View Full Version : Joel's Reviews
Putting my thoughts on certain films onto a thread since I don't share the same tastes as anyone in my zip code.
Cool. :up: Looking forward to it.
Also, I notice you share an IP with one of our most long-term regulars. Did he perhaps recommend the site? :)
Really, I share an IP? How specific is an IP address? I'm not very technical when it comes to that. I am actually brand new. I've come over from blu ray .com in hopes of landing better conversation and getting movie topics off of my chest with a better success rate lol.
Reviews will be posted soon, just need to catch some down time from work, etc. :)
Eh, it varies. You're definitely near each other IRL, though. So...cool? Anyway, no problem, just curious.
I'll have to keep my eye out for that individual in my neighborhood, especially since I need a good movie night like I used to have back in 1988.
So, the following will be super sloppy introduction and preface to my reviews:
Please forgive some of my grammar and structure as I am not adhering to rules or body in favor of getting the thoughts out, hopefully legibly.
I love movies. I consider movies very important, not so much for their political agendas or society shaping persuasions, but more for their ability to combine art, music, dance, ..the list goes on. It is an all-encompassing medium to gather the elements and make them go the way you want them to go.
I am a start up director. I have not made my first feature yet, and am not sure when I will. In the meantime, I will try and flesh out the reasons why certain films speak to me and what I've learned from them.
For example, Ghostbusters: the editing. How they ran the flowers are still standing joke underneath the cutaway shot of the ghost trap sliding across the floor. Efficiency. That old pro way of shaping films. Something as capable and classed up as Ghostbusters shows a novice what they can do if they need to push things along. There's no reason to see Bill Murray's face when he finishes that joke. It's funnier that the camera is going about its business as the joke finishes in the background.
Paris, Texas. A well received film with Sam Shepard writing in bits. I simply like the movie for its location and pace. These days I look for films to fall asleep to and not sit alongside, stressed out. I'm 40 years old, but still look 29. I act 72, have body aches like I'm 89, and still love movies like I am 8 years old.
At 8 years old, before I knew of technology and what it did, I would press my tongue up against the roof of my mouth and emulate the film soundtrack scratching by compressing my tongue and hearing it loudly in my ears. I did this before my imagination painted the sky as a mesh screen, opening up my own film, while swinging on a rope and wooden seat attached to a tree in my backyard. For hours. Every day. That was the foundation.
That was the foundation alongside the sound design and music score to Blade Runner, which I witnessed (pun) at the drive ins, back to back with Sharky's Machine. Wow. I had never seen anything like it. Han Solo having his face sat on by a blonde android, being choked to death. Innocence lost at that moment.
I like the simple pleasures in films. I tend to ignore politics for the most part. I'm limited in my knowledge of how the world works. I aim to keep it that way. Show me something shiny and I'll fixate.
Good poster art, or video box art, crappy movie? No problem. As a kid, you fill in the blanks. Sure, you're frustrated by the reality of what you've seen, but your imagination is being primed to create something that lives up to the cover art or poster.
The Quiet Earth, one of the few films that lived up to it's cover art. That was a good day for rentals.
I'll write more later.
I'm just testing with this post. Going to try and insert a picture, try a few tricks and then delete.
courier font.
http://C:\Users\morymb\Desktop
My first review is on a cologne.
United Benneton Colors for men UOMO.
You may think it spells like Old Spice at first, but within an hour, it'll smell like a lemon and a light vanilla. It stays close to the skin after an obnoxious opening. A mid range nose blaster.
Now, here's a picture, as a test.
WITCHBOARD (1987)
Director: Kevin S. Tenney
I saw Witchboard back in 1987 when I was 11 years old per a recommendation from my flighty, tarot card toting step mother, whom I'd visit occasionally on the weekends, where she'd let me watch whatever I wanted and smoke her menthol cigarettes.
Things that immediately impressed me with this movie was the acting, which was not the usual overdone/underdone kind of amateur hour acting you'd see in a b-picture with a title like "Witchboard". The characters were kind of interesting and played it very real and natural. This may have been due to some soap opera chops from the co lead as well as a charm from then model Tawny Kitaen, amongst other cast that seemed right at home in their roles.
Whatever the real reasons were, if not these, director Kevin S. Tenney made a great little thriller of a movie. This was his peak at film making. The camera work was clever, the music was creepy and some of the locations were pitch perfect for a haunted story. Mix those aspects in with solid acting and you have a picture that shouldn't be as good as it is with the title and budget, but there you go.
I think Witchboard works still today because of this reason. The casting was well done. It wasn't haphazard casting. The director was clearly concerned with getting a good team on board for the production that shared a chemistry. As good as Return of the Living Dead was, it was not good when it came to caring for characters. Thom Mathews and James Karen were a real barrel of laughs, but the rest of the cast was kind of disposable, in a way.
This movie Witchboard is a rare type of film. It isn't A material, but it at least tries to aim for a serious dramatic horror. I'm convinced that it would not work as camp. If ROTLD tried to be any more serious, that film would not have worked.
Witchboard has earned repeat viewings from me over the years, and now sits in my collection, preserved in high definition, waiting for another go.
As a horror film goes, I usually rate for atmosphere and acting (good or bad doesn't matter as much to me as entertaining)).
http://projectdeadpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Witchboard.jpg
I'm giving Witchboard a pretty healthy rating of 4
DAVID BRENT: LIFE ON THE ROAD (2017)
Director: Ricky Gervais
If there is one downfall to Ricky Gervais's craft as a film maker or writer, it's his cloying tendency to overcook his sympathetic characters. He sometimes leaves you no room to build your own affection for his string pulling, and instead you may feel as if you are being hit over the head with "like me", "feel bad for me", "see how decent I am?" This is especially evident in his Netflix series "Dereck" where you could pour an episode over flapjacks and make a custard out of your breakfast. But I don't discount Ricky Gervais as a man without vision or talent. He is on top of his game,comedically, and seems to get better as years roll on with his mixture of comedy and drama.
His latest comedy "Life on the Road" proves two things:
One, is that he still has his chops, and has developed a mature blend of comedy/drama that doesn't resolve with an attack on people that hate him nearly as much as it used to ("the laughter of hate")
.
Two, is that even though his craft has improved, he still hasn't exercised his judgment in a way that has his work realized for a worldwide release, equipped with an evenness that would garner more acclaim for his skill.
http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2016/07/David-Brent-Life-on-the-Road-Posters-slice.jpg
Life on the Road has all of the same kinds of jokes and dramatic overtones that made Gervais's previous work succeed, yet it doesn't tie things up very neatly. His shift from obnoxious to sentimental and emotional is like a jump cut.
If he had added an extra 5-7 minutes of footage to pad the transition from the body of the film into that ending of his, I am confident that Life on the Road would be a small masterpiece.
I will probably always tune into Ricky Gervais as an entertainer, as his brand is up my alley. I like that he body shames himself. I like that he pokes fun at his real life failure as a musician. I also admire that his "it" factor is why someone the same weight and height as Gervais can't figure out why they can't land a deal in the biz as a comedian. Ricky's charisma goes a long stretch. His power truly comes from his humanity.
He's a guy that has made peace, for the most part, with himself, a long time ago, and once that handshake took place, he was able to manifest a big, silly joke wrapped around a bittersweet center.
He may not be the best film maker, and he may not always write the most subtle scripts, but his intentions seem legit and his self esteem is inspiring, if not a bit catty and tiresome after a while.
Ricky Gervais - 5
David Brent: Life on the Road - 3
Back when Vestron Video was spitting out films on VHS, I rented...
https://alchetron.com/Deathstalker-(film)-17361-W#-
cricket
03-03-17, 09:35 PM
I also watched Witchboard back in 1987. I watched it for Tawny and really liked it. When I last saw it a few years ago, I thought how did I like this crap.
Welcome to the site:)
DEATHSTALKER (1983)
Director: James Sbardellati
Back when Vestron Video was spitting out releases onto VHS like gangbusters, I rented a sword and sorcery film I thought may hold up against titan films like "Excalibur". This film was "Deathstalker." Was I wrong? Boy, was I wrong? Not really...
https://forgottenfilmcast.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/deathstalker-8.png
Deathstalker has been slayed by critics who've cared to comment and pretty much ostracized by any average film goer who has seen it.
I'm guessing the reasons why, are the amount of ridiculous things taking place.
Patchwork dubbing (English speaking film, but ADR is a real bitche), over the top violence, aggressive male domination onto a female specimen (more than once), a lack of poetic narrative. Just to name a few reasons, those should be enough for now.
What I think some people do not appreciate is that Deathstalker was and is a film that has a really neat way of unfolding, strictly from a film making point of view. There isn't much of a story that hasn't been told better before, but the cinematography takes on a soft, hazy, dreamlike quality and coupled with the matted effects and light show, this film really does stand up as a small work of art, regardless of the abundance of soft X rated material on display.
I like naked chicks and I like people getting beat over the head with limbs from time to time. This movie definitely does not take itself seriously at all in that respect. It delivers the goods for the popcorn crowd, bored on a Thursday night, or maybe a sleepover session.
What Deathstalker falls short on with epic storytelling is replaced with what Deathstalker nails with epic effects and entertainment value. You don't walk into this film taking it as an Arthurian contender, rather, you sit down and watch well executed light effect work being stacked up and creating a very contrasted atmosphere with the visuals.
I can only relate to my own opinion and cannot try to convince anyone of the coolness factor regarding film stock and effect work as enough justification to believe Deathstalker is an important film, but I can express my like for this film by summing it up with one word: Analog.
If these effects and sets were replaced with that disgustingly smooth and artificial looking CGI garbage that can't even catch the same environmental light and shading, then Deathstalker would be as bad as some people say it is.
But it isn't that bad. It's actually quite good as a sword and sorcery film with some bonus material in the form of breasts and fishing wire.
The story does move along in an industry standard format. The editing does ensure this. The use of dialog bits running underneath scene changes is a quilt job that reminds people with a craftsman eye that "by any means necessary" is the name of the game when you're on a budget.
Before I suspected anything about craft or technology, I was entertained by Deathstalker. I liked the look of it, I liked the music, and I certainly didn't mind seeing scenes acted out where a dominant male warrior takes his feeding of sexual urge. Look closer, she didn't mind. I know that sounds awful, but these are medieval times. Excuse me, were medieval times. Sorry.
It's a cool movie. Best on blu ray for the full effect of effect work. Nice, simple, glowy swords, lightning crawls, clairvoyant imagery, mood lighting at night. I mean, if we're going tit(pun) for tat here, "Excalibur" (a tremendous film) had brutal sex scenes, and I don't believe they were very pure at heart.
I am just saying...Try watching Jim Wynorski's unforgivable Deathstalker II and you'll be running to part 1 like it's oxygen.
http://i.imgur.com/dhhfXqo.jpg
https://forgottenfilmcast.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/deathstalker-6.png
3.5
SPRING FORWARD(2001)
Director: Tom Gilroy
Ned Beatty may best be remembered for his portrayal of a little fat man who got taken advantage of in "Deliverance", or the little fat man who was sidekick to Gene Hackman in "Superman".
But to remember him the very best, you should seek out a quiet little film released back at the turn of the century called "Spring Forward" where Beatty is able to really shine as an actor and not humiliate himself and limit himself as a character actor. Late in his career, this is truly a comeback kid story that went unreported for the most part.
The basic premise is that Beatty's character is a town worker who does some landscaping, park cleaning, equipment transport - who then takes on a new apprentice (played by Liev Schreiber, who turns out a remarkably likable performance).
From their introduction, we are treated to a slowly paced, yet very touching and humorous chill out movie about redemption, friendship and starting over.
I really cannot recommend this film enough if you are into character movies that are not in a rush to get somewhere.
The only real criticism of this I have is that it contains a scene in the last act that I felt could've been taken out, as it really didn't do anything to enrich the story and disappeared as quickly as it came into focus.
That quip aside, I can still rate this film the highest box count I am able to.
http://i.imgur.com/qG1sXre.jpg
rating_5
https://australianfilmreview.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ned-beatty-liev-schreiber.jpg
MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE (1986)
Director: Stephen King
Karl Lorimar had been my source for catching Maximum Overdrive back on home video glory days. I had seen the tv spot and was intrigued, but missed the theatrical showing. I now know why because according to most of the general public, Maximum Overdrive is silly garbage.
I love movies with a sense of place. A great location. Wilmington, NC was great for this film. King is an enormously gifted writer and can really get his characters dealt out on many different human levels for the reader, so it does not surprise me that Maximum Overdrive has moments of small brilliance just in some of the choices made such as casting a few parts (NOT Emilio or Laura Harrington).
Pat Hingle, John Short, both great in their parts. They help carry this silly movie. AC/DC doing the soundtrack seems a novice mistake but, they manage one cue at the sunset scene overlooking the landscape where you hear the ditch ridden Bible salesman shriek out in the distance. Simple things like this add a lot to a movie like Maximum Overdrive.
All the choices with look and feel are dead-on. The neighborhoods, the title card with it's yellow color, but on further inspection, holds a metallic sheen.
http://i.imgur.com/L6LTlm6.jpg
Details like oily mechanics letting their morbid curiosities get the best of them by looking at a trail of blood already curdling in the summer heat. "Well go look at it somewhere else!".
Bullets flying around like fireflies, glowing orange, as the alien force is finally heard with a buzzing and monster gargle filter driven sound while we are aimed at the front of the final scene with Green Goblin Semi.
Green cloud haze hanging and moving up and down slowly above the Dixie Boy pump hood late at night. The comet's particles.
Fresh blood spattered on the side of the abandoned gas station building as a man closeby, slightly obstructed by a parapet wall, is lying, disheveled, on the ground, dead. Blood in the strangest places. Blood on the clock, outside, in broad daylight, while the clock is running backwards, its hands confused. How the hell did blood get up there on the apex of the building of the pitch roofed gas station. Impossible. Unforgettable.
Deserted highway, a single white sedan with a "Just Married" dragging off of the back.
I mean, King wrote this stuff better than I am writing it, but all the same, you can tell it had been written.
King may have dismissed the film as a "moron movie", but coked out of his face or not, part of me believes King secretly is proud of Maximum Overdrive. I believe King lost his audience on this movie not because he screwed up so royally, but rather that his audience wasn't capable of making the transition from page to screen. King should have kept going. It would've been brilliant by now, especially if he went back to his peak writing era and took it by the horns.
I know Maximum Overdrive is silly and has some really bad and overdone acting that grates on the nerves "wee maaade youuu!!!", but I cannot help but like it for what it does succeed at. It's just a peculiar movie, and I always get some enjoyment out of it.
But yeah, the machine gun cart automatically turning aim is pretty stupid. And how can ..you know what, never mind.
I have both of my hands pressed over my ears and am screaming "Make America Great Again!" over and over and over...do not try and convince me that I shouldn't like Maximum Overdrive because it just ain't gonna happen.
http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/maximum-overdrive-movie-review-gas-station-semis-trucks-stephen-king.jpg
3.5
MASCOTS (2017)
Director: Christopher Guest
Christopher Guest isn't nearly as powerful a director without his key ingredients, most notably, the co-writing of Eugene Levy and the screen presence of Catherine O' Hara and Michael McKean.
So when someone wonders why his latest film "Mascots" has failed so miserably, they can refer to the first sentence of this review.
Had Eugene and Catherine not been tied up with the much superior "Schitt's Creek", "Mascots" may have had a fighting chance. But I waited 10 years for the new ensemble from Guest and company and I was pissed at what I got.
Here's to hoping, if there is a next time, that all of the key players are involved again. And please give Harry Shearer and Fred Willard more screen time. Guffman and Best in Show are hard acts to follow, so it's a shame that the writing team of those films weren't together for the latest entry.
And I'm sorry, but nothing deflates my cinematic boner more than seeing "NETFLIX" scrolled before the movie opens its first frame. Ugh! Those dudes need to seriously change their film division name to something a little less cheap sounding.
rating_2
And I'm sorry, but nothing deflates my cinematic boner more than seeing "NETFLIX" scrolled before the movie opens its first frame. Ugh! Those dudes need to seriously change their film division name to something a little less cheap sounding.
Amazon/Netflix logos are the new Paramount/Columbia logos. Every generation gets the movie studios they deserve
Gideon58
03-06-17, 07:09 PM
Ned Beatty may best be remembered for his portrayal of a little fat man who got taken advantage of in "Deliverance", or the little fat man who was sidekick to Gene Hackman in "Superman".
[/IMG]
Liked your review of this film...Beatty is one of the industry's most underrated talents and I love Liev Schreiber too...will be adding this one to my watchlist.
Amazon/Netflix logos are the new Paramount/Columbia logos. Every generation gets the movie studios they deserve
And apparently the movies, too.
Citizen Rules
03-07-17, 01:08 PM
Can I give you a tip? Put the title of the movie in bigger font, at the start of your review. At a glance it's hard to tell what movies you're reviewing, without actually reading the review.
Can I give you a tip? Put the title of the movie in bigger font, at the start of your review. At a glance it's hard to tell what movies you're reviewing, without actually reading the review.
Yeah absolutely. My initial post disclaimer (ed) the review format. Now that I have more know-how and time, I'll spruce em up, thanks!
Liked your review of this film...Beatty is one of the industry's most underrated talents and I love Liev Schreiber too...will be adding this one to my watchlist.
I'm confident you will enjoy it :)
Placeholder/Reminder..review Lone Star. I've been wanting to really get my thoughts out about that film. Peculiar story on that one.
LONE STAR (1996)
Director: John Sayles
Back in 1996 or so, I used to frequent a little art theater that would show everything from "Smilla's Sense of Snow" to "Sling Blade" to "Novocaine" to "Ghost World". I was around 22 years old, and it really took a lot from a movie to keep me in the seat back then.
I saw a teaser poster for "Lone Star" outside while I was having a cigarette, and was intrigued. I decided to roll the dice and check out this film I knew nothing about. I was with my life long movie buddy. We were both a little excited to see this, judging by the poster, which seemed to indicate a crazy thriller. Since we were well aware this was an art house theater, we both figured that this film would have something about it that transcended the thriller genre into something more profound and particular.
http://i.imgur.com/ruqwf6X.jpg
About an hour into the film, we both looked at each other and decided that we would finish the film, but were not happy with what we were seeing. Boring, dull, too long, went absolutely nowhere.
Too "adult" for our tastes.
As we walked out, I glanced another Lone Star poster inside of the lobby, this time with some critical blurbs going on and on about what a masterful film this was, and how John Sayles really triumphed.
My friend and I had already been a fan of Sayles's "Brother from Another Planet", so when we saw the teaser poster outside, we had at least that for ammunition and incentive.
We balked at the write ups on the theatrical poster and muttered things like "Pretentious reviewers", "Naked Emperor", so on and so forth.
A few minutes later, in the car, I kept wandering back to Lone Star. Telling my friend that maybe we didn't give it a fair shake, or that maybe we were watching it in the wrong environment (that was back when we thought seeing any movie in a theater was the right environment). He looked at me like I was nuts and said something like "You can watch that trash again, I'm all set. I have zero interest".
So I did watch it again, some 2 or 3 years later. I made it to about 40 mins in, and then I shut it off again. I called my friend and told him what I had done. He was dismissive and once again lectured me to just give it up, and stay away from "Lone Star".
I was on a mission. I did not like to dismiss a film if I wasn't 100% sure that it was unworthy...and I did remember some convincing critical sentences on the poster and possibly even in a newspaper.
I don't know exactly how many years later it was, but I finally watched Lone Star for the 3rd time (or 3rd attempt). I think I finally got it.
http://i.imgur.com/FK0lfVk.jpg
I couldn't be sure, but I think I may have finally seen part of the light on the film. The reason why critics applauded it. I called my friend again to report my progress. Once again, he was a bit dismissive and remarked that he would check it out on VHS at some point and get back to me. He was not in any sort of rush to do that, though.
Finally, at about age 29, I watched Lone Star again, giving it my full attention, uninterrupted..comfortably sitting in my recliner, with a tasty beverage and not much else on my mind.
I saw an incredible film. A layered mystery with pitched performances across the board, beautiful cinematography, incredible scene transitions, a real sense of place and a mind bender of an ending. I saw the writing, and how it was so meticulous and nuanced. Everything just clicked. I realize that "Brother from Another Planet" was not Sayles's best film. Lone Star was..to me...so far.
I have to confess, it may have taken an additional 2 more times of watching this film after my revelation to fully understand and appreciate the scope of this epic drama, but that's just how it was for me. I am not the most literate or cultured person. But I was determined to join the club and be amongst the positive reviews because I really like John Sayles. I just didn't know why I liked him. I knew I liked something, I just wasn't sure what.
Since my Lone Star "awakening", I have been enjoying other, more obscure John Sayles pictures. I consider Lone Star a personal victory for me as well as John Sayles. He made a picture for adults, and I became one, destined to enjoy his film I found so repellent at a young age.
http://i.imgur.com/BkWEayK.jpg
5
BREAKFAST WITH CURTIS (2013)
Director: Laura Colella
Before I started this movie, I had already mostly made up my mind that I would not like it.
I had seen way too many hipster-indie movies lately - most involving either a moped, a unicorn, rainbows, lots of great big, bushy beards, go kart helmets, thick black rimmed glasses and ukulele/glockenspiel music scores all sounding like everyone with a half a mil was investing their money into aping Wes Anderson's Rushmore (which is a terrific, highly original film). I also had reservations about a possible "Napolean Dynamite" vibe that was not welcome in my head at that moment because I had felt that movie ran its course years ago.
Nevertheless, I started the movie. Within about 5-7 minutes, I was already worried at what I was seeing. A hippie commune, is it? I have nothing against hippies, it's just that I generally don't like them very much. They strike me as hypocritical extremists who use a gentle front to be aggressive and s.h.i.t.t.y. Then again, I'm not a hard nosed war monger. I had just been through the ringer with hippies already in my life and didn't want to spend the next 2 hrs watching them pretend to be on a higher artistic and spiritual plane while they spit venom about anyone with a different point of view..
But none of that happened. I was wrong. I can relax now. Man am I uptight!
Yes, it's about hippies. But it's awesome. It's funny, fiendish, very offbeat, not pretentious in a way that will make you ill. It's straight forward and the acting doesn't even exist.
This is a documentary fiction film. Everyone's performance is so naturalistic, you'd swear that they weren't even aware of a camera at all.
I won't spoil the plot, but be prepared for a very cool movie. I don't know how to describe it. I don't think I want to describe it. It's just a good movie that makes you feel good in a non conventional way.
http://i.imgur.com/bq3BMUa.jpg
"Breakfast with Curtis" is funny and interesting all the way through. It earns its stripes to stand head and shoulders above the many clone hipster indy flicks out there. It doesn't trick you and throw you into a disturbing place to try and be edgy or profound. You're safe with this film. I can call this a film, even though it was shot on a Canon high end digital system. This is a film. There should be more like it. Laura Collela, the director, deserves more budget and more time off from work. She made a great picture. Truly great.
5
THE STATION AGENT (2003)
Director: Tom McCarthy
"The Station Agent" stars Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones) as a small man who goes into a semi-retirement after he moves into a railroad cart sized property he inherits from a close friend.
All he wants is peace and quiet, as he has been in combat with his own insecurities for the better part of his life.
Soon enough, potential friendship comes knocking, and from there we are treated to a maturely paced comedy drama film about hobbies, interactions and the bonds formed with an uncommon mixture of people who differ vastly from one another.
http://i.imgur.com/fH9D9ew.png
The performance of Dinklage in particular, is what really sets this movie apart from just a typical road movie, or stationary road movie, as it were. Peter's controlled demeanor and low key reactions really let the other cast come through as a perfect collaboration, giving the picture a great dynamic range, lending itself to a more poetic scene-by-scene layout. You can see how this film was probably a real joy to edit. Every new page of the script is endowed with enough breathing room to really encompass locations and mood.
This is the kind of movie that needs to be seen relaxed and attentive. Though it is not an action film, the run time feels easy, and the conclusion is very satisfying.
It's a beautiful film that deserves all of the accolades it has and will receive.
5
SPLIT (1989)
Director: Chris Shaw
http://i.imgur.com/yny1TJb.png
Once upon a time a mathematician made a low budget sci-fi comedy that went virtually unnoticed direct to video. The effects used were rendered frame by frame with live models, and were also representative of some of the very first use of CGI.
http://i.imgur.com/qkTa2yB.jpg
Though this did get some press at the time, it has since been forgotten and ushered out of public eye by weak distribution and a seemingly reclusive director Chris Shaw.
Picture George Orwell at a dinner party with Alex Cox. That is "Split".
There is a keen sense of awareness on display from Director Shaw much like that of Alex Cox's "Repo Man". Shaw's characters aren't stupid, and if they appear stupid, they are only pretending to be really stupid.
http://i.imgur.com/kV1oQ8b.jpg
A man uses multiple disguises to harbor the secret god particle from the mad man government.
Our protagonist dodges dangerous operatives, spy plants and waitresses. His sugar addiction has him manic, but his panic runs much deeper. He is seen eluding art snobs, extremists and even veterinarians.
Scenes weave from exotic location to picturesque America.
Camera movements are particular and elaborate.
Transitions are acid trip inspired.
On screen personalities waver from anchored to completely fried within a minute at a time. Dialog is clever and concise, shrouded in an obnoxious tone.
http://i.imgur.com/5q4ks6h.jpg
The viewer has to look past the budgetary limitations and surrender to the complete weirdness. If one does this as they should, one will be rewarded with a thought provoking comedy.
This is a film not to miss for cerebral types with a healthy and twisted sense of humor.
http://i.imgur.com/dyE1cWa.png
4
http://i.imgur.com/Deuq0xi.jpg
"Fedoras", a 1930's prohibition era crime comedy isn't quite up to the task it's been called on to perform. While some of the performances are decent, and some of the lighter moments at least show promise, the whole experience just feels uneven and amateur.
At almost 30 minutes, this backyard production is missing one key ingredient that may have made the difference between Fedoras being a minor cult offering and a major chore to sit through: the editing.
It is not only guilty of being too schizophrenic tone wise, but it is also lazy. This should have never been released as it is. There are things that teeter on the brink of plausibility, only to be sideswiped by a completely ridiculous stroke of what I can only describe as mental retardation. This is inexcusable. The laziness is in the editing. As complex as it tries to be with cross cutting and time lapse parlor tricks, it simply cannot save the lack of direction and cohesive narrative.
http://i.imgur.com/v65D8JS.jpg
Who are these people? Where are these people? Why are these people acting like these people? We get nothing. Rarely do we even get the courtesy of a master shot to reveal the surroundings, never do we get a transitional shot of any kind of exterior, and constantly do we get establishing close-ups with rushed pacing so that by the time we realize what is supposed to be happening, we're on to the next scene, underwhelmed and underfed.
http://i.imgur.com/Ic0AVpk.jpg
There are some nice touches by some of the cast, most notably Jimmy Mancini in the role of Padraic, a wise assed Irish Sicilian upstart bent on standing tall against his many loan shark associates. Dan Liebman has a nice couple of scenes as well, playing a transitioning henchman to Padraic, ready to join another crime family. The problem with his peformance isn't him, again, it's back to the editing. During his rare master shots, we are shocked at how stiff his lines are, but when we get his close ups he is in the pocket, totally immersed in his character. Why do I strongly suspect that the editor used the outtake shots for his masters and then haphazardly inserted the close ups to try and bring the scene home? Clearly, this is what happened. Liebman is far too skilled to be deserving of such carelessness.
Then we have the music. As new age and dark as it may be, the soundtrack to Fedoras cannot decide whether it wants to put across a Giorgio Moroder, a Michael Mann or a John Carpenter styled score. If they had picked one style, it may have worked, but all these different tones are just confusing and make zero sense, especially against the scenes in which they run under. "Ladyhawke" comes to mind. Luckily, there was no studio that lost money on this decision. Fedoras was made with absolutely no budget, whatsoever.
There are some good things about this truncated and short lived series-made-film short that shine through. The performances, almost across the board, have a bit of weight behind them. There is real passion in a good portion of the acting. It is an interesting cast. It's just such a letdown that the editing doesn't give them a chance.
http://i.imgur.com/5in2Zkr.jpg
The biggest problem, aside from the editing, is the fact that the editor was also responsible for the music, the sound, about 75% of the camera work and even some of the re-writes. This was a big mistake. Not because a capable hand shouldn't have that much power over a piece of work, but rather because the project was never seen through. It becomes clear from the disjointed sequencing, the incorrect eye lines between dialog driven scenes and the uneven pace that the editor/composer/script doctor/boom operator/camera operator just had too much on their plate.
The real crime in this crime daydream is the troubled scenes were not re filmed, re-edited and re-released proper. The train just stopped and what we are left with is a mess of a movie. To me it doesn't matter what the reasons were. It doesn't matter that the producer may have abandoned the project, or that some of the actors moved away, or that some behind the scene romance wrecked working relationships. What matters to me is what I see, and what I see is a missed opportunity for something truly original, unique and filled with potential, had this film short become an ongoing series.
http://i.imgur.com/PMiNdQM.jpg
I'm giving Fedoras a solid 3 boxes of kernels for the effort, but nothing higher because of the laziness. The auteur responsible for this crap shoot should have gotten what they needed and not given up until it was in the can.
3
cricket
03-11-17, 07:51 PM
It's been a few years but I remember really liking Lone Star and disliking Maximum Overdrive.
It's been a few years but I remember really liking Lone Star and disliking Maximum Overdrive.
Yeah well, I can see Maximum Overdrive being a film that turns people off. It is a joke of a movie. I was milking a rock because I have nostalgia for it. I do that quite a bit lol.
THE
http://i.imgur.com/X1WST7y.jpg
Back in 1987 on T.V. at age 11 I kept seeing spots for "The Hidden". The ads would interview casual moviegoers as they exited the theater, and comments would range from "wild!" to "knock your socks off!".
I decided I had to see this film. I had never seen such conviction before.
When I finally was able to see it, it came as a rental from a convenience store (back when this was just starting to become a thing).
I had a strong case of butterflies, and made sure no one was around so I could give this picture my full attention.
What I saw was not at all what I expected. There was a very mellow mood about it. It had explosions, gunfire, gore, profanity, sexuality..everything an 11 year old would want in a movie they're not supposed to be watching. But it was different than what I thought it would be. It wasn't some shrouded sci-fi with other-worldly atmospherics as I had imagined it would be.
The Hidden was a light movie that I knew as soon as it finished, that I would have to see again and again. There were layers to it. It mixed comedy, suspense, science fiction and drama. It was like a tough cop picture with a style I latched on to immediately.
The beige Porsche 928, the gray fine tailored suits, the machined editing, strange colors of light laser beams that emitted a choral hum, glowing green matter around the title card, new wave punk music toted around by a gastro challenged middle aged grump. bad stripper with a gold jacket, bureaucratic daytime contrasted with Summer city night chases through a warehouse filled with mannequins. This movie was on fire with style and sophistication. And it was just a genre picture? If it was a B-movie, it was made like a Hollywood blockbuster that was closer to a Tony Scott or even a Martin Brest aesthetic than it was to a shoestring budget picture it got compared to.
Jack Sholder, the guy who did that Nightmare on Elm Street sequel directed this one. How did he do that? It was like a magic trick. Everything was tight and delivered with that after hour adult tone that I usually only saw when sneaking into the cellar to catch my Aunt and Uncle laughing it up to La Cage Aux Folles. But this wasn't a gay romp like Birds of a Feather or a Nightmare on Elm Street Part II were. This was a macho movie with a light touch. That's what made it interesting. A shoot em' up action thriller made with a boutique sensibility.
Bringing this all home is a music score by Michael Covertino who uses unconventional brass and percussive,stabbing sounds of music that taper back into a haunted refrain.
Like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7H5JVe4Z8&feature=youtu.be
To keep going with this review would only be tiresome at this point. Here are some shots I cap'd and found of the picture.
4.5
http://i.imgur.com/9ltP5FN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AoWjHu4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qP2WQku.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N7NpmbF.jpg
cricket
03-17-17, 08:46 PM
Love The Hidden, always have.
Love The Hidden, always have.
Be great if they put it out on blu ray and ported over the commentary with a few extra features like a new documentary.
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Director's Cut)
http://i.imgur.com/OS98GYQ.jpg
Two things save this movie from mediocrity;
The return of Brad Fiedel's updated moody score, and James Cameron's devoted coverage of action scenes. The music keeps the same sense of despair and claustrophobic dread as the original, thus maintaining the Terminator trademark that adheres the importance of tone in the first act of the film, as well as intermittent sections of the length overall run time of this big 102$ million budget blockbuster extravaganza.
Director Cameron's coverage allows for a breathable edit pace, enabling a rhythmic and crowd pleasing sustenance that holds water throughout the run time. There is certainly plenty of room here to see what happens, with a perfectly timed cadence, where the final cut proceeds to stick to a dramatic beat that evades patchwork and projects a cocksure riff fest, filled with nuances that will titillate the discerning film buff.
