The Dead Pool (1988)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Buddy Van Horn
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Patricia Clarkson, Liam Neeson, Evan C. Kim, David Hunt
From: Warner Bros.
You know, Eastwood hated the media long before Richard Jewell.
In the past I've revisited the other Dirty Harry movies and I enjoyed that process; I put off The Dead Pool as I recalled it not being the best coda for the character. This is true, although I can say it was still fine and somehow, I had forgotten just how anti-media this movie was. An entire subplot revolves around a television reporter lady “becoming friendly” with Harry and this offers him-and the film-many opportunities to rail against how exploitative and trashy the media is. I have my suspicions as to why Eastwood would feel this way about them in the 80's, but I don't want to speculate here; this opinion did not begin with Richard Jewell, not by a longshot.
The plot: Wade Wilso... er, I mean Harry Callahan gets involved in a case where someone is killing the cast & crew of a low-budget horror movie directed by David Swan (Liam Neeson!), a controversial figure; the titular Dead Pool is like the Death Pools you've seen on the Internet for years where a game is made out of picking celebrities who will pass away in a given year, whether it be due to old age, illness, drug problems or any other factor that puts their life at risk. Of course, the movie also bemoans how macabre this practice is. People on Swan's Dead Pool list are the victims of murder but naturally it isn't as simple as it appears.
This is by far the shortest Dirty Harry picture and after such villains as vigilante cops and The Scorpio Killer, someone murdering those on a B-movie production does seem slight in comparison. Plus, there are some really stupid moments and I have never figured out why there are some dangling plot threads and characters who you presume will have more of a role in the movie but essentially vanish. Now, seeing a remote control car equipped w/ a bomb chasing after an automobile on the streets of San Francisco... a unique idea. At least in the film, it comes across as incredibly goofy; it definitely won't make you forget Bullitt, especially with the vehicle being chased not a '68 Mustang GT but rather a crappy 80's Oldsmobile sedan that Harry drove as a car belonging to the police department. Somehow, doesn't seem dignified... and my first vehicle was a crappy 80's Oldsmobile station wagon.
Despite all those demerits, I can say that this was fine. Eastwood as Harry is a big asset, between the character's star power and one-liners. The general idea of the story is interesting and the finale was amusingly OTT. Neeson in a big role was nice. Speaking of being unrestrained, “James Carrey” has a small role as a drug-abusing leather pants wearing rock star; it was an in your face role so of course Carrey was a good choice for the part. Such things as Patricia Clarkson in the role of the television reporter lady make up for how Callahan has a Chinese-American as his partner and OF COURSE that guy knows martial arts. The performance I can't complain about, yet that is what I'll forever remember best about that character. As this final entry could have been a disaster, I can accept that the character's swan song wasn't something dire like Beverly Hills Cop 3.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Jay Roach
Starring: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York, Robert Wagner, Seth Green
From: New Line Cinema
Another time when I needed a laugh.
There was no way I was going to view anything on Sunday night; it wasn't even the Kobe news, although that was shocking and I feel awful that 9 people perishing in such a horrific manner, some of them children. Imagine coming across that news when you are at an informal get-together that was for the 1st anniversary of someone I know passing away at way too young an age... Monday, among other things... a podcast I listen to, one of the hosts had his dad die; for certain I needed something funny to make me feel better, and I hadn't checked out any Austin Powers film in who knows how long.
Thankfully, this hasn't aged too poorly. Not all the humor lands but overall it still is pretty funny, and much-though not all-of its best moments are when it parodies the most ridiculous aspects of the old Bond movies or other 60's British cinema. For those familiar w/ 007 on screen, there are many nods... whether they be obvious or more subtle. There is also the comedy of a stereotypical 60's UK cad in the drastically different 90's, or how in 2020 it is easy for me to chuckle at the late 90's, when I was a teenager during those years. So is seeing Dr. Evil also woefully out of touch 30 years later.
A talented cast-including some cameos, not all of which I had recalled beforehand-an appropriate score, a groovy soundtrack of new and old songs (which forever made Quincy Jones' Soul Bossa Nova attached to this character), plenty of amusing dialogue and such stereotypical old spy locations such as Las Vegas and “an underground lair” help in creating an accurate send-up that for certain has crude moments but never becomes gross and it was something which did brighten my mood.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Jay Roach
Starring: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York, Robert Wagner, Seth Green
From: New Line Cinema
Another time when I needed a laugh.
There was no way I was going to view anything on Sunday night; it wasn't even the Kobe news, although that was shocking and I feel awful that 9 people perishing in such a horrific manner, some of them children. Imagine coming across that news when you are at an informal get-together that was for the 1st anniversary of someone I know passing away at way too young an age... Monday, among other things... a podcast I listen to, one of the hosts had his dad die; for certain I needed something funny to make me feel better, and I hadn't checked out any Austin Powers film in who knows how long.
Thankfully, this hasn't aged too poorly. Not all the humor lands but overall it still is pretty funny, and much-though not all-of its best moments are when it parodies the most ridiculous aspects of the old Bond movies or other 60's British cinema. For those familiar w/ 007 on screen, there are many nods... whether they be obvious or more subtle. There is also the comedy of a stereotypical 60's UK cad in the drastically different 90's, or how in 2020 it is easy for me to chuckle at the late 90's, when I was a teenager during those years. So is seeing Dr. Evil also woefully out of touch 30 years later.
A talented cast-including some cameos, not all of which I had recalled beforehand-an appropriate score, a groovy soundtrack of new and old songs (which forever made Quincy Jones' Soul Bossa Nova attached to this character), plenty of amusing dialogue and such stereotypical old spy locations such as Las Vegas and “an underground lair” help in creating an accurate send-up that for certain has crude moments but never becomes gross and it was something which did brighten my mood.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Wayne's World
Wayne's World (1992)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Penelope Spheeris
Starring: Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Tia Carrere, Rob Lowe, Brian Doyle-Murray
From: Paramount
Apparently the origin of “That's What She Said.”
Viewing this last night was a last minute decision; I am unsure why it has taken me many years to revisit a movie I saw at least a few times when I was a kid & Saturday Night Live was actually funny. SNL I enjoyed seeing in the early to mid 90's... after that I lost interest and nothing in the 21st century has made me want to see the show. Eventually I'll view last month's Eddie Murphy episode via streaming but otherwise, I'll be happy to avoid a show I've heard many bad things about when it comes to recent output... and the fact that head writer Michael Che has such fragile feelings, he freaks out at ANY online criticism and becomes obsessed over them (look up what writer Jack Allison said about the situation; he became one of Che's targets)... why even spend a second worrying about such a lame property?
Anyhow, during the 90's SNL tried to make movies based off of various characters that sometimes appeared in 5 to 10 minute long sketches. Understandably, trying to make feature length films based off of figures that were only seen in short bits... many of those pictures were not that good. Thankfully, here they managed to craft a story about two slackers who did a public access show in the basement of Wayne's parents in Aurora & have it about a rich jerk trying to purchase the show & make it commercial so he could plug his row of arcades to “the kids”... that manages to work, along with giving Wayne a love interest in Tia Carrere (schwing!) and Garth has a blonde lady to lust over. Most importantly, this is meant as fun; often the characters talk to the camera & break the fourth wall.
I'll admit nostalgia plays a part in me giving this a high rating; it was a movie I thought was pretty funny as a child and as an adult uncomfortably close to 40, it still made me laugh. As juvenile as it can get (after all, I had no memory that there was a there are also astute potshots at crass commercialism. Wayne and Garth are easy characters to root for, and both Brian Doyle-Murray and Rob Lowe are tremendous as sleazy SOB's. The cast as a whole is quality: famous faces in small roles like Lara Flynn Boyle, Chris Farley, Meat Loaf, Ed O'Neill, Ione Skye, etc. to Carrere as a cool rock singer and an unforgettable Alice Cooper cameo. No surprise with director Penelope Spheeris that there's a rock score, and a good one.
It's unfortunate that Mike Myers was difficult on set and did not get along with Spheeris (there's a reason why Myers hasn't done too many movies in the past 10 or so years... he is always a nightmare to deal with) as Wayne's World 2 is a major step down from this-as I'll talk about in a review one day-and this movie was enough of a success to make the goofy AMC Pacer automobile a cult favorite and was one of the reasons why Bohemian Rhapsody was popular again in '92. I understand those that don't love this like I do, especially if it was first watched in these modern times or you do not get some of the references to products or ideas from the time. Me, I am relieved this has not aged poorly and in fact brought back some nice memories.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Penelope Spheeris
Starring: Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Tia Carrere, Rob Lowe, Brian Doyle-Murray
From: Paramount
Apparently the origin of “That's What She Said.”
Viewing this last night was a last minute decision; I am unsure why it has taken me many years to revisit a movie I saw at least a few times when I was a kid & Saturday Night Live was actually funny. SNL I enjoyed seeing in the early to mid 90's... after that I lost interest and nothing in the 21st century has made me want to see the show. Eventually I'll view last month's Eddie Murphy episode via streaming but otherwise, I'll be happy to avoid a show I've heard many bad things about when it comes to recent output... and the fact that head writer Michael Che has such fragile feelings, he freaks out at ANY online criticism and becomes obsessed over them (look up what writer Jack Allison said about the situation; he became one of Che's targets)... why even spend a second worrying about such a lame property?
