Joel's Reviews [Archive] - Page 2

Joel

09-24-17, 11:19 AM

BABY DRIVER (2017)
Director: Edgar Wright
Rated: R

https://i.imgur.com/Gev1plP.jpg

A script that emerges from a Simon and Garfunkel song seems like a fun challenge, and the writing of Baby Driver must have been just that. The film's use of tightly staged choreography and coverage mixed with a flavorful soundtrack and comedy bits unfortunately don't add up to much more than the seedling dare to base an entire filmed story from an involved daydream spawned from an old folk tune.

Baby is his name and he's got ringing ears, tinnitus to be exact. When he was a boy his parents died in a car accident that left him with hearing damage. Later in life he is a getaway driver for a car theft criminal ring led by Kevin Spacey as Doc. Baby is in debt to Doc so Baby must drive for multiple jobs until his debt is paid. Using several playlists on several ipods, Baby simply can't put a car into gear unless he has a good enough song queued up. It's a real sickness.

Meanwhile at home, Baby cares for his foster dad, a deaf wheelchair bound man. When Baby has retreated to his room, he makes DJ mixes using the day's many conversations he's recorded with a micro cassette pocket deck. He does this very well, and among his collection of tapes we seen many funny titles, all but one that is labeled "MOM". At a nearby diner where his mother used to work, he meets Deborah. She walks by singing a song. He records her. They become romantically involved with plans of hitting the road.

OK, so the writing sounds good and it should be totally serviceable for this kind of action packed musical edit heavy comedy film. But it still isn't because of of one thing: that ending The pen stops mid-page and decides "hey, let's just do something different now to tidy this all up". Well, maybe others liked this idea but it left me kind of bored with the film as a whole. Wright's montages are usually crafty and cute, but this one didn't fool me. I saw safe and uninspired writing being masked by the montage.

I think Edgar Wright as a writer can be just as profoundly detailed as director, as evident with his film Hot Fuzz. Here I just feel that his writing took a back seat to the concerns of orchestrating the visuals with the music. I figure, if you're gonna go all the way with something so ambitious, go all the way and make sure that story is grand. The cringe factor was a bit high in the beginning, and with every great song, perhaps one of the greatest (The Commodores - Easy) is initially enjoyed and displayed nicely in the film, but later on it's butchered as it's done with a folky cover, revealing the importance of the song. The problem here is that this version of the song is done in a typical throat tightened, tongue curled, folky coffee bar annoying way and seems like a really awful choice of a song to butcher. Had the song been different, or better, it would've made the ending better and not pop another cringe moment on the film which was already just barely recovered from the beginning bit of mess. I am sorry but you simple do not transpose The Commodores to Jewel territory. That's ridiculous. Shame on the failed sensibility of Wright for thinking this was a good idea.

https://i.imgur.com/kT7XU1p.jpg

I thought this movie was OK. The staging was super and it was brimming with creative moments and composed of some really interesting side elements. but it wasn't anything special to me and I wouldn't feel like watching it again. Mixed bag for sure.

3

Joel

09-25-17, 09:46 PM

https://i.imgur.com/LAogJXT.jpg
The Gate (1987)
Director: Tibor Takacs
Rated: PG-13

Sometimes called a gateway horror film for pre-teens, this 1987 Canadian made horror film from hungarian director Tibor Takacs borrows a bit of mood and bold casting choice from The Goonies. But this isn't a light romp through log cabin bed and breakfast. The entire film is centered strictly in a suburban home and backyard, creating a focused atmosphere for the kids to play around in.
https://i.imgur.com/49CEZHF.jpg
I wouldn't say that this is a scary movie but there are moments that really reek of evil, like melting red telephones and imaginative minion speak that sounds like what evil dwellers could very well sound like: an emotionless animal. This may be aimed at pre-teens as a more family friendly feature but a lot of the elements are dirty. By dirty I mean that you can tell the original script was much darker. Some of the nuances carry over rendering this film with a certain imagination that burns moments into your mind.
https://i.imgur.com/ZuYLvlY.jpg
Creativity is in no shortage with incredible forced perspective and matte shots really allowing this movie to show you the goods with little distraction from seams and herky jerks. Though there is a bit of that old fashioned stop motion, the make up and lighting mixed with the music more than makes up for it.
https://i.imgur.com/9YiOHo3.jpg
Another strength is the music done by Michael Hoenig (formerly Tangerine Dream) and J. Peter Robinson, and they create a dense and low end synth pad score that really paints the movie with some hellish wonder, as if Spielberg got together with the key from Masters of the Universe and had a session. On the bottom you get thick bass swells, but on top an almost Goldsmithian melody consisting of wine glass percussiveness. It's a treat to listen just the score.

https://i.imgur.com/mJZr94a.png

This also marks the first major starring role for Stephen Dorff.
https://i.imgur.com/mN2Yv2e.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0BKv0ZR.jpg

This is surprisingly well directed considering the cast are all children. You hear these horror stories of trying to wrangle kids on a movie set, especially kids with flaring hormones. I'm sure this was no exception. These kids do good work and that is certainly testament to Tacaks' influence. Great editing, great everything. If there are some contrivances, they are forgivable because this really is a solid little flick that deserves a watch based on the mood it generates.
https://i.imgur.com/4ie3QQ6.jpg?1

The Gate is pure atmosphere. It's a little funny, a little scary and a cut above many horror films of the era.

https://i.imgur.com/6j5I8kj.gif

rating_3_5

Joel

09-27-17, 12:24 AM

La Grande Illusion (1937)
Director: Jean Renoir

I went into this film blind not knowing, and still not knowing, anything about the director, the cast, or the history of this war it depicts.

What jumped out as me within about 15 minutes was the writing, which is sublime. La Grande Illusion is about class and war time, but more than that, it is about friendship, trust, poor pride and humanity.

Without divulging an array of plot and character names, the good stuff is every scene. A refugee soldier has a heart to heart with a cow. He's french and the cow is german. Both of them poor but both doing the best that they can. A prison camp commander befriends a french general. They are both royalty and prejudice is non existent despite one being a prisoner and one being the captor.

Escaping the camp, 2 french soldiers come across a cottage with a german woman living alone with child. They share Christmas together. A german, 2 frenchman, and one of them is a jew. How about that? All celebrating Christmas, admiring Joseph's beard when setting up the manger.

This is a very moving and tender film. It defies the walls that separate man and brings all of the scenes together in a story that speaks straight to the heart about the good nature in people.

There is a plethora of great lines, in fact, most every line is great and carries with it a profound human weight. Two men in the wild mountain snow comment on the imaginary lines that separate countries, and as they make their way home we see german soldiers fire towards them. Another officer says "don't shoot, they're in Switzerland". "Good for them", says the other. It's revealed the men are no more than a half a mile away in plain sight.

The Grand Illusion indeed. And there's so much more that's said in this film I feel a little guilty that my own account of it isn't better organized. The film itself is incredibly efficient. One story goes into the next focusing on a different set of characters once the first story ends, and we don't know it until it's all over. There is nothing to make us sick about this film. It's as healthy as they come considering the backdrop is war and struggle for power.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. It's not at all what I thought it was going to be. I consider it a gateway film for me to investigate some more films of the era. It didn't seem like this movie was from 1937, and I'm not sure why. There was zero pretension.

Highly Recommended!

5

TYTD

09-27-17, 11:54 AM

I can see im going to have an evening of reading ahead of me xD

Joel

09-27-17, 03:38 PM

I can see im going to have an evening of reading ahead of me xD

I hope you dig some of it, man, and thanks!

Gideon58

09-27-17, 05:43 PM

Hdere are a couple shots of mine for perspective

https://i.imgur.com/Al7mYtl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/c3oHOo8.jpg

Love that poster.

Citizen Rules

09-27-17, 06:25 PM

Very cool poster :up:

Now I really want to watch Fresh Horses. Hopefully I can get to it soon.

re93animator

09-27-17, 07:08 PM

TYTD

09-28-17, 05:02 PM

There are some cracking reviews here! I've added a few to my list to check out (Im particularly curious about Witchboard, Remote control and the last starfighter) I also need to get back to you about Split (1989) but from what I've seen I think im in for a treat! :) Great thread man :)

Joel

09-28-17, 05:47 PM

Thank you very much!

You should have fun with those titles. Not exactly action packed but definitely have "qualities" about them :)

Joel

09-28-17, 05:48 PM

Wow. Glad you like Grand Illusion so much.:D It's not strictly a favorite of mine, but I have been drawn back to it a few times. I'm not too fond of what little else I've sen from Renoir (though I'm still aiming to see The River soon).

I'll have to check The River out. Geez, I have so many movies I wanna see now. I'd better pace myself ;)

Joel

09-30-17, 12:18 PM

https://i.imgur.com/C6hPJrA.jpg?1
Star Slammer: The Escape (Prison Ship - The Adventures of Taura)
Release: 1987
Director: Fred Olen Ray

Fred Olen Ray is a long time Roger Corman associate. He's worked with Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall), as well as been the guy who lent Quentin Tarantino a 16mm camera to film Quentin's first film short, back when he worked at the video store. The guy has been around, and he's still making movies. Albeit crappy movies, but there are worse ways to earn a living.
https://i.imgur.com/RDyZHBA.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/39cA4qK.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/x2d0aJM.jpg?2
When I think of a bad movie, I think of something so terrible that it's unwatchable on just about every level, but with "Star Slammer" this isn't entirely the case. For what lacks in acting and story construction, there's a lot to appreciate in way of lighting and set design. Prison Ship looks really nice, and is further justified by an incredible new blu ray release that goes back to the original camera negative.
https://i.imgur.com/98jJiHv.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/QKbRsjV.jpg?1
You watch a movie like this and you're definitely not doing it to be impressed by a sci fi movie with a message. The only message here is "we couldn't decide on a name for our movie, so here are three names all lumped into one title card." Even the lead actress has a different hair style from scene to scene. Funny thing is that this movie was shot on a couple weekends so that's some serious professionalism coming from the cast, changing their hairstyles so dramatically. I had to really study the lead's face to make sure it was even the same person.
https://i.imgur.com/z41xBc3.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/nP3NG3g.jpg?1
I can't say that this movie is a lot of fun but I can say that I was entertained with just the design of the picture. I guess Ray borrowed some scenes from "Battle Beyond the Stars", as well as outfits from "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Syn". He knew people in the low budget industry, so nothing was off limits to make his picture cut together. The lighting is very impressive. It's moody, colorful and has a nice separation and depth, giving off shadows of overhead bars, and really juicing the elements within the frame to stand out as different entities.
https://i.imgur.com/U9PNrLq.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/lZcJQve.jpg?1
I've had the full page Video Review ad since 1988 in a scrapbook (pictures included) and had never seen the movie until last night. I've waited almost 30 years to finally see this. The odd thing is that it far exceeds its poster art and actually looks much better and more expensive. The optical work is beautiful. The lasers start and end perfectly feathered and show no signs of masking. They also have a nice luminance that doesn't blow out highlights and burn in white spots, so you get rich greens and reds.
https://i.imgur.com/vSANosH.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/aOqMJjk.jpg?1
Yes, there is a bit of nudity. This is a woman in prison film so if it didn't have nudity, it'd be an insult to cinema.
https://i.imgur.com/XRGvbug.jpg?1
I don't know why I responded so well to a movie this awful. The acting is atrocious and the story has no allegiance to continuity, but I found the backyard aesthetic to be encouraging, and did appreciate the care that went into some of the analog effects and set design (they used big mac boxes to build the ships interiors, as well as dish washing trays from restaurants turned upside down).
https://i.imgur.com/HT5vXEd.jpg?1
People who consider Alien sequels their kind of movie probably won't find anything here, but I can think of at least one person that might enjoy aspects of this, since it is tied in with New World Pictures @Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=84637)
https://i.imgur.com/HWlRYSD.jpg?1

rating_3

Joel

10-01-17, 05:05 PM

Land of the Dead (2005)
Director: George Romero

The Walking Dead and every other zombie film owes to not only this franchise, but to this 2nd sequel to Night of the Living Dead. From the opening credits, all tattered and stylish, we can see where Darabont took his show running creative direction to implement the Walking Dead opening. The nice thing about this film is that it was, like TWD, shot on film. Fuji film, with digital intermediate. That explains the tricks (DI) thrown in with quick cuts and circus-like effects and staging. There are some fantastic deaths on display here.

John Leguizamo is one of my old favorites, and he is great here. I didn't care much for the lead actor. I thought he was a bit too plain. I really liked the slow sidekick, though. His lines and acting were good. Some scenes were very creepy. Shot at night, Romero really knew how to set the mood and keep the tension on. Lots of darkly lit photographed entrail mayhem. Digital doesn't do these kinds of things justice.

The porous characteristics of film are suitable, and that is one of the circumstantial reasons why Romero's films are far above any extensions of his proprietary genre kind of pale in comparison. That and the fact that he knows how to write good characters who aren't completely one dimensional. Most all characters are given something to play with, and they do. This seemed to be on the edge of the big zombie turn in characterization in commercial cinema. Good old 2005.

I really liked the writing of this chapter. Day of the Dead was gritty and fulked up in all the right ways, but Land of the Dead is a fresh take, and still has a bit of the Harrison score in brief piano bits like when the zombies first start to cross the water. I'm glad he directed that mood to revisit. Too much sonic wall music is boring and actually works against a film being memorable. When will Hollywood learn. The answer is never. But that's OK. They're idiots. Moving on..

Dennis Hopper gives one of his last hurrahs and he's good but not great. He could've been in the film more and I wouldn't have minded at all. Zombies "creep him out", but that's about as far as we get from a usually very outspoken Hopper. Still, the The Nicotero/Berger effects make his death scene Ramboesque enough to at least finish up his job tidy for a film that wants to be more, but doesn;t have the budget to be.

This is the most ambitious chapter in the series yet, and goes the extra mile to make it atmospheric. Some of the make up isn't very convincing, namely the main "Bub" like zombie who seems to lead the pack in revolt. His zombie mask is clearly visible to start at the bridge of his nose and it's distracting. Maybe the effect team figured film would carry on longer than it did, and that the blurriness and saturation of colors would mask this limitation from the unforgiving sharpness of high definition. Who knows?

I did enjoy this movie.It very much deserves it's place within the series.

rating_3_5

A lil' John Harrison for dat ass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAHTZfXQ10M&pbjreload=10

Joel

10-02-17, 10:53 AM

Naked Lunch (1991)
Director: David Cronenberg

Cronenberg's strange, over the top comedy is based on the William S. Burroughs book, and right off the bat during the title sequence we can see the director has really taken great care to set this up as a pure mood piece. The titles are revealed by multi colored art deco shapes and lines of pale greens and magentas.

Peter Weller's performance is the funniest thing about the film. He is so cool and deadpan that it's as if his eyes take an extra 5 seconds to catch up with his words.

The plot is absurd. A bug exterminator becomes hooked on his own powder, shoots his wife by accident, and goes into the Interzone, an imaginary world where roaches, centipedes and aristocratic writers assign him to certain "reports" about things we don't quite understand.

Many of the themes in this film seem to be about homosexuality. Possibly the writer's own denial? I got many laughs at the recurring insinuations and the way Weller handles them, eventually coming clean in a brief description of his alter ego dancer mada'am. Other aspects seem to linger on sickness, possibly the AIDS virus, and yet again a recurring character is a hemmeroidal butt hole for a mouth as part of an agent typewriter. This movie is absolutely insane!

I'll never need to watch this again. The plot is totally nuts, and the length of the film stays way, way past its welcome. Though it is funny and perverse, I can't say it's a "great" film because it really isn't. If weird is your flavor well then I suppose this movie is a masterpiece, and there are plenty of interpretations and underlying things to try and dredg up into discussion, but even with a very literary spine, I felt like this was just one bad acid trip with some chuckles.

rating_3

Citizen Rules

10-02-17, 02:08 PM

Joel

10-02-17, 06:22 PM

Naked Lunch, even though you rated it higher than I did, we both agree on a lot about the movie. I watched it for one reason, Peter Weller. I think he's really a different type of actor, but he didn't make that many movies. At least not where his special style of deadpan serious acting can work. What have you seen him in? Any recommendations?

Well, I haven't seen him in much, to be honest. I'd have to revisit Firstborn, where he plays an abusive father figure to a single woman's kids...and Shakedown, where he teams up with Sam Elliot, who is like the coolest actor ever.

Also, I believe Buckaroo Bonzai Across the Eighth Dimension may have some dry and hip Peter Weller. I haven't seen that one in over a decade.

re93animator

10-03-17, 07:22 AM

Naked Lunch (1991)
Director: David Cronenberg

rating_3
Awww. Naked Lunch is a top tier favorite o mine. Weird is in my wheelhouse though. Believe me, William Burroughs wasn't in denial about homosexuality by the time he wrote NL. If you think the movie is crazy, you should read at least a portion of the book. 10 times more weird, incomprehensible, sleazy, repulsive. If you had read it first, you'd have no idea how anyone could possibly think the content could be filmed.

Naked Lunch, even though you rated it higher than I did, we both agree on a lot about the movie. I watched it for one reason, Peter Weller. I think he's really a different type of actor, but he didn't make that many movies. At least not where his special style of deadpan serious acting can work. What have you seen him in? Any recommendations?

If you haven't yet seen it, Screamers is pretty cool. PA film loosely based on a Philip K Dick story. Weller as deadpan as ever.

martyrofevil

10-03-17, 08:01 AM

Oh wow Star Slammer looks incredible!

Joel

10-03-17, 09:20 AM

Awww. Naked Lunch is a top tier favorite o mine. Weird is in my wheelhouse though. Believe me, William Burroughs wasn't in denial about homosexuality by the time he wrote NL. If you think the movie is crazy, you should read at least a portion of the book. 10 times more weird, incomprehensible, sleazy, repulsive. If you had read it first, you'd have no idea how anyone could possibly think the content could be filmed.

I do like weird I just couldn't get into it this time around. I'd seen it way back in like 1995, I think. I guess ya gotta be in the mood for it:)

I've never read Burroughs but I'm sure Cronenberg did amazing work with parts of his book. I know nothing about the writer or his work but I can tell that it probably wouldn't be something I enjoy or get much out of aside from some creative clusters and description. Who knows, tastes change. I thought Meet the Fockers was horrible in the theaters, but on home video I realized it's one my favorite Dustin Hoffman performances.:D

Joel

10-03-17, 09:21 AM

Oh wow Star Slammer looks incredible!

It's not. But it looks nice.

Oh, that's what you meant! :p

re93animator

10-03-17, 10:44 AM

I do like weird I just couldn't get into it this time around. I'd seen it way back in like 1995, I think. I guess ya gotta be in the mood for it:)

I've never read Burroughs but I'm sure Cronenberg did amazing work with parts of his book. I know nothing about the writer or his work but I can tell that it probably wouldn't be something I enjoy or get much out of aside from some creative clusters and description. Who knows, tastes change. I thought Meet the Fockers was horrible in the theaters, but on home video I realized it's one my favorite Dustin Hoffman performances.:D
I'm not too big a fan of Burrough's either, but I really admire his incisive language. I'm much more fond of the movie, but the book might be worth glancing over just for the uneasy experience.

In high school, I was once tasked to choose a 'book of the month' for us to read, and I unwittingly chose Naked Lunch. My teacher told me he listened to the audiobook in a public setting... we had to switch books after that. I think his words were, exasperatedly: "what the hell did you make me read"

Joel

10-03-17, 10:58 AM

Oh man, a public setting of NL on tape. Ouch!

Citizen Rules

10-03-17, 02:02 PM

...I believe Buckaroo Bonzai Across the Eighth Dimension may have some dry and hip Peter Weller. I haven't seen that one in over a decade. Yeah, that's one of my favorite Weller movies. Of course I dig the Orson Welles tie in. He was really good as a guest star on Star Trek Enterprise on the episodes: Terra Prime (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0572245/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_29) (2005), Demons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0572200/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_29) (2005).

He was the host of Engineering an Empire (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848954/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_17) which was pretty cool show, especially as he has a degree in Ancient Roman and Renaissance history.

...If you haven't yet seen it, Screamers is pretty cool. PA film loosely based on a Philip K Dick story. Weller as deadpan as ever.I've seen that, and even reviewed that one, it's a fun movie. Joel, I bet you'd like that one.

Joel

10-03-17, 02:18 PM

Citizen Rules. re93animator

I'll check out Screamers. Saw it once in 96 but remember nothing

Joel

10-03-17, 07:39 PM

https://i.imgur.com/oKaJoZz.jpg?1
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
Rated: R

The first thing you should do is forget you know anything about this film and watch this teaser trailer (I'm sorry about the commercial but please watch it, it's only 45 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXWSiVxS4hk

Now here is the theatrical release poster:
https://i.imgur.com/Z4DCtnp.jpg

Again, pretending you know nothing about what's in store for you, how can these materials not be the most scary and exciting Halloween movie event ever broadcast tv or hung in a marquee?
I remember this film back in 1982, and the tv spots alone had us running around the sidewalks at dusk screaming like banshees, imagining how much of an incredible event Halloween III was going to be.
https://i.imgur.com/MMGZ4XU.jpg?1

The movie starts off with a very promising title sequence made up of horizontal analog CRT tv lines of orange with light blue titles, while each line appeared or disappeared APPLE IIE style, that coincided with a synthesized musical cue, all the while this back drop sound is dark, one note droning. It's working us up and doing a fine job at it!

https://i.imgur.com/UM9qLqD.jpg?1

Once the movie starts, immediately there's an enormous sense of atmosphere as Dean Cundey's signature anamorphic squeezed night photography takes us over, and Carpenter and Howarth's music continues to swell. This movie looks dynamite!

After a few minutes of ominous set-up we meet Tom Atkins who plays a tough, hard drinking medial doctor. He's cool. He flirts with the nurses, his kids are idiots glued to the tv, and his wife hates him. He takes a late night call and goes back into the hospital.

At the hospital I guess some dude comes in shouting "they're going to kill us!". Hey, I don't wanna give away a bunch of plot, but for the next hour and 20 minutes nothing very exciting happens.

What does happen is that Dr. Atkins (we'll call him Dr. Atkins) meets a hot chick and they go incognito to find out what happened to her father, the shouting hospital dude Nevermind.
https://i.imgur.com/IiqTjiP.png?1

Anyway, they go to this desolate Irish town and get a motel room to investigate as a fake husband and wife. Guess what happens next? Yeah! He just met this gal and already he's banging her. I love this movie! It's so realistic and cool! Well, it's definitely cool because Bullwinkle Moose is on the case and she is smokin' hot in a Janet from Three's Company kind of way, except way, way hotter.
https://i.imgur.com/xfqlcPg.jpg?1

Let me skip a lot of stuff and just get right to it.
This movie is great and sucks at the exact same time.

On one hand you have great camera work. Nothing moves or glides fancy, but the photography is beautiful. Also, some of the opticals are decent. I like colorful and/or well rendered opticals like lasers, and guess what? This movie has lasers, not once, not twice, but I do believe THREE TIMES! Guess what color? Well...you're gonna hafta just see the pictures I put in this review to find out!

https://i.imgur.com/TXaIiWm.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/KIyIB2s.jpg?1

So, what exactly is wrong with this movie? That's easy.
No, it's not that there is no Michael Myers.
That's not it.
It's because early on in the film, you get the impression that the bad guy has the same kind of menace as Myers, but you soon find out that this is not the case. The camera shows a tracking walking knees down to feet shot of the baddie, except it turns out that this dude is no more scarier than an insurance salesman. What's worse is that the main man bad guy isn't scary, either. He's just some old dude who looks like he belongs in Robocop as the head of OCP. Wait a minute, it is! It IS Dan O'Herily from OCP. Well, at least he's really Irish.

These are the bad guys. Terrifying, right?
https://i.imgur.com/NCgH2EJ.png?1
https://i.imgur.com/ef96XWs.jpg?1

Halloween III has moments, but I felt disappointed that the only scares were false alarms. Carpenter's usual jump scare noises that sound like a robotic bell on full volume do work to distract you from not being frightened, but it soon becomes an old trick. As if seeing the edge of a business blazer shoulder come into foreground frame is scary. I don't think so.

But back to what's good about this movie. It's an original idea. The story is so far fetched by the time you make it to 85 minutes that you may have to rewind a bit to make sure you heard the explanation correctly. At first I thought they were gonna blow it off with a line like "Do I really need a reason?" But no, soon after he gives the reason for the bad stuff that he the bad guy is doing and gonna do. I almost feel like the writing was improvised and at first the table was just like "eh, just have him say 'do I need a reason' and leave it at that". Goofy!

There was so much potential with this picture! Unfortunately, they decided to spend the entire length of the film focused on the stakeout aspect instead of bringing the destruction to suburbia where the viewer expected it to be. There could have been things going haywire in the streets, at doorsteps, everywhere, all at that time of evening when the sky is orange and the shadows of children are sillhouetted against it.

https://i.imgur.com/dO7Ahf7.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/sG6gHgs.png?1
https://i.imgur.com/P9hOXRE.png?1

Which reminds me, kudos for the film actually taking the time to shoot a scene that marks the mood of itself. We get this image on the poster, too. It's a good look, and aside from horrible villains, the rest of the film does live up to the world that the poster creates.
https://i.imgur.com/KEu9zxl.gif

Sadly the film does not live up to the teaser preview. We get no real witch that looks anything like that demon we saw. False advertising. BOO!

This movie could have been off the f*cking chain had it been written better.
Still though, for a sequel that decided to go its own way and attempt an anthology (which sadly never happened), it's kind of refreshing to let the Michael Myers character rest for a bit.

https://i.imgur.com/kmigAOC.png

3

Joel

10-04-17, 10:26 AM

Just a mpersonal reminder to do an in-depth review of Straw Dogs (1971 obviously)

Joel

10-06-17, 06:33 PM

Straw Dogs (1971)
Director: Sam Peckinpah
Rated: R

David (Dustin Hoffman) is a mathematician who receives a grant to continue his work. Him and his wife Amy (Susan George) move back to her old stomping grounds in Cornwall, UK where Amy's old boyfriend and cronies are the local help, helping David repair his garage and exterminate the old house's rat problem. Because David's wife has a history with these rough fellas, he often feels guarded and hyper aware of how she carries on with them. It becomes clear very soon in this story that Amy is flirty and this puts her husband at unease, understandably.

She comments to her husband that her friends think he is strange. Her husband reacts positively by turning this into a joke and nothing comes of it. Around the same time we see Amy erase a "+" sign from one of David's complex chalkboard math problems and replace it with a "-" instead. She's mad because she feels David doesn't spend enough time with her. David explains he just needs to work. That is why he is there. That is why they are there. He's received a grant and wants to take full advantage of the quiet setting to see his work through.

We can certainly understand Amy's position. She is bored, maybe feels a bit neglected, and gets increasingly impatient with David. But it also becomes obvious that Amy is inching her way towards being one of the villains of the film. She constantly taunts David as being a coward once suspicions arise as to who hung her kitty cat in the closet by its neck. The local roughnecks are prime suspects and David is slow to confront them on the matter of a missing cat. As much as he seemingly ignores his wife during working hours, he also seems eager to join them in a duck hunt once invited by them. David wants to fit in.