Also saving T2 are some of the thematic elements in the script such as humanistic qualities within the Terminator's soul chip reset and militant bonding, with a brief example on display in the form of a hand slap pump between Hamilton and her supposed longtime Mexican desert refugee supply connection (refer to Aliens for a similar style of "we're in this together" mentality). Cameron keeps some strong emotional beats in T2 which definitely help the overall digestion, if not completely deter some of the more convenient plotting that render this sequel into a hard R rated Disney foray. ("God, it hurts" - refer to the A-Team. Nice programming, kid. "He'll live")
The visual effects in T2 are somewhat flawless, if you do not account for the hair pin improvements in visual rendering since. The sound design is deliberate, sectioning off transitions to blend with real dramatic flair, as well as feathered necessity.
The liquid metal villain does exactly what it was intended, and one may get a sense of the absolute tedium that the effect crew and Cameron must have gone through to ensure that every effect shot was not only adequate, but would transcend the passage of time to be equipped to stand up in an age far removed from the 20th century.
The inventiveness continues along at top speed as Cameron and his tech crew create ever changing scenarios in which we see the evil Terminator transpose in a chameleon-like way, reacting to taking on tones and shapes of safety rails and diamond plate staging. As unfounded as these technical revolutions may be, they are nonetheless fascinating in a visceral sense, and propel the viewer through the obligatory action-filler scenes with enough zeal to guarantee a ride that is not boring.
Terminator part II does not take itself too seriously with it's dialog and some of the elements of story, but when it is locked into its mechanized overtures, stand back. It is an amazing, technically sound film with nary a flaw save for maybe a sped up nitrogen tanker 18 wheeler and a dummy tumble shot in high speed. But who cares? Where details matter, T2 keeps the mucky tone of the original Terminator, and injection molds some fresh, new and fiscally beneficial energy into a franchise that could have afforded to end right here, at Terminator 2: Judgment Day. And as hammy and overblown as it may come off at times, it's a film better appreciated on a 2nd or 3rd viewing, as the first time may be too intense to soak everything in.
http://i.imgur.com/keN4muc.png
4
BEVERLY HILLS COP III (1994)
Director: John Landis
I tried, for my 4th time, to sit through this film. I could not do it. I can't and I won't. It's simply an awful film. The very few things that may work on a technical level are so quickly overshadowed by large, dopey contrivances, that the second you register what may have been OK, you realize sharply what this movie is about. What is this movie about?
A stupid and boring fun park, no John Ashton, they SHOT the captain from Detroit right after a motown musical number that belonged in an outtake credit roll for a completely different movie!
WHO CARES?!!?!?!!
SUCKS!!!!!!!!!
I hate this movie with every fiber of my being. It's a sickly cash in on a once great film. Well, I mean, the first film is still great regardless, but seeing this movie will stain the memories. You have to never see this. Never ever.
1
http://i.imgur.com/15o44nu.jpg
FUNNY MAN
(1994)
Director: Simon Sprackling
Here's a movie I would have never, ever seen had it not been for me scouring ebay for a dvd copy of "Future-Kill", the 1984 punk/slasher turkey. "Funny Man" came as a package deal with the purchase, and the price was right, so I got them both.
I let this film sit on my shelf for about 3 months and then finally watched it last night.
Absolutely insane movie.
Basically, it's about a record producer who wins a hand at a card game and is given a mansion as his winning from an intense older gent played by Christopher Lee. Once the man arrives at his new home, him and his friends begin to experience real trouble with a demonic jester who wreaks havoc on everyone, but not without throwing in jokes and breaking the 4th wall continuously.
Director Sprackling totally acknowledges his humor is turned up to 11, and a lot of the time you sense he is laughing at his own jokes, but they aren't all that funny all of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/c9vvvGE.jpg
There are some really inspired scenes in Funny Man, and the gore is pretty disgusting and brutal. A dark and twisted tone hangs above the film until it unmasks itself in the last minute. I won't spoil anything, and I don't think this is a movie to rush out and see, but I will give it a passing mark for being highly original and having some really good atmosphere to it. Very creative film, for what it is. Those who like top shelf movies with strong acting and stories will need to look elsewhere as this is not something to consider, ever, for as long as you live.
http://i.imgur.com/1a1L3R2.jpg
The film is completely bonkers. I am actually very surprised that this isn't a bigger cult hit. It has all the ingredients that make "one of those movies", yet it is virtually invisible.
Funny Man is indeed full throttle and in your face, and it is a bit of a shame that nothing is really out there about it. Luckily, with a dvd purchase, you get tons of features, a big booklet insert which is a production diary, director commentary and some nice slipcover action to boot.
Worth it for the die hard b movie weirdo hounds.
http://i.imgur.com/oNOBJ3v.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Adpk9IV.jpg
3
re93animator
03-21-17, 10:55 PM
SPLIT (1989)
Director: Chris Shaw
4
This looks so awesome; my cup of tea. Thanks for the review! I'm now in pursuit...
EDIT:
I've been browsing the rest of the thread. We seem to have somewhat similar taste. I'm really looking forward to whatever else you're planning. Lone Star and Witchboard have been added to my watchlist.
Paris, Texas. A well received film with Sam Shepard writing in bits. I simply like the movie for its location and pace. These days I look for films to fall asleep to and not sit alongside, stressed out. I'm 40 years old, but still look 29. I act 72, have body aches like I'm 89, and still love movies like I am 8 years old.
At 8 years old, before I knew of technology and what it did, I would press my tongue up against the roof of my mouth and emulate the film soundtrack scratching by compressing my tongue and hearing it loudly in my ears. I did this before my imagination painted the sky as a mesh screen, opening up my own film, while swinging on a rope and wooden seat attached to a tree in my backyard. For hours. Every day. That was the foundation.
That was the foundation alongside the sound design and music score to Blade Runner, which I witnessed (pun) at the drive ins, back to back with Sharky's Machine. Wow. I had never seen anything like it. Han Solo having his face sat on by a blonde android, being choked to death. Innocence lost at that moment.
Good poster art, or video box art, crappy movie? No problem. As a kid, you fill in the blanks. Sure, you're frustrated by the reality of what you've seen, but your imagination is being primed to create something that lives up to the cover art or poster.
The Quiet Earth, one of the few films that lived up to it's cover art. That was a good day for rentals.
I'll write more later.
I appreciate you sir. I remember the days of going off cover art in Blockbuster. It led to such tour de forces as Adrenalin Fear the Rush, The Dentist, and Rottweiler. Dose wuh da days.
re93animator,
Thanks, man! I started your thread, as well a few days ago. I plan on going back. I agree we seem to have tastes on the same page. I appreciate ya right back!
BLUE THUNDER (1983)
Director: John Badham
http://i.imgur.com/brdsl5T.png
http://i.imgur.com/5O8ktd5.jpg
Well...it's about a helicopter. A souped up military experiment chopper that can hear through walls with a telescopic microphone, a camera zoom range of thousands of feet, a thermograph that can see through walls, a database that acts as a personnel internet, and machine guns that can unload a thousand rounds per minute, not to mention back up 3/4" video capabilities tucked into the rear cab.
So, a salty cop with a track record for losing his ***** gets the job of taking her for a spin, this Blue Thunder, and along the way finds out his old war nemesis from Vietnam is helping spearhead the government operation that is still debugging the chopper. More intrigue and espionage (to use bigger words that reflect something much smaller scale) ensue and soon or a later, it's a showdown between one rogue cop and the city of Los Angeles police force.
I liked the writing for this film. It has little things thrown in to keep you interested in the characters. Daniel Stern is a rookie and often the butt of department jokes, but he eventually is allowed to stretch out a bit and show some personality, which makes us kind of care for his character. He's funny and sharp, but still kind of a dope, too.
Scheider rarely does bad work, and this is no exception. He carries the movie without a doubt. He has a very natural way of carrying on that is understated yet still manages to hit those power chords of macho riffing needed to keep a movie like this large and in charge.
Surprisingly, it's Malcolm McDowell who is the weakest link in Blue Thunder. He's not bad or anything. He plays his part as a snakey and annoying villian well enough, it's just that he feels cartoonish next to the rest of the cast, who all seem to have more invested in the picture, especially Candy Clark as Scheider's on-off again girlfriend and Warren Oates as the Lieutenant who keeps up Scheider's ass just enough to protect him because they have a history together.
http://i.imgur.com/YeQztbT.jpg
The helicopter sequences are still exciting to this day, and even moreso because it's all REAL. There are no CGI backgrounds or maneuvers. If something needs an explosion, it gets one. There are some skyscraper city action shots that are some of the best I've seen, and the miniature work is phenomenal. Also a virtuoso display is the tight editing that keeps things moving and engaging. This film was shot with a great deal of care and it really shows, even to an untrained eye, you will pick up on the subtle yet effective aesthetic of Blue Thunder. It wants to be the color blue, and it picks its moments to be such. You'll see.
http://i.imgur.com/zqm7Al0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ybNN0cQ.jpg
It's just a cool little movie with some expert care put into it.
http://i.imgur.com/tvFfr08.jpg
Credit should also go to Don Jacoby writing most of the material and everyone's favorite nut job Dan O' Bannon who really is more an inspired character behind the pen than I have seen documented before. His sense of humor is ace. He knows his way around a script, as does Jacoby with his large contribution to the film as a whole. I believe O'Bannon's name was first but he contributed only outlines with Don Jacoby fleshing out many of the details and dialog.
John Badham used to make some damn fine movies back in the day, he really did.
Blue Thunder is among his best work.
4
The Mortenson Entrail (2003)
Director: Pat Benetar
I'm not sure I know why this film was made. Pat Benetar being an 80's icon of sorts seems to be trying to say something poetic but just ends up making a fool of her cast. Tom Hanks, a very thin John Goodman (177 lbs widely unreported at the time) and Ed Harris seem wasted. Sure, all of the performances are oscar worthy, it's just that the amount of time spent on long stretches of dialog that could have been summed up in a few seconds drags this picture down into Jarmusch territory, but not in a good way.
Why not in a good way?
Because this movie doesn't. Pat Benetar is crap. She can't direct. Tom Hanks isn't even acting anymore and John Goodman wasn't born back in 2003. As forSHUT UP.
REMOTE CONTROL (1988)
Director: Jeff Lieberman
http://i.imgur.com/8UEwPTc.jpg?1
It's 1988 and you are the kid walking to the video store a few times a week to scour the shelves for the best video box art to take home with you and gamble another few bucks on what may be the best film ever made.
http://i.imgur.com/2uWUAxl.png?1
Those days are gone forever so it would seem. But maybe not?
"Remote Control" by cultish filmmaker Jeff Lieberman (Blue Sunshine) appears on the shelf one day back in 1988, and immediately you think "this could be it".
Well, it's not. And now that those days are seemingly over, only the memories remain.
What films were on heavy rotation back then? What kind of promotional cardboard stand ups were being given to the local mom and pop shops?
http://i.imgur.com/Rebtjs1.jpg?2
Remote Control, a sci fi film about videotapes from outer space brainwashing everyday renters like yourself, answers that question in spades.
Here's a movie that brings you right back to the scene. 60% of this film takes place inside of a video store and there certainly doesn't seem to be any copyright issues with displaying (blatantly) the titles that had been accrued on home video up until that point.
http://i.imgur.com/EHa1Ihb.jpg?1
What about the movie itself, any good?
http://i.imgur.com/WOz70rd.jpg?1
Yeah, it's not bad. The music really gives it a boost. Elmer Bernstein's son, Peter, is at the helm with a spooky and moody theramin soaked score throughout. Kevin Dillon, Deborah Goodrich (April Fool's Day), and Jennifer Tilly (Bound) are all about the fun and serious tone. Remote Control does take itself seriously. I'd imagine that if it were pure camp, it wouldn't have worked so well. The pace is a bit sluggish, and the acting ranges from melodramatic to silly, but the locations and story are interesting. It's basically nostalgia that knew it was nostalgia before it was even considered nostalgia.
Very clever little film.
I personally love this movie. It is a pitch perfect time capsule of that era and is now available on HD home video, where it belongs.
If it were on VHS still, that might be kind of dangerous.
http://i.imgur.com/Y8MgZnJ.jpg?1]
4
Sexy Celebrity
03-26-17, 06:17 PM
Could be interesting since it takes place in a video store. Never heard of it before.
Could be interesting since it takes place in a video store. Never heard of it before.
It is but I also wonder if I like it so much because I rented it back then. Curious to know someone's thoughts on it who has not seen it yet.
Sexy Celebrity
03-26-17, 06:23 PM
It is but I also wonder if I like it so much because I rented it back then. Curious to know someone's thoughts on it who has not seen it yet.
Probably. People tend to like things from the past just 'cause they experienced it in their pasts.
Surf Nazi's Must Die (1987)
Director: Peter George
http://i.imgur.com/GjY7kgQ.jpg
1987, right in the middle of the VHS boom we had the Troma Film team serving up tasteless films about violence, sex and slapstick situation comedy. The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nukem' High, Redneck Zombies etc. Usually the Troma films were completely dedicated to mindless fun for exploitation freaks and Surf Nazi's isn't really that much of an exception. However, one notable difference between SNMD and other Troma offerings is the style in which SNMD displays.
It's a grungy looking film where you can almost hear the film soundtrack splitting between scene changes, but it fits in perfectly with the disjointed narrative of this overlooked movie.
http://i.imgur.com/tOlIxkh.png
We don't have the luxury of a great story here, but we do get some inspired ideas in the form of a mother hellbent on revenge for the death of her innocent son by the hands of these alleged Surf Nazi's.
In the not too distant future, we see punks on the beach following in the footsteps of that WW2 monster; spray painting walls, bullying for spare change, keeping to the beach, a way of life.
This rare occasion for Troma Films is that Peter George is a capable visualist, and utilizes a one of a kind synth score as well as some vigilante unlikliness, forging a new breed of action hero that we haven't seen much of: Momma.
There's a sexy undercurrent in Surf Nazi's Must Die, and if you ask any casual buff about the effect this film had on them, they're likely to tell you it was the worst of the Troma canon.
http://i.imgur.com/DlJjHeg.jpg
But these people would be wrong. Surf Nazi's stands very much away from the Troma catalog as an almost post apocalyptic art film on a shoestring budget that is very much in plain sight. There is something eerie and dirty about this movie. It's dull but so atmospheric that one can't help but nibble on it a little at a time. It's not photographed flawlessly, and they're aren't any color explosions. The look of the film is filthy. It's an ugly movie that has artistic merit, if only because it's so raw that it has no choice but to be authentically dank.
http://i.imgur.com/ru5UcS6.jpg
3
BACKCOUNTRY (2014)
Director: Adam MacDonald
The best thing you can do is to see Backcountry without reading anything about it. Just flop down and watch it. It's a very tight little film with a twisted story that will have you thinking about it for some time after it ends.
That's not to say that this movie is an intellectual titan of a film. It's not. It's pretty straightforward, but it does exactly what it sets out to do as far as I can tell.
It's so tense that I couldn't help but be reminded a bit of The Blair Witch Project. Difference being, Blair Witch didn't scare me nearly as much as this film did. Actually, Blair Witch was eh. First timer on that one. Anyway, getting off track.
I will not spoil anything. Again, just find this movie on Netflix right now and check it out. It's perfect for spending 90 minutes with a little thriller. You can easily spend 90 minutes shuffling through Netflix's library of trash. Type in "BACKCOUNTRY" and then proceed to watch it.
I really liked this movie a lot. The music is so good. I've heard a lot of experimental organic instrumental meshed with electronic synth and I have to say that the score for this movie really gives it a texture. Probably my favorite score since Craig Wedren did one back in 2002 for "Roger Dodger".
Anyway, that has nothing to do with this movie. I'm just thinking out loud. This isn't a real review. In fact, I don't think I have any real reviews here but, go ahead and nustle the fuchk on up in your lazee buoyy and check the cool wax on this joint of a nature trees woods freakout movie. You should like it. You don't have to like it, but I highly recommend that you do like it, please. Thanks.
4
re93animator
03-31-17, 07:31 PM
I'm not big on Troma, but Surf Nazi's looks the most appealing out of what I haven't seen.
Backcountry looks cool. Bears are cool. Now on my radar.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with this movie. I'm just thinking out loud. This isn't a real review. In fact, I don't think I have any real reviews here but, go ahead and nustle the fuchk on up in your lazee buoyy and check the cool wax on this joint of a nature trees woods freakout movie. You should like it. You don't have to like it, but I highly recommend that you do like it, please. Thanks.
4
I hope you're here to stay, Joel.:laugh:
I'm not big on Troma, but Surf Nazi's looks the most appealing out of what I haven't seen.
Backcountry looks cool. Bears are cool. Now on my radar.
I hope you're here to stay, Joel.:laugh:
Surf Nazi's..it's the music that sets it apart I think.
Backcountry..good stuff.
"See you in an hourBACKGETIT!?!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozxRbVmVSwc
THE AMERICAN FRIEND (1977)
Director: Wim Wenders
http://i.imgur.com/vPD3ias.jpg
We see a terminally ill man get involved with criminal activity dealing in fraudulent reproductions of valuable works, to pay for his treatment.
It's a bit of a confusing film and I suspect repeat viewings will answer some questions about the plot. That aside, it really doesn't seem to matter much that this movie has a complex way of unfolding. Wenders is known for his particular way in dealing with characters and their surroundings.
This is a beautifully shot film that somehow stitches different countries together with wild storefronts, landscapes, interior lighting, and oddball household items.
I found that the more this story went along, the better I felt about starting to watch it. There isn't much exposition that will bonk you upside the head, and of course, in the tradition of most art films, the resolve is left to the same universe as the body of study.
If you are in the market for a good piece to hang on your wall, I'd recommend this film to chase away the boredom of routine, and to fully dive into yet another Wim Wenders miniature masterpiece.
4
cricket
03-31-17, 09:57 PM
I thought Backcountry was mostly average, except the scenes that were supposed to be exciting, were just that.
I saw The American Friend a couple years ago and thought it was very good.
I thought Backcountry was mostly average, except the scenes that were supposed to be exciting, were just that.
I saw The American Friend a couple years ago and thought it was very good.
I agree that the story leading up to the horror of BACKCOUNTRY was average. I've pretty much given up on newer movies delivering any kind of real chemistry with lead actors. Long gone are the days of Annie Hall and My Dinner with Andre. (Well, not quite, A Master Builder is fairly recent). So, knowing I'm not gonna get any real charisma off of the leads, I just concentrate on the technique and genuine scares that the film gives me. The thrills. Without spoiling the movie I gotta say that that particular scene and the anticipation leading up it is among the best I've ever seen, and because I knew nothing about the story going in, the red herrings didn't really become obvious to me.
THE DISCOVERY (2017)
Director: Charlie McDowell
And now prepare yourself for one of the worst movies ever made. "The Discovery" has to be the absolute worst film I have ever seen in my life. The basic premise is that a scientist discovers that there is an afterlife, and after large numbers of people commit suicide to attain this guaranteed new plane of existence, it is further discovered that another plane of existence can now be recorded and broadcast onto a flat screen palm pilot or basic crt.
Awesome. So how could this be a bad premise?
I'll tell you. First of all, it's not interesting. Why? Because who gives a *****? Life is pain. You fight through it, and if you can't, you end it. As far as what is on the other side...wait for it. Whether or not you wait in vain is irrelevant. This hokey production not only wastes what little interest the subject matter holds on completely inept performances, but we even get to suffer through comic misfires that almost scrape up against dramatic moments, as if this film were the Titanic on top of the ice. That was a horrible analogy, but not as horrible as this movie is. I simply illustrated the tone of this film. Inconsistent. Not very funny, if ever it was to be funny.
I could not tell the accidents from intents. I mean, some of it was obviously meant to be funny. But it wasn't funny. Seeing a Zack Galifinakis clone playing through a loop station some very bad flange guitar a good comedy does not make.
And Redford. Jesus, what was he thinking? He could not have read the script, and if he did, someone really screwed him out of a movie. Badly.
This is just not interesting content. It cannot find its footing with tone at all. It's photographed like another typical seasick documentary, and the coloring is like "hey I've got a color wheel, let me just make the mid tones look like I forgot to set my white balance".
I'm tired of this piss poor aesthetic in modern cinema. OK, we get it. It's gloomy. How about setting the gloomy tone with some actual performance and music rather than subjecting us to this awful coloring job. What, was this filmed in Ontario/London/Fake Seattle? I don't get it. I thought this style went out a decade ago. Guess I wasn't paying attention.
Then you have our star, Jason Segel. This dude cannot act. Period. He belongs in Adam Sandler land, out of the discerning film lover eye, and in the realm of mediocrity for people who don't actually watch movies for anything other than to distract themselves from buying yellow cars and getting their ears stretched out like an African woman. I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He looks like he's always on the verge of laughing. He stinks.
The Discovery goes plodding along like someone, I don't know, the writer or director(?), had just seen "The Master" and figured they could make a pile of trash movie with no timing, tone or special sauce and still get critical accolades for the material/story alone. WRONG! EHHH!! "The Master" only got critical praise because people still think Paul Thomas Anderson is a genius. He's still riding off of "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights". He's actually a jokester that took the critics for a joyride. He pulled a prank, an April Fool's Joke on the world, and the world fell for it. Well, some of the world did, anyway.
But this guy, this director, this writer, this whole damned cast of characters who thought the finished product was a good idea to spring onto people's party list, these morons were mistaken. I don't buy it, and I highly doubt anyone else will, either.
This NetFLICK is a huge waste of time, and is so easy to spot, and such a flaming mess of a movie. It is essentially a handbook on how to royally screw up a film.
Hire the wrong cast. Write a story that no one cares about once it's established that there aren't many options for it to be thought provoking. Also, make sure to have your editor go crazy trying to fix the mess. No wait, scratch that, have the editor think he's doing God's work. Yeah. Yeah, that's it. Don't forget to hire the music guy who mixes typical ambient soundscapes with synth flutes. That's important. Synth flutes and cheesy arpeggiators. That should help the dramatic pacing and performances.
Seriously, there were actual scenes in this film that were no different than a sitcom. So, we literally have an attempted suicide chased by a sitcom moment in the style of line delivery and blocking. Atrocious film. Just the worst. And I stuck this out for so long, and waited for it to surprise me, twist into a revelation, and then...and then....ahhhh!!
So it's a mishmash of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Brainstorm and Flatliners wrapped around a mystery no one wants to see solved.
This movie should have been called "WHO CARES?!"
At least then they would have targeted the correct audience.
1/2
Dreadful.
Wow. Brutal.
I'm a sucker for high concept films, so I was pretty intrigued by this. I'll probably still watch it, but yeow, if that didn't dampen my enthusiasm! Good review, though.
Steve Freeling
04-03-17, 10:29 PM
http://i.imgur.com/brdsl5T.png
BLUE THUNDER (1983)
Director: John Badham
http://i.imgur.com/5O8ktd5.jpg
Well...it's about a helicopter. A souped up military experiment chopper that can hear through walls with a telescopic microphone, a camera zoom range of thousands of feet, a thermograph that can see through walls, a database that acts as a personnel internet, and machine guns that can unload a thousand rounds per minute, not to mention back up 3/4" video capabilities tucked into the rear cab.
So, a salty cop with a track record for losing his ***** gets the job of taking her for a spin, this Blue Thunder, and along the way finds out his old war nemesis from Vietnam is helping spearhead the government operation that is still debugging the chopper. More intrigue and espionage (to use bigger words that reflect something much smaller scale) ensue and soon or a later, it's a showdown between one rogue cop and the city of Los Angeles police force.
I liked the writing for this film. It has little things thrown in to keep you interested in the characters. Daniel Stern is a rookie and often the butt of department jokes, but he eventually is allowed to stretch out a bit and show some personality, which makes us kind of care for his character. He's funny and sharp, but still kind of a dope, too.
Scheider rarely does bad work, and this is no exception. He carries the movie without a doubt. He has a very natural way of carrying on that is understated yet still manages to hit those power chords of macho riffing needed to keep a movie like this large and in charge.
Surprisingly, it's Malcolm McDowell who is the weakest link in Blue Thunder. He's not bad or anything. He plays his part as a snakey and annoying villian well enough, it's just that he feels cartoonish next to the rest of the cast, who all seem to have more invested in the picture, especially Candy Clark as Scheider's on-off again girlfriend and Warren Oates as the Lieutenant who keeps up Scheider's ass just enough to protect him because they have a history together.
http://i.imgur.com/YeQztbT.jpg
The helicopter sequences are still exciting to this day, and even moreso because it's all REAL. There are no CGI backgrounds or maneuvers. If something needs an explosion, it gets one. There are some skyscraper city action shots that are some of the best I've seen, and the miniature work is phenomenal. Also a virtuoso display is the tight editing that keeps things moving and engaging. This film was shot with a great deal of care and it really shows, even to an untrained eye, you will pick up on the subtle yet effective aesthetic of Blue Thunder. It wants to be the color blue, and it picks its moments to be such. You'll see.
http://i.imgur.com/zqm7Al0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ybNN0cQ.jpg
It's just a cool little movie with some expert care put into it.
http://i.imgur.com/tvFfr08.jpg
Credit should also go to Don Jacoby writing most of the material and everyone's favorite nut job Dan O' Bannon who really is more an inspired character behind the pen than I have seen documented before. His sense of humor is ace. He knows his way around a script, as does Jacoby with his large contribution to the film as a whole. I believe O'Bannon's name was first but he contributed only outlines with Don Jacoby fleshing out many of the details and dialog.
John Badham used to make some damn fine movies back in the day, he really did.
Blue Thunder is among his best work.
4
This pleases me.
Wow. Brutal.
I'm a sucker for high concept films, so I was pretty intrigued by this. I'll probably still watch it, but yeow, if that didn't dampen my enthusiasm! Good review, though.
Yoda. I always feel a little bad when I trash a movie that someone else likes. In this case I trashed two films for the price of one. Thanks!
77topaz
04-14-17, 06:33 AM
Wow. Brutal.
I'm a sucker for high concept films, so I was pretty intrigued by this. I'll probably still watch it, but yeow, if that didn't dampen my enthusiasm! Good review, though.
Well, my review of that film was a bit different... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1683877#post1683877) :p
re93animator
04-14-17, 03:33 PM
REMOTE CONTROL (1988)
Director: Jeff Lieberman
Watched this recently. Pretty awesome. The type of thing I'll be sure to watch with friends next time. Love the costumes and music too. I'll probably post a bit in the movie tab eventually.
Watched this recently. Pretty awesome. The type of thing I'll be sure to watch with friends next time. Love the costumes and music too. I'll probably post a bit in the movie tab eventually.
That's great that you dug it! I used to consider unwatched video movies with good cover art a cigarette or BJ equivalent before I got BJ's or started smoking. Got the butterflies on the way down to the rental shop, the whole 9. This movie sticks out as one of the best feelings finally seeing it after reading a page ad in Video Maker talking about its IVE VHS release.
HOUSE IV: HOME DEADLY HOME (1991)
Director: Lewis Abernathy
The fourth installment of the dramatically inconsistent House franchise is not nearly as bad as one might think it is. Yes, it uses cliche horror conventions and has cheesy dialog and is tonally all over the map, swinging from daytime soap melodrama to early Peter Jackson lunacy, but that's not a bad thing last time I checked.
This final chapter of the haunted house saga finds Roger Cobb (in newly penned life circumstances) a victim of imprisonment by the forces of a sacred spring buried underneath a family heirloom mansion that is supposed to protect and heal its worthy inhabitants. Things quickly escalate into strangeness when a no good brother in law wants to demolish the property to take a kickback for using the land to dump toxic waste.
http://i.imgur.com/dgbcHSD.jpg
That's really all you need to know, plot wise, since not much else makes a whole lot of sense. As the movie goes on, scenes get more weird and inspired until finally we are treated to one of the grossest gags ever put to film that will leave the viewer sick for years remembering it.
I will say that aside from the obvious shortcomings of a low budget project, this film does have some things going for it. The editing is top shelf. It's almost as if the editor knew the film was shoddy and made sure every scene was tight, efficient and had an acceptable rhythm. He left just enough room for the scene to resolve before making a cut. There is an energetic pace here that surprised me. The effects aren't half bad and can actually show some creativity once in a while, like a pizza. Just like a pizza. The humor is there, it knows it's a bad movie and once again in the tradition of camp, House IV goes for it.
The music score by Harry Manfredini, who has scored all of the House films, is back and this time a bit more adventurous with over the top synth drums and themes, while still maintaining his signature meanderings with cello and metal scrape sounds. The acting is pretty OK, too. Dialog seems forced at times and the director didn't seem to be able to decide whether to go for reality or fun but the undecided mix further cements this picture into cult territory. We love to see mistakes and failure in horror. It's part of the charm.
If you like weird movies that are entertaining then you could do so much worse than House IV. Worth a look if B-Movies are your bag.
3
cricket
04-15-17, 08:25 PM
I remember House, with the guy from Cheers. I didn't even know there was a part 2 my lord.
HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY (1987)
Director: Ethan Wiley
In no way related to the original "House" film, original House writer Ethan Wiley brings his puppeteer and special effect knowledge to this tightly knitted comic sequel that concerns an old Aztec mansion, a crystal glowing blue skull that replenishes youth, and a zombie great grandfather to the house's new owner.
This movie has no real jump scares but it is very heavy on atmosphere thanks to the beautiful set design, music and matte paintings. The cast all seem game to have fun and that is exactly what you get with House II.
http://i.imgur.com/UVgBnTS.jpg
Watching this movie feels like a cleanse. The more you see it, the better you can feel. It has adventure, comedy, slightly creepy scenes to add another dimension, and cute prehistoric animals that never existed, such as a cross between a caterpillar and a puppy.
Combine a western, horror, teen comedy, adventure serial and a ..well, that should be enough. This movie has it all. It's low budgeted but creative. It uses the light of a stained glass window on a staircase to great effect as the sun beams color the sandstone decorated rooms.
http://i.imgur.com/gRtoAAc.jpg
Not much is wasted. This isn't a movie for everyone, though. It's like Disney on some low grade pot. The pot doesn't get you so stoned that you can't function, but it is good enough pot to get you thinking of taking a walk somewhere with a friend and getting lost in your own imaginations with each other. It's that kind of movie. I am not sure how it would translate to today's casual or serious movie buff, but back in 1987 I didn't think much of this film. It grew on me over the last 30 years, and it's a fine cup of tea today.
4
I remember House, with the guy from Cheers. I didn't even know there was a part 2 my lord.
House II has Cliff from Cheers this time around. And it was coincidental, not intentional..and he's fabulous in the role, just like Norm was!
HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY (1987)
Director: Ethan Wiley
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXSg-zgZdBk&feature=youtu.be
re93animator
04-16-17, 11:38 PM
HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY (1987)
Director: Ethan Wiley
In no way related to the original "House" film, original House writer Ethan Wiley brings his puppeteer and special effect knowledge to this tightly knitted comic sequel that concerns an old Aztec mansion, a crystal glowing blue skull that replenishes youth, and a zombie great grandfather to the house's new owner.
4
Added to the list. I thought the first was ok, but if this is unique, I'm down.
Added to the list. I thought the first was ok, but if this is unique, I'm down.
It's very stupid and corny. Just be forewarned. My high rating is based off of nostalgia and my older age. But it's still goofy and shiny enough to warrant a viewing.
BUBBA HO-TEP (2002)
Director: Don Coscarelli
I find myself being drawn to movies that take the better part or more of a decade to fully blossom into my favorites list. Bubba Ho Tep is one of those films.
The first time I saw this movie I thought it was a misfire, and it very well may be a misfire. Some of the humor doesn't quite translate and comes off a bit dorky and thin to me. A few of the narration lines seem less than poetic and don't have enough meat on their bones to be truly effective. Almost like the writing was too watery or the delivery wasn't convincing enough. Sort of like it tries to be a bit profound but doesn't quite nail it with a full confidence. I also felt that this picture was very slowly paced and not very exciting at all. The climax was hum drum, the moments leading up to it seemed like they needed to be about 10 minutes longer with more sentiment and humor. I felt that icons such as JFK and Elvis deserved more gravity and depth.
After several re-watches of Bubba Ho Tep I began to find things that I did like about it.
I mean, what can I expect? It's the only film of its kind and no one seems to be rushing to make a sequel (which would be terrific!). The slow pace is more my speed these days. It's a perfect before bed movie to nod off to. The acting by Bruce Campbell as Elvis is funny. I'm not sure I could call him the best Elvis because I thought Kurt Russell and David Keith both were strong portrayers of the King, but Campbell's take on him is definitely the most bold and memorable. So, I guess that means Bruce's Elvis is my favorite. I keep changing my mind even as I write this review. And I'm not sure that "portrayers" is even a word but I'll move on.