Anyhow, during the 90's SNL tried to make movies based off of various characters that sometimes appeared in 5 to 10 minute long sketches. Understandably, trying to make feature length films based off of figures that were only seen in short bits... many of those pictures were not that good. Thankfully, here they managed to craft a story about two slackers who did a public access show in the basement of Wayne's parents in Aurora & have it about a rich jerk trying to purchase the show & make it commercial so he could plug his row of arcades to “the kids”... that manages to work, along with giving Wayne a love interest in Tia Carrere (schwing!) and Garth has a blonde lady to lust over. Most importantly, this is meant as fun; often the characters talk to the camera & break the fourth wall.
I'll admit nostalgia plays a part in me giving this a high rating; it was a movie I thought was pretty funny as a child and as an adult uncomfortably close to 40, it still made me laugh. As juvenile as it can get (after all, I had no memory that there was a there are also astute potshots at crass commercialism. Wayne and Garth are easy characters to root for, and both Brian Doyle-Murray and Rob Lowe are tremendous as sleazy SOB's. The cast as a whole is quality: famous faces in small roles like Lara Flynn Boyle, Chris Farley, Meat Loaf, Ed O'Neill, Ione Skye, etc. to Carrere as a cool rock singer and an unforgettable Alice Cooper cameo. No surprise with director Penelope Spheeris that there's a rock score, and a good one.
It's unfortunate that Mike Myers was difficult on set and did not get along with Spheeris (there's a reason why Myers hasn't done too many movies in the past 10 or so years... he is always a nightmare to deal with) as Wayne's World 2 is a major step down from this-as I'll talk about in a review one day-and this movie was enough of a success to make the goofy AMC Pacer automobile a cult favorite and was one of the reasons why Bohemian Rhapsody was popular again in '92. I understand those that don't love this like I do, especially if it was first watched in these modern times or you do not get some of the references to products or ideas from the time. Me, I am relieved this has not aged poorly and in fact brought back some nice memories.
Gamera vs. Barugon
Gamera vs. Barugon (Daikaiju Ketto: Gamera Tai Barugon) (1966)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Shigeo Tanaka/Noriaki Yuasa
Starring: Kojiro Hongo, Kyoko Enami, Yuzo Hayakawa, Takuya Fujioka, Koji Fujiyamwa
From: Daiei
I will note two things: I'll be posting another review tonight and... what I promised in the beginning of this review, I don't deliver on; I pulled a Rise of Skywalker! Tomorrow's review will be of another Gamera movie and this time I'll tell the story, promise:
Barugon: LGBT Icon?
Remember how I said a few days ago that my schedule was chaotic but that it settled down? Well, someone I know has had some health issues as of late... minor as they are comparatively, in the past month they have had one thing after another happen to them, from the stomach flu to them receiving a virus that gave them a fever. That's caused some concern, but hopefully now there is more normalcy in my life. Something that I did last night inspired me to see this movie, which I'll explain at the very end.
This is the third Gamera movie I've seen, and as I've written before I've actually seen the early movies in the franchise as a kid, when the Sandy Dennis dubbed versions were released on VHS. I am glad those films are now on disc-even if it's from Mill Creek. As I remembered from way back when, this Gamera movie has a surprising lack of the flying turtle. This detail was the only thing I recalled... for certain the human story that is like Indiana Jones in being inspired by a 30's adventure serial-I had no memory of that. So was Athlete's Foot being part of the plot.
Barugon is a lizard w/ spikes and a freezing tongue; that is pretty tubular, but not as great as a RAINBOW shooting out of his spikes... that causes destructive damage. To me, that at least makes him more of an LGBT icon than The Babadook... anyhow, as a kid I recalled the movie as being dull, although I had viewed it only once. As an adult, I realize this is actually fine as the human story was focused upon, and one of them is an irredeemable piece of crap. I mean, he does many awful things throughout, which does lead to a juicy comeuppance. He is the one who caused all this trouble, as he believed the lizard's egg was actually a giant opal. But this drama was interesting and along with the cool destruction that Barugon inflicts upon Japan, that keeps things not dull; when Gamera is along it does raise hell itself.
Sure, the suits and miniature sets are fine (although not as good as what Toho did at the time) and this unfortunately stole an idea from Toho and portrayed some “islanders” by having Japanese men in blackface, but... overall this was better than I gave it credit for, even if it probably should have been shorter than 100 minutes. This gave me enough kaiju action to satisfy and Gamera was not a babyface hero quite yet so there was some ambiguity, not to mention this was not incredibly trite and slight.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Shigeo Tanaka/Noriaki Yuasa
Starring: Kojiro Hongo, Kyoko Enami, Yuzo Hayakawa, Takuya Fujioka, Koji Fujiyamwa
From: Daiei
I will note two things: I'll be posting another review tonight and... what I promised in the beginning of this review, I don't deliver on; I pulled a Rise of Skywalker! Tomorrow's review will be of another Gamera movie and this time I'll tell the story, promise:
Barugon: LGBT Icon?
Remember how I said a few days ago that my schedule was chaotic but that it settled down? Well, someone I know has had some health issues as of late... minor as they are comparatively, in the past month they have had one thing after another happen to them, from the stomach flu to them receiving a virus that gave them a fever. That's caused some concern, but hopefully now there is more normalcy in my life. Something that I did last night inspired me to see this movie, which I'll explain at the very end.
This is the third Gamera movie I've seen, and as I've written before I've actually seen the early movies in the franchise as a kid, when the Sandy Dennis dubbed versions were released on VHS. I am glad those films are now on disc-even if it's from Mill Creek. As I remembered from way back when, this Gamera movie has a surprising lack of the flying turtle. This detail was the only thing I recalled... for certain the human story that is like Indiana Jones in being inspired by a 30's adventure serial-I had no memory of that. So was Athlete's Foot being part of the plot.
Barugon is a lizard w/ spikes and a freezing tongue; that is pretty tubular, but not as great as a RAINBOW shooting out of his spikes... that causes destructive damage. To me, that at least makes him more of an LGBT icon than The Babadook... anyhow, as a kid I recalled the movie as being dull, although I had viewed it only once. As an adult, I realize this is actually fine as the human story was focused upon, and one of them is an irredeemable piece of crap. I mean, he does many awful things throughout, which does lead to a juicy comeuppance. He is the one who caused all this trouble, as he believed the lizard's egg was actually a giant opal. But this drama was interesting and along with the cool destruction that Barugon inflicts upon Japan, that keeps things not dull; when Gamera is along it does raise hell itself.
Sure, the suits and miniature sets are fine (although not as good as what Toho did at the time) and this unfortunately stole an idea from Toho and portrayed some “islanders” by having Japanese men in blackface, but... overall this was better than I gave it credit for, even if it probably should have been shorter than 100 minutes. This gave me enough kaiju action to satisfy and Gamera was not a babyface hero quite yet so there was some ambiguity, not to mention this was not incredibly trite and slight.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Ashfall
Ashfall (2019)
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Byung-Seo Kim/Hae-Jun Lee
Starring: Byung-Hun Lee, Jung-Woo Ha, Hye-Jin Jeon, Dong-Seok Ma, Suzy Bae
From: Several South Korean companies
I tell you, some things have compounded as of late and it has not only thrown off my schedule in general, but so does me watching movies and posting about them here. Hopefully now things will be back on track:
A Chinese knock-off Ford Focus: indestructible.
My schedule has returned to a sense of normalcy, allowing me to end my few day sabbatical, to the point that I was able to see this movie theatrically yesterday, which required a little bit of a journey to view. Getting to see a Korean movie on the big screen is an event that only happens infrequently where I live; Parasite's success is an anomaly. It seemed like a loony disaster picture (and it was) but I did recognize most of the main players from previous Korean movies.
Earthquakes and volcanoes are happening at the same time on the Korean peninsula... to quote Ashfall itself: the entire peninsula is colossally F'ed if the biggest eruption is allowed to occur. The solution to this problem: a Korean-American suggests that a NUCLEAR BOMB be detonated in a mine shaft right by the volcano and this will solve all the problems. Somehow, I imagine Neil Degrasse Tyson would be horrified to hear of this scheme. Of course, young neophytes end up having to sneak into North Korea to steal their nukes and add it to their detonator, and a turned spy imprisoned in the North also has to be broken out in order for the plan to come to fruition.
The movie is pretty silly and there was more humor than I was expecting, making me fear that Korean cinema is starting to borrow that bad habit from modern Hollywood. That said, at least it was reasonably entertaining as plenty of things are destroyed, along with shootouts involving North Koreans, Chinese and even Americans; not surprisingly in these modern times, the United States is portrayed poorly as being overbearing and trying to run things in South Korea as they are in chaos, along with chiefly being concerned with Americans in the country. They did do a swell job in presenting Korea as a nightmarish hellscape as plenty of ash did fall on the land, along with the carnage the earthquakes created. Another non-surprise is that there is melodrama present. There are several tropes which seem to be a constant in Korea's cinema: I'll specifically bring up “pregnant lady” and “crying child.”
