Joel's Reviews

Registered User

09-18-17

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Barry Egan is an eccentric and emotionally maladjusted small business owner who's been the victim of taunting and abuse his entire life, rendering him afraid and sometimes violent. In everyday life, he keeps himself together with a polite social system where he really puts out a nice guy persona, and one can't help but feel that Barry really is a nice guy. Timid and agreeable, but still nice, and still a decent person who just happens to be misunderstood.

That is what I see in Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderfully written film. It's a story that stays on the simple side, but is still written with care, and the basic and small ideas seem big because of Sandler's casting, and because of Anderson's hilarious direction. It's a 1960's cartoon mixed with a dark drama. Heavily shaded shots of Egan's neck in the dark, back towards the camera as he plays one note on his newly acquired harmonium. Barry's world is lonely and scary, but he finds one thing he has control over: The Harmonium. He patches a torn air bag and resumes his one note playing, eventually turning his stylings to polyphony.

There'a a nice arc at work here, especially when Egan takes more responsibility and has a more defined purpose fueled by passion of a new found love interest.

With a picture filled to the top with comedy bits it sure does establish a good and emotionally moving dramatic flair, and that is where PTA is a genius. He is equally funny, mad and empathetic-yet never allows his visual sensibilities to fall by the wayside to tell his story. I miss this in his films. This may be PTA's last accessible film, and I say that throwing salt over my shoulder because this movie is strange. Very strange.

Comedy is subtle but still very visible, like when Dean's character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman is getting a haircut. He's wearing the vinyl bib, and when Barry confronts him, Dean motions to his assistant to stand down and allow him to focus his intimidation stare. While he burns a hole in Egan's face with his eyes, his pointer finger is still raised, but it's under the vinyl haircut bib, and it stays there for a long time. Mix that with the angry conviction of a bad man about to be humbled and that's a serious recipe for comedy. "That's that!"

Joel

Registered User

09-19-17

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994)
Director: John Carpenter

This was my 5th attempt at watching this. My first time was in the theaters back in 1994, and I hated it then. On home video, over the course of two decades, I'd tried watching it multiple times each time turning it off or growing bored and frustrated with it.

Finally something snapped in me. I stopped wishing for The Thing or Escape from New York, and I started lowering my guns a bit. What I got was a pretty OK movie. The writing was solid enough. I didn't find many, if any, plot holes big enough to ruin the experience and the atmosphere was good and plenty for my taste. I enjoyed Carpenter's hard rock intro and outro themes. There was funny dialog along the way. I appreciated the long takes of just meandering the ghost town or the over night drive. I wasn't bothered by the occasional jump scare that didn't make me jump.

I believe when I first saw In the Mouth of Madness I had just come off of a string of disappointments; Virtuosity, The Mangler. This film by Carpenter was amidst those failures, and the experiences of seeing all of them were very close together. I suspect I lumped this film into the overall sour time for seeing horrors, and built a leather covered prejudice. I also think my resistance was my frame of mind. I wasn't ready to accept that John Carpenter had switched gears. That he had gotten older and that he wasn't trying to do what he did before. He wasn't making Big Trouble in Little China or Christine. The characters were way more subdued in this one.

Before I write anymore, I have to remind myself that I didn't think this was a great movie. I thought it was pretty OK. I enjoyed it. I'd watch it again before I die. It's really not that bad. But it's also really not that good, either.

This was the decline of Carpenter. There were hints of his downward appeal to me with They Live, which I feel is a mediocre movie with a great premise. This was more of the same. This should have been part 3 to Prince of Darkness, with They Live as the sequel. I really don't equate this at all with having any of the same elements as The Thing aside from an ambiguous ending. The mood and almost blandish direction in this film fit right in with those other two.

I found one very creepy scene with a snake woman octopus in a very dim greenhouse outside at night. I also enjoyed some of the effect work, namely the torn page that Sam Neill's character almost walks through before turning back to run into daylight. It's hard to talk about plot because the story is a story of a story and unless this script dropped the ball and warranted dissection, there's nothing that can be said that the movie doesn't wrap up fine on its own. That was a relief. The writing was tight enough to make me finish it and feel confident at the end that it didn't completely stink. I almost want to say this film was clever.

Joel

Registered User

09-21-17

The Last Starfighter (1984)
Director: Nick Castle
Rated PG

This movie made a solid effort to bring forth the Star Wars vibe and add an extra layer of special effects that reflected more recent advances in technology. That technology was first pioneered with Tron, but then had taken steps in a different direction with Digital Productions, a computer generated imagery company that was leaps and bounds more complex than the usual Hollywood FX offerings, giving all CGI models and effects, save a few practicals.