There is no shortage on atmosphere here. The hallways of the convalescent home are dark, the trim shows signs of half a century old mildew stains, we hear the sound of an organ warming up with its dual fans as an elderly woman prepares to play in the community room, the campus lawn is illuminated with sparse lights and lend a very effectively eerie scape for the mummy to walk on.
I forgot to disclose this film is about a mummy terrorizing the souls of old people and a black John F. Kennedy reincarnate by government meddling teams up with an Elvis impersonator (not really, though) to battle the evil beast.
http://i.imgur.com/nxClFzf.jpg
What a concept that is! Bubba Ho Tep is based on a short story that director Don Coscarelli was referred to at a local book store. That would explain the length of the film and the lack of depth (maybe) of the characters. Don't get me wrong, there is backstory, and a zinger of a flashback at that, but it still seems truncated. I would have loved it if Coscarelli had brought in more writing power to really kick this film up a few more notches. The potential was there for this to be one of the very best genre defying films of all time.
Dramatic elements of the story are carried on the shoulders of composer Brian Tyler. His simple and heartfelt score really bring home the bacon for the emotional component that drives this movie as a semi serious drama. Without such a fantastic music score I do not believe this film would have worked on any level outside of it being a freakish premise. It does transcend that goofy story. It does it as well as I can expect. And for me to keep complaining that Bubba Ho Tep isn't good enough because it was a missed opportunity wouldn't help a thing. It's done and it has had success as the cult film it should be.
I watch this movie about once every two years and I appreciate it more every time, though, my initial reservations about it remain the same.
Sometimes it just happens like that. It's not a perfect movie, and maybe it never could be, but while it's here on Earth, protected in canisters, and not the victim of a complete society nuclear blast, it's appreciated. I would send this one out to space pretty soon for safe keeping.
4
re93animator
04-18-17, 09:47 AM
Bubba Ho Tep took a while for me to get into as well. For such a ridiculous premise, the humor is so unexpectedly dry. I really like the bittersweet ending though.
DAGON (2001)
Director: Stuart Gordon
http://i.imgur.com/JMqfss4.jpg
As I near close to finishing my Stuart Gordon film studies I have found a movie in his filmography that sticks out as a major contender.
"Dagon" is the story of a wealthy couple shipwrecked on a damp island of strange inhabitants. That's the story I'm giving away. It's not to keep a serious twist secret or protect anyone from spoiling the movie, it's just that I'm too lazy to do a bullet point list of plot.
This film survives almost completely on atmosphere. Dark, overcast skies; rain, strange sounds and weathered architecture.
The characters are unique and a bit awkward, and that makes this movie come off as a bit cheap and corny. However, I believe Gordon was in full control of this. Some proof is that his comic injections (helmed by writer Dennis Paoli) are well spaced and usually effective, if not laugh out loud funny.
http://i.imgur.com/2d60CtT.jpg
Continuing on we are given some creepy scenarios and a bit of relentless brutality that are signature of Stuart Gordon movies.
This was based off of H.P. Lovecraft's first published short story and later extended with elements of his last published story, so the entire film is essentially an amalgam of Lovecraft's career span, which isn't to say that "Dagon" is a work of genius or heavyweight film, but certainly doesn't have to try as hard with padding out the run time to explore a script adapted from a miniature idea.
http://i.imgur.com/AYN0Xmu.jpg
I appreciate the performances that the director gets, most notably the ominous object of affection that remains a mystery for most of the film. A sexy dream woman/demon whose eyes are uncommonly wide and whose expression is that of complete trance and willfulness.
http://i.imgur.com/YATu28K.jpg
This was a Spanish production so some of the dialog is not in english and I did not use subtitles, but I feel they are not needed and add to the mystery. What is spoken in english by spanish inhabitants is broken and a bit daunting to understand but still legible enough to be clear on what is being communicated, if only a word or two slip through the barrier. "Dagon" is primarily and english spoken film.
Stuart Gordon has had a very interesting career as a shock and horror director whose characters are usually more fleshed out than the average exploitation assemblage. I think this movie stands up as one of his better efforts because it is easy to get lost in this nightmare world. Some of the CG effects are a bit slick and unmatched to ambient light while other effects are done well and look good. It's hit and miss. I don't feel it takes much away from the film itself.
This is something I plan to watch again within the next few years.
3.5
Bubba Ho Tep took a while for me to get into as well. For such a ridiculous premise, the humor is so unexpectedly dry. I really like the bittersweet ending though.
I agree. I read somewhere that Paul Giamatti was in kahoots with Coscarelli about a sequel. Supposedly the script is tight and now just waits to be financed. Not sure if Giamatti is replacing Bruce Campbell as Bruce was at odds with the director over some script elements.
Lisbon Story (1994)
Director: Wim Wenders
A motion picture and documentary sound guy travels to Lisbon to meet up with a director to find the man's flat abandoned, and soon is left to his own devices to navigate the locals in this slight but enjoyable comedy outing.
I don't know how much I can write about "Lisbon Story". The movie speaks at a very low volume and doesn't really have a lot to say and I like that. The details are what matter here.
http://i.imgur.com/pN9ThAC.png
Beautiful locations, lots of dead space and contemplation, a light and breezy mystery, hypnotic music at the nearby pub, a possible spark of romance and chance of a blossoming friendship, the ins and outs process regarding tricks of the trade to capture film worthy foley and sound effects. All of these things are under gentle inspection.
http://i.imgur.com/0sC311d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IEYXNUd.jpg
That's what this film is. It's a gentle inspection of a very loose story. It takes its time, doesn't have to be anywhere, and the trip is like a vacation.
http://i.imgur.com/ef5EAgA.jpg
Wim Wenders is a master at these kinds of movies. He takes peculiar photographs. For example his film "Paris, Texas" has a young boy looking through binoculars at a commercial airplane landing strip and instead of seeing the plane, we only see the shadow of the plane coming in for a landing. This is what it's like to watch a film by Wenders.
Lisbon Story is for someone who wants a light film that won't make them anxious and may even allow them to fall asleep and pick back up later. I love this movie, it's one of my favorites!
http://i.imgur.com/zvcjPJt.jpg
5
With a Friend Like Harry (Harry, He's Here to Help) - (2001)
Director: Dominik Moll
This french thriller is a very well made, character focused drama about a frustrated writer turned family man who takes his wife and kid on vacation and meets up with an old tag along friend who insists on rekindling the writing muse he used to be so fond of.
http://i.imgur.com/VLqYCyS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GoIvlai.jpg
I've seen this movie three times now and like it a bit more each time I see it, even though I know basically what happens. Like John Carpenter's "The Thing", this movie maintains layers to it that seem to make the viewer's memory unlatched to sequence allowing multiple re-assessments.
The horror starts up once welcomes are worn out and vacation time starts to feel like high tension and walking on eggshells.
I did have to read this film, and that's fine as it isn't an action film filled with non stop funny dialog and incredible camera work (much like "Las brujas de Zugarramurdi" was - review of that coming soon).
The review stops here.
Highly recommended!
4
TheUsualSuspect
04-20-17, 08:23 AM
I went to a run down theatre to watch a double feature of From Beyond and Dagon. I really liked both, but I'd give the edge to Dagon for the atmosphere it was able to create. Really liked that one.
I went to a run down theatre to watch a double feature of From Beyond and Dagon. I really liked both, but I'd give the edge to Dagon for the atmosphere it was able to create. Really liked that one.
Wow, what year was this? That must've been awesome to see both of those films in a theater. Film or digital projection?
re93animator
04-20-17, 06:28 PM
I like Dagon lots. Loved it when I was younger. I think it's better if you kind of watch it as a subtle comedy.
Lisbon Story looks good. With a Friend Like Harry looks good too. I'm busy and have some other movies prioritized, but hopefully I'll get around to them eventually.
BEVERLY HILLS COP (1984)
Director: Martin Brest
http://i.imgur.com/ANaIqvR.jpg
Before the buddy cop movie went into full swing with "Midnight Run" and "Lethal Weapon" we had "Beverly Hills Cop", preceded only by Walter Hill's "48 Hrs" 2 years prior.
Where Hill's "48 Hrs" was more raw and violent with a dark tone, "Beverly Hills Cop" is refreshing with a more heartwarming one. The first 15 minutes are pretty hard edged but the film soon takes us into more comic territory while still maintaining that slimy underbelly of a common mid-80's crime thriller.
I feel like this is the strength of the movie. The fact that it never fully becomes slapstick or too unrealistic. It's true that Eddie Murphy carries a good 80% of the film with his manic, yet effortless tirades of quick witted dialog and physical face work. However it'd be tough to say that the presence of every other cast member doesn't add a healthy 20% or more of worth into this jam packed ensemble.
John Ashton, Judge Reinhold, James Russo, Ronny Cox, Bronson Pinchot, Jonathan Banks, Stephen Berkoff, even Lisa Eilbacher, Damon Wayans and the other bit parts have something to do or say which is rare in any film.
Enter Martin Brest - the man responsible for giving all of these people something to do or say, right down to a brief scene of two warehouse workers bickering over some guy at a bar giving them the "stink eye". A super director with an eye for comedy, action and human story, he managed to assemble a cast and crew that was then able to transcend a genre upstart that not only surpassed previous action entries but also forged a new kind of movie that has not been reached with charisma since. The winning formula of "Beverly Hills Cop" is the interaction of its stars.
There's never a wasted page in this seemingly generic rehash script by Danillo Bach. Production took an outline and injected some real fire into it. From top to bottom the result works on different levels. It works as a small action picture, a fast paced comedy, a police drama and all together adds up to a well deserved blockbuster status that paved the way for many other films that tried to mimic the same success, and may have brought in more dollars, but never nailed the chemistry of this pitcure.
Since 1984, we've been treated to "Midnight Run" (another great Martin Brest picture), Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour, etc..all films that took cues from the original buddy bonanza of "48 Hrs" but none that gave the goods on so many various levels that "Beverly Hills Cop" did with a breezy stroke.
Eddie Murphy's talents were firing all on pistons. Even when he rambles on and on, if you look at his face, he's barely trying, yet you do not get the impression he is not invested into his performance.
5
re93animator
04-22-17, 03:34 PM
I've never been too fond of BHC, but I should give it another go.
BTW, I watched Split (1989). Instantly a favorite. Thanks!
I've never been too fond of BHC, but I should give it another go.
BTW, I watched Split (1989). Instantly a favorite. Thanks!
Awesome, glad you dig it. Crazy movie. I have a letter from the director somewhere, I'll show it to you next time I'm on.
re93animator
Geez, I scoured my place to find this but here it is. One free dvd of Split with letter from director Chris Shaw...
http://i.imgur.com/vYWi5Q5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5B8nfYg.jpg
and this email...
http://i.imgur.com/FeUKjGi.jpg
re93animator
04-26-17, 06:57 PM
Wow, that's awesome! I couldn't even find a disc, and had to resort to other means, but I'd love if that movie got a proper accessible release and more recognition.
I found this some years back...fun to poke around the "SPLIT" section.
http://chrisshorts.com/movies.html
re93animator
04-26-17, 07:59 PM
I found this some years back...fun to poke around the "SPLIT" section.
http://chrisshorts.com/movies.html
Thanks. I'll probably order one. :)
I found this some years back...fun to poke around the "SPLIT" section.
http://chrisshorts.com/movies.html
Thanks. I'll probably order one. :)
Proceed with caution. Ladt time I went to purchase a 2nd disc his paypal acct email was inactive. Not sure about anymore?
cricket
04-29-17, 09:39 AM
Beverly Hills Cop is a mother lovin masterpiece! Glad to see it get its proper due!
Beverly Hills Cop is a mother lovin masterpiece! Glad to see it get its proper due!
It really is a great film! I saw it in theaters back in 1984 and was blown away. Never saw anything like it. Of course today, someone seeing it after many movies followed it, probably wouldn't have the luxury of the fresh factor? Hard to say...
cricket
04-29-17, 11:09 AM
It really is a great film! I saw it in theaters back in 1984 and was blown away. Never saw anything like it. Of course today, someone seeing it after many movies followed it, probably wouldn't have the luxury of the fresh factor? Hard to say...
Murphy was so brilliant in BHC, 48 Hours, and Trading Places. After that he seemed to lighten up and he was never quite the same.
Murphy was so brilliant in BHC, 48 Hours, and Trading Places. After that he seemed to lighten up and he was never quite the same.
I think his last solid film was "Coming to America" in 1988. After that he went limp. He had flashes of brilliance in "Boomerang" maybe, and a few others, but not the same consistency. It wasn't until "The Nutty Professor" series that he got his stride back and was able to really branch out with his talent. Sadly, those were short lived. "Metro" had moments but again, not enough. Lately he's been just lacking and underused. "Tower Heist" barely used him at all, which is a shame because it may've been a good movie-had they utilized Murphy more, and "Mr. Church" probably meant well, but was miscast with the people surrounding Murphy, which made the film fall like a brick of familiarity and not much conviction for such a heavy story. Shame. Here's hoping Eddie still has a few home runs left. Wishful thinking!
RARE BIRDS (2001)
Director: Sturla Gunnarsson
http://i.imgur.com/H6HN1lA.png
I had no idea what to expect from this movie going in. I couldn't say either way if I was a fan of William Hurt or not. I enjoyed "Altered States" (1980) dir. Ken Russell, the sci fi acid trip spirituality mind melt thriller he was in, but didn't consider him a heavyweight.
"Rare Birds" may not have changed my mind 100% about the impact Hurt had on me, but it certainly was a role he took to very well and I was disarmed at the comedy and self deprecation he was willing to go through.
This is a very light picture. Its heart is light, the scenery is beautiful, the dialog is funny and odd, the female co-star is very beautiful. There's a lot to like here.
Things get strange and the story goes really south. Really, really south. I did not mind this. I enjoyed it. It was endearing and adventurous.
http://i.imgur.com/8AOGxWz.png
I really do not want to give anything away about this film. It's a little gem of a movie. It may not be for everyone because it could possibly come across as awkward, dopey, missing the mark, etc, etc.
Too bad I cannot explain what I mean by this. I'd say if cooking gourmet food, doing drugs, scamming for customers by exploiting duck watchers curiosities and government spying for new methods of non battery, electrical or solar lighting is your thing..you must check this movie out.
http://i.imgur.com/hJPwQWn.png
I recommend that you do not have too much on your mind before starting this movie. I suggest you are comfortable and not in a bad mood, either. Have tea, seltzer, chips, toast, or any assortment of light snack food by your side. Lights should be dim, air should be fresh, temperature should be cozy but not stifling.
Once you've made these adjustments, press play. It's just a goofy little ride with some very nice moments and things to look at. Not much more.
http://i.imgur.com/CJLBgfS.jpg
4
escapist
05-05-17, 03:52 AM
http://i.imgur.com/CJLBgfS.jpg
rating_4
Dang ! Who's the hottie ? :love:
Kinda looks like Alyssa Milano.
CONSENTING ADULTS (1992)
Director: Alan J. Pakula
Kevin Kline plays a tv jingle writer who shows hot passion for his work resulting in very good comedy. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio plays his long time supporting wife. They've just gotten new neighbors (Kevin Spacey and Rebecca Miller) who aim to show the people next door a bit of fun.
Richard (Kline) is wary of Eddy (Spacey) at first because Eddy and his wife Kay (Miller) are so free spirited and dangerous. Soon though, Richard and his long time, supportive wife Priscilla (Mastrantonio) warm up, then it's time for biking, grilling, sailing, you name it. The yuppie olympics begin for some very swank, high end montage.
Long time supportive wife being supportive at breakfast
http://i.imgur.com/bEvxff7.jpg
Eddy wants to swap wives, he confides in Richard. Time has happened in the montage and now it's time to roll some sleeves up and get down and sleazy. Richard balks at Eddy. How dare you?! I love my wife! Eddy persists. Richard deflects. Priscilla and Kay have become fast friends as well-and can be seen blurred out in the background, probably drinking coffee or something, in another scene completely, at night.
Indecent Proposal on 10 speeds
http://i.imgur.com/rNZZSLn.jpg
Then, all of a sudden, morals get put into the fire..and something unexpected happens! What could it be?
"told ya those weekend getaways were relationship killers.." - George Costanza
http://i.imgur.com/g2IPKtZ.jpg
.
Consenting adults is a very well photographed thriller so far fetched, that, by the end, we actually have an uzi come into play. Picture a big suburban mansion in a new neighborhood at night, with splashes of moonlit blue painting the walls. Then picture a shirtless yuppie spraying his sheet rock with uzi bullets. Sophisticated, right?
Kline, dirty doggin' it.
http://i.imgur.com/cAdXepj.jpg
Spacey, concerned about the firmness of the noodle.
http://i.imgur.com/DvXMo2s.jpg
As ridiculous as all of this sounds, and believe me, I'm leaving all of the "twists" out, there is still a good movie in there. The acting is more than competent, and there are even some intriguing moments here and there. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "atmospheric" but the settings are breezy and colorful, even when hanging out in insurance company themed houses you'd find in Simsbury, CT, at the end of a cul de sac, with mailboxes big enough to fit a half dozen Christmas wreaths inside.
Remembering the better times with new neighbors (10 minutes prior)
http://i.imgur.com/17gzHg8.jpg
I liked this film. I enjoyed it enough to watch it 4 times since its debut on vhs, and will most likely watch it once more before I pass away in a flurry of high tax bracket uzi pellets.
3
Stirchley
05-09-17, 10:21 PM
Never seen this movie. Wondering if I should throw it into my Netflix Q.
Never seen this movie. Wondering if I should throw it into my Netflix Q.
You definitely should. If you like thrillers from 1992 that ogle their own set design and locations as well as employ Kline and Spacey and involve adultery and other nasty things, you'll be taken care of in spades.
Stirchley
05-10-17, 03:14 PM
You definitely should. If you like thrillers from 1992 that ogle their own set design and locations as well as employ Kline and Spacey and involve adultery and other nasty things, you'll be taken care of in spades.
Just added it to my Q. Thanks.
Brain Damage (1988)
Director: Frank Henenlotter
http://i.imgur.com/8qxUh27.jpg
Frank Henenlotter makes f#cked up movies exclusively. He isn't like Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator), who sometimes writes and directs for Disney (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit). He is a raw and vile man with an equal imagination. His movies are disgusting, disturbing, depressing and ugly. Back when he debuted his film "Basket Case" in 1982, we had to sit through a scene where a deformed, stop motion siamese twin blob creature rapes a young woman with some illustrious sound design.
In 1988, he kept going, and this time he concentrated on drug addiction. "Brain Damage" is about an ancient turd like slug creature about the size of an adult film penis that bores a hole into the back of an unsuspecting man's neck and manipulates the man to bring him out on the town for fresh kills, so he can eat human brains. The reward for the young man is that he gets an injection of blue sunshine lsd into his brain which makes him trip the live fantastic while this small creature named "Elmer" feasts on the minds of security guards, sluts and whoever else happens to be in the general vicinity while they are on their night time walk.
http://i.imgur.com/7UCoo00.png
It becomes a powerful addiction. The man hates that he is the host transportation to bring Elmer around the city to kill for food, but the injection Elmer gives him in the back of the neck is such a good high, that withdrawal would be unbearable.
First of all, I want to say that, yes, there are some clever bits in this film. The effect work, though dated, does still hold its own, and there are inspired visual light effects I enjoyed. But because I am 41 years old now, and have pretty much burned out my curious clutch of revisiting my dreadful horror aficionado past on these cheap home video release deluxe treatments we are getting by boutique cult labels nowadays, in glorious HD, I can't say I thoroughly enjoyed Brain Damage. I mean, it's dumb. Elmer escaped his old owners to find another host. Just the fact that he escaped and is able to scurry across floors and jump out at people and attach to their faces in the dambdest of places such as a bathroom stall, just that fact alone would mean Elmer, I'm sorry, AYLMER, doesn't need a host to begin with. He can DO IT HIMSELF!!
Secondly, I'm tired of seeing sick movies. Yeah, I get it. It's shocking, it's twisted. Yay.
I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm not even a twentysomething, or a thirtysomething. I've been there and I have done it (if you can count watching movies alone doing anything at all).
I see Brain Damage as a good indicator that my tastes have changed. I guess I also cannot understand how an intelligent man in his 60's or even 70's can continue being cool with making totally messed up sicko movies. I listened to the commentary out of curiosity. The guy is clearly blowing rails of coke off during his endless tirade of mile-a-minute blabbing. He barely takes a breath. I felt low even listening to the track, to be honest.
I don't hate Brain Damage. It's a pretty damn good little freak out movie that surprisingly deals with addiction fairly well and also has some really brilliant moments in the way of exposition, focused on the origins of the Aylmer (Elmer for slang).
I can't discount the fun of it, even though, if I'm being honest, it really wasn't that much fun at all. I found myself depressed during it. It's not cheery, doesn't have any kind of uplifting message. It's shot dark, it looks dark, it's an ugly mentality. What is to gain from that? It's like watching a movie with people being burned alive or tortured. I do not understand the appeal. Not anymore. Not sure I ever found it appealing. Other factors were responsible for my interest in films like Brain Damage.
Those other factors are asides that can be carried over, leaving the trash behind.
My final thought is that there is entirely too much inspired whackiness in Brain Damage to fully slag it off as a failure film. It's not. It's clever, well made, and yeah, I guess parts of it are well written, sure. It looks great on blu ray, and the music, though dopey, does have a certain something going for it. Maybe it's because it sounds like something anyone could play on an old Yamaha DX-7. Frank Henenlotter may be a twisted, line sniffing old man, but he has gotten my money, so at least he's a decent businessman.
http://i.imgur.com/NtCxDwE.png
3
GHOST DOG: THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI (1999)
Director: Jim Jarmusch
http://i.imgur.com/vJHywiC.jpg
Jim Jarmusch is one of my favorite directors of all time. He's a very funny and clever man. His films turn the volume up to 10 without so much as a sound. The intensity and focus of such mundane proceedings makes his movies fascinating. I don't know how he exactly does it, but he does it just the same, and he does it better than any American film maker that I've seen. I mean, you can be sitting there watching a Jarmusch film, and it can just fly right over your head. You'd say "what? I see nothing." Jarmusch knows his humor. He inserts it in unconventional ways. The method he uses, from what I can see, is that he will keep little details in his movie, let them just exist there. Maybe it's the sound of a trumpet that gets cut out and switched abruptly to another scene of odd tempo. Maybe it would be the meditation on something so obnoxiously boring that you'd be waiting for the punchline and there wouldn't be one aside from another scene stepping in as if nothing is nothing, carrying on with a slow story going nowhere at breakneck speed. You have to just surrender to his movies. You love them or you hate them, I'm guessing.
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is about a..well, a Samurai who becomes a Samurai because way back about 10 or so yrs ago, before he became Ghost Dog, he was almost killed by a gang in a back alley way. Well, along comes a rough and tumble elder Italian gangster type who saves his life with a flash of a pistol and some grouchy stink eyeing. Ghost Dog feels in debt to this man so he dedicates his life to serve this mafioso guy as a sort of servant.
http://i.imgur.com/QePbqaK.jpg
Cut to years later, Ghost Dog dreams on pain and death mixed with deep philosophies and spirituality daily, living a lonesome life. He uses a carrier pigeon to communicate with the mob, and anytime they need him to do a "hit", Ghost Dog complies.
http://i.imgur.com/pNLTwvt.jpg
Forrest Whittaker plays Ghost Dog perfectly. No one could have done it better and this is genius casting. His soft spoken presence, droopy eye, and full frame makes this such an interesting contrast to the usual Hollywood portrayal of a bad assed warrior.
There are highlights of comedy throughout the entire film, all the way down to a disjointed score by RZA of Wu Tang Clan who gives a score so raw and fresh sounding that I swore I was in NYC back in 1994. Take that same music and intercut it with a flying pigeon and for whatever magic reason, you have comedy of the highest order. I laughed myself silly. Deep, guttural laughing. Like I was eating macho man steak with William Shatner on an outside patio of a swanky restaurant, laughing like I just dead lifted 600 lbs.
http://i.imgur.com/FIjgqjP.jpg
5
re93animator
05-19-17, 11:14 PM
I really like Brain Damage. Never really knew anything about the director (seen a few of his movies though). I saw it with zero expectations and thought it was really entertaining & more substantive than Basket Case or Frankenhooker :). I think it's one of the better of its kind.
I love Jarmusch and Ghost Dog too, and like what you said about Whittaker. Blockbuster movies going out of their way to seem 'badass' is sort of a peeve of mine, and comes across as so forced and cringey. Ghost Dog gives me some fresh air.
I had seen Brain Damage when I was 11. Something about it kept me revisiting it. Frankenhooker only works for me if I'm really high and I don't do that anymore so..lol.
And yeah, Ghost Dog is so damn good!
GHOST WORLD (2001)
Director: Terry Zwigoff
This was once one of my favorite movies but I admit that after seeing it over 10 times that some of the mean spiritedness in the script and performances does wear me down.
Zwigoff definitely injects his goofy and easily missed humor into Daniel Clowes' comic premise, and some of the humor works well but other jokes feel like they are trying to appeal to the general movie going crowd. For example, we get a completely insane manic performance from some shirtless guy in a convenience store, and as soon as he finishes his best line, we get a cutaway to reaction shots of 3 people laughing at his antics. Things like this just scream "let me finish the joke for you". It's a small complaint but one I've had since my first time seeing this movie There are a few other moments similar that prevent this from being a perfect comedy.
Still though, there are more than enough scenes to make up for some of the missed comic opportunities to resolve unscathed. Terry Zwigoff hires incredible set designers and costumers so his vision of this story is highly attractive with lots of experimental outfits and styles happening.
As far as plot, I don't really want to touch on that because I don't feel the need to try and "sell" this movie to anyone. I believe from now on I'll just review for myself. If someone wants to see Ghost World, they will.
The music score is beautiful. The cinematography is top notch. Performances are believable, funny and touching.
4
DEATH WISH III (1985)
Director: Michael Winner
I wasn't a huge fan of the first Death Wish film, and absolutely not a fan of part II because it was way too rapey and f**ked up. Part 3 to me hits them action and comedy notes like gangbusters. When things start rolling, they roll outta control, and it's basically a Vietnam war movie in NYC..or Chicago..or Canada, wherever they shot it.
We get bazookas, rocket launchers, machine guns, 357's, 45's, big knives, and plenty of people being kicked in the face, nuts, stomach and kneecaps. Bronson is the executioner here with a little help from his friendly, elderly neighborhood friends.
It looks like the film makers just took a bunch of Cannon money and went nuts and documented it for the rest of time. I appreciate that. Sometimes you just need a disgustingly over the top and absurd action picture to put you in a good mood.
The music score is creepy, with Jimmy Page offering up some more of his satanic synthesizer work. And no, that was not Jimmy Page doing the opening theme.
3.5
cricket
06-04-17, 07:05 PM
My dad took me to see Death Wish III when I was 14. It was pretty crazy compared to the first films.
I watched Ghost World a few months ago on Miss Vicky's rec-great movie.
Maybe I should add Ghost Dog to my watchlist, I see nothing but love for it.
I think you'll enjoy Ghost Dog.
cricket
06-04-17, 07:39 PM
I used to kind of dismiss it thinking it had a silly title, but I do love Forest Whitaker.
NINJA III: THE DOMINATION (1984)
Director: Sam Firstenberg
Where can I start about this movie? To me, it is one of the most important films I have ever seen and not because I am trying to be outspoken about some 80's b movie that is preposterous in premise, execution and everything else in between. Ninja III has so many great things going for it that despite its obvious shortcomings, it still manages to pack so much good stuff into it's 90 minute run time, that anyone looking for pure entertainment, and even some wonderment, will be taken care of. Big time.
The basic story is of a telephone repair woman who gets possessed by an evil ninja and must try and fight off the evil spirit. In the process she messes up some dudes that wronged her/him and everything goes crazy. That's about it. Keepin' it simple, just the way I like it.
https://media.giphy.com/media/ZJUk2CfFvJAGs/giphy.gif
We have hot bodies at the gym, chinese stars, car chases, foot chases, sword play, ninja arsenal of ancient secret weapon, backlit knife rack stowed away in a private cave, somewhere in the desert..the list goes on, and on, and on.
https://media.giphy.com/media/K93saOCI0TPos/giphy.gif
In this picture we get beautiful industrial/glam set design with analog goodness such as glowing arcade machines, glowing floating swords, fans on high blowing hair back, tilting sets like Poltergeist, demonic growls from beyond the 3rd dimension, extra sensory perception, inanimate objects coming to life, tomato juice used as a sexual elixir, hairy backs and arms, repellent 80's dance music. I need to stop now. There is so much goodness here. It drives me crazy.
https://media.giphy.com/media/kTJrhF2auJbna/giphy.gif
I am not just saying these things because this movie happens to have all of the things most hipsters love to make fun of. Yes, there are tons and tons of things hipsters can poke fun at and use for a t shirt design. That is not the point. This is not a film for hipsters. It's a film for the child at heart with horny curiosity. A kid with a hunger for strange women who shouldn't be sexy..but are. This is a movie that survives off of its reckless charm, willing to throw everything at us that we'd need for a solid and highly entertaining action fantasy horror comedy film.
The music is comprised of several different composers; we have Rob Walsh supplying his epic Yamaha synthesizer theme used famously in Revenge of the Ninja, as well as a couple of other kids throwing down the remaining cues that pad out the rest of the film, usually of the electro drum pad driven rock speed, with chunky patch work keyboards over top. All of it works effortlessly. It was a more simple time where a few well dialed in sounds could carry the weight of an orchestra on the plastic ivory keys of a Japanese electronic.
If you are looking for a rewatchable thriller that does not take itself seriously, only rips off the best demonic films, and keeps the eye candy and repulsion coming in equal measure, you could do about ten times worse than this one here.
This is one my favorite films of all time just because it doesn't give a *****. It knows exactly what it wants to be and delivers itself onto the viewer like a giant fruit roll up shot out of a laser cannon.
NINJA III: THE DOMINATION....
You've been warned...
https://media.giphy.com/media/uQTVm17oldA5i/giphy.gif
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!...
https://media.giphy.com/media/uQTVm17oldA5i/giphy.gif
4.5
I pretty much agree with the content of your review. I'd give it 4 as a camp rating, but I recently gave it 1.5 as a "serious" rating. Oh, and I sure don't think of myself as a hipster. :cool:
I have used different ratings before, too, like you describe. I finally just settled on one system because I am so out of touch with other people's tastes, I figure I may as well stick to my own selfish rating system. I do still factor in great cinematography etc, even if a film is tedious, pretentious, boring, etc. But I've given up trying to sell a movie or make too strong an argument for one just because I rarely hear back from those people again looking for rec's lol.
Prince of Darkness (1987)
Director: John Carpenter
http://i.imgur.com/MDhxVSX.jpg
A television transmission from the future haunts the dreams of science academics gathered together for a night at hell house in John Carpenter's 1987 horror film that is both brilliant and bad.
Seems as if writer Alan Quatermass (John Carpenter) had to get some metaphysical and religious monkeys off of his back and went ahead and got financing for this very tightly photographed, highly atmospheric, and subtly stylized dialog driven picture that is at once genuinely creepy and highly ambitious.
I don't believe in mumbo jumbo about the devil and armageddon. I feel as if evil is from the hearts and minds of man's imagination and only rules supreme if one is either consciously or unconsciously attracted to it's alleged allure. I am not. I am, however attracted to this film, as I find it very enjoyable from a relaxation standpoint. It moves at a snail's pace and keeps the music coming out of every celluloid pore for almost the entire run time.
I think of this as one big extended John Carpenter music video. Shot in Carpenter's usual anamorphic way, we get a very glassy surface and saturated colors all around the premises of this contained evil liquid. Yes, liquid. The devil is in liquid form, kept in a large glass vat, comprised of green and black pearlescent texture, ready to drip, spray and metamorphisize into anyone's mouth or eyes at any given moment to possess them as the devil himself, in the flesh. Scary stuff.
Not entirely...
But it can be creepy, if not horrifying. This director still had his chops before selling out to haphazard fare like Ghost of Mars. He kept the tension going with deliberate pacing, guttural music score, dimly lit outside locations at night, and interesting close-up work and camera tricks, not to mention some choice moments of disgust and sound design/foley that further punched his intentions through the screen into our psyche. I always watch films with headphones. I don't believe a film is worth watching without reference quality headphones. There's art in the mix if you don't have too much distance between it and your ears. "Prince of Darkness" seems to know this. Carpenter makes his films with as much care in visuals and atmosphere as he does his sound.