It's been awhile since I've seen Byung-Hun Lee in something so it was nice to view him here in a juicy role as the North Korean spy. Eternals is something I have zero interest in but I know many do... once that hits I know that Dong-Seok Ma's profile will shoot up exponentially once that drops; at least I can give Eternals credit for diversity. This isn't even the best disaster movie I've seen from South Korea (only a few I have seen, but The Tower is something I can recommend) yet this was still fine and there were moments that legit made me laugh, such as North Korea apparently using a Chinese knock-off Ford Focus as taxis, or how from this movie you get the impression that they are indestructible and if you ever need to transport a detonator on a rocky landscape as a volcano is erupting all around you...
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Byung-Seo Kim/Hae-Jun Lee
Starring: Byung-Hun Lee, Jung-Woo Ha, Hye-Jin Jeon, Dong-Seok Ma, Suzy Bae
From: Several South Korean companies
I tell you, some things have compounded as of late and it has not only thrown off my schedule in general, but so does me watching movies and posting about them here. Hopefully now things will be back on track:
A Chinese knock-off Ford Focus: indestructible.
My schedule has returned to a sense of normalcy, allowing me to end my few day sabbatical, to the point that I was able to see this movie theatrically yesterday, which required a little bit of a journey to view. Getting to see a Korean movie on the big screen is an event that only happens infrequently where I live; Parasite's success is an anomaly. It seemed like a loony disaster picture (and it was) but I did recognize most of the main players from previous Korean movies.
Earthquakes and volcanoes are happening at the same time on the Korean peninsula... to quote Ashfall itself: the entire peninsula is colossally F'ed if the biggest eruption is allowed to occur. The solution to this problem: a Korean-American suggests that a NUCLEAR BOMB be detonated in a mine shaft right by the volcano and this will solve all the problems. Somehow, I imagine Neil Degrasse Tyson would be horrified to hear of this scheme. Of course, young neophytes end up having to sneak into North Korea to steal their nukes and add it to their detonator, and a turned spy imprisoned in the North also has to be broken out in order for the plan to come to fruition.
The movie is pretty silly and there was more humor than I was expecting, making me fear that Korean cinema is starting to borrow that bad habit from modern Hollywood. That said, at least it was reasonably entertaining as plenty of things are destroyed, along with shootouts involving North Koreans, Chinese and even Americans; not surprisingly in these modern times, the United States is portrayed poorly as being overbearing and trying to run things in South Korea as they are in chaos, along with chiefly being concerned with Americans in the country. They did do a swell job in presenting Korea as a nightmarish hellscape as plenty of ash did fall on the land, along with the carnage the earthquakes created. Another non-surprise is that there is melodrama present. There are several tropes which seem to be a constant in Korea's cinema: I'll specifically bring up “pregnant lady” and “crying child.”
It's been awhile since I've seen Byung-Hun Lee in something so it was nice to view him here in a juicy role as the North Korean spy. Eternals is something I have zero interest in but I know many do... once that hits I know that Dong-Seok Ma's profile will shoot up exponentially once that drops; at least I can give Eternals credit for diversity. This isn't even the best disaster movie I've seen from South Korea (only a few I have seen, but The Tower is something I can recommend) yet this was still fine and there were moments that legit made me laugh, such as North Korea apparently using a Chinese knock-off Ford Focus as taxis, or how from this movie you get the impression that they are indestructible and if you ever need to transport a detonator on a rocky landscape as a volcano is erupting all around you...
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Death Duel
Death Duel (San Shao Ye De Jian) (1977)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Yuen Chor
Starring: Derek Yee, Candice Yu, Chin Ping Chen, David Chiang, Yun Ling
From: Shaw Brothers
My apologies for not posting this here right after I posted this review on Letterboxd. The past few days I was preoccupied w/ other things so that was also why I did not watch any films for several days; things are back to normal now and in fact... tonight I'll post a review of a movie I saw on the big screen yesterday:
Surprisingly melancholy.
I am not describing my own mood, although I am expecting this to be the last review I'll be doing for the next few days due to me being preoccupied with other matters and not having any time for watching motion pictures. Rather, that is the unexpected description for a Shaw Brothers wuxia epic, one which does apply here. Someone giving props to this in a messageboard thread was the impetus for seeing my first film from this studio in way too many months.
The plot: The Third Master (Derek Yee making his movie debut) is great with his sword but does not wish any longer to deal with the pressures associated w/ being the best: everyone looking to challenge his skills, trying to usurp his title of being number one, having to constantly look over your shoulder, etc. Unluckily for him, circumstances even get in the way of his scheme of having a new life as a poor man who has to work at a brothel to earn a buck. Several plot twists subsequently follow.
The movie has a more complex plot than expected, resulting in many foes appearing; consequently, there is plenty of excitement between all the intrigue and action scenes, which of course are staged on the expected lavish Shaw Brothers sets-sometimes rather colorful-and there is no shortage of thrilling swordplay. Regrettably, while the idea of the story is rather interesting in how someone is unable to run from his past and is resigned to his fate, the execution of this convoluted story is not always great, sometimes leading to confusion. As others have noted, the passage of time is not always clearly noted, which only compounds things.
Even then, this was a solid Shaw entry that helped make Yee a star in that scene. An incredible badass ending will help make you forget some of the frustrating moments from earlier on, you know.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Yuen Chor
Starring: Derek Yee, Candice Yu, Chin Ping Chen, David Chiang, Yun Ling
From: Shaw Brothers
My apologies for not posting this here right after I posted this review on Letterboxd. The past few days I was preoccupied w/ other things so that was also why I did not watch any films for several days; things are back to normal now and in fact... tonight I'll post a review of a movie I saw on the big screen yesterday:
Surprisingly melancholy.
I am not describing my own mood, although I am expecting this to be the last review I'll be doing for the next few days due to me being preoccupied with other matters and not having any time for watching motion pictures. Rather, that is the unexpected description for a Shaw Brothers wuxia epic, one which does apply here. Someone giving props to this in a messageboard thread was the impetus for seeing my first film from this studio in way too many months.
The plot: The Third Master (Derek Yee making his movie debut) is great with his sword but does not wish any longer to deal with the pressures associated w/ being the best: everyone looking to challenge his skills, trying to usurp his title of being number one, having to constantly look over your shoulder, etc. Unluckily for him, circumstances even get in the way of his scheme of having a new life as a poor man who has to work at a brothel to earn a buck. Several plot twists subsequently follow.
The movie has a more complex plot than expected, resulting in many foes appearing; consequently, there is plenty of excitement between all the intrigue and action scenes, which of course are staged on the expected lavish Shaw Brothers sets-sometimes rather colorful-and there is no shortage of thrilling swordplay. Regrettably, while the idea of the story is rather interesting in how someone is unable to run from his past and is resigned to his fate, the execution of this convoluted story is not always great, sometimes leading to confusion. As others have noted, the passage of time is not always clearly noted, which only compounds things.
Even then, this was a solid Shaw entry that helped make Yee a star in that scene. An incredible badass ending will help make you forget some of the frustrating moments from earlier on, you know.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Carry On Cleo
Carry On Cleo (1964)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Gerald Thomas
Starring: Who you'd expect in this franchise
From: Anglo-Amalagated Film Distributors
I needed a good laugh this week.
2020 has barely began and plenty of events have occurred which would make a variety of people feel despondent, whether it be cheating scandals in baseball, the wildfires in Australia, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, political strife, etc. Me, there's also someone I know not feeling 100%; after a doctor's appointment it was something relatively minor that should be fixed with a prescription, but before that it caused some consternation. I know people who have dealt with worse as of late (such as them needing emergency surgery in the hospital) so I am glad this individual's health issue is not a big deal in comparison. Henceforth, viewing a comedy from the past seemed like a good idea, even if it's a spoof of a movie I hadn't viewed before... 1963's Cleopatra is 4 hours long, after all. I know of its torturous production history & I am sure it's more interesting than the actual movie.
Thankfully Carry On Cleo is funny on its own. I'll presume most are familiar enough with Cleopatra, Mark Antony and Julius Caesar to where they know how they are all connected to each other... the film is all about those three, and in particular how Cleo wants Antony to be her lover, but not before he kills Caesar. The movie is not historically accurate: aside from the foolishness of Sid James as Antony, Kenneth Williams as Caesar and Charles Hawtrey as Seneca, the British at the time are portrayed as still living in the Stone Age as cavemen. Kenneth Connor and Jim Dale are two Brits who are captured and taken to Rome. It was nice seeing the usual faces in this franchise as they are all entertaining folks, and Doctor Who fans will like that for one scene, Jon Pertwee appears.
The humor is exactly what you'd expect (although a homophobic word being uttered was quite the surprise to me): bawdy humor, puns, wordplay, some slapstick, absurd situations, etc. For me, all except the homophobic humor provided plenty of humor and helped brighten my mood. Production-wise, it was a big asset for this film that they were able to use the sets and costumes from 1963's Cleopatra; it was a big asset in helping the viewer believe they were in the ancient times. Mix in brief flurries of action that were fun & a fast pace... I see why many fans consider this one of the better entries in the entire series.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Gerald Thomas
Starring: Who you'd expect in this franchise
From: Anglo-Amalagated Film Distributors
I needed a good laugh this week.
