Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

Registered User

05-19-24

Look's like there's gonna be a new live-action Thundercats with Adam Wingard set to direct. Heaven help us if Lion-O is wearing the mankini from the original cartoon. I won't mind so much if it ends up being more like the 2011 cartoon. I saw like three episodes and decided that it was quite the cool show, but not my thing (I was more into Martin Mystery). On top of this, I'm also looking forward to a similar show coming out soon: Disney's live-action Gargoyles. Watched the hell outta that as a kid. But the thing is they really have to get the character appearances right, or else they might fail.

Unfortunately, this review doesn't actually have anything to do with live-action 90's furry cartoons. I'm saying this because there are some who are looking foreward to this Thundercats movie, and have the audacity to say this movie looked creepy:

Cats
(2019) - Directed by Tom Hooper
--------------------------------------------
Musical / Dance Film / Fantasy
-------------------------------------------------

"A new day has begun."

OK, I'm just gonna come out and say it: YOU DON'T GO TO SEE A LIVE-ACTION CATS MOVIE UNLESS YOU KNOW THE CATS WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS. Didn't anyone ever even see pictures of the original stage play? Look at what they're wearing. Nobody gets to complain about GWAR anymore. I mean, what's really different? The noses? Shortened female breasts that don't have nipples? I'm a B-movie horror fan who has a Deviantart account. I have seen far worse than this. Yes, I was a bit creeped out the first time I saw the trailer, but I knew what I was getting into and I got used to it the second time. No, this isn't a perfect situation, and the appearances do need improvements. But save it for the original Sonic design.

Victoria is a simple white cat who is dumped off in an alley. When the cat's let out of the bag, she meets a group of cats who are all gathered together to see who will be chosen to ascend to a new "Jellicle" life up in the sky. To prove themselves, they must put on a musical performance about themselves. But one other cat plans to cheat and kidnap the others so that he's the only one left.

CON 1: Now I already expressed that I wasn't as bothered by the appearances as most people, but I'll still say that One thing that really got on my nerves, however, was seeing one orange cat in vivid red overalls dancing with everyone else who may or may not be wearing a collar. I have to wonder what they were thinking by making this decision to have like only five or six people wear clothes. If they added a little clothing and maybe gave the cast cat-noses on their faces, there might be a bit of a difference.

CON 2: If you ever saw Village of the Giants by Bert I. Gordon, you'd either laugh at or be bothered by the tiny tray given to the giants which suddenly grows large enough to notice onscreen when the giants hold them. This exact same problem plagues many of the scenes involved. If they had built the sets properly and just used CGI on the cast's appearances and the backgrounds, this problem wouldn't even exist. Even if it's little things, it can be a problem. Example: Only tiny kittens could possible wear a ring on a wrist. I liked seeing Old Duet lying in a basket, though. That was kinda cute.

CON 3: Character development is severely limited here. I don't know whether or not this is replicated directly from the musical, but the characters' development is largely limited to their solos' lyrics. I know for a fact that if I did a Cats movie myself, I would change that. This can also be noticed in the lacking dialogue and development of our lead, Victoria.

CON 4: There really isn't much of a story going on here. Many of the story sequences feel a bit empty and lifeless simply because the cast members aren't evolving with their roles, and the characters as they go along. In the end, there is very little difference between Munkustrap and Skimbleshanks. This also leaves some musical scenes to lack emotions as well. I got a more emotional reaction out of the Moments of Happiness bit from Bigtop Burger. The plot fits absolute basics for building up its world, so if there were more rules to this world, or character development, things would be a lot more active than just having a bunch of musical numbers.

And now for the good stuff.

PRO 1: This problem with the proportions might be on parade here, but I won't deny that a lot of effort went into the spectacle. In fact, there just may be enough successful and colorful spectacle to distract from some of these continuity errors.

PRO 2: There are some surprisingly good casting choices here. Jason Derulo really nails Rum Tum Tugger. I think he was just being himself in this movie. Leave it to Rebel Wilson to even play a cat at all. I mean, seriously? let's be honest. She's already a cat... not that he singing voice is very good, just energetic. And no matter what you put Judi Dench, Ian McKellen and Idris Elba in, they'll be able to nail the role. I'm actually a bit of a Judi Dench man myself, I grew up with McKellen, and I acknowledge Idris Elba's fantastic performance as Knuckles, despite the fact that Knuckles is supposed to be 16 and Elba's voice is like 35 at the youngest. And yes: Jennifer Hudson. Her voice is absolutely incredible. The world needs more Jennifer Hudson. In fact, just getting her is enough to raise the score. Unfortunately... Ian McKellen's age has gotten to his singing voice.

PRO 2.5: Taylor Swift. Like, I'm not a fan of her at all, and she was freaking awesome in this.

PRO 3: Take it from a guy who's been raised around cats ever since he was eight: the dancers are moving exactly like cats. That's easily scarier than the CGI, but in a good way. The fact that the choreographers nailed those motions so well is probably the best thing about this movie, and helps these otherwise unsettling appearances to feel more real (take that as a moviemaking pro and an eye-popping con if you want).

PRO 4: The music wasn't bad. Sometimes the melodies felt a little wonky, but the rhythms and bombast were certainly there. I questioned multiple times whether there really was no involvement from Jim Steinman. I mean, take the ballet scene. It was like I was listening to either his only studio album, Bad for Good, one of the 80's songs he wrote for Meat Loaf or something he wrote for Bonnie Tyler. But these songs don't always have a strong sense of feeling. Iam McKellen's number is a good example.