The thing about this story is that I think it may be a bit misunderstood. David is not a coward. At every potential confrontation we see his character take a smart position. He isn't a push over. This is evident by him honking in back of the local gang's hog truck. He doesn't stay quiet when his wife badgers him for being in retreat from life's responsibilities. He knows she is wrong but he remains a gentleman. David wants to work. He's saved time for his love "in a little while" but he's not going to base his life on being a cowboy like his wife wants him to. It's time David took a stand for something, however.

Amy's character, frustrated and feeling a bit selfish, takes her top off exposing her bare breasts for all of her old workman friends to see. She knows what kind of people they are, and she may even know what they are capable of, but she flashes them anyway. She's been with someone already, and she knows how he feels about her. He wants her, and she is teasing him with her husband right downstairs.

The rape scene

David is out being mislead by the group when they convince him to join them on a duck hunt. Amy's old flame shows up at the house knowing David is indisposed. She invites him in for a drink. He makes a move to kiss her. She reluctantly kisses back but soon jerks away and smacks him. He punches her back. Now afraid she warns him and smacks him again. He returns blows. Suddenly he is making love to her. I say making love because after blows are exchanged he is fairly gentle with her. She is apprehensive at first but soon becomes agreeable and seems to be enjoying it. Her enjoyment is mixed with guilt, a little bit of push back, followed by more intense sexual body work. The second half of this scene involves another man who's scurried away from David at the duck field. He's now pointed a gun at Amy's lover and decides he wants to have sex with Amy. He proceeds to, and this time Amy is not thrilled. She suffers through this about 90% of the time. I say 90% because if you watch the film you see that Amy is still acting out a mixed emotion on this.

That's how I saw the rape scene. She knew she shouldn't, and she knew she couldn't stop him. She gave in out of fear, but alongside that fear she wanted to feel what she considered a real man making love to her. A tough man. She had lost respect for David, and although guilty and dealing with some fear, she knew this man, these men.

Later on Amy flashes back to the rape and realizes that she is all out of sorts, mentally. She keeps thinking of David's shirtless torso on top of her, and her ex boyfriend's body movement seems to match the movement of the priest she is staring at. She's sitting with David at a church function, having flashbacks. Neither one of them are having a good time, so they leave.

I am not going to cover every aspect of this film. Instead I am skipping to the end where David finally wakes up to his manhood. He exclaims to his wife " This is me" referring to their house. He has to protect the house because the local cretins want to come in to get a child murdering suspect David has accidentally hit with his car driving in fog. David feels he must protect this man, guilty or not. No one is getting into the house.

Amy, in a desperate attempt, tries to undermine David yet again by unlocking the door while shouting "they just want him, let them have him and they'll leave!"
David calmly disagrees. "If they get into this house, they'll kill us."

For the next fifteen minutes we see David, who is nervous, act out a systematical strategy that not only protects his wife, himself, and the man he's harboring upstairs, but we see him effectively kill 5+ men who are out for blood. He does this with surgeon skill. He is matter of fact about it and he rarely trips up. He calmy tells his wife what to do. When she says no, he asks again, and then he forcefully tells her what to do. It's in this cacaphony of orchestrated violence that we realize David is the strongest man in the picture. His head is cool, he's focused, and he's not settling for anyone invading his home, no matter what the reason.

After the smoke has cleared and David realizes he's killed many men like they were scarecrows, he must get his refugee to a hospital. Before he leaves, he turns to his wife who is shaking from shock on the staircase and asks "are you alright?". When she answers, he leaves and drives off into the night with his next responsibility, helping the child murderer he accidentally struck with his car hours earlier. He knows he is not coming home. He doesn't know his way home any longer.

I've heard blips here and there about this film demonizing women and reinforcing that old stereotype that women really want to get raped. I think this is not only a misunderstanding, but a pretty stupid generalization on women. This is a story. It's a film. It's about what it's about, and what it's about is a woman who has no allegiance to her man. She doesn't stand by him. Like a foolish child she gets herself into trouble again and suffers the consequences. Nothing about her character and what happens to her in this film have anything to do with "women". It's really as simple as that. Right? I think this strikes a nerve with those who have a guilty conscience. There's really nothing else it could be because if you watch the movie, and aren't a complete mental ape, you'll see it right there in black and white.

I also hear that David is a wimp who breaks bad. Also not true. David, at no point in this picture, is a wimp. He's always someone who stands his ground. He's not out looking for trouble. He's polite, soft spoken, and plays his cards the best he can. When push comes to shove, even early on in the film, you can witness David not being a complete push-over. He's just not ready to lay the hurt down yet, that's all.

Joel

10-06-17, 10:22 PM

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
Director: Dan O' Bannon
Rated: R

This is another movie that time isn't kind to if you were too young, or not yet born when this came out. Watching it today, not living the era, one could easily dismiss it as patchy, stupid and not scary.

I feel lucky that I am not one of those people. Very lucky. I friggin' love this movie! It's got a punk soundtrack and some really 80's fashioned scenes that play for laughs. James Karen and Thom Mathews are hilarious as the bumbling medical supply workers. In particular, James Karen's much over-done coughing and cackling/moaning made me almost wet my pants!

I really enjoyed the atmosphere in this one. Mostly night shot scenes with rain and streetlights, we do get some dusk scenes with a cemetery that are super cool. It's fun to just hang out in this movie, even if the acting and dialog aren't exactly winning any oscars.

There's not much to say about this without splitting its skull open and looking at the brains and guts, and in a film like this, you simply don't do that. It's for fun, cheap scares, and to put you in the mood to party!

I remember actually watching this over my girlfriend's house while we were partying. We both drank margarita's. It was lovely. I was laughing so hard. Then I turned to her and saw she was completely stone faced and irritated. Needless to say - she's ancient history now!

Oh, and there is some great nudity in this. Linnea Quigley was smoking hot and she strips naked and dances, then runs around nude the rest of the picture. This movie is just cool. Anyone walking into this with a serious or overly analytical mind set would be better off just finding something else to do. No one likes a party pooper except other party poopers, and this movie is all about partying! 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJx1xkCBio

Joel

10-07-17, 12:53 PM

Empire of Passion (1978)
Director: Nagisa Oshima

A love affair with a military man and a married woman leads to them murdering her husband and throwing him down a well to live together as a couple.

I didn't really enjoy this movie based on the content and mentality, especially since everything was kind of in your face and graphic. There was definitely a perverse intention in the directing that I feel could have been classed up a bit with some implication instead of just hitting you over the head with shocking images.

At the risk of sounding prudish, I think this movie would have been better had the director used some better judgment in how to tell the story. I could not really see any kind of connection between any one character and that set me back from fully taking the ride from an emotional standpoint. I was always kind of in the cold watching this.

There was plenty of malfunction and mental illness on display, but hardly could I feel like anyone was making a good decision, and to hang on to this story knowing that justice would be served seemed a bit pointless to me. I realize this was a morality tale, but not once did I feel like any character had a strong enough hold on themselves or their motives because the writing wasn't fleshed out enough. There was no nuance. It was all just a wide and plain perspective. "I want you. We kill him now. I feel scared. I feel bad now. We messed up."

The look of the film is beautiful. The images created with fog and lighting, as well as the autumnal scenery really made an impression on me. The creative team here knew what they were doing, and I think that is a lot of the allure of a film like this. Had this been shot just adequately instead of with great care, I'm quite sure this would have been laughed off a lot more than it probably is.

I also really enjoyed the musical score. It helped the ghost story aspect of the movie quite a bit.

I probably would have liked this a lot better if I could have at least felt something for any of the characters, but I couldn't. They all came off a bit too dramatic or goofy, and even with the procedural aspect I felt it was blown off in favor of an almost child-like way of telling a story. An old tale. Very broad strokes. I'm not sure that worked for me considering the strong content of the movie. I think the perverse aspect comes into play when I mention this. Some kind of adult-kid fantasy of seeing deep erotic and violent/ruthless behavior mixed with a doe eyed way to present it all. Not really my flavor to be honest.

It was interesting at the very least, and for that I'm glad it was nominated. Special shout to cricket for hooking me up with a reliable way to watch it!

Joel

10-08-17, 12:57 AM

Tough Guys (1986)
Director: Jeff Kanew
Rated: PG

https://i.imgur.com/RpAKfBd.jpg

Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster star in this Jeff Kanew (Revenge of the Nerds) lensed comedy caper. Two convicts released after 30 years for robbing trains attempt to start a new life in 1986, and boy have the times changed. From tele-prompted fashion designer clothing shops to gay bars, hydraulic gym equipment and The Red Hot Chili Peppers thrashing around in nightclubs, these guys are out of their element. One last train robbery ought to do the trick.

This is a dumb little movie that was a minor hit when it came out. Two screen legends playing fish out of water is a proven formula and these two are certainly up to the challenge. The chemistry is more than adequate and at times funny in a light way. I did get a few really nice chuckles.

Though Tough Guys is filled with cliches, it's still not a horrible movie. It's aimed at an audience who just want some light fun with two old pros. It hasn't aged as well as Kirk and Burt have here, but these kinds of movies rarely do. I like it for nostalgic reasons. I have no idea how it would fare for anyone else.

3

https://i.imgur.com/yzTOJfX.jpg?1

Joel

10-08-17, 06:16 PM

Get Out (2017)
Director: Jordan Peele
Rated: R

This is a very well done movie. The mix of paranoid thriller suspense with broad comedy was handled just about perfectly.

I laughed a lot, and really loved the perspective of a blue collar black man and how he sees the strange entitlement of upper crust white people. I remember always getting a kick out of black comedian's doing their take on certain buffoonish white folks and their corny humor and limited understanding of boundaries and respect. This movie was a welcome throwback to that playful brand of humor.

That's not to say I really feel this way about white people. But there's a little bit of truth in every stereotype, even if it's a tabboo subject. It's only a ribbing and a generalization at self important "white people". Something that was built into this movie. A poke in the chops at aristocratic mentality, and how some privileged races feel the need to "belong" amongst a sometimes under-privileged different color people, even at the expense of their manners and awareness of how they come across when trying to fit in and break the ice.

The film has a strong ability to keep the suspense on high, never really showing in full what's happening until it's worked you over enough to finally divulge the plot.

Get Out is a much needed refreshing for my palate after having to drudge through a lot of self important and bloated modern thrillers. I was surprisingly not twisted up on the social commentary it presented because it was all in fun, and when it did hit the nail on the head and take a serious tone at the audacity of some social circles, it still remained playful thanks to a pitch perfect reactionary performance from Daniel Kaluuya.

Glad I finally got around to seeing this one. Horror keeps getting smarter and I'm digging that, even if this is essentially a b-styled picture, it's still much too self aware to be pigeonholed into that sunken category.

rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/gSUTFAZ.jpg

Joel

10-12-17, 01:05 PM

Don't Kill It (2016)
Director: Mike Mendez
Rated: R

Dolph Lundgren plays a demon hunter who shows up in a small town to rid it of an unleashed evil that passes from body to body every time someone kills the demonic host. The demon enters whoever killed the body it was surviving in, making things rather complicated. The only way to stop the demon is to trap it, and someone must first kill the host, poison them self, and then become possessed as they die.

This is a nice premise that makes use of it's simple story. What undoubtedly works for this movie is the humor. Dolph does his best southern drawl that still sounds a bit like Ivan Drago from time to time, but never takes us out of his fun character. He's an oak tree of a dude, and he vapes a big hookah in many scenes. To me that's funny.

As the police try and cuff him in the obligatory exposition scene where he tries to convince them of the evil force, it takes 3 deputies to hold onto him, but instead of usher him into the cell, they struggle unsuccessfully as Dolph keeps re entering the Sherriff's office to finish explaining a seemingly never ending and highly detailed account of the trouble in store for them if they don't buy his story. This is a gut busting scene because it shows the writing really took good care to provide some intelligence and tongue in cheek attitude about the common cliche of no one ever believing the hero at first, least of all the police and FBI. Don't Kill It definitely knows it's a comedy for the most part, and does well with that notion which seems to hold it above the usual overly serious toned failures of many contemporaries.

It's true that this movie has many scenes of graphic violence, and usually this is a bit of a turn off for me unless it's something along the lines of Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn, but it is done in an almost cartoonish way like Dead by Dawn, even though some early scenes are pretty tasteless and brutal.

I found myself at one point pumping my fist in the air and doing a slow clap because I was so pleased I had come across this movie. It's just some quick fun with an occasional injection of intelligent writing and sharp humor that gets us through the running time. The ending works, and when it finally wraps up, it doesn't feel like this movie was over padded or stayed past its welcome run time.

Once again I am thrilled that today's horror is still going strong and, in fact, getting stronger in some aspects as far as writing and humor goes. I do enjoy the horror comedy if its done right, and this one is no exception.

https://i.imgur.com/vAjCn3M.jpg

4

Joel

10-12-17, 01:09 PM

Sorcerer (1977)
Director: William Friedkin
Rated: R

This was a surprise. I thought it was going to be something completely different. First off I have to say that there's that unmistakable 1970's era level of sophistication that comes through with the staging and directing of this film. Lots of erratic zooms and handheld juxtapose static shots with deep lighting, brilliant use of natural light, and carefully (I think) planned color schemes in the overall scene design. The sound plays a big part, too, since the threading of sound is run underneath scenes in such a way to give a carpet like flooring for everything to just kind of exist on top of. Lots of need for that since this is essentially a collection of scenes that are very disjointed but eventually lead to the ultimate adventure.

There are amazingly nuanced scenes that act as transitions that roar with the sound of fire or shriek with some effect for awakening from a nightmare.

The mission to take four men from different parts of the world and have them take refuge in a place to be hand picked for a suicide mission transporting turned nitro is a very unique premise. I haven't seen "Wages of Fear" so I feel like that may explain some of my issues with the film on a story level, or perhaps, better yet, an editing level. One thing this film does not do is spell everything out for the viewer. I kept thinking at how lucky I was to have an american in there once in a while putting some ketchup on my fries in the way of exposition, because I sure as hell couldn't understand about 60% of the dialog recording, accents, or even some of the dialog itself.

None of the deep and visceral ruminations of any one character, especially Roy Scheider's, had me informed on what exactly I was holding onto. I did not know much back story, if any at all, and it seemed that when the madness montage would happen, I'd just be kind of scratching my head. The film looked really beautiful with most scenes in some exotic location - interiors sometimes looking more exotic, and Tangerine Dream's minimalist score was kind of neat (if underwhelming), but I just couldn't feel the weight that was so clearly trying to break through like the tires of those laboring trucks on the wood bridges, which, was some of the most intense action at a slow pace I have seen, wow!

Sorcerer is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Maybe that much I did get from the film. I felt like the animal that William Friedkin is as a director, and the team he composes to achieve his strong visual and rhythmic style, is enough to sell me that this is a masterpiece. However I also feel that this film is someone else's masterpiece. A masterpiece I may not quite fully understand, but a work of art I can at least glimpse at and feel from a considerable distance.

3.5
Me,...watching 'Sorcerer'.
https://i.imgur.com/6OgsGsV.png

Citizen Rules

10-12-17, 01:33 PM

Good review on Sorcerer Joel. I didn't realize it was rated R, I wonder why it was? It seemed more PG13 to me by today's standards. Great film BTW.

ScarletLion

10-12-17, 01:35 PM

Great review. I really enjoyed that movie. The tree scene and rope bridge scene were very nicely done. I've not seen the original though.

Zotis

10-13-17, 06:57 AM

I haven't seen The Wages of Fear either, but Sorcerer is pretty great. I liked how it created such suspense and intensity with purely natural means, no demons or ghosts.

Zotis

10-13-17, 06:59 AM

Joel

10-13-17, 03:10 PM

The Bad Batch (2016)
Director: Ana Lily Amirpour
Rated: Hard R

The synopsis of this film was lazily described as a mix between Mad Max and Pretty in Pink, so I had to give it a spin.

It's definitely not anything near being Pretty in Pink, unless you consider a few 1980's songs to warrant it as such. This movie if anything is closer to The Road Warrior with some major differences. One major difference is that this is not a good movie. At all.

Ana Lily Amirpour is a superb visualist and surrealist. Her work with the debut film "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night" was a strong entry into modern indie cinema, but here her knack for setting up a scene is wasted with a movie bereft of any real redeeming quality aside from a silly ending that completely breaks apart everything before it into territory that belonged in another completely different film.

This movie starts off tastelessly violent and disgusting, having the lead girl's character cover herself in her own feces as an escape tactic from her captor. I wasn't impressed. Why go there? When I see stuff like this it makes me immediately think that the script must be so bad that they will try anything to hold people's attention. How about some doo doo? Yes! Doo doo! That's brilliant!

Well, my attention was held, but not without some annoyance. Eventually this film goes from disgust to an almost meditative experimental film, stretching out wide with deliberately paced scenes that illustrate echo effects and stylish lighting. The set design is never in question. All that is visual is inspiring and handled extremely competently. It's just that the characters are garbage. I suppose if this was the point then OK, fine. Whatever. But my question is: why bother? Why not just work a little harder at coming up with a story that has a real set of arcs involved instead of just slapping one on at the end that comes off as completely inane?

This film was so FULL OF ITSELF. So self important. As if THIS IS ART, DON'T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY. Kind of like what Spring Breakers tried to do. Slow motion, slow pacing, ridiculous choices for music, all seem to want to gain approval as being "cutting edge" or trendy, or to put across some sort of "commentary".

All this pretense is just confused kids not knowing how to dredg up a good story in their heart of hearts, and instead, take the foul road, and conjure up something that will appeal to those with a perverted sense instead of aiming a little higher on the food chain.

Something to note is that this film has two very unusual performances from Jim Carrey and Keanu Reeves. Both do very good and interesting work. Unfortunately, nothing is saved by their presence except their isolated scenes.

OK, so this movie basically stinks.
I liked the visuals. I did not like the movie the visuals were tap dancing over.

https://i.imgur.com/4fKvQNN.png

2

Joel

10-13-17, 03:19 PM

Good review on Sorcerer Joel. I didn't realize it was rated R, I wonder why it was? It seemed more PG13 to me by today's standards. Great film BTW.

I remember there being some closely photographed violence near the end with the military men hijacking the truck. Bullet holes in heads, etc. Also, I believe there was at least an F bomb or two, and the tone was definitely for adults. But yeah, nowadays you'd see more graphic and realistic violence on the Lifetime network. Which is OK because hey, just don't show any nudity or say a word that resembles procreation like f-u-c-k.

Population control? LOL

mark f

10-13-17, 03:36 PM

Sorcerer was/is rated PG. There was no PG-13 in the '70s.

Joel

10-13-17, 06:05 PM

Yeah, you both are right. For some reason I thought it was rated R. Didn't seem like a PG at all to me.

Joel

10-13-17, 10:53 PM

I haven't seen The Wages of Fear either, but Sorcerer is pretty great. I liked how it created such suspense and intensity with purely natural means, no demons or ghosts.

true dat

Joel

10-13-17, 10:53 PM

The biggest problem I have with Get Out is the girl's acting. She was much more natural when her character was acting than when her character was her true self. It should have been the other way around.

i hear ya on that. now that ya mentioned it.

i forgive it only because most other aspects were so tight..like..i wouldnt throw away a cadillac just cuz it had a dent kind of thing

Joel

10-14-17, 03:35 PM

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Director: Denis Villeneuve

The design of this sequel to 1982's Blade Runner remains stark and tempered. Since the original survived mostly as an existential mood piece, it's hard to say whether or not this follow up works as well on its own. Most everything is ported over from the first film, and that includes music cues, water lit schemes splayed onto walls, macro iris shots, searing spinner noise over dystopian cityscapes and post apocalyptic neo noir down on the streets at night.

Rather unappealing was that the tone came off a bit mis-matched, with a good portion of the story being shot in a straightforward manner of lighting. Overhead fluorescents weren't exactly an enchanting way to let some scenes play out with interior shots. But as the film became more involved we got immersed in more atmospheric schemes that seemed to remain in place until the conclusion.

The story expands and throws a twist or two in the mix that didn't really offend me being a disciple of the first film, but it also didn't really phase me that much. Without spoiling anything, I'll say that this film was more engaging story-wise than the original, but it simply lacked the authentic poetry and refrain from the original, which is fine but, the issue is that this movie borrows so much from the first film that one cannot help but constantly compare the two. We get lookalikes for Pris, Rachael (as well as a cameo from an incredible Rachael likeness), and Gosling himself looks very much like the ruffled Ford from part 1. There are so many nods to the first film that it almost becomes impossible to see this as a standalone picture. Almost.

The music is powerful enough, but still, even with two composers, it cannot break the mold and capture the precedent set by Vangelis. This too would be fine had it not so closely mirrored the original score. I kept hearing what sounded like revving dirt bike engines used as a gritty music cue and almost laughed a little. Funnily enough, the most moving part of this film happens when a piece of Vangelis score is re-interpreted and brought back into a pivotal scene in the snow. My hairs started to stand up, but not because of the movie. It was because for once I could hear a piece of music that had soul to it. That's testament to Vangelis and Ridley Scott's collaboration. If I'm being honest, I think Ridley should have directed this and made it his life passion like he did with part one. I think Villeneuve does damn fine work here, but Ridley still should have never given up that kind of control. I felt it.

All in all, Blade Runner 2049 is a powerful picture. It was deeply moody and terrifically shot. Gosling's performance was pitched proper and Ford was capable, if not a bit thinly drawn. This sequel suffers from the long shadow looming over it, and would have been an authentic and much more honest picture had it tried harder to forge its own path, with it's own brand of hypnotic sound design and music score.

An Aside
I will watch this again once it hits blu ray. The IMAX theater I watched it in looked like it projected at least 60fps which almost tripled the native frame rate. This must have been to avoid smearing when the camera panned in a shot. However, this also added a bit of a "live" look to it that sometimes robbed the film of that slow and set pace that's part of twenty four frames per second. Also, as SOON as the credits started rolling the theater lights BLASTED on, as if to say, OK, GET OUT, MOVIE'S OVER! So, I suppose this was like paying $11.50 for Netflix.

Final Thoughts
I enjoyed this movie. I think it had a lot to offer in the way of story, or at least, an engaging enough mystery. It in no way eclipses the first film. If anything, it's a respectable homage to the original. However, if there is a third Blade Runner film, I'm hoping that the production team makes the decision to re-invent the wheel, and make something that can be its own thing, stylistically. This sequel does throw some things on the table that are unique and very well rendered, it's just that the baseline of the film is still steeped in a world that doesn't quite connect like the first world did. It's not as detailed, and not as moving, and I believe this has a lot to do with the lack of hypnotizing sound design, which seems to be only half there.

I keep having to add to this review because I feel as if another watch of this movie is absolutely necessary. It may be much better than I have processed yet. Therefore, my little 4 box of popcorn rating couldn't really indicate much of anything except that I've indexed this film as a priority. It's a really, really good movie, and now that I've gotten my grievances out of the way, I will return again to re-assess it.

4

Kissintel

Joel

10-14-17, 04:28 PM

Funny Farm (1988)
Director: George Roy Hill
Rated: PG

This is a fun little movie. Chevy Chase plays Andy Farmer, a sports writer given an advance to pen his first novel in the country. He packs up the wife for their new scenic home, and things start to go south of the luxury life in nature the couple had intended.

Chase does his usual every-man comedy bit here, but he's more streamlined. He isn't over the top like Clark W. Griswold. Here he fits into a story and tone that make Funny Farm a real movie. The editing of Funny Farm is old style, and I really liked that aspect of it. As a scene ends, and a new one tapers in, we get a nice pause for closure, as if turning a page in a book. This is no accident. Director Roy Hill is a capable man for a film like this, and what makes this picture stand apart from any other routine comedy is the skill put to work on this feature.

Everything from the settings and the playful idea of incorporating Norman Rockwell into the design, to the down home feeling of eating at the local diner and jumping out of the way from your drunk and road raged mail man.

I think the direction in this movie is spot on. It really brings out the best of Chevy Chase and his knack for timing, as witnessed in a Christmas Caroling scene where Chase starts a verse out of turn, ending up the lone singer in the room. This is quickly shifted to another line of dialog pushing the story forward, and it's a moment like this that shows confidence. The confidence is the speed of the joke, the obscurance of that joke not to linger too long, and as Farmer's resonate voice is still heard in our own after thought, the humor lands twice as hard.

It's difficult not to like this movie, myself. I revisit it every so often, and always come away appreciating it a little bit more every time. This is easily Chase's best picture, and a seemingly ignored gem from the 1980's.

4

https://i.imgur.com/yft4R5m.jpg

Swan

10-14-17, 04:54 PM

Joel

10-14-17, 06:10 PM

Dude, it's awesome you were able to temper your negative expectations toward Blade Runner 2049 and go in with an open mind. I know you were super skeptical beforehand, and a lot of people would just make themselves hate it because they wanted to hate it in the first place. But not Joel! :up:

I didn't want to hate it..but I did hate it for happening. I felt betrayed by commerce. The original film was the most magical, defining moment in cinematic history for me, and having seen it at the drive ins back in 82', with all of the echo between car window planted speakers, I was nervous about the sequel. How dare they. It's not the first film..it could never be the first one...but as a follow up I was very impressed, and definitely have to give it another spin once it hits blu ray :)

Kissintel

10-14-17, 06:16 PM

Joel

10-14-17, 06:40 PM

I had asked my gf what she thought of Blade Runner 2049 a few days afterwards (both of us absolutely love the original), and she said that she really liked it. Then I asked her if she wanted to own a copy of it, and oddly she does. I still struggle with it, but there are things in that movie that I can help but to love and want to watch again more than once.

Yeah, I think it's a "grower". I have a feeling. The more I think about it, the more I remember some music and scenes that took on an almost sensual and disparate life of its own. I think it's a lot deeper than I was giving it credit for while watching it. The after burn of it is still working on me.

re93animator

10-15-17, 01:31 AM

[CENTER]Sorcerer (1977)

However I also feel that this film is someone else's masterpiece. A masterpiece I may not quite fully understand, but a work of art I can at least glimpse at and feel from a considerable distance.

It's one of mine for sure. Wages of Fear is great and gritty too.

Yeah, I think it's a "grower". I have a feeling. The more I think about it, the more I remember some music and scenes that took on an almost sensual and disparate life of its own. I think it's a lot deeper than I was giving it credit for while watching it. The after burn of it is still working on me.

I still haven't seen it. Your thoughts have made me more excited than anything else I've read though. Movies that introspectively grow tend to become favorites of mine. :)

Joel

10-15-17, 05:02 PM

It's one of mine for sure. Wages of Fear is great and gritty too.

I still haven't seen it. Your thoughts have made me more excited than anything else I've read though. Movies that introspectively grow tend to become favorites of mine. :)

Sorcerer, like BR2049, are both movies I'll need to gander at again. I may completely re-tool both reviews on doing so.

And yes, any movie that grows in retrospect is a special film. I remember seeing Mad Max: Fury Road, and that film actually grew away from me. I liked it at first, but quickly realized I forced myself to like it. I no longer care for it, haha.

Joel

10-15-17, 05:59 PM

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
(2017)
Director: Noah Baumbach

I've never been a big fan of Noah Baumbach. I felt like once he started coming in to co-write with Wes Anderson on his films (replacing Owen Wilson), that the dialog kind of went a bit downhill and became more flighty and pretentious. I never felt as if his jokes landed right for me, personally. I made a commitment to watch his new film, even after being deeply disappointed in his 2010 film Greenberg, because I heard rumors that Adam Sandler turns in a career performance. OK, sure, why not?