2020 has barely began and plenty of events have occurred which would make a variety of people feel despondent, whether it be cheating scandals in baseball, the wildfires in Australia, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, political strife, etc. Me, there's also someone I know not feeling 100%; after a doctor's appointment it was something relatively minor that should be fixed with a prescription, but before that it caused some consternation. I know people who have dealt with worse as of late (such as them needing emergency surgery in the hospital) so I am glad this individual's health issue is not a big deal in comparison. Henceforth, viewing a comedy from the past seemed like a good idea, even if it's a spoof of a movie I hadn't viewed before... 1963's Cleopatra is 4 hours long, after all. I know of its torturous production history & I am sure it's more interesting than the actual movie.
Thankfully Carry On Cleo is funny on its own. I'll presume most are familiar enough with Cleopatra, Mark Antony and Julius Caesar to where they know how they are all connected to each other... the film is all about those three, and in particular how Cleo wants Antony to be her lover, but not before he kills Caesar. The movie is not historically accurate: aside from the foolishness of Sid James as Antony, Kenneth Williams as Caesar and Charles Hawtrey as Seneca, the British at the time are portrayed as still living in the Stone Age as cavemen. Kenneth Connor and Jim Dale are two Brits who are captured and taken to Rome. It was nice seeing the usual faces in this franchise as they are all entertaining folks, and Doctor Who fans will like that for one scene, Jon Pertwee appears.
The humor is exactly what you'd expect (although a homophobic word being uttered was quite the surprise to me): bawdy humor, puns, wordplay, some slapstick, absurd situations, etc. For me, all except the homophobic humor provided plenty of humor and helped brighten my mood. Production-wise, it was a big asset for this film that they were able to use the sets and costumes from 1963's Cleopatra; it was a big asset in helping the viewer believe they were in the ancient times. Mix in brief flurries of action that were fun & a fast pace... I see why many fans consider this one of the better entries in the entire series.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Plan 9 From Outer Space
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Ed Wood
Starring: Some famous faces
From: Reynolds Pictures
The past few days I've been greatly occupied with other concerns (I'll discuss that in my next review, up tomorrow) but at least I had the time to revisit an infamous bad movie which has had a stinky reputation since it was included in The Golden Turkey Awards book four decades ago... but it is not THAT bad when years later people saw some of the worst movies on MST3K, such as Manos, The Creeping Terror, and other atrocities.
Of course the movie has many problems: boom mics are seen, the cockpit of an airplane has wooden chairs and a shower curtain dividing the room from the rest of the plane, piss-poor dialogue, faulty logic, a scene changing from day to night repeatedly, some long dull stretches, cheap props and effects, & the not so convincing plan of still having Bela Lugosi's role in the film despite dying early into shooting via... having random stand-ins cover most of their face w/ their arm as they wear a cape.
All that said, this isn't so painfully bad that I struggle getting through it. Yeah, there's at least one long dull stretch but even then the poor filmmaking results in a movie that unintentionally becomes quite entertaining due to the ineptitude. The general plot is not a bad one: while the idea of resurrecting the dead to help prevent planet Earth from destroying the entire universe due to nuclear weapons is wacky, the anti-war message at least is in lockstep with what was a popular theme at the time. There are some familiar names that also appeared in other Ed Wood productions, and I can never get mad at Wood himself as he was a fascinating figure and it reminds me that I should view the Wood biopic as I understand it's worthwhile and I am sure riveting also.
This week, I needed some laughs and Plan 9 provided that. There definitely are plenty of atrocious movies which don't have as much atmosphere, less coherent plots, more aggravating moments, worse acting, cheaper productions, and overall are more grueling to get through than this silly 50's B-movie; I am sure that this isn't even the worst thing that Wood ever directed. One day I am sure I'll find that out for myself.
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Ed Wood
Starring: Some famous faces
From: Reynolds Pictures
The past few days I've been greatly occupied with other concerns (I'll discuss that in my next review, up tomorrow) but at least I had the time to revisit an infamous bad movie which has had a stinky reputation since it was included in The Golden Turkey Awards book four decades ago... but it is not THAT bad when years later people saw some of the worst movies on MST3K, such as Manos, The Creeping Terror, and other atrocities.
Of course the movie has many problems: boom mics are seen, the cockpit of an airplane has wooden chairs and a shower curtain dividing the room from the rest of the plane, piss-poor dialogue, faulty logic, a scene changing from day to night repeatedly, some long dull stretches, cheap props and effects, & the not so convincing plan of still having Bela Lugosi's role in the film despite dying early into shooting via... having random stand-ins cover most of their face w/ their arm as they wear a cape.
All that said, this isn't so painfully bad that I struggle getting through it. Yeah, there's at least one long dull stretch but even then the poor filmmaking results in a movie that unintentionally becomes quite entertaining due to the ineptitude. The general plot is not a bad one: while the idea of resurrecting the dead to help prevent planet Earth from destroying the entire universe due to nuclear weapons is wacky, the anti-war message at least is in lockstep with what was a popular theme at the time. There are some familiar names that also appeared in other Ed Wood productions, and I can never get mad at Wood himself as he was a fascinating figure and it reminds me that I should view the Wood biopic as I understand it's worthwhile and I am sure riveting also.
This week, I needed some laughs and Plan 9 provided that. There definitely are plenty of atrocious movies which don't have as much atmosphere, less coherent plots, more aggravating moments, worse acting, cheaper productions, and overall are more grueling to get through than this silly 50's B-movie; I am sure that this isn't even the worst thing that Wood ever directed. One day I am sure I'll find that out for myself.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Underwater
Underwater (2020)
51% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 127 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: William Eubank
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Vincent Cassel, Jessica Henwick, John Gallager, Jr., T.J. Miller (unfortunately)
From: 20th Century Fox
51% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 127 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: William Eubank
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Vincent Cassel, Jessica Henwick, John Gallager, Jr., T.J. Miller (unfortunately)
From: 20th Century Fox
I am glad that Moon Pies are still around in 2050.
From online discourse I know that others saw the trailer for this movie often and spotted commercials for it on TV; me, no ads have been watched and the trailer was only seen by me once on the big screen... The Turning was the January horror movie trailer I've been unable to escape. It wasn't something I was expecting to see but the positive buzz meant it was something I should give a shot too. Plus, it reminded me of those 1989 underwater horror movies that came out to ride the wave of The Abyss, such as Deepstar Six (which was OK) and Leviathan, a derivative but fun creature feature w/ a sweet cast.
I'll be honest here: the Twilight movies I've avoided like the plague and I haven't gotten around to her indie work, so this is the first Kristen Stewart picture I've seen since Panic Room, and that was 17 years ago. I have no beef with her personally or her alleged “bad” acting, which seems to be hogwash to me. From what I know, I am amused by her rebellious spirit and devil may care attitude. T.J. Miller, on the other hand... perhaps this sat on the shelf for a few years because his toxic ass was in this and he got canceled by everyone in the interim. The only other thing I've seen him in is Cloverfield and if the lines he had here were all improv... I am not saddened his career has gone down the commode! Besides, that “humor” was yet another example of a modern Hollywood movie lessened by needless “comedy” and “jokes” that ruin any tension or suspense or seriousness with characters in life or death situation. This is a trend I pray goes away soon.
Anyway, those demerits were not enough to sink the picture. It's not as fun as Leviathan but it is still an entertaining B-movie which doesn't try to be more than a silly creature feature. From a newspaper headline you see it is 2050 and a crew of mostly young people (but of course) work in a complex underwater that is drilling the ocean's floor. Two minutes in, catastrophe starts and they fear it's an earthquake, but of course we surmise that it is something more sinister. Their base is wrecked so they have to walk quite a ways in their futuristic suits and there's more than one weird creature at the bottom of the sea. They don't quite look like those abominations that the Russian Fisherman has pulled up for the past few years during his deep sea fishing expeditions and posted about on Twitter-one of them isn't all that realistic, to be frank-but they do at least look creepy.
The movie wastes little time in getting going and aside from Miller acting like someone who is mentally handicapped (I kid you not, this choade has a stuffed rabbit that he loves and constantly carries around!) the rest of the cast is fine and manages to be likable. I don't know why two times early on Stewart's character clutches her chest then it's a plot point that is summarily forgotten about... her Norah manages to be easy to root for. As an aside which I know will please some people, parts of the movie she runs around in her underwear. With that out of the way, even if the movie is also derivative of other works, it has some fun action sequences-even if they could have been shot more coherently-an entertaining score, popcorn thrills, a few nasty deaths, nice cinematography and a few decisions I am glad the movie made.
As the movie is far better than the January dumping ground dreck we have gotten from genre movies in recent years (I know The Devil Inside is the key example to note here, and apparently The Grudge remake fails spectacularly in presenting a new take in the franchise), I am glad this was not a disappointment or something I regretted seeing, although many will probably be happy seeing this at home... if they don't care about Underwater's box office totals.