Well, if there's one thing I learned from this, it's that I can in fact watch a whole movie of cat people dancing. Cats is certainly not a good movie, but worst of the year? I just checked my log and found thirteen films I ranked lower, including RoboWoman, You'd Be Surprised, Loqueesha, Arctic Dogs and The Big Trip. This is way easier on the eyes than people give it credit for, and I largely believe it's because most people haven't been exposed to the worst of the worst. To bring back the cartoon craze, I've seen things that would make the Toxic Crusaders vomit.

= 41

Tom Hooper needs 1 more film for a directorial score.

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 05-22-24 at 03:37 PM.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

05-25-24

Fellini's Satyricon
(1969) - Directed by Federico Fellini
--------------------------------------------
Surrealism / Classical Antiquity / Sword and Sandal
-------------------------------------------------
"As for me, I have always lived to enjoy the present moment as if it were the last sunrise."

I took ONE look at my top movies of 1969 out of curiosity, and absolutely hated it. I had two MST3K movies in it. That's how uneducated I am in 60's cinema, even after nearly 3000 movies. I still want to make a top 50 for 1972 first, but I'm gonna get another movie from that time out of the way and check out The Wild Bunch later to help with my westerns. I chose this one because I was in the mood for classical antiquity, and Fellini's my favorite Italian director. Italian cinema is one of my favorite subjects, after all. This will be my tenth Fellini film, but it must be noted that this is one of Fellini's attempts at capturing a whole culture rather than telling a story, much like La Dolce Vita, Roma and Amarcord, all of which I've seen already, so I really hoped to enjoy this.

I had a horrible time trying to find a proper dub of this. One Italian-dubbed YT video made the MGM and United Artist logos look zoomed in, so I assumed the rest was zoomed in. Then I found an English language video and compared it to the first, only to find that the only thing off about the first video was he opening logos, so I wasted time looking for a proper one. I chose the English one so I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that some Italian lines have subtitles and others don't, assuming they were speaking Italian like it sounded like instead of the Latin or Greek RYM said it also had. But then I got 40 minutes into the English dub before I realized that the SAME VOICE was being used on two different characters. I decided, "You know what? I'm fed up. I'll bite whatever bullet that apparently Fellini and Criterion didn't bother fixing for crying out loud." Thankfully, I got confirmation on Reddit that they were also speaking Greek, Latin and gibberish. That seriously relieved me because that creates a cultural feeling of various worlds colliding together in the same space even though you may only speak one or two of the languages. So I went with the Italian dub, which had less cheesy voices and delivery.

As the title suggests, Fellini's Satyricon is his own adaptation of a classical literary work that remains incomplete to this day, as the rest is still missing. As a result, this film is an episodic journey through Ancient Rome concerning two men fighting for the same romantic slave.

This film is apparently one of the most challenging ones Fellini ever made. Episodic structure, a sense of disjointedness to create feelings like cultural authenticity and even alienation, and especially the reliance on poetic thematic dialogue in lieu of conventional plotting make this the kind of movie that will draw a lot of people away. It might be a good idea for me to watch this movie and others like it before heading into Coppola's upcoming Megalopolis, which is said to be extremely visual but narratively experimental, like this.

But if you know what the Satyricon is, then you don't watch an adaptation unless you know there's a chance it'll be a wild adventure. On top of that, it's literally called "Fellini's Casanova." This is the kind of film that will be sought out by fans of Fellini's quirky and sometimes experimental style, because this is one of the Fellini movies only the fans will look for.

We begin the movie with two of the leads addressing us directly, catching us up like a play or whatnot. In other words, we are travellers and spectators in this world, and that's how our minds should behave during the remainder of the movie. And so our journey through Ancient Rome truly becomes a mystifying history lesson.

Having just watched the original Suspiria yesterday before going to see Furiosa, I was more than mentally prepared for another movie loaded with mystique. Fellini's got a sense of surrealist mystique here that's created through simple stone walls with occasional hieroglyphic graffiti the likes of the chalk drawings on either a cave wall or the gruesome ones on that one painting seen in A Clockwork Orange. Through its grotesque and simple chiseled caves passing themselves off as homes, we have both a feeling of poverty and a feeling of classical antiquity that creates a deathly mystique thanks to Fellini's sense of smoky clouds and deep lighting. As we pass through alleys and castles, we can't help but feel that these royals of a supposedly grand time are swimming in their own shit. Even as the sky glows with various shades of the same color, it looms over the many citizens of Rome as a sign of the apocalypse. Sometimes even heavy dust clouds are all it takes to turn Ancient Rome into a Mad Max movie. Even mere situations can be dreamlike, rather than set pieces, which means Fellini's dreamlike structure evolves into storytelling, partially via the episodic structure and partially through the cultural aspects.

Obviously, this is a far different form of hypnotism than Suspiria, but one that's just as effective. And why? Because the movie isn't shoving ART into our faces with a big budget. It's shoving REALISM into our faces. Instead of that perfect-looking glistening plastic cheeseburger we see in the commercials, we get the real life lump of meat and bread in a tightly-wrapped paper.

The visuals aren't alone in this theme.