I usually strongly dislike the texture of CGI because, well, there is no texture, and this film's spaceships are no exception. This is the pinnacle of smooth chassis and not taking the ambient light in a convincing way, but I can't help but still really respect and enjoy this movie.

Back on Earth, a trailer park bound teenager and his small circle of go-nowhere friends don't have much to look forward to except fishing, drive-ins and necking on the cliffs (sounds pretty damn good to me!). Alex is the exception. He's the local fixer upper kid who helps all of the elderly women living in the park with their tv sets, electricity, radios, etc. His dreams are to move on and make something of himself, and his days are spent waiting for his loan letter in the mail to go to a real college. He also happens to break the record on the arcade game "The Last Starfighter", much to his neighbor's surprise one night.

It's his high score that sends a signal out to space and is received by a recruiter who then comes to Earth and takes Alex away to lead a solo mission of defeating the outer galactic enemy. In his place, he is mirrored by a clone Alex who stays behind and tends to his girlfriend and little brother.

This is a fun movie. I really, really dig the location here, and instead of explaining it, I'll leave images of some of the shots. There's a really great balance between Earth at night in the park and outer space where flashing laser beams frisk the black fabric that hold the star fields together.

No one element of locale outweighs the other, and I think this was a smart choice for director Castle (he played the shape - Mike Myers from Halloween). There's a feeling of cozy desolation at that trailer park at night, amongst "the tumbleweeds and tarantulas", and having that contrast is crucial to give any kind of feeling while spending time in space or on an alien civilization's ship.

I saw this at the theater and felt just as strong about it as I did with the Star Wars films. Of course, it's not as good, but it gets a lot of deserved respect because of how even it is, and how satisfying it is. It's a perfect time capsule of light sci fi adventure for the 1980's.

gbgoodies

You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

09-22-17

The Last Starfighter is one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I loved Robert Preston as Centauri.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

Joel

Registered User

09-22-17

I like how they took some real time to establish the battle sequences, and didn't rush to get into space. It all felt really nicely balanced.

Joel

Registered User

09-22-17

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983)
Director: Lamont Johnson
Rated: PG

Ivan Reitman, director of Ghostbusters and producer of the cult midnight madness animated Heavy Metal wrangles a partial team of soon to be's in this Columbia Pictures release. Granted, Peter Strauss is no Harrison Ford, but he has enough rugged swagger and attitude to at least deliver an acceptable underdog hero role. Molly Ringwald was just about to be going for her break through role in Sixteen Candles and Ernie Hudson was minutes away from being filmed for Ghostbusters. This is an interesting studio picture because Reitman, though not directing, clearly has some influence here, as heard with the use of Harold Ramis's voice over the space radio near the beginning of the film. It's as if the Heavy Metal and Ghostbusters crew were kind of here in spirit, and some of that helps this otherwise strictly B-Movie affair rise above a usual lifeless one off movie experience.

I liked some of the light humor. Ringwald's character hitches a ride with Strauss's character (let's just call him Harry from now on, OK?). Harry has a hard time breathing near his new female friend. She smells really bad. We know this because Harry desperately opens up his vehicle window before drawing in a large breath as politely as possible. One morning he wakes up to the smell of her petrie dish filthy stinky hand draping in his face. She's crawled into the silver foil sleeping bag with him on the red desert planet landscape because she was cold. He quickly reacts to her smelliness by throwing her in a small pool of water and squirts her with soap he carries in a holster like a gun. She is defiant and bratty. There's something to be said about a movie that takes the time to establish that there is an odor we should be aware of. It's made a point a few times more, and that made me laugh. I was won over by Molly's innocent charm. There is no gross age gap romance going on here. Clearly Harry is apprehensively fond of his scraggler girl, much like an adopted daughter.

There's missing stuff in Spacehunter. It's not completely fleshed out and padded. I wanted to maybe spend a bit more time with everyone, especially when Hudson's character shows up as an old military buddy on the rocks with Harry. There's a so so dynamic between them that could have been better had we spent more time hearing their exchanges. But for the time we do get, it's not half bad. I liked it. Ringwald helps things along, too. I was also disappointed that this film has never been released in 3-D on home video. It's obviously a 3-D film as advertised. There are moments where the pacing seems goofy and that's because they are implementing a 3-D trick. Sadly, we have to suffer through not being able to see how cool it would be. Maybe someday this will get licensed and bought by a boutique label who actually care about this category of film gimmickry and we can see it in all of its glory.