From online discourse I know that others saw the trailer for this movie often and spotted commercials for it on TV; me, no ads have been watched and the trailer was only seen by me once on the big screen... The Turning was the January horror movie trailer I've been unable to escape. It wasn't something I was expecting to see but the positive buzz meant it was something I should give a shot too. Plus, it reminded me of those 1989 underwater horror movies that came out to ride the wave of The Abyss, such as Deepstar Six (which was OK) and Leviathan, a derivative but fun creature feature w/ a sweet cast.
I'll be honest here: the Twilight movies I've avoided like the plague and I haven't gotten around to her indie work, so this is the first Kristen Stewart picture I've seen since Panic Room, and that was 17 years ago. I have no beef with her personally or her alleged “bad” acting, which seems to be hogwash to me. From what I know, I am amused by her rebellious spirit and devil may care attitude. T.J. Miller, on the other hand... perhaps this sat on the shelf for a few years because his toxic ass was in this and he got canceled by everyone in the interim. The only other thing I've seen him in is Cloverfield and if the lines he had here were all improv... I am not saddened his career has gone down the commode! Besides, that “humor” was yet another example of a modern Hollywood movie lessened by needless “comedy” and “jokes” that ruin any tension or suspense or seriousness with characters in life or death situation. This is a trend I pray goes away soon.
Anyway, those demerits were not enough to sink the picture. It's not as fun as Leviathan but it is still an entertaining B-movie which doesn't try to be more than a silly creature feature. From a newspaper headline you see it is 2050 and a crew of mostly young people (but of course) work in a complex underwater that is drilling the ocean's floor. Two minutes in, catastrophe starts and they fear it's an earthquake, but of course we surmise that it is something more sinister. Their base is wrecked so they have to walk quite a ways in their futuristic suits and there's more than one weird creature at the bottom of the sea. They don't quite look like those abominations that the Russian Fisherman has pulled up for the past few years during his deep sea fishing expeditions and posted about on Twitter-one of them isn't all that realistic, to be frank-but they do at least look creepy.
The movie wastes little time in getting going and aside from Miller acting like someone who is mentally handicapped (I kid you not, this choade has a stuffed rabbit that he loves and constantly carries around!) the rest of the cast is fine and manages to be likable. I don't know why two times early on Stewart's character clutches her chest then it's a plot point that is summarily forgotten about... her Norah manages to be easy to root for. As an aside which I know will please some people, parts of the movie she runs around in her underwear. With that out of the way, even if the movie is also derivative of other works, it has some fun action sequences-even if they could have been shot more coherently-an entertaining score, popcorn thrills, a few nasty deaths, nice cinematography and a few decisions I am glad the movie made.
As the movie is far better than the January dumping ground dreck we have gotten from genre movies in recent years (I know The Devil Inside is the key example to note here, and apparently The Grudge remake fails spectacularly in presenting a new take in the franchise), I am glad this was not a disappointment or something I regretted seeing, although many will probably be happy seeing this at home... if they don't care about Underwater's box office totals.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
1917
1917 (2020)
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 325 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, some familiar faces in small roles
From: Universal
I saw this on Sunday night, before the Oscar nominations were made public. Those are even more problematic than usual but at least they were right in giving this many nominations:
In the past I've seen a smattering of World War I movies; thing is, all of the best ones (All Quiet on the Western Front, Westfront 1918, The Big Parade) are almost 100 years old. There's the immediacy of those taking place shortly after the war actually took place but I am happy that there is finally a new film about the conflict which deserves such high marks. I was intrigued by the trailer when first viewed a few months ago and it was awhile later that I found out it was filmed to look like one continuous take. All the recent praise had me excited so I was happy when the opportunity finally came to see this last night.
I presume everyone should know the plot by now from the trailer so I won't dwell... it was a simple yet effective tale where two soldiers are selected to deliver a message personally to a squad of troops that the Germans are planning an ambush and if they don't stand down, 1,600 lives are at stake... oh, and one of the two has a brother in that squad. Along the way, through conversation there is some characterization given... I've heard some complain that there should have been more but it was enough for me in this situation. The one take gimmick was more than just that; it helped make the movie incredibly intense. With the focus on the leads, you never knew when a German sniper or other soldier is lurking in the midst, hiding somewhere in the shadows, itching to shoot or otherwise attack. Then again, there's a case or two where someone appears in the open and only once he attacks do they realize he's not a friendly.
From what I read, like with Rope (which is what I thought while viewing the movie... and others thought too, from what discussion I overheard after the film) this was filmed in long takes and sometimes I had an idea where cuts were made but it was seamless. I am not a Nolan fan-as stated multiple times in the past-but his film's editing has never been an issue and Lee Smith masterfully put it together to make the effect work. The legendary Roger Deakins did the cinematography so of course it was a beautiful movie to look at and all the camera movements was critical for making the audience believe. Thomas Newman also delivered a nice score. As others have noted, Sam Mendes seemingly did the seamless take idea for the opening of Spectre and realized that he could do it for an entire movie, and thankfully it was not a spectacular failure when such a complex, difficult idea was attempted for a movie that has a few flurries of action.
The cast-while having some familiar faces in small roles-has the two leads as standouts as much of the time the focus is literally on them. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay are names not familiar to me but both were tremendous in their roles and made you care about those characters. It was not an easy trek for them as the movie made the hellish landscape-full of dead animals, destroyed buildings and mud... plenty of mud-look like something from a terrible nightmare... thankfully there are also some charming moments which help make 1917 not a miserable or punishing 2 hour experience. In addition, I also appreciated the subtle bits that I am glad the movie did not highlight as if they were insulting the audience's intelligence. 2019 in film is not something that I loved overall as there were too many disappointments; that said, there have been some outstanding moments and with the acknowledgment that the Oscar nominations announced hours ago were even more questionable than usual, all the accolades given to Parasite, The Irishman and 1917 are richly deserved.
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 325 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, some familiar faces in small roles
From: Universal
I saw this on Sunday night, before the Oscar nominations were made public. Those are even more problematic than usual but at least they were right in giving this many nominations:
In the past I've seen a smattering of World War I movies; thing is, all of the best ones (All Quiet on the Western Front, Westfront 1918, The Big Parade) are almost 100 years old. There's the immediacy of those taking place shortly after the war actually took place but I am happy that there is finally a new film about the conflict which deserves such high marks. I was intrigued by the trailer when first viewed a few months ago and it was awhile later that I found out it was filmed to look like one continuous take. All the recent praise had me excited so I was happy when the opportunity finally came to see this last night.
I presume everyone should know the plot by now from the trailer so I won't dwell... it was a simple yet effective tale where two soldiers are selected to deliver a message personally to a squad of troops that the Germans are planning an ambush and if they don't stand down, 1,600 lives are at stake... oh, and one of the two has a brother in that squad. Along the way, through conversation there is some characterization given... I've heard some complain that there should have been more but it was enough for me in this situation. The one take gimmick was more than just that; it helped make the movie incredibly intense. With the focus on the leads, you never knew when a German sniper or other soldier is lurking in the midst, hiding somewhere in the shadows, itching to shoot or otherwise attack. Then again, there's a case or two where someone appears in the open and only once he attacks do they realize he's not a friendly.
From what I read, like with Rope (which is what I thought while viewing the movie... and others thought too, from what discussion I overheard after the film) this was filmed in long takes and sometimes I had an idea where cuts were made but it was seamless. I am not a Nolan fan-as stated multiple times in the past-but his film's editing has never been an issue and Lee Smith masterfully put it together to make the effect work. The legendary Roger Deakins did the cinematography so of course it was a beautiful movie to look at and all the camera movements was critical for making the audience believe. Thomas Newman also delivered a nice score. As others have noted, Sam Mendes seemingly did the seamless take idea for the opening of Spectre and realized that he could do it for an entire movie, and thankfully it was not a spectacular failure when such a complex, difficult idea was attempted for a movie that has a few flurries of action.
The cast-while having some familiar faces in small roles-has the two leads as standouts as much of the time the focus is literally on them. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay are names not familiar to me but both were tremendous in their roles and made you care about those characters. It was not an easy trek for them as the movie made the hellish landscape-full of dead animals, destroyed buildings and mud... plenty of mud-look like something from a terrible nightmare... thankfully there are also some charming moments which help make 1917 not a miserable or punishing 2 hour experience. In addition, I also appreciated the subtle bits that I am glad the movie did not highlight as if they were insulting the audience's intelligence. 2019 in film is not something that I loved overall as there were too many disappointments; that said, there have been some outstanding moments and with the acknowledgment that the Oscar nominations announced hours ago were even more questionable than usual, all the accolades given to Parasite, The Irishman and 1917 are richly deserved.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Vantage Point
Vantage Point (2008)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Pete Travis
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Said Taghmaoui, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt
From: Columbia/Relativity Media
The best $1 I spent at a Kmart.
Actually, that isn't true, but this was purchased at that department store because I somehow remembered the film from when it came out and as it was so cheap, why not see it for the first time sometime in the future, which managed to be “last night?” It's a shame that Kmart is only barely hanging on as in the past it was quite popular and I went to the one in my hometown often when I was a kid. When this movie was purchased at my current local location, that place was on its last legs and its only merit was having random DVD's for cheap.