The most common criticism from what I've read is that the episodic structure is lacking and random as a result of the recreation of the source material's forgotten parts. The plot moves a little more consistently than one might think. Within the episodes are little connections that must be held onto during this adventure, that way we get to see our lead Encolpius grow as he travels this world. When I think about it, the lead travelling Rome is barely any different than the knight in The Seventh Seal, if not completely the same in spirit. This shift between episodes also leads to some unexpected surprises. Even though the exact narrative and plotting of this film is challenging and not always connected, we're taken into a dozen different angles of how these people lived, or at least the Fellini translation. Either way, it feels real, largely because the settings aren't "too" extravagant and the actors are having fun.

Culture plays a heavy role in the world building and atmospheres. There are times when the story will dive into other stories told and taken from Roman literature. There's even one scene involving the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur. This is because a major theme of the movie is cultural exploration, and there are even instances where we are being taught of Rome's relationship to Greece. This theme is further explored through much of the characters' dialogue, as comparisons to life and art are typically present, especially through the words of the poet character Eumolpus. Even ceremonies with their own shred of ridiculousness rely on the real world history of primitive technique and entertainment to maintain a balance between reality and absurdity. The fact that these characters are having such a good time with the seeming stupidity of much of what happens makes it feel as real as it does riotous.

Further on the subject of dialogue, I quickly grew to accept the refusal to subtitle Greek, Latin and gibberish as not only a world-building device, but one that ties into the theme of letting us be spectators on the tour rather than an audience. No matter what the bud is, we only speak the language of the main character. Everyone else's speech has to be guessed, which adds not only the feeling that you're surrounded by fellow citizens from other worlds, but maintains a sense of mystery within the drama and comedy. This is probably the most genius aspect of the film. On top of this, the Italian dubbing perfectly matches the actors, even the English-speaking Martin Potter as the lead. They feel natural.

There's only one real flaw with the movie. Encolpius is our lead, and he has a decent level of development as his speeches and actions define a huge part of the movie. But the thing is that it's much easier to get invested in the world he explores rather than in him. To me, this is the only real drawback of the faithful episodic structure, because the situations that happen to him in each individual segment don't often connect other aspects from other segments.

The obvious truth about Satyricon is that it demands to be studied. It's a consistently formed movie but a real challenge. This movie isn't necessarily a "story" as much as it is a "tour" through culture, a revelation of everything we know and may have missed in the stories we tell of ancient times. And if you can accept that, you might have a much better time with this movie, as many of the directions this movie takes have either adventure, comedy or mystique to them if not two or three of them simultaneously. Fellini's basically going on a drunken rampage getting horny on his own style, much like Snyder did with 300... except this is good. We have a very strong theme connecting all the different worlds explored, justifying the lack of a strict plot. Fellini was able to fully capture the disjointedness of an incomplete piece of literature through theme, and I think that's a form of genius that requires another genius to replicate.

Shoulda' got him to edit Welles' incomplete Don Quixote instead of Franco.

= 97

Federico Fellini's Directorial Score (10 Good vs. 0 Bad)

8 1/2: 100
Nights of Cabiria: 100
La Dolce Vita: 100
Satyricon: 97
Juliet of the Spirits: 95

Average Score: 98.4 / 5
Staying Score: 100 / 5

Because he has three 100's, Fellini maintains a staying score of 100. His average will be used for ordering against other directors with a perfect staying score. Fellini moves up on my Best Directors List from #5 to #3 between Alfred Hitchcock and Andrey Tarkovsky.

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 05-25-24 at 11:14 PM.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

05-31-24

Yentl
(1983) - Directed by Barbra Streisand
--------------------------------------------
Musical / Historical Drama / Romance
-------------------------------------------------
"Why is it people who want the truth never believe it when they hear it?"

This is the first official musical film I've seen for the Movieforums Top 100 Musicals Countdown. Having said that, this was only one of two majore reasons. Truth is my mother invited me to watch it with her, I had forgotten about it but knew it was on my to-do list so I went ahead with it. One third but less important reason was because I was curious about other Streisand roles after having adored her in What's Up Doc by Peter Bogdanovich. So apparently she starred in, directed, produced and wrote this film. So let's see where her passion lead to...

Yentl is a Jewish woman who's fed up with the sexist ideal that women shouldn't read the Torah. After her priest father passes away, she decides to disguise herself as a boy and take her father's place in the Chi- I mean, seek an education at an all-boy's school. While there, she befriends, and falls in love with, an energetic but inquisitive student (Mandy Patinkin) who's actually in love with someone else. And all the while, the expectations of manhood are thrown towards her.

Having just written three reviews for Judas Priest albums and watched this movie, I'm still not pop-cultured out for the day as I want to seek another musical to watch, one that will be more to my liking. First, lemme make it clear that I heard a bunch of mixed things about this movie. Brilliant, lame, alright, yadda yadda.

Now a personal favorite Disney movie of mine is Mulan. Saw it 100 times as a kid. Mulan handled the idea of gender roles in ways that were never too uncomfortable and even left a lot of room for the awkward comedy of Mulan dealing with a bunch of grown guys. There really isn't much of that here in Yentl. It shoves the theme down your throats after two minutes and relies on the shoving to tell its story, leading many characters to come off as empty save that one quality.