I cannot say that there is too many characters that I connect with because I do not believe that I connect with one single person in this movie. I will say that this does not seem to matter. The people in POD are merely here to get us from point A to point B. I did not mind the casting choices. In some strange way, everyone seemed appropriate, and there were even a few moments of high comedy relief, one involving the use of a word only a toddler might say, left to ring out in the air after a repeat of this word as an afterthought of it's original come forthance. "Ca-ca". Really the only complaint I had with casting versus comedy was the direction of Dennis Dun getting too silly near the end, which took away from the terror. His comedy didn't really fit, but didn't make me hate the film or anything, either.
When I first saw this movie back in 1988 on VHS I thought for sure that Carpenter was all done. I dismissed it as boring and tedious and not having many scares or action. Something about it stuck with me, though.
Decades later, I rediscovered it, and am very glad that I did. It may be JC's last truly John Carpenterish film. I know, I know, there is still "They Live". That's another story. That movie had a brilliant premise but a half assed execution.
"Prince of Darkness" has a 1/2 butted premise and a 1/2 butted execution but still comes off as semi brilliant to me. Brilliant and bad. It's more slick than They Live, it's more enjoyable to me. I am fond of it's meditative state throughout. It is shot very nicely and doesn't try to say too much. Well, I mean, it does try to say too much but it has no idea how to say enough so...for that I am thankful.
4
THE MARTIAN (2015)
Director: Ridley Scott (seriously?)
I'm not going to save any surprise rating for the end of this review like The Martian saved it's payoff for me. This movie kind of sucks and I'll tell you why I think that.
The following text in red are the notes I was keeping on my smartphone, while I watched;
The martian
Jeff daniels on toilet dumb and dumber- couldnt take him seriously
"Im a botanist"
Clumsily convenient with video journal exposition. Makes me like "Moon" that much better.
Tonally awkward. Lighthearted is ok but not 140 mins worth. Hello netflix series. Just checked the remaining time counter..ugh..yup 140 mins and still a while to go
Bereft of actual emotion
Kids pretending to have feelings
Common trait in current wave of want to be actors. Zero charisma. Make pretend intellect. Wonder if the writer is really happy aside from the money? Who cares, it isn't even good writing. It's "just ok" writing.
Plays like a tv series
Ridley is done
Too long/bloated
Semi smartly written but starving for a better cast of capable unknowns
Self congratulatory at every turn
"First man here on mountain" - "I colonized it" etc...
Film's bad qualities didnt even leave enough room to fill in the blanks like an old b movie cuz they "kind of did ok with the sets"
Highlight so far is abba song
Totally shouldnt have used bowie
Jeff daniels on the potty pooing a squeak and laughing with frazzled hair and legs jacked out in front if him.
Chick from halt and catch fire was an annoyingly familiar touch to casting
Film has a big ego about itself
I stopped caring early on but still marched through the duration
Do i get a prize?
Still marching, lets find out...
OK, so I get to the end and guess what?
It's more self congratulatory nonsense.
This makes me wonder whether or not watching "The Right Stuff" again will change my mind about NASA based movies. Maybe I'd better keep the memory alive with a positive recollection and not watch it. Actually, who am I kidding? I won't dare compare the two.
The Martian thinks very highly of itself, there is no mistaking this with anything else. That is the blunt truth. Was it entertaining? A few moments early on intrigued me, like when he figured out how to grow his own food and some of his brain work about planning for the future. But it didn't keep up with that same ingenuity. I struggled through this movie.
I had a very high confidence for The Martian when I did a blind buy of this blu ray I am looking at right now, about to literally crack in half with the butt end of a steak knife. I really did think that this would be a solid purchase and that I would have faith restored in Ridley Scott as a true visionary director for this decade, back in peak form. I do not know for the life of me why I thought this, but I did. I think Ridley has done his "big" work and is just enjoying the studio system now and letting the kids run wild. But it hurts me to witness this. I still expect a good movie. I do not trust his sensibilities anymore. It's official. Where is Walter Hill and Co when you need them? Just kidding. Not really, though.
Luckily I only payed 8 dollars with free shipping for this blu ray, so shattering the disc won't hurt as bad as my valuable time did with a weeknight movie watch timetable.
Honestly, I'm being dramatic. It's fine, ...whatever.
What can I do about it?
Nothing.
It just wasn't a good movie.
]
Boo hoo.
2
Stirchley
06-16-17, 04:11 PM
I would never want to see The Martian again, but I thought it was fairly decent.
I would never want to see The Martian again, but I thought it was fairly decent.
That's what bothered me the most, that it was "fairly decent". Sometimes I get more saddened by a movie being ok then if it were totally hopeless. Hard to explain.
Stirchley
06-16-17, 09:26 PM
That's what bothered me the most, that it was "fairly decent". Sometimes I get more saddened by a movie being ok then if it were totally hopeless. Hard to explain.
If I make it through a movie without bailing out, I am pleased enough.
If I make it through a movie without bailing out, I am pleased enough.
Don't get me all wound up, Stirchley. The Martian was a bad movie. It's a scientific fact. I happen to be a scientist and according to my tests, it checks out positive for being trashy cinema.
Captain Steel
06-16-17, 11:24 PM
That's what bothered me the most, that it was "fairly decent". Sometimes I get more saddened by a movie being ok then if it were totally hopeless. Hard to explain.
Think that is due to the hype?
In other words... it would be easier to accept people just being dead wrong (or that they're able to see something as "so bad that it's good") than accepting so many viewing mediocrity as something fantastic?
Think that is due to the hype?
In other words... it would be easier to accept people just being dead wrong (or that they're able to see something as "so bad that it's good") than accepting so many viewing mediocrity as something fantastic?
Hard to say. I wasn't aware what the consensus was before I watched it. I had a feeling it had high ratings based on accidentally seeing a few blurbs and trying to block them out so I went in fresh. I think it was just my experience with it. My expectations were calibrated way differently than what the movie turned out to be. What it turned out to be seemed like a Ron Howard movie mixed with an SNL mentality and it just didn't do anything for me. But viewing mediocrity as something fantastic seems to be the prognosis haha. Not to damn and generalize a cast majority of people but just from my own personal standpoint and opinion that The Martian may be a bit, oh, how you say?, overrated?? (ducks rolls and scurries into next room):p
Captain Steel
06-16-17, 11:35 PM
I enjoyed it because I like "realistic" sci-fi. But I didn't enjoy it to the degree I thought I would based on the hype, i.e. yes, overrated. Would have enjoyed it much more if it had an under-2-hour run time (my usual criticism for many modern movies) - it was a very simple story that didn't require 2 hours and 24 minutes to tell - the lengthy runtime made it long and slow to the point where after the 2 hour mark you begin to stop caring. So many movies could go from "okay" to "very good" with a little editing on the time.
I enjoyed it because I like "realistic" sci-fi. But I didn't enjoy it to the degree I thought I would based on the hype, i.e. yes, overrated. Would have enjoyed it much more if it had an under-2-hour run time (my usual criticism for many modern movies) - it was a very simple story that didn't require 2 hours and 24 minutes to tell - the lengthy runtime made it long and slow to the point where after the 2 hour mark you begin to stop caring. So many movies could go from "okay" to "very good" with a little editing on the time.
Yep, pretty much. Way too long and that made it come off as self important. I have other gripes, too but I'll spare you the details because I don't want to sound like I am insulting anyone who likes it. I had just seen a lengthy interview with Matt Damon on "Off Camera", and he comes across super focused, intense and smart, which he is (I think?). My expectations were high. I suppose I am partly to blame for the movie being such a big piece of dog poop. If I had known what to expect, I would've skipped it for a rainy day instead of literally setting the mood lights for it as Ridley Scott's latest long overdue masterpiece.
Citizen Rules
06-17-17, 12:00 AM
Loved your review Joel, very colorful! Guess what I agree to. I reviewed it too. Just an excerpt...
It might have been a better film had Ridley not injected so much 'humor' into it. The jokes at first seem OK, but then you realize that's about all Matt Damon gets to do, well that and survive challenge after challenge after challenge. We get little introspective into the solitude of being alone.
There's very little existentialism to the film and it needed more. We need to feel his humanity and emotions. Matt's character never connects to us, probably because he's too busy making jokes. And the folks at NASA and JLP look like boobs....if you want a deeper Mars film, try Robinson Crusoe on Mars.
I found The Martian pretty interesting for the first 90 minutes, then it got repetitive. At almost 2 and half hours The Martian runs out of steam long before the credits role.
Loved your review Joel, very colorful! Guess what I agree to. I reviewed it too. Just an excerpt...
Thank you, Citizen. That was refreshing, and no offense Cap'n Steel. But yeah..your review is about to get repped haha. You just said what I couldn't put my finger on. Remember when I said this movie made me like "Moon" that much better? That was exactly what I meant by that. You nailed it. We don't get enough solitude. At almost 2.5 hrs, why the hell didn't we get more solitude? Oh..I know..because it's a comedy! (foghorn sound)
The Martian was a bad movie. It's a scientific fact. I happen to be a scientist and according to my tests, it checks out positive for being trashy cinema.
I was thoroughly entertained both times I watched it. Especially at Meth Damon screaming.
I was thoroughly entertained both times I watched it. Especially at Meth Damon screaming.
Both times? Well, god bless ya!:p
I was thoroughly entertained both times I watched it. Especially at Meth Damon screaming.
Both times? Well, god bless ya!:p
It's a shame you didn't enjoy it but come now, that scream was superb. Great set of lungs. Even better than the Tom Cruise scream.
Don't get me all wound up, Stirchley. The Martian was a bad movie. It's a scientific fact. I happen to be a scientist and according to my tests, it checks out positive for being trashy cinema.
How dare you compare The Martian to the greatness of trash cinema?
:p
How dare you compare The Martian to the greatness of trash cinema?
:p
No, you're absolutely right. Speaking of which, Star Slammer: The Escape is coming to blu ray from Kino Lorber, that 1988 Fred Olen Ray sleazy sci fi prison movie set in space. That's cause for a celebration. Wish I had friends around here to celebrate with!
Stirchley
06-19-17, 03:57 PM
Don't get me all wound up, Stirchley.
Too hot in CT for that today. Thinking more about The Martian, if I ever see it at Stop and Shop for a few dollars I would probably add it to my collection & watch it again. I did like the parts where he was growing stuff.
NEIGHBORS (1981)
Director: John G. Avildsen
http://i.imgur.com/v1KriWe.jpg
Looking at my blank screen yesterday evening, I decided to rummage through my old Betamax videocassette collection, where I came across "Neighbors", a film I have seen at least 4 times previous, over the last 30 years.
http://i.imgur.com/6ss1UTK.jpg?1
It's one of those movies I wasn't sure of. I remember always feeling some despair and unease whenever I watched it. I also remember feeling as if it was a bit of a great comedy that was over looked and dismissed as being a failure.
I can now confirm that it's all of those things.
John Belushi, playing against type, is a square and conservative suburbanite complaced in a dead end marriage, ready to collapse into his tv set, when out of the blue comes a new force in his life, played by a manic Dan Aykroyd, as his new menacing, yet somehow intriguing, next door neighbor.
http://i.imgur.com/czgvXcH.jpg?1
After being come on to by his new neighbor's wife and continuously harrassed by their overbearing headgames, a night of backyard adventure ensues and strange things start to happen.
This is a weird ass movie, first of all. It makes zero sense. There is no logic to speak of. No one is consistent with any of their actions, motivations are scribbled down and tossed away, and the tone is something of an old cartoon mixed with a poor attempt at camp humor, with constant send ups to pop culture references hidden in a soundtrack that invades the space this movie occupies in an obnoxious manner.
http://i.imgur.com/aapjlHC.jpg
I didn't mind very much, though. There were several moments where the comedy mis-fired with a loud thud and some of the choices the director made were very stupid (like playing Bee Gees while Belushi powders his chest and flosses his teeth in a segment that should have never happened to act as a time barrier), but aside from a few noisy plops, "Neighbors" is a fun time at the movies.
I thank Dan Aykroyd for that.
He took the writing and made it fit perfectly with his character. He comes across intimidating in one breath, and in the next, a complete jerk who couldn't hurt a fly. It's a schizophrenic mess of a movie, but that's what adds to the charm. Whether or not this was all an accident in the editing room, I do not know, nor does it matter. I suspect it was true to the tone of the book written by Thomas Berger, though I confess to not having read it.
http://i.imgur.com/ud6B5nO.jpg
Belushi does his best work here.
He plays the straight guy more than fine, and even turns in a few moments of dramatic acting, if only for a brief transitory moment with his facial expressions. I wish he had kept going. I wish he were still alive today. He would have won many awards, I'm sure of it. He had that despairity every good dramatic actor needs to be an everyman with depth.
I also enjoyed the location, and the fact that 70% of the film was shot at night. The interiors were old wood grain paneled badness, but that tackiness also lended a certain warm feeling of being home, in a finished rec room downstairs, a bare bones shower room in the root cellar, and a living room of frayed fabric couch and chairs with cloth doilies on the end tables.
http://i.imgur.com/LSNKgsV.jpg
Outside at night was the most fun. It was like hanging out on a Summer evening, never knowing what would happen next, messing around the back yard where the toxic swamp lived, where the weeds recessed with pressure and stood back up erect with every passing footstep. A grown man sneaking around on his front lawn, looking for companionship and finding a mentally maladjusted neighbor offering his company, and his dirty coffee cup.
http://i.imgur.com/ZjMK9op.jpg
There's rarely a dull moment in this movie, which is strange to realize in retrospect because it moves along at a snail's pace. I could see how some people would find it dreary and dull. I can also see how people would not find any of it funny, for the obvious mistakes that were made in production that have nowhere to hide in the finished film. However, to me, it's easily forgiven. It was John Belushi's last film, and it was his best performance. I think I can say the same for Aykroyd's performance. This is a completely batshitt movie, but it deserves its audience.
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DR_w_MXpqA&feature=youtu.be
cricket
06-23-17, 08:35 PM
Neighbors rules! My parents took me and a friend to see it as part of a double feature with Stripes! Ahhh the memories.
I liked The Martian but thought it started to drag.
VANILLA SKY (2001)
Director: Cameron Crowe
I've seen the Spanish film "Open Your Eyes" that this movie is adapted from, and I liked it a lot. I think as a movie it is much better, but for different reasons.
"Vanilla Sky" is just an enjoyable Americanized version and that doesn't seem to be enough for the critics. First off I understand why the person who has seen "Open Your Eyes" would be upset. I saw Vanilla Sky first, and was not aware of there being another original film it was based off of.
Months later I saw the original and was instantly in love with it's uniqueness and surreal feel.
Then I tried Vanilla Sky again and JESUS CHRIST, forget it! I'm not reviewing the original, I'm reviewing the remake and the remake only, as a standalone film.
As a standalone film, Vanilla Sky is very powerful. It is not perfect. By not perfect I mean that it has a few moments of dopeyness and convenience. I just happen not to care. Tom Cruise does some of his very best work in this film. I know Cruise is the poster child for deranged and spoiled. He's a super wealthy leader in a hack religion and he jumps on couches and does his own stunts and probably thinks he's better than you. I honestly don't care. As an actor he is terrific. In this film Vanilla Sky he gets me very emotionally involved because his face is so experienced with conveying emotion. He does have a great smile, and he was in good shape and he did wear cool clothes and had a stylish haircut and yes, I enjoyed all of this. This surface material helps put across who he is, and it shows his power as a star. I've always liked Tom Cruise a lot as an actor. He doesn't burn out with his eyes. He believes everything he says and does. I have never once seen a fast cutaway from a Tom Cruise expression because he may have faded out and stopped believing after a line reading. No. Tom Cruise believes his world. He believes what he has created. Call him crazy. Make fun of his nose to knock him down a peg, ridicule his religion, but don't say Tom Cruise cannot act because you've only seen "Top Gun" and Mission:Impossible".
The story, I am not going to get into because the film works best as a surprise, and frankly, I don't care to try and sell this film. I enjoyed it and just wanted to get my thoughts out about it.
I genuinely got choked up from this movie. It was able to create a deep sadness and cold reality that Cruise played with absolute perfection. There's a scene where he calls his love interest up on the phone and has to leave a message. He is so manic and nervous. It's heartbreaking. His insecurities have him delusional. Or maybe his delusions have him more confident?
Another scene is where Cruise's character calls a bartender out for not being face to face with him. After he gets the bartender's attention, Cruise goes limp and humble as he follows up his original hostile comment with a respectful reply. He just wants to be accepted. Cruise sells of all of this. I just can't stress how impressed I am with Tom Cruise in this movie.
There are plenty of scenes that showcase Cruise's ability as an actor as he plays a privileged, good looking millionaire as well as an isolated, deformed and devastated man in love.
As far as Tom Cruise being a "this" or "that" because he decided to help finance a pet project, ..so what? He clearly loved the original film enough to want to have a chance to play this part. The music was more than solid, the camera work amazing, great performances all around, and some typical American hit you over the head - easy to read lettering to ensure everyone can have a piece. What some viewers may have overlooked is that Vanilla Sky is a great movie on its own. It's not a perfect movie, especially if I were to insist on comparing it to the original film it was spawned from, but I had it as a new experience when I originally saw it, I feel lucky about that, and never had a deep hatred for Tom Cruise to begin with. Yeah, I know he's got issues..and money..and power. I simply do not care. He's a tremendous actor when he gets the right role. Roman Polanski goes around raping chicks and fleeing the country and that guy gets stroked off at every turn. At least Cruise tries to help people when he's not holding his family hostage with the help of the satanic, excuse me, scientificoligologically challenged church.
He got the right role. Good on him for seeing that opportunity and taking it for himself.
I know this movie didn't do well critically. That was a gamble. But I connect with this movie so I'm glad I don't always listen to critics or else I might have missed this one.
Since I originally saw this back in 2002, I've re-watched it a handful of times. This latest time I was sure I would think this movie was just mediocre. I was surprised to find myself loving it all over again like it was the first time.
Now I'll have to go and get "Open Your Eyes" and watch that again.
4
THE HITCHER (1986)
Director: Robert Harmon
I've seen "The Hitcher" several times since its release back in '86. The most recent time was last night.
This is a mixed bag of a movie. On one hand you get a tense and vividly written horror film. On the other hand you get a sort of road movie feel with long pauses to enjoy the scenery.
http://i.imgur.com/xuqmJJ3.jpg
Why does it not always feel like the perfect mix then? I mean, a combination like this should be incredible. Mix Paris Texas with Duel and cast a completely new kind of villian as Rutger Hauer, still able to take rain drops falling from his head and chin and give us an upward eye profile glance and a sneer. What went wrong? I'll try and answer this later.
I gotta say that casting Rutger Hauer was a pretty smart move. He's awesome, as usual. Back before he became a doughy and smiley gentleman for his 90's era heyday, The Hitcher offered him one last evil guy role to sink his teeth into. He plays it with as much fun as he did Roy Batty 4 years prior. He comes off really funny when he busts C. Thomas Howell's ass, especially at the diner scene about 7/8ths into the movie. This scene is a standout as Rutger's Rydell character has Howell's Jim Halsey character in check. Howell gives a great comedic performance through the deranged, confused and frustrated eyes of a man fresh off of puberty. C. Thomas seems to take his role seriously enough to deliver on the required arc of a boy turned man while running from the law and being dished head games by a mysterious drifter bent on framing him for several murders.
Jennifer Jason Leigh plays Nash, a stuck-in-the-middle-of-nowhere waitress who befriends Halsey and aids him through the desert. She does her usual solid work. Nothing too special but also nothing particularly embarrassing. Speaking of which, I have to admit my disappointment with her not showing any skin. I suppose I'm a bit of a pig but I was looking forward to her breasts being bared. I've seen this movie enough times to know that she never does but each time I watch it I cannot help but wish I had forgotten her accidentally losing her shirt to rusty nail on a door frame. Sadly she probably does lose her shirt along with her torso when she is ripped in half by a truck that Ryder is driving to torment his pawn (Howell).
Yeah, it's a sick movie. It's a drag, too. It just starts off so damned good and then stalls, then starts again, then gets absolutely nuts, then it ends like a Clint Eastwood western, which I do appreciate. I thought the very ending was the work of a very confident and stylish director. Harmon was a professional still photographer and his eye for composition certainly shows here. The camera movements are meticulous and elegant and paced very adequately from scene to scene, as if a timer was calibrated into the dolly tracks to match each shot up. It probably was. I've seen clueless critical backlash for this film being murky. Well, who ever said that is an idiot. This same critic talked about changing a bulb for a better picture. Yeah, duh! You probably saw the movie with a bad projector bulb, you DUNCE!!
Another overpaid critic mentioned that he thought this film was a homophobic anti AIDS film. Say what?1 Where the hell did this jackasss get his degree, the toilet store? What an IDIOT!
Anyway, holy *****....none of this is true.
The film is a solid thriller, with some nice surprises. It is violent and sometimes tasteless but ..I mean,what? Boo hoo for you. It's a horror film. And don't give me Jonathan Demme's Silence of the Lambs as a comparison on how to make a sophisticated horror film because that movie was mediocre at best.
"The Hitcher" is what you think it will be except much more. You get the menace of Rutger Hauer, the plain jane plot device of Jennifer Jason Leigh, and the boyish charm of C. Thomas Howell, all wrapped together in some late night cable tv adult viewing.
So, to answer my own question as to what happened to The Hitcher to prevent it from being the great movie its premise offered? What went wrong?
Nothing.
It's a recurring illusion that this movie failed to make the grade. It's a fleeting suspicion that this movie isn't as good as its premise. People were spoiled back in the mid to late 80's. They wanted the terror of Wes Craven and the sensibilities of Barry Levinson along with the critical popularity of someone profound (insert name here).
The spoiled rotten expectations came from a juicy era, and a bit later horror got really bad again, and again, and again..until charisma was reduced to scripts that thought they were smarter than they actually were. One liners being a distant trend, The Hitcher is an out of time movie. The timing of its release was off.
If people had known films like this would be extinct within 10 years, I really believe it would have had a few golden leaves on its jacket. As it is, The Hitcher is not a great movie. But it's a pretty damn good one!
3.5
SUNTAN (2016)
Director: Argyris Papadimitropoulos (damn!)
http://i.imgur.com/KTbz5mp.jpg
I recently watched Police Academy and felt good about movies again. I know that Police Academy isn't a great film by any measure, but it has a straightforwardness to it and amidst the nudity, profanity and cartoon violence, a sentimentality for its day. There is also a happy ending, more or less. It's wrapped up pleasingly (even though the end credit roll song is complete cringe). I don't mind a happy ending in a movie. I don't know why today that happy endings are so frowned upon.
It seems like the last 20 or so years, happy endings, or endings that tie themselves together are just not there in large numbers. It's very trendy to write a deeply disturbing movie and then leave everyone hanging during the middle of a troubling scene. When this stunt is pulled, the film maker's get 2 almost guaranteed benefits: they don't have to finish the story and get to evade responsibility on that front, and usually there is critical acclaim often involving the words "profound", "challenging", "unflinching".
"Suntan" is a deeply challenging, unflinching and profound character study of a middle aged man who sacrifices his medical practice and self respect in hopes of earning the companionship of a touring gang of twenty-somethings. He becomes one of the gang and we're never sure why. He gets to party and even participate in some sexual activity and we are definitely even more so now, not sure why. Are these kids just completely brain dead? Do they feel sorry for him? What does he offer besides a quiet agreement? Are they building him up just to knock him down? Is it a cruel trick? Or is it a game?
http://i.imgur.com/dIpglGn.jpg
Some of these questions get answered which is appreciated. This Summer town breeds a particularly ample number of horny young adults in the month of August, and Doctor Dolittle gets to sit at the table with them, assimilating into their free spirited world of nude volleyball, nude swimming, nude everything.
We witness this man fall apart and fall into an infatuation with one of the younger women who befriends him, as if to single him out as her own special pet. What follows is uncomfortable and messy, and we're there every step of the way to see it unfold.
By the time the last few frames roll we get a rushed character arc. The doctor, seconds away from committing the most heinous crime, quickly derails his base instinct into a more responsible and caring manner that ties into the first act of the film. Then everything goes black and of course, we get the credits rolling.
I have to admit that this film was very well acted and upon further thought, written.
The ending at first seemed tacked on and unfinished. As if someone was building a sports car, never bothered to put any windshields or headlights on, left the bumper half hanging off, and then tried to sell it as a finished vehicle with showroom floor prices.
Suntan struck me as another ugly movie that was made to sicken people. But there is a moral. It's in plain sight. No windshield means no protection from the incoming message blowing your hair back in disbelief. No headlights means no way to navigate to any convenient understanding of the road this movie takes you on. No bumper means if you get rear ended by this film you must remember where you are and that stuff like this is going to happen when you decide to take a bumpy ride.
So I tried to tie it all together for myself. The unfinished movie by Argyris Papadimitropoulos.
But it is finished. It's a warning. For certain people. Or, for anyone, really. Anyone could fall into this trap I would imagine. Not everyone is a balding overweight failing Greek doctor, but everyone has the potential to be infatuated with things that seem to swoop down on you unexpectedly and titillate you with complimentary perks, things you're not used to having, and you may die and go to heaven until the supply stops, and then you could die and go to hell. You've become an addict. You've realized you've always been an addict and your darkness will possess you and make you do things that are against your usual character.
Will you ever come to your senses and just take it on the chin and appreciate what you had without trying to hold onto it forever?
I can't say that I loved this movie. It was very disturbing. I laughed a few times and enjoyed some of the sights but ultimately I was on edge. I knew going in that it was going to be "one of those movies".
For the first time in quite a while a movie left me thinking until the next day about it; How I felt, why I felt that way, was there a point to the movie? I think so. There will be no rush to ever watch this picture again, and it's safe to say that Police Academy will definitely be spinning every 7 years or so as the rest of my life goes on, but I'm satisfied with "Suntan" as a movie that challenged me in a deeply disturbing, profound and unflinching way.
http://i.imgur.com/5NeRaEM.jpg
4
Stirchley
07-10-17, 02:50 PM
Argyris Papadimitropoulos (damn!)
Imagine spelling his name a million times over the phone. :(
THE AMBULANCE (1990)
Director: Larry Cohen
http://i.imgur.com/X4qz5J0.png
Larry Cohen is a director I may be checking out a bit more. I was already aware that he directed It's Alive and its sequels, Q: The Winged Serpent, The Stuff (which I just cannot like no matter how much I try), and Return to Salem's Lot, before I accidentally queued this film into my bin. I had no idea what to expect. How about that 2nd to last sentence? Is that grammar karate I just did, or am I an idiot? Don't answer that.
The first bit of sound was a music cue in the form of a synthesizer that screamed post apocalyptic mid 1980's Italian B movie mixed with horror, and I was certain that this movie would be so murky and cheesy that I may have had to turn it off.
But I was way off base.
Aside from the establishing shot of Eric Roberts sporting a mullet that Patrick Swayze himself would make fun of, what immediately struck me about this movie was how promising it seemed to be. Roberts walks down a busy city sidewalk at rush hour hitting on an attractive woman and we see his comic timing through a telephoto prime lens (as if any other kind of lens could be used for a scene like this).
http://i.imgur.com/pjfzTc8.jpg
On 2nd thought, this may not be a telephoto prime. I could have sworn there was way more blur in the background. Who cares?
What was even more impressive was that the dialog coming out of their mouths wasn't just filler. It actually had a tiny bit of weight to it. Not dramatic but definitely engaging enough to pay attention. How can this be? Five seconds ago I thought I was hearing the music to accompany Lucio Fulci and now I've got a hip, urban fable with snappy writing and classy camera work on my hands.
I kept waiting for the movie to blow it. Then I waited some more while enjoying myself. But it never happened. This movie kind of rules.
http://i.imgur.com/Md3H20n.png
http://i.imgur.com/zcmMclE.jpg
Virtually every person cast in this picture is doing solid work. James Earl Jones, Red Buttons, and of course Roberts, who has me clapping my hands alone in my living room with his over-the-top body language. Yes, that's right. Roberts steals his own scenes when he has to explain to the police what has been happening as they continuously never believe him. His raises him arms over his head, spins around, wildly waves and arches his arms with physical violence - but at the same time his voice is calm and his pronunciation is perfect, his delivery is very composed and to the point with no added color. It's amazing. He's literally doing his usual manic Eric Roberts but only with his body - his voice being a different entity completely, that of a perfectly helpful gentleman. I was rolling with laughter.
Red Buttons plays his sidekick - wait, before I go any further I just have to say that the story is unique but not everything works. There is some sloppy coverage and dubbing occasionally. But it doesn't matter. It's a cheap movie that just happens to have everyone involved throwing down like it was a classic Hollywood thriller.
Here may be a movie that no one's heard of. I know I never did. When the credits rolled I was giddy. I had seen a gem. It's rare I find something that I think is going to be utter trash and it turns out to be the opposite.
http://i.imgur.com/Amenite.jpg
The Ambulance is silly and sometimes splotchy with it's production value, there's no mistaking this for a top tier film, but if I ever need to watch Eric Roberts, James Earl Jones and Red Buttons (especially Red Buttons) tear it up in an obscure surrealistic thriller/romance drama with good writing, this will be the first movie I go to.
http://i.imgur.com/zSxDDtk.jpg
Well written, unique and funny, with a few dashes of terror, and always weird and absurd.
This movie is too damned good to miss if you like goofy.
One last thought is that this movie informed me that director Larry Cohen also pens his films so he's the one responsible for not only directing and composing the scenes, but for writing all the zany dialog and eccentricities of the characters. His attention to detail and a lot of his jokes are robust with a grenade effect attached so it may not hit you until the next scene is playing out. I love that kind of writing. Why bother writing any other way?
I was not bored for a second.
4.5
MATINEE (1993)
Director: Joe Dante
http://i.imgur.com/qLUrboo.png
Set in 1962, Matinee opens up on a military base centering on a fatherless family and a young boy's eventual involvement into a legendary b film producer's in-person appearance at the local theater where he helps run the prop heavy show of a new series of creature features that build in shock seats, odor-rama and flying insects as part of the spectacle.
http://i.imgur.com/WTW493o.jpg
Watching this movie reminded me a bit of Cinema Paradiso. Director Joe Dante clearly loves films and takes any opportunity to pay a deep love letter like respect to his youth. The story, like Paradiso, also unfolds with a father figure who fosters the boy into his dream world and lets him take the wheel.
http://i.imgur.com/leoQqpS.jpg
Amidst the war and nostalgia themed segments, I felt this film, unlike Paradiso, was missing a strong romantic component. Obviously this is not a very heavy or serious film but it does play with themes that prevent itself from being pure camp. I think that is where I fell off a bit. Tonally this is an interesting movie. It's certainly not a film that hits all of the formulaic notes for a period comedy. Strange things happen outside of the obvious film-within-film parameters. Some of the dialog is straight out of left field and plays hiding in plain sight subtle. I just wish Dante would have tightened up his writing/editing a bit. I didn't find myself completely immersed in either world. The drama I was disconnected from and the camp, though closer than the dramatic, was still too eclipsed by the thematics to fully engage me all of the way through with a general feeling of glee and celebration.
http://i.imgur.com/io86FyR.jpg
Regardless of my minor distractions, I'd probably recommend this movie to just about anyone with an attention span and who loves movies. It is a fine film that does things no other film has done, and does them well. It just happens, like most Dante movies happen to be, a bit uneven.
3.5
The Neverending Story (1983)
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
http://i.imgur.com/ujeUM0z.jpg
German director Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot) quite obviously set out to create a passionate and screaming "children's" film of fantasy by employing odd choices to his toolkit, not least of which involved hiring on composers Klaus Doldinger and Giorgio Moroder to score the film with a heavily dark and moody electronic soundtrack.
I remember being about 9 years old walking through the mall and passing the theaters inside. I was with my stepfather and pointed to a poster of Sixteen Candles while simultaneously begging him to take me to see it. He firmly denied me this pleasure and instead I had to settle for The Neverending Story. I was so upset. His responsibility was to protect me from the mature themes of teenage sex comedies. Little did he know that the film we were about to see hurt me 20 feet deeper than a ridiculous film like Sixteen Candles ever could.
This is not a movie for children to watch and walk away whistling dixie. Not for 1984 it wasn't. Not for me, anyway.
http://i.imgur.com/JCG9dgP.jpg
When there is this collective consciousness thing happening, like for instance, scripts leak onto each other in the studio systems resulting in sharp similarities between several films, or pop songs all seem to have that one particular keyboard sound in every song on the radio, or like today auto-tune is used as a hook...
