only for it to go awry. To be specific, John Garfield shows up at a gas station/restaurant run by a husband and wife. The wife is Lana Turner and her initial appearance is her wearing a great pair of white shorts and no wonder he becomes smitten with her. Her husband is a few decades older than his wife, and the Garfield/Turner pair wish to kill off the old man so they can continue their torrid fiery passionate love affair, only it goes wrong, and along the way you find out why this story has such a title; it is not a random collection of words put together, as some titles appear to be in modern times.
Like I said it's an entertaining yarn and I dare not spoil any of the twists & turns. I'll just mention that there are supporting roles for Hume Cronyn and Leon Ames as opposing attorneys and they are both a lot of fun as they interact with the other characters. It is shot like how you'd expect it to and if you are a fanboy or fangirl of the genre, you probably should get around to it anyhow. Sometime in the future I'll watch the 1981 Bob Rafelson remake; besides the talent involved-such as Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange-the original novel this was adapted from was way too hot for 1940's movie standards, so that is in fact an acceptable explanation to have a remake.
The Maltese Falcon (Believe It Or Not, A Version From 1931)
The Maltese Falcon (1931)
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Roy Del Ruth
Starring: Ricardo Cortez, Bebe Daniels, Dudley Digges, Una Merkel, Robert Elliott
From: Warner Bros
Yes, the famous 1941 movie was not the first time it was done, as I explain below:
I will operate under the assumption that even among film fans, there are plenty who did not know there was a previous film adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett story; heck, there was also the 1936 adaptation (a rather loose one) known as Satan Met a Lady, which I understand isn't too great. Remakes of films not that old is not a recent phenomenon, in other words. The way this was viewed: just recently my cable provider allowed it where you sign in with them and you can use TCM's On Demand service featured on their website; they offer a few dozen films & shorts; the films are available for only a week at a time.
I am not presumptuous enough to think that everyone reading this has seen the classic 1941 film noir, but sites like Wikipedia can give the breakdown of that plot and well, this 1931 version is not too terribly different. Private detective Sam Spade is asked by several people to try and find the titular bird, a valuable statue that people will resort to murder in order to acquire.
The movie is fine but compared to the legendary '41 film, that is clearly better in terms of acting, storytelling, and overall filmmaking. It helps when you have a tremendous cast, director, and other talent behind the camera. This version does have some interesting things to mention, though. If you ever wanted to see Sam Spade as a smilin' fool, a smartass and a horndog, then your dreams have come true as that's how he was written and how Ricardo Cortez plays him. Furthermore, as this was pre-Hays Code, things are racier; Spade asks a woman to take off her clothes to see if she's hiding money and a homosexual relationship between two supporting male characters that I understand is teased in the book is alluded to here. I can say that Spade's secretary Effie (played by Una Merkel) is a delight.
The movie's only a curio as you have a superior version of it that is quite popular, yet it's still interesting to see this as a means of comparison and on its own the motion picture is not bad.
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Roy Del Ruth
Starring: Ricardo Cortez, Bebe Daniels, Dudley Digges, Una Merkel, Robert Elliott
From: Warner Bros
Yes, the famous 1941 movie was not the first time it was done, as I explain below:
I will operate under the assumption that even among film fans, there are plenty who did not know there was a previous film adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett story; heck, there was also the 1936 adaptation (a rather loose one) known as Satan Met a Lady, which I understand isn't too great. Remakes of films not that old is not a recent phenomenon, in other words. The way this was viewed: just recently my cable provider allowed it where you sign in with them and you can use TCM's On Demand service featured on their website; they offer a few dozen films & shorts; the films are available for only a week at a time.
I am not presumptuous enough to think that everyone reading this has seen the classic 1941 film noir, but sites like Wikipedia can give the breakdown of that plot and well, this 1931 version is not too terribly different. Private detective Sam Spade is asked by several people to try and find the titular bird, a valuable statue that people will resort to murder in order to acquire.
The movie is fine but compared to the legendary '41 film, that is clearly better in terms of acting, storytelling, and overall filmmaking. It helps when you have a tremendous cast, director, and other talent behind the camera. This version does have some interesting things to mention, though. If you ever wanted to see Sam Spade as a smilin' fool, a smartass and a horndog, then your dreams have come true as that's how he was written and how Ricardo Cortez plays him. Furthermore, as this was pre-Hays Code, things are racier; Spade asks a woman to take off her clothes to see if she's hiding money and a homosexual relationship between two supporting male characters that I understand is teased in the book is alluded to here. I can say that Spade's secretary Effie (played by Una Merkel) is a delight.