But back to the review...

The villain is Michael Ironside, decked out to the 9's in a sloppy latex baldy-lox get up while he is attached to a mechanism that floats him around like a craned panavision. He's not bad. He's a serious pervert because he enjoys gawking at young women being SLOWLY undressed by his henchmen. He says things like "yesss....yessss"! I got a nice laugh at that.

The atmospherics are tight. Using red and yellow filters, we get a washed out rusty sky and pale landscape. It's comforting to see $10 filters raising production value that much. A dab will do ya, and this does just fine for setting up an otherworldly place. A similar effect was used for Night of the Comet, and that worked nicely, too.

I'd say, pound for pound, that Beyond the Forbidden Zone is good for viewers who just want to go limp at the end of a day. Nothing is gonna throw you into a pit of despair. All the elements are kept airy enough to make watching it effortless. Yes, it does borrow some aesthetic from The Road Warrior and maybe even a bit of Star Wars, but it does have it's own uniqueness to it, namely the circular tunnel where body/soul fusion is carried out. That place looks like a toaster oven for the world's largest bagel. Cool stuff!

Last edited by Joel; 09-22-17 at 06:58 PM.

Joel

Registered User

09-22-17

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
Director: John Boorman
Rated: R

Here's a popular failure, often ranked as one of the absolute worst films, never mind sequel, of all-time. To top it all off, I thought I might've heard Yoko Ono contributing to some of the soundtrack. Ennio Morricone and Yoko? Ono...

If I had to start a shopping list of why this sequel failed, it'd go something like this;
The editing was poor. The editing or the lack of coverage ordered by Boorman made this more of an embarrassing drag than the art house thinking man's film it clearly wants to be.

We get master shots that show the sides of the actors. Burton delivers a line with great force-"But I'm not worthy!". We get no close up, no dirty shot, no over the shoulder POV of Fletcher's character watching Burton deliver this line.

Things like this make the pace and performances awkward like when a typical scene is being shot, a wide master is combined with close ups. Some scenes here have no close ups, and the scene is left to play out in one master, and you get the "rehearsal" footage, which is usually just actors blowing through lines because they know the 16mm lens is on, and not the 50mm. The entire film makes mistakes like this. Not just that, but the acting itself is just unreachable. The conviction isn't there. It's like a bad stage play. Lines are almost questions instead of answers, like the director told them to do a William Shatner impression. It's so bad! It's very hard to believe that Louise Fletcher won an Oscar no less than 2 years prior. Here she seems like a daytime tv extra. She simply cannot act within the context of this film. No one can! It's astounding! Even the sound editors are idiots here. We get lines flying and someone is holding a child. The child makes a sound and drowns out the middle of an adult line. Nothing comes easy when trying to digest whatever this gotdamned story is about.

And the lanky staging of animate and inanimate objects; Doves reflected in the mirror skyscraper panels are shown falling off of the edge right after they are uplifted to fly by Blair, and then the scene cuts abruptly to another. Burton goes to hang his coat up and continue walking to dump some exposition in a tracking interior scene. As he continues to walk and talk, we see the coat flop on the ground. Is this slapstick? Perfection had some funny places to hide in this film because it certainly wasn't out in the open when normal things were supposed to be happening. Maybe Boorman insisted that anything outside the realm of fantasy must be treated with no respect. There is a lot to consider here!

I have to give credit where credit is due. John Boorman is an amazing visualist. Exorcist II is almost 100% beautifully photographed and lit. The effect work is lsd imaginative and rivals a scene or two from Days of Heaven. Had the delivery of lines, acting in general, story, direction and over-all feel of the movie been much more consistent, I can see The Heretic being in a class of its own as far as style goes. It really is a beautiful looking film, there can't be any doubt about that. One could simply turn the volume down, cue their favorite soundtrack, and watch the visuals, walking away with an easy 4 star rating.

I really tried to watch this as a standalone film and not a sequel to the original film. Even with this ignorance, though, I was hard pressed to find any kind of engagement with it plot-wise, or tonally. It's like this boring mess, but somewhere in there at every other marking post, you get this amazing moment that seems to taunt you with the possibilities of how good things could have been had the production not been sabotaged by itself.