As for this movie, it ain't no Rashomon. Technically it's different from that as instead of presenting the same event from the viewpoints of several different people for the purpose of the audience attempting to figure out who is telling the truth (if anyone) or if what actually happened is a mix of several things... here, several viewpoints are shown for the purpose of telling a clear story in a certain way. The idea is fine... unfortunately the story was lackluster.
President of the United States William Hurt is in Spain with other world leaders, participating in a counter-terrorism summit. Naturally, the President was not a popular figure, so a terrorism shoots at him and blows up the entire event. As we see the plot unfurl, the other characters include American tourist Forest Whitaker, bitchy news director Sigourney Weaver (why has most of the roles I've seen her in the 21st century be accurately described as “bitchy”?), Secret Service agent Dennis Quaid, and Spanish cop Said Taghmaoui. This has a nice cast (there's also Matthew Fox, Zoe Saldana for a bit, Edgar Ramirez, Bruce McGill, James LeGros, and Holt McCallany) yet I wish the tale being told here didn't have some obvious “well OF COURSE this happened” moments that I looked at in a derisive fashion or such things as a cute little girl character that is put into peril, as why the hell not? I also had issues with the climax and what the entire conspiracy was, for reasons that I won't delve into as that would be spoilers.
I cannot say the movie is bad as in front and behind the camera things are competent and the musical score is interesting. It's unfortunate that with what must have been a complex task editing together everything into the final product, that Vantage Point wasn't better.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Pete Travis
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Said Taghmaoui, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt
From: Columbia/Relativity Media
The best $1 I spent at a Kmart.
Actually, that isn't true, but this was purchased at that department store because I somehow remembered the film from when it came out and as it was so cheap, why not see it for the first time sometime in the future, which managed to be “last night?” It's a shame that Kmart is only barely hanging on as in the past it was quite popular and I went to the one in my hometown often when I was a kid. When this movie was purchased at my current local location, that place was on its last legs and its only merit was having random DVD's for cheap.
As for this movie, it ain't no Rashomon. Technically it's different from that as instead of presenting the same event from the viewpoints of several different people for the purpose of the audience attempting to figure out who is telling the truth (if anyone) or if what actually happened is a mix of several things... here, several viewpoints are shown for the purpose of telling a clear story in a certain way. The idea is fine... unfortunately the story was lackluster.
President of the United States William Hurt is in Spain with other world leaders, participating in a counter-terrorism summit. Naturally, the President was not a popular figure, so a terrorism shoots at him and blows up the entire event. As we see the plot unfurl, the other characters include American tourist Forest Whitaker, bitchy news director Sigourney Weaver (why has most of the roles I've seen her in the 21st century be accurately described as “bitchy”?), Secret Service agent Dennis Quaid, and Spanish cop Said Taghmaoui. This has a nice cast (there's also Matthew Fox, Zoe Saldana for a bit, Edgar Ramirez, Bruce McGill, James LeGros, and Holt McCallany) yet I wish the tale being told here didn't have some obvious “well OF COURSE this happened” moments that I looked at in a derisive fashion or such things as a cute little girl character that is put into peril, as why the hell not? I also had issues with the climax and what the entire conspiracy was, for reasons that I won't delve into as that would be spoilers.
I cannot say the movie is bad as in front and behind the camera things are competent and the musical score is interesting. It's unfortunate that with what must have been a complex task editing together everything into the final product, that Vantage Point wasn't better.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Gaslight (1944)
Gaslight (1944)
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: George Cukor
Starring: Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten, Angela Lansbury, Dame May Whitty
From: MGM
It is fascinating that “gaslighting” has entered the lexicon of the English language.
In just the past couple of years, that term has become popular and people use it to describe a situation where-as Wikipedia puts it-”a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity.” Among the general public, I am not sure how many cared to look up the origin of the word and realized it was from a 1938 play, a 1940 British film, or here in its most famous iteration. I am not sure how it happened but now it's usually either used to describe something bad happening to a woman done by a loved one or in politics... let me skip past the latter to avoid controversy.
The plot of this story revolves around the former; Paula (Ingrid Bergman) is gaslighted by her new husband as they live in the mansion that belonged to her late aunt, who was mysteriously murdered years before. I will not reveal the reasons why her spouse created such a horrifying scheme to drive his wife crazy; also in the mix are interesting characters that include Angela Lansbury (in her film debut) as a tart of a maid, Dame May Whitty as a flighty older woman who provides some laughs, and Joseph Cotten in a role far different from the tremendous performance he delivered in Shadow of a Doubt.
As the director was George Cukor and the studio was MGM, naturally the production was high-class and everything was done pretty well. The cast does a nice job overall but without having seen most of the other entries, Ingrid Bergman deservedly won an Academy Award as she was tremendous in a difficult role where she was emotionally abused most of the way. The art direction was the other Oscar that the movie won, and that was top-notch. So was the light and shadow that was used in a noir sort of way.
The movie is more than just the source of a term that unexpectedly became popular amongst “woke culture”; it is a great piece of work where the lead is put through a psychological ringer and it is easy to feel sympathetic over the horrific way she is abused. He convinces her she is always tired, is forgetful, imagines moments, and otherwise does inexplicable things. It does result in an unforgettable finale when the other shoe finally drops and the bad guy finally gets his comeuppance. Also, the story does explain why it is known as Gaslight... it relates to lights dimming in the mansion when they aren't supposed to and is another aspect of poor Paula being driven mad.
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: George Cukor
Starring: Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten, Angela Lansbury, Dame May Whitty
From: MGM
It is fascinating that “gaslighting” has entered the lexicon of the English language.
In just the past couple of years, that term has become popular and people use it to describe a situation where-as Wikipedia puts it-”a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity.” Among the general public, I am not sure how many cared to look up the origin of the word and realized it was from a 1938 play, a 1940 British film, or here in its most famous iteration. I am not sure how it happened but now it's usually either used to describe something bad happening to a woman done by a loved one or in politics... let me skip past the latter to avoid controversy.
The plot of this story revolves around the former; Paula (Ingrid Bergman) is gaslighted by her new husband as they live in the mansion that belonged to her late aunt, who was mysteriously murdered years before. I will not reveal the reasons why her spouse created such a horrifying scheme to drive his wife crazy; also in the mix are interesting characters that include Angela Lansbury (in her film debut) as a tart of a maid, Dame May Whitty as a flighty older woman who provides some laughs, and Joseph Cotten in a role far different from the tremendous performance he delivered in Shadow of a Doubt.
As the director was George Cukor and the studio was MGM, naturally the production was high-class and everything was done pretty well. The cast does a nice job overall but without having seen most of the other entries, Ingrid Bergman deservedly won an Academy Award as she was tremendous in a difficult role where she was emotionally abused most of the way. The art direction was the other Oscar that the movie won, and that was top-notch. So was the light and shadow that was used in a noir sort of way.
The movie is more than just the source of a term that unexpectedly became popular amongst “woke culture”; it is a great piece of work where the lead is put through a psychological ringer and it is easy to feel sympathetic over the horrific way she is abused. He convinces her she is always tired, is forgetful, imagines moments, and otherwise does inexplicable things. It does result in an unforgettable finale when the other shoe finally drops and the bad guy finally gets his comeuppance. Also, the story does explain why it is known as Gaslight... it relates to lights dimming in the mansion when they aren't supposed to and is another aspect of poor Paula being driven mad.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
I Talk Elvis: That's The Way It Is
It's a 1970 documentary... which was redone in 2000; both are discussed below:
Today would have been the 85th birthday of Elvis Presley; recently I discovered it was last January that I last talked about one of his films. Thus, I figured it was the time-after seeing plenty of his cornball fictional movies-to view then discuss the first concert movie of The King. Only, there are two versions of the film and a few days ago I saw the original edition... then last night the Special Edition. For the rest of the review, I'll refer to the two as SE and OE.
The OE not only has rehearsal and concert footage-in that rehearsal footage, he wore some amazing multi-colored shirts-but also various soundbites from fans and those who organized Elvis' residency at the International Hotel in Las Vegas, and was a big deal as throughout the 60's Elvis did not perform on stage as instead he focused on those aforementioned cornball movies. In addition, a segment is spent on an “Elvis Appreciation Society” in Luxembourg, of all places; that was an odd curio. Colonel Tom Parker never allowed Elvis to perform internationally, for Lord knows what reasons. Actually, there are some strong rumors as to why that relate to why he always hid that he was some Dutch dude from The Netherlands, but that is neither here nor there. Point is, me calling him a huckster is putting it too kindly. Anyhow, this version can be rented online via sites like YouTube; just note that it apparently is the same as the version they have as a special feature on the 2007 DVD release, meaning it is mono and not remastered... when it came out in 1970 w/ a 4 track master. Via someone on Letterboxd, I understand it is in stereo... on Laserdisc; good luck tracking it down, let alone being able to see that.