The movie's only a curio as you have a superior version of it that is quite popular, yet it's still interesting to see this as a means of comparison and on its own the motion picture is not bad.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Friday, December 8, 2017
Thursday, December 7, 2017
The Villainess
The Villainess (Ak-Nyeo) (2017)
Runtime: 123 minutes (at least that's the version I saw; it's on Amazon)
Directed by: Jung Byung-Gil
Starring: Kim Ok-Bin, Shin Ha-Kyun, Sung Joon, Kim Seo-Hyung, Jo Eun-Ji
From: A multitude of Korean companies
Runtime: 123 minutes (at least that's the version I saw; it's on Amazon)
Directed by: Jung Byung-Gil
Starring: Kim Ok-Bin, Shin Ha-Kyun, Sung Joon, Kim Seo-Hyung, Jo Eun-Ji
From: A multitude of Korean companies
A lot of people like this recent import from South Korea; I did not. Find out why below:
I've known of this movie for a few months now. I was disappointed when it did not play anywhere near where I lived. Finally, the film recently entered the world of VOD and I decided to take the plunge. I heard a lot of strong praise so I was hoping this'd be something I would love. Alas...
It started off well. I wish part of it wouldn't have been shot first person (or all of it been overdirected) but you still had a badass woman gun down and slice with blades at least 50 dudes and it was tremendous. Then the plot starts and... aside from not really enjoying the overplotted story in general, it is told in the most confusing non-linear way and honestly I grew frustrated with that nonsense. Hell, besides the story being overdone, so it the direction. The action scenes aren't the only place where the camera moves around too much or they try to make it look like it was shot in one take or other elements that in other films can be fine but here was distracting; the action scenes weren't the only things ruined by too much direction (i.e. using GoPro cameras, which is just one of the problems I had with it). It happened during some dialogue scenes too.
Why couldn't have this been easy and simple like John Wick? That was awesome and did not have all that nonsense as you saw an incredible warrior take out a bunch of scumbags because they were scumbags. That's all you needed there. John Wick 2, I did not like that story either but at least the action beats weren't done in a frustrating way. Atomic Blonde-a natural comparison due to their leads and coming out at almost the same time in the United States-had its issues too but I found that a lot more enjoyable and again, I had no problem with its action beats.
I knew little about the movie going in besides some pretty strong praise so I was blind to the elements I had the most issue with. To say I am disappointed I did not have a rad old time with this like I have with some other Korean klassics is describing my feelings mildly. I understand those that love the movie-what I got was not what I wanted.
The Doll (A Movie From Mongolia!)
I have little info to share as this does not have an IMDb entry. I'll just link to its page on Amazon Video here. The 2015 movie is actually not bad, as I explain below:
Here is something truly unique: not only is this a film on Amazon Video that does not even have an IMDb entry, this is the only horror movie I know of that is from the country of... MONGOLIA. Besides the novelty of that there was Amazon's description of the film being like “the Chucky series”, which is not exactly accurate. Think more something like the site's “favorite” movie Wish Upon; it is a Monkey's Paw type of story where wishes are granted, but at a great cost due to fate being interfered with.
A young woman is not at a good point in her life. Her mom is in the hospital and the Mongolian healthcare system is not the best... it costs money to treat her for her unnamed malady, and she has to pay AND bring the medicine that her mom needs for her therapy? Yikes. Plus, at her desk job the boss is a total Harvey Weinstein. She decides to buy a creepy-looking doll from a creepy-looking guy walking the streets of Ulaanbaatar or wherever it was filmed at. It's not a large doll like Chucky or even the Annabelle doll-real or fictional-and instead is a small doll you'd see a little kid with, except it looks goth and is creepy as S, so no kid would actually play with it.
In a hilarious moment, you see the doll communicate with her via... a wacky dream sequence where the doll becomes a “little person” made to look like the doll and speaks in a demonic voice. Considering the CG you see in the film is not good, doing it that way was probably the best solution but the way this person looked was something I had to guffaw at as it was kind of absurd. Anyway, to give an example of the wishes the young woman asked for, she wanted “money” so she soon got a lot of cash, albeit from stealing it from a dead guy after the bus they were on crashes after a collision with another vehicle.