The first 15 or so minutes of The Meyerowitz Stories came off a bit like the usual from Baumbach; overlapped dialog, fast, detailed and stagy. The difference was that in this first fifteen minutes, the "bit" was only about the fast and detailed. The stagy aspect seemed to have been diluted with conviction, and a kind of easy matter of factness that I had wished been a part of dialog heavy comedies I'd seen prior, like Greenberg. And here it was. So far, not bad. We'll see what happens.

It's the story of an arrogant absentee sculptor father who favors only one child (Ben Stiller), leaving the other two (Elizabeth Marvel, Adam Sandler) to basically fend for themselves, even though the two neglected children spend more time with their father, and are loyal by him, and make excuses for him all of the time. They support his failing sculpture work, and talk it up as being genius and worthy. It's work that the father (Harold Meyerowitz) feels is just as important as his contemporary in the field (L.J. Shapiro - played by Judd Hirsch), his contemporary that has enjoyed some degree of success, and has healthy showings at galleries.

Ben Stiller's character (Matthew) is the favorite child. He got to be there during the sculpting process, sitting on the floor, getting nails in his ass, as his father worked in front of him, teaching him how to forge ahead with great confidence. Matthew is an investment banker with a successful roster of clientele.

Not a bad story, so far.

As much as this picture is a comedy that takes cues from late 1970's Woody Allen, it also exists very prominently as a drama. We see how the children act with one another, trying to be adult enough to move past jealousy, regressed hate, abandonment, and misunderstandings.

Adam Sandler does fine work. He delivers lines so effortlessly, and stays within these boundaries he's put around himself, that when he colors outside of the lines with anger every so often, he is rewarded with being cut off cold by a hard and sudden edit that puts us into another scene. This happens quite a bit throughout the film, and it's a great juxtapose for other more expository moments. However, if anyone is going to get my vote for a little gold statue, it's Ben Stiller. He acts his ass off here, and he's never been better. You can see the wisdom of age in his eyes, and when he lets it fly, he really taps into something. I won't spoil it, but let's just say that Ben Stiller has never been more human.

Elizabeth Marvel has a printed few lines here and there that she works though a bit transparently, but she is also one of the more powerful actors in the film. She does a great job at keeping the film grounded with her pessimism hiding just beneath a layer of reason. She is truly the rock of the picture.

It's Dustin Hoffman that seems to be sleepwalking (literally) through the film. We don't get to see him shine like he usually insists on doing. Instead, he is sedate and aloof, and that's certainly what his character is supposed to be.

The Meyerowitz Stories is a truly moving film if you give it a try and allow yourself to warm up to it. It may seem a bit off-putting and trying too hard at first, but give it time. It straightens itself out, and reveals its reasons for being so percussive in the beginning.

And Noah Baumbach has finally written and directed something I liked very much. I think I'll be seeing this again. I feel as if this is a classic film, and it may even take some time to register as that kind of movie in the critical community (I have not checked to see its overall rating yet), but it's earned its stripes in my book. It's not pretending. This is how it was done before, and I'm glad to see it's been done again.

4

https://i.imgur.com/UOJdqCk.jpg

Joel

10-16-17, 01:04 PM

Creed (2015)
Director: Ryan Coogler
Rated: PG-13

There's not much I want to say about this movie other than that it's a really strong chapter in the Rocky series. Director Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station) updates the Balboa story with a new character in Apollo Creed's son.

All the acting is great. All of the fight sequences are fast and tough. The emotional aspect of Creed hit me more than a few times, to the point where I got pretty choked up. Stallone always makes me sad. He's got that face and that look like he's always kind of resigned about life, but refuses to spoil the fun for anyone else.

The handling of incorporating past Rocky series elements into this film is totally professional and respectful. We get feathered into this new story with a high regard for the past, even if the 1980's were a bit chest pounding and sentimental, the cheese has aged here. There's no apologetic tone to make any excuses for past bombast. That's where a good deal of the brilliance of Creed lives, in the sensibility of the writing and directing, with performances following suit.

This film deserved all of the praise it has received. It's one of the strongest entries, and caught me way off guard.

4

https://i.imgur.com/ApcU7vQ.jpg

Joel

10-18-17, 12:57 PM

The Babysitter (2017)
Director: MCG

https://i.imgur.com/tXF2fC0.jpg

The Babysitter is an OK time waster if you're in the mood for comedy horror. The problems it suffers from are identity. In one scene, the camera takes the idea of a POV shot that feels like it belongs in Paul Brickman's art teen comedy Risky Business. Are we in for something similar here? No, unfortunately. The writing simply doesn't care enough about a plausible story or character motivations outside of a general premise involving sacrificial blood and career choices. What the film delivers in nuanced bits seem quickly swept under the rug in favor of "borrowing" riffs from other films, almost as if this movie is a remix of better films before it.

Is the director an actual dj, or is he Scottish? I'm McCurious.

I felt like watching this was seeing the director try to make something fun and on the level for horror buffs, but kind of fumbling around with reliance on over stated tongue in cheek and camp. There's no way I can discount that the intentions were there to make a classic type of horror comedy, it's just that everything felt a bit flattened and half assed. While the effects were decent, and the humor was enough to float most of the run time, the resolve was kind of brain dead and cliche, the way the story tied up wasn't exactly mind-blowing.

Should the ending have been mind-blowing in a film like this? Yes. It should have been mind-blowing. If it was great writing, and the ending was a real zinger, then the film that led up to this point would have been legitimate. But it didn't, and it wasn't quite at the level of decent.

I know I'm leaving a lot of blanks in my review and that parallels the film-itself. There are moments, but over-all it just kind of exists. The comedy is generous and often funny, very funny in fact. I just wish the writing and directing were handled better. It was a missed opportunity for something that could be re-watched. I'd probably never need to see this film again.

2.5

Citizen Rules

10-18-17, 01:34 PM

Creed (2015)
Director: Ryan Coogler
Rated: PG-13
rating_4
I had forgot all about this film, but now that I see your review, I remember being very surprised at just how good it is. Good to see you liked it.

Joel

10-20-17, 01:16 PM

The
Rules
of
Attraction
(2002)
Director: Roger Avary

This film is based on Brett Easton Ellis' book of the same name, and ties a bit into the Patrick Bateman/American Psycho universe, with Patrick's name being toted at least twice casually by his brother, Sean Bateman (played by James Van Der Beek).

https://i.imgur.com/NTnBy28.jpg

Sean Bateman is a sociopathic predator on a liberal arts college campus. He finally meets a girl who he champions as pure, and not a complete slut, after womanizing every pretty girl he sees, but looks can be deceiving. Lauren is the apple of Sean's eye. Sure, she's never had sex, but that doesn't stop her from giving her English teacher a hummer for extra GPA. Paul is a homosexual ex boyfriend of Lauren's. He now has eyes for Sean, but Sean hardly registers Paul in his peripheral. Together these three characters make up the morally bankrupt story of this very stylish and complex narrative where non-linear timeline is an understatement.

https://i.imgur.com/daif2z7.jpg

Most of the film relies on a rewinding backwards motion kind of effect which displaces events in such a way to shuffle stories and connections around. There is also a technical sense that utilizes some amazing split screen work that materializes into a wide shot when the only real connection in the film is made between Sean and Lauren. There's no extra scrutiny on craft here from me.

But it's sad that these characters are not very encouraging on any level. They are self-centered, smug, boring and genetically gifted, but that's about it. The last thing on their minds is school work. I had a difficult time caring for anyone in this film, and an even harder time trying to make sense of what the point was to a lot of the run time. We get vignettes and showy editing, but I feel that the editing was a lot to blame for the way the film isolates itself from having an actual pulse.

As technically savvy and beautifully lit and photographed this movie is, it just cannot make up for the missing dynamics between the two most central characters. Add a meaningless subplot scene with Paul's character in with one of the most cringe inducing montages of my recent memory, and it doesn't add up to a very lean narrative. There are lots of extra bits that could have afforded to end up on the floor. But instead of play up the Sean/Lauren story more, we get extra fat that tells nothing about the Paul character except that he had an ex boyfriend who needs to be whipped with a rubber hose for acting like an idiot, and a drunkard, pill popping mom (Faye Dunaway) who is just wasted in her role, because it really adds nothing to the story. The audience could have guessed that Paul was from a privileged and dysfunctional family.

The film also throws in a very moving scene where a secret admirer of Sean's gives into the realization that he doesn't know who she is, so she kills herself. Kind of a strange component to include since it hardly makes us any more aware that these central characters are monsters. The characters themselves actually verbally acknowledge this, so, I don't know.

https://i.imgur.com/ApSSWdO.jpg

This is a tough movie to rate because even though the story is uneven and lacking traction, the material is really good. The writing is good, the film making is excellent, the soundtrack is a dream, and the actors are all superb.

So what's the deal with The Rules of Attraction?

https://i.imgur.com/C9ykFXr.jpg

I am not sure. I've been a fan of the film since it came out. I've seen it now three times, and still consider it re-watchable just because it's so well made. It's a big contradiction for me, personally. It's a bad movie that was made poorly, but it's also a good movie that was made expertly. Go figure!

3

Joel

10-20-17, 10:36 PM

Boys
in
the
Trees
(2016)
Director: Nicholas Verso

An unexpected coming of age Halloween tale of ghouls and ghosts that goes fairly deep, despite it's apparent low budget. This story centers around a group of punk kids with one boy branching off to re-explore his friendship with another boy who still gets picked on.

Terror ensues through dark streets this night with imaginary games lighting the way, as two old friends reunite, and challenge each other to face their fears. The rule is simple: you cannot run.

https://i.imgur.com/5RsTBkN.jpg

I didn't know what I was getting into with this film but was humbled at the complexity of it's themes. It's not exactly what one might think it will be. It's shot elegantly. The lighting is gorgeous, and the acting is essentially all in order, allowing the viewer to invest in the proceedings and go along for the ride.

If I were to criticize, it would be the pacing. The speed feels a bit labored at times, with stretches over staying their welcome every now and then. For the most part, though, I thought this film was tight pretty much the whole way through. It was moving and frightful, but not too much of either. It kind of just stays in the middle of the road. I feel as if the potential outweighed the final result, but what a potential it had!

Boys in the Trees reminds me a lot of Donnie Darko. It's so close to being cultish, but a few of the elements are a bit off. It's hard to explain. I can't seem to explain my reason for thinking that. Maybe it's the whole "it factor" thing that a movie either has or doesn't have. Actually, BOOM! I know what it is. It's some of the writing and acting. Some of it seemed a little forced and awkward. There. That feels much better.

See it for something to watch that's different and thoughtful, and manages to be effectively chilling at the same time. Very unique film.

3.5

Joel

10-21-17, 12:39 PM

https://i.imgur.com/NAm7weG.jpg?1
P O P C O R N
(1991)
director: Mark Herrier

Popcorn is a cult movie that had a solid run on home video back in the rental glory days.
I remember getting that intoxicating feeling of scary fun back when I picked it up for a watch. When I found out it was getting a proper filmic transfer onto blu ray, I freaked, and was a big champion of it's troubled production. I literally voiced my impatience every few weeks to Synapse, the company who got the licensing. The point in me even mentioning this is that - Popcorn was a big deal. I had purposely not watched it on dvd just so I could be ready for it's BD debut. My memory held it up as being a special kind of movie, and I couldn't wait!

Well, then it came out for a hefty boutique price. I still bought it. And then...and then I watched it. I don't think keeping suspense up any longer will be necessary, so I'll just say that the movie kind of sucks.

Everything is there, though. All the bits and pieces to make a truly great movie are there. Great, moody lighting - special effects, locations, even the general premise is an absolute goldmine!

A teenage girl with recurring nightmares about a cult leader named "The Possessor" finds herself in a film study class that is on the brink of utilizing an old movie theater to show a series of low budget creature features chock full of theatrical props and novelties. Things like buzzing electrified seats, Odor-Rama through the HVAC vents, flying mosquito props on high wires, the whole nine, just like a William Castle presentation. All the classmates are eager to have a successful run, and the prop master is none other than Ray Walston (Mr. Hand, My Favorite Martian)!

Tony Roberts plays the teacher, and Bruce Glover (Crispin's dad) plays in one of the films within the film (The Attack of the Amazing Electrified Man). This picture was ghost directed (puppeteered and overseen) by none other than Bob Clark (Black Christmas, Porky's, and A Christmas Story), and the working director was a last minute replacement who came from Clark's earlier film Porky's as an actor, named (Mark Herrier). Also thrown into the mix is a rock solid performance by Dee Wallace Stone (E.T., Cujo), and an always salty Kelly Jo Minter (Summer School - "Get your grisly behinds in the car!").

https://i.imgur.com/PQDAnOo.jpg?1

All of this talent and interesting cast of production characters. You'd think this to be a sure thing. And, depending on who you ask, it is. But for me, it just simply wasn't. Believe me, I wanted it to be good so badly. I even watched it twice within a month to make sure it stunk. Yeah..it stunk.

The films within this film were all decent. They were directed by the original director of Popcorn before he was replaced with Mark Herrier. Rumor has it that the original director who is responsible for the short films in Popcorn was too detailed and complex for the teenage cast, and wasn't eliciting very good performances. And here's the issues with Popcorn. Right there.

https://i.imgur.com/zPpBRpp.jpg?1

They should have kept the director on the show and replaced about 3/4's of the cast. They simply brought the movie down. Corny jokes, cringe inducing scenes aplenty, and just a general dullness that could have been a lot more fun had they gotten better performers. The tricky thing is that Tom Villard did great work as Toby. Jill Schoelen did nice work in the lead. Kelly Jo Minter was underused but still a nice presence. It was the other clowns that blew it. Shame on casting, and shame on Bob Clark's bad production.

Popcorn suffered from not enough detail. They canned the guy who wanted to bring it to that next level. Bonehead move, but then again, low budget film. Time is always the issue, and time is also the enemy of a great piece of film making, at least, a lot of the time it is. I suppose a deadline can also work in favor of creativity. Sadly, they sacked the wrong person. I think. While Herrier does a somewhat competent job at getting this film from A to Z, there are just too many inconsistencies.

https://i.imgur.com/eUERBtI.jpg?1

The tone goes from terror to comedy with no good dialog. The moody lighting and atmosphere/location suffer because there's nothing to make you want to stay once the novelty wears off. The lines aren't funny, but the ideas are terrific. The ideas for set-up, and even the story idea of a cult leader returning to terrorize the theater of patrons - all good stuff, but it backfires on itself. The writing. The writing should be good enough for a blueprint, but you have actors incapable of transcending the source material and bringing it to somewhere spectacular. This is a b-picture, after all. But it could have been a superb b-picture, and it is not. The plausibility even suffers because supernatural elements are thrown in and then never explained. The bulk of the movie is grounded in reality. Explain the marquee letters flying off onto the concrete, and the door opening by itself. It is never explained, and that would be fine if this was a psycho-trip abstract film, but again, it's not. It's a straight forward mystery thriller/horror film that fails at comedy, and fails at having that "it" factor that merits re-watchability.

And all of this is a sizable disappointment because with a film like this, having all of the pieces to make a true classic, it just fails to tie them all together, and that is because of the budget, the boneheaded decision to take a visionary out from the director's chair (When you see the films within the film, you'll realize this mistake), and the fact that casting wasn't firing on all pistons. While some good casting choices were made, it was the pad characters that sunk this ship. I also have to reiterate that the writing of the characters, and some narrative was just too flimsy to stand this movie upright.

I can't recommend this movie for being what it should have been, but I will say that it has things about it that are nice. I never go into a B-Movie with an expectation that it will be "good", but there has to be something that makes it worthwhile, and I suppose there a few things that cut the mustard here, but my overall feeling is that the glaring reality of a missed opportunity outshines the potential Popcorn had,..and it's sad. Plus, it has way too much bad reggae music happening - with NO ELECTRICITY!

https://i.imgur.com/dbBryRV.jpg?1

2.5

Sexy Celebrity

10-21-17, 12:45 PM

Joel

10-21-17, 12:48 PM

I love that movie. Scream before Scream happened. It even has a surprise, twist ending (the killer’s identity). But yes, it has some strange, supernatural-like flaws that shouldn’t have happened. It’s wacky. I think it doesn’t care - it’s just trying to be a horror film.

I so should have used it for Survivor Part X in some way. Counselor Toby or Counselor Maggie.

This is one of those movies I just had to gut, even though gutting a b movie like it was an A movie is ridiculous. I still like the film, it just missed the mark so much. I had plans for Popcorn. I'm like a bride to be with a wedding cake wallpaper design and a brass birdcage..I don't see the man in front of me, I see the man I can make down the road. :p

Sexy Celebrity

10-21-17, 12:48 PM

Also, I love the reggae music. Especially when the lights go out and they bring out the band to perform. The movie was filmed in Jamaica, mon.

Sexy Celebrity

10-21-17, 12:54 PM

I still remember seeing the poster for the film at a movie theater and seeing trailers on TV. I never got to see it in a theater because it was barely out. But I saw it once it was on VHS. I think I first saw it on TV, perhaps.

Joel

10-21-17, 12:57 PM

Jamaica, mon. I know, and according to Dee Wallace, it smelled like piss in that theater. I think that piss smell wafted into some of the decision making in production.

Reggae music with no electricity...a true miracle!

Joel

10-21-17, 09:32 PM

D E M O N W I N D

https://i.imgur.com/k22Gr9x.gif
(1989)
Director: Charles Philip Moore
Rated: R

Demon Wind is essentially Evil Dead II mixed with about a half dozen other films. There's nothing very special or good about this movie. In fact, it's kind of a piece of poop.
This is the blu ray review of this film, since the theatrical life hardly existed, and the VHS life shouldn't have existed.

Vinegar Syndrome, a cult boutique label for Blu Rays, has licensed and released, for the first time ever in digital format, the original film negative scanned at 2k for a very, very filmic presentation of 1989's forgettable but super important Demon Wind. How is Demon Wind super important?

It's not.

A group of teenagers in their late 20's go to a cabin in the country and meet up with satanic demons for an eventual showdown. There's the plot, in case you were wondering.

So, what's good here?

A few things.

Hot girls (a couple), some unintentionally funny bad acting, super duper rubber make up effects, some really gnarly rotoscoped opticals that looked like they were done by a public access video unit you could buy for $40 in bargain news back in 1988, and one helluva sweet assed folk devil song about white linens and lamb's blood. To round things out, a very cozy and atmospheric location of an old farm road, gas station and cabin.

https://i.imgur.com/MJVIIv0.jpg?2
https://i.imgur.com/2zpKkbS.jpg?2
https://i.imgur.com/QCyiDhG.jpg?2

Let's talk about the holographic lenticular cover. Back on VHS, this sported the Prism/Paramount cover that was the same cracker jack prize illusion, except a lighter turquoise/green blue. This time, the colors are rendered a bit on the royal blue side, but that's OK. It really is the thought that counts. The slip case is gorgeous. I have both lenticulars displayed next to each other, as analog-digital, respectively.

Nudity? One scene, yes. Very nice breasts, too. Also, some clothed but butt busted tight jeans are there for constant inspection. This film is for very bored, very horny men. Was I bored and horny?

No.

The dialog recording is atrocious. I believe it was done with a prehistoric DAW set-up where the labor involved was awkward and unnecessary. Because of this, someone forgot to turn the high-mids back down to audible levels, so every time someone says a word with the letter "S" in it, ears start bleeding. My recommendation is to turn the volume down after about 35 minutes and just strum a guitar while watching.

Demon Wind.

Who Farted?

2.5

Dani8

10-21-17, 09:38 PM

Lol at your tagline. I immediately thought the title was inspired by the horror of an off vindaloo

Joel

10-22-17, 01:09 PM

Camera Store (2016)
Director: Scott Marshall Smith

A small indie flick about a film camera store manager on the verge of losing his livelihood to the introduction of digital cameras on the market. This movie is a perfect kind of set up for something truly wonderful.

https://i.imgur.com/Sa3yYMK.jpg?1

It's 1994 at the mall on Christmas Eve. In order for store manager (John Larroquette) to be financially secure, he must "throw" the day's sales and not make over $5,000. To make matters more complicated, he has to deal with a new young implant employee who knows nothing of the business, and a long time drunkard philosopher who spends half of the day across from the store at the bar.

There are a few stories intertwining in this movie, and for the most part, they are all fairly well thought out. Among some heartbreaking moments there is this kind of inexperienced way of storytelling that mutes everything out, and makes this film a bit annoying.

https://i.imgur.com/pvfuCWj.jpg?1

I swear I even heard a line lifted from Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

I wanted to get into this film. Larroquette's acting is great, and John Rhys-Davies scores for this film, as well. But there's also this cloying feeling happening that kind of seems like a transparent way to force the audience into feeling more than is possible. The details are clunky with the production, and that doesn't help sell much. This is supposed to be 1994, but the young store plant is rocking a do from 2 years ago with the shaved hair part of a typical emo hipster picture book. Kind of distracting if I'm being honest.

https://i.imgur.com/EedRXho.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/5ku9HJh.jpg?1

A movie about the decline of film into the world of digital has some heavy themes to knock around, but sadly doesn't do enough damage to us. We're left with a bitter taste and a confectionery ending that really never wraps things up in a balanced way.

Camera Store had the makings of a truly great movie, and it's not without its strengths, but the overall tone of the picture sounds like it's coming from the same fountain pen, and when you're writing characters and dynamics, it's always a sign of a better job done if what you hear these characters say, is coming from a few different pens. Different people/different pens. Reminds me of why I dislike Kevin Smith so much. Even his female characters sound like him.

A unique premise with some solid acting undone by it's ricketty script. It tries, but just cannot deliver on the promise.

https://i.imgur.com/wc83vEv.jpg?1

2.5+

Citizen Rules

10-22-17, 02:30 PM

Camera Store (2016)
The premise sounds totally interesting, at least for me being someone who use to shoot film and held out, and held out, until finally I went digital. I know of only one big camera store left in my town, now they sell mostly digital but they have been around since the early 1970s. All the other camera stores folded. So I want to watch this movie...but I can't find it. If you have a link PM

Joel

10-22-17, 03:59 PM

https://i.imgur.com/VfGBIBA.jpg
RED CHRISTMAS (2016)
Director: Craig Anderson

Dee Wallace (E.T., The Howling) stars as a mother celebrating Christmas with her children on the day of, out in the country, in a large modern home. Her son has down syndrome, and her two daughters are constantly bickering, but despite the family drama, she tries to celebrate the last Christmas with her family in the house before selling it and going to Europe, to spend some time away for herself, as her husband's dying wish was that she do so.

Then an unexpected visitor knocks at the door, cold and cloaked, with a letter in his hand.

This is a twisted drama wrapped up inside a slasher home invasion film that really gives a different perspective on a few issues such as abortion and raising children with learning disabilities.

Gerard Odwyer plays the son, Peter, born with down syndrome, but sharp as a tack. He recites Shakespeare at any opportunity he gets, vying to entertain his family, much to their chagrin. Peter is headstrong and stubborn, but also a spirited son to his mother, often getting into brief and playful debates with her to pass the time.

Dee Wallace plays Diane as well as any character she's done in the past, and this time she is filled with action hero focus. Diane keeps a cool head amidst all of the carnage the family will face when night falls.

If I were to pick apart some of the things I could have done without, it would be the shaky camera work. I understand that wild camera movement can induce fear and uncertainty, as well as panic and confusion, but in this film it's a bit much. I'm not sure what the budget was, but a tripod would have been nice every once in a while.

I enjoyed this movie as much as I could possible enjoy a movie with blood squirting everywhere. It was over the top and disgusting, but it was also moving. There was a heavy duty story behind it, and it clearly had quite a bit of thought put into it. This is a tale of morals, which isn't anything new in the world of horror films, but runs deeper than the usual brand that comes out. The writing of the characters makes more effort than I am used to seeing. That's not to say that Red Christmas is a masterpiece of horror. I haven't digested it as being so much as of yet, but it is a welcome entry that brings new life with it, and plenty of death. Perhaps once this has had time to resonate with me, I'll be more confident in my recommendation of it.

https://i.imgur.com/xp3I5Ga.jpg

3

Joel

10-22-17, 04:05 PM

cricket

10-22-17, 07:52 PM

Just watched the trailer for Red Christmas. It looks like it might be an ok watch but what really struck me was that Dee Wallace looks about the same after all these years.

Citizen Rules

10-24-17, 11:36 PM

The premise sounds totally interesting, at least for me being someone who use to shoot film and held out, and held out, until finally I went digital. I know of only one big camera store left in my town, now they sell mostly digital but they have been around since the early 1970s. All the other camera stores folded. So I want to watch this movie...but I can't find it. If you have a link PM

So I tried watching Camera Store but shut it off after 10 minutes! Ugh...Truth be told, I didn't think this was going very well at the very first scene...where we see a guy standing in an empty parking lot right next to a huge mud puddle (oh brother!)...then zing, here comes a car that drives right through it, splashing him, ha-ha! I'm looking around for Adam Sandler:eek:

The dialogue in the second scene in the camera shop was juvenile, they must have dropped a few dozen F bombs in the first 5 minutes. Nobody talks like that, all the time It sounded fake, like some writer trying to be all hip and edgy.

I think it was you who said when writers use F**** like a comma in a sentence is used...it then becomes way to noticeable. I agree. My take was this movie's low brow humor was aimed at jr high students.

I seen what you mean by the hair styles looking modern and not 1994. Especially with the girl with long dark hair who he has lunch with at a deli/cafe. She was very modern looking. At that's where I turned it off. :p

Joel

10-25-17, 07:37 PM

Dani8

10-25-17, 08:02 PM

Yeah, totally. I mean, I liked apsects of it, but for the most part it was amateur hour. Great premise, though, wow!

I felt the dialog sounded like it all came from one dude. Like Kevin Smith dialog..which I hate. Hate Kevin Smith. F#ck that guy and his stupid movies...

Sorry, bro. I'll be OK. :p

Lol Joel!

Is that meth damon in your avatar?

Joel

10-25-17, 08:40 PM

Dani8

10-25-17, 08:45 PM

Joel

10-25-17, 09:41 PM

Joel

10-27-17, 10:04 PM

The Mangler (1995)
Director: Tobe Hooper
Rated: R
https://i.imgur.com/uFwFOW3.jpg

It seems like The Mangler was a few things for director Hooper;

One would be his final big budget studio picture (gee, I wonder why?). There are plenty of big effect pieces and camera acrobatics. He still had that chapman crane at his disposal. But the premise and execution...that was a major dice roll on his part. The man had big shiny copper balls.

Two would be his homage to Stephen King. The film feels at home in the small town of Castlerock.

Three would be his practical joke sense of humor. This film reeks of mucousey laughter under a sweaty, beard stubbled chin.

It's true that this is a story of a laundry press gone mad. The devil made him do it. The machine is possessed, and controls a small town's inhabitants like a cult. Many folk sans finger or leg mobility. The evil MC is Robert Englund, and he's a zany mess the entire time.

Ted Levine steals the show, though. When he's not popping antacids, he's yelling at refrigerators and spouting out obscenities like "you miserable piece of dog f#ck!" I couldn't believe how funny he was. Come to think of it, I couldn't believe how funny this movie was. Too many ludicrous bits to list here.