As a writer, I'm a stickler for character development. There are only two characters who ever get any actual development here: Yentl and Avigdor. Now the two work brilliantly as an awkward romantic pairing rooted in a deep friendship, which is made more powerful and artistically awkward based on its signature misunderstanding. The sparks fly in some incredible and even unique ways. I wish these two would come together more often. Having said that, I did NOT like Avigdor as a person. He was grabby and loudmouthed, never taking the time to listen. He was way too much of a product of his time, which brings me back to my criticism of shoving the theme down people's throats. In fact, I would love more development for Amy Irving's character, as she did a good job with what little she had.

Of course, our situation also allows us to see many things through Yentl's eyes, especially when she's singing. In some cases there are lyrics with a deep analysis mirroring the intelligence and perception seen in our lead, tackling the subjects of each song from varying angles in extremely poetic ways. This, when paired with the strong sentimentality and emotional core of the songs, makes up for the lacking and messy rhythms which are more geared towards allowing Streisand a chance to sing rather than to feel like a musical number, which might be best for the theme to stay away from the obnoxiousness of typical musicals. However, maybe actual choreographed numbers might lighten the sexism a little.

As for Streisand's work as an actress and director: excellent work. Not only is her performance more convincing than her brilliant work in What's Up Doc, but as a director she's showing a lot of skill in the cinematography and emotional departments. Some scenes are a little like a music video, but this lady always knows exactly where to put the camera. Some scenes are just EPIC.

Streisand really did impress in some ways here, and disappoint in a couple of ways for me. Yentl is a collection of both strong and weak points, albeit more strong. I don't know if I'll ever go back to this movie, but it said only good things for Streisand's future. Yentl may tug at the heartstrings of those in tune with the theme, but it feels a little overdone for me. I'd put this in the same league as Jeanne Dielman.

= 68

Barbra Streisand needs 2 more films for a Directorial Score.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

07-23-24

OK, before I start this review, lemme scar you.

Pinocchio: A True Story
(2021) - Vasiliy Rovenskiy
--------------------------------------------
Family / Fantasy / Adventure / Comedy
-------------------------------------------------
"EEE-SKIDEEE-SKIDEEE-SKIDEE-"

OK, I don't wanna hear anymore complaints about the Zemeckis one anymore. The Zemeckis one had its problems, but let's be honest. Let's be BRUTALLY honest. There are worse fates. Ever see Yo-Rhad? The Little Panda Fighter?

... Thankfully, this isn't quite on that level. But it's still worse than the Zemeckis film.

In this iteration, Pinocchio is developed as a teenager a la XJ9. He is brought to life after Geppetto fixes a fairy's magic wand, and she repays him by bringing Geppetto's puppet to life. Pinocchio proves to be acrobatic and wishes to see the world, and he gets his wish when he's goaded into joining a travelling circus. But when his crush tells him to leave the circus, he gets the idea to become a human for her. Unfortunately, the circus he joined is responsible for many robberies, and the local police have assumed that Pinocchio is pulling all the strings.

I didn't make that pun up, btw. This is an actual line.

"He might not get his own hands dirty in the robberies, but it's his wooder hands that pull all the strings."

OK, the pun could've been fleshed out, but the general idea was pretty food.

You know? The funny thing is, with all the "reinvented fairy tale" movies we've gotten over the years thanks to Shrek (and maybe Robin Hood), one learns to just roll with the changes and see where the changes lead. In this instance, the changes aren't really that "good" or "bad," so there's no point to them, but they do no harm either. As long as we have our fox and our multiple villains, we're good, right?

WRONG. Reinventing the specific events is one thing, but it doesn't reinvent the themes in any way, shape or form. We're basically just dealing with a completely unnecessary direct-to-video tax write-off.

Oh, yeah. And after a few of his films, it's completely obvious to me that the only thing Pauly Shore can play is a lazy-ass california surfer wannabe like Bobby Zimuruski. I have NEVER been impressed with a Pauly Shore performance other than him, and usually I'd be sorely disappointed at his lack of focus and inability to hold his voice properly. On top of that, he's too old and raspy to pass off as ANY current iteration of Pinocchio, even a teenage Pinocchio. On the subject of teenagers made in a workshop, remember Brad from My Life as a Teenage Robot? Just thinking about the comparison tells me that the guy behind Brad would be perfect for this movie.

The characters are never entertaining. They replaced Jiminy with some unfunny, whiny and ugly-voiced horse who's supposed to be acting as a voice of reason but says nothing wise at all. Pinocchio shows more instances of "wisdom" in the form of using morals as excuses to do what he wants. Bella is nothing but a generic love-interest with a generic backstory. The cops are annoying and unfunny, and because they have so little screentime, I even forgot about them at one point. The villains do EXACTLY what you'd expect from them.

There is ONE very good thing I have to say about this movie. Its CGI isn't bad. I mean, it's no Pixar, but it's much better than a lot of other indie CGI movies we get these days. There are some backdrops that I thought were actually kinda pretty, and I'm pretty happy with this considering that I put myself through many Video Brinquedo films for my bottom 100 movies. I especially have to mention that the character designs were very rarely ugly. Most were quit charming, until you get to Talking Tom's creepy chubby uncle. But this also makes for a complaint: Pinocchio looks WAY too human for a wooden puppet. You can barely tell that the wooden streaks are there unless you're paying attention. I mean, this isn't even Uncanny Valley like Cats or the original Sonic. This is just "let's make Pinocchio a pretty boy for some dumb reason."