John Boorman is a funny guy. He says he didn't want to direct the first film (he was originally offered to) because of the dark content, and when he saw the original script for part II he got excited because it showed a more metaphysical and cerebral reasoning, cancelling out part 1's evil exclusivity to supernatural. He also didn't want his sequel to show the torture of a child like part 1 did. What's funny is that Boorman would go on to film his own daughter nude and getting raped in Excalibur not more than 3 years later. I'm not sure I am convinced John is always gravitated towards the greater good. He must have been in some kind of denial. The whole fiasco about this film is interesting, though. You have critics tearing through it with shark teeth, but then you have Martin Scorsese giving it legitimate praise for the questions it asks about saintly good being vulnerable to great evil. He supports the things about the film that many failed to notice, or couldn't muster up the strength to notice because it would have been like swimming up stream. This is the dictionary definition of the word labored.

Exorcist II: The Heretic is such a challenging film because whatever subtext it tries to scroll out is ultimately undone by it's god-awful execution. It's gorgeous to look at and could serve as a semester at film school study just for it's cinematography alone, but it never will. Like the devil itself, this film is forever stigmatized, as it should be.

Maybe one day I'll be able to watch this film from front to back with no emotional trauma boredome. Until then, I'm going to need a strong coffee and lots of practice.

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

09-22-17

Hey alright! you reviewed one of my favorite 80s fun-sci fi films....Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone...I liked it and for Molly Ringwald's colorful misfit teen, along with Peter Strauss as the reluctant guardian. And of course any film with Michael Ironside as a mutant bad guy, has fun spelled all over it.

Joel

Registered User

09-22-17

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

I've been meaning to get a review out about it. I've always had a spot for that movie. It's kind of important to me as it marks a time in my life when my imagination was very crisp. I love movies that can deliver on their poster art!

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

09-22-17

Originally Posted by Joel

Some time after I joined MoFo I was on a Molly Ringwald kick, no laughing please

...I watched most if not all of her early films. You know the ones most of us love like:

Pretty in Pink
The Breakfast Club
Sixteen Candles

and of course, Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone

Then I got up to The Pickup Artist and Betsy's Wedding and totally lost interest in watching more of her films. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a fine actress, but there was a time when she was the misfit angst ridden teen that she struck gold. Anyway I've always liked her early films.

Joel

Registered User

09-22-17

I still need to see For Keeps, The Pick-Up Artist and Fresh Horses. Thanks for reminding me!

She still looks very attractive even at her age. She's a jazz singer, I guess. I tried listening but that style isn't my thing. I'll tell you what though, if I could go out on dates with her I'd make sure I was in the front row at her gigs.

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

09-22-17

I never seen For Keeps or Fresh Horses, one of these days. I sort of hated The Pick-Up Artist but Gideon really likes it, I think we both reviewed it.

Joel

Registered User

09-23-17

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

I never seen For Keeps or Fresh Horses, one of these days. I sort of hated The Pick-Up Artist but Gideon really likes it, I think we both reviewed it.

I will play some catch between you and Gideon. You both have a wealth of fine reviews I haven't even seen yet.

Zotis

BANNED

09-23-17

I almost want to watch Spacehunter, but I am hesitant. It looks pretty cheesy.

Joel

Registered User

09-23-17

Originally Posted by Zotis

I almost want to watch Spacehunter, but I am hesitant. It looks pretty cheesy.

It is cheesy. So if you dont like cgeesy then its not recommended.

gbgoodies

You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

09-23-17

Originally Posted by Joel

I still need to see For Keeps, The Pick-Up Artist and Fresh Horses. Thanks for reminding me!

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

I never seen For Keeps or Fresh Horses, one of these days. I sort of hated The Pick-Up Artist but Gideon really likes it, I think we both reviewed it.

I saw Fresh Horses way back when it was in the theater, and I hated it. I don't remember much about it except that it was a very boring movie. I've never had the desire to rewatch it, so I don't know if I would feel different about it if I saw it now.

Zotis

BANNED

09-23-17

I suppose it depends. Sometimes I like movies that are so bad they're good, like Druids with Christopher Lambert or Jupiter Ascending. Sometimes if cheesy movies have other charms I enjoy them, like Planet of the Vampires.

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

09-23-17

Originally Posted by Zotis

I almost want to watch Spacehunter, but I am hesitant. It looks pretty cheesy.

It is cheesy, so embrace the cheesiness....If you watch it, judge it by what it aims to be... a cheesy fun sci fi flick with some heart warming scenes thanks to Molly. It's nothing more than that, nothing less too.

Joel

Registered User

09-23-17

Originally Posted by Zotis

The only time I can't handle a silly movie is if it's boring or lacks any redeeming element. Often cheesy movies from the 1990's and before at least offer atmosphere, cool colors or some unintentional comedy.

Joel