I watched this for the first time, since I had dismissed it back at the theaters at age whatever I was, 19? Who gives a sh#t? Everyone who saw it back then dismissed it. I read a review here on the site that kind of switched on a light over my head. Tobe Hooper had a twisted sense of humor, and many times his jokester ways have gone under the radar. It happened with his biggest hit The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and I wondered if it had happened with The Mangler, as well?

While watching this movie, I kept thinking of a Steve Railsback interview I saw where he was describing Tobe as being an introverted but very intelligent man with a sharp sense of humor, and someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I believed him. For decades I have been trying to piece together the definitive Tobe Hooper style. His aesthetic. What exactly did Steven Spielberg see in him that made him the surrogate director of Poltergeist?

Things started clicking away like a giant gear wheel. I had to see The Mangler again and give it a second chance. I wanted so badly to like another Tobe Hooper picture that may've gone over my head.

Rule #1 on how to watch a bad movie: know it's a bad movie, and then kick back and enjoy it. This may not have been the case with a strange and epic identity case like Lifeforce, but here it was in full swing with The Killer Laundry Press.

There are several interesting occult elements outlined briefly in this film that are relayed in a fast paced expository way, but when they come back, these terms and meanings, they kind of open up this knowledge, and that's where one could find a deeper writing inside this movie. One just has to pay attention and not trick themselves into being bored out of a premature resignation just because this movie isn't A Nightmare on Elm St. Part 9: The Dryer Sheet.

Hooper never seemed to fall into any kind of niche aside from making violent films. His output was scattershot across the years taking many forms and many vastly different tonalities.

I'd echo the statement that The Mangler is indeed a good movie. It's a good bad movie. The great thing about The Mangler is that it knows it's a bad movie, and it takes full advantage of it.

Everything from the rich greens, purples, yellows, brasses in split diopter - to the camera swoops past a pale blue stone ledge lantern onto a night time landscape of an old castle ground. This movie has richly photographed appeal that may've been more commonplace when films were actual "films", but certainly stands out seeing it in a climate like 2017.

If I had one small gripe, it would be the lack of survey for the small town. I feel as if this needed to be visually addressed earlier on, and not just randomly mentioned near the end of the film. A perfect little town? Where? I never saw it. Though, there is a beautiful garden at night with windchimes galore and some foggish air that pops up every once in a while, even looking enchanting during its final daylight scene. It should be seen, though. Not explained.

I'd recommend this movie. It's so ridiculous. It's a damn strong tongue in cheek horror comedy.

3.5

Sexy Celebrity

10-27-17, 10:14 PM

I hated that movie a lot.

Joel

10-27-17, 10:19 PM

I hated that movie a lot.

You should do better than that, though. Like, I just wrote a giant review as to why I liked it. At least give me more than one sentence explaining why you did not, bro.

Yoda

10-29-17, 12:15 PM

Sexy Celebrity

10-29-17, 12:21 PM

You should do better than that, though. Like, I just wrote a giant review as to why I liked it. At least give me more than one sentence explaining why you did not, bro.

Well, it's been over a decade since I saw it.... but..... for a movie directed by Tobe Hooper, based on a Stephen King story, starring Robert Englund and Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs)..... I thought it just seemed like a total cheese fest. I would have to see it again to actually review it.... but I remember being bored and thinking it was incredibly stupid on many levels. An instant "worst movie I've ever seen" kind of film that I quickly tried to forget.

Joel

10-29-17, 04:10 PM

When I saw the trailers for that as a kid I thought it sounded like the most gruesome, horrific idea for a film I'd ever heard (though I guess I've got a thing about machinery). When I got older I looked it up again and though the concept still makes me cringe, I was amazed at how cheap and relatively unfrightening the footage looked.

But yeah, as far as horror goes, hard to beat that setup. Good review! :up: As you say, kinda intentionally over the top, but to a however-old-I-was brain it all looked incredible serious.

I think it's a movie that should be seen in at least a 480p display, if not HD, if possible. The native frame rate will help out the machinery menace scenes plenty. It just has to be avoided with poorly flagged NTSC signaled crt monitors, which, I'm sure won't be a problem in 2017. The Mangler should never be seen with bad video signals running at 30 fps lol.

Joel

10-29-17, 04:12 PM

Well, it's been over a decade since I saw it.... but..... for a movie directed by Tobe Hooper, based on a Stephen King story, starring Robert Englund and Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs)..... I thought it just seemed like a total cheese fest. I would have to see it again to actually review it.... but I remember being bored and thinking it was incredibly stupid on many levels. An instant "worst movie I've ever seen" kind of film that I quickly tried to forget.

I completely understand as I felt the exact same way. Go into it fresh, and try and snag a decent copy resolution-wise. Then remember it is a bad movie, but it's aware of itself. Then see what you may think?

Joel

10-30-17, 07:42 PM

Weird Science (1985)
Director: John Hughes
Rated: PG-13
https://i.imgur.com/iyP2urZ.jpg

John Hughes went teen sci fi fantasy and employed a lot of great special effects that still look good some 30 years later.

What I really love about this movie is how much spirit it has. It just goes for it. It defies logic and just goes right into the ultimate teen male fantasy. It seems like every single scene is written well and has some sort of laugh going on in it. Every second feels classic. I remember seeing this back in 1986 on VHS dozens of times, and remembering even then, every scene was classic. The comedy writing from Hughes, and ad-libbing from Anthony Michael Hall is awesome.
https://i.imgur.com/aT9gdoI.jpg

Anthony Michael Hall always seemed to be an intelligent and funny adult, even as a teen. Weird Science was literally his physical transition from Farmer Ted into beefcake Johnny B. Goode, and minus a few pounds of lean muscle, he was well on his way. He had an ego in this film, but he wasn't completely arrogant. It allowed him to carry the movie, and really add a great deal of charm to it. One scene, in particular; a blonde girl he's met comments on how Lisa (the computer fantasy woman) has such a nice body. Hall pauses for a moment and replies in an agreeable but almost patronizing tone "she has a good figure". She has a good figure. That's not something a teenager says, but Hall sells it and has this kind of endearing way all over this movie.
https://i.imgur.com/T5VRqtq.jpg

Every character in this movie was a treat, including all of the blues bar patrons who sat around with a drunk Gary Wallace and let him wear shades and talk like one of the bluesmen. Riffing on the pains of teenage life. Some people think this scene is racist or inappropriate. I'd have to say in a very exhausted tone "get real". Big eye roll for those who simply cannot grasp this movie. Guess ya had to be there. But anyway, yes. This is among one of the highlights of the film. Gary Wallace drunk and acting a damn fool, but everybody still playing along because, hey, Gary is kind of cool, after all.

There are too many great bits to mention about Weird Science, but I have to say that this picture always seems like a complete dream, just the way it gets its momentum. Complete lack of padding. The editing goes right for the gold, and there is no time to soak much in until the shenanigans are well underway. In other words, the movie becomes maybe a bit more "comforting" once the party starts.

I think this is a silly but great movie, and I'm now 41 years old and cannot see my mind changing about that. It's one of my favorites, and for me to call this a guilty pleasure would be a lie. I have no shame in liking this movie. In fact, I'd make it a point to avoid anyone who thought poorly of it. This is a gauge, this film. It's a social gauge for me.

4.5

edarsenal

10-30-17, 07:49 PM

I still let loose with "I wanna butter your biscuit."
and yes, one of the highlights IS the blues bar. Been decades since seeing this but STILL remember a lot of it.

Joel

10-30-17, 07:50 PM

I still let loose with "I wanna butter your biscuit."
and yes, one of the highlights IS the blues bar. Been decades since seeing this but STILL remember a lot of it.

"But first I'd like to..butter, your, muffin..."

Hahaha, great stuff!

I'm waiting for someone to license and restore this properly on blu ray with no edge enhancement or DNR...can't afford to hold my breath, though.

edarsenal

10-30-17, 07:55 PM

yep, THAT'S the line!!

doubledenim

10-30-17, 08:54 PM

I was always a Garrett fan, but he's wallpaper. I remember liking his girl better.

The bar scene being racist is above my paygrade.

That one guy's voice is great. "In the family jewels?!?"

Joel

10-30-17, 09:42 PM

"What this cat talkin' bout on the telephone, man..we know they's a phone?!"

Joel

10-30-17, 09:43 PM

"She's into malackas, Dino"

"Shee's eeento malackas...hehehehehehehe! ehehehehehehe!"

cricket

10-31-17, 07:29 PM

I've always loved Weird Science

Joel

10-31-17, 08:07 PM

LIGHT YEARS (1988)
Director: Rene Laloux
Rated: PG-13
https://i.imgur.com/s87lPGQ.jpg?1

This was originally titled Gandahar, and it is a redub/recut of a 1987 french film.

https://i.imgur.com/2KG1qEy.jpg

The story is about a fantastical paradise world run into terror as men of metal intrude and destroy from a doorway of time. They have come from the future to destroy the past. Gandahar is the name of this paradise. Years ago, Gandaharians had experimented with a brain-like entity that expanded into a consciousness. This consciousness became evil, but was it on purpose and filled with malicious intent, or is the "metamorphasis" simply unaware of its own purpose?

This is a nifty little animated feature that was recast by none other than Harvey Weinstein, back when Miramax was doing its thing and flag planting with various indie films. Harvey hired another writer to translate, a set of composers to take Gabriel Yared's score from orchestral to electronic, all the while adding more contemporary and moody cues, as well as cast the talents of everyone including Jennifer Grey, Christopher Plummer, Glenn Close, and Pen&Teller. Oh, and David Johanssen.

https://i.imgur.com/FLPZa0T.jpg

Does it matter? Nah, not really. Everyone's role is minimal and most of the film relies on a soft spoken and concentrated voice over and music pieces set against some truly stellar blue and floral designed animation. Rotating rocks float across the skyscape. Big boulders above suspended. Some very phallic pillars holding up a bird eared tower for the council. This is a very creative film. This american version cheapens the original french Gandahar in way of some of the dialog and odd meter, but still maintains enough wonder that it hardly matters.

Those looking for extremely moody and time specific 1980's animation with adult themes, look no further. I'd recommend watching both versions, the french and american re-cut, as they both have different things to offer that are worth the look.

https://i.imgur.com/LPrp85K.jpg

4.5

Joel

11-04-17, 01:21 PM

As Good as it Gets (1997)
Director: James L. Brooks
Rated: PG-13
https://i.imgur.com/S9bFDRC.jpg

This movie never gets old for me. I can watch it over and over again as long as a year or two have passed. But sometimes, I can watch it even closer together on the timeline. It really depends. I recently picked this up on Laserdisc to avoid the inflated out of print cost of blu ray, and also because I wanted to access the director''s commentary. I don't think there are many more modern films that have the same kind of care and goodness as this movie does, and so I want to talk about it for a little while and hopefully jot down what it is about the film that I like so much.

The acting is fine across the board. Greg Kinnear's portrayal of a gay painter seems spot on from my own sheltered view of such characters. Jack Nicholson humbles himself perfectly, but also offends and bites into the screenplay in equal measure. All the supporting cast are great, including a cameo from Harold Ramis as a house doctor. The star of the show, and the single most powerful acting job comes down to Helen Hunt - who does so much with her eyes and her mannerisms, that I could not believe how incredible she made me feel. She embodies the writing so well and just brings all of the emotions to life at literally the drop of a hat.

Early on in the film we see her character get upset waiting on Nicholson's character at a restaurant. Immediately she shooshes the rest of the film and burrows her pained eyes into her rude customer. This will not be the last time she does this, either. Hunt's acting in this movie is astounding, and there's really not much else I can describe about it other than it's truly amazing what she is able to do, to not only ground the film around her, but to transcend the rest of the characters into a bittersweet reality. She is super cool, headstrong and charming, but also very fragile and devastated.

I'd say from A to Z that the writing of As Good as it Gets is just about perfect. We're treated to shocking scenes of lewd behavior, but then are quickly ushered away into scenes of deep feelings of sorrow. Nicholson breaks down at his front door when he realizes his new best friend, a small dog, will be returning home to his neighbor, no longer a companion. It is the little moments like this that stack up on top of itself, making the experience of this film able to be enjoyed over and over again. So many layers, so much great comedy writing, and plenty of dramatic turns.

This may just well be one of my very top movies of all time. I have quite a few films I try and keep near the top of the heap but there is simply not enough room to address them all in a quick conversation. I love this movie, and whatever small instances of problems it may have in way of telling the story or convincing us that Hunt would ever end up with Nicholson, I forgive.

5

Citizen Rules

11-04-17, 06:16 PM

As Good as it Gets (1997)

This may just well be one of my very top movies of all time.
rating_5

Ouh! sounds good, and you gave it a 5/5 too. I'll have to watch it sometime.

Joel

11-04-17, 06:38 PM

Ouh! sounds good, and you gave it a 5/5 too. I'll have to watch it sometime.

You should! And yes, 15th HOF, not a bad entry at all!

Zotis

11-05-17, 12:08 AM

Have you seen The Time Masters? I love Laloux's films.

Joel

11-05-17, 01:33 AM

Joel

11-05-17, 10:58 AM

1922 (2017)
Director: Zak Hilditch
https://i.imgur.com/jaDfsNI.png

This was a surprise. I'm not fond of the subject matter but I simply couldn't stop watching this movie. It's shot exquisitely, the acting is rock solid, and the chill factor is high. This creepish Stephen King adaption is yet another feather in the cap of the film world making his written words into a cohesive and respectable format on celluloid.

Thomas Jane is superb as a mid-western drawl of man torn between losing his land and home to its rightful owner; his wife. She has dreams of the big city, but husband and son couldn't imagine life away from the farm.

This is a good film. It's stomach turning and sad, but also subtle and moody.

My only criticism is that I don't believe the wife character was fleshed out enough to make the evil deed in the film as effectively torturous. I wanted to see more of her MO besides a superficial potty mouth and apparent lack of sympathy for her family. I think that would have added a lot more weight to the outcome of what transpires. Still though, for a 2017 NF King adaption, it's not bad, and gets high marks for the acting and elegant directing.

3.5

edarsenal

11-05-17, 11:29 AM

just did a revisit to Fantastic Planet, it may very well be a time to revisit Gandahar as well.

Joel

11-05-17, 04:04 PM

just did a revisit to Fantastic Planet, it may very well be a time to revisit Gandahar as well.

Gandahar (Light Years - depending on which you go for) is a fun but very dark journey. The music and sound design make it so. Recommended for people in our age club. "For your health!"

re93animator

11-06-17, 05:14 AM

1922 (2017)
Director: Zak Hilditch

[CENTER]3.5

This originally caught my eye because Mike Patton did the music. I was just gonna wait for the soundtrack, but now I want to watch it.:) I'll hopefully tab it later.

Zotis

11-06-17, 06:02 AM

I haven't, no. I'm not huge on animation. The reason I have thoughts on Gandahar (Light Years) is because it's a childhood trip for me. But I'm fairly open to take in a few animation films if the atmosphere, music and animation is up my alley.
Well it's the same director, and it's better composed than Gandahar. You SHOULD watch it. Gandahar is the weakest of his three movies in my opinion, though it's still great.

Joel

11-06-17, 06:03 AM

Zotis

11-06-17, 06:06 AM

Lol, so why aren't you that much of a fan of animation?

Joel

11-06-17, 06:52 PM

This originally caught my eye because Mike Patton did the music. I was just gonna wait for the soundtrack, but now I want to watch it.:) I'll hopefully tab it later.

I had no idea Patton did the music for this! Crazy...

Joel

11-06-17, 06:53 PM

Lol, so why aren't you that much of a fan of animation?

Not sure, just never have been. I prefer live action. I don't hate animation, it's just not my passion or interest really.

Zotis

11-06-17, 10:48 PM

These may be of interest to you:

The Plague Dogs
Watership Down
Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade
Venus Wars
Akira
Ghost in the Shell
Heavy Metal
Genocyber
Angel Cop
M. D. Geist
A Wind Named Amnesia
The Dagger of Kamui
Ninja Scroll
Darkside Blues
Goodnight Althea
Dragon's Heaven
Gallforce: Eternal Story
Serial Experiment Lain
Berserk
The Twelve Kingdoms
Claymore
Memories
Big Wars
Patlabor

I give every one of those 4.5

cricket

11-07-17, 05:38 PM

Helen Hunt's performance in As Good as it Gets is one of my favorites by any actress.

Joel

11-11-17, 12:04 AM

Chappie (2015) 4

Cool effects, awesome action. Funny as hell and even a bit emotionally moving. This is a really cool film. I didn't care for some of the cutesy chop hop music featured, but the Hans Zimmer score was good. Suspension of disbelief is absolutely mandatory to get enjoyment out of this movie. If you go in armed with that, there should be no issues. Logic isn't supposed to apply here. It's a fun film that is a bit overlong in the run time, but still a damn, damn good flick. Interesting how this is a mixture of reverse Robocop, Short Circuit and D.A.R.Y.L.

The Dinner (2016) 2.5

Steve Coogan just about perfects his American accent here in this twisted morality tale dealing with evil children, mental illness and politics vs. family. This seems to be a goldmine for a good film. For reasons of messy storytelling, questionable editing choices and aggressive non linear sequencing, it simply cannot live up to what it very well should have been: complete. The film just ends on a random cacaphony of confusion. No closure, just another 21st century cop out for a summation. Huge disappointment. Sadly the isolated and dispersed moments of acting are wasted in an otherwise very capable cast. The performances are all quite engaging and very well done. Huge demerits for that waiter, though. I wanted to shave his beard and kick his ass off of my tv screen.

Joel

11-11-17, 02:49 PM

https://i.imgur.com/MGK5qsC.jpg?2
Lady in White (1988)
Director: Frank LaLoggia
Rated: PG-13

A young boy, locked in his school cloak room by a couple of bullies, witnesses a 10 year old murder in the form of a ghost. The ghost is a little girl who is strangled to death and carried away by an unseen man.

Lady in White is set in New York state and features some of the most beautiful small town photography I've seen in recent memory. Writer/director LaLoggia has put together a true labor of love, financing his film from penny stocks to the sum of $4 million. Because of no studio interference with his cut, Frank was able to stitch together a true auteur vision of his highly atmospheric ghost story/murder mystery. LaLoggia even scored the film himself, and we're not talking John Carpenter minimalism, either. We get a full-on orchestral music bed with peaks and valleys.

https://i.imgur.com/xSi3fyV.png?1
https://i.imgur.com/b4fwwqP.jpg?1

This 1988 film has a few achilles heel marks, and those would be the thinly veiled suspect of who the murderer actually is. I knew very early on who it was, or at least, who I had a strong suspicion it was. Turns out I was right, and if you see this, you'll probably guess it, too. Also, there are a couple of scenes that may try a bit too hard and come off as cloying. They are brief moments, though, and really don't ruin the film or anything drastic like that. Just be warned that early on in the film, there may be a scene or two that make you roll your eyes or cringe. I did. But after that, the rest of the film essentially kicked my ass for reasons I'll explain.

https://i.imgur.com/dAas9FL.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/8MEqgUO.jpg?1

The effects. The special visual effects are very luxurious. Yes, it's true, there are glaring blue outlines when a blue screen was used, and the soft line clean-up didn't seem to be a budgetary option for this movie, but nevertheless all of the rendered effects, especially those outside of the realm of blue screen are very creative and stunning in a simple and classic way. Just the way I prefer visuals to be.

https://i.imgur.com/AhwwQJ8.png?1

The against type acting of Alex Rocco (The Godfather). Here he plays a very sensitive father dealing with the recent loss of his wife and the mother of his two boys (the youngest played by star Lukas Haas from Witness). The dramatic scenes are very intent and gooey, and that should be a turn off, but something about the way in which they are handled instead makes them endearing and acceptable, even going so far out as to be inspiring for such a seemingly unimportant film like this. The boy's family is an authentic sicilian/italian blend of hysterics and humor that feel like a true working class depiction.

https://i.imgur.com/1Qf57Bh.jpg?1

Once criticized at the time of release, there is a sub-plot involving racism and segregation in the film that may be a bummer for some, but I found it, though possibly a bit intense, true to form, as this film is set in the 1960's when riots and revolution were still some of the loudest bells in the square. This film oozes the writing of Frank LaLoggia's semi-autobiographical fantasy at every corner and that's where it really earns its wings as a peculiar but nonetheless engrossing story with a picturesque quality that rivals even Spielberg's finest suburban hour.

4

FromBeyond

11-11-17, 03:53 PM

haha I forgot Demon Wind existed, thank you! believe it or not I love that movie, I think it's very much to do with the atmospheric and cozy location which you mentioned as one of it's good point. I also absolutely love Popcorn too but I can't quite remember why though. Both need a rewatch. Also in the mood for an 80's comedy I haven't seen, funny farm looks like it might fit that bill, nice list mate.

Joel

11-11-17, 04:03 PM

Joel

11-14-17, 12:43 PM

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)
director: S. Craig Zahler

I went into this blind so I'm not going to divulge too much plot info other than Vince Vaughn

this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH2fHTriaw0

is now a full blown action hero.

I don't remember the last time I saw such graphic violence in a movie. This stuff is gruesome. It's so bad that I found myself laughing hysterically at how detailed it was. I laughed because I had a feeling the director was laughing, that everyone was laughing.

Sick, right?

Anyway, Vaughn's character is an ex junkie come clean who just lost his job and is having marital issues. We see early on his temper and physical strength when he disassembles his wife's ride out of jealousy. He now has to go back to work for a drug runner and that's where things go even worse, but not before the news that his wife is pregnant again after a miscarriage years prior.

Vince Vaughn. I always knew this dude could act and he once again acts his ass off here. The difference is that he's not all mouth. He has control. This was an interesting move on his part, and testament to the director's creative prowess.

At over 2 hours this film is essentially a smart and slowly simmering crime drama but it also plays out like a video nasty - filled with incredible fight sequences and violence. The thing is, you'll have to wait a while for all of the payoff. I kept looking at my watch wondering how they could wrap things up. Trust me, they do!

Though some of the thematic elements I thought were carried away and distasteful (one involving how the bad guys plan to exact revenge), I still couldn't stop watching.

Was this an incredible movie and the best of Vaughn's career? I don't think so. Vaughn has thrown down the dramatics better before in "A Cool, Dry Place", and here I am not sure his accent is consistent, which I forgave..but he definitely gives a top performance, a different performance, and the fact that he got through his physical sequences the way he did - all in one shot most of the time - shows an actor really ready to reinvent himself.

Great stuff!!

4

Camo

11-14-17, 01:07 PM

I laughed because I had a feeling the director was laughing, that everyone was laughing.

I was definitely laughing. The dude he flipped over with the mutilated skeleton face had me bawling.

Good review. I liked all of the prison stuff alot i just thought the first nearly hour was terrible personally.

Joel

11-14-17, 01:11 PM

I was definitely laughing. The dude he flipped over with the mutilated skeleton face had me bawling.

Good review. I liked all of the prison stuff alot i just thought the first nearly hour was terrible personally.

I think when he flipped skeletor over, what really made me bust up - was the quick body convulsion..haha, it's like, OKAY ENOUGH! But they had to throw in the guy evacuating his pants..oh man..twisted minds

Camo

11-14-17, 01:18 PM

I think when he flipped skeletor over, what really made me bust up - was the quick body convulsion..haha, it's like, OKAY ENOUGH! But they had to throw in the guy evacuating his pants..oh man..twisted minds

I want to see a still of Vince's head when it gets blown to mush at the end, something really nuts happened there but i could only see it briefly.

The one thing that made me squeamish was the arm break of the first guard at the first prison, there was objectively worse things in the film and even other armbreaks but the bone and everything really grossed me out in that one.

Joel

11-14-17, 01:34 PM

I want to see a still of Vince's head when it gets blown to mush at the end, something really nuts happened there but i could only see it briefly.

The one thing that made me squeamish was the arm break of the first guard at the first prison, there was objectively worse things in the film and even other armbreaks but the bone and everything really grossed me out in that one.

Yeah, that was horrific, that arm break. I wasn't convinced at the guard's reaction, either. If that happened, aside from initial shock, anyone would be crying loudly.

Camo

11-14-17, 01:38 PM

Yeah, that was horrific, that arm break. I wasn't convinced at the guard's reaction, either. If that happened, aside from initial shock, anyone would be crying loudly.

OMG yeah. He mildly shouts "he's crazy" absurd reaction.

Captain Spaulding

11-21-17, 04:15 AM

Joel

11-21-17, 07:37 PM

You're building quite an impressive collection of reviews, Joel! I've never checked in here before, but even just by going back and reading the last few pages worth, I've already found several interesting films I'd never heard of before to add to my watchlist, like Lady in White, Don't Kill It and Red Christmas, among others. I admire your eclectic viewing habits. It's always a pleasure to learn about films off the beaten path. I also appreciate your ability to write entertaining, informative reviews without spoiling any of the specifics. You've reviewed many films, like Popcorn and Gandahar, that I've been curious about for awhile now but still haven't seen.

I'd never heard of Brawl in Cell Block 99 until recently. It sounds like a film that should appeal to me, and I'm very curious to see Vince Vaughn play a bad ass, but I was underwhelmed with the director's previous film, Bone Tomahawk. The latter had all the makings of a new favorite -- a hybrid of my favorites genres (horror and western), cannibals, Sid Haig -- but with the exception of a memorably brutal last act, I found most of the film tediously slow and borderline amateurish. Hearing that this new film follows a similar structure -- long, slow burn before a violent payoff -- has me a bit skeptical.

I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this thread going forward while hopefully commenting more frequently. Keep up the good work. :)

Thanks, Captain!

I won't tell you to rush for Brawl in Cell Block 99, but if you're bored and curious about VV turning over a new leaf as an actor/badass..it's definitely worth a look. If you go in armed and knowing that it's a film that tries to aim for a serious tone, overstays its welcome, but has ridiculously brutal fight sequences and violence, you should be OK. It's no masterpiece. My high rating was based on my shock of how well VV did in his "long take" sequences. He had his moves down pat.

And thanks for the kind words. I've done a lot of scouring at video stores back in the 80's, and developed a real taste for cinema that isn't all box office. Thanks for taking the time to read! :)

Joel

11-21-17, 08:17 PM

KRULL (1983)
director: Peter Yates
Rated: PG
https://i.imgur.com/bvMMiDO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/7HGY8wz.jpg

Krull is just a good fantasy. Boy, does it take its time, too. It's 2 hours long. I think the perfect time to watch it is before bed, in installments. It's just not a movie to be on the edge of your seat for. It's silly and yes, it's even a bit dated, but the committed James Horner score hardly rips off John Williams at all (fingers crossed behind back). Honestly, though - it's a damn fine score.

This is a huge, epic, feel good yet tries to be suspenseful-film. I enjoyed the dialog. There's nothing brilliant about it, it's just there...existing. What I did like about the acting and dialog was that, for the most part, it wasn't offensive. I didn't find myself cringing. Big points for that!

https://i.imgur.com/fHWZ3en.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/FGbPqdX.jpg?1

This is just a super-chill flick you can enjoy as a sci fi fantasy. True, Krull rips off Star Wars to a degree, but for me, it's forgivable because I simply don't care. It's not Star Wars. It's KRULL, and it is different enough. But damn, there are some serious parallels.