OK, so this generically plotted movie doesn't need to exist at all. It adds absolutely nothing to the Pinocchio legend and can barely even stand as an example of what not to do. It's not a good movie, it's not terrible, but it's completely thrown together for no real reason. I don't even understand some of these decisions. It reminds me of Disney's Robin Hood in the sense that there was no need for an "alternate version," but at least Disney's Robin Hood had a little cute charm to it (as much as I dislike that movie). All in all, don't bother with it.

This is my 2,999th film

= 33

Vasiliy Rovenskiy needs 1 more film to qualify for a directorial score.

"EEE-SKIDEEE-SKIDEEE-SKIDEE-"

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 07-23-24 at 11:16 PM.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

07-24-24

Tomorrow, I'll post the review for my 3,000th film.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

07-24-24

One day, when I came home at lunchtime, I heard a funny noise.
Went out to the backyard to find out, if it was one of those rowdy boys.
Stood there, with my neighter, called Keyser, and his big black Windows 10.
He told me he made a giant list of all of the films he'd seen...

He said I JUST FINISHED FILM 3000!
A lot has changed since he became a writer!
And his thread called "Movie Memoirs,"
Is doing fine. DOO-IIING FIII-YEE-YIIIINE!

Pinocchio
(2022) - Guillermo Del Toro
--------------------------------------------
Fairy Tale
-------------------------------------------------
"Life can bring great suffering. And eternal life can bring eternal suffering."

Let's take a look at the countless Resident Evil adaptations that took over since the early 2000's. There was the live-action movie series, the CGI series, the reboot with Kaya Scodelario and finally: the Netflix series which nobody asked for. Eventually everyone was fed up. And now we have a few Pinocchio movies within just the last few years. There's the 2019 live-action film, the CGI film "A True Story," the DIsney one and this. Did we really need so many in such a short time? No. But thankfully, one of those movies is an instant classic for all the right reasons. I watched the CGI one yesterday for number 2,999, and decided I'd get through this one for 3000.

In this version of Pinocchio, he is created by a depressed Geppetto after losing his son to the Fascist war. This Pinocchio is very curios but a bit bratty, and wants to learn as much as he can. Overtime, he is caught and accidents and learns from the spirit world about life and death, and uses it in his interactions with the various friends and enemies he makes.

DAMN THIS KID CAN ACT AND SING. Did they go through ten years of searching to find this kid? Despite all of Pinocchio's realistic shortcomings as an overeager brat, his cheerfulness is and energy are adorable. Watching him learn about good and evil throughout all these circumstances, natural and supernatural, is exactly what this film needed. This performance alone makes the movie enjoyable. Everything else could be halfassed like the live-action 101 Dalmatians and I'd probably watch this twice.

And let's take a look at many of the other performances. Filch himself, David Bradley, delivers a perfectly realistc performance as a self-pitying Geppetto who's definitely prone to alcohol. Just watching him complain his its own burning charm. Ewan MacGregor plays Sebastian the Cricket, and while his performance is fine, I don't feel like he's being challenged here. But he has some of the best dialogue in the movie as Sebastian's excellent at explaining reason. Tilda Swinton plays two sisters: the Wood Sprite who brings Pinocchio to life, and Death herself, living in her own world and explaining the rules of life and death to Pinocchio. We have Ron Perlman issuing a perfect performance as a Facsist Podesta and Finn Wolfhard with an accent playing his son, Candlewick. And get this, a monkey speaks through grunts and speaks perfect English through various puppets. That's Cate Blanchett. It's Cate Blanchett. Let that soak in. First, Patrick Stewart gets excited to play a poop emoji and now Blanchett plays Mel Blanc with a tail.

Oh, and the famous ****wipe Mussolini is played by SpongeBob.

It starts off dark, as I expected it to. And we stick with the darker themes throughout the whole film while we also get some balance in the plot relevance of multiple villains. This is a movie that recalls the true intentions of fairy tales and even the subject matter of classic fairy tale movies. This creates a level of excitement which may require parental guidance but adds another layer to the morality, especially considering that Del Toro changed the time period to Fascist Italy where the war is going on. War themes put Pinocchio through other realistic horrors that the more famous adaptations are unfamiliar with. This can also help recreate certain levels of excitement that the Zemeckis remake failed to recapture, like the dogfish scene. While the role of the giant fish essentially stays the same, turning the Coachman into the Podesta and turning boys into soldiers was a perfect choice, as it helps develop the brotherly relationship between Candlewick and Pinocchio. Excellent choice, Del Toro. While the fox and the cat were turned into Volpe and the monkey, their effect of the plot is maxed out to the point of perfection.

On top of which, every reinvention of a trope or story element taken from the book MAKES PERFECT SENSE. Every bit of dialogue is thought out to make sure the plot progresses naturally with the themes, which is more than I can ask from most nonsensical and random fairy tale adaptations. This is especially impressive considering that Del Toro has a bad habit of favoring theme over magic, as shown in the lacking ghostly horror of The Devil's Backbone and the slim and occasional ventures into the fantasy world of Pan's Labyrinth. Here, we have a perfect balance between magic and theme, which as far as I've gathered hasn't been so perfectly balanced in Del Toro's works since Hellboy.