The SE (which was created in 2000) is an improvement as you get more rehearsal footage, more concert performances, and both the backing band & background singers are identified by name. That was a nice gesture as from what is heard here and I've heard elsewhere randomly, Elvis in the 70's had a hot band behind him in live performances that could really tear it up so they deserve more recognition. The OE does have some performances that were not included in the SE for some reason... you get to hear them practice Bridge Over Troubled Water and I Just Can't Help Believing but only in the OE is it shown in concert. In any case, both cuts do humanize Elvis as you see him goofing around w/ his band, cracking jokes... but also being concerned about forgetting the lyrics to a song new to him, or even The King possessing feelings of nervousness before a performance.
In any case, since a little kid I've always enjoyed the music of Elvis; it is great as an adult to look at services like Spotify or Google Play Music and go through various obscurities in his back catalog. At least today, I'd rather not think about the bad moments in his life or his addiction issues. Instead, I'll note that this concert film demonstrated perfectly why he was a white-hot entertainer in the 1950's and even at the lowest point of his career, he had plenty of fans... what an incredible entertainer and singer who was full of charisma and swagger. No wonder is still a pop culture icon today.
Today would have been the 85th birthday of Elvis Presley; recently I discovered it was last January that I last talked about one of his films. Thus, I figured it was the time-after seeing plenty of his cornball fictional movies-to view then discuss the first concert movie of The King. Only, there are two versions of the film and a few days ago I saw the original edition... then last night the Special Edition. For the rest of the review, I'll refer to the two as SE and OE.
The OE not only has rehearsal and concert footage-in that rehearsal footage, he wore some amazing multi-colored shirts-but also various soundbites from fans and those who organized Elvis' residency at the International Hotel in Las Vegas, and was a big deal as throughout the 60's Elvis did not perform on stage as instead he focused on those aforementioned cornball movies. In addition, a segment is spent on an “Elvis Appreciation Society” in Luxembourg, of all places; that was an odd curio. Colonel Tom Parker never allowed Elvis to perform internationally, for Lord knows what reasons. Actually, there are some strong rumors as to why that relate to why he always hid that he was some Dutch dude from The Netherlands, but that is neither here nor there. Point is, me calling him a huckster is putting it too kindly. Anyhow, this version can be rented online via sites like YouTube; just note that it apparently is the same as the version they have as a special feature on the 2007 DVD release, meaning it is mono and not remastered... when it came out in 1970 w/ a 4 track master. Via someone on Letterboxd, I understand it is in stereo... on Laserdisc; good luck tracking it down, let alone being able to see that.
The SE (which was created in 2000) is an improvement as you get more rehearsal footage, more concert performances, and both the backing band & background singers are identified by name. That was a nice gesture as from what is heard here and I've heard elsewhere randomly, Elvis in the 70's had a hot band behind him in live performances that could really tear it up so they deserve more recognition. The OE does have some performances that were not included in the SE for some reason... you get to hear them practice Bridge Over Troubled Water and I Just Can't Help Believing but only in the OE is it shown in concert. In any case, both cuts do humanize Elvis as you see him goofing around w/ his band, cracking jokes... but also being concerned about forgetting the lyrics to a song new to him, or even The King possessing feelings of nervousness before a performance.
In any case, since a little kid I've always enjoyed the music of Elvis; it is great as an adult to look at services like Spotify or Google Play Music and go through various obscurities in his back catalog. At least today, I'd rather not think about the bad moments in his life or his addiction issues. Instead, I'll note that this concert film demonstrated perfectly why he was a white-hot entertainer in the 1950's and even at the lowest point of his career, he had plenty of fans... what an incredible entertainer and singer who was full of charisma and swagger. No wonder is still a pop culture icon today.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
No Name On The Bullet
No Name on the Bullet (1959)
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Jack Arnold
Starring: Audie Murphy, Charles Drake, Joan Evans, Warren Stevens, R.G. Armstrong
From: Universal
Audie Murphy: still a draw for my parents in 2020.
Sunday night both mom and dad were watching television, as they are wont to do. They looked to see what was on next, and they saw that the 1967 Western 40 Guns to Apache Pass was on, and while neither had seen it before, it was mainly viewed because is starred World War II hero turned actor Murphy. It made me realize I should see one of his movies; it was not that but rather something I had heard of before.
No Name on the Bullet is more psychological than you'd likely expect from the genre, and Audie plays against type. Short in stature and boyish in appearance, he naturally was usually the hero or the hero's sidekick. Instead, he was the villain here, John Gant; he rode a black horse and wore a black hat, so even at that time they made it obvious. Gant is an intelligent assassin, someone who always provokes the opposition first, allowing him to claim “self-defense.” He also can talk his way out of trouble along with being a tremendous shot. His reputation is so fearsome, the town of Lordsburg practically collectively soils itself in fright as his target is unknown and people are paranoid that those they slighted in the past are looking for revenge. He also refuses to name who he is after, always delivering vague and evasive comments. How curious then that a sort of friendship forms between Gant and town doctor Luke Canfield (Charles Drake).
It is always a compelling movie as you try to figure out who the target is, along with all the discussion of why Gant is such a ruthless killer, his justification that he “only kills wicked people”, and the town's various attempts to try and drive him away the longer he hangs around. It is fascinating watching someone ride into a sleepy little hamlet and does nothing while it is everyone else who is causing chaos and adding gasoline to the fire of fiery feuds just from his presence. It is great seeing his discussions w/ Canfield and the latter does not seem thrilled that the former has respect for him or especially him invoking comparisons between the two.
The movie does take its time but I was never bored. Audie was the standout, although the rest of the cast was fine overall portraying fools, drunkards, cowards, and all the rest... & Drake's performance is admirable. Personally I was happy to see the great R.G. Armstrong in one of his first film roles. I was happy to watch a Western different from the norm, although eventually I'll see Audie Murphy in a role more traditional for him. His war heroics are tremendous, although his life after that was melancholy; he had what we know now as PTSD and that affected the rest of his too-short life, passing away young due to a plane crash. Yet as my parents demonstrated, he has not been forgotten w/ the passage of time.
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Jack Arnold
Starring: Audie Murphy, Charles Drake, Joan Evans, Warren Stevens, R.G. Armstrong
From: Universal
Audie Murphy: still a draw for my parents in 2020.
Sunday night both mom and dad were watching television, as they are wont to do. They looked to see what was on next, and they saw that the 1967 Western 40 Guns to Apache Pass was on, and while neither had seen it before, it was mainly viewed because is starred World War II hero turned actor Murphy. It made me realize I should see one of his movies; it was not that but rather something I had heard of before.
No Name on the Bullet is more psychological than you'd likely expect from the genre, and Audie plays against type. Short in stature and boyish in appearance, he naturally was usually the hero or the hero's sidekick. Instead, he was the villain here, John Gant; he rode a black horse and wore a black hat, so even at that time they made it obvious. Gant is an intelligent assassin, someone who always provokes the opposition first, allowing him to claim “self-defense.” He also can talk his way out of trouble along with being a tremendous shot. His reputation is so fearsome, the town of Lordsburg practically collectively soils itself in fright as his target is unknown and people are paranoid that those they slighted in the past are looking for revenge. He also refuses to name who he is after, always delivering vague and evasive comments. How curious then that a sort of friendship forms between Gant and town doctor Luke Canfield (Charles Drake).
It is always a compelling movie as you try to figure out who the target is, along with all the discussion of why Gant is such a ruthless killer, his justification that he “only kills wicked people”, and the town's various attempts to try and drive him away the longer he hangs around. It is fascinating watching someone ride into a sleepy little hamlet and does nothing while it is everyone else who is causing chaos and adding gasoline to the fire of fiery feuds just from his presence. It is great seeing his discussions w/ Canfield and the latter does not seem thrilled that the former has respect for him or especially him invoking comparisons between the two.
The movie does take its time but I was never bored. Audie was the standout, although the rest of the cast was fine overall portraying fools, drunkards, cowards, and all the rest... & Drake's performance is admirable. Personally I was happy to see the great R.G. Armstrong in one of his first film roles. I was happy to watch a Western different from the norm, although eventually I'll see Audie Murphy in a role more traditional for him. His war heroics are tremendous, although his life after that was melancholy; he had what we know now as PTSD and that affected the rest of his too-short life, passing away young due to a plane crash. Yet as my parents demonstrated, he has not been forgotten w/ the passage of time.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
The Roaring Twenties
The Roaring Twenties (1939)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Raoul Walsh
Starring: James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Priscilla Lane, Gladys George, Jeffrey Lynn
From: Warner Bros.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Raoul Walsh
Starring: James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Priscilla Lane, Gladys George, Jeffrey Lynn
From: Warner Bros.
What better movie to see in the opening days of the new 20's?
Recently, plenty of people have made comparisons between the 1920's and this new decade which just began. At least in the United States, some had Great Gatsby-themed parties for NYE and it is easy to romanticize The Gilded Age with its jazz, flappers, and a general carefree attitude. Of course, let's hope that 2029 is better than 1929, where the stock market crash created The Great Depression that lasted through much of the 30's.