I had no idea if this'd be any good or not; I was glad then when the film ended up being average. It is filled with cliché and yet for the most part it was competently made and there's not only the exploitation element of seeing our heroine get assaulted, there is also some gore, which was practical and looks fine. I am sure Wish Upon is funnier but I will make the assumption that this is better. The fate of Mongolian Harvey Weinstein is at least pretty glorious as it is deliciously over the top. Plus, you get to see what life in Mongolia is like: besides there being even more Toyota Prius vehicles than you see in the United States, their nightclubs feature songs in English where the main refrain is, “I just wanna make you wet!”
Here is something truly unique: not only is this a film on Amazon Video that does not even have an IMDb entry, this is the only horror movie I know of that is from the country of... MONGOLIA. Besides the novelty of that there was Amazon's description of the film being like “the Chucky series”, which is not exactly accurate. Think more something like the site's “favorite” movie Wish Upon; it is a Monkey's Paw type of story where wishes are granted, but at a great cost due to fate being interfered with.
A young woman is not at a good point in her life. Her mom is in the hospital and the Mongolian healthcare system is not the best... it costs money to treat her for her unnamed malady, and she has to pay AND bring the medicine that her mom needs for her therapy? Yikes. Plus, at her desk job the boss is a total Harvey Weinstein. She decides to buy a creepy-looking doll from a creepy-looking guy walking the streets of Ulaanbaatar or wherever it was filmed at. It's not a large doll like Chucky or even the Annabelle doll-real or fictional-and instead is a small doll you'd see a little kid with, except it looks goth and is creepy as S, so no kid would actually play with it.
In a hilarious moment, you see the doll communicate with her via... a wacky dream sequence where the doll becomes a “little person” made to look like the doll and speaks in a demonic voice. Considering the CG you see in the film is not good, doing it that way was probably the best solution but the way this person looked was something I had to guffaw at as it was kind of absurd. Anyway, to give an example of the wishes the young woman asked for, she wanted “money” so she soon got a lot of cash, albeit from stealing it from a dead guy after the bus they were on crashes after a collision with another vehicle.
I had no idea if this'd be any good or not; I was glad then when the film ended up being average. It is filled with cliché and yet for the most part it was competently made and there's not only the exploitation element of seeing our heroine get assaulted, there is also some gore, which was practical and looks fine. I am sure Wish Upon is funnier but I will make the assumption that this is better. The fate of Mongolian Harvey Weinstein is at least pretty glorious as it is deliciously over the top. Plus, you get to see what life in Mongolia is like: besides there being even more Toyota Prius vehicles than you see in the United States, their nightclubs feature songs in English where the main refrain is, “I just wanna make you wet!”
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Fat City
Fat City (1972)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Stacy Keach, Jeff Bridges, Susan Tyrrell, Candy Clark
From: Columbia
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Stacy Keach, Jeff Bridges, Susan Tyrrell, Candy Clark
From: Columbia
There are many quality movies from the 1970's worth seeing; this is one of them. No surprise that John Huston did a good job in the director's chair, as I explain below:
For at least the past few years I've known about this motion picture and yet it was just last night that I decided to give this heavyweight contender (this movie is about boxers on the opposite ends of their careers, but the story is a lot more than that) a shot and as many say, this film is very good. Note that there are many that classify it as a neo-noir; the label does accurately portray the tone of the movie and how it isn't something cheery and inspirational like Rocky, oh it definitely is not.
It is about Billy Tully (Stacy Keach), who is an old boxer who hasn't even fought in a year and a half. He's had his struggles in life and things have gone downhill after his wife left him. He meets up with the humorously named Ernie Munger (Jeff Bridges) in a boxing gym, and Ernie is convinced to become a professional boxer even though he is still in his teens. They then only occasionally interact with each other the rest of the movie. Much of it is them dealing with their own problems, mainly outside of the squared circle. That includes trying to make ends meet, and problems with women... Ernie has Faye (Candy Clark) while Billy meets up with the unforgettable barfly known as Oma (Susan Tyrrell). There are other fascinating characters but I mention the main ones as they deliver the best performances; Tyrrell got a Best Supporting Actress nomination from the Academy but all four are quality in the acting department.