Everything seems to be handled very competently; the special effects (great blue and red lasers), the score (as mentioned - and James Horner pulls out a lot of stops for this particular film, even going so far as to use some chord progressions in folk songs known throughout ages of humankind), the acting is down to earth enough to establish camaraderie between the cast, and the story, though derivative, has a beginning, middle and an ending.

https://i.imgur.com/M140ezk.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/Ug4Lf2u.jpg?2

Hey, what else do you need for a 1983 science fiction fable?

I think Krull is one my new favorite fantasy films based on its ability to remain calm and not disgust me, and the aesthetics of color within the film. It really does look beautiful.

4

Zotis

11-22-17, 02:07 PM

Krull is a charming fantasy. It is a little silly, but it has some powerful visuals and emotion. It was very striking to me when I was a kid, even gave me a bit of nightmares. I love the sound the aliens make when they die.

Camo

11-22-17, 02:36 PM

Hearing that this new film follows a similar structure -- long, slow burn before a violent payoff -- has me a bit skeptical.

I haven't seen Bone Tomahawk but that's not how i'd describe Brawl In Cell Block 99. The first 45 minutes or so to me were tedious and amateurish like you said, the whole next hour is violent and brutal though, the majority of the film. Think you may like it.

Joel

11-22-17, 03:14 PM

Joel

11-23-17, 03:44 PM

The Changeling (1980)

https://i.imgur.com/IEkQ2fg.jpg

This is one of, if not my most, favorite ghost stories on film. George C. Scott helps believability in the supernatural department, delivering his usual confident, slightly understated and mature brand of acting. This movie just makes me feel comfortable despite its chilling plot line and atmosphere.

https://i.imgur.com/a8VtChA.jpg

A master composer takes holiday to work on his music for a local curriculum after his wife and child are accidentally murdered in a car collision. He rents an enormous mansion hoping to focus on work but soon finds that there is a spirit in the house that wants to send him a frightful message.

The film then turns into a murder mystery, and a damn good one at that.

I really enjoyed the mood this movie creates between the music and haunting cinematography. By haunting I mean the camera just kind of looms over staircase balconies, down dark hallways of multiple floors, and this all works in perfect conjunction with carefully made sound design and music score.

https://i.imgur.com/7bqKmK5.png

I've seen this film three times before and I doubt this will be my last time seeing it. It's like the mac and cheese of movies to watch when you're wracking your brain for some entertainment on an otherwise boring night.

https://i.imgur.com/VKmOvc8.jpg

My only complaint is that I felt the ending was kind of muddy. I didn't understand how that final resolution was an actual final resolution to allow the unrested to finally rest. Actually, maybe it didn't? I dunno. Not a big deal. I'll take it.

https://i.imgur.com/h6tCAPM.jpg

4

Joel

11-23-17, 07:51 PM

American Psycho (2000)

Christian Bale is not a favorite of mine but after revisiting his work in The Machinist I remembered that at one time his chops were incredible, and he was the new actor that all others would be judged by. I don't feel this way anymore, and for years I had kind of written him off, even going as far to say that Michael Keaton was not only a better Batman, but a better actor. Well, I don't think so, Joel.

Bale's acting in American Psycho is phenomenal. His big moment comes late in the film, but what an incredible piece of acting it is. He is a severe craftsman. Severity, that's what comes to mind when I think of the routines he must put himself through to come across so controlled yet somehow naturalistically jazz oriented on screen. His emotions are bobbed and weaved on top of his otherwise stoic expressions, but when he decides to step out in these moments he does so in such a funny way. He has his choreography down to the point where I am reminded of Ed Harris in China Moon, and how just brushing the knees of a well tailored pair of slacks can seem sensual. I say sensual as a straight heterosexual man. Why has this come across to me? It's because of the acting. It's a craft, and things come across whether you like them or not, and whether you want to see them or not.

American Psycho is chock full of great humor and late video rental fees. Eventually the plot takes a wild turn into a surreal paranoid nightmare and I've never had any real world closure on the wrap up, but it still doesn't bother me enough to minus any like for this movie. It's just expertly done as a film.

https://i.imgur.com/i7lqvhb.jpg?1

4

Camo

11-23-17, 08:05 PM

Glad you liked The Changeling. I'm a big fan.

Joel

11-23-17, 08:50 PM

Fracture (2007)

https://i.imgur.com/mF2mmya.jpg

Anthony Hopkins plays a sort of Hannibalesque character minus the farva and chianti while Ryan Gosling flares a little less nostril because he's too busy eating fruit and snacks during his strutting scenes.

This handsomely photographed picture is about as Hollywood thriller as you can get with the orchestral swelling around every turn and the ideal climate exterior shots, but inside the procedural workings of the film I was reminded of the kind of lawyer bond created with a victim in the hospital that The Verdict brought in as part of its morality.

After about an hour and fifteen minutes I had gotten past the cliches and settled into a semi complex thriller that had its cards in order, waiting for the final reveal, and sitting on the edge of my seat.

This is a very well played and written courtroom drama mystery that once again showcases the talents of Anthony Hopkins and reaffirms my slow reappraisal of Ryan Gosling as a good actor. Here Gosling does really good work with the cards he's been dealt. He plays quiet and cocky as competent as I could expect from a talent as heart throbbish as his genetics enable. Underneath his foxy grin there is a serious actor who makes a perfectly sly companion to Hopkins' usual devil.

I was satisfied with the ending not only because it started to really show good dialog chops leading up to it, but also because it didn't need to put a shiny bow as a pin the tail on the donkey. It had enough confidence to write itself into a new beginning that tapered off into the viewers imagination, even if what the viewer imagines only lasts for as long as it takes to stand up and walk out of the room after they've switched off and moved onto something else.

4

nebbit

11-24-17, 04:05 AM

Thanks Joel :) nice reviews :yup:

films246+1

11-24-17, 04:30 AM

Glad you liked The Changeling. I'm a big fan.

Great film.

Jon

Joel

12-03-17, 01:12 AM

976-EVIL (1988)
Director: Robert Englund
https://i.imgur.com/caAlTQ2.jpg

Story of a nerdy momma's boy who calls a horoscope hotline and is granted evil powers to exact revenge on his wrong doers. Problem is that it takes more than half the movie to establish what exactly is going on here. What the HELL is going on here?!!

Director Englund absolutely nails atmosphere and hires 2 great composers ( Thomas Chase & Steve Ruckerto) to offer up a score in the tradition of Charlie Berstein's original A Nightmare on Elm Street style synth darkness, but as a story-teller he is way out there. Scenes run on too long creating a weird and murky awkwardness. Is he joking with us? I wasn't always sure. There was a fair amount of really subtle humor in this, especially from the woman who plays the over bearing religious mom, but some of the long takes feel like a punch line is coming, and then nothing happens.

I can totally see why this film is a cult hit nowadays. It has everything you want in a twisted horror; humor, gore, creepy vibes, creepier music, insane camera placement, great night time sets, smoke filtered matte paintings..the whole nine.

As a story it is barely able to hold itself together. It seemed like a bunch of filaments stringing together notes and scene outlines with no real dialog or direction to work from. Englund definitely takes his time with this one. It stands on the edge of boring, but then something genuinely inspired happens and we get another ten minutes we forgive.

I liked this movie. It was just about inane and absurd but that also works in its favor. I'd go so far as to say that Robert Englund was a visionary at this time. It's true he did have his Elm St films to use as a template, but there's more to this film, and it's able to stand apart from his franchise. He's no Wes Craven, and he's no Tobe Hooper, but if he had kept going in this direction, and with a better script supervisor, he may have held a place as director all its own class.
https://i.imgur.com/sZsNrFz.jpg

3+

cricket

12-04-17, 10:01 AM

I put Fracture on my watchlist. My wife and I love the typical Hollywood thriller and that's one I just forgot existed.

Joel

12-04-17, 10:14 AM

I put Fracture on my watchlist. My wife and I love the typical Hollywood thriller and that's one I just forgot existed.

You guys should enjoy it

cricket

12-04-17, 10:21 AM

I showed my wife the poster and she said get it so next weekend.

Joel

12-06-17, 07:48 PM

Johnny Be Good (1988)
Director: Bud Smith
https://i.imgur.com/tp7M2Aq.jpg

Oh my God, do I have to divulge plot for this review? I'm gonna keep this real short.

It's about a high school football star getting unrealistic offers from colleges. Everyone wants to buy him cars, clothes and women, just so Farmer Ted can throw a pig skin around for them. It's obnoxious. Everyone is watching this kid. Even private detectives. It's a farce. I sure wish it was funny!

First of all, I love Anthony Michael Hall. His work in the John Hughes films was tremendously entertaining. In this film the writing is just piss poor all around so nothing is good, not even Robert Downey Jr. as his best friend, or Uma Thurman as his girlfriend, or Paul Gleason (Principal Vernon - The Breakfast Club) as his coach. Everyone stinks because the writing and directing are bottom of the barrel. It's so bad.

Even the DP Robert Yeoman (Career long Wes Anderson lighting cameraman) doesn't have much to say as far as the look goes. It's all so bland. Judas Priest does the theme song? How can this movie not completely rule?!!

It just doesn't, as often happens when projects have too many good things going for it except the most important thing : a clue on how to use those things.

Anthony Michael Hall is just grating nerves here. He's not sexy, he's not hunky, he's not funny, and he's not smart in this film. It's an ugly affair.

Go ahead, try and get past the first 20 minutes, see what happens. I've done the work for you. Spare yourself the pain.

The beginning of the end for many years - for Farmer Ted (Edward Scissorhands notwithstanding).

This movie is so bad that when it hit video it got re-rated R instead of the theatrical PG-13 rating. Talk about ahead of its time. This may've been the very first time this kind of extra scene type thing happened on home video. I wish it could say it helped the picture, but we all know it did not.
https://i.imgur.com/RoRAtg4.png
1

Citizen Rules

12-06-17, 08:37 PM

I've heard of Johnny Be Good, but never seen it. Looks like a waste of time, I think I'll skip it. Good review, as you saved me from watching that:p

nebbit

12-07-17, 06:52 PM

I've heard of Johnny Be Good, but never seen it. Looks like a waste of time, I think I'll skip it. Good review, as you saved me from watching that:p
Ditto :yup:

Dani8

12-07-17, 06:56 PM

Yep I've never heard it either so have to pass. Sorry, Joel.

Joel

12-07-17, 07:27 PM

Ordinary People (1980)
Director: Robert Redford

More often than not I find myself looking to movies as a way to feel something and connect, or to at least be carted away somewhere else besides my current drama in life. There aren't too many films that hit the nail on the head for dramatics without somehow blowing it. Ordinary People is a perfect drama, a movie that other films should measure themselves against to make sure they are in working order.

A family is torn apart by the accidental death of a child, and even more so when his sibling attempts suicide.

Timothy Hutton plays the youngest child. He's lost his older brother in a sail boat tragedy and after trying to dismiss himself from life, he's back from the mental hospital after repeated shock therapy sessions. His father, played by Donald Sutherland, is an easy going man. He is nice and he feels deeply. He loves his family, and wants to ensure that it will not fall apart on him. The issue seems to lay with the mother, played by Mary Tyler Moore. She has closed herself up completely and shows little to no affection for her son, and only half-heartedly to her husband.

The son is conflicted because he doesn't know who to blame. Is it his fault that he lived? Why does his mother hate him?

https://i.imgur.com/rjo0Ayc.jpg

Moore plays the emotionally stunted household figure like a titan. She is cautious, careful, measured, and always on guard. She will not stop the world turning and discuss anything trivial, and certainly not anything that strays from an energetic onward and upward motion. Her awareness exists within the judgments of others, and even in the privacy of her own home, she cannot and will not engage in any deep emotional dialog because she must keep fit and be ready at moment's notice to be "on" and "OK".

Sutherland wants his son to be alright. He worries about him. He maybe sometimes sees his wife throw cold shade towards their youngest, but he refuses to believe it's because she feels little for him.

Hutton plays a finely pitched and heavily nuanced character. His torture is killing him on several levels. He misses the hospital where life wasn't so heavy. He can't even face his best friend because it reminds him of his brother, despite his best friend's persistence on being in his life and not giving up. A new shrink may be the answer, and Judd Hirsch does exceptional work as the doctor. He doesn't go too overboard with a yahoo fixer upper. Most of the time, he's playing it absolutely straight and reasonably, so there's no moments where you feel like the work they are doing in those sessions is on par with other films which usually have the psychiatrist act a bit too confident and pushy. There's none of that here. There is only enough to depict the effort to "break through" to a realistically resistant Hutton.

I found myself welling up with tears more than once during the run time of this movie. Maybe it's because I've seen some tragedy and these characters were close to how I realized my own family. I understand the coldness of someone close, someone who cannot open up, not that they are necessarily scared, but because they are simply incapable of that degree of depth, and have a shallow chip in their heart. This movie is told with real honesty, and I appreciate that.

https://i.imgur.com/gY7NgsG.jpg

The film also plays out with a high respect for the written word. You can see the details of adhering to the source material, like, for example, when the husband remembers a blossoming romance and dancing with his new wife as he sits on public transport alongside her in a deafeningly quiet trip. Has he ever had the love that he needs?

All the characters work in this movie. Elizabeth McGovern, though her part is small, still manages some trailblazing with how she can make a good joke with her eyes while trying to bowl, as well as communicate "straight shooting" to her suitor when he questions her emotional reliability. It is in that brief moment where she conveys that she is with him and does respect him, just by motioning her arms and showing her face to him on the front lawn of her house.

I wish there were more modern films like this one. It seems we have to scrape the depths of hell to get a solid drama now, and although Ordinary People does have some heavy themes, it never sells its soul just to appease carnage junkies. It's a real movie and deserves whatever awards it has garnered.

https://i.imgur.com/jKN8Qzp.jpg

5

Zotis

12-07-17, 09:10 PM

Sounds awesome Joel. I didn't really want to read too much because it was spoiler heavy. But I've added it to my to-watch list.

Joel

12-07-17, 09:18 PM

Sounds awesome Joel. I didn't really want to read too much because it was spoiler heavy. But I've added it to my to-watch list.

Id be shocked if it said nothing to you as a well made drama. Thanks, too.

Zotis

12-07-17, 09:32 PM

Oh man, I kind of want to watch Jonny Be Good to see how bad it is. I hope it's so bad it's fun to laugh at, like Druids.

Joel

12-07-17, 09:48 PM

Oh man, I kind of want to watch Jonny Be Good to see how bad it is. I hope it's so bad it's fun to laugh at, like Druids.
Sign up for amazon prime free 1st moth. Ordinary ppl on there too. Then cancel

nebbit

12-08-17, 03:33 AM

Ordinary People (1980)
Director: Robert Redford
A great movie :yup: nice review :)

Joel

12-08-17, 09:04 PM

Bone Tomahawk (2015)
Director: S. Craig Zahler

I'd say about 80% of this movie is exactly what I enjoy about a good western. It takes its time, establishes the surroundings (hard to avoid considering the open desert and mountains), and injects a leisure dialog when the action is simmering in the not too distant future. It's the writing that seems to really be the ambitious element of this production. It's filled with humor and sarcasm, and though not all of it lands subtley, I have to give it points for trying and for the most part delivering some offbeat whimsy in this otherwise cold blooded tale of gruesome murder and rescue.

Kurt Russell is his usual wisened old tough guy self, and the rest of the cast are plenty capable and well selected to carry the load through the desert at night. Their trek is to face off with supernatural-like cave dwelling killers who resemble an Indian tribe, but who are not such a thing. The movie packs some real suspense and surprising scenes of action, though most of the film is all about the slow boil.

My issues with the movie are two things: the casting of Lili Simmons as the town doctor's assistant/wife. Everything else about this film is authentic. The clothes, the drawl, the locations, and a fair part of the dialog. So why do we have to witness yet another frontierswoman acting like she just walked off the set of The Wedding Planner? She's totally modern except for her dress. Immediately I was taken out of the movie and put onto the casting room as a fly on the wall.

Another issue I had was the "memorable" scene of graphic violence. It's the most disturbingly violent thing I have ever seen in a film and I'm just wondering why they had to go that far. It did nothing. I was enjoying the movie. I don't mind violence if it's done with some degree of poetry or urgency, or even tongue in cheek playfulness, but this scene is just wrong and strong. And the last act of the film feels like it goes into some sort of pre-teen fantasy nightmare with phony prison bars hammered into stone walls by barbarian killers, as if that's gonna hold Snake Plissken and his grandfather.

Anyway, for the most part this movie is really cool. It follows in the footsteps of what makes Tarantino's movies a cut above in the dialog department, and certainly takes its sweet assed time establishing the characters and letting the viewer enjoy the ambiance, but ultimately goes for the male fantasy cop out and ventures into torture porn.

3+

re93animator

12-08-17, 10:31 PM

I really liked Bone Tomahawk, even when it went Cannibal Holocaust at the end. Most of the movie was building to the baddies, so a shocking payoff felt fulfilling (maybe not the right word) to me.

I agree that the wife felt too modern. I don't think she was the only one either. Entertaining as the writing was, I think some of it made the characters feel like they were 'playing' western. It may have been the accents too though.

Camo

12-08-17, 10:34 PM

I hated Ordinary People and i don't remember why. Should see it again as both you and Cricket have really liked it.

Joel

12-08-17, 10:34 PM

I can see how some of the writing wasn't typical of most classic westerns, but I'm also sure that Lee Van Cleef may've been a little too 60's at some point, too...if someone back then was expecting..actually scratch that. How the hell would I know, I wasn;t born until 1976. But yeah..I could suspend my disbelief with most everything except the wife. I see a lot of sloppy casting, acting and prop department flubbery in period pieces. Hottub Time Machine - they had a Rambo III poster hanging up in the year 1986. Rambo III came out in 1988. Sloppy cold medina.

And the end violence..I don;t know, man. That was like spilling a bag of gizzrds and raw liver. I don't know LOL...

Joel

12-08-17, 10:36 PM

I hated Ordinary People and i don't remember why. Should see it again as both you and Cricket have really liked it.

I've seen movies I've hated and ended up loving them. Time is funny like that as you surely know. Then again, I'm sure that movie isn't for everyone, either.

nebbit

12-09-17, 01:17 AM

I really liked Bone Tomahawk, even when it went Cannibal Holocaust at the end.
Is that a spoiler :eek:

Zotis

12-09-17, 01:22 AM

What about movies you used to love but now hate?

re93animator

12-09-17, 06:49 AM

Is that a spoiler :eek:

:( Sorry. I didn't go into specifics, but I'll edit that. Take it more as a warning.

Joel

12-09-17, 11:18 AM

I don't know about hate but movies I used to love but now like...one off of the top of my head would be Ghost World with Thora Birch. Used to be one of my favorites and now I just think it's pretty good.

Joel

12-10-17, 01:30 PM

Liquid Sky (1982)
Director: Slava Tsukerman

https://i.imgur.com/aGPcAYm.jpg

An alien saucer the size of a dinner plate lands atop a penthouse roof top as a vantage point to snipe heroin addicts in the new wave scene to collect their euphoric brain reactions to the drug. This same chemical reaction is similar to a sexual orgasm, and soon the host of these encounters becomes a killer by default, making everyone come and then die.

https://i.imgur.com/87lx31d.jpg

This is one of the most beautifully visual films I have ever seen and the premise alone isn't done justice by my quick assessment up top. Inside the seemingly amateurish staging of Liquid Sky is a brilliant science fiction erotic film, accented with inspired writing, authentic performances and truly original musical score.

The costuming and neon design is just the beginning as you venture into this movie. Every camera set-up seems to be premeditated with extreme care. Gels on the windows painting a yellow and foggy Empire State Building as a figurehead from the penthouse, exquisite face paint in day-glo fashion, and subtly placed humor.

https://i.imgur.com/c0AJzSx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vtCk9yG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZnVNkuU.gif

Some of the scenes pass for soft core porn, and the language is strong throughout, but that only keeps this experience convincing. Pretension abound, we have performance art interspersed between the plot, and it's a laugh. I think it may even know it's a laugh because during some of the performances there is dialog that points to this. "My rhythm box is sweet. Never Forgets A beat. Do you want to know why? Do you want to know why? It Is Pre Programmed. So what. So what. Me Me and. Me and my. Rhythm Box Are you. Jealous?"

Liquid Sky was forever trapped on VHS and Betamax cassette for decades before finally having a proper transfer from its 35mm source and man does it look good now! Vinegar Syndrome has released a beautifully scanned and packaged presentation of this cult hit. I highly recommend you pick a copy up before they are out of print.

https://i.imgur.com/1UvaS6e.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GmKCoT4.png
https://i.imgur.com/mqiTN0K.jpg
The movie is perverse, vulgar, funny, dramatic, infinitely interesting and gorgeous looking on most every facet of its meager $500,000 budget. B-Movie heaven, in other words.

Before I sign off I have to mention the soundtrack which is straight from director Slava's uneducated mimings. A novice collection of early samplers, Fairlight Musical Synthesis and oddly metered neo-classical bits that sound like part of a suffocated circus.

5

https://i.imgur.com/bohQNQR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1tuwJbt.jpg

Joel

12-11-17, 07:06 PM

Paterson (2016)
Director: Jim Jarmusch

Now that I've I've seen every JJ film except his newest vampire tale and Paterson, I figured I'd watch Paterson last night finally.

I didn't like it very much. I appreciated the themes of love, following your dreams, identifying as an artist when a lucky streak subsides and Jarmusch's usual meditative routines that make his movies interesting and funny. I could not get past the laughing at one's own joke, though, and I could not get past pining for approval from mainstream audiences with a politically aware agenda, which is peppered in the film at the most awkward but also transparently opportune times.

Jarmusch is basically the master at slow and contemplative comedy in American cinema. When I started Paterson I had hopes he would continue on with this, and for the most part he has. It's just when I hear a recurring joke built in that has to do with bursting into a fire ball, I expect not to be pressured to laugh with the main character breaking reality with such an impossible coincidence as he laughs at someone's same reaction he's heard thrice in one day. The film was written to be a comedy drama, with recurring humor set to drop dry and lightly, but instead now we have the main character laughing at the joke repeatedly. I am sorry but this bothers me, it takes something very sacred away from the craft of setting up humor in such a way as to not ruin it with becoming aware of it. This type of comedy does not work the way it should once everyone is laughing at it in the film. It's for the audience to pick up on an laugh at, not the lead character.

https://i.imgur.com/osCu5fz.jpg

Aside from that I did not care for the approval seeking. This is a dandy love letter to New Jersey but frankly, why should I care so much? This probably works for people who live there, or people interested in the lineage and history there, but to the every day film goer this feels like it wants to be a documentary set on high fiction. The bus ride scenes were particularly bad, with various characters dropping paragraphs that really have nothing to do with anything aside from a reactionary shot of the driver played by star Adam Driver, funnily enough. What's also funny is that Driver's name in the film is Paterson, and he drives the Paterson bus. Hardy har.

I didn't hate this movie, don't get me wrong. It had some very tender moments I liked. But for all the tenderness, there was such an unorganized bouquet of themes and moments that seemed like they didn't belong, and I also felt kind of icky watching this. It felt forced. These characters didn't feel like they fit in this world and I cannot really pinpoint why I felt that. Also, this film got the R rating, but only because of some totally unnecessary MF and F words dropped in a bar scene. I was like "but why?". I mean, it's cool that Jarmusch wants the freedom of an R rated film, but earn it, buddy. Don't just push it into R territory with words that did nothing for the scene whatsoever.

I've seen much better from this director. I'll give this my passing grade, but I'll never need to revisit this, sadly. It was OK. It had its moments of inspiration, but it was muddled and tried a bit too hard to tread new waters and it didn't mix for me personally.

3

Joel

12-11-17, 08:23 PM

Magnolia (1999)
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

I keep coming back to Magnolia. What writing! What film making! Paul Thomas Anderson. If he was ever a true film genius this would be my pick of film to illustrate what film genius is. It's not just the dollied camera movements and long shots following people throughout the television studio, or pan whipping one scene to another, and it's not just the amazing score or tasteful use of classic rock music, it's the characters and what they bring to the table, how they springboard from the writing.

Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise, Mr. Scientology, except now it's "respect the cock". He's a misogynist of the highest order, on a mission to dominate the female species, but he's being tested, and his past is coming back to haunt him, and remind him, of the pain he endured to end up where he is now.

I'm not gonna run down the entire cast here. This movie is over three hours long, and it's worth every minute of it. I see people recoil or treat this film with a lukewarm comment, not giving it its due. This is one of those movies that is so good...it's probably too good for a lot of people to even comprehend. It blows hair back on so many levels. Critics might get caught up with the unrealistic moments, or the songs, or the musical number..all of that is superficial, and it's part of the craft of the film. I'll never understand how someone can expect a movie to be "only one way". It's very close minded thinking, especially when faced with a film like this. I have been guilty of thinking this, too. I am back and forth with Magnolia. Is it super pretentious and gooey? Not really. It's an expertly made film that reaches back to the 60's, 70's and 80's into the 90's as very much its own thing, reinventing cinema, much like Boogie Nights did, except the writing here is much more human.

PTA knows how to turn the drama volume up to full blast while still making it funny. He pulls out every stop he can. Ever wanted to make the world's best mixtape to someone you had a crush on, and tell her the most heart wrenching story to win her love? Paul Thomas Anderson made one.

How much do you want to bet there won't be another like Magnolia?

5

Joel

12-16-17, 07:19 PM

There Will Be Blood (2007)
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Plot Discussion Below - Spoilers

I kept going back to this movie every few years because I wasn't mentally accepting of it's qualities. Recently I've felt able to take it in again and assess it properly.

Though I do not feel that this is a very important story, I enjoyed this film a lot. It's slow but never dull. The music employs an odd percussiveness and pizzicato string section that pours a tense molasses-like nausea over the proceedings.

Daniel Day-Lewis portrays a straightforward but terrifying tycoon impossibly well. His slow descent into madness and self realization followed by a blinding denial is amazing. His nemesis is any form of competition, namely himself. The smart people are well advised to keep their distance from him, not least of which his son, who was deafened early on in his young life by an explosion of virgin oil spring.

Tycoon Plainview has his shlt list, and at the top of this list is a vain charlatan priest who taunts Lewis's character from day one, starting with a finder's fee, and later with guilt trips. Plainview relaxedly dismisses and snubs this priest, later physically punishing him like a rag doll, because he knows, and he has known, that this man of God is just a boy. A prickly, bothersome, self centered snake in the grass. He has no respect for him, and his satanic tendencies are able to be carried out in half swing, throughout a strong decade of resentment, until the bell tolls for both of them.

Anderson's direction is as bold and precise as any great director of the ages. How else can an actor with chops like Lewis inhabit such a beast man without a freedom and commitment from a director who knows exactly how to milk his cast, and how to capture such nuance in his characters, right down to the demonic growl of a whisky and nicotine stained vocal chord, bubbling like cold oil at the thought of a son becoming a sole entity for oil drilling?

That's a long question, and this is a long movie. It's a drawn out study and a dirty little comedy. It's true that Daniel Day embodies that of a Larry David persona so well when he spouts out his well sharpened dialog, just as Paul Dano's possessed man child voice frying gets under the skin so much that one cannot help but start giggling. Many may think that this is solely a dramatic work, but a closer inspection reveals that Anderson's writing is filled with jokes and riffs that simply cannot have been concocted without a madman sense of humor.