Well, in the 1980's I clearly remember there was a lot of hair blowing back and a lot of the general feeling was long distance shouting or moaning that carried over the wind as if you were screaming to someone beyond the grave that you missed, or screaming to God. Duran Duran 'Hungry Like the Wolf', right near the end of the song a woman moans twice as if in deep, lonely pain. This was big back in the mid 80's and it is overflowing in The Neverending Story, a deeply sad tale with a dimly lit rainbow at the end.
http://i.imgur.com/FVHE0ZS.jpg
Which brings me to the cinematography by Jost Vacano. Dark and lovely. The entire film, even during daytime and especially back alley scenes, takes on a darker filmic tone. I miss older lenses and stock. Not to sound like an old grinch but honestly, nowadays if you got a children's fantasy it would be bright and over saturated like a god damned board game or it would be artificially dark blue and muted like a Chris Nolan picture. Obnoxious or boring, take your pick. Petersen had his movie shot like a real film. Most film makers did before the Sony's came around and started slip sliding away with the texture and porousness of motion pictures.
http://i.imgur.com/PGau3CF.jpg
No one can accuse this film of being too cheerfully photographed. The matte paintings, lighting, sets, costumes, props and visual effects may show seams and bleed but they are still a joy to look at, regardless.
I suppose seeing this movie for the first time today would be a tame and amusing experience for a good portion of movie goers, but back in 1984 some German director kidnapped me, dragged me into the back parking lot and shivved me in the gut with a sterling silver book mark.
To this day The Neverending Story is one of the major reasons I still cannot help seeing any and all films like a child might; constantly scouting for peculiar stones that glow, 6 point star filtered lighting, hazily lensed long fur white scarves over flowing ivory robes, paint soaked brass pillars, bewitching lipstick. The visuals and music were just too powerful back then for me to not absorb and retain like some sort of virus.
This is also a creepy film. Some of the cutesy animal scenes with voices kind of sound pervy, I won't lie. I guess it's innocent. Damn shame my mind has to be in the gutter every time the flying dog creature gets his ears scratched.
http://i.imgur.com/J9WkjSa.jpg
I shouldn't give this film too high of a rating because it is silly and dated but for capturing my imagination I'd rate it
4
re93animator
07-13-17, 10:26 PM
I just watched The Ambulance. I wasn't as high on it as you, but I did really like it. The style is definitely my cup of tea. Gracias. :)
I really like Matinee too.
I just watched The Ambulance. I wasn't as high on it as you, but I did really like it. The style is definitely my cup of tea. Gracias. :)
I really like Matinee too.
There were some scenes that just hit me at the right time.
Like when James Earl Jones is still chewing gum after being slaughtered, or when Red Buttons spashes the bedpan into the villian's face and he goes "*****!@" and Buttons says "no, piss!"..stuff like that..when Eric Roberts finds out so and so has a BF and his new cop friend asks if he is gonna let the BF know if she is OK and he says "f@@ck himmm" in that famous E. Roberts pre-nervous breakdown exaggeration.
But yeah, it's not the best movie in the world:p
POPATOPOLIS (2009)
Director: Clay Westervelt
This is a funny documentary about Jim Wynorski, B film making legend responsible for "Chopping Mall" and "Deathstalker II" who has taken on the task of shooting a low budget soft core film called "The Witches of Breastwick" in 3 days.
http://i.imgur.com/VrLJtQv.jpg
Director Westervelt has really captured some great stuff here. His camera seems to be running at the most opportune times to catch things like Wynorski breaking down with frustration, shooting off nasty comments about his cast, insulting everything he can and just generally being a huge douche for most of the movie.
Here's a guy who knows how to take the cheapest route and deliver most crowd pleasing content. No wonder he was hired by Roger Corman over 30 years ago and has been going strong since. I mean, that's what garbage filmmakers essentially do. They take the most common ground collection of ingredients needed to appease the masses and shellac everything until it becomes marketable. Wynorski seems to have his craft figured out a bit more, though. His credo is "Big Chases....Big Chest, and you will have a winner, sir."
http://i.imgur.com/EnADJ2i.jpg
What came as a mild surprise was some of Wynorski's cast. They were all camped out in some cabin rental with no wardrobe or makeup, let alone catering, and the insight they gave for the camera came across very anecdotal and intelligent. They are serious actors who are, for whatever reasons, working with a total hack. A hack that makes a bit of money but probably nothing substantial for his players. They seem in on the joke but that doesn't mean they aren't suffering and self loathing.
A good amount of this fly on the wall feature is based around Wynorski's relationship with his mother, who just gushes about her son as if he is such a good little boy with so much talent. Jim calls his mother every Sunday, but the viewer gets the impression that Jim does it out of guilt and habit and possibly doesn't really lend much of an ear to his mother's day to day recap conversations over the phone. before saying goodbye and "talk to you next Sunday".
Also, I'm not sure of the exact reason but the film maker seems to linger on Wynorski's mom having trouble hanging up the phone and although funny, I can't really feel that great about something that paints this picture when I put everything into context. This guy is a spoiled brat. He's a bully, he's super entitled, he thinks he's some kind of hip old force of nature, and the truth is, he's just a lucky SOB. I don't think anyone watching this would take away anything different. Wynorski knows he's lucky, and this may be part of the reason he comes across so shrill and condescending. He constantly fidgets, covers his mouth and darts his eyes around the room while directing. His confidence is in his passion, but his humor is in his circumstance. He knows his livelihood is doing exactly what he's doing.
http://i.imgur.com/yVndZ27.jpg
I believe the director of this doc did a fine job at recording the essence of Mr. Popatopolis. I find myself coming back to this movie often enough as this is my fourth time watching it. It's a damn good movie and it is always a lot of fun for me.
I recommend this film for anyone who likes trashy cinema, even on a casual level, and anyone who is thinking about taking up film making. This seems to be a mini handbook for what not to do, and sometimes what exactly to do.
4
WAR MACHINE (2017)
Director: David Michôd
Taking a cast like Griffin Dunne, Alan Ruck, Meg Tilly, Anthony Michael Hall and Russell Crowe would seem like a juicy idea, ripe for some expert storytelling and amazing ensemble work, right? That's what I thought. Say Brad Pitt is the star, what happens then? A couple things: either he'll be serviceable and the script will be funny, or, he'll be barely tolerable and the script will be trash. What's frustrating is that none of this fits that neatly into a determination about "War Machine", an alarmingly bad movie with only half of a handful of semi-effective moments.
The main issue with this film is the first 45 minutes. The basic premise is that a platoon led by a self decorated man near the end of his career is sent to a counter resurgence mission with nothing but a confused agenda. With little to no face time with the president and not much of a chance to "figure things out" on their own, the crew is left no choice but to basically improvise their way through yet another dead ass mission to uphold some paranoid ideal set forth by the powers that be.
To add insult to injury, a couple of jack asses in the unit decide to bring along a reporter from Rolling Stone for the mission and lucky for us the audience, we get to hear his narration for about 60% of the film. Picture "Goodfellas" voice over turned up to 11. It's so distracting and unnecessarily in your face, you'd think that there should be words scrolling like Star Wars through every scene of the movie. SHUT UP ALREADY! JESUS CHRIST!!
Whatever message this film makes an honest attempt to bring home to the movie going public gets completely denied by the horrid first act. How horrid is it? It's as horrid as ***** and I do not say this lightly one bit. The jokes are past "bad". They are offensively embarrassing. The timing is waste. Wasted everything. Too much dead air. One gets a strong feeling that the writing and direction rely on something thought to be sophisticated and "adult" is to be found in these "offbeat" NON beats, but this level of miscalculation is jaw dropping. I couldn't believe how bad the jokes were. We get Ben Kingsley, once playing Ghandi, back again to reprise his role, this time sporting an influenza-like cough that interrupts a basic conversation as if to be a gag (literally). All this does is make one put their hands up and shrug their shoulders. "Why"? Why do this? It's not funny. It's not relevant at all. All it's saying in its transparent way is: "we don't know what we're doing. At all."
Griffin Dunne does his usual energetic work but his slur has gotten worse as he might need some dental work before taking another role which requires him to deliver dialog more than 2 sentences at a time. I like Dunne as an actor but there are some bad decisions being made here. One positive thing I can say is that Alan Ruck (Cameron from Ferris Bueller's Day Off) does solid work, in fact, he's probably giving the best performance of the picture with his 3 scenes of about 40 seconds each.
Meg Tilly shows up briefly with hair that seems to match Pitt's in an almost beauty salon scheme thought to bring some Newmanesque credibility. They manage to share a couple of good dramatic moments together, but it all just feels wasted in the grand scheme of things.
As for Brad Pitt I'd have to say that his performance is good when he's not talking. He can carry enough emotion with his face. It's just that when he opens his mouth, we have to hear his fake gravely voice. First of all, this is painful. It sounds like a 9 year old trying to deepen his voice to sound 18. Pitt takes long pauses between sentences and I had to wonder if he did this so he could draw in enough breath to continue on with his fake gravely voice. I believe if he had put his sentences closer together, that he would have run out of steam and lost the voice. It's embarrassing.
One thing I am happy about is the presence of Anthony Michael Hall. This is his biggest and best role he's had since he got to star in the Hughes films. It's true that he is a shell of his former nerd appeal. He's big and bulky with a wrestlers voice and a forehead that could crack open a Stella Artois. But his work is good. Limited here, but good. He plays rough and tough well enough but his eyeball intensity and forehead creasing mixed with his taut cheek work make his emotional projection that of someone who seems capable of much more. I hope to see him back on the A-List more often. Truth be told, Anthony Michael Hall is the only reason I decided to watch this movie. If it hadn't featured him, and I wasn't curious, I would never made it past the first 20 minutes.
"War Machine" isn't the worst film ever made. It has a message, but that same message kind of cancels itself out because it does two things wrong. It allowed the first act to exist in the state it's in, and it tied things up with a smarmy narration by a fictional Rolling Stone editor. So essentially it tries for irony by using the thing it makes fun of as its main plot device. I see this happen a lot and keep wondering when Hollywood will smarten up. For all of the intricate themes and stories that they want to tell, how is it that they still think they can get the message home when the front door to the club locks you out until you're too tired to want to go inside.
I felt like I was at the hottest nightclub in town hungry to see what was happening, but the door man was an idiot and by the time he let me in I was rained on and cranky.
2 for a few decent moments of performance and a message that should have been more prominent much, much sooner.
I just want to add that so far, any anticipated production I've ventured to see from Netflix Original Films has been a disappointment. Is this coincidence or am I at the end of what's possible to appreciate from where movies are now, in the hands of a streaming company, no longer ruled by a golden lion or a mountain circled with stars?
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
Director: Who cares?
http://i.imgur.com/lG0YzOm.jpg
I need to write because I'm in a funk and foul so I chose this film to dissect.
Part 2 suffers from a grimy look. It comes across brown and dirty. Brown and dirty is the color of a poop. Poop is also dirty. I'm not saying this movie is poop, it's not, but it does have brown hues to it, and because it has moments of dirtyness, it could be considered poop by someone expecting a top shelf comedy with award winning writing, which this film is the exact opposite of.
The jokes aren't nearly as good or as well timed as part 1. Some jokes get repeated to bad effect. There's one moment early on where we get to see female nudity (small breasts) at the beach, and another moment where we see a man's behind in a shower room after being bullied by his in-subordinates. They super glue his hands to his hair in the shower by using an epoxy resin as a replacement for his shampoo. Captain Mauser. That's his name. He says the F word. It's rated PG-13. So far boobs, butt and F word. Not bad for an early PG-13 offering. Tackleberry also pops an erection and blasts off one of his guns in the dark.
The movie, like this review, is disjointed. The editing makes it suffer tremendously. There may have been issues with re-shoots, who knows for sure? Who cares for certain? The movie doesn't completely suck but it's not as good as part one. Bobcat Goldthwait is in this one. He's kind of funny but also embarrassingly annoying.
This movie feels depressing and I'm not sure why. It has lost a big chunk of soul compared to the first film. Even as a standalone movie it kind of just exists as a series of hit/miss jokes.
"And all the rookies will get down on their knees, and they'll say 'Captain Mauserrr...yowzi YOWZAHHH, ohhh yeahhh, OHH YEAHHH, OH...Oh?..Oh?!"
Art Metrano as Captain Mauser does the best work in this film aside from Michael Winslow (sound effect virtuoso). His showbiz attitude of limp wrist operatic comes across very funny, and he wears all sorts of egg on his face with glee. Very controlled performer, very natural. I wish they had made the film more about him.
Colleen Camp plays a goblin-like, yet somehow strangely attractive policewoman who knows a thing or two about guns. She also has a healthy family of fist fighting table manners much to the surprisAre you still reading this?
I'm done.
2.5
Police Academy Series
This will help me break down what I have witnessed on blu ray this past week concerning the Police Academy franchise.
Police Academy (1984)
Director: Hugh Wilson
It's funny, it has tons of gags, it's mostly based in reality and the jokes are written into the characters and their situations. This movie doesn't rely entirely on stunt people for a strictly sight-gag yawn fest. I enjoyed most every character and Police Academy plays out like a classic. The comic timing is further honed by the editing, never letting a joke resonate too long but also never pulling the rug out too quick before moving on. That's proper showmanship. 4
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
Director: Jerry Paris
The second installment still has some choice moments but the main issue is that it's lost the core humor and writing of the first installment. We're introduced to a new ass kissing captain of the ship and he's crude and dopey but full of spark. That's Art Metrano with his sidekick Lanse Kinsey playing Mauser and Proctor, respectively. They bring most of the weight in this entry with their well worked out shtick of back and forth. Kinsey who plays Proctor shows promise that will eventually bail out the further Police Academy's from being tedious and humorless. He's a nice addition. Winslow as Larvelle Jones comes again with a few new tricks and Colleen Camp and family bring some mental illness to the dinner table. The biggest gripe I have with part 2 is the editing. Something happened where everything feels too pasted together. It's quick and cheap as a movie and not the well oiled machine that was part 1.
2.5
Police Academy 3: Back in Training (1986)
Director: Jerry Paris
Chapter 3 has things getting pretty unbelievably silly and gunky after a slick and crisp opening. We get new recruits, this time bridging over Zed played by Bobcat Goldthwait, who was the dynamically challenged punk criminal of the 2nd film. He's a cop now. He manages to get in some interesting grunts and ticks but ultimately not much is happening in this movie except for Mauser and Proctor again, and they do fine work, as usual. Proctor, in particular, seems to have really inhabited his role, and he shines as an idiot in what I can only describe as a totally committed moron. Good stuff. Sadly the movie is mostly garbage. 2
Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol (1987)
Director: Jim Drake
Citizens on Patrol (C.O.P.) is strictly stupid. Once again we have new recruits signing up including David Spade and the strangely beautiful Corrine Bohrer. Gues stars feature Tony Hawk and some other famous skaters who get some screen time. The opening rap song "Citizens on Patrol" is indicative of exactly the movie you will get. Police Academy has become comfortable enough to now stamp their brand on your face no matter how silly and cheap it plays out. Once again, we are treated to some nice bits here and there with the return of Proctor, and this time Mauser is gone and G.W.Bailey steps back in for his role as Captain Harris, part one's nemesis. They make a good "bad guy" team. Maybe not as good as Metrano did as Mauser, but Bailey has the chops and range to really take care of business and Harris and Proctor don't miss a beat(pun). "It's definitely gum, sir. Bubble gum...cherry, I think!" Hightower finally gets to spread his comedic wings in a bit that looks like he finally feels comfortable being funny. And he is: "Yama, yama, yama, yahhh-ma!"
2
Police Academy 5: Assignment Miami Beach (1988)
Director: Alan Myerson
Well, here is the 2nd worst Police Academy film. Guttenberg has left as Mahoney, leaving us with non-actor Bubba Smith as a dull Hightower. Taking Mahoney's young and handsome face is Lloyd Braun from Seinfeld as Commadant Eric Lassard's nephew. So much story here. This installment is mostly just bad, bad bad! Proctor and Harris still make a good team but the movie is so poorly written and directed that they lose footing quick and succumb to the overpowering stank that is this movie. Avoid.
1
Police Academy 6: City Under Siege (1989)
Director: Peter Bonerz (That name!!)
Believe it or not, City Under Siege isn't half bad. It still suffers from limp writing and hokey and ridiculous characters, but it has something Police Academy never had and that is style. Yes, it's actually photographed and lit well. On top of that, some of the jokes are just subtle enough to realize that some touch up writing was employed, which is nice for a change. I think a bit of care went into this movie, and the problem seems to be that the movie, as a whole,, is pretty awfully written. Enough scenes make up for the sheer absurdity as they accent this fact of everything being stupid, and we are rewarded with character traits never before seen. Larvelle Jones does the robot, Tackleberry demonstrates some artistic shooting skills, Hightower gets to try on supernatural physical powers that play like a Marvel film. It's all pretty interesting for a while and seems evenly peppered throughout to make this nearly ended saga an almost passable movie experience. Proctor and Harris are still at it and have some choice moments. Sadly, this the last film that Lance Kinsey - as Proctor - appears in.
3
Police Academy: Mission to Moscow (1994)
Director: Alan Metter
In the same way that John Landis destroyed Beverly Hills Cop, Alan Metter (Back to School) ends Police Academy on the sourest, weirdest and most depressingly awkward of notes.
Captain Harris spends the entire film trying to make trouble for the gang - alone. He no longer has a sidekick in Proctor. He actually talks to himself to try and move the plot along. It's very sad to see. The cast seems to have packed on about 10-20 lbs since the last film, they made one every year previous and this final chapter didn't pop out until 5 years later. The hiatus shows in the QC dept. Everything is sluggish and forced. It's definitely a case of the producers making things up as they went along. "Very, very" bad, with "many, many" mistakes. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is funny about this movie. It's offensively horrid. The music has been butchered. No longer do we get the sweeping marching band orchestral of the previous six films. Now we have to endure bizzaro keyboard renderings, using oddly placed space-age and delay effected sounds. It's as if the sound designers and music editors were hung over from a crack/lsd binge the night before, except instead of being creative, it's just blindingly wrong, overflowing with bad decision making throughout the entire run time. Even Ron Pearlman as a Russian crime lord cannot come close to saving any scene, whatsoever. We have to suffer through a badly dubbed French film styled slapstick based completely in Russia. It almost seems as if this movie is trying to do something to earn points by playing up to a completely un-American comedy sensibility. This movie unfolds like it was made in 1978 by a talentless television comedian. It's so lifeless and strange that at one point I said out loud, completely straight faced and impulsively: "Oh-my God." I don't think Proctor would've been able to do anything to help this movie, either. I'm glad he stayed home. 0
Well, there we have it. My analysis of the Police Academy films. I don't think there's much else to say. I took about a week to watch and digest these films, presented in HD quality on blu ray disc.
The best film is part 1. That's a no-brainer.
The others have moments - G.W.Bailey, Art Metrano and Lance Kinsey are all saviors of the series with their experience and aptitude for comedy, and part 6 is a strange blend of failure and inspired craftsmanship, but if you're in the market for one institutional knee slapper, Police Academy is certainly not the worst choice you can make for a night at home watching a movie before bed.
TRESPASS (1992)
Director: Walter Hill
http://i.imgur.com/Gn2LfLt.jpg
I really enjoyed this movie. Walter Hill as director brought a lot of well staged and edited action sequences together with great sound and a lot of spirit. Two fireman, hip to a hidden treasure in an old abandoned building, decide to go on a hunt for a million dollars worth of gold merchandise, stolen 50 years prior, from a church.
What these two don't know is that the defunct building is the safe haven to criminal business men who stake claim to the area. You can guess what happens next. All out war. Cunning survival techniques, double crosses, and some nice, shiny objects of treasure lust on display. Junkies, stew bums, heroes, intelligent and animated crime lords, cowboy thugs. We get Ice -T, Ice Cube, Bill Paxton, William Sandler, just to name a few. It's a campy time but still manages to use concrete aspects of a thriller, and shows the infancy of "reality tv" styled film making, as a young gang member often documents the proceedings from his video camera POV. I wouldn't call this distracting, though. It doesn't dominate the picture.
This is a fun movie. Sure, it has implausibilities like a lot of action films, but they're easily forgiven once you decide to go along for the ride. Chances are, you'll know within about 8 minutes whether or not this is your kind of film. If you watch a film like a hawk for plot holes and can't get past a few woodenly delivered lines here and there, you may as well skip this one altogether. But if you're an adventurer and like your action films dark, ruthlessly violent, funny and smartly executed, you really cannot go wrong with "Trespass".
http://i.imgur.com/iPp1Ucn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4qODgqe.jpg
I went into this having seen it on VHS two decades ago, and not remembering much of anything. I was wholly satisfied once the movie ended. They don't make em' like they used to. No "fix it in the mix" green screen or CGI cartoon garbage. It's a man's film, not a little boy's movie. Walter Hill usually makes movies for guys and teenage boys, but this was made back when things were different. That's why I enjoyed it so much. I'm glad I found this one again.
4
BLADE RUNNER (1982)
Director: Ridley Scott
A futuristic noir picture that is a crowning achievement for science fiction cinema. One of the most important visual films ever produced in the realm of sci-fi. It mixes classic detective with modern cop thriller.
Harrison Ford is assigned to track down and kill a handful of escaped slave androids and in the process falls in love with a female robot who has had childhood memories implanted, unbeknownst to her. Harrison's character Rick Deckard fosters her while trying to keep his assignment priorities in check, and in the process must question his own motivations and mortality.
This is really a much more complex and adult oriented film than many people have given it credit for. It tackles things in a slow paced and strange way but I get a feeling that most viewers discount it because they simply cannot look past the obvious things that get used against a movie like this.
If special effects were a distraction from a good story, I suppose Blade Runner would be guilty as charged. The model and set work in this film is simply magnificent. It has been copied to death so many times since 1982 that I can see why it's not as sacred or unique to modern movie goers. Back when this film came out, Harrison Ford was not a dramatic actor. He was Han Solo from Star Wars. A wisecracking, egocentric macho man with a certain charisma and charm to play anyone's cool uncle or father figure. Blade Runner took his public image and turned it inside out to a shocking degree. He was now vulnerable.
Music had never been used in a film like it was used in Blade Runner. Greek electronic composer Vangelis created a lush and haunting score that held this movie at all corners. Blade Runner's sound design is also brilliant. Scarce Rhodes piano notes, tubular bells, dulcimers, orchestra cymbals, all used in unconventional ways mixed with reverberated computer glitch blips, overhead fan blade whirring sounds, smokeless engine rushes and inventive mechanical/hydraulic cues were ocassionally signature of Ridley Scott's previous work on Alien, except now it was much more extravagant and dense. A whole world has been created for study from the soundtrack alone.
I suppose I have to say that I saw Blade Runner at the drive in theaters on a mild Summer night back to back with Sharky's Machine. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was like Blade Runner when it came out. It was mindblowingly sophisticated and deep.
It may may not be a perfect film on every level, and honestly, I'm glad it's not. I appreciate that some of the more dopey things about Blade Runner are there in the film. Because if Blade Runner were perfect, and I mean, what is perfect anyway(?), then it would be too much to watch. It'd be like seeing God. You wouldn't be able to take it. There would be riots in the streets. The dream would take over and people would be convulsing in the aisles, belching up popcorn and peeing their pants.
5
Citizen Rules
07-30-17, 06:35 PM
Glad to see another fan of Blade Runner:up: What version did you watch? The most popular is the Final Cut, but I prefer the original theatrical release version. Very cool you see in at a drive-in:p These days many people wouldn't know what a drive-in was. I saw Blade Runner first run at a theater with a huge screen, one of those fancy theaters from the 1930s. It burnt down sadly. I must have seen Blade Runner there at least 4 or 5 times.
Glad to see another fan of Blade Runner:up: What version did you watch? The most popular is the Final Cut, but I prefer the original theatrical release version. Very cool you see in at a drive-in:p These days many people wouldn't know what a drive-in was. I saw Blade Runner first run at a theater with a huge screen, one of those fancy theaters from the 1930s. It burnt down sadly. I must have seen Blade Runner there at least 4 or 5 times.
I have seen every version of it but probably prefer the newest cut. I still do hold all of my judgments from the theatrical version, as well. The voice over adds a dopey aspect to it that blends nicely with the sheer spectacle of the world the film creates so, it's almost a balancing agent to me. It off sets the incredible imagery and music and brings it down to a more classic detective noir feeling with that voice over. I do agree that it could have nixed the V.O. at the end, though, with Batty's poetic moment.
cricket
07-30-17, 08:32 PM
Trespass is a solid action flick that's very well cast.
SLEEPAWAY CAMP (1983)
Director: Robert Hiltzik
The beginning of this movie showed promise. Once the set up death scene happens, we are introduced to Summer Camp. The way the kids exit the buses and 2 counselors are yelling different things at them continuously, I thought the direction of the movie might be a bit on the creative side since early signs of running and voice overlapping seemed indicative.
I was damn wrong. The whole experience of Sleepaway Camp is hard to take. There are no creative kills, and I don't even like seeing murder, but I got nothing just the same. The acting is mostly atrocious aside from Chris Collette and the other 2 central characters, Felissa Rose and Jonathan Tiersten. The story moves along like a made for TV movie of the week as a lot of scenes have the swelling music and black fade out. What the hell is going on here?
I felt funny even watching this movie because it's a murder movie for kids. I'm a grown man, and since this flick had no problem throwing in dirty old man dialog and other pre pubescent taboos, I couldn't wait until it was over.
Finally it ended. And it ended in a shockingly strange way. Very creepy. The entire movie sucked up until the ending. Boy, what an ending!
I'll never need to see this again except for maybe the last clip of the film which is so disturbing and creepy, it warrants repeat viewings.
My first time seeing this was in 1987. My last time was in 2017. That'll do it for me.
2 - and only for that ending!
Trespass is a solid action flick that's very well cast.
And it doesn't hurt that it's written by the Back to the Future team of Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, I guess.
HashtagBrownies
07-31-17, 03:55 PM
The entire movie sucked up until the ending. Boy, what an ending!
Oh haha Joel. I see what you did there!
MovieMeditation
08-01-17, 03:42 PM
After all that discussing about it on the forum, I really need to get around Sleepaway Camp AND its sequel...
After all that discussing about it on the forum, I really need to get around Sleepaway Camp AND its sequel...
I'd say you'll be OK not rushing for it. It's a garbage movie. It really is. It has the distinction of an ending that is very unique and scary but the film leading up to it is like a poor man's Bad New Bears as an after school special mixed with terrible acting and bad, BAD music that steps all over itself. Horrid film.
FLASHPOINT (1984)
Director: William Tannen
http://i.imgur.com/yo4RxFj.jpg
HBO (Home Box Office), back when it flew through space with that magic music, partnered up with Silver Screen and Tri-Star for their first release together and released Flashpoint, a good old boy western with CIA intrigue.
http://i.imgur.com/VrYInvp.jpg
From the start I noticed that this movie had a strong core. The casting and performances of Kris Kristofferson and Treat Williams were very natural and engaging, and mixed with the desert surroundings and pace, I could see myself really ready to enjoy this movie tremendously, and, for the most part, I did.
What I couldn't get past was the compact nature of this movie in conjunction with some of the more routine elements found in other thrillers around this time. Kurtwood Smith shows up as the CIA bad guy sent to intercept a small mission from a couple of almost out of work border patrol men played by Kris and Treat. They all do super good work and plant the story in the ground but I could tell things weren't as fleshed out as they should have been. The chemistry between the two leads was too good not to add an extra half hour to the run time, and this was not the case.
Look who's coming to dinner
http://i.imgur.com/1MBJYxO.png
The finale was wrapped up very experimentally with a few very brief flash cuts as if to indicate a preposterous revelation and that did not have a chance to resonate enough because the movie just kind of ended. And when I say the movie just kind of ended, what I mean is that the credit roll song was like long, hard slap across the face. They totally blew it, I mean completely clobbered their own great movie with those two mistakes: Too much editing/not enough development and the end title song which sounds like Rick Springfield decided to get in on the act.
It's a shame because this could have very easily been a titan film of its kind. It reminded me, and probably inspired, "Lone Star", the John Sayles film from 12 years after this.
Flashpoint is a gem of a movie, make no mistake, but it has some baggage attached to it. It's a diamond in the rough. Had it been left to more reliable producers and a director with a bit more spine and/or common sense, I can see this film having been a much more acclaimed and popular motion picture.
http://i.imgur.com/qReVlrk.jpg
As it is though, it's hard to ignore or to not enjoy Rip Torn helping chew some of the desert scenery, which is beautifully photographed by cinematographer Peter Moss. Also, the score by Tangerine Dream was very appropriate. Minimal, atmospheric and sometimes pulsating, it gives Flashpoint a kind of art house feel in the realm of Michael Mann sensibility. I mean, this isn't an art house picture by any stretch, but it does have that certain something that lends to an experience of kind of sitting back, watching good performances and feeling taken care of. It's not overly mainstream, and I appreciate that about it. It does stick some convention in there but if it had been padded out a bit more and let the two stars share more screen time, I think it would have worked better. Oh, and yeah, that ending theme song. Jesus, what the hell were they thinking doing that? I mean, you just find out some crazy stuff, so a viewer with a pause button and good resolution can maybe try and figure out the twist ending when Torn's cryptic explanation may not be cutting it, and then the film totally pulls the tablecloth off and lets the dishes go clanging onto the floor.
Reminds me of Manhunter. "Heartbeat, HEARTBEAT! Listen to your heartbeat...woah ohh!!"
"Sorry, guys, I did the best I could."
http://i.imgur.com/dNnh4CY.jpg
"We know, Kris.....We know."
3.5
SUNDOWN: THE VAMPIRE IN RETREAT (1989)
Director: Anthony Hickox
Rating: 4
http://i.imgur.com/nZb2L94.jpg
The vampire genre gets a true twist and mixes the western with the blood lust of Count Dracula years before Tarantino and Rodriguez did in a movie you've never seen called Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat starring Bruce Campbell as Van Helsing, Jr.
A bio engineer is recruited to a small town in the middle of the desert only to slowly learn that he is helping develop a hemoglobin formulation suitable for vampires to drink in hopes of not having to feed on the blood of humans. Yes, the monstrosity of the vampire feeding on humans has reached a hopeful end as this town of reformed creatures of the night are led by a fearless and powerful leader in Mardulak, played by David Carradine.
Mardulak keeps his townsfolk in line as the feared leader who has his own coffin deep in the cellar of his estate mansion. He is one of the good guys, or is he?
A picture like this you are likely to find in the bargain bin on dvd for about two dollars if you're lucky enough to come across it. It's true that this is a B picture and does fall victim to the usual trappings of such cinema such as bad synth bass dominated score and some community theater acting, but once it finds its groove, things start to serve a purpose and support an already solid premise into a story that keeps turning out nice little surprises that will make you smile. Smile at vampires. And blood.
Bruce Campbell comes in fresh off of Evil Dead II still firing on all pistons, delivering his trademark physical comedy which does get enough screen time to satisfy fans.
M. Emmet Walsh plays his usual nutjob self so well here and actually agrees to kneel down and kiss David Carradine's hand. It's superb acting.
David Carradine is pure silk. You can tell he is enjoying himself because the director of Waxwork and Waxwork II:Lost in Time has allowed him to tie one on during shooting, so even gun play is a sure adventure for everyone.
The movie packs plenty of decently staged action and even a few thrills here and there for good measure.
This is not really a horror film as much as it is a hit or miss comedy. Some things are funny, some things try to be, and some things are just endearing to the point of smiling. Kind of has a bunch of "awww" moments.
http://i.imgur.com/VQ2fSvX.png
Director Hickox is clearly an intelligent, creative and very funny man who reminds me of the kind of scatterbrained genius of an Alex Cox. Though this isn't quite Walker, it still insists on being quirky and absurd as it toys with the vampire genre to the point of re-inventing it to Vampires vs. Vampires.
The weapons? Wooden tipped bullets and cross bows. Two conflicting gangs of vamps. Our home team who just want to be decent and drink artificial yellow colored blood substitute, and the away gang, who live in caves a few miles away, still feeding on transient humans and spending most of their time holed up like dying lepers. They feel the time has come for a revolution so now it's war on the "traitor" vampires and their leader Mardulak.
Somewhere in the mix our bio engineer, a mere mortal, and his wife and kids are caught up in an old love flame of the wife, who happens to have slept with the chief engineer at the fake blood plant. An old adversary class mate of our mortal human hero, he insists that one of the kids belonging to the family is his, and he will have his daughter and his girl, even though she left him to be with hero guy.
http://i.imgur.com/kEpFd9K.jpg
Lots of story here. All spoon fed at an easy to follow pace.
This is a quite silly movie and should not be seen with the assumption that you're going to get epic storytelling or cinematic grace. It's a bit crude yet skillfully constructed. Dumb but emotionally intelligent. Hokey yet somehow wise and playful.
A bit of history...