Now let's talk about the puppet animation: it's the perfect combination of charming, grotesque, cute, cartoony and realistic. Some serious research must've been put into these designs because everyone of them works. Such designs like this are beautifully ugly and rare to come across. It's one thing to create old men with cartoon features that still bear the realism of grumpy old men, but even the design of the giant dogfish and Volpe's red hair bear the kind of ugliness that's fun to watch.

After ranking this in my chart I found that this had become the highest rated fairy tale movie on that chart. And I might find myself watching it many times. This is currently my favorite Del Toro as well. All of the imagination of Del Toro's past movies and the love of thematic exploration is in the best harmony his movies have ever had, and there isn't a soul in this world I would not recommend this movie to. This truth to the source material molded with Del Toro's choice of Fascist Italian subject matter makes for a perfect example of a "faithful artistic rendition," and it only makes me ten times as impatient to see Del Toro's upcoming Frankenstein film. I am perfectly happy that this is my 3,000th film.

= 100

Guillermo del Toro's Directorial Score (8 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Pinocchio: 100
The Shape of Water: 98
Pan's labyrinth: 96
Hellboy: 93
Hellboy 2: 87

Average Score: 94.8 / 5

Guillermo del Toro's position on my Best Director's List raises from #57 to #36 between Pete Docter and Ridley Scott.

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 07-26-24 at 12:44 PM.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

07-27-24

Battleship
(2012) - Peter Berg
--------------------------------------------
Alien Invasion / War / Action
-------------------------------------------------
"Is this a super secret surprise Navy exercise? Cuz if so, they've gone way to far."

The only reason I touched this one is because it's gonna leave Netflix in a few days. Same reason I'm gonna watch a few other movies. It's been ages since I played the game, but I know from word of mouth that this film has nothing to do with the game, and I didn't expect it to when I saw the trailers back when it came out. Wasn't interested then, not interested now, only getting another Peter Berg movie out of the way since I checked him out before. I haven't checked out the better Berg movies yet, and I plan to at some point, but only when they really suit my needs.

Alex Hopper is the obnoxious and stubborn younger brother of Commander Stone Hopper, who forces Alex to join the navy after embarrasing himself in an effort to impress the admiral's daughter. Shortly afterwards, aliens come to Earth after receiving a signal from them and plan an invasion. Now with his older brother dead, Alex has to step up his game and beat the alien army with what little experience he has.

Basically, all I gotta do is sit back, enjoy my coffee and let the special effects do their stuff. I'm willing to bet that's exactly what the writers and Peter Berg were thinking when they threw this together. I have to wonder if Berg even did any work this time. There are a couple of little things here and there, like a decent way to defeat the aliens, and a little bit of real story development in the second half, but most of the movie is just stringing by with its in-your-face effects. Throughout the entire movie I was hoping for something new and big to happen and it never did. So mentioning things like "new alien elements in the ship parts" is really just a way to confirm to the characters what we as the audience already knew: it's all aliens. But it's not like they wouldn't have figured that out earlier.

What actually upsets me the most about this movie is the brutally lacking characterization. This one guy's a dork and he needs to get serious when the aliens show up. This love-interest lady's the admiral's daughter, big whoop. The admiral doesn't like the dork. Not like Shakespeare didn't do that 400 years ago. This smarty-pants isn't a soldier so he's a coward. The movie will spend the entire second act and everything up to the finale in lacking characterization just so it can "excite" you. The worst part of this is the brutal lack of the best actor in the movie: Liam Neeson. I can't even with this movie.

It's pretty obvious that this movie was thrown together for Hasbro to make extra money after Transformers was such a hit. There's really no reason to go see this, not even for flashy effects. The only focus went into visuals, and everything else was totally thrown together. It's practically impossible to connect with anyone, so there's no reason to connect with this, especially if you have a connection to the source material. I'd probably be happier if they made a meta-movie about the game, even in the style of the damn Emoji movie. This is basically a Transformers movie but more empty. I actually had more fun with the B-movie alien warfare.

= 33

Peter Berg's Directorial Score (2 Good vs. 2 Bad)

The Rundown: 65
Hancock: 61
Mile 22: 45
Battleship: 33

Peter Berg moves down on my Best Directors List from #267 to #293 between Tim Hill and Scott Sidney.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

07-29-24

Tarzana, The Wild Woman
(1969) - Directed by Guido Malatesta
--------------------------------------------
Jungle Adventure
-------------------------------------------------

"OOOOOOOOOOOHHH!"

The third Movieforums Hall of Infamy isn't satisfying me just yet. Its first entry was an MST3K movie I've already seen, and its second entry was a 22-minute Nazi propaganda film that delivered none of the cheese I want. So I've been sating my lust for the worst crap on Earth with a new discovery from MST3K: Guido Malatesta, an Italian who directed the MST3K film, Colossus and the Headhunters. It was total garbage, and so is this.

Like in the Tarzan novel, a very rich man believes a relative who died years ago in the jungle as an infant is still alive, but some of his crew want to kill her to get some of the money for themselves... for reasons I forget, because to be honest...

I really hated everybody in this movie. No one had any development that wasn't already expected, and they all bored me with their bad acting and their inability to express more than the one emotion their one-sided characters seem to rely on. I have seen enough Tarzan adaptations to know what you ARE and AREN'T supposed to do, and the biggest problem you can ever have when adapting Tarzan is relying on only a couple basics for the sake of a cashgrab. This WILL NOT work in either the critical or financial worlds.