I picture PTA up late at night, after a few too many lines of cocaine, furiously writing and laughing passionately with a charcoal crayon over plain white paper, sweating, drinking, talking on the phone set to speaker, using a yes man personal assistant as a spring board. Someone paid to listen and agree. This may not be enough. Paul is too smart to think yes man agrees with him. So he writes the bit about Plainview getting deeply disturbed that his alleged brother has not laughed at his joke concerning prostitutes getting liquored up. He hangs up and calls Daniel Day Lewis's agent at 1:30 A.M.

The next morning, there's an answering machine message from Lewis's agent. He'd like to come talk to Paul and be there for script development.

This may seem far fetched, but judging from this film and how it plays out, I cannot imagine anything much less than something as extravagant as that happening in the creative process of this critic proof film.

4.5

Joel

12-27-17, 07:07 PM

Stakeout (1987)
Director: John Badham

John Badham, director of Saturday Night Fever, Blue Thunder, Short Circuit, The Hard Way, and WarGames tries his hand at buddy comedy and mostly succeeds thanks to Richard Dreyfuss, and basically just Richard Dreyfuss. This is back when Dreyfuss was super confident and manic. His humor was at its highest level because he wasn't afraid to make strange sounds with his voice or laugh ridiculously, or carry on a tone of voice from one circumstance to the next just by making that decision. He was a funny guy, and thanks to his casting, Stakeout is mostly a funny movie.

Emilio Estevez plays his partner assigned to be on stakeout with him. They must observe a latin woman across the street from their run down and gutted apartment whose ex-boyfriend is an escaped convict. Naturally, after seeing her through the telescope and making lewd gestures, Dreyfuss' character, Chris, falls for her, and takes any opportunity he can to jeapordize their cover just to get some face time, and eventually sack time, with her. The pretty latino woman is played by a very sexy Madeleine Stowe (TV's "Revenge").

OK, so for about 75% of this movie I'm all in. This is one of those flicks where you can turn your mind off and still be taken off guard by some of the human touches and humor that tends to creep up and surprise you. Stakeout is a funny movie. It's a funny movie with an achille's heel. That weak area is the sub plot about the escaped con ex boyfriend. I agree with the critical consensus that this part of the film is too dark and violent to mesh properly with the more light hearted and adult portion of the film. While it does work as a B-action picture that was popular at the time, it doesn't add anything or help anything along except a pretty routine story that again, is saved by Richard Dreyfuss.

Emilio Estevez as his partner has a few good lines but I find it hard to be convinced of Emilio as a rough and tough cop. He's too nice and too intelligent. He's not cocky enough. You can tell Emilio is like this in real life so it makes it hard to get on board with everything he says or does. However, he is a good sport and plays nicely opposite Dreyfuss, even if his performance is almost totally eclipsed when things get really comical. He's the straight man to Richard's buffoonery, so it'd be unfair to say his role is insignificant. It's not. He does decent work. He's just not nearly as funny as anyone else is.

Stakeout is one of those 1980's movies that I've always loved, even with its warts and strange tonal mix.

https://i.imgur.com/TlIW2CV.jpg

3.5

iank

12-27-17, 07:36 PM

Joel

12-27-17, 07:56 PM

I dunno, man, I don't really agree about the tonal thing; it's like Kindergarten Cop - I like that the baddies are actual genuine thriller villains, not just Home Alone comedy idiots. I find the attitude today where everything has to be "tonally consistent" incredibly unimaginative, restrictive and lame, to be honest. ;)

I agree and disagree. I think with a movie like Something Wild the tonal shift works awesome! With Stakeout I've never been nearly as excited for the movie when the bad guy parts came on. They're cool as standalone scenes, but kind of dull the ride because the rest of the movie is so cool. It's just too sharp of a shift for my taste, but hey, I still love the movie so...it's enough to complain about but not to ruin the film. :)

Joel

12-28-17, 07:21 PM

The Editor(2014)
Directors: Adam Brooks/Matthew Kennedy
https://i.imgur.com/pqR53U1.jpg

Oh my God, how do I even talk about this movie?

The Editor is a "mystery" horror film centered around a film editor who somehow, someway - gets surrounded by grisly murders that parallel the film he is cutting together. The look of "The Editor" is that of some old Argento and/or Soavi production, but also leaps into its own thing with characters popping up who seem to be just there to deliver badly dubbed lines. On purpose, of course. Tim and Eric go yellow, or Reggie Watts writes Bava. Not quite but...

Oh, this is definitely a comedy. I'd say it stands on the edge of complete slapstick. As if Airplane! and Profondo Rosso got together and had a baby. I was laughing my ass off throughout, and probably would have laughed harder had I more energy. Things just kind of happen. Someone's voice gets way, WAY loud for no particular reason at the end of a sentence. People impulsively shout for no apparent reason. Guys smack girls around just to lay down the man-law once in a while. This movie is totally insane, and it knows it.
https://i.imgur.com/dj2i5Iq.jpg

This film is not for everyone, that's for sure, but it has a decently rendered design and lunatic narrative that celebrates the old gruesome giallo films of Dario in an even more twisted way because now the violence is turned up to 11, just because it can be. It wants to make you sick. Normally, I'd bow out of this sort of thing but the movie is just so damn funny I had to jot a few things down about it. I miss comedies like this. Not necessarily edgy Italia-Murder-Fashion comedies (since I believe only one exists!), but screwball comedies that have actual funny stuff within the running time. That helps!
https://i.imgur.com/bYLMjSg.jpg

3.5

Joel

12-28-17, 07:38 PM

The Crush (1993)
Director: Alan Shapiro

Alicia Silverstone got her start here, right before that annoying Aerosmith video that exploited her on roller skates yet again. Here's a Fatal Atrraction of sorts aimed at a more teen audience, but blowing it with some very icky adult sensibilities. I should say borderline illegal adult sensibilities. Pedophile stuff. But wait, it's not as bad as it sounds.

Silverstone plays a young, 14 year old rich daddy's girl whose parents rent out a guest house to a handsome 28 year old journalist played by one of my favorites Cary Elwes (Mr. "As You Wish" from The Princess Bride). She's totally coming onto him hard, and when she puts herself in his face with a full set of lips, he might've accidentally engaged with a kiss before coming to his senses and interrupting the advance.

Naturally, things get progressively worse when she won't give up the pursuit, and boundaries are crossed at every turn, including stealing personal belongings and orchestrating a mock pregnancy phone call. This isn't going to be very good for the journalist at all.

As cliche and watery that the writing and dialog is, I still enjoyed this. It's true that no red blooded male can deny that Silverstone's blossoming assets are not hideous, but at the same time, even keeping a level head, and a responsible disposition, it's impossible to look away because the camera literally crawls right onto Alicia's body and makes no apology for sexualizing her in such a lolly way. My enjoyment though, at least outside of an ancient teenage fantasy to meet a girl like this (many years past my get out of jail free card), was Cary Elwe's performance. He took on what most males would probably find themselves thinking or doing. Well, one would hope, anyway. He has a cool way of dealing with the situations that arise, even if the writing conveniently makes his reactions sometimes frustratingly dumb.

Speaking of dumb, this movie is definitely very dumb, but it's kind of fun, too, if you're in the mood for something trashy and throwaway like this.

I know, right?
https://i.imgur.com/cnkqCu1.png

3

Joel

12-28-17, 07:53 PM

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)
Director: Stephen Hopkins

This isn't going to be much of a review for two reasons. The first reason is that I've outgrown my 24 hour a day assumption that my thoughts about films are intelligent, and reason number two is because The Ghost and the Darkness sucks balls.

Here's why...

Val Kilmer: Decent. Michael Douglas: Very Decent. African Landscape: Excellent. Lions as the villains of a film: No.

Boring is the word. I am not going to sit here for 2 plus hours watching a movie about devil lions, sorry. Actually, I did, but that's my fault. I should have turned it off, but then you wouldn't have this warning. It's just a mess, this film. Imagine a swimming pool, in-ground. The air above the water line is good. The water line itself is mediocre, and below the water line underneath is poor. TGATD continuously bangs its head on the water line force field, unable to rise above the water line and take a breath of air. It's a miracle of mediocre mid-1990's film making. I'll say it - the 1990's had a lot of soulless stinkers for movies. That signature straightforward way of shooting the film, no pizazz, no cool camera movements, or not enough, anyway. This is one of those films. Even the African back drop adds little to its spirit.

And Michael Douglas. Shame on him. He's so type cast here. Typical cocky tough guy bumbling idiot, but with Kilmer as his right hand man, it's so boring. Kilmer can do snoozefest really well. It's part of Kilmer the man, the myth, the legend. But Michael Douglas is also a legend, and in this film, he's rarely been duller.

Oh, the lions. Yeah? What about them? They aren't scary.

This movie is just a big yawn. 1

Joel

12-28-17, 08:19 PM

Ruthless People (1986)
Directors: The Zuckers

https://i.imgur.com/TWpzxnN.jpg

A lower middle class husband and wife team kidnap the wife of a wealthy spandex designer because he stole their idea for a mini skirt, leaving them virtually penniless after they confided their life savings to him. DeVito plays the wealthy a-hole of course, and he's real funny. The first reel of Ruthless People lives up to its name very well. Soon we meet the kidnappers who aren't as ruthless as they want fat cat to think they are. They have his wife and threaten to kill her if 2.5 million dollars isn't delivered in unmarked bills, but of course DeVito's character is thrilled because he hates his wife. His plan is to blow off the kidnappers in hopes they'll just kill her. Nice, right?

Although the movie shows its age, there is still plenty to enjoy. It's got some real zinger lines and the overall playfulness of the kidnapper story with an aggravated and blindfolded wife is something to see, especially because it's Midler being her usual manic and zany self.

https://i.imgur.com/xYEc2z8.jpg

If you like the 1980's movies for over the top or silly comedies, this one should hit the spot. It's directed by the same team who did Airplane!, except the slapstick is barely there. This works as a mostly ugly comedy, with ugly attitudes and money driven motives. However, the kidnapper story, which is half of the film, is decidedly less sinister, playing to the heart a bit more, if not completely sappy.

https://i.imgur.com/vksx0xc.jpg

3+

Joel

12-29-17, 08:32 PM

H O L Y M O T O R S
2012
Director: Leos Carax

If you haven't seen this yet, let me perform a small service by filling you in ahead of time that nothing in this movie makes any sense. There's nothing to figure out aside from what you can leisurely pick out. For the most part, this is a film that is in line with a student picture having a fairly sizable budget, not much more.

Some of the imagery is startling, almost pornographic, other scenes are bittersweet or violent, but many areas of the film are pure cinema and art, and that's where some enjoyment can be had in this film. It's got an ambitious streak throughout most of it, and the lulls, though definitely a serious issue, can't fully detract from an otherwise clever movie that is basically just vignettes of "assignments" where a man riding around in a white limo gets out at different engagements and dresses himself up in clothes/prosthetics to become a secret agent of sorts.

With no rhyme or reason, it's easy to take everything in, relaxed, or to scoff at this movie and banish it to hell. Whatever you choose, just remember that it's not important as a story, but it is worth seeing for what it accomplishes on a purely visceral level.

Tracking dots for virtual reality lovers posing for a video game, the sound design invites in a wet, close up audio of a tongue licking through a skin tight woman's suit as the man warrior eats her outside her clothed crotch. Writhing after a rigorous martial art and decathalete machine gun mission, the two intermingled beings are recorded for a serpent and dragon graphic.

That's one example. Beware of exposed erect penises.

3.5

cricket

12-31-17, 04:35 PM

Been awhile since I've seen either but I've always loved Stakeout and Ruthless People.

Joel

12-31-17, 04:46 PM

Touchstone/Disney/Buena Vista was pumping out entertaining R rated hits back in the mid to late 1980's...Ruthless People, Stakeout, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, Tin Men, all critically acclaimed. Probably my favorite era for nostalgia, those kinds of titles, even though there was something kind of stuffy and slimy about them all, haha.

Joel

01-02-18, 07:37 PM

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Director: Francis Ford Coppolla

I've stayed away from Bram Stoker's Dracula for decades because I had it confused with Interview with the Vampire, and also because when I didn't have it confused, I was aware that it starred Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. I feel as if neither one of those kids can act, or have much to offer for my movie dollar. Once I noticed Coppolla directed it I knew that I ought to give it a chance.

Let me get the negative stuff out of the way first. Keanu Reeves cannot act. His english dialect is embarrassing. Winona Ryder can tighten her chops up when the volume turns up, and she does indeed serve the story well because she looks absolutely beautiful in this film and when the tension mounts she is a good player.

What is left for me to say is that this is the absolute, hands down, most gorgeous movie I have seen in a very long time and it is definitely Coppola's most attractive film. The use of oranges, purples, reds, greens and natural rustic colors, earth tones and pale blues are like nothing I have ever seen in a film. This is sound stage paradise. There are no cgi effects anywhere to be seen. Everything is matted in camera, forced perspective, double exposure, or simply a complex prop, device or combination of all these arrangements, staged incredibly for essentially a play on wheels.

https://i.imgur.com/FE5ikwO.png?1

The writing is adapted from Stoker's original Dracula story with an added introduction of The Impaler and his ties with the Christian church as a holy warrior who finds his life's love has been mislead by the church during his mission. His lover, played by Ryder, throws herself off of a cliff and dies thinking her man has died in the war. Dracuul becomes furious and renounces God when he learns of the church's deceit, and he swears vengeance. His rage turns him into the beast of the earth, dead and without a soul, but his love still lingers from beyond the grave, and he shall travel through time to find his lover's reincarnate, and take her with him to his cursed domain, where they can finally be together.

The story is told in such a way that all of the monster movie elements are removed, and in their places are almost tender and hyper aware emotional conundrums of Dracula. His guilt, his lust and his longing. These are not taken as lightly as they could have been, and because of this, Bram Stoker's Dracula on the big screen is a real event for fans of this story.

Despite the obvious studio pressure on a destitute Coppolla to hire hot young talent, the film is barely affected by this bottom line mentality. We are treated to Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, Cary Elwes as Arthur Holmwood, Tom Waits as Dracula's jailed psychic servant R.M. Renfield, and Gary Oldman as Dracula himself. Oldman's performance is top notch, as is Tom Waits', who turns in a peculiar but very disciplined schizo. He has the energy of a character actor, but he's done varied work, so I was impressed.

Everything just looks and sounds great. The story is classic and handled with extreme care, and though this is Coppola's film, credit should really be given in equal measure to his son Roman Coppolla for his astounding visual effect and 2nd unit work. All of the rich and detailed shots and moments of wonder are wrangled by Roman.

The Coppola's are indeed a travelling circus family of highly talented people. If Carmine did the music for this film I think my head would have exploded! Rounding out the immediate visual responsibilities is Michael Ballhaus as lighting camerman.

https://i.imgur.com/9P9x0Gf.jpg

This movie I could watch every year or so. I'm sure of it. It has so much to see. Just about every frame of this film is loaded with treats. It's a feast for the eyes and senses. It's like that one time you order chinese and it tastes immaculate. The ribs are still sizzling, the lo mein and tender but textural, the spices are mixed just perfectly. You eat some, your knees get weak and you rest. Later on, you go back for more, except now the food must be re-heated. Dracula is like that, only when you go back to it (it's a lengthy film) like I had to, it still remains hot and spicy, sizzling at the bone with a tender and textural satiation.

Bram Stoker's Dracula: it's better than good chinese take-out.

4

Joel

01-05-18, 08:47 PM

Stage Fright(1987)
Deliria/Bloody Bird/Aquarius/Sound Stage Massacre
Director: Michele Soavi

https://i.imgur.com/L4cDXvg.png

Michele Soavi (or Michael Soavi) has long been a 2nd unit collaborator with greats like Dario Argento and even Terry Gilliam (Baron Munchausen), so when he got his big break as a debut director, he assembled a mostly american cast for a very dubbed italian stage play slasher film.

During a low rent play rehearsal, a budding starlet injures her ankle, and, against the wishes of the theater director, sneaks away with her wardrobe friend to seek quick medical treatment. Well, wouldn't you know it, her friend brings them to a psychiatric ward instead. How convenient. I guess the reasoning was, "well, it's still a doctor". There, while being treated for a spranged ankle, it's discovered that a murderer is locked up, and wouldn't you know it, he piggy backs incognito on the car ride back with the two women, returning to the stage play.

The story for Stage Fright is a little bit unique in that it takes the premise of an off, off broadway type of scenario and puts a serial killer amidst the entire cast, locked in due to a lost key. Outside, two patrolmen stakeout in their car, but who cares? What good are they for the running time?

The action is pretty decent, and the kills, though not always highly original, are certainly filled with energy, and they are nasty, too! There's even a few instances where I got a little jolt. I think I was shaken up a bit because of the location of all this mayhem. Soavi knows exactly where to put the camera and how to film suspense. He's got a great eye for moving the camera to cut just right in editing, and that brings about a nice fluidity to the film.

The musical score is by Goblin alumni Simon Boswell, and here he uses his signature howling groan and syrupy lead lines as well as improvises over a glaringly obvious early pre-programmed hip hop beat to interesting effect. His style sets the mood nicely, and it reminded me of his work in Demons 2. Good stuff! Come to think of it, he probably just used some of the same score tapes.

There's something about this movie. It's not overly stylish like an Argento film, nor does it have to be. The style is adequate with even a few surprises, but the real craft takes place in the general set up, and that is the location. Everything else just kind of uses that for a drinking fountain of creativity. The director of both this film, and the director in this film are concentrated and passionate people. This movie feels like an existential streak, but that may be pushing it to even say that. Still, though...

Those into giallo (and that's definitely too specific a term for this movie) and slasher films will get a nice ride out of this otherwise silly picture.

https://i.imgur.com/tTkgqaI.png

3+

Camo

01-05-18, 09:06 PM

Joel Your rating of FFC's Dracula :up:

Joel

01-05-18, 09:28 PM

The War of the Roses (1989)
Director: Danny DeVito

Danny DeVito's second feature as a theatrical film director following Throw Momma from the Train is an ambitious one yet again. Centering around a married couple who's had their run and are waiting to finalize their affairs, The War of the Roses is an elegant horror comedy that really lets its two stars roll up their sleeves and get down and dirty. Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas have probably never been better in any film. Together with their director, they are sublime.

DeVito keeps the darkness looming with detailed shots and adventurous crane movements. His angles and sensibilities of his own influences take no back seat in any scene, and that's a big part of this movie's charm. It feels like an old sound stage movie. The exteriors feel like an old lot, decorated to the nines with extravagance. But skating on top of all of this craft is a modern (for 1989, anyway) take on romance and the destructive seeds of doom that inhabit a relationship that has been starved of communication, or has been deprived of understanding. We're not altogether sure whose fault any of this messy affair is, but we do know that it's not going to be pretty once the bell rings.

https://i.imgur.com/Zap0lHq.jpg

What affected me the most was the amount of body language and just plain cold looks we get from Turner. Her take on the frustrated wife really seals the deal for the true ringing screenplay by Michael J. Leeson. We get the small bits of sarcasm and the voluminous heartbreak of a lover who just doesn't seem to love you back. It's not only scary because of the obvious Hitchcock-like staging, it's scary, horrifying even, because it's something most of us have experienced at one time in our lives when we were into something that was doomed from the start. How two people can go from being madly in love, to absolutely hating each other, even when one party still holds out hope for a rekindled relationship. That hope to mend the broken links and pick the pieces back up. The suffering of knowing it will never happen, and the tailspin of madness one encounters when they are caught chasing their own tail wishing for resolution, getting nothing, and drawing their claws back to take a nasty swipe out in childish resentment.

This is a great black comedy.

4+

Citizen Rules

01-05-18, 09:29 PM

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Director: Francis Ford Coppolla
...Winona Ryder can tighten her chops up when the volume turns up, and she does indeed serve the story well because she looks absolutely beautiful in this film...

....this is the absolute, hands down, most gorgeous movie I have seen in a very long time and it is definitely Coppola's most attractive film...rating_4 Enough said, sold!

It's funny that you just seen this because I was just looking at Winona Ryder's filmography and realized I had never seen this AND like you noticed it's directed by Francis Ford Coppolla. So I just requested it from my library. Good review Joel:up:

.

Dani8

01-05-18, 09:43 PM

Enough said, sold!

It's funny that you just seen this because I was just looking at Winona Ryder's filmography and realized I had never seen this AND like you noticed it's directed by Francis Ford Coppolla. So I just requested it from my library. Good review Joel:up:

.

I'm amazed you havent seen it, CR. I totally agree with Joel that it is an exquisite looking movie, and whenever I think of this without hesitation I think of one scene of Dracula walking up the staircase with his red cloak following behind. Really beautiful film. And yes, Winona is absolutely beautiful but for me she and Keanu were dreadful casting choices. Apart from that I always enjoy a rewatch. Visually spectacular, and Gary was perfect - I cant think of anyone else at that time who could hve portrayed the character in such an emotional way.

Joel

01-05-18, 09:49 PM

Neon Maniacs (1986)
Director: Joseph Mangine

A small army of deformed warrior killers hide beneath the waterline shore near the Golden Gate Bridge. At night they strike out random innocents, slaying them with samurai swords, chains, spiked balls, crossbows and knife implanted baseball bats. These creatures actually have their own trading cards. A small kid wandering at night finds one of these cards close by to where they dwell. Why do they have their own trading cards? I have no idea. Sadly the film never capitalizes on the potential this otherwise very unique premise offers.

From the get go this picture is damn silly, and really has no idea how to settle on a tone or a clue. Scenes are stretched out to the point of madness, floating around with no end in sight, on the most mundane and routine things, and then..and then...another scene happens. Why is this so?

From what I can tell, this film is the result of an unfinished shooting script. I'm willing to bet someone backed out of putting up completion funds and what we got left with was wishful thinking. But that's not entirely true. Let me explain. The Music. Who in their right mind would ever drop music like this into a film like Neon Maniacs? Joseph Mangine? I'll pretend it's not his fault. This seems to be the work of the devil. The music is basically elevator music. Lobby jazz. Adult contempo lullaby music. It's almost shapeless, or would be, if not for the light and airy percussion that accompanies it somehow, holding it in the audio field so the human ear can hear it. It's not good for anyone. Be cautious if exploring this film.

The movie drags its feet to nowhere, but at the very least we get a Carrie-like ending that features some pretty godawful wanna-be arena rock music. This could be a so bad it's good movie, but really, it's just so bad.

Nothing is explained as to why these dudes go around killing people, and even more, nothing is ever explained as to why they hunt this particular group of kids. Just another night at the office for...NEON..MANIACS!

https://i.imgur.com/Ych4Giy.jpg

1.5
for the potential

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur1h70xWrB4

Joel

01-05-18, 09:51 PM

Gary was perfect - I cant think of anyone else at that time who could hve portrayed the character in such an emotional way.

Agreed. His eyes, even behind creature makeup, and especially the ending, really shows the humanity behind the beast that Dracula is otherwise drawn as.

Dani8

01-05-18, 10:12 PM

Agreed. His eyes, even behind creature makeup, and especially the ending, really shows the humanity behind the beast that Dracula is otherwise drawn as.

Absolutely. He really has the knack for drawing out the empathy. I might have cried a few times.

Joel

01-05-18, 10:21 PM

Lifeforce (1985)
Director: Tobe Hooper

https://i.imgur.com/P8get4w.jpg

In an ongoing inspection of Tobe Hooper's visual style, and the recurring question as to whether or not such a thing exists, I have to use Lifeforce as an example of at least his compositional skills as director, hiring John Dykstra, and using the anamorphic format to squeeze the blue flares out in this trippy space vampire adult erotic horror film.

Hooper was big news after Poltergeist, even though he was shunned from the editing of the film. His box office success, thanks in no small amount to Steven Spielberg's hands-on meddling of the picture, ignited his chances to land good work, and where he landed was right into Isreali money, funded by none other than Golan and Globus, the two cousins behind Cannon Films, who gave Hooper a three picture deal. Lifeforce was their biggest budget film ever, and Hooper wasted no time writing the checks to doll his epic sci fi extravaganza up to the max.

https://i.imgur.com/ybUWWkL.jpg

I'm not going to cover any story points here. I'll just say that the film has a nice, slow, otherworldly pace to it. The music is orchestral and suspenseful. The female form is displayed in all of its glory, fully nude and looking damn fine at that. The violence is inventive and disturbing. The locations are at times breathtaking, and the camera work is regal.

Tobe Hooper has The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as his successful stepping stone. Lifeforce would be his ultimate studio picture. His picture. Not Spielberg's. His.

Have you ever wanted to see a film that lived up to its poster art? This is one of those films.

4

Dani8

01-05-18, 10:25 PM

I hdnt heard of Lifeforce. Sounds pretty trippy, Joel. Probably right up my alley at the moment, and Mr D loves sci fi so this is a goer.

Joel

01-05-18, 10:38 PM

Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Director: Edgar Wright

Before there were any zombie comedies, there was Edgar Wright's pioneering film, Shaun of the Dead. Mixing Dawn of the Dead nightmare nausea with sharply penned comic dialog and staging, Wright's debut feature became a major success, and rightfully so.

I am still in love with this movie. There is so much care put into the writing. Most lines are classic, and a lot of the quick editing makes you think you can't keep up. But you can. This is genius film making disguised as a silly comedy. What separates this from just a silly comedy is the attention to detail and the use of scenes that would not belong in any other movie that tried to be a romantic zombie comedy. Such a thing was set as precedent with this. This movie allows itself to throw in some emotional scenes, and mostly this works seamlessly with the other frat pack mentality taking up a large amount of screen time. The jokes are fast but they aren't wasted. They reverberate. Pop references are aplenty. There's a very strong sense of friendship working behind this movie, and I believe, for me, that is why I enjoy it as much as I do. You can tell that the writing and casting is done amongst either friends, esteemed peers, or admired legends.

Many imitations have followed this film to much less appeal. Some folks even try and compare a movie like this to films that aren't even in the same ball park. Word of warning, you may have to try hard to understand that this is actually a comedy and not a serious horror film like Romero's trilogy. The beauty of Shaun of the Dead is that even though this may be the case, it works as a few different films in one. It does manage to lay the atmosphere on fairly thick at times.

https://i.imgur.com/dU47Btc.jpg

4.5

Joel

01-05-18, 10:52 PM

I hdnt heard of Lifeforce. Sounds pretty trippy, Joel. Probably right up my alley at the moment, and Mr D loves sci fi so this is a goer.

I'll say this...Mr. D might be up in arms at the amount of female nudity in this. The main Vampiress walks around nude for the entire film. Just an FYI. lol

Citizen Rules

01-05-18, 10:57 PM

Joel

01-05-18, 11:16 PM

Fright NighT (1985)
Director: Tom Holland

https://i.imgur.com/6GbPSSv.jpg

Charlie Brewster is an all-american boy next door who has a girlfriend, a whacky best friend, and a semi normal home life. That is until one night when he peers out his bedroom window and sees his new next door neighbors carrying a coffin through the back yard.

Tom Holland, who wrote Psycho II, directs with his debut film about vampires living in suburbia.

This is a funny film. It is comfortable as a teen comedy, but just as relaxed as it gets on with those disposable notes, it conjures up some really effective creepiness when it starts turning into a classic old monster-movie styled thriller. All of the Universal ghosts seem to be watching here, and I think that may be largely due to the casting of Roddy McDowall. His role as a tv actor portraying a fearless vampire killer gets tested for real when Charlie Brewster confronts him to help protect his friends and family from the new fanged neighbors. Naturally, the "fearless" vampire killer thinks this is a silly joke. At first.