This really is a movie that got swept under the rug since it never enjoyed a theatrical release. It was the final straw for Vestron Pictures run by Dan Ireland, who was a close friend of director Hickox, and Ireland let Hickox make one more big, slam bang fantasy movie of his choice (since Waxwork did some nice rental returns for the company). So the director hired writer John Burgess and they knocked out a script and Anthony got his last wish before Vestron crumbled. It's just sad that the movie lives in utter obscurity.
http://i.imgur.com/s7xiZxV.jpg
It predates From Dusk til Dawn, John Carpenter's Vampires, and completely stands apart as the only vampire movie I am aware of where the tables turn and the script flips in such a way to earn itself classic status. It enjoys this status in a very lonely way.
re93animator
08-02-17, 03:41 AM
I’ve watched Sundown twice. Good, well-made popcorn flick, though as a Bruce fan, I think his character is comparatively dull in it. Still an easy movie to recommend to almost anyone.
I’ve watched Sundown twice. Good, well-made popcorn flick, though as a Bruce fan, I think his character is comparatively dull in it. Still an easy movie to recommend to almost anyone.
They should have used him more, I thought. He still had his comic body language, like when he starts turning.
COP (1988)
Director: James B. Harris
4
http://i.imgur.com/nmav9WN.jpg
Based on a story by James Ellroy, "Cop" has James Woods teaming up with Director James B. Harris for a leisurely paced, graphic and sometimes misogynistic crime thriller.
A detective having marital woes comes home to his 6 year old daughter and playfully tucks her into bed. She wants him to read her a bedtime story. Dad proceeds to dish her the dirt of a burglary case with profanity for seasoning, as the daughter giggles on gleefully, interjecting a few choice descriptions of her own. You can tell they have a strong bond. This before-bed story is interrupted by a concerned wife who has Dad follow her into their bedroom as he shuts the door. An argument starts.
I paraphrase: "She's six years old! I don't want you to pass your sickness on to her!"
Cop replies, "Yeah, a little girl. They're all little girls! The junkie out on the street, the hooker getting carved up in a back alley, the thousands of women who hate men are all little girls! Little girls that have been lied to! Lied to by their parents. Told they were entitled to a white knight in shining armor. A Mr. Right who would come and sweep them off of their feet on a big, white horse! They grown up with these delusions in their head and it's no wonder they hate their lives. It's no wonder they walk around under a spell. Our daughter needs to be ready, she needs to know now!"
It's this argument and dialog (provided as an addition by director Harris) that sets up the mentality of Cop. Woods and his partner (played by Charles Durning) sit in a car, staking out a suspect in the most recent murder. Cop asks "Why can't they fly like us? Why can't they have wings?", referring to women. His partner replies, "She'd get a lot further in life with a big set of these (motions at chest) than a set of those."
http://i.imgur.com/CJUaYNj.png
As over the top as all of this dialog is, I couldn't help but feel a little more awake watching this movie. Clearly this is a point to consider when all you see day in and day out is murder and corruption. James Woods plays Det. Lloyd Hopkins, a tireless work-a-holic who becomes personally connected to what he thinks is a string of similar murders of women. To stop the killer he must question a high class call girl, a feminist and a beat cop getting kickbacks and running drugs in the gay part of the city.
http://i.imgur.com/FvhdnuI.jpg
Already up to his neck in the usual foreign territory and muck, he finds no hesitation in sleeping with his leads. Him and his partner bum rush a suspect and as the man reaches for his revolver, Hopkins unloads 5 bullets into his chest killing him instantly. He goes around to the passenger side of the vehicle that the suspect bolted out of before being shot. There's a slutty girl a bit shaken up who doesn't seem to know the now dead driver's name. "I just met him tonight". Hopkins offers her a ride home and asks his partner to clean up the mess and stick around for backup while he gets off with her. The man shoots a guy dead and then immediately wants to bang his date. And she's game!
That's Cop.
It's a comedy with a thriller wrapper. It's all absurd and offensive, yet I love this movie. It does not play around, mince words, or beat around the bush. It goes right for the bush.
http://i.imgur.com/Z3JNT6y.jpg
Even as Hopkins is having dinner with another lead played by Leslie Ann Warren (a feminist book store owner), he keeps the slick macho pig in full stride. She confides in him her deepest and most treasured divulgences as he smiles, looks at his watch and subtly squirms in his seat, desperate to get her into bed.
http://i.imgur.com/nlpFU6D.jpg
In the end, the film wraps up in both a conventional and surprising way. I don't want to spoil it. It's not the best ending in the world but it's a damn good one. I mean, how could it possibly cheapen what we've seen so far? There's no way.
I'd recommend this movie to guys who like a solid procedural thriller with jolts of unexpected humor thrown in. It moves like a snail in the pace department, but that's a good thing. Where else will you see James Woods sitting down for a full minute at a time, smoking a cigarette, looking super cool? This might be the only ticket in town.
re93animator
08-04-17, 08:34 AM
COP (1988)
I'd recommend this movie to guys who like a solid procedural thriller with jolts of unexpected humor thrown in. It moves like a snail in the pace department, but that's a good thing. Where else will you see James Woods sitting down for a full minute at a time, smoking a cigarette, looking super cool? This might be the only ticket in town.
Added to the list.:D
WAXWORK II: LOST IN TIME (1992)
Director:Anthony Hickox
Note: For Windows users hold down "ctrl", for Macs hold down "cmd" and scroll mouse wheel to enlarge.
A court room drama surrounds the following:
http://i.imgur.com/2MXyqNx.jpg
3
ANGUISH (1987)
Director: Bigas Luna
4.5
Taking cue from Hitchcock's Rear Window, spanish director Bigas Luna constructs a hypnotic blend of suspense and surrealist terror with Anguish, a movie within a film, within a movie.
http://i.imgur.com/4msLQtk.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/7af75t9.jpg?1
An only child orderly for an optometrist office is sent on missions from his psychologically dominant mother (played by Poltergeist's Zelda Rubinstein) to collect human eyeballs.
Warning issued for theatrical release:
http://i.imgur.com/USr5Wp7.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/evLkSd6.gifv
http://i.imgur.com/KHfr64A.jpg?1
We soon find out, after a good amount of time, that this is a movie being watched by an audience in a movie theater. A girl, sitting with her school friend, is soon under the spell of the film and succumbs to fits of hysteria. When her friend gets up to use the bathroom she discovers a real killer is silently murdering workers in the lobby, and within minutes everyone falls victim to this lunatic who seems to be taking psychic signals from the film playing titled "The Mommy".
http://i.imgur.com/yBCDdN4.gif?1
Bigas keeps the camera at the most opportune and gorgeous angles, using technology in film that clearly represents the medium itself. Beautifully photographed, we can see the porous elements soaking in ambient light as a man's shoes are dolly tracked down the theater aisle.
http://i.imgur.com/gfmyl9t.png?1
Corners of the frame are sometimes darkened as vignette, separating the carefully composed shots away from any intrusive border. The editing breathes easy and propels a slow but nonetheless fascinating cadence as the stories begin to taper into each other. By 60 minutes into Anguish, we aren't sure which movie we're watching, and it doesn't matter. The film making takes over and what we get is pure viscera. The love of cinema delivers through Anguish in several ways.
http://i.imgur.com/cRPjOgw.gif?1
This is a damn good horror film. Fans of Demons and Popcorn take note. What this movie does is outclass both of those films. Though in technical spirit it could be comparable to Cinema Paradiso or Matinee, it's certainly not either. The violence is fairly high, though not too extreme. The director/editor took the more imaginative route in obscuring blade penetration out of frame for the most part.
http://i.imgur.com/fNi8Lm4.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/hdzXEBj.jpg?1
The sound design is flawless. I couldn't believe how rich and beefy everything was. From the analog delays running the chants through and through, to the score accenting an open door or a broken fish bowl, everything is executed beautfully alongside the picture.
The climactic act surprised me because this film went from being a darkly lit theater experience to an action cop picture and it was handled very well. The balance was interesting. I could see how the director controlled mass hysteria and used editing techniques to push it along. I was impressed with the slight tonal shift in the last act.
http://i.imgur.com/vAiIJE3.jpg?1
Technical note: I picked up a copy of the german blu ray titled Im Augenblick der Angst. I wouldn't recommend seeing this film any other way because it needs a high quality format to be of any nutrition, like powdered milk needs water. You just won't see the same film if you take the overly compressed and blocky back door road to see it. All region players are fairly inexpensive, and if you don't already have one, I strongly suggest the investment!
http://i.imgur.com/aO9S6de.jpg?1
As the credits roll we are again treated to this meta universe of horror at the movies and can see that after everyone has left, there remains one person in the audience who stays for the credits. Perfect tribute and a very cool little movie.
http://i.imgur.com/yU9AeRW.jpg?1
If kooky horrors with an art house aesthetic are your thing, you're in good hands with this low profile flick from 1987.
http://i.imgur.com/aKTkUzG.jpg?1
cricket
08-06-17, 10:05 AM
James Woods rules and Cop was a good flick. You see Best Seller?
James Woods rules and Cop was a good flick. You see Best Seller?
I've seen Best Seller a few times since 1987 when I rented it on vhs. I enjoy it each time. Those 2 movies belong back to back esp with co-stars Durning for Cop, and Dennehy for BS.
DESPERADO (1995)
Director: Robert Rodriguez
4
http://i.imgur.com/AlujS5p.jpg
I bought Rodriguez's book "Rebel without a Crew" back in 1995 at the recommendation of a friend of mine. We'd both grown up together watching movies and loving them, much, much more than the casual movie goer. He was into editing between two VCR's and had just bought a Canon 8mm video camera. I just watched what he did most of the time. After I read the book, my life was changed. I was told, in very easy going terms, that I, too, could be a film maker, in fact, I may already be. I agreed with this. I knew what I liked and what I responded to, and in some psychedelic way, I'd been making pretend my whole life was a movie, anyway.
I immediately saw El Mariachi followed by Desperado, which was still fresh in the theaters. Though I liked Desperado, I couldn't help but feel like Rodriguez betrayed his original star Carlos Gallardo, who played the guitar case toting hero mariachi in first picture, which was made "without a crew" for $7,000.
Over the years, I had made my mind up, based mostly of my imaginative and increasing distaste for anything Rodriguez-related, that I didn't care that much for Desperado. Even though this author/filmmaker gave me confidence to be a filmmaker myself, and that what he said in his book clicked with how my mind worked out obstacles, it didn't seem to be enough. Before too long, give or take a decade, I was pretty much anti-Rodriguez, figuring him for a hack guy who broke the doors open like the legendary mariachi himself, but soon becoming complacent, over stylizing typical B genre films, and never really taking the craft seriously. To make a long story short - I wanted Robert to direct a drama, and a good one at that.
I'm still waiting...
Last night, out of boredome, I popped in my dvd copy of Desperado and much to my pleasure, I found myself adhered to the entire film without falling asleep, and better, laughing plenty, and not just chuckles. I got some real belly laughs out of this thing. So glad I watched it.
The humor comes from the writing and casting as Antonio Banderas has a great ability for physicality and comedy. He twirls around like a tazmanian devil just to adjust his collar. Very dramatic. Lots of unnecessary flair. Funny stuff. Also, the new mariachi played by Banderas has some great frustrated and angry reactions, as well as his counterpart nemesis in the picture, who, cannot for the life of him, remember his own car phone number. There is a nice, even coating of jokes in this movie that aren't "hit you over the head" funny, but instead play for subtlety and I would imagine will only connect with a certain age group and social disposition.
The action sequences I can only describe as something like "if Sam Peckinpah directed a ballet with ninjas for the cast". Every camera set-up was meticulously thought out and the coverage and staging was so fluid (not relying on vari-speed tricks as far as I could tell), that by the time it went into editing, I can only imagine how fun it must have been to cut it together. Rodriguez even masters the art of lighting and smoking a cigarette, as just the proper amount of sound, smoke visibility, and movement is part of the alternate angle in a 2 shot. Amazing technicality. It's very apparent that Robert Rodriguez is a musician. You can tell by his writing, blocking, staging, movements and editing. Not to mention, he utilizes Los Lobos for the score in a superb manner, furthering the action blockbuster "look" of this $7 million film to a poetic tribute for El Mariachi.
I am no longer mad at Robert Rodriguez. Not after seeing Desperado again. It's an action comedy and nothing more, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better action picture that is funnier, or a funnier picture that has more action from an American filmmaker.
I may decide to investigate some of his other work that might've been glossed over due to my prejudice. And by the way, Carlos Gallardo does get to come back as the mariachi's sidekick in a couple of sequences (memorable ones, too). That's Hollywood, I guess.
MovieMeditation
08-07-17, 11:57 AM
I always liked Desperado... Such a fun film very reminiscent of its time, too. It does exactly what it sets out to do and I like that exactly for that reason.
THE
http://i.imgur.com/X1WST7y.jpg
Back in 1987 on T.V. at age 11 I kept seeing spots for "The Hidden". The ads would interview casual moviegoers as they exited the theater, and comments would range from "wild!" to "knock your socks off!".
I decided I had to see this film. I had never seen such conviction before.
When I finally was able to see it, it came as a rental from a convenience store (back when this was just starting to become a thing).
I had a strong case of butterflies, and made sure no one was around so I could give this picture my full attention.
What I saw was not at all what I expected. There was a very mellow mood about it. It had explosions, gunfire, gore, profanity, sexuality..everything an 11 year old would want in a movie they're not supposed to be watching. But it was different than what I thought it would be. It wasn't some shrouded sci-fi with other-worldly atmospherics as I had imagined it would be.
The Hidden was a light movie that I knew as soon as it finished, that I would have to see again and again. There were layers to it. It mixed comedy, suspense, science fiction and drama. It was like a tough cop picture with a style I latched on to immediately.
The beige Porsche 928, the gray fine tailored suits, the machined editing, strange colors of light laser beams that emitted a choral hum, glowing green matter around the title card, new wave punk music toted around by a gastro challenged middle aged grump. bad stripper with a gold jacket, bureaucratic daytime contrasted with Summer city night chases through a warehouse filled with mannequins. This movie was on fire with style and sophistication. And it was just a genre picture? If it was a B-movie, it was made like a Hollywood blockbuster that was closer to a Tony Scott or even a Martin Brest aesthetic than it was to a shoestring budget picture it got compared to.
Jack Sholder, the guy who did that Nightmare on Elm Street sequel directed this one. How did he do that? It was like a magic trick. Everything was tight and delivered with that after hour adult tone that I usually only saw when sneaking into the cellar to catch my Aunt and Uncle laughing it up to La Cage Aux Folles. But this wasn't a gay romp like Birds of a Feather or a Nightmare on Elm Street Part II were. This was a macho movie with a light touch. That's what made it interesting. A shoot em' up action thriller made with a boutique sensibility.
Bringing this all home is a music score by Michael Covertino who uses unconventional brass and percussive,stabbing sounds of music that taper back into a haunted refrain.
Like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7H5JVe4Z8&feature=youtu.be
To keep going with this review would only be tiresome at this point. Here are some shots I cap'd and found of the picture.
rating_4_5
http://i.imgur.com/9ltP5FN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AoWjHu4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qP2WQku.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N7NpmbF.jpg
Hi Joel. :) This is one of my favorites. Liked your review. But I must admit after all these years, Claudia Christian is still what excites me the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCMCZS1ujuw
Warning people, there's obscene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcqMQf9MMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocIxuBW9hTo
Yeah, Im a dirty old man. :D
EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991)
Director: Duncan Gibbons
2 +
http://i.imgur.com/K7ZFqvn.jpg
I love Gregory Hines so I thought I'd check this flick out. I remember the tv spot for it way back and thought it looked unique. Well, it is and it isn't. It's unique because Hines is in it, doing his usual flawless dramatic work when he decides to let it fly with fits of anger that have him be the most sensible guy in the room.
The film has dated very poorly, mostly due to a simply atrocious score that sounds like rejected music from Columbo. When it tries for a sci fi electronic, it fumbles over itself with more orchestral, like a slow 70's sizzle and obnoxious percussion that sounds like someone literally used pick up sticks and recorded them too loud. Terrible. As far as humor - we get some. Sadly, comedy doesn't show up enough to bail this film out of it's trouble. It's too serious to work.
http://i.imgur.com/xl78XTP.png
There are moments where we get comic relief in the form of a 5 year old boy blatantly discussing human anatomy with his mom. I was expecting it to come back and tie together somehow as a relief joke. Never happened. Pointless stuff like that.
The action is decent even though it's hard to ignore or feel a little something for an uzi mowing down 5 people at a time. The story isn't exactly fresh but this was back in '91 so I'm sure it must've worked at least a little better.
http://i.imgur.com/eniORJr.jpg
All in all this movie basically sucks and wastes Hines. He at least delivers one responsibly written line about how the monsterous female robot killed a bunch of cops and now there are 5 widows and fatherless children out there. Unfortunately it doesn't feel weighty enough because the rest of the movie is so shoddily made and staged.
Witchboard 2 (1993)
Director: Kevin S. Tenney
3
http://i.imgur.com/2jojaw1.jpg
Okay, so this one wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I actually enjoyed it. Yes, it sucks if you compare it to an A film, or even a great B film, but, there are merits. First off - the main chick is smoking cute. She gets sexier as the film goes on. Progressive entrapment, it's a real PITA, ya know?
Second - the camera work and effects are balls to the wall awesome. Kevin S. Tenney did great work with the original Witchboard and Night of the Demons, but his guidance for the DP here is superb. Great tricks and inventive effects.
Third - it actually has a nifty little story with twists, and...surprise...it's effectively done.
True that the limitations of the acting and other B movie factors that are normal tend to put a fog over this working as a top notch nail biter. It isn't that by a mile but...I was still intrigued enough to finish this movie. I can't believe I'm going to say this...I'd watch it again.
http://i.imgur.com/9IMh06W.jpg
RENT-A-COP (1987)
Director: Jerry London
3
http://i.imgur.com/dO9J745.jpg?1
This movie got slammed when it came out and I think I know why. Liza Minelli's hair and her physique, which had seen better days. Not sure of the exact timeline but she had admittedly checked herself in quite often to the Betty Ford Clinic for drugs and alcohol and she doesn't exactly have the best dancers body here. She covers a lot up with garter belts and fur coats/black mini-skirts. And that's OK. It's just something I noticed. She doesn't play the most flattering hooker (if playing a hooker can be considered flattering at all), but she's always been the "cool Aunt" on-screen so, I have affection for her.
I will say this: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the chemistry and performances of Liza and Burt. Reynolds does his usual charismatic jerk off aloof act while Minelli does her usual desperate, on edge and homely yet wise comedy shtick. It just works. There's no denying it. It's still classic acting and an unlikely yet effective team up. I enjoyed them together even if the story was routine and the movie itself was less than impressive.
BTW, WTF is up with the crappy fonts??
http://i.imgur.com/H9frEXt.jpg?1
The movie built around Burt and Liza cannot decide what it is and makes that old mistake of not blending correctly, much like a movie of the same era Stakeout. One minute you have some natural banter that's light and endearing between the 2 leads, and the next minute you're neck deep in graphic violence and sinister music, which, by the way, is helmed by none other than Jerry Goldsmith, who seems to "get" the joke of supplying high roller brass themed orchestral instead of his usual over sympathetic/sentimental score. That's not to say we don't get at least a couple of nice cues from the maestro. We do.
I would say that at the end of the day, Rent-a-Cop is something I can live with having seen. It's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. I think, if anything, people and critics were disappointed that 2 stars like this couldn't be in a better movie. Well, what the hell did they think Burt was doing all of the years leading up to this? I mean come on! Give me a break here. Oh, before I forget...James Remar (The Warriors, 48 Hrs, Quiet Cool) plays the bad guy here and check this out...he's a corny dancer named "Dancer". Be glad I'm not dropping a GIF of this on you..
It only lasts for a few seconds in the film, don't worry. Even Richard Masur is having a problem with it
http://i.imgur.com/zyY2D1Y.jpg
This movie is fine. It's not great and it's not "good" but, it's OK, and is watchable if you like Burt and Liza. Give it a shot for a before bed elixir if you can stomach the era it came out in. I had trouble at first because I felt damn old but, I figure I've already outgrown Radiohead years ago so I'm not doing that bad yet. I got over it and took it down the hatch.
http://i.imgur.com/6xYlq6f.jpg
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD (2007)
Director: Sidney Lumet
3.5
http://i.imgur.com/6xYlq6f.jpg
Lumet directed one of my all time favorite films The Verdict, and once again shows how much of a professional film maker he is with this toned and nasty tale of desperation and values gone bad.
Everything from the presence of Ethan Hawke, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Albert Finney - to the Grusinesque tension filled jazz score by long time Coen Bros composer Carter Burwell, makes this movie not to be missed. The only thing I can say as a warning is that this is a very ugly film. There's not a thing happy about it. From the opening shot of Hoffman's character drilling his wife (played by Marisa Tomei) doggystyle, to the last scene of a father who's just acted on years of disappointment, this is not a ride you take if you're in the mood for something light and cheery.
Hoffman shines as usual with his meditative and breathy laughter, giving way to a protruding vascularity on his forehead, growing with veins, that show how intensely invested he is into the craft. His laugh is uneasy yet confident, that of a man possessed by desperate will and mindlessly foolish evil. Ethan Hawke brings a more delicate savant to his role that acts as the audience, getting more and more immersed into the world of perverse dark area, knowing you can't swim back, and struggling to keep your head above the water.
Marisa Tomei, even after winning an academy award more than a decade prior, still has no problem bearing her naked chest three times, and one can only appreciate her generosity and beautiful boobs. Albert Finney has the longest fuse in the film, and let's his mouth acting take full reign as he works up to a demonic climax.
Everything fits nicely together in this picture. From the Easy Rider styled frame switch up editing technique creating a segue to another timeline, to the wonderfully realized digital photography which is both gritty and highly contrasted. This is the definition of non-linear storytelling, and works quite well, if not always perfectly balanced in regard to how often it's used for maximum effectiveness. There were at least one or two moments where it probably didn't need to re-spool the yarn like it did. That's OK, though. This isn't on the same level as another American-tale-Pulp Fiction, and because it is so tonally different, this style of unfolding the story works on an even dirtier level.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is part family drama and part crime suspense. It's noted as being a melodrama, and I suppose I can see that, too. But as a whole, it just plays out like a dark way to spend a couple of hours, as it even has a bit of humor, it still can't make this play like a Goodfellas type of experience, where the dark subject matter is offset by memorable comedy bits. There is a dark humor element built in, but it's not looking to win any popularity contests, that's for sure.
I'd usually rate a film like this higher but, because the story itself is so draining and horribly sad, I cannot see myself ranking this a staple of cinema to revisit very often. I am glad I watched it a 2nd time after not seeing it for a decade. Now I think I am finished.
I think it plays out as an almost camp version of a melodrama. I wasn't impressed.
SPRING BREAKERS (2012)
Director: Harmony Korine
.5
Where do I start?
The first time I watched this movie, I got into an argument with someone over it. I didn't like it, and he would not let up on me after I informed him of this, as politely as I possibly could. I thought the film would just do more damage to society because there's a lot of very stupid people who would think this film champions the attitude and lifestyle portrayed. My friend tells me "you just need to lighten up. It's not that serious."
OK, Spring Breakers is not that serious then. Now let's talk about it without being too serious. Harmony Korine, a NYC art hipster film maker decides to make a technically well crafted film with a loose narrative involving sex, drugs, gang violence, and combine it with an overshadowed morality that deals with faith, love and friendship. Ah hell, I guess I can't lighten up. Not if I'm going to barf back up what is so obvious the intention of this movie.
What's happened is that we get a director who isn't even in touch with the world he's making fun of. As soon as the drama starts to tighten its grip by the 2nd act of the film, with dark synth pads acting as a sort of drapery companion for the endless montage of telephone calls home, we know this movie is not only silly and worthless, but it's also predictable and boring, and that's bad news for any movie.
I don't care how many different colored gels you put in front of your lights, or how many diffusion and star filters you use to shoot driving street scenes at night, when you fail to engage a viewer past some questionable crotch shots of girls who look younger than 17, you're only really making soft core porn. So why bother with the dramatics? If I wanted style, I could turn on a dog food commercial. Nothing is safe. Stylish isn't even a real term anymore so...whatever to that.
Why is this movie acclaimed, like, at all?
It's true that James Franco gives a pretty goofy performance and manages to really inhabit the role of a platinum toothed G, but that can only provide a few seconds of laughter. Had this film been condensed to five minutes and peppered evenly throughout a more superior film with some real substance, it may've been an amusing and "stylish" glimpse at this sort of cultural phenomena. But it wasn't and it's not.
Spring Breakers is a dull film as I finish watching it for a second time, hoping to "lighten up" and be in on the joke. The problem is that the joke isn't very funny and anything that aims for drama in this picture just comes off ultra hokey. We see a slow motion scene of bikini clad bimbos firing off uzi's with neon pink ski masks on, while we hear an innocent sounding voicemail being left for their parents: "This place is great, we're meeting so many new people" blah, blah, blah. It's here that movie is begging us to say to ourselves "HOW IRONIC! HOW BRILLIANT! SUCH CONTRAST!"
But we're smarter than that. This film is nothing more than a director getting his rocks off.
Hey, I like chicks with uzi's in bikinis as much as the next guy, but I don't want to suffer through a film that clearly shows work of a director who can do so much better than this, if he just had half of a brain left.
If this film's intention was to torture, I suppose mission accomplished.
Dim witted perverts who want to feel relevant by debating that it's really a good movie underneath, and if you don't get it, you're dumb, I have news for you:
No, you are! (sticks tongue out and thumbs at nose)
SPRING BREAKERS (2013)
Director: Harmony Korine
.5
Where do I start?
Spring Breakers is a dull film
:yup:
I think it plays out as an almost camp version of a melodrama. I wasn't impressed.
Really. I didn't see that, but maybe so. I was intrigued with it and thought the performances were pretty top notch. Also, some of the editing was awkwardly unconventional, which brought my overall rating up.
Here's (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1595715#post1595715) what I wrote about it.
cricket
08-19-17, 08:00 AM
I love miserable movies, and I loved Before the Devil Knows You're Dead enough to nominate is for a HoF.
I hated Spring Breakers!
B I R D M A N
Released: 2014
Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Birdman is a great film because the directing and acting are so respectful of each other. The awe inspiring long shots, seeming to never cut away, bring in so many timed performances brimming with primarily naturalistic dialog and inflection, that even in the lulls revolving around pointless subplot, we still are able to hang on, waiting for the next overture.
I won't lie. The first 20 minutes of the film left me a bit underwhelmed despite the obvious technical feat happening in front of my eyes. I didn't care much for what the characters had to say. The writing. It seemed like an art film made for fans of Adam Sandler type humor. A few of the jokes were obviously poised to reel in audience laughter, and frankly I didn't find them very funny. That is until Edward Norton asks his on the rocks fiancee to "play with his(my) balls". I don't know why I laughed so hard. It must've been the timing and set up of the joke. He took a good few beats of inching his face towards that of Naomi Watts before laying that line on her, and it just really caught me in an uproar.
Once the movie picks up with the introduction of Edward Norton's character, I sensed that things might be turning out better than expected...and they did. Much better.
In addition to the choreographed effect shots, camera movements and seamless editing techniques that must have been painstakingly disciplined in pre, during and post production, I got a story about a man who may or may not be suffering from some form of shizophrenic delusions of grandeur, who wants to make his mark and pay tribute to what he considers a childhood mentor, as well as land himself some self respect out of the realm of superhero blockbuster fame, into the world of dialog driven playwrights, who often survive off of fortune by the favorable pen of notoriously vicious critics.
I love how this movie rips apart the critic as being lazy and unimaginative, using only adjectives rather than actual comment about structure or performance specifics. There's a truly white knuckle scene between Michael Keaton and his critic nemesis that just made me smile and grit my teeth at the same time. Keaton's character goes on to berate this woman critic, explaining that she risks nothing with her pen, ripping a man's livelihood to shreds, while he risks everything with his play. He raises the money, kills himself with the work and is ultimately at the mercy of a pompous and self appointed elitist's review column that will determine whether or not his play runs or shuts down after opening night.
There's much more to experience. The soundtrack is mostly jazz/fusion drumming, which seems to be performed live, as we get interspersed cuts of tracking shots revealing a perfectly lined up drummer who sits out on the street and in the long hallways of the theater. Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu also makes sure his title sequences reflect the nuances of this complex percussion. The age of digital editing allows what would at one time be next to impossible with the appearance of characters in font, coming into sight right with each accent and fill of drummer Antonio Sanchez.
There are a good number of surprises in Birdman. It weighs quite a bit and is plenty heady enough with its themes to keep the cerebral film goer satiated, but it also offers majestic effect work, blending blockbuster visual wizardry with that of an Andre Gregory and/or Bob Fosse/David Mamet sensibility.
I saw this once in the theaters and wasn't sure how much I liked it. On home video in the form of blu ray I was able to relax uninterrupted and fully soak it in. It's a damn good movie worthy of at least two viewings.
Now if only we could get this kind of care put into films 5 times out of ten instead of twice, we'd have a thriving 21st century American market to choose from instead of having to live in yesteday or always turn the subtitles on.
rating_4+
I love miserable movies, and I loved Before the Devil Knows You're Dead enough to nominate is for a HoF.
I hated Spring Breakers!
I agree. I remember it coming out in a foggy time, when home video and theatrical were blended into each other more than usual. I almost missed it, and even the 1st time I watched it, I was too exposed to the Tarantino copycats to pay it as much mind as I did the 2nd time around.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 06:00 PM
Joel, I just read your review of Birdman...nicely written review, with an intelligent dissection & analysis of the movie.
We have some very similar thoughts on the film, (I reviewed it too). We both questioned where the film was going in the first 20 minutes, and we both loved the critic scene. I rated it a bit lower than you as I had some problems with the final scene, but overall a very interesting movie.
Joel, I just read your review of Birdman...nicely written review, with an intelligent dissection & analysis of the movie.
We have some very similar thoughts on the film, (I reviewed it too). We both questioned where the film was going in the first 20 minutes, and we both loved the critic scene. I rated it a bit lower than you as I had some problems with the final scene, but overall a very interesting movie.
You know, I had trouble with the final scene, as well. In the theaters, when I first saw it, I wasn't sure what happened? I couldn't wrap my head around the intrusion of full blown fantasy. On the 2nd viewing I accepted that he could indeed fly, and his daughter got to see her father as a true hero, in a figurative and literal sense, being a champion of the theater and social media, as well as an actual flying super hero.
I'm not saying that's what your hang-up was, though. I'm going to read your review now....
Citizen Rules
I just read your review and started to feel strange because we both commented on things closely, lol.
The only "movie magic" logic I can put to the end scene of Birdman is that he can fly.
Though, it's definitely an assorted mess.
In one scene, right after he lands, we see a cab driver chase him down for money. We assume he's daydreamed his flight, and actually took a cab to the theater. In the final scene, his daughter reacts to his ability up there in the sky flying.
Maybe that was his pre or post fantasy of her witnessing him fall to his death being substituted with his fantasy of flight again, or maybe he really can fly but only after he's been self accepted with achievement again, to his own personal standards.
OR....when he says goodbye to Birdman siting on the toilet, maybe his monkey on the back ball and chain, and letting it go, finally allowed him to fly for real???
I dunno. Now that you mention it, it is sloppy. If there is an explanation, I'd be very interested to hear it because all of this speculation is making me very tired.
Psycho II (1983)
Director: Richard Franklin
4.5
I enjoyed this much more than the original. It had more humor and more refreshing scenario, like when Norman starts his job at the diner, and when Norman brings Tilley's character home for supper. Watching Anthony Perkins steer the ship is a delight. He really made Norman Bates a character that was believable. In this film, he's almost normal. He doesn't want to live in the past. He's feeble and afraid, but he's also kind of cool. You can tell by his facial expressions and by the way he plays a few moments light and nonchalant.
I really liked the writing, even if it was a bit far fetched. This is the kind of horror film, or thriller film, that almost makes me feel good, if that makes any sense. It's the location of the diner proximity to the old house with the ghost of Mother. The viewer has to imagine that the diner is right down the street, no more than a few miles. Having daytime scenes in color with a character actor like Dennis Franz tearing up the fast boat made me enjoy the suspense all the more.
The kill scenes are brutal but carefully inserted and don't over load the picture with a fireworks show of graphic violence. The music is pleasing. Goldsmith's "cutting edge" (at the time) use of synthesizer really adds a nauseous dimension because he uses some sort of sound that reminisces one of those air sticks to tilt that makes that high to low flangey noise, and it is unsettling.
Vera Miles is serviceable but feels a bit out of time with her melodramatic acting. It pushed everything forward, but I would've liked to have seen a more believable interaction between her and Tilly as the daughter to really give this film the credibility it deserves.