It was filmed and set in Stockton, California; plenty of unglamorous locations are seen as we see the dark underbelly of boxing. Sure, that can be said of any sport but in a brutal physical mano y mano contest like that, having to fight in small buildings for not a lot of money... pretty rough. I don't want to give too much else away but I was always interested despite the subject matter being dreary and the film having brutally honest moments. This is definitely 1970's cinema, in other words.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Mondo Cane
Mondo Cane (1962)
Runtime: An overlong 107 minutes
Directed by: Paolo Cavara/Gualtiero Jacopetti/Franco Prosperi
Starring: This is a documentary, although that is seemingly a usual loose definition
From: Cineriz
Runtime: An overlong 107 minutes
Directed by: Paolo Cavara/Gualtiero Jacopetti/Franco Prosperi
Starring: This is a documentary, although that is seemingly a usual loose definition
From: Cineriz
In late 2017, this movie definitely has lost the power it once held 55 years ago. Read all about this influential (but still not so good) movie below:
Here is another movie I've known of for years, so I decided I should go and check it out. Thanks to Amazon Prime I was able to do so. My reaction to it with 2017 eyes is “meh” but as I'll explain later, it did spawn its own genre.
This is a documentary (although some moments are obviously staged and phony, despite what they claimed at the beginning) which has “shocking” moments, at least by early 60's standards. Various unusual practices are shown... everything from a California pet cemetery and acts of self-flagellation to the eating of unusual animals and various island tribes shown doing bizarre things. There's plenty more but I had to mention as a word of warning not only do you see plenty of animals get killed-usually in brutal ways-but there's no short of racism and racial stereotypes either. I don't know how the narration was in its native Italy or in other languages, but the English narration is quite condescending when it is not being racist.
I'd give this a higher rating as I can understand how this was mind-blowing in the early 60's (where seeing sights from around the world was rare, especially the more exotic stuff) but aside from the staged moments and how I don't trust that a lot of what I am told about the footage is actually accurate, the racism, the graphic animal killings... there are long stretches where things grind to a halt and the movie is downright sleep-inducing. There is no reason why this is 107 minutes long, believe me.
The biggest asset is the score from Riz Ortolani and Nino Oliviero; it's too good for a movie like this. That lead to the amazing fact that this got an Oscar nomination, for Best Original Song. It did not win but once English lyrics were attached to the pleasant orchestral song, it was covered by a wide variety of familiar names: Sinatra, Andy Williams, Duke Ellington, Judy Garland, Doris Day, Diana Ross & The Supremes, Roy Orbison, Glen Campbell, etc. The tune is better than Mondo Cane itself.
This started the Mondo genre, which presented similar documentaries, often with fake footage. Most have been forgotten today but the category includes the Faces of Death/Traces of Death movies and arguably something like Cannibal Holocaust. The Internet has made those movies seem quaint by comparison when you can see something “daring” after about a minute of searching but I suppose people will always have an interest in shocking/sexy/exotic/wild clips as a way to add some excitement to their mundane, humdrum lives.
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Titanic
Titanic (1997)
Runtime: 194 minutes long
Directed by: James Cameron and his ego
Starring: Leo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher
From: Paramount/20th Century Fox
I realize people will be flabbergasted when I say this was a first time watch for me... and yet it is true. I will explain all below, including how I thought this was pretty good:
If you live close by an AMC Theatres (in particular, one that has Dolby Cinema at AMC), for the upcoming week you will be able to see this film, either in 2D or 3D; I saw the 2D version. Some may be astonished to hear this, but until yesterday I had never seen this movie before. True story. I was old enough to where I could have gone to a screening back 20 years ago on my own, but I never did.
I'd have to say it was the mania surrounding the movie and how people overreacted to it (and Leo DiCaprio) that was a turn-off; plus, James Cameron has made some awesome films but I'd prefer something like The Terminator, T2, and Aliens to a “romance”. That Celine Dion song also got pretty old pretty quickly, to be honest. In the subsequent years, I never had the desire to finally give this a chance, even with all the moments that entered pop culture. Finally, I decided this would be the perfect opportunity for the first viewing. I can say that the movie looks and sounds great in Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos; it will be an impressive 4K UHD release once that happens sometime in the future.