Roddy McDowall has been around Hollywood for a long, long time. He's hosted parties to the biggest stars, and collected libraries worth of 35mm prints, so it's no surprise that having him in a film like this lends a sizable amount of gravity and bravura. There's a gentle and good humored demeanor about him, but there's also a bit of a thorny diva, and all of this personality really makes Fright Night stand out.

Brad Fiedel, who scored The Terminator, also contributes some memorable score that helps develop the changing moods of the picture.

Chris Sarandon (Prince Humperdink) plays Jerry, the vampire next door. His charisma mixed with an underlying no-nonsense air of superiority and playboy cock sure'ness assists with the working of tv actress Amanda Bearse (Marcy from Married with Children).

Rounding out the cast is a very funny, if briefly showcased, Jonathan Stark as the vampire's support system, William Ragsdale as the affable Charlie Brewster, and Stephen Geoffreys as Brewster's squirrely and obnoxious best friend, who actually turns in the most memorable performance in the film as a mentally injured jokester who may have the option to succumb to the dark side of the night.

I really like the effects this film has to offer. They are simple in-camera tricks with a few optical passes thrown in for good measure, but they pop because the colors chosen are classy. You take well rendered visual effects and combine them with a nice fog and set design and you have my movie coin for sure.

What else can I say? This is a classic film that deserves film preservation. It's at the top of my list for vampire themed films, and it's a hell of a good time, to boot!

4.5

https://i.imgur.com/s0BCgzT.jpg

Dani8

01-05-18, 11:24 PM

I'll say this...Mr. D might be up in arms at the amount of female nudity in this. The main Vampiress walks around nude for the entire film. Just an FYI. lol

I'll do my best to prevent him running off to the Wont You Think Of The Children's lobby group to have it banned, Joel.

Joel

01-05-18, 11:26 PM

I'll do my best to prevent him running off to the Wont You Think Of The Children's lobby group to have it banned, Joel.

Just thinking of the kids, Dani, that's all. Don't want to offend Mr. D, either. It's in your hands now!:p

Joel

01-05-18, 11:27 PM

Been a looooong time since I seen Lifeforce, probably like 30 years. I remember it seemed rememberable. I can still remember how the hot vampire space chick sucked the life out of guys, desiccating them like some extraterrestrial silica gel. What a way to go!

I know, right? If I am going to be murdered, I want that vampire chick to suck the life out of me, and if she asks where I want the kiss, well,..you know I may have to get creative with my option.

Joel

01-05-18, 11:48 PM

The Zero Boys (1986)
Director: Niko Mastorakis

Greek director Niko Mastorakis combines action teen comedy with slasher backwoods horror a'la Deliverance in this genre re-arranging 80's horror that manages to be atmospheric, creepy and ridiculous all at the same time. Big surprise.

What worked for me was the location(s). Primarily, the wooded cabin at night, which encompasses about 90% of the film. Weekend paint ball warriors find an "abandoned" cabin, fully furnished with electricity and questionable food contents in the freezer. Take a few guys, a few girls, and some really bad attempts at talking serious psychology on a swinging porch chair as a first date and you have the beginning of The Zero Boys. Well, almost. Let me rewind 10 minutes prior.

The film starts off as a shoot 'em up action picture. What exactly is going on here? Some guy is wearing a painted swastika on his face. Slow motion Peckinpah rip-off. Now it's some dude dressed as John Rambo, twisting his face just like Stallone, letting out a battle cry.

Cut to 30 minutes forward. Back at the cabin at night. These now fully armed group of teens with REAL guns (convenient) must outwit and outrun some crazed killers who enjoy filming torture porn out in their barn. This film may be one of the first 1986 torture porn indicators. But honestly, that's not something to brag about. They're destroying all of those vintage vcr's with their machine guns!! Stop it!

I liked this movie. It's downright absurd and anti climactic, but it's also bold and kind of fun despite the mixed tone and grade Z acting. It has ambition. Sure, it drops like a bag of cement in a mud puddle but at least it tried to be something different.

Trivia: Renowned composer Hans Zimmer scores about 85% of this film. It was his first big gig as composer. Also, someone who looks like Charlie and Martin Sheen plays one of the killers. Guess what? He's related to the Sheens. He's an Estevez. Forgot his name...Carlos?

Check it out!

https://i.imgur.com/xM2GLAm.jpg

3

Joel

01-06-18, 12:03 AM

Hunter's Blood (1986)
Director: Robert C. Hughes

Yes, this is a major Deliverance rip-off. But not really. The basic premise is five city guys go hunting on a weekend getaway. You get an assortment of characters ranging from white collar to blue collar to grey collar. One guy is a sissy, one is a sloppy drunk, another is a weathered every-man, we get a streetwise middle ager and another is a stand up tax payer. But there's more. Each character is written well. At least, well enough to make this movie a bit of fun getting to the big surprise. When danger shows its face in the middle of the night, and the suspense really sets in once the carnage is in full swing, we still get characters who are written well enough to sustain interest. That's why Hunter's Blood is not just some Deliverance knock-off. True as it may be that the general story shares a lot of similarities, this movie is in a class of its own.

Music is a big part of Hunter's Blood. The score seems a little ahead of its time. It reminds me of Ry Cooder's score for Paris Texas, except it's not nearly as dreamy. There's an undercurrent of doom in there, but it's all rendered very well, and makes the terror that strikes that much more intense.

Violence is in no shortage, either. Things get really gruesome so, if you have a weak stomach, don't bother. But what would you expect from a Roger Corman affiliated venture? This was released direct to video on Embassy Home Entertainment, and the Manson film logo is basically a straight forgery of a Weintraub emblem just flipped upside down. What'cha gonna do? That's low budget film biz for ya.

I can watch this film at least once every few years. It has some really funny bits that elevate the b-movie mist into a higher territory. Something about this movie seems like it belongs to a more polished distribution house, and what could it have been had it been re-worked a bit more, polished and carefully carved into something that didn't bite so much off of Boorman's superior picture?

Who cares?

Enjoy it for what it is. A tense and rewarding exploitation film that has a good sets of balls on it and a decent ending for the time it was released. In fact, the ending owes a bit to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

https://i.imgur.com/o6SVH1r.jpg

3.5

Dani8

01-06-18, 12:14 AM

Hunter's Blood (1986)
Director: Robert C. Hughes

Music is a big part of Hunter's Blood. The score seems a little ahead of its time. It reminds me of Ry Cooder's score for Paris Texas, except it's not nearly as dreamy. There's an undercurrent of doom in there, but it's all rendered very well, and makes the terror that strikes that much more intense.

That sounds promising. Infact the whole review appeals. Thanks for that, Joel.

Any more coming? I enjoy your reviews and it's 41C here so chilling out with a read and my watch list.

Joel

01-06-18, 12:21 AM

That sounds promising. Infact the whole review appeals. Thanks for that, Joel.

Any more coming? I enjoy your reviews and it's 41C here so chilling out with a read and my watch list.

Thanks, Dani! Glad I can be of some value once in a while, lol.

I'm probabaly done for tonight, but, going forward, I may do a movie tab sort of thing, just on this thread, no official review for the forum, but an "at a glance" list, for quick notes to allure some potential viewers of films that I like to gnosh on.

Joel

01-14-18, 02:11 PM

https://i.imgur.com/YbaYzAM.jpg
Talk Radio (1988)
Director: Oliver Stone

Oliver Stone had his heyday back in the 1980's and 90's with Salvador, Platoon and Natural Born Killers. Known for his topical and intense films, usually of a political or deeply social nature, Talk Radio is that one picture he made that may be his crowning masterpiece. A film that not many have seen, or even know about. It's the story of a late night radio DJ taking on the night life phone lines, riddled with hateful, vengeful and confused lost souls, who confide in, or berate, Barry Champlian, the antagonistic host, who endlessly steps over the line with insulting his audience, rarely really hearing anyone, and instead immediately downsizing these people he sees as opponents.

Underneath the slick photography and single set design of the studio lies a movie that is largely composed of jew hating. I say that as a defining quality of Talk Radio and not a good quality. As the film's suspense increases, more and more callers attack Barry's ethnicity, and the walls begin to close in.

To say this was a ballsy movie would be an understatement. Stone is often seen as this lumbering writer who seems a born and bred republican filling up pages with extreme liberalism. He's a tough nut to crack because he's filled with stylish rage. Eric Bogosian, who portrays the host Champlain, based the screenplay off of his one man play. This lends a very loose dialog that is able to tighten the screws once the actor hits his posts and delivers the real gritty talk that elevates this movie into an almost horror film territory.

This is a product of the late 1980's, and with that comes a funky kind of gloss and pompousness that isn't always favorable for a completely enjoyable watch. There is this almost cloying cheesiness that pops up every now and then that reminds us at one time, all of this daring material was fresh and new. It was cutting edge and heavy. Today this film still has a real sting to it. I doubt very much a film like this would even be made in modern times. It's chilling and effective. Save a couple of unnecessary reaction shots to pump up the drama, I'd say this is Stone's most tightly composed picture.

It's a little sentimental, but mostly brutal and crass. When it's funny, it's hilarious. When it's serious, it's sickening. Not stagy by 20th century standards.

https://i.imgur.com/19lrSyZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rSz9sUh.png

3.5

Joel

01-28-18, 02:05 PM

Looker (1981)
Director: Michael Crichton

https://i.imgur.com/1hfV5uu.jpg

Michael Crichton hasn't directed too many films, especially compared with his large body of novels, as he is primarily a writer. His only real contributions were Westworld (1973), Coma (1978), Runaway (1984), and Looker.

Looker centers around a high profile plastic surgeon played by a still semi youthful Albert Finney. After a small handful of genetically perfect models have died, the surgeon becomes a number one suspect. Trying to piece together why his pen and jacket button were at the scene of an apparent accidental death, he soon plunges into a conspiracy to use beautiful young women to model them into computer generated physical models, paying them a sum of $250,000 a year to be able to use their likeness in a multitude of commercials, no longer needing the models. To prevent the actual models from continuing work on their own, they are systematically killed off, as an old document. This is a large plot hole in the film because it is never explained. I had to research a tiny bit to understand this facet of the story, but it's helpful, since editing this film was apparently a real pain in the ass for director Crichton.

https://i.imgur.com/ver4BdB.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/QZeXg2k.gif

The "look" of Looker is kind of special. Very early yet striking advances in computer technology are on display in read-outs, light projection and set design. There isn't much shortage of atmosphere or high tech eye candy. I'd say this is a major strength of the picture. In addition, there's no mistaking the quick flashes of absurd humor in Looker, so maybe Crichton knew very well that his plot was shot. The emphasis on visuals, a charismatic lead in Finney, and taking the piss out of the advertising industry seems to be the focal points, shooing away any real cohesive plot in favor of the aura you get with the film.

https://i.imgur.com/K9IMfT6.gif

This is a silly movie. It's clunky, highly unlikely, the characters do stupid things, especially the bad guys, who, after only being poked in the hand by the hero's knife, decide to retreat after opening machine gun fire. Albert Finney is fit as a fiddle for the top class surgeon. A plastic surgeon action hero of sorts. His charm and humor carry much of the otherwise ridiculous plotting and interplay of characters.

https://i.imgur.com/N26HDVQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cG5YiM7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wsM9flR.png

This is a very sexy film. There are a couple of scenes of nudity. Though the film is rated PG, it feels like an R, it looks like an R, and it probably should have been rated R. But oh well. Those were the good old days of the MPAA.

https://i.imgur.com/uemL0uL.png
https://i.imgur.com/IzcV7Qp.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/fnmH7Zg.jpg

James Coburn plays the head bad guy. The evil advertising fat cat who must dominate people with his subliminal pupil trance technology elicited by the CGI supermodels selling everything from perfume to cockroach killer.

https://i.imgur.com/cuU9r1x.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HSI4xvo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8yTZc4z.jpg

Looker is a special kind of film. It's certainly dumb and confusing because it lacks cohesive editing, but it's also sublime and sophisticated in equal measure, allowing a kind of poetic pacing and sound bed to overtake the viewer's senses, immersing them into a technological sci fi thriller comedy with a lot of hot chicks and some really pretty lights and sets.

And I forgot to mention the BIGGEST star of the film: THE MUSIC. A high tech and eerie score by Barry De Vorzon is what today's chill wave, synth wav and retro wav are blueprinted on. I was digging the tracks throughout! What's peculiar is that Barry has won six emmy's, one being for daytime soap opera Young and the Restless. He's co-penned songs for The Carpenters and Joe Walsh's In the City. He also wrote the music for The Warriors. To say the guy is versatile would be a big understatement.

I've scattered this review much like the film itself is scattered. I'd like to wrap this up with mention of the L.O.O.K.E.R gun. It's basically a gun that fires a bright white and wide laser light that blinds the subject, suspends them in a trance for long stretches of time, so the bad guy can have his way. This is a fun component of the movie. It's so absurd, and inconsistent with its own rules, I couldn't help but get a few healthy laughs along the way when some action sequences were taking place.

https://i.imgur.com/iESjYxJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Cpv7ghY.jpg

3+

Joel

01-30-18, 08:52 PM

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)
Director: Danny Steinmann

This entry into the Jason Vorhees franchise got completely burned at the stake because (spoiler) it wasn't actually Jason doing all the killings, and because it was more of the same. "More of the same". Well, that sums up every slasher film, doesn't it? It's always the same. Nudity, sex, death. What stands out in this part V of the Friday the 13th series isn't just "more of the same" but also the "hit you over the head" humor that seems to have been completely missed by anyone I've seen talk about it.

A New Beginning is absolutely hilarious. We get television sitcom styled comfortability with endearing performances only to see these Full House styled characters die a horrible death minutes later, if not sooner. The dialog is so over the top when it wants to be. Yes, we get more nudity, TONS more, and that's OK by me. Nudity is good. We get more violence. Well, that's kind of what these types of films are about, anyway, so...

There's this blatantly obvious clue that keeps popping its head up around every corner as to who the killer really is. The way this is handled made me almost choke on laughter. Yes, the director knew very well what he was doing. Danny Steinmann is a very, very funny man. Almost every scene is written with obnoxious comedy in mind. The way these yuks are carried out is a hoot, too. A balding, middle aged partier waits for his hot date waitress as he sits in his hot rod, sniffing cocaine with the music blasting. A line goes up his nose and he just says "ehhwweoeh!" A stuttering geek tries his hand at seducing a ginger haired hottie on the couch late at night. " I want to make love to you." This is a superb installment into the Friday the 13th canon.

Things just keep getting more ridiculous by the minute. There's no way to cover everything and I wouldn't want to. As much a fan as I am of the high camp featured in F13 6: Jason Lives, I am now in the camp of feeling strongly about part 5 A New Beginning. It's just so damn funny. It gives the viewer exactly what they want when it's time to shut the brain off and watch some cheap horror. Hey, the editing is good on this picture. It's tight. The writing of the characters is fun and very obnoxious. How can so many critics miss the camp appeal of this film, I am astounded that it has been dismissed so flimsily.

People talk about about this film and that film as being "in a class its own because of this or that, even though it's just a typical kind of formula. Uhhh, well!?! That's this movie right here, duh!

I enjoyed this movie. I'd seen it several times over the last (coughhack!) odd years, but its never dawned on me how goofy and fun it is, even for a story that centers around ruthless murders of young people. Maybe I'm not the only one who should rewatch it, take it for another spin? 3.5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=8RLW4fjN88U

Swan

01-30-18, 09:24 PM

I love the fifth one. Mainly for the fat dude with the candy bar who gets axed for no reason other than annoyance.

Joel

01-30-18, 09:51 PM

Yeah, definite highlight early on. I like the paramedic chewing gum crouched over the fat kids dismembered body calling everyone a p*ssy.

Citizen Rules

02-02-18, 09:53 PM

Looker (1981)
Director: Michael Crichton
rating_3+

Gosh, I remember when that film came out! I thought it looked pretty cool with all the models and the high tech (for back then) stuff. But I never got around to watching it and had totally forgotten it existed until just seeing your review. Your review and what you said about Looker, caught my interest, so I will add this to my watchlist. Sounds like a fun movie!

iank

02-03-18, 04:28 AM

I picked up the DVD a couple of years back (vaguely remember seeing it in the early 90s I think) but I haven't got around to watching it yet...

Joel

02-03-18, 11:32 AM

I picked up the DVD a couple of years back (vaguely remember seeing it in the early 90s I think) but I haven't got around to watching it yet...

It's definitely that early 80's grimy, hazy kind of silly movie, but it has elements to it that are redemptive.

Joel

02-05-18, 07:14 PM

https://i.imgur.com/ttVmS7l.jpg
Blind Fury (1989)
Director: Philip Noyce

The stale late 1980's, just in time for M.C. Hammer and C+C Music Factory. The movies were often suffering from a lack of identity, with experimental synth scores being replaced with honky tonk blues music all done on keyboards. The mood changed and there was a lot of new design, not necessarily good design, either. Blind Fury isn't much of an exception.

Rutger Hauer I feel, has not been properly used since 1985. Maybe it's his own fault, or maybe he just couldn't find the right material or management. Whatever the reason(s), he seems at home in this slice em' up remake of Zatoichi Challenge (which I haven't seen) as a sightless Vietnam veteran who's back years later to look up an old friend. He soon finds himself knee deep in trouble when he must protect his old military friend's little boy, and also rescue his buddy from the clutches of a drug empire out in Vegas.

Due to his lack of vision (Rutger, that is - not the director Noyce, who I'll make fun of later on), he's been blessed with honed powers of hearing which allow him to act as a human cuisinart whenever a piece of fruit is thrown in his direction. He can also memorize dial tones for easy sneaky into penthouse elevators.

Rutger plays everything loose and light, but still maintains his usual otherworldly space cadet demeanor, which is always a thrill to see. I think Hauer's best work is when he's just being himself, and here - he seems to be comfortable and having some fun. This is a funny movie, but it's not side splitting. Somewhere along the line, we the audience are forced to endure a fairly cliche ridden presntation and series of other scoogity boogities that have been done to death. The only defense for this is that maybe back in 1989 these types of things were still fresh enough to play out. They must have been. There is good news, though. Sho Kosugi makes an appearance. Someone asks for Bruce Lee's brother and they get him in there. In fact, when we first see him there's a gong sound played as part of the score. Nice touch. Damn racist filmmakers!

Terry O'Quinn (The Stepfather, Lost) plays his old military friend. Terry barely gets any screen time, but when he does you can see his acting chops almost start to swell up, just by the expression on his face. In fact, there's a scene close to the end of the film when he is on a ski lift cart, and the camera actually dedicates a semi-circle dolly shot-just for him, as he stares off into space with his sea breeze eyes, reacting to Hauer's forgiveness monologue. Philip Noyce at least knew enough to recognize talent when he saw it, even if he didn't have room for Terry to shine in this picture. I have to actually hand it to director Noyce (I have no real reason to make fun of him), he handles things well enough for a b-actioner. The editing is fine. Scenes sprawl out, wrap up and segue richly enough to make looking at the picture simple and unoffensive. The action is semi quality, though in some scenes I think Hauer comes off a bit light on his feet when he maybe could have put a bit more shoulder into his movements. But I forgive easy.

Blind Fury isn't a bad, bad movie. It's not very good, but it's also not a film made to be seen as a small masterpiece, either. This is strictly late night fun stuff. Just about everything on display is ridiculous, highly far fetched, unlikely, and damn silly. But that's fine. That's what was written down and shot, and that's what we get. High camp movie. I dug it every time I've seen it. To me that's an indicator that it's a decent enough film, the re-watchability factor.

3+

cricket

02-09-18, 06:05 PM

I haven't seen that in years but from what I remember, I agree with everything you say.

Joel

02-09-18, 10:27 PM

Real Men (1987)
Director: Dennis Feldman

https://i.imgur.com/3dArr2y.jpg
John Ritter and James Belushi star in this sci fi spy comedy with a serious case of weird penmanship.

A CIA showboat (Belushi) is sent to recruit a dead operative lookalike (Ritter) to further a relationship with men from outer space.

This could have been the start of Men in Black, who's to know? The comedy is hit/miss, but the pacing of this movie allows a nice and relaxed sitting. A sitting that depends completely on the viewer to either tolerate or obliterate with a swift stop eject.

I know Real Men is a bad movie in a lot of respects but I cannot help but come back to it again and again for the sheer relief it provides. Everything from the schizophrenic score to the go-nowhere plot "developments" entrance me and make my before bed viewing a real treat.

This went mostly unnoticed due to UA being in the hurts section of financial endowment (thanks Michael Cimino), but on video its shelf life was also limited. Not many have heard of or seen Real Men.

I recommend it purely as a light distraction with a very un-PC Belushi and a very fist pumpingly corny John Ritter (R.I.P).

3+

Joel

02-09-18, 10:38 PM

Hot Fuzz (2007)
Director: Edgar Wright

I'm not going to say too much about this picture because it speaks for itself fine enough.

Edgar Wright has never had a more lean and mean film. Every single solitary scene in Hot Fuzz is a martial art, choreographed with tight precision, and resolved with intricate sound design that prompts viewings to exceed just once. The jokes are fast and furious. The action is buffoonish and hammy. The writing is nothing short of brilliant, and the cast are everything you'd want in a fast paced comedy that gets from A to Z within, well, within over 2 hours.

I used to think the run time was the biggest weakness of Hot Fuzz, but no more.
Having more to hear and see is exactly what you want with a film so thick with sleeve yanking and laugh grenades.

I just hooked up my Onkyo 7.1 surround, and after trying a handful of 5.1 HD film mixes, Hot Fuzz was the only feature to completely kick the living shlt out of my set-up and drown me in its design.

So many levels of awesome from this movie, it's one of my all-time favorites!

4.5

Joel

02-11-18, 11:56 AM

Lucky (2017)
Director: John Carroll Lynch

https://i.imgur.com/t041or9.png

Harry Dean Stanton's last film before he died. I wish I could say it was amazing, but I cannot. There are some weighty spiritual themes in this film, as well as themes dealing with old age, fear and dying alone. All of this makes for some very good material. Unfortunately, Lucky is too uneven to handle it in a convincing way, and often feels very mismatched and clumsily executed, right down to the performances and confused writing.

Take a scene with Ron Livingston as a life insurance salesman, and Lucky, sitting at a restaurant table. Lucky doesn't like this salesmen, but somehow within the course of 5 sentences of uninvited small talk, they begin to drink their coffees together. The salesman starts pitching Lucky a story about mortality and how getting a policy ensures the family can be at peace after their loved one dies. Lucky counters this with still having the same predicament: you're dead. The salesman acknowledges and meditates on this. I kept thinking "please don't end the scene here, pleases don't end the scene here". Well, it took a few seconds, but it ended. This kind of writing..maybe I missed something? It's not about you..it's about your family getting peace of mind. The whole existential component completely shot the enlightenment aspect's foot off with this writing.

There are more moments of forced profundity, such as dealing with the black mass of the void upon death, and disengaging earthly things, relinquishing control, and so on and so forth. I am intrigued enough with these themes, but the way in which they are handled here in Lucky made me kind of gasp, and gasp after-the-fact because the oddball handling of these themes didn't entirely hit me until minutes later where my distaste grew more.

I didn't hate this movie. That's a bit harsh. I do think that it was a bit of a misfire and I am scolding it more severely because it really could have been super special had it not been so dopey. David Lynch isn't a bad actor when he's slightly manic, but some of his delivery was community theater bad. That didn't help selling a very emotional piece of writing concerning a 100 year old turtle carrying it's life and death on it's back. I think my issue with a lot of this movie is that, on paper, this must have really shined, a lot of it, anyway. Something just doesn't always translate to the screen. It's too literal and often too convenient.

Scenes of Lucky inching towards the grave with dropping his old prejudices about Liberace, realizing the "fruit" has real musical chops, despite wearing too many rings on his fingers..I dunno. I mean, yeah, it's funny, I guess. It just didn't feel right to me. I wasn't offended. It was a bit funny. I don't exactly know what I was expecting. I took the picture as it was, I just happened to think it was equally as bad as it was profound and worthwhile.

I believe Stanton's previous picture, Partly Fiction, dealing with this agnostic existentialism theme, is much more suitable because it is essentially a documentary and not so much a full fiction, like Lucky. I'm thinking maybe this film Lucky wasn't really necessary because we already got Partly Fiction. It felt to me like the filmmaker was basically saying, "Well, just in case you missed Partly Fiction, let me retread with THIS!" And then proceeds to kind of club you about the face and neck with the same themes and vast space of the former film.

I lightly enjoyed Lucky, but may not recommend it very highly. I was disappointed with things that should have been, well, enlightening. This seemed like rehashes of things that people basically know and have dealt with using realism at very young ages, especially today, where, despite the trappings of "internet knowledge", the collective seem more aware, if not often shrouded with soap boxers that have shlt- for- brains.

3

Joel

02-12-18, 07:16 PM

Control (2004)
Director: Tim Hunter

https://i.imgur.com/CycU9M3.jpg

OK, this is interesting. Control is a movie directed by the guy who made River's Edge, co-wrote Over the Edge (Tim Hunter - edgy fella, right?), and stars Ray Liotta, Michelle Rodriguez and Willem Dafoe, but - here's the thing; it went straight to video.

So what's up? Is it any good?

The short answer to that question is yes. It is a good little movie that utilizes the cast very well. Also, the story is interesting. A convict sentenced to death gets an opportunity to stay alive as a lab experiment for a new pharma drug that is being tested to strip away violent rage from its subjects.

Willem Dafoe plays the pharma dude and, you guessed it, Liotta plays the psychopath.

I don't want to spoil anything but I will say this film has a very strong message underneath the layers of cliche and convenience. Big Pharma doesn't get a free ride, either. Shocking, right? Well, it's a little complicated. The twists aren't as pointed as I expected, which makes this movie another one of those "still thinking a bit about it the next day" kind of experiences.

Now for the bad. This should not have been as much of an action movie as it got made into. Why? Because of the story and the acting. Liotta does such good work here, it's a real crime this got no distribution. Willem Dafoe also does great work here. Michelle Rodriguez, same thing. The issue with this movie is that it was made as a moderately budgeted Hollywood action flick and it could have easily survived and been shuffled into history as a heavyweight drama had the guns and war drum music taken a hike.

Still, for a grade B action picture, this was a nice surprise. It isn't perfect, but it has a good heart, despite some Michael Bay silliness.

3.5

Joel

02-12-18, 07:35 PM

Over the Edge (1979)
Director: Jonathan Kaplan

https://i.imgur.com/Tkprr4k.jpg?1
A troubled youth picture if there ever was a troubled youth picture.

A housing community in the middle of a giant land plot is home to professionals and their 14 and under children. The kids hang out at the rec center, run by an attractive and easy going woman who seems to care about her young punk friends. They play air hockey, drink a little beer, smoke a little hash, and sometimes shoot bb gun pellets at cop cars down on the freeway. I choked on laughter when I saw that happen.

Soon or a later, the parents and town officials get involved and try to stifle the kids' activities in hopes of bringing in new lucrative businesses. Well, things may or may not go south.

I really appreciate the acting and direction of this movie. The photography is beautiful, the shots are set up nicely, and the action is composed tightly. All of the kids are completely natural and believable, and the adults, though slightly demonized, still retain some realism because, hey, they are concerned about their kids...right?