This woman runs around naked whenever she's on screen and that's the sole extent of her character other than having the SAME YELL which apparently does different things depending on the slight changes in tone. Just like in the Weissmuller movies, what the hell happened to the Tarzan that taught himself to read and write English with no human being around? What happened to the guy who could speak ape, lion, boar, etc.? This woman can't even wrestle with animals properly. They got a dainty woman to sit near a perfectly trained lion cub and make boring pseudo-slapstick with an ape. That's it.

And now let's go into the stock footage. We have scenes of topless tribes dancing on multiple occasions when they really don't add anything to the experience or the plot, expect more nudity. Tasteless. And let's get on with the general stock footage of animals having very little to do with the plot except to give you images of jungle animals for the aesthetic, like I haven't already seen that happen in an episode of Jonny Quest.

This is easily the worst Tarzan movie I've seen so far. You wanna gender-swap her, fine by me. I'm surprised there aren't many more movies that do that. But what I can't forgive is the lack of heart and scarring simplicity they threw into this movie when adapting such an incredible novel.

= 4

Guido Malatesta's Directorial Score (0 Good vs. 3 Bad)

Colossus and the Headhunters: 2.5
Tarzana, the Wild Woman: 4
Colossus of the Stone Age: 16.5

Average Score: 7.66 / 3

Guido Malatesta debuts on my Worst Directors List at #10 between Larry Buchanan and Ted V. Mikels.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-01-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK!

What is Twin Cinema Week? This is a challenge week where I review two movies being watched AT THE SAME TIME! I've done it before to test my focus and I'm going to try and perfect the idea that I can fully absorb two movies at once.

GROUND RULES:

I am allowed to pause if a long conversation is happening on both screens.
I must start them at the same time.
The two films must preferably be very different to make the challenge more interesting.
I must complete at least half of one movie at the time I finish the other. This rule can be broken if the entertainment value of one other movie is just that good and I have to immerse myself fully, but that doesn't usually happen.
I am allowed to skip opening credits if they're just a bunch of title cards with nothing going on.
To ensure this, they must be around the same length with only 10 minutes apart max.
I can choose any movie I want for this, but nominations are considered if anyone has interest.
I have to write reviews or both movies no matter what.

Alright, so tune in for an original challenge.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-01-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 1, MOVIE 1

Triumph of Hercules
(1964) - Directed by Alberto De Martino
--------------------------------------------
Sword and Sandal
-------------------------------------------------

"Father, let me die. But please don't let Ate die. She's innocent!"

Watching this alongside Foodfight (2012).

I love Italian cinema, for both the good classics and the crappy peplums. I use peplums to fill my charts and as a study for what to do and what not to do because I'd like to write a couple. I also, however, try to keep peplums within directors I've alreadt explored so I can talk directors much more easily, so I searched through Tubi for the first peplum by a director I was familiar with, and having liked Alberto e Martino's Antichrist, I had high hopes for this one.

When the evil Milo kills the local king and places the blame on others, he also summons golden golems to defend himself from those who accused him. With no chance of beating him,Hercules is summoned to look into the case and fight the golems. However, he is soon tricked into committing murder, and Zeus (or Jove in this movie) punishes him by taking away his strength. Now surrounded by the enemy as a mortal man, can Hercules convince Zeus to give his srength back and save the city?

So are we really to expect anything different from yet another Hercules movie from Italy? No, not really. This is the kind of movie that's more interested in a fight scene with peplum costumes and muscle men rather than developing a story. As a result, there is a significant lack of Hercules in the first act, and it gets tiresome. We get a little bit of exposition considering the stone "giants," but very little of it actually matters in the context of the rest of the story. The fantasy elements are almost exclusively delivered by a sorceress who only has a faint say in the plotting, to manipulate only a couple of situations. But I feel like she barely used her power to her fullest extent at all, which is a storytelling problem for a lot of movies loaded with plot convenience.

Visually, the movie was mostly fine for a standard peplum. Lemme tell you, one of the best decisions the movie made was those golden giants. With no Harryhausen on board, they painted men gold and gave them masks, giving off a nice cheesy interpretation of moving metal that looks better than what modern CG! movies can do. Whenever the movie wanted to go into creative action, it had its moments and showed off some of the best direction. However, with such a tropey story, it really doesn't amount to anymore than an Italian 60's Michael Bay movie.

In relation to the other movie, Foodfight, this was the less plot-driven one but the easier one to watch because I was in very familiar territory and it wasn't ass-ugly. But on its own merits, I've really seen everything before and the merits are only enough to keep it lightly entertaining and nothing more. This is really close to the same quality as the Kevin Sorbo TV movie Hercules in the Maze of the Minotaur. I guess Alberto De Martino failed in this one.

Alberto De Martino's Directorial Score (3 Good vs. 2 Bad)

The Antichrist: 83
Shadows in an Empty Room: 71
Holocaust 2000: 68
The Triumph of Hercules: 35
Operation Kid Brother: 32

Score: 57.8 / 5

Alberto De Martino moves down on my Best Directors List from #235 to #268 between Gene Fowler Jr. and Dwight H. Little.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-01-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 1, MOVIE 2

Foodfight!
(2012) - Directed by Lawrence Kasanoff
--------------------------------------------
Comedy / Family / Fable
-------------------------------------------------

"I'm not the one who's gonna be poppy-whipped, you COLD-FARTED ITCH!"