As for the movie, it is pretty good. Many people not liking it at all is an idea I can comprehend. I realize the epics of old this tried to emulate also had cliches but this movie was awash in it. At times I did sigh or roll my eyes at the rote moments or the one dimensional characters or the dialogue... even in Cameron's best films, dialogue is the weak point. At times I felt the over 3 hour runtime.
Yet I can still give this a nice-enough rating. A big reason is that the two leads were DiCaprio and Winslet, and their chemistry with each other. They were great in their roles and I enjoyed those two being together, whether it was their first interactions, the unforgettable moment where Jack draws Rose nude (by the way, why did Jack have to do drawings of naked women... oh right, because it's Hollywood), and them having hot sweaty sex in the back of a vehicle where Jack “docks his ship into Rose's port.” If that wouldn't have worked as well, those 3 hours would have felt much longer for me. And that is even taking into account how well Cameron brings 1912 and the legendary ocean liner to life. Oh, and I'd be remiss if I did not mention how well Billy Zane played a real D-bag.
That element feels authentic as much time & effort was spent in being true to life, and it'd be fascinating to have been on the Titanic... except for the whole sinking part or how chaotic it was as the ship was seen as unsinkable so there was only about half the lifeboats needed, everyone was unprepared and there was obvious class bias as there were several obvious and different social strata present... those elements were presented very well, especially the sinking of the ship itself. In addition, my opinion of Dion's song aside (although in hindsight it's a masterpiece compared to how terrible the Top 40 scene has been in recent years) the James Horner score was quite good.
The movie definitely has flaws and maybe my heart is like an iceberg in finding various moments to be annoying. Yet I do understand why this was such a massive hit and even with inflation, in the United States this is the 5th highest grossing movie of all time. Considering that, the director and cast it was about time I finally watched the motion picture. I now know all of those pop culture moments in context, which is nice. I remember before this came out, how it went wildly over budget and was predicted to be another Waterworld, which technically did not lose money but was still a disappointment. Instead this became a film beloved by many. There definitely are Cameron movies I love more than this yet I do not regret finally seeing something that is still popular today.
Runtime: 194 minutes long
Directed by: James Cameron and his ego
Starring: Leo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher
From: Paramount/20th Century Fox
I realize people will be flabbergasted when I say this was a first time watch for me... and yet it is true. I will explain all below, including how I thought this was pretty good:
If you live close by an AMC Theatres (in particular, one that has Dolby Cinema at AMC), for the upcoming week you will be able to see this film, either in 2D or 3D; I saw the 2D version. Some may be astonished to hear this, but until yesterday I had never seen this movie before. True story. I was old enough to where I could have gone to a screening back 20 years ago on my own, but I never did.
I'd have to say it was the mania surrounding the movie and how people overreacted to it (and Leo DiCaprio) that was a turn-off; plus, James Cameron has made some awesome films but I'd prefer something like The Terminator, T2, and Aliens to a “romance”. That Celine Dion song also got pretty old pretty quickly, to be honest. In the subsequent years, I never had the desire to finally give this a chance, even with all the moments that entered pop culture. Finally, I decided this would be the perfect opportunity for the first viewing. I can say that the movie looks and sounds great in Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos; it will be an impressive 4K UHD release once that happens sometime in the future.
As for the movie, it is pretty good. Many people not liking it at all is an idea I can comprehend. I realize the epics of old this tried to emulate also had cliches but this movie was awash in it. At times I did sigh or roll my eyes at the rote moments or the one dimensional characters or the dialogue... even in Cameron's best films, dialogue is the weak point. At times I felt the over 3 hour runtime.
Yet I can still give this a nice-enough rating. A big reason is that the two leads were DiCaprio and Winslet, and their chemistry with each other. They were great in their roles and I enjoyed those two being together, whether it was their first interactions, the unforgettable moment where Jack draws Rose nude (by the way, why did Jack have to do drawings of naked women... oh right, because it's Hollywood), and them having hot sweaty sex in the back of a vehicle where Jack “docks his ship into Rose's port.” If that wouldn't have worked as well, those 3 hours would have felt much longer for me. And that is even taking into account how well Cameron brings 1912 and the legendary ocean liner to life. Oh, and I'd be remiss if I did not mention how well Billy Zane played a real D-bag.