I guess we'll find out.

A young Matt Dillon is featured, rocking a half shirt and light brown feathered hair for all you Dillon fans out there who wanna get a glimpse of the young stud.

There's something else. This is a beautiful film. I cannot quite explain why. There is something so authentic and lovely about the locations, and the feeling I got while watching it. If I were to pick a time capsule for the late 1970's, the film would be my first and only choice.

5

Joel

02-21-18, 08:33 PM

Box of Moonlight (1996)
Director: Tom DiCillo

https://i.imgur.com/OVPH52t.jpg

This road movie stars John Turturro and Sam Rockwell. It is directed by the man who made Living in Oblivion.

Instead of covering the plot I'll just say that Turturro plays an uptight electrical engineer who cannot connect with his employees or his wife and child. He's starting to see life backwards, literally. A boy rides his bike backwards. Coffee pours back into a pot backwards. What is going on with his mind?

After his plant has an early shut-down, Al Fountain (Turturro) decides to take a car ride to an old swimming hole from his youth, since he is far from home and in the area he remembers it from. He almost gets into a car wreck avoiding hitting The Kid (Sam Rockwell), a free spirited man-child who just wants to have fun.

Ok, so right off of the bat this may not sound too original. But it is. You have to see the film to know why. This is the kind of movie you either like or don't. I mean, sure, you could say it's OK, but at that rate, you might as well just say it's good. Both leads give very funny performances and things always seem to get really strange, but not in a sadistic way. Aside from some male nudity, foul language, and an implied scene of adultery, this really is kind of an innocent movie. I've seen this film about 5 times since 2000, and it grows on me more every time.

Di Cillo really sets the picture up having a great assortment of locations and set design, namely an outdoor wonderland of Christmas lights, bbq and lawn ornaments, with the moonlight collecting in a wooden box with blue felt lining.

I believe it took DiCillo 5 years to make this film, and he had Rockwell picked out long before he got financing for the film. This is definitely a very early Rockwell role.

https://i.imgur.com/lKtNNxE.jpg

Box of Moonlight is a quirky, feel-good movie for adults who enjoy a go nowhere tale that isn't too scatterbrained to stop and enjoy the scenery and life's comic moments, usually accompanied by a hand over the mouth.

4.5

Joel

02-24-18, 01:20 AM

Psychomania (1973)
Director: Don Sharp

I'd seen previews of this movie and read great things about atmosphere, mild kink, incredible stunt work, and a convincing plot.

Lies. All lies!

Sadly, the only promising scene in the entire film
https://i.imgur.com/8EOuVT8.jpg

True that some of the stunt work was reckless and sometimes equally well-staged, the plot was a giant bore. The acting was a giant bore. The story was not only a giant bore, but an elongated and nonsensical story. So, let me get this straight. A biker whose parent have supernatural dealings with the frog devil can summon back life generating power from their badly decorated witches coven of a home, and the son decides to convince his bike gang to all commit suicide to return from the dead and do what, exactly? Terrorize people?

The kills were even boring and bloodless, and I'm not usually someone who champions gore. There was not a single scene of nudity, and as far as "light kink", well, if you call a few miniskirts peppered throughout in basic 70's era wardrobe "kink", you'd better just give up writing reviews. I'm serious. This movie was so dumb that after it was over, I turned to my movie partner and told him that I think I may actually need psychiatric help from enduring this film. He chuckled a little and I layed in to him. No, I'm serious. I don't feel good. I'm afraid to drive home.

He apologized for suggesting we watch the blu ray release of this cult film which was probably reappraised by hipsters who saw a few scenes in the beginning, watched the trailer, and then decided to make it their pet movie and write great things about, all the while totally oblivious to how stinky it really was.

There is no way in hell anyone who has actually suffered through this whole movie can think any of this was good, decent, mildly interesting, or even entertainingly bad.

In typical british fashion we get super long takes of self important eye blinking before every long winded sentence that would indicate we the audience may as well take our coats off because this dialog is going to take FOR-E-VER!
But nothing comes out of these cake holes that warrants such bloated screen time. We actually witness walks from cars to the middle of fields for no reason. No cuts, no expediting here. All tedium. We get camera zooms that serve zero purpose. We get scenes with promise of a suspenseful chase only to be clubbed over the head with a bad editing job of what looks like a reshoot that doesn't make logical sense. (see first scene of film involving driver and bike gang sharing dialog about not letting some poor road sap off of the hook).

This movie is below garbage. It's been praised as something it simply is not. It's absurd that anyone would have the balls to claim this movie is anything of interest aside from what the previews make sure to include (very smart move), and the opening scenes (which are quite poetic and beautifully photographed). But that's it!

Skip the film, watch the trailer. You will not only thank me for it, but if you decide to spite this review and watch the film, you will damn me for it, too, because I'll be to blame for luring you in to see it, even if it's only because of your own dumb decision, which it most certainly will be.

1

Joel

03-17-18, 09:37 PM

Dolls (1987)
Director: Stuart Gordon

https://i.imgur.com/bbCd944.jpg

Stuart Gordon has made a name for himself by being responsible for some very big cult films; ReAnimator and From Beyond, not to mention his foray into Disney with a picture you'll have to research yourself if you're interested.

When producer Charles Band assigned Gordon to direct a film between Reanimator and FB he supplied him with a picture of a little child holding a scary looking doll. Writer Ed Naha and Stuart then went nuts and made a bunch of dolls be the stars and added a fairy tale element that often keeps this horror film unbalanced.

If you are looking for a solid horror film, this is not it. Everything about this screams 1980's low budget b movie. The stop motion, though impressive for its time, mixes with the sometimes stilted acting and missed comic beats into a sort of porridge. A boiling witch's brew of down home dark fantasy with inventive atmosphere.

I admit to really liking this movie. It has a cozy location and the more "scary" scenes are filmed in a peculiar way. It's kind of like art but not the kind of art that demands attention from seasoned art film buffs. This is not an art film. At all. It just has some style to it. Style that may not be easily seen by those conditioned to more ambitious films.

This doesn't feel like a Stuart Gordon film. It's mostly light hearted and goofy. It's extremely campy and self aware but also packs a message for hardened adults. It is a cautionary tale to embrace the inner child or else suffer the fate of becoming trapped in a lifetime of service. In this case - be trapped as a doll - to give service to children who need something to play with. "Toys are loyal, and that's a fact". That line pops up twice in the movie, and it seems like a cartoon slogan except in this cartoon it's live action and there is graphic violence.

Stunning opening title sequence and theme music!
3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPU1O01qN9s

Joel

03-18-18, 07:52 PM

Waiting for Guffman (1997)
Director: Christopher Guest

https://i.imgur.com/m7bepKy.jpg

This is a true story. I saw this in the theaters at an art house cinema with a buddy. Most of the film - we'd look at each other out of boredom and disgust because this thing was going nowhere fast! Then a scene came on with aliens landing on earth and exclaiming the words"BO-RING! BO-RING!" and my buddy and I started losing it, totally cracking up in our seats. It kind of won us over because this quick scene summed up our experience watching this film. About 30 mins later, out at the parking lot, as I got into his Mazda Protege, I realized something very strange: I liked the film. How did this happen? This has never happened before. This is not natural. I can think for myself. So how do I go from hating a film so much while watching it to absolutely being entranced by it moments after it has ended?

Waiting for Guffman is one of those pictures, the only picture, that has ever had that effect on me. I watched it again some years later to reassess. It was funnier. I got it. I watched it with different eyes. The characters are clueless and pretentious and obnoxious. I'd never seen anything like this before. This was an invention of cinema. Christopher Guest had created something that had never been done before, and it was glorious, but required a twist of fate to catch on to it. That twist was laughing at a scene that summed up how awful I thought it was. It ultimately won me over. And my friend. I am still convinced to this day that anyone who had the good sense to see this film as it was - was informed by industry force and writing, which clued them in to how to accept this new brand of film. The Mock-u-mentary. Sure, it'd been done with This is Spinal Tap, but that film was nothing like this. Nothing.

The characters are inflammed with passion and silliness. There's a heart underneath this picture. Local theater tries to win over an important NYC manager and goes through their own personal boot camp to pull it off to impress, in hopes to make it to "Broadway". Perfect.

I really loved this movie. It's hilarious but you have to listen to the improvisations of the actors and not zone out to their "matter-of-factly" way of presenting their dialog to truly appreciate the absurdity of it all.

4.5

cricket

03-23-18, 03:04 PM

Finally saw Over the Edge and Hot Fuzz recently and I was surprised to find that I didn't like either one of them. I do like Dolls though.

Is Psychmania the movie where they all turn into stone at the end?

TYTD

04-04-18, 01:26 PM

Joel

04-05-18, 09:51 PM

Joel

04-05-18, 09:54 PM

Quick review -

Thinner - dir Tom Holland

it was good, man. I don;t see why people hated on it so much. It'll never be as good as the book. I read the book and the book was very nuanced. Stephen King doesn't play. But Tom Holland knows a thing or two, too.

TU-TU.

I wish the studios would give him real money again. I wonder if this film exiled him from the system.

The fat suit wasn't super realistic but I learned to live with it.

The movie wasn't scary but it was entertaining and reminded me of the book in a , dare I say, faithful way. No question mark. That wasn't asking, that was me telling...it's a decent little movie. So much better than a lot of other King adaptions.

Citizen Rules

04-05-18, 10:58 PM

I'm still keeping an eye on your thread Joel. But so far I haven't heard of any of the movies on this page. You watch some very different movies:p Then again I suppose we all do! I just watched Wagons East with the great John Candy. You seen that one?

Zotis

04-06-18, 03:54 AM

Joel, you should watch Mean Guns. You'll love it!

http://outlawvern.com/posters/mean_guns_1997.jpg

cricket

04-08-18, 08:12 PM

Yes, it is.

Haven't seen it since I was young but I used to love it.

Joel

04-22-18, 09:06 AM

Raw Deal - (1986)
Director: John Irving
https://i.imgur.com/2QyEcsp.jpg

This is one Schwarzenneger film I had avoided for decades because I remember seeing him drive around in a jeep during the opening of the film with a cigar, and blasting country music. I got turned off because Commando was such a great film that, tonally, Raw Deal seemed like a big misfire, and oddly put together.

After finally watching this movie from front to back I can say that it really wasn't bad. Arnold plays a heavily Austrian accented ex-FBI operative who is re-assigned to infiltrate a mob organization and gain their trust. He takes the job so he can make his cake baking lush wife happy and get them back to city life, stat!

Arnie gets made fun of a lot as not being able to act. This is not true at all. Arnold has major charisma and comic timing, as well as a good dramatic flair. The "issue" is his accent. It comes across wooden, having to deliver english lines so often. If you look at his face you can see his decent acting, but if you solely rely on his voice, you'll be fooled into thinking he's a garbage thespian. Ok well, thespian might be a stretch.

Raw Deal has tons of solid action and some great stunt work. The kills are appropriately messy and shameless, and the pacing is pretty tidy. It moves along well enough. I think the issue is in fact that the tone has no real identity. This is a scatterbrained film tonally. Also, the humor tries but misses the mark just about every time.

I watched this for a few nights before bed as I often do with movies and it was an OK action picture. It doesn't have that camp that Commando has, nor the manic action or incredible music score or comedy writing or hooks, but it does have a nice little niche as being an often overlooked Dino DeLaurentiis NC picture that takes place in Chicago, and believe it or not, almost, and I do mean almost, works with its romantic subplot.

3

Joel

04-22-18, 09:24 AM

Code of Silence (1985)
Director: Andrew Davis

https://i.imgur.com/Zw34A5M.jpg

Chuck Norris is a horrid actor, let's just get this out of the way. He's awful. The guy has no personality, and if he does, he's a master at hiding it. Usually, all we really see from Chuck is a sneer or a faint smile after delivering a well tailored comedy line of irony. He has this stoic expression at all times, in all of his films, usually of the very B picture variety.

Code of Silence has that same Chuck. Stone faced, flatlining with dynamic range, no soul.

But let me just say that Code of Silence is actually a very competent and decent film. Andrew Davis is an old pro director and he does things to the writing that tells the story commendably. Everything about the picture is solid. The action, the writing (which is sometimes a bit too complex with its many threads), and even the fusion jazz score helps with the gritty mood. But if I'm to praise something about the film as being its best component, it would be the comedy, and that is all because of Dennis Farina (Midnight Run, Manhunter). I knew right away that he wrote his own jokes. We see him hopping along on a pair of crutches after a pursuit. He's in a gym while his cop partner (Norris) is sparring. As he approaches Norris, a muscle bound personal trainer reaches for him to assist him with the crutches. Farina casually says "out of my way you side of beef". In a scene immediately after that, Norris asks Farina "how's the leg?"

"Swingin'".

Farina injects enough comedy gold to give this film a badge of honor, and help with a distinction of it being the only Chuck Norris film that surrounds the man that is solid and right.

But I cannot give all of the credit to Farina. I also have to give credit to the obvious ringleader in Andrew Davis. A little side note but, I once had to work on a backyard project where all of the actors were bad. Their lines were stagy and the writing was cardboard. When I went to edit the film, I had no choice but to use some b-roll footage of the actors when the camera would be rolling but the scene wasn't being played out. The actors would just be reacting to the people around them, and as far as anyone knew, it was just social hour. I'd have to use a squinty eye of someone reacting to someone else dropping a plate of macaroni salad, and then take that reaction and thread it into the film-itself to give the scene more dramatic weight and make it seem like the actor "meant to react that way", even though I essentially stole a candid shot that worked within the context of the film. Andrew Davis does this constantly with Chuck Norris. Never do we see a dialog scene across an office desk with both actors in the frame. It's simply an over the shoulder shot for each man to deliver his lines. You can see when the "other" guy is talking that Chuck has these almost convincing dramatic reactions to what this dude is saying. But I knew it wasn't done in real time, or within the scene. I knew it was candids used to inject some legitimacy into Chuck's barren wasteland of emotional vocabulary.

So, props to Davis for trying to milk a rock out of Norris for his otherwise solid action film.

3+

Joel

04-22-18, 09:57 AM

The Florida Project (2017)
Director: Sean Baker

The Florida Project centers around a stripper who is "raising" her little girl while living in a motel. For a good portion of the movie, we follow around the area kids as they run through the streets and break into abandoned buildings to vandalize or just horse around. Many of the scenes are distanced, so, you'll see w ide shot from about 100 ft away, and the dialog will be that far away, too. You may not be able to clearly hear a lot of the dialog. This is not very important. This film works on a mood and atmosphere.

Willem Dafoe plays the motel manager. He comes across as a good guy who may be working on rebuilding a relationship with his estranged son who he hires on as his employee. That's enough backstory to have something to go on for Dafoe's character. Many times he is pounding on stripper-mom's door to instill obvious rules like "no more hooking" or "no smoking in the room", but as much as he comes off stern and strict, he never gives the impression that he is a spiteful or mean-spirited or jaded man. He takes his job seriously and has a degree of pride ("I'm going to fix that washer by the end of the week").

He watches out for the kids, even having to aggressively escort an old pervert off of the property. We see his rage in that brief moment where he calls out a criminal's number.

Dafoe is nothing short of outstanding in this film and I feel his subtlety is among his very best work.

While the mother hustles any way she can to provide for her daughter, it's clear that she has no real parenting skills when it comes to manners or conservative attitude. She swears, smokes and instigates as she would with anyone as manic and wild as she is. Her daughter knows nothing else but this world, hanging around these kinds of people who have no pretensions. It's all just gut and reaction, violence, glee and a dead beat way of life.

This is for sure a cautionary tale, but it also serves as a windmill of chance. The picture takes you wherever it goes. It hasn't set up rules for morality, even though there are certain notes that had me welling up with tears as I felt very heavy for the mother and daughter, who really did enjoy each other's company and loved each other very much. Dafoe's character recognizes this, and you can see it on his face, th pain he shares with them as he covertly tries to help them out without drawing attention to bending motel policies.

Director Baker's camera is a mixed bag of Arri Alexa and Filmic Pro from Iphone. The mix is beautiful. The colors of these motels across the way from one another, as well as the decrepit condos are staggeringly beautiful in a dayglo and pastel overload sort of way. I believe this was a multi format picture where Baker had his DP use an iphone 6s running Filmicpro, as well as an Alexa cinema cam, and then printed the final edit onto Kodak film, which really gives TFP a dense and rich look. This is my own personal answer to the stylings of Spring Breakers, another fulked up film that turned me off, unlike TFP, which made me perk up and enjoy the images and story.

The beauty in these perfectly photographed scenes are the perfect canvas for the children narrative, where they end up in rain storms sitting in a long haired tree, or a fireworks show, or just walking on the side of a main drag as the sun projects a green and purple flare across their silhouette sundown storybook master shot.

I'd see this again, though, it'd have to be a while because this is a bit of a disturbing drama. I don't like to see such a foul place for children, but then again, the kids make it work for themselves. I suppose at the end of the day, regardless of what "normal" people see in these "white trash" lifestyles, love rules supreme, even with the blisters of violence and danger abound. There is still an innocence, and what sinner can be brought to the gallows until they are clued in that what they are and what they do, is even considered a sin by someone else's loftier standards of living. Justice does prevail, but we are not left on a note of closure, we are left on an adrenalized flight of fancy with a very uncertain future.

4.5
https://i.imgur.com/5r6PsRG.jpg

Joel

04-22-18, 10:15 AM

Joel, you should watch Mean Guns. You'll love it!

http://outlawvern.com/posters/mean_guns_1997.jpg

What's good about it? Give me one or two things. Just curious!

pahaK

04-22-18, 11:04 AM

Great to see someone else who's into 80's B-movies. There are lots of gems hidden in that pile like Liquid Sky. Will keep checking this thread out.

Joel

04-25-18, 08:24 PM

"Waiting for Guffman" is quite possibly my favourite Chris Guest film it just about beats out "A mighty wind" for me as one of the best films he's ever made. it takes the Anti-humour formula that made his mokumentaries and really drives it to its logical conclusion. its colourful and silly and fun and wonderful and I love it :D

If you dig this style of comedy man you may really like Stewart Lee he's a stand up but he's done some really good stuff :)

My friend I am still waiting for you to dish out the goods. I know you're busy with vhs deliveries and I cannot wait to see what you've cooked up! Cheers!

TYTD

05-02-18, 04:44 PM

My friend I am still waiting for you to dish out the goods. I know you're busy with vhs deliveries and I cannot wait to see what you've cooked up! Cheers!

Man I was literally working on it today ;) Should be due around June time all being well (Its literally the longest review I've done to date xD)

Joel

05-02-18, 06:03 PM

Great to see someone else who's into 80's B-movies. There are lots of gems hidden in that pile like Liquid Sky. Will keep checking this thread out.

Thank you! I had a good time with Liquid Sky.

cricket

05-06-18, 11:13 AM

I quite like Code of Silence, probably my favorite Chuck Norris film after Delta Force. You may already know this, but Dennis Farina is a former Chicago cop.

Raw Deal is a rare Arnold flick I don't like and I also loved The Florida Project.

Joel

05-06-18, 11:33 AM

I was surprised at Code of Silence. Yeah, I knew Farina was a cop. That man was funny! Ever see his "The Last Rites of Joe May"? It's solid. He's great in it.

Delta Force..love that movie. Menahem Golan made a bit of a masterpiece, esp with the super tense hijacking first half of the film.

Joel

05-11-18, 09:12 PM

GHOULIES (1985)
Dir: Luca Bervoci
https://i.imgur.com/TWiu3uc.jpg

This is not a good movie by any means but I have to bring to my own attention for posterity that Ghoulies deserves a place in history as having a strange appeal. This appeal would be the atmospheric locations within the film such as an old mansion and a cellar that seems perfectly suited for some satanic sorcery. It also has a distinction of being a "so bad it's insane" component to it. The acting ranges from competent to completely stupid. Nothing is really funny even though the laughs want to have you join in so badly. No. It's crap.

The effects are decent, and they come from John Carl Buechler, who did Troll's effects as well as many other Full Moon Features. I like glowing eyes and other glowing things. I like analog effects, sue me.

The music fit nicely in this one. Richard Band, (popular?) for ripping off Bernard Hermann's Psycho score for his Re-Animator theme, once again puts on his thick stringed ensemble to a moody set.
https://i.imgur.com/yo5jkDJ.png
There are peculiar layers to Ghoulies. It's not as commercially silly as one might expect from the poster or vhs cover art. The focus is on the mansion and the inhabitants, and much less on the actual creatures, although we do see more of the creatures near the end and in the following sequels. This film is very dark and probably legitimately satanic. But..I still like it. It's just a crazy little film.
https://i.imgur.com/nSRWKyt.png

3

Joel

05-11-18, 09:23 PM

HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE (1987)
Dir: Robert Townsend
https://i.imgur.com/2xBv3pA.jpg

There's plenty to laugh at in this un PC comedy about black stereotypes in the cinema.

Townsend writes, directs and stars in his own little movie that employs many future stars and tons of hilarious bits. Although I didn't feel that the subject matter was 100% relevant (even for 1987), it did make its point, even if that point was sometimes overshadowed by other things that kind of cancelled it out.

Hey, you're an adult, you figure it out, OK?

I'd say that fans of The Kentucky Fried Movie, The Groove Tube, and Amazon Women on the Moon will have plenty to mull over here. It's a fun movie with a few brief heartbeats, and plenty of dated corn that makes it fun and innocent.
https://i.imgur.com/GDptWk8.jpg

It's odd but, comedy isn't like this anymore, and I don't think that's a good thing, either.
https://i.imgur.com/RzfHMw5.jpg

3.5

Joel

05-11-18, 09:32 PM

THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (1988)
DIR: KEN RUSSELL

What a weird movie this is. Ken Russell, who's done some very polarizing efforts, has done it again with this film that actually stars Hugh Grant!

It's a funny movie with odd effects and odd staging. It has beautiful locations, and ridiculous asides that might make one scratch their heads asking the question "did he mean to do that?"

Chances are, yes...he did.

Quick plot: archaeologists discover a skeletal worm creature head and soon find out that their desolate farmhouse next door neighbor is a vixen bitch bent on salvaging the remains and taking over their commune for her own worm-like greed.

Say what?

Hey, I didn't write the f#cking thing, Ok?

You'll get very strange things happening here, like a dream, but still awake enough to almost bore you. The thing is, ..is that you have to stick around because things get progressively more weird as the film unravels. And believe me..it unravels.
https://i.imgur.com/sXH6NWe.gif

3+

Joel

05-11-18, 09:41 PM

THE CABLE GUY (1996)
DIR: Ben Stiller
https://i.imgur.com/2nWEBNe.jpg

I used to dismiss this movie like no one's business. I thought it was just OK and yawned at the mere mention of it. Upon watching it again I have discovered that it is a bit of a good film thanks to Stiller's direction and editing guidance as well as Jim Carrey's manic energy which reminds me of a musical prodigy. He's on fire here, especially when he mimics an old Star Trek episode and plays a schizophrenic "friend" when battling Broderick's character publicly, at a restaurant themed as a medieval coliseum.

At times The Cable Guy goes into that foul and dated 1990's place where the music tries to be trendy but backfires on itself, but, there are some good scenes, namely when the camera dollies elegantly along side the front position of a couch where Broderick and his ex girlfriend are reacquainting for a post break up movie date at home. There is some skill on display here. Stiller defintely has chops he was working out, and has yet to make into a prize film.

I enjoyed this a lot for round 4 since 1996. I'd recommend it.

3+

Joel

05-11-18, 09:51 PM

Pollock (2000)
dir: Ed Harris

Ed Harris was born to play this role and to make this movie. His study and boot camp pilgrimage feats to actually become a painter to "do his own stunts" are nothing short of inspiring.

We get a visceral image of who Jackson Pollock was. The troubled soul. The alcoholic. The artist. He abused and ridiculed himself like a child, throwing tantrums and breaking beer bottles on a country road after falling off of his bike with a case in hand.

Ed Harris is Pollock. Ed Harris actually paints in the film. We see no trickery. His hand guides the chalk alongside the blots on canvas. He throws his buckets and swashes his brushes. He took the better part of ten years to realize his preoccupation with the legendary american original.

Of course the performances are all sound, and I wish I could say that this film avoided the usual pitfalls of a Hollywood production, but it doesn't completely. Harris has been in the biz for decades so..to get his financing, he had to put asses in the seats. For this I will say that I only noticed obvious things to me, such as a maybe overdone score that seemed too whimsical, and maybe some obvious melodrama, like when Pollock's family plays the guilt card and takes him to task for being a braggart about his fame at a post six figure get together.

Other than that, ..perfect film. It really, really delves into the process and the mechanics of an artist. There isn't an unequal measurement between drama and technique. We see this guy paint, and it's beautiful!

https://i.imgur.com/oa9GXSc.png

4

Joel

05-11-18, 10:00 PM

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
Dir: Woody Allen

One of my new faves from Woody Allen. It's like this perfect storm of writing, casting and nuance between comedy and drama. Michael Caine really puts this movie in its place because his usual charm is utilized so well with the forbidden romance he has for his wife's sister.

The direction is flawless. The timing and staging of scenes seem effortless and natural but a trained eye will see that this took a lot of preparation, and for that I really appreciate it even more.

Dianne Weist kind of steals the movie, but then again, so does Barbara Hershey, who looks beautiful here, and one can certainly see why she would be the object of affection for any older man, or any younger gent who has common sense. Her simple yet complex aura comes out with straightforward dialog carefully outlined by a devastating sex appeal that can only occur when you get the real thing in front of the lens, and that's her.
https://i.imgur.com/r6ZQYVs.jpg

If I had one complaint, it'd be Woody Allen's icky final scene of him kissing all over his new wife (I won't spoil it). It just seems too gratuitous, and I can't imagine how anyone would want that wormy dude necking on them so slimy like he does. But hey! He won tons of awards so..it's OK!

4

Joel

05-11-18, 10:11 PM

into the night (1985)
dir: John Landis
https://i.imgur.com/JL1egzd.jpg

Jeff Goldblum goes into a nighttime adventure when he catches his wife being unfaithful. He meets Michelle Pfeifer and things go nutty because she's involved in smuggling gems from some bad dudes who want them. Ok, so it's a caper.

There's nothing inherently special about this film other than the mood it sets. This film is perfectly at home on laserdisc on a big screen tv in a refinished basement with a big bag of chips and salsa with some realistic radio shack brand stereo speakers being pumped by a technics receiver.

It's a star studded film that features heavy cameos, but somehow this doesn't really detract from the general premise of proceedings. The movie has real sense of place. I loved the moody shots of the diner in the middle of the night. It was magical. A better script it may have needed, but it's too late now. PRINT!
https://i.imgur.com/lFUDtHt.jpg

I enjoyed this movie even though many things were evident about it that pointed to the toilet. It's unbalanced. One minute it's a goofy comedy, and the next it turns into a dark and violent thriller. Something Wild this is not.

Landis at times can wrangle up a good movie that hits all of the notes and really leaves a lasting impression and warrants repeat viewings. This is not one of those films, although I will say, I may watch this again someday. There's just something about it I can't really put my finger on other than what I've already mentioned about it being the perfect laserdisc film in a refinished basement with snacks.

Oh wait. Michelle Pfeiffer walks across screen nude..and she is sofa king HOT!

3