Another not so good aspect of American life back then was that Prohibition was a thing, where alcohol could not be sold or imported. Hysteria caused it to become a thing, but of course most still wanted to get sloshed so bootlegging became a thing and that was the main reason for a sharp increase in organized crime. That was the plot of this movie, which spans from ; it follows three soldiers who literally bump into each other at the tail end of World War I. Only a few minutes is spent in that setting, but it was enough to show the attitudes and opinions of all three. Two of them (naturally, Cagney and Bogie) get involved in bootlegging as they otherwise can't find work once they and other soldiers return home from Europe, while the third-Jeffrey Lynn-becomes a lawyer. Of course, all three end up in conflict with each other, although not always in the ways you'd think as all three have different opinions of each other throughout and sometimes their friendships change after big moments.
The story is framed around Cagney's character, Eddie Bartlett. He does have a rise and downfall, and a decent amount of time is spent w/ his downfall. Occasionally, a narrator is heard as various clips of the 20's were shown as context for how things were back then. It is a very good movie as-no surprise-Cagney is tremendous in his role as the little tough guy. Another non-surprise is that the rest of the cast is fine overall, with Bogart being great in his smaller role and the far lesser known Jeffrey Lynn-who mainly was a TV actor once that medium began-also did a nice job. So did Priscilla Lane, as the young entertainer who Bartlett has a thing for but the feelings aren't reciprocated.
As you'd suspect, the Warner Brothers production was high-class and high-quality all around, both in front and behind the camera; the director being veteran Raoul Walsh also helps. To paraphrase various mutuals, this was an epic story which both came at the end of the gangster movie era and the genesis of the film noir era. It had a fast pace and like most 30's pictures, there is plenty of snappy dialogue and sweet repartee. Those that love the famous gangster movies of the early 30's definitely need to check this out as that was done differently than those but not done worse.
Friday, January 3, 2020
I Revisited Attack The Block And...
it is still tremendous, a movie I love. It only serves as a reminder of how badly Star Wars wasted John Boyega, as he and Finn should have done MUCH more.
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Urban Cowboy
Urban Cowboy (1980)
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: James Bridges
Starring: John Travolta, Debra Winger, Scott Glenn, several real-life country & western stars, as my parents would say
From: Paramount
Travolta was Looking for Love... or as Buckwheat would say, “Wookin' pa Nub.”
It took me longer than expected to feel like watching movies again once I got back from my whirlwind Christmas vacation; I was not at 100% and among other things, several episodes of TV shows I was unable to view had to be streamed so I could catch up. Now I should have a more regular schedule and this movie was seen due to an unexpected anecdote that was shared by my father which does relate to Urban Cowboy. Note that I've known of the movie since I was a little kid, as my parents had the bestselling soundtrack... on 8-TRACK. Yes, they had an 8-track player which still worked at the time.
The plot isn't overly complicated: John Travolta plays Bud, a typical Texan from a small town who moves to Houston in the attempts to earn a job at an oil refinery. He stays with his uncle and a rapid romance develops once he visits Gilley's, a real-life nightclub in nearby Pasadena named after country music singer Mickey Gilley. Debra Winger plays Sissy, the love interest; she is independent while he is “more traditional” when it comes to gender roles, which somehow makes this seem modern in 2020... they get married before they really even know each other so of course problems arise.
Admittedly, it is a little silly-at least 40 years after the fact-that the big event which drives the engine of the plot is... a mechanical rodeo bull. Now, it's a wacky sort of thing you see at honky-tonks that is mainly rode by drunk people as a gag; at this time though, it was a new gimmick and at the very least, it was a conduit to drive a wedge between Bud & Sissy, along with introducing a villain in Scott Glenn; you know he's a heel as when he first appears at Gilley's, his outfit is jeans, a black hat... and a black mesh t-shirt. He was in great shape so I guess I'd show it off too.
It is easy to compare this w/ Saturday Night Fever, for some obvious reasons. I mean, both are even loosely based on non-fiction magazine articles. I can say that the two have upbeat soundtracks that sold very well and those that haven't seen the films may think they are light frothy things concerning frivolous events. Instead, they are serious and cover mature topics... Saturday Night Fever more so but this still has things to say about such things as relationships, pride, jealousy, and obsession. The movie takes its time, which works here as Urban Cowboy has time to tell its story and the characters to express everything they should. The cast as a whole is fine, but the highlights were the leads; I also have to mention Madolyn Smith as “the other woman”. Naturally, plenty of time is spent with the soundtrack, and while country isn't my favorite genre, the songs you hear are top-notch and fitting for the setting. I can't complain about seeing the Charlie Daniels Band in the film or hearing a few of their tunes.
This was a better time than I expected. The reason this was even seen was due to a story that my dad told. One scene early in the movie introduced Glenn's character; he is a convict in the Huntsville, Texas prison and he is riding a rodeo bull in the Texas Prison Rodeo. It may seem like poppycock but from the 30's until 1986, prisoners all over Texas who behaved could go to Huntsville and compete in a rodeo, held each Saturday in October. Various events were had and it was held to raise money for the prison system. My dad explained that in 1974 he and his buddies went to it one Saturday; he had already graduated from college in Illinois but he went to Houston to earn another degree. He had a good time; the halftime entertainment was... Dolly Parton. They always had big country stars perform there. It wasn't 1980 when she was mainstream and this movie had a scene where there was a Dolly impersonation contest; my dad doesn't listen to “country & western” so that was the first he had heard of her, let alone seen her. As she always joked about her “assets”, it's not entirely gross for me to mention that the biggest impression Parton left on dad & friends was not her music!
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: James Bridges
Starring: John Travolta, Debra Winger, Scott Glenn, several real-life country & western stars, as my parents would say
From: Paramount
Travolta was Looking for Love... or as Buckwheat would say, “Wookin' pa Nub.”
It took me longer than expected to feel like watching movies again once I got back from my whirlwind Christmas vacation; I was not at 100% and among other things, several episodes of TV shows I was unable to view had to be streamed so I could catch up. Now I should have a more regular schedule and this movie was seen due to an unexpected anecdote that was shared by my father which does relate to Urban Cowboy. Note that I've known of the movie since I was a little kid, as my parents had the bestselling soundtrack... on 8-TRACK. Yes, they had an 8-track player which still worked at the time.
The plot isn't overly complicated: John Travolta plays Bud, a typical Texan from a small town who moves to Houston in the attempts to earn a job at an oil refinery. He stays with his uncle and a rapid romance develops once he visits Gilley's, a real-life nightclub in nearby Pasadena named after country music singer Mickey Gilley. Debra Winger plays Sissy, the love interest; she is independent while he is “more traditional” when it comes to gender roles, which somehow makes this seem modern in 2020... they get married before they really even know each other so of course problems arise.
Admittedly, it is a little silly-at least 40 years after the fact-that the big event which drives the engine of the plot is... a mechanical rodeo bull. Now, it's a wacky sort of thing you see at honky-tonks that is mainly rode by drunk people as a gag; at this time though, it was a new gimmick and at the very least, it was a conduit to drive a wedge between Bud & Sissy, along with introducing a villain in Scott Glenn; you know he's a heel as when he first appears at Gilley's, his outfit is jeans, a black hat... and a black mesh t-shirt. He was in great shape so I guess I'd show it off too.
It is easy to compare this w/ Saturday Night Fever, for some obvious reasons. I mean, both are even loosely based on non-fiction magazine articles. I can say that the two have upbeat soundtracks that sold very well and those that haven't seen the films may think they are light frothy things concerning frivolous events. Instead, they are serious and cover mature topics... Saturday Night Fever more so but this still has things to say about such things as relationships, pride, jealousy, and obsession. The movie takes its time, which works here as Urban Cowboy has time to tell its story and the characters to express everything they should. The cast as a whole is fine, but the highlights were the leads; I also have to mention Madolyn Smith as “the other woman”. Naturally, plenty of time is spent with the soundtrack, and while country isn't my favorite genre, the songs you hear are top-notch and fitting for the setting. I can't complain about seeing the Charlie Daniels Band in the film or hearing a few of their tunes.
This was a better time than I expected. The reason this was even seen was due to a story that my dad told. One scene early in the movie introduced Glenn's character; he is a convict in the Huntsville, Texas prison and he is riding a rodeo bull in the Texas Prison Rodeo. It may seem like poppycock but from the 30's until 1986, prisoners all over Texas who behaved could go to Huntsville and compete in a rodeo, held each Saturday in October. Various events were had and it was held to raise money for the prison system. My dad explained that in 1974 he and his buddies went to it one Saturday; he had already graduated from college in Illinois but he went to Houston to earn another degree. He had a good time; the halftime entertainment was... Dolly Parton. They always had big country stars perform there. It wasn't 1980 when she was mainstream and this movie had a scene where there was a Dolly impersonation contest; my dad doesn't listen to “country & western” so that was the first he had heard of her, let alone seen her. As she always joked about her “assets”, it's not entirely gross for me to mention that the biggest impression Parton left on dad & friends was not her music!
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
A Beginning Of 2020 Update
I've been gone for awhile but I have finally returned. I saw parts of several films while on vacation... this includes the likes of Die Hard, Jurassic Park, and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. I revisited E.T. in full and that is still great. Last night I rung in the New Year by seeing something that is connected to a story I heard while on the trip; that review will be here in a few hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)