That element feels authentic as much time & effort was spent in being true to life, and it'd be fascinating to have been on the Titanic... except for the whole sinking part or how chaotic it was as the ship was seen as unsinkable so there was only about half the lifeboats needed, everyone was unprepared and there was obvious class bias as there were several obvious and different social strata present... those elements were presented very well, especially the sinking of the ship itself. In addition, my opinion of Dion's song aside (although in hindsight it's a masterpiece compared to how terrible the Top 40 scene has been in recent years) the James Horner score was quite good.
The movie definitely has flaws and maybe my heart is like an iceberg in finding various moments to be annoying. Yet I do understand why this was such a massive hit and even with inflation, in the United States this is the 5th highest grossing movie of all time. Considering that, the director and cast it was about time I finally watched the motion picture. I now know all of those pop culture moments in context, which is nice. I remember before this came out, how it went wildly over budget and was predicted to be another Waterworld, which technically did not lose money but was still a disappointment. Instead this became a film beloved by many. There definitely are Cameron movies I love more than this yet I do not regret finally seeing something that is still popular today.
Deadly Prey
Deadly Prey (1987)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: David A. Prior
Starring: Ted Prior, David Campbell, Suzanne Tara, Cameron Mitchell, Troy Donahue
From: AIP
This movie is a lot of fun; technically it's not good but it delivers on B-action entertainment, if you are into that sort of thing. I talk it all below:
NOTE: This rating is mainly due to entertainment value and not film quality, which is poor. I understand the budget was real low but to list an example, some of the dialogue you hear was obviously not coming out of the character's mouths.
Another reason why I love being a member of Amazon Prime: I can watch this famous 80's B-action cult classic for free. Director David A. Prior and brother/lead Ted Prior made plenty of movies together but this was the one that through the course of time became famous in some circles. The story is basically The Most Dangerous Game mixed with Rambo: an evil Col. Hogan trains mercenaries for a rich A-hole and instead of doing traditional practice via drills and war games, he has people kidnapped so they can be hunted and killed. His bad luck then that Mike Danton was kidnapped, as Danton knows Hogan back from their legitimate military days and Danton is great at combat.
This is ridiculous 80's B-action all the way, from the low budget to there being gratuitous moments involving women, explosions, dozens of SOB's being killed, 80's score, older/famous actors embarrassing themselves for a paycheck, homoerotic moments... the hero is fitting as the lead in this genre: good looks, muscular, tan, mullet, cutoff jean shorts... a good amount of the movie he runs around while only wearing those jorts. Many people die throughout, and when the final act hits, there are some gleefully over the top moments.
This is not the best nor the most over the top film of its type; that said, those that are fans of this sort of motion pictures need to check it out if they haven't as it is likely they'll love this farcical nonsense.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: David A. Prior
Starring: Ted Prior, David Campbell, Suzanne Tara, Cameron Mitchell, Troy Donahue
From: AIP
This movie is a lot of fun; technically it's not good but it delivers on B-action entertainment, if you are into that sort of thing. I talk it all below:
NOTE: This rating is mainly due to entertainment value and not film quality, which is poor. I understand the budget was real low but to list an example, some of the dialogue you hear was obviously not coming out of the character's mouths.
Another reason why I love being a member of Amazon Prime: I can watch this famous 80's B-action cult classic for free. Director David A. Prior and brother/lead Ted Prior made plenty of movies together but this was the one that through the course of time became famous in some circles. The story is basically The Most Dangerous Game mixed with Rambo: an evil Col. Hogan trains mercenaries for a rich A-hole and instead of doing traditional practice via drills and war games, he has people kidnapped so they can be hunted and killed. His bad luck then that Mike Danton was kidnapped, as Danton knows Hogan back from their legitimate military days and Danton is great at combat.
This is ridiculous 80's B-action all the way, from the low budget to there being gratuitous moments involving women, explosions, dozens of SOB's being killed, 80's score, older/famous actors embarrassing themselves for a paycheck, homoerotic moments... the hero is fitting as the lead in this genre: good looks, muscular, tan, mullet, cutoff jean shorts... a good amount of the movie he runs around while only wearing those jorts. Many people die throughout, and when the final act hits, there are some gleefully over the top moments.
This is not the best nor the most over the top film of its type; that said, those that are fans of this sort of motion pictures need to check it out if they haven't as it is likely they'll love this farcical nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)