I know I reviewed this a few weeks ago and was a bit dismissive about it but Psycho II remains one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Franklin does such good atmospheric work here, utilizing poetic crane shots and camera angles that throw back to the original. I can't help but appreciate this as a superior film to the original, if not the pioneering entity that Psycho was and is.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 07:39 PM
Joel
I just read your review and started to feel strange because we both commented on things closely, lol. Ha, great minds do indeed think alike:D
The only "movie magic" logic I can put to the end scene of Birdman is that he can fly. Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well, and that's why I didn't like the ending. It's a Deus ex machina ending, I don't like those.
I would have preferred his daughter looking at the hospital window without looking up, and without a sense of amusement on her face.
If I was the director I would have asked the actress for a reflective look, that was void of positive or negative reactions. That way the ending isn't spoon feed to us, but allows each person to experience the film as they see fit and come to their on conclusions.
But, I really do like the vast majority of Birdman. I tend to be harder on films when I love so much about them.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 07:42 PM
Cool, I see you just watched Psycho II and liked it. I haven't watched that in decades, but the one and only time I seen it, I thought it was very well done. I've been meaning to rewatch it, so thanks to your review I will!
I just now requested it from my library and so will review sometime in the near future. That way I can read your review and be able to discuss the film with you.
Joel
But, I really do like the vast majority of Birdman. I tend to be harder on films when I love so much about them.
Yup, me too. If you care enough about something, it really gets under your skin if it falls a bit short on what it's capable of. Totally agree.
Cool, I see you just watched Psycho II and liked it. I haven't watched that in decades, but the one and only time I seen it, I thought it was very well done. I've been meaning to rewatch it, so thanks to your review I will!
I just now requested it from my library and so will review sometime in the near future. That way I can read your review and be able to discuss the film with you.
Oh, definitely. It comforts me like barely any horror films do. I think it's the location and performance of Perkins. I know it sounds twisted, but there are reasons for it that make sense in a well adjusted sort of way (I think) ;P
HashtagBrownies
08-20-17, 08:16 PM
B I R D M A NThe awe inspiring long shots, seeming to never cut away.The first 20 minutes of the film left me a bit underwhelmed despite the obvious technical feat happening in front of my eyes.[/SIZE]
If the long shots impressed you that much you should check out Victoria. A 2 hour film that is done in only one shot. So impressive.
If the long shots impressed you that much you should check out Victoria. A 2 hour film that is done in only one shot. So impressive.
Consider it queued. I'll check my library for it. Thanks!
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 08:27 PM
Joel, have you've seen Hitchcock's Rope, which is done to look like one long take?
Joel, have you've seen Hitchcock's Rope, which is done to look like one long take?
I have not, no. I have to confess, as much as I'm a fan of movies, my vocabulary for films before the 1970's is pathetic. I think it stems from a typical 11 year old growing up in 1987 watching vhs rentals. But, like I said before, if you have stuff that you think I can handle, I will try to handle it. These days a slow cooked movie is right up my alley.
In fact, that reminds me, I wanted to ask, are there any movies from the 1940's through the 1960's that have natural line delivery, like, that don;t have that silly transatlantic style of acting, or whatever you call it?
I'd be interested in seeing some real ***** from those eras, if they exist.
Citizen Rules
I want to know how they edit the take to look like one long take. I'd imagine they use (at least way, way back) a tripod locked shot, so the camera does not move, and carefully fluid head pan movements into a dark area or a wall of some sort where they can crop the edges to bring in another scene to act as scenery to pretend it's up against the wall. Lots of tricks to use. All interesting. Sound is important. You have sound running underneath everything so it gives the illusion of constant continuity, making breaks in image or seams..seem...glued together as one complete shot or piece. Sound is actually everything. Sound and exposure. If you trick the eye to think it's entering a dark area and keep the sound running, you can get away with a lot. Take the descending staircase scene in Birdman, for example, when Norton and that bleach blonde girl are going downstairs from the roof...plenty of opportunities to cut, though, at that specific area in the film, I'd be thinking, why bother? Funny business.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 08:54 PM
I think Rope would be right up your alley. It's a highly rated film about murder for sport. Though the film is about the after math of the murder and so is not a horror film. It's a physiological drama with some tense moments.
...In fact, that reminds me, I wanted to ask, are there any movies from the 1940's through the 1960's that have natural line delivery, like, that don;t have that silly transatlantic style of acting, or whatever you call it?
By transatlantic style of acting, I think you mean theatrical style of acting which is more formalized and more dramatic than if the events were actually happening.
Yes they are older films that have naturalistic style acting and dialogue, but geez, I'm having a hard time thinking of them at the moment:D
What have you seen from the 40s-60s? and did you like or dislike that style of acting in what those movies?
If you let me know it will give me a gauge to know what you like or dislike, so then maybe I could recommend an older film you might like.
What have you seen from the 40s-60s? and did you like that style of acting? If you let me know it will give a gage to know what you like or dislike.
I haven't seen much. I'm embarrassed. I've seen "The African Queen".
I've seen "Easy Rider".
I just want to know how people really talked back then, otherwise, I have no way of gauging any superficiality of that era and running with it on suspension of disbelief to enjoy a film.That's always been the problem. As far as I know, everyone from the 1900's up through 1965 has been a complete snowjob! lol
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 08:59 PM
@Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=84637)
I want to know how they edit the take to look like one long take. .... This excerpt is from my Rope review:
'Continual take'...The movie looks like it was made in one long camera take. It wasn't of course and if you keep your eyes open you can see where one take ends and another starts...usually from a closeup of the back of someone's jacket or some solid object. Though there are direct cuts...at the start of the party there's an edit from Brandon to Ropert's face.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 09:02 PM
I haven't seen much. I'm embarrassed. I've seen "The African Queen".
I've seen "Easy Rider".
I just want to know how people really talked back then, otherwise, I have no way of gauging any superficiality of that era and running with it on suspension of disbelief to enjoy a film.That's always been the problem. As far as I know, everyone from the 1900's up through 1965 has been a complete snowjob! lolWhat did you think of the way the dialogue was spoken in The African Queen? like? dislike? did you think it sounded stilted? or natural?
This excerpt is from my Rope review:
What I'm going to do is, ...write down your suggestions, once you've gotten the chance to compose them for me, and then start watching. Also, I'll delve into your reviews soon aferwards, so I can have conversations that actually mean something.
Film making is very interesting to me, not just from a technical standpoint, but also froma conversational stance. I see that you study technique as well. Even if you're not out there everyday wood shedding tricks of the trade (me niehter), it's still a good craft to have as a hobby. It's important. It conveys emotions and other big themes that can take all of the weight of the world, and in the same arena, make a bored teenager transcend his borjg life into something like staring at the brown night skies behind an old oak tree, whispering to his friend, the collective thoughts of the day with laughter.
sORRY, i'VE HAD a few beers, buddy.
What did you think of the way the dialogue was spoken in The African Queen? like? dislike? did you think it sounded stilted? or natural?
I was laughing my ass off when he apologized about his noisy stomach...and I was prematurely ready to make jokes about the fact that she poured all of his gin into the river, and how he reacted so positively! hahahah
What did you think of the way the dialogue was spoken in The African Queen? like? dislike? did you think it sounded stilted? or natural?
To answer you more directly, I thought it was the usual style of acting I was exposed to my limited tolerance of films from that era. I was surprised though by the neurotic stomach noise apology at the table, and the reaction to the booze waste, which was unrealistic for the later. The ending was typical far fetched stuff. But I still kind of liked it. It didn't upset me. I felt pretty OK watching it.
I think I am looking for something human and less dramatic in the way of over doing music score..something ballsy, if that even exists. It must.
Citizen Rules
08-20-17, 09:25 PM
What I'm going to do is, ...write down your suggestions, once you've gotten the chance to compose them for me, and then start watching. Also, I'll delve into your reviews soon aferwards, so I can have conversations that actually mean something. Very cool! I'm always glad to talk about movies, and answer questions about my reviews. I have like 5 movies I've recently watched that I should review. Ahh, one of these days:p
Film making is very interesting to me, not just from a technical standpoint, but also from a conversational stance. I see that you study technique as well. That's why I love old movies, they are as close to a time machine as we'll ever get. When I'm watching a film from 1933 or 1958 I'm looking at people and places that aren't recreations but the real thing. All those moments are captured on film and live! It's almost spiritual in a way.
sORRY, i'VE HAD a few beers, buddy.:D No worries, I'm do for a nice beer in another hour (got to do some more work before I knock the day off)
To answer you more directly, I thought it was the usual style of acting I was exposed to my limited tolerance of films from that era. I was surprised though by the neurotic stomach noise apology at the table, and the reaction to the booze waste, which was unrealistic for the later. The ending was typical far fetched stuff. But I still kind of liked it. It didn't upset me. I felt pretty OK watching it.
I think I am looking for something human and less dramatic in the way of over doing music score..something ballsy, if that even exists. It must. OK, good, that part in bold especially gives me a window into what you're looking for. I know what you mean to, sometimes the music score in older movies is very overpowering, then again I've seen newer films that do the same.
So I will think about what you said, and see if I can come up with something that has a fair chance of you liking it. OK back to work for me now.
So I will think about what you said, and see if I can come up with something that has a fair chance of you liking it. OK back to work for me now.
Awesome, man, looking forward to it. Take your time and enjoy that beer!:D
TEST TEST 1,232
Mommy
(2014)
Director: Xavier Dolan
This was a challenge for me to start watching. Right off of the bat I didn't like the characters. Tasteless, crass and hardly amusing. Within about 15 minutes, I loosened up enough to invest into whatever story would unfold.
Mommy is a French/Canadian film spoken in native tongue that was fast and furious with its dialog. Every other word was an expletive for season and it came on so compounded that I literally had to frame back a few times on my dvd copy of it to be able to get into the flow of the dialog.
The story is very simple, and from my perspective, not much of a surprise as I pretty much knew what was going to happen. It's tough for me to fault this movie for not being spirited enough because it's brimming with energy and verve, and there was one line that killed me when the son remarks about his next door neighbor to his mom; "her ass smells like roses, I see it written in the stars", as she walks by him.
Definitely a kooky movie. I didn't sympathize that much all in all because I think the parent evaded a lot of moral responsibility concerning anyone else but her own son, which, when you see the movie, you'll know what I mean, but I was moved. The acting was tight. I'm actually wondering how they afforded the rights to some of the songs they used.
The picture was shot in a highly unconventional 1:1 aspect ratio rendering it close to portrait smart phone image. That took me by surprise. I had to check the specs to make sure I had my dvd menu options set correctly. Interesting use of that limiting girth. Very intimate and claustrophobic,
Since this was a Lionsgate dvd, I had to suffer through some alienation since the titling author left me out of the loop with a voice over montage that seemed important. It was all in French and no subtitles were ported into that scene. I was very disappointed I could not be in on the scenario, instead only hearing a bunch of foreign speak at a pinnacle moment in the film. I can't hold it against the movie itself, though.
I liked this movie. It was pretty OK. I didn't cry because I didn't particularly like the characters too too much, and also, there was a subplot never realized with the next door neighbor where she was always on the verge of divulging something about her home life, but never does. That was frustrating. Not sure if it was intentional but I can't say it worked for the movie. Just kind of hinted at something but never let you in on the secret.
I give it a passing grade but not without it's share of hiccups. Technique-wise, the film is very poetic with it's use of choices in shots and editing. Some great dirties and creative use of angles thread some of the more generalized scenes of drinking and laughing a good deal of weight.
For now I'll leave my rating as is. If time is kind to Mommy in my own head, I may possibly knock it up a half box.
3+
MY DINNER WITH ANDRE (1981)
Director: Louis Malle
This is my 2nd time watching this movie. All it consists of are 2 middle aged men who work in theater, sitting down for dinner at a posh restaurant, discussing life and feeling awake or alive. There are many great moments that touch on very important topics relating to the human condition. There isn't another movie like this one, and I'm not sure there ever could be one as sincere or well done.
I happened upon a Criterion blu ray disc of this in a 3 pack set which features all of the Wallace Shawn ("inconceivable!") and Andre Gregory collaborations. The picture looked like a woolen blanket, or a painting. The grain seems to indicate a 16mm print blown up, and the detail of everything is so integrated into this grain that I felt as if I was watching a charcoal sketch at some points. It had a very pleasant look that made it an enjoyable second viewing.
I have to say that things don't really start to get into gear until about an hour into the two hour run time, and that's OK. The set-up is long and sometimes tedious, but absolutely necessary. This is essentially an action film done with dialog. The performances don't often fall victim to cutaways and instead play out as a continuous shot which makes one aware of the amount of energy and poise achieved by these two men. Gregory, in particular, is a monster at his delivery. Every word he says, whether matter of factly or fever pitched is done so with such an eloquent tongue that I couldn't help but feel like I was being read a bed time story.
The men enjoy small portions of over priced food talking about the differences between complacent living and going to artistic extremes to achieve a sense of being. Shawn argues for complacency and a sense of purpose, while Gregory quilt jobs an exotic spiritual pilgrimage laced with absurd acts of communal ritual. In the end, it is all about living in fear. Fear of failure, fear of being alone, fear of not moving, not speaking, for of oneself.
It really is a beautiful film that requires an open mind.
5
My thoughts while watching it...
http://i.imgur.com/eVRZx4h.jpg?2
Citizen Rules
08-26-17, 01:56 PM
I haven't seen those last two. Though of course I will be watching Mommy for the 14th Hof. Right now I didn't read any reviews of it as I want to go into the film blind. I have zero idea of what it will be about. I did get Psycho II from my library, I just have to find the time to watch it.
I recommend "My Dinner with Andre". It's a real American classic, and an important film for the precedent and writing.
Citizen Rules
08-26-17, 02:26 PM
I recommend "My Dinner with Andre". It's a real American classic, and an important film for the precedent and writing. Thanks that sounds like something I would like. I see it has Wallace Shawn who was in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, so that's reason enough:p
[QUOTE=Joel;1762592]MY DINNER WITH ANDRE (1981)
Director: Louis Malle
This is my 2nd time watching this movie. All it consists of are 2 middle aged men who work in theater, sitting down for dinner at a posh restaurant, discussing life and feeling awake or alive. There are many great moments that touch on very important topics relating to the human condition. There isn't another movie like this one, and I'm not sure there ever could be one as sincere or well done.
I happened upon a Criterion blu ray disc of this in a 3 pack set which features all of the Wallace Shawn ("inconceivable!") and Andre Gregory collaborations. The picture looked like a woolen blanket, or a painting. The grain seems to indicate a 16mm print blown up, and the detail of everything is so integrated into this grain that I felt as if I was watching a charcoal sketch at some points. It had a very pleasant look that made it an enjoyable second viewing.
I have to say that things don't really start to get into gear until about an hour into the two hour run time, and that's OK. The set-up is long and sometimes tedious, but absolutely necessary. This is essentially an action film done with dialog. The performances don't often fall victim to cutaways and instead play out as a continuous shot which makes one aware of the amount of energy and poise achieved by these two men. Gregory, in particular, is a monster at his delivery. Every word he says, whether matter of factly or fever pitched is done so with such an eloquent tongue that I couldn't help but feel like I was being read a bed time story.
The men enjoy small portions of over priced food talking about the differences between complacent living and going to artistic extremes to achieve a sense of being. Shawn argues for complacency and a sense of purpose, while Gregory quilt jobs an exotic spiritual pilgrimage laced with absurd acts of communal ritual. In the end, it is all about living in fear. Fear of failure, fear of being alone, fear of not moving, not speaking, for of oneself.
It really is a beautiful film that requires an open mind.
5
My thoughts while watching it...
I have this on my watch list, excited to watch.
If you like this movie you should watch the criterion closet with Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn, Pretty soothing to listen to them talk.
If you like this movie you should watch the criterion closet with Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn, Pretty soothing to listen to them talk.
Really?....
Hmm,..I think I'll seek it out. Thanks!
Really?....
Hmm,..I think I'll seek it out. Thanks!
It's just a couple minutes. Tell me what yu think.
It's just a couple minutes. Tell me what yu think.
I was just finishing up the bd of MDWA..Louis Malle interview and his films..had no idea his past films were so scandalous
MovieMeditation
08-27-17, 12:20 PM
Both Mommy and My Dinner with Andre is long overdue watches of mine... Looking forward to watching both some time when time sees fit.
Both Mommy and My Dinner with Andre is long overdue watches of mine... Looking forward to watching both some time when time sees fit.
My Dinner with Andre...have snacks close by
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2
(2017)
Director: James Gunn
Starring:
Michael Rooker as The Deceased Mr. Spock
Chris Pratt as Luke Skywalkman
Kurt Russell as Darth Vaderbilt
Bradley Cooper as Jar Jar Blinky Eyes
https://i.imgur.com/ndlTbP7.jpg
From the beginning, having not yet seen part 1, I was a little surprised that the film makers seemed to have great taste in music, using Electric Light Orchestra to open their picture with. I'd already heard Looking Glass's Brandy minutes prior, so.....so far, off to a good start. I really had no intentions of liking this film, and only decided to watch it because someone at work seemed to think I would enjoy it, not knowing what my taste was in movies.
I started battling through some obnoxious CGI camera movement, being slungshot at high speed through dips and twists of angles around flying fighting space craft. The colors were throwing me because there was no real uniformity. It was as if production design and the VFX artists just decided that all colors of the rainbow would do. I think this was a tonal mistake, but I wasn't going to crucify the movie as long as it didn't continue to make stupid mistakes like this. And, it didn't, at least not as much.
A few scenes were surprisingly touching and there was humor at just about every turn which soon warmed up to actually being funny once a few minutes had passed. The initial jokes weren't that great, but once Rocket laid that line down about the gold queens being douche bags and winked with the wrong eye, I busted my gut and loosened right up.
The young Kurt Russell prosthetic job was superbly done. Not creepy like Tron Legacy where Jeff Bridges looked like an android. This was EFNY era Kurt, and he was dashing and dimpled.
https://i.imgur.com/ogqPL6d.jpg
All in all, the movie worked for me. Some sequences involving a whistle controlled heat seek missile were really well staged and allowed us to spend some QT with Rooker, who is an actor I really enjoy in movies. In fact, it was really nice to see some of my old school faves all congregated into one place, punching the clock for this blockbusting ballbuster of an action picture. Stallone, Russell, Rooker; all seemed at home and really gave some much needed credibility to this otherwise kind of silly adventure tale.
It definitely rips off Star Wars and Star Trek II but I didn't mind. I'm not huge into pop sci-fi anyway, but it's hard not to notice the "homage" being paid because the story is very similar in some respects (See above credits).
I have to say that I did enjoy the movie, and think it would be a definite accessory for a get together or a movie night with a friend. I watched it alone and still had a reasonably good time with a solo viewing. But it is a movie to kind of talk through. It's light weight stuff. Plenty of action and goofing around, which is quite funny in many parts of the film. I appreciated that. I went in thinking the jokes would be cringe inducing, but more often than not, they were actually written to my taste, which makes me think, maybe I'm not such a grumpy old man...maybe it's just that most movies like this do suck, and this is an exception.
3+
https://i.imgur.com/lWJybud.jpg
PSYCHO III (1986)
Director: Anthony Perkins
Norman Bates himself directs this highly stylized follow up to the original Psycho, this time removing the Ms. Spool element as nothing more than a crazy, lying aunt. While I can't say I think this improves the mythos of the series, I will say that some of the dialog is great. Perkins has his own style all over this with help from cinematographer Bruce Surtees, and it looks beautiful. Controlled colored lights masked around the hotel rooms, green blinking lights tracing around a stuffed owl at the midnight hour. Psycho III is an attractive horror film.
It seems that ever since Psycho started getting sequels after part II, the writers have really challenged that of Tom Holland's script. With Psycho IV: The Beginning, original Psycho screenplay writer Joe Stefano and director Mick Garris ignore parts II and III, while with this film, Psycho III, writer Charles Edward Pogue seems eager to challenge part II's plot twist and render it obsolete with an amusing and harried bit of frantic exposition that works quite well as a fireworks show of writing and acting, but not so much as any kind of camraderie tying the stories together. Apparently Pogue disliked Holland's script, and for that, even though I can't fault him, when I compare the two films, I feel part two is far superior in writing and directing. I think it'd be hard to argue that II had the right elements in play.
The third Psycho film seems awkward. Perkins' performance seems labored and a bit too strong, and I suspect that's because he wanted to not only turn Norman up to 11, but also had the task of directing the picture as a first timer. We still get the spasms of Bates's smile pulling each cheek up and down like a marionette, which can be hilarious, and we are treated to a much more intense stare as Bates drives his car with a dead body in the back seat, his eyes as confused, angry and horrifying as you can imagine any murderer's stare. It's really good stuff here.
It's hard to say what went wrong with this film. As a standalone movie, it's kind of dynamite, it really is. I think if I had to pinpoint its biggest fault, it would be that there are no twists or surprises. I mean, there's a few tiny things that are ironic, but nothing that spins this yarn in the direction of classic, like part II did. Norman is mad as a hatter, and this movie makes no effort to have you believe he's misunderstood,... like part 2 did. Again..."like part 2 did". That's what's wrong here. Part 2 whips this movie's ass in a big way as far as classic storytelling and mood go. Dark mood. I couldn't say that Perkins' picture is without pizzazz, because it is well made, but it's a lot lighter in tone, bordering on horror/comedy, much more than its predecessor..
As director, he was known to be inspired by the Coen Brothers' film Blood Simple, which explains why he hired Carter Burwell to deliver a score that was way ahead of it's time, especially for movies falling into the slasher/franchise market. Perkins wanted a similar tone to the Coen debut, and some of his riffs do pay decent enough homage. This isn't high art, but it is a bit of an art film, the way it's constructed. And yes, it is clunky. We get insert shots of people who seem to exist only as to collect a favor from Perkins, like a cameo. It's funny, but kind of an amateur mistake. Also, the opening line of "there is no God" is an example of not getting the right take but using it anyway. Not my favorite film opening. The acting has moments of real cartoonish behavior. Norman is a bit of a cartoon, and, maybe that was the intention, I don't know. I have to say that Bates and his new Janet Leigh-like muse have a nice slow dance scene together, and that almost balances the Norman out we loved from part II, but not quite.
Psycho III is a bit of a tonal mess of a movie, but I still really liked it a lot, regardless. The kills are disgusting, worse than part 2, but still used sparingly. Make no mistake, this is pop psycho to the max, but it's good pop psycho to the max.
3.5+
[/CENTER]
THE MONEY PIT (1986)
Director: Richard Benjamin
3.5++
The Money Pit is a good movie because it's funny and entertaining. It doesn't try to be a sophisticated character piece that happens to have funny moments, nor is it a straight up slapstick. It finds a nice place in between and parks itself there allowing Hanks and Long to play it straight in obnoxious circumstances. There is a great deal of physical comedy on display and Tom Hanks is up to the challenge. He had great physicality back in the 1980's before he became an A list serious actor, and he really shows it off here.
https://i.imgur.com/YuSJGhT.jpg?2
This movie gets a lot of dismissal from people and I've always wondered why. It's almost as if people expected this movie to be another film entirely. I could never figure it out. It's not a disposable comedy. I mean, if they still made comedies like this, it might be disposable, but no. This is a fun time capsule, and really kept me chuckling from beginning to end.
The only thing that really got under my skin was the theme song. That was bad, and continues to be bad, especially when they reprise it at the end, right after they butcher "Ode to Joy" with a rock ensemble played by White Lion, yuk!
Alexander Godunov does some great comedic work as well, with his pompous but heart felt vanity and high expectations of others. He's a hoot. Other great comedy comes from the construction team rebuilding the house. Lots of funny moments. This movie has a speedy pace and keeps the laughs coming in good, even measure. How could anyone hate this movie? It's silly but it's fun. I'll never get the hate for it, and I don't need to get it.
I like this movie and always will.
Citizen Rules
09-07-17, 01:56 PM
Joel I just read your review of Psycho II, if you remember I was going to watch it based on seeing this review...and I did. I really enjoyed the movie...some comments:)Psycho II (1983)
Director: Richard Franklin
rating_4_5
... when Norman starts his job at the diner, and when Norman brings Tilley's character home for supper... He really made Norman Bates a character that was believable. In this film, he's almost normal. He doesn't want to live in the past. He's feeble and afraid, but he's also kind of cool. You can tell by his facial expressions and by the way he plays a few moments light and nonchalant.Yup, that's how I seen it too. Norman is likable! and yet odd enough to be Norman Bates. We feel sorry for him and that works brilliantly for the movie. It's a great performance and script idea.
It's the location of the diner proximity to the old house with the ghost of Mother. The viewer has to imagine that the diner is right down the street, no more than a few miles. Agreed here too...it's world building. Norman is in a real, yet self contained world, that's fun for us to visit, because it's not so realistic as to seem morbid.
Vera Miles is serviceable but feels a bit out of time with her melodramatic acting. You know, I agree with you here too. I liked her, but, she seemed two dimensional and not real personable, she was the wink link in the movie, but not a deal breaker.
I know I reviewed this a few weeks ago and was a bit dismissive about it but Psycho III didn't see that review, is it still on MoFo somewhere? I like to read it.
Joel, that was a fine review! You hit on all the main points and I happen to agree with you too:up: What did you think of Meg Tilly's character and performance?
Joel, that was a fine review! You hit on all the main points and I happen to agree with you too:up: What did you think of Meg Tilly's character and performance?
Thank you, sir. I thought Tilley's acting was average. Near the beginning it seemed equivalent to a low budget film with very bad boom mic sound and rough film editing. Like, the sound was fine along with the actual editing, but her performance seemed unrealistic, as if she was unsure of her personality and just delivered lines. After about a half of an hour she seemed to at least be serviceable and not a distraction. I mean, I didn't think she was horrible by any means, it's just I always felt her to be nothing special. She is super cute and I'd love to go to bed with her after a nice dinner of toasted cheese sandwiches, but a great performance? I don't think so, no.
How about you? How did you feel about her?
Citizen Rules
09-07-17, 02:31 PM
Thank you, sir. I thought Tilley's acting was average. Near the beginning it seemed equivalent to a low budget film with very bad boom mic sound and rough film editing. Like, the sound was fine along with the actual editing, but her performance seemed unrealistic, as if she was unsure of her personality and just delivered lines. After about a half of an hour she seemed to at least be serviceable and not a distraction. I mean, I didn't think she was horrible by any means, it's just I always felt her to be nothing special. She is super cute and I'd love to go to bed with her after a nice dinner of toasted cheese sandwiches, but a great performance? I don't think so, no.
How about you? How did you feel about her? I liked her in the role as she made it easy for me to believe that Norman trusted her and even cared for her. She had this quality that came through the screen and even if she wasn't dynamic I think she paired will with Perkins. Had she been more powerful in her performance I think it would have distracted from Perkin's role.
I liked her in the role as she made it easy for me to believe that Norman trusted her and even cared for her. She had this quality that came through the screen and even if she wasn't dynamic I think she paired will with Perkins. Had she been more powerful in her performance I think it would have distracted from Perkin's role.
I see what you mean. I've always felt that and until you mentioned it, always took advantage of that and overlooked it, but yeah, you're right. She plays innocent.
Citizen Rules
09-07-17, 04:04 PM
Hey Joel, check out my review of Psycho II if you get a chance. I'm also going to watch Psycho III, which I saw only once years ago, then I will come back and read your review.
Have you seen the remake? Psycho (1998) I haven't seen it, I'm not sure if I will or won't.
Hey Joel, check out my review of Psycho II if you get a chance. I'm also going to watch Psycho III, which I saw only once years ago, then I will come back and read your review.
Have you seen the remake? Psycho (1998) I haven't seen it, I'm not sure if I will or won't.
OK, cool, I will right now. I have seen the Psycho remake and it is garbage. Do yourself a favor and skip it. I could have thought of a million other things to spend that kind of studio money on!
SPLIT
(2016)
Director: M. Night Shamalamadingdong
SPLITSPLITGODTHISMOVIEWASJUSTUNBEARABLYBAD.SPLITSPLITSPLITSWHYDOYOUSAYTHATSPLITSPLIBECAUSEITTAKESITS ELFSOSERIOUSLYANDGIVESNOTHINGBUTLOOSEENDSTSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITYOUMEANSPLITENDSSPLITSPLITSP LITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITTHATENDINGWITHBRUCEWILLISANDTHETIMEHETOOKTOSIPHISCOFFEELIKEOHYEAHTHISISSUCHAN AMAZINGMOMENTANDIMTOTALLYINONTHEJOKESPLITSPLITSPLITSEEITHOUGHTTHATWASBRILLIANTWHATAWAYTOENDAFILMATHR OWBACKTOTHEDIRECTORSPASTBOXOFFICESUCCESSSPLITSPLITSPYEAHYOUWOULDTHINKTHATWASCOOLANDTHISISWHYYOUARENT QUALIFIEDTOREVIEWFILMSBECAUSEYOUAREACOMPLETEIDIOTWITHNOTASTEINMOVIESANDNOCOMPASSFORBULLSHITLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITGUYSGUYSCOMEONNOWITWASNTTHATBADIMEANITDIDHAVEABUSETHEMESATLEASTITWASTOPICALRIGHTS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITOKONEREVIEWERATATIMEHEREYESITSTRUETHISMOVIESUCKSANDITSBLOATEDANDFULLOFITSELFBUTIW ILLSAYTHATTHEACTORPLAYINGALLOFTHOSEROLESWASNTACOMPLETEWASTESPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITYOUREKIDDINGRIGHTYOUA CTUALLYWOULDWATCHTHIS2HOURSNOOZEFESTAGAINSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITLETEMEJUSTSETTHERECORDSTRAIGHTHERESPLIT ISNOTAGOODMOVIEBUTITSURESPENDSALOTOFTIMEPRETENDINGTOBEONESPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITWASTHISMOVIEEVENRA TEDRSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITIHAVENOIDEADOESITREALLYMATTERICERTAINLYDIDNTWANNASEEANYT HINGBADHAPPENTOYOUNGGIRLSANDNUDITYWOULDVEBEENTOTALLYCREEPYSPLITSPLITSPLIT1SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT2.5SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT4SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSP LITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSP LITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSP LITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSP LITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT3SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT.5SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLI TSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLI TSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT5SPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPL ITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLIT1.5YOUGUYSARENUTSITSJUSTMNIGHTUPT OHISOLDSILLYPARLORTRICKSAGAINSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITS PLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLITSPLI
SPLIT (2016)
DIRECTOR: M.NIGHT SHYAMALAN
1.5
A real chore for me to watch. I kept shifting around, letting out loud and labored sighs, waiting for things to get good. They never really did. There were a few areas that picked up steam and were cool, like the transformation, and the "virtuoso acting" (I guess) was solid enough, but I just didn't care. The subplot of abuse was sickening and resolved in a very creepy way. What is this film trying to say? Nothing at all. The ending almost made me puke because I cringed so hard. I am so sick of this director pulling his parlor trick twist ending and having it thud louder than anything else but at the same time it revels in its own pomposity and self importance. I thought I was done with M Night before but now I know that I'm really done with him. He makes pretend he's clever and that just doesn't sit with me. All of that build up and skill always comes crumbling down with the most ludicrous ending and this time the ride getting there was a bore. I mean a real bore. It was torture for me.
SeeingisBelieving
09-09-17, 05:38 PM
Roberts, who has me clapping my hands alone in my living room with his over-the-top body language. Yes, that's right. Roberts steals his own scenes when he has to explain to the police what has been happening as they continuously never believe him. His raises him arms over his head, spins around, wildly waves and arches his arms with physical violence - but at the same time his voice is calm and his pronunciation is perfect, his delivery is very composed and to the point with no added color. It's amazing. He's literally doing his usual manic Eric Roberts but only with his body - his voice being a different entity completely, that of a perfectly helpful gentleman. I was rolling with laughter.
He went to RADA don't you know :p. This sounds hilarious.
ANGUISH
Incidentally I like your considered, multicolour titles – this one for Anguish being my favourite.
M (1931)
Director: Fritz Lang
I had some high hopes for M and though I really got inspired by the photography, just about everything else disturbed me. The story is of a child killer and the manhunt that ensues eventually handled by criminals. The premise isn't one I could get comfortable with no matter how stylish the film itself was. I tried to stick around for the humor but found myself nodding off and being woken up violently by a loud WHISTLE!!! Some of the film segments are completely silent and they last a stretch, so when the whistling happens, or the screeching siren type whistle anyway, it is very jolting if you're trying to sleep. I'm not trying to be a wise ass about it, it's just the subtitles were on full blast and there was so much exposition that I couldn't track the visuals. The dialog delivery was shrill by cutting voices all around and that made me very exhausted. Soon enough I turned down the volume and just stared at the screen appreciating the compositions. They were very striking. A lot of reflections and shadows, which I love, were on display and I loved the care put into the lighting with choice cucoloris.
