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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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. :)

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

Eh, it varies. You're definitely near each other IRL, though. So...cool? Anyway, no problem, just curious.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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-conten...Witchboard.jpg


I'm giving Witchboard a pretty healthy rating of

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/...ters-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 -
David Brent: Life on the Road -

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

Back when Vestron Video was spitting out films on VHS, I rented...

https://alchetron.com/Deathstalker-(film)-17361-W#-

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:)

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.word...hstalker-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.word...hstalker-6.png

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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




https://australianfilmreview.files.w...-schreiber.jpg

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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-conten...ephen-king.jpg

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

Amazon/Netflix logos are the new Paramount/Columbia logos. Every generation gets the movie studios they deserve

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.

And apparently the movies, too.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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!

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

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.

test

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.

SPLIT (1989)
 

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

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.

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=qQ7H...ature=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.




http://i.imgur.com/9ltP5FN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AoWjHu4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qP2WQku.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/N7NpmbF.jpg

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

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?!!?!?!!



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.

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

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.

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.

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]

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.



Dreadful.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

This pleases me.

@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!

Well, my review of that film was a bit different... :p

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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?

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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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

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

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

Thanks. I'll probably order one. :)

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

Proceed with caution. Ladt time I went to purchase a 2nd disc his paypal acct email was inactive. Not sure about anymore?

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...

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

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.

Re: Joel's Reviews
 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.