I think I may have to try this film again possibly. I cannot guarantee it will grow on me as a film to watch as much as it seems more a film to study for aesthetic reasons only, at least to my personal taste. I appreciate the nomination and can understand to a degree why this film was chosen. It's a striking visual film. As far as sound pioneering, well, it's not quite a feathery experience and that's all I'll say about that. :p
He went to RADA don't you know :p. This sounds hilarious.
ANGUISH
Incidentally I like your considered, multicolour titles – this one for Anguish being my favourite.
Thanks kindly! I like to chromatically shade titles but the options are super limited unless I make my own and then I can't submit to the database so...I like the grey/charcoal combo, maybe I'll try that next lol.
And what is RADA, BTW?
SeeingisBelieving
09-09-17, 05:53 PM
I thought M was good, especially Peter Lorre, but I wouldn't say it was my cup of tea. The interview with Fritz Lang on the Blu-ray was of great interest because he spoke about his fateful meeting with Joseph Goebbels and immediately getting the hell out of Germany. Adds background to my favourite film Münchhausen, which Goebbels commissioned and which I always watch with the inclination to be guarded.
SeeingisBelieving
09-09-17, 05:56 PM
Thanks kindly! I like to chromatically shade titles but the options are super limited unless I make my own and then I can't submit to the database so...I like the grey/charcoal combo, maybe I'll try that next lol.
Well it seemed to suit the film and what you've done there is subtle.
And what is RADA, BTW?
It's the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.
I thought M was good, especially Peter Lorre, but I wouldn't say it was my cup of tea. The interview with Fritz Lang on the Blu-ray was of great interest because he spoke about his fateful meeting with Joseph Goebbels and immediately getting the hell out of Germany. Adds background to my favourite film Munchhausen, which Goebbels commissioned and which I always watch with the inclination to be guarded.
I'm not prejudiced with foreign films to my usual American taste for cinema (not that I think you're implying that - I don't think that). I've thought tons of foreign films were incredible and in fact better than most movies from the US. Something about M just had me very tired. I mean, pretty much what I explained would be the reasons for my fatigue with it and it's funny because I've been able to easily track the visual flair of other dialog heavy subtitled films in the past, in fact that's usually the case. It's usually simple and very rewarding so I may have to try M again at a later time. I did the best I could this time.
SeeingisBelieving
09-09-17, 06:01 PM
I'm not prejudiced with foreign films to my usual American taste for cinema (not that I think you're implying that - I don't think that). I've thought tons of foreign films were incredible and in fact better than most movies from the US. Something about M just had me very tired. I mean, pretty much what I explained would be the reasons for my fatigue with it and it's funny because I've been able to easily track the visual flair of other dialog heavy subtitled films in the past, in fact that's usually the case. It's usually simple and very rewarding so I may have to try M again at a later time. I did the best I could this time.
Yeah, I feel like I was probably experiencing the same thing. A lot of concentration maybe.
Yeah, I feel like I was probably experiencing the same thing. A lot of concentration maybe.
Tons of concentration needed. Maybe one of these days...
NOWHERE TO HIDE (1987)
Director: Mario Azzopardi
Amy Madigan tries to act her way out of a paper bag here and usually is able to do so, but the story is very ugly, and in typical 1980's fashion, we get some of the sleaziest, most A-Hole moves done by the bad guys at every turn, so it's hard to not root for her character, being a recent victim of military corruption, with a dead husband and a child in her arms, she is on the run, and wanting answers. No one gets any, though. Especially the viewer.
The story wanted to be competent, and I was willing to go along for the ride had things paid off with an explanation, but they never did. I never found out why the military did what they did, I only found out, within the first 5 minutes of the film, that they just did.
Madigan plays an OK hero but I can't help but feel like she wasn't given enough badassery to play with and own in the movie. This action/thriller needed a lot more revenge factor for what was done to her and her family. And though I respect the pace of this picture, and the time it took to establish the characters and eventual submergence into the wilderness setting, I cannot forgive the resounding thud of an ending with no motive aside from faulty engineering being the culprit for all the needless cruelty.
For these reasons, Nowhere to Hide is a distraction and a disturbing one, but not without some unintentional laughter at just how over the top some of the mean spiritedness is. This is working on a level of macho stupid that makes a lot of other 80's action films empathetic works of art.
I also think hiring Brad Fiedel (The Terminator, Fright Night) as composer may've been a mistake. He's a nifty composer but his score works against the camera movement, and, in turn, the camera movements work against a pivotal acting scene where Madigan is doing her "Oscar" moment with the victim child of hers in the hotel room. Her delivery is mis matched with the speed of the dollying, and the music is further mismatched with both of these elements. I'm not sure she didn't do a fine job. But I am sure that either the hiring choice or the editing was responsible because these things need to be considered when you have a dramatic moment that is clearly supposed to be poetic and memorable.
2.5
cricket
09-09-17, 07:31 PM
Glad to see someone else who thought Split was crap.
Glad to see someone else who thought Split was crap.
Yup. It was crap..and it uses the same title of a film that was actually very good and remains to this day obscured by bad distribution....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzcmH5GvFsc
Killer Klowns from Outer Space
(1988)
Director: Stephen Chiodo
I can't discuss this movie like some class president, trying to convince anyone reading that this is a movie that will affect them the same way as it did myself. I can only discuss this from my own experieces, and so I will.
https://i.imgur.com/fvEiSMr.jpg
Back in 1988 I rented this on vhs. I was about 12 years old, just started smoking cigarettes and dating girls, and weekend sleep overs were king in my life. In the summertime, I'd go over to my buddy Chris's house, in his refinished rec room basement, and we'd camp there, with console floor television, vcr, and a pick of the movies we'd decided to rent. Killer Klowns was a staple. Before we watched the film, we'd strip naked and streak down the road on a dare, with a temperature of about 73f°. It was light fun and a little scary. Once a car drove by, we'd either jump into the sidewalk provided bushes or just rough it out ashamed of our pre-pubescently forming male bodies. All was good. We'd return to his side entrance by the lower lawn portion of the house he lived in, complete with a He-Man: Masters of the Universe back yard at night illumination that seemed to photocopy the matte effects of the giant tree world in House II, with the moonlight not directly present but still outlining the vast tree line we'd see. His yard was huge, and that set the mood for us reconvening inside to partake in the viewing of some good and fresh VHS urgency. Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a movie made by special effect and puppetry masters who were influenced by the Ray Harryhausen, but also coming into their own as the glow worm 1980's called for shiny and shadowy displays of candy store lanterns. This is why the movie resonates; the effects. We get tents of yellow and red striped pumped from the inside with warm yellow lighting, humongous painted worlds of forced perspective popcorn toy-gun electrical blue crawling visuals that would today be scowled at as being dated. But here they are most welcome. Offset, balanced and grateful for John Vernon's comic relief as a complete ball-busting beat cop who hates kids, we get a darkly photographed sci fi comedy that survives off of a filmic eerieness. Blackness in the frame assists an otherwise over saturated carnival nightmare landscape with throwaway characters contributing light and fluffy sitcom style humor. Sound effects, high spirited music and a real sense of craftsmanship takes over this otherwise remedial hayride into territory that outshines many contemporaries. If you are looking for a b-movie, this is your ticket. It's fun, camp and totally visual.
https://i.imgur.com/gXk2o1z.jpg
Chris and I were not looking for any of that, we just thought the title was cool when we decided to rent it for the first time. Ever since, it's been a highly regarded piece of film history, coming from an era that has seemed to accrue a bad rap, but nontheless has still furnished fans of fun cinema some of the best examples of effect driven fantasy comedies.
4
I also agree about split. M night is a one trick pony IMO.
re93animator
09-09-17, 11:31 PM
It's been too long since I've seen M, but early Fritz Lang often equals favorite for me. I like M for being so stark, but I actually prefer a load of other 20s/30s flicks on a visual front. Are you a fan of the period Joel?
You've just rekindled my interest in a Killer Klowns rewatch. :)
It's been too long since I've seen M, but early Fritz Lang often equals favorite for me. I like M for being so stark, but I actually prefer a load of other 20s/30s flicks on a visual front. Are you a fan of the period Joel?
You've just rekindled my interest in a Killer Klowns rewatch. :)
I must admit that I am not familiar with those eras at all. I have a light interest in exploring them because I feel I owe to myself to embrace the roots of motion pictures, but at the same time, I don't want to force it, either.
Killer Klowns is a fun time! :)
A Master Builder (2013)
Director: Jonathan Demme
https://i.imgur.com/o4vhFLY.png
Based on an impenetrable play from a hundred plus years ago by Henrik Ibsen, Wallace Shawn translates and adapts a considerably more coherent and juicy screenplay in kahoots with long time collaborator/stage director Andre Gregory, and film director Jonathan Demme.
https://i.imgur.com/i0oqYdE.jpg
The story seems simple but soon turns into a blurred line between dream and reality when an aging architect on his death bed recalls a young woman he promised to steal away like a half mountain creature man when she was old enough to hop into the sack with him. Actually, it's more subtle than that, but not much more.
https://i.imgur.com/FkSFbwZ.jpg
Shawn does a nice stretch as a charismatic yet controlling portrayal of a master architect not ready to accept his fate of being obscured by a young upstart in the field. We spend most of the film in close up, right on the actors faces, and it's a wonderful experience because the acting is the highest form of acting there is. It lives and breathes in the kind of jazz precision we'd get from a well rehearsed ensemble, so much in fact, that the mere positioning of a bow to be stretched back, the simple act of it being an intention and not an action in motion, would have enough force to blow the theater lights out like a flame. Actually, it's not really like that. But it is good. The acting, that is. Who's writing this crap?
Sorry...
https://i.imgur.com/UKpe3xq.jpg
As welcome as Shawn's atypical performance is, it's Julie Hagerty and Lisa Joyce who really impressed me. Joyce's manic laughter turned intense focus and back again really had me on edge, and her delivery of every line was brimming with life and energy. Hagerty really, really goes against her usual typecast with a quietly brooding wife, damaged by her past and holding onto nothing in her current life. She uses her eyes in ways I haven't seen since I don't know when.
https://i.imgur.com/gFaTFtt.jpg
The writing is fantastic. Every word is clear and concise. There are no boastful elaborations or vocabulary gymnastics. The straightforward manner of the dialog, natural performances massaged into truth, cadence and tonality of all of this being manifested, has the same impressive poetry of the most difficult Shakespeare, and even moreso. It's the modern world we are living in, and within this modern world not once are we agitated by self important technology or common bulls eye phrasing. This is all very unpretentious and honest.
Jonathan Demme makes great use of the location we get with Master Builder Halvard Solness's home, and his choice to photograph everything with great detail, serving the performances, really takes this far and away from anything resembling the failure of a filmed play. As noted by many of the production's contemporaries, this is indeed a real film (shot with the Arri Alexa, digitally, of course, alternating between 30fps and 24fps respectively.) The alternating frame rates create the illusion of real life vs dream life,but everything still flows much like a cinema movie including a key scene of a car drive filming the tops of suburban houses and cupolas, as if to indicate a middle class work flow that positions Shawn's Solness character in a bit of a pretense as far as his lofty achievements and goals are concerned. Is this actually the case? Is he a Master Builder, or an architect of middle class housing for "people" to live in? I do not know, but it's an interesting juxtaposition to think about.
https://i.imgur.com/bMvYHxS.jpg
Would it be too bold to say that this is a masterpiece of a film? Maybe. I don't know. I wouldn't want to say just yet. I've seen this twice now, and this last viewing really had me appreciating all the care put into it. It absolutely transported me into another world, and that's what I want when I see a movie. But at the same time, this plays as a documentary of sorts. It's really a unique blend I haven't experienced before.
This is undoubtedly a strange movie, and probably an unlikely scenario to most people's prejudices, but I will say that everyone involved, and I mean everyone involved, sells their role. They are totally committed, as if life itself was to make sure that A Master Builder stood higher in the center of the clouds.
https://i.imgur.com/CQgMyYR.jpg
4.5
re93animator
09-13-17, 03:46 AM
I must admit that I am not familiar with those eras at all. I have a light interest in exploring them because I feel I owe to myself to embrace the roots of motion pictures, but at the same time, I don't want to force it, either.
That's cool. Good luck exploring. I hope you get sucked into the weirder side of the 20s & 30s like I did.
I love the Master Builder review. Not the kind of thing that would normally catch my eye, but I like the way you make it sound.
That's cool. Good luck exploring. I hope you get sucked into the weirder side of the 20s & 30s like I did.
I love the Master Builder review. Not the kind of thing that would normally catch my eye, but I like the way you make it sound.
Thanks. There's a good chance you may not care for A Master Builder but I'll still recommend it, just in case. The acting is what makes it something special to me anyway.
If you have any film titles from those eras you can send my way, feel free, when time allows.
re93animator
09-17-17, 12:26 AM
Thanks. There's a good chance you may not care for A Master Builder but I'll still recommend it, just in case. The acting is what makes it something special to me anyway.
If you have any film titles from those eras you can send my way, feel free, when time allows.
I'll try to get around to it soon. :)
The era is pretty well known for atmospheric horror and gangster flicks. There are too many favorites to satisfactorily list offhand, but flickchart is good for that. For radical visuals, look into early expressionism (namely Metropolis, Faust, Caligari). Mind you, anything 1935 and before is less likely to be repressed by the motion picture code.
Some random names to throw in a hat: maybe Island of Lost Souls (Dr. Moreau adaption), I Am a Fugitive from the Chain Gang, some early Hitchcock (Lady Vanishes, The Lodger), Haxan (my favorite), Phantom of the opera (Chaney), The Phantom Carriage, Georges Melies shorts (maybe a good intro to silents?)
I really hope you end up liking some. It took me a while, but I love the stylings and histrionic charm of early cine.
I'll try to get around to it soon. :)
The era is pretty well known for atmospheric horror and gangster flicks. There are too many favorites to satisfactorily list offhand, but flickchart is good for that. For radical visuals, look into early expressionism (namely Metropolis, Faust, Caligari). Mind you, anything 1935 and before is less likely to be repressed by the motion picture code.
Some random names to throw in a hat: maybe Island of Lost Souls (Dr. Moreau adaption), I Am a Fugitive from the Chain Gang, some early Hitchcock (Lady Vanishes, The Lodger), Haxan (my favorite), Phantom of the opera (Chaney), The Phantom Carriage, Georges Melies shorts (maybe a good intro to silents?)
I really hope you end up liking some. It took me a while, but I love the stylings and histrionic charm of early cine.
Very cool, and thanks. As soon as I get my thunder adapter in the mail, I plan to attempt streaming of my usual go-to links for films that are difficult to find. I'll be able to enjoy them out of the realm of desktop leather chair territory which is not a good way to watch movies I don't own yet. I'll take a trip to those movies providing this apple adapter really works as a mirroring device and isn't limited to app-only casting. We'll see ;)
GOD'S POCKET (2014)
Director: John Slattery
This movie is a little bit short of being a classic indie black comedy. Its misfires are the construction and mis-direction. Tonally, the movie seems to be consistent, but some of the story elements are uneven, and that's a hard thing to put your finger on, trying to figure why something doesn't work. For me it was the feeling of not really being concerned about any one story threaded throughout the film, even though the film clearly cued up some weighty pretense. It'd be very easy to categorize God's Pocket as a train wreck or complete mess, but I really don't think it is despite this.
Without divulging a bunch of plot, the basic story is of a small suburb in a rough neighborhood where everyone knows each other's secrets, and daily gossip is a constant hum. Small time crime is the usual activity, and a few made men run things, as usual in stories like this. A broke and irresponsible horse race gambler has a mishap with a dead body while a struggling local journalist battles his biggest story while trying to make time with a married woman.
A story with even a hint of complexity like this could have been handled better in other hands, but I have to give it up for Slattery's direction, even if what ended up in the film wasn't as filtered as it could have been. The humor works quite nicely, all of the performances are top drawer, and there is enough surprise for a small film like this to at least make watching a worthwhile time passer for anyone who doesn't have their checklist in hand for what a good movie makes.
I have to say that some things are just ridiculous, and anyone awake and watching this movie should pick up on some of the outrageous things about it. But for me that just adds to the comedy, and I was entertained enough to watch this twice, about 8 months apart from each viewing.
3.5
A Master Builder (2013)
Director: Jonathan Demme
4.5
I will watch this
PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Barry Egan is an eccentric and emotionally maladjusted small business owner who's been the victim of taunting and abuse his entire life, rendering him afraid and sometimes violent. In everyday life, he keeps himself together with a polite social system where he really puts out a nice guy persona, and one can't help but feel that Barry really is a nice guy. Timid and agreeable, but still nice, and still a decent person who just happens to be misunderstood.
That is what I see in Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderfully written film. It's a story that stays on the simple side, but is still written with care, and the basic and small ideas seem big because of Sandler's casting, and because of Anderson's hilarious direction. It's a 1960's cartoon mixed with a dark drama. Heavily shaded shots of Egan's neck in the dark, back towards the camera as he plays one note on his newly acquired harmonium. Barry's world is lonely and scary, but he finds one thing he has control over: The Harmonium. He patches a torn air bag and resumes his one note playing, eventually turning his stylings to polyphony.
There'a a nice arc at work here, especially when Egan takes more responsibility and has a more defined purpose fueled by passion of a new found love interest.
With a picture filled to the top with comedy bits it sure does establish a good and emotionally moving dramatic flair, and that is where PTA is a genius. He is equally funny, mad and empathetic-yet never allows his visual sensibilities to fall by the wayside to tell his story. I miss this in his films. This may be PTA's last accessible film, and I say that throwing salt over my shoulder because this movie is strange. Very strange.
Comedy is subtle but still very visible, like when Dean's character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman is getting a haircut. He's wearing the vinyl bib, and when Barry confronts him, Dean motions to his assistant to stand down and allow him to focus his intimidation stare. While he burns a hole in Egan's face with his eyes, his pointer finger is still raised, but it's under the vinyl haircut bib, and it stays there for a long time. Mix that with the angry conviction of a bad man about to be humbled and that's a serious recipe for comedy. "That's that!"
4.5
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994)
Director: John Carpenter
https://i.imgur.com/GRGrIOc.jpg
This was my 5th attempt at watching this. My first time was in the theaters back in 1994, and I hated it then. On home video, over the course of two decades, I'd tried watching it multiple times each time turning it off or growing bored and frustrated with it.
Finally something snapped in me. I stopped wishing for The Thing or Escape from New York, and I started lowering my guns a bit. What I got was a pretty OK movie. The writing was solid enough. I didn't find many, if any, plot holes big enough to ruin the experience and the atmosphere was good and plenty for my taste. I enjoyed Carpenter's hard rock intro and outro themes. There was funny dialog along the way. I appreciated the long takes of just meandering the ghost town or the over night drive. I wasn't bothered by the occasional jump scare that didn't make me jump.
I believe when I first saw In the Mouth of Madness I had just come off of a string of disappointments; Virtuosity, The Mangler. This film by Carpenter was amidst those failures, and the experiences of seeing all of them were very close together. I suspect I lumped this film into the overall sour time for seeing horrors, and built a leather covered prejudice. I also think my resistance was my frame of mind. I wasn't ready to accept that John Carpenter had switched gears. That he had gotten older and that he wasn't trying to do what he did before. He wasn't making Big Trouble in Little China or Christine. The characters were way more subdued in this one.
Before I write anymore, I have to remind myself that I didn't think this was a great movie. I thought it was pretty OK. I enjoyed it. I'd watch it again before I die. It's really not that bad. But it's also really not that good, either.
This was the decline of Carpenter. There were hints of his downward appeal to me with They Live, which I feel is a mediocre movie with a great premise. This was more of the same. This should have been part 3 to Prince of Darkness, with They Live as the sequel. I really don't equate this at all with having any of the same elements as The Thing aside from an ambiguous ending. The mood and almost blandish direction in this film fit right in with those other two.
I found one very creepy scene with a snake woman octopus in a very dim greenhouse outside at night. I also enjoyed some of the effect work, namely the torn page that Sam Neill's character almost walks through before turning back to run into daylight. It's hard to talk about plot because the story is a story of a story and unless this script dropped the ball and warranted dissection, there's nothing that can be said that the movie doesn't wrap up fine on its own. That was a relief. The writing was tight enough to make me finish it and feel confident at the end that it didn't completely stink. I almost want to say this film was clever.
3
https://i.imgur.com/3ncHF3O.jpg
The Last Starfighter (1984)
Director: Nick Castle
Rated PG
This movie made a solid effort to bring forth the Star Wars vibe and add an extra layer of special effects that reflected more recent advances in technology. That technology was first pioneered with Tron, but then had taken steps in a different direction with Digital Productions, a computer generated imagery company that was leaps and bounds more complex than the usual Hollywood FX offerings, giving all CGI models and effects, save a few practicals.
https://i.imgur.com/qrlOWNu.gif
I usually strongly dislike the texture of CGI because, well, there is no texture, and this film's spaceships are no exception. This is the pinnacle of smooth chassis and not taking the ambient light in a convincing way, but I can't help but still really respect and enjoy this movie.
https://i.imgur.com/XWcFSwW.gif
Back on Earth, a trailer park bound teenager and his small circle of go-nowhere friends don't have much to look forward to except fishing, drive-ins and necking on the cliffs (sounds pretty damn good to me!). Alex is the exception. He's the local fixer upper kid who helps all of the elderly women living in the park with their tv sets, electricity, radios, etc. His dreams are to move on and make something of himself, and his days are spent waiting for his loan letter in the mail to go to a real college. He also happens to break the record on the arcade game "The Last Starfighter", much to his neighbor's surprise one night.
https://i.imgur.com/XIKWU9e.gif
It's his high score that sends a signal out to space and is received by a recruiter who then comes to Earth and takes Alex away to lead a solo mission of defeating the outer galactic enemy. In his place, he is mirrored by a clone Alex who stays behind and tends to his girlfriend and little brother.
https://i.imgur.com/LhCdMnX.gif
This is a fun movie. I really, really dig the location here, and instead of explaining it, I'll leave images of some of the shots. There's a really great balance between Earth at night in the park and outer space where flashing laser beams frisk the black fabric that hold the star fields together.
No one element of locale outweighs the other, and I think this was a smart choice for director Castle (he played the shape - Mike Myers from Halloween). There's a feeling of cozy desolation at that trailer park at night, amongst "the tumbleweeds and tarantulas", and having that contrast is crucial to give any kind of feeling while spending time in space or on an alien civilization's ship.
https://i.imgur.com/lCdBXvu.gif
I saw this at the theater and felt just as strong about it as I did with the Star Wars films. Of course, it's not as good, but it gets a lot of deserved respect because of how even it is, and how satisfying it is. It's a perfect time capsule of light sci fi adventure for the 1980's.
https://i.imgur.com/1T5rlM3.gif
3.5
gbgoodies
09-22-17, 03:22 AM
The Last Starfighter is one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I loved Robert Preston as Centauri.
I like how they took some real time to establish the battle sequences, and didn't rush to get into space. It all felt really nicely balanced.
https://i.imgur.com/PZFevXB.jpg?1
Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983)
Director: Lamont Johnson
Rated: PG
https://i.imgur.com/6numf9q.jpg?1
Ivan Reitman, director of Ghostbusters and producer of the cult midnight madness animated Heavy Metal wrangles a partial team of soon to be's in this Columbia Pictures release. Granted, Peter Strauss is no Harrison Ford, but he has enough rugged swagger and attitude to at least deliver an acceptable underdog hero role. Molly Ringwald was just about to be going for her break through role in Sixteen Candles and Ernie Hudson was minutes away from being filmed for Ghostbusters. This is an interesting studio picture because Reitman, though not directing, clearly has some influence here, as heard with the use of Harold Ramis's voice over the space radio near the beginning of the film. It's as if the Heavy Metal and Ghostbusters crew were kind of here in spirit, and some of that helps this otherwise strictly B-Movie affair rise above a usual lifeless one off movie experience.
https://i.imgur.com/d2nqrcx.jpg?1
I liked some of the light humor. Ringwald's character hitches a ride with Strauss's character (let's just call him Harry from now on, OK?). Harry has a hard time breathing near his new female friend. She smells really bad. We know this because Harry desperately opens up his vehicle window before drawing in a large breath as politely as possible. One morning he wakes up to the smell of her petrie dish filthy stinky hand draping in his face. She's crawled into the silver foil sleeping bag with him on the red desert planet landscape because she was cold. He quickly reacts to her smelliness by throwing her in a small pool of water and squirts her with soap he carries in a holster like a gun. She is defiant and bratty. There's something to be said about a movie that takes the time to establish that there is an odor we should be aware of. It's made a point a few times more, and that made me laugh. I was won over by Molly's innocent charm. There is no gross age gap romance going on here. Clearly Harry is apprehensively fond of his scraggler girl, much like an adopted daughter.
https://i.imgur.com/ijQLCk4.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/B2Ro0nX.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/PQuDIjT.png?1
There's missing stuff in Spacehunter. It's not completely fleshed out and padded. I wanted to maybe spend a bit more time with everyone, especially when Hudson's character shows up as an old military buddy on the rocks with Harry. There's a so so dynamic between them that could have been better had we spent more time hearing their exchanges. But for the time we do get, it's not half bad. I liked it. Ringwald helps things along, too. I was also disappointed that this film has never been released in 3-D on home video. It's obviously a 3-D film as advertised. There are moments where the pacing seems goofy and that's because they are implementing a 3-D trick. Sadly, we have to suffer through not being able to see how cool it would be. Maybe someday this will get licensed and bought by a boutique label who actually care about this category of film gimmickry and we can see it in all of its glory.
https://i.imgur.com/YrwtSpr.jpg?1
But back to the review...
The villain is Michael Ironside, decked out to the 9's in a sloppy latex baldy-lox get up while he is attached to a mechanism that floats him around like a craned panavision. He's not bad. He's a serious pervert because he enjoys gawking at young women being SLOWLY undressed by his henchmen. He says things like "yesss....yessss"! I got a nice laugh at that.
https://i.imgur.com/XHi79rN.jpg?1
The atmospherics are tight. Using red and yellow filters, we get a washed out rusty sky and pale landscape. It's comforting to see $10 filters raising production value that much. A dab will do ya, and this does just fine for setting up an otherworldly place. A similar effect was used for Night of the Comet, and that worked nicely, too.
https://i.imgur.com/TUcHyvM.jpg?2
https://i.imgur.com/PR2WCVh.png?1
I'd say, pound for pound, that Beyond the Forbidden Zone is good for viewers who just want to go limp at the end of a day. Nothing is gonna throw you into a pit of despair. All the elements are kept airy enough to make watching it effortless. Yes, it does borrow some aesthetic from The Road Warrior and maybe even a bit of Star Wars, but it does have it's own uniqueness to it, namely the circular tunnel where body/soul fusion is carried out. That place looks like a toaster oven for the world's largest bagel. Cool stuff!
https://i.imgur.com/UDZ6uWm.gif
3.5
https://i.imgur.com/CUuJ89R.jpg?1
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
Director: John Boorman
Rated: R
Here's a popular failure, often ranked as one of the absolute worst films, never mind sequel, of all-time. To top it all off, I thought I might've heard Yoko Ono contributing to some of the soundtrack. Ennio Morricone and Yoko? Ono...
If I had to start a shopping list of why this sequel failed, it'd go something like this;
The editing was poor. The editing or the lack of coverage ordered by Boorman made this more of an embarrassing drag than the art house thinking man's film it clearly wants to be.
We get master shots that show the sides of the actors. Burton delivers a line with great force-"But I'm not worthy!". We get no close up, no dirty shot, no over the shoulder POV of Fletcher's character watching Burton deliver this line.
Things like this make the pace and performances awkward like when a typical scene is being shot, a wide master is combined with close ups. Some scenes here have no close ups, and the scene is left to play out in one master, and you get the "rehearsal" footage, which is usually just actors blowing through lines because they know the 16mm lens is on, and not the 50mm. The entire film makes mistakes like this. Not just that, but the acting itself is just unreachable. The conviction isn't there. It's like a bad stage play. Lines are almost questions instead of answers, like the director told them to do a William Shatner impression. It's so bad! It's very hard to believe that Louise Fletcher won an Oscar no less than 2 years prior. Here she seems like a daytime tv extra. She simply cannot act within the context of this film. No one can! It's astounding! Even the sound editors are idiots here. We get lines flying and someone is holding a child. The child makes a sound and drowns out the middle of an adult line. Nothing comes easy when trying to digest whatever this gotdamned story is about.
And the lanky staging of animate and inanimate objects; Doves reflected in the mirror skyscraper panels are shown falling off of the edge right after they are uplifted to fly by Blair, and then the scene cuts abruptly to another. Burton goes to hang his coat up and continue walking to dump some exposition in a tracking interior scene. As he continues to walk and talk, we see the coat flop on the ground. Is this slapstick? Perfection had some funny places to hide in this film because it certainly wasn't out in the open when normal things were supposed to be happening. Maybe Boorman insisted that anything outside the realm of fantasy must be treated with no respect. There is a lot to consider here!
I have to give credit where credit is due. John Boorman is an amazing visualist. Exorcist II is almost 100% beautifully photographed and lit. The effect work is lsd imaginative and rivals a scene or two from Days of Heaven. Had the delivery of lines, acting in general, story, direction and over-all feel of the movie been much more consistent, I can see The Heretic being in a class of its own as far as style goes. It really is a beautiful looking film, there can't be any doubt about that. One could simply turn the volume down, cue their favorite soundtrack, and watch the visuals, walking away with an easy 4 star rating.
https://i.imgur.com/w3xeqe3.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/I65AmGQ.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/UQFIULd.png?1
I really tried to watch this as a standalone film and not a sequel to the original film. Even with this ignorance, though, I was hard pressed to find any kind of engagement with it plot-wise, or tonally. It's like this boring mess, but somewhere in there at every other marking post, you get this amazing moment that seems to taunt you with the possibilities of how good things could have been had the production not been sabotaged by itself.
https://i.imgur.com/2uzqEwm.jpg?1
John Boorman is a funny guy. He says he didn't want to direct the first film (he was originally offered to) because of the dark content, and when he saw the original script for part II he got excited because it showed a more metaphysical and cerebral reasoning, cancelling out part 1's evil exclusivity to supernatural. He also didn't want his sequel to show the torture of a child like part 1 did. What's funny is that Boorman would go on to film his own daughter nude and getting raped in Excalibur not more than 3 years later. I'm not sure I am convinced John is always gravitated towards the greater good. He must have been in some kind of denial. The whole fiasco about this film is interesting, though. You have critics tearing through it with shark teeth, but then you have Martin Scorsese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcist_II:_The_Heretic#cite_note-Scorsese-25) giving it legitimate praise for the questions it asks about saintly good being vulnerable to great evil. He supports the things about the film that many failed to notice, or couldn't muster up the strength to notice because it would have been like swimming up stream. This is the dictionary definition of the word labored.
https://i.imgur.com/CxgwJWe.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/LrQ2vFX.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/SZnVokC.jpg?1
Exorcist II: The Heretic is such a challenging film because whatever subtext it tries to scroll out is ultimately undone by it's god-awful execution. It's gorgeous to look at and could serve as a semester at film school study just for it's cinematography alone, but it never will. Like the devil itself, this film is forever stigmatized, as it should be.
Maybe one day I'll be able to watch this film from front to back with no emotional trauma boredome. Until then, I'm going to need a strong coffee and lots of practice.
https://i.imgur.com/dTlwwkm.jpg?1
2
Citizen Rules
09-22-17, 11:00 PM
Hey alright! you reviewed one of my favorite 80s fun-sci fi films....Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone...I liked it and for Molly Ringwald's colorful misfit teen, along with Peter Strauss as the reluctant guardian. And of course any film with Michael Ironside as a mutant bad guy, has fun spelled all over it.
Hey alright! you reviewed one of my favorite 80s fun-sci fi films....Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone...I liked it and for Molly Ringwald's colorful misfit teen, along with Peter Strauss as the reluctant guardian. And of course any film with Michael Ironside as a mutant bad guy, has fun spelled all over it.
I've been meaning to get a review out about it. I've always had a spot for that movie. It's kind of important to me as it marks a time in my life when my imagination was very crisp. I love movies that can deliver on their poster art!
Citizen Rules
09-22-17, 11:12 PM
I've been meaning to get a review out about it. I've always had a spot for that movie. It's kind of important to me as it marks a time in my life when my imagination was very crisp. I love movies that can deliver on their poster art! Some time after I joined MoFo I was on a Molly Ringwald kick, no laughing please:cool:...I watched most if not all of her early films. You know the ones most of us love like:
Pretty in Pink
The Breakfast Club
Sixteen Candles
and of course, Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone
Then I got up to The Pickup Artist and Betsy's Wedding and totally lost interest in watching more of her films. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a fine actress, but there was a time when she was the misfit angst ridden teen that she struck gold. Anyway I've always liked her early films.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.