Watched in tandem with The Triumph of Hercules.

I've known about this movie for a long time and its terrible reception. I think a part of me was dreadfully scared at the idea of watching this movie, but I also knew it had a big name cast. How could a movie with such a bigname cast be THAT bad? How poorly did they treat their cast? Well, obviously, nothing was treated properly with this movie.

In a Wreck-It Ralph style situation, the mascots of a bunch of food products live in a supermarket after dark. A cereal mascat named Dex Dogtective (Charlie Sheen) calls it quits in the private eye biz when his girlfriend mysteriously disappears. But when the evil Brand X and their new sexy mascot come in to take over, Dex goes back in the game to figure out how and why.

Right at the getgo there's a really bad sense of shading going on that makes everything look more fake than a 2012 CGI movie should warrant, especially when the character designs are just so ugly. Then we get to the actual motions between characters and inanimate objects, and they are the absolute FAKEST thing I've ever seen, and I watched a bunch of Video Brinquedo stuff. Throughout the whole tripe I had to deal with animation so ugly that I couldn't even recognize some of the mascots like the Hawaiian Punch guy. In fact, many of the original characters make those two punk crows from Freddie as FRO7 look like the crows from Dumbo. Hell they all make the cast of Doogal, and the movie itself, look masterful. That Cheasel Weasel ****er just needs to rot. Rot away in the hottest depths of hell, and take the spastic Christopher Lloyd pseudo-villain with you.

Most of the humor is thirty-secondhand slapstick humor delivered by these ugly-ass characters, especially that horrifying Cheasel Weasel, who's supposed to be your run-of-the-mill black market dealer with no balls. I remember being more convinced of this trope by Piggy from Power Rangers SPD. We also get some potty humor with the gross factor upped to 12, which only serves to temporarily paralyze my brain, and a couple of lame Casablanca references.

There was literally THREE things I liked in the movie: during the dream sequence, six months after Dex last saw Sunshine, the streets were partially made of calendar pages. This might only warrant like half a point on a 100 scale, though. I don't know if that was taken from another movie or not, but as an aspiring artist I thought that was a decent decision. Secondly, despite every meh or bad food pun in here, it takes some serious dedication on Charlie Sheen's part to actually deliver these bad puns in a detective voice like it's absolutely nothing. That latter one matters more than the first, and even though Wayne Brady's character is an unfunny and annoying knockoff of Donkey and the squirrel from Hoodwinked, his acting was technically good. The third and final one actually made me chuckle:

"But enough about me, let's kill YOU."

Well, there is very little to like and a lot to induce nightmares in Foodfight. In comparison to the movie I watched at the same time, The Triumph of Hercules, this movie would've made that peplum look like pure golden if I hadn't already seen dozens of peplums. This movie had Charlie Sheen, Cloris Leachman, Wayne Brady, the Duffs, Ed Asner, Eva Longoria and Jerry Stiller... and it managed to be one of the worst things on Earth. It's obvious that they spent most of the budget on cast and nothing on animation (like the Legend of Spyro series only much much much worse). Avoid at all costs unless you're a bad movie junkie.

= 2

Lawrence Kasanoff has directed two feature-length films and is not eligible for a directorial score.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-02-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 2, MOVIE 1

Guns of the Magnificent Seven

(1969) - Directed by Paul Wendkos
--------------------------------------------
Western
-------------------------------------------------

"I'm a freak, Keno. Half man and half gun."

Watched in at the same time as Lenny (1975).

I've been working on completionist practices recently as well as forcing myself through more Westerns. I pretty much have an obligation based on this to finish the Magnificent Seven series... and that's all I have to say for an intro.

After a rebel's given $600 by a captured comrade to find some way to help the rebels defeat the Federales, gunslinger Chris Adams is called in to help yet again. This time he recruits a totally new batch of friends: a dynamite chucking slave, a clever horse-thief, a knife thrower, a wrangler and a one-armed sharpshooter, as well as the messenger boy himself. After seeing the way that the Federales treat the locals, their lust for blood is cemented.

It gets pretty obvious during the opening scene that I'm in for a pretty typical western movie, which I can tolerate since I've seen quite a few of them, although it can also bore me if it gets too tropy. The setup was nice but not brilliant. But when George Kennedy comes along in the role of Chris Adams, I was sorely disappointed. I mean, Yul IS Chris. You can act the role well, but can you replace Chris?

Thankfully, the next scene was actually pretty good. Excellent acting and dialogue during the mock trial scene, as well as the resolution, were all delivered as well as I had hoped for. So I knew there were gonna be a few cool scenes to keep things from getting boring after that. And thankfully, I got quite a few more of those, even if they fit somewhat standard western behavior. Despite the standardism, Wendkos, his crew and even the composer are still focusing on a tame and focused cinematic front, which keeps the motion going. Some of these landscape shots are incredible, even when they're quickly going over a shot in a second and the shots are filled with people in the foreground. We're truly there in the Old West.

There's one major con in one of its pros, specifically a pro when compared to the previous film. The action is fine enough and keeps the blood pumped a little, but it's nothing in comparison to the original film. I mean, sure, seeing these guys ambush the prison gang and free them was pretty cool, but it seems to me that the crew is more worried about putting together action sequences with good direction and easy to follow events, rather than actually trying to match or even outdo the greats that have been done before. Shame.

Another thing I gotta point out is that these people are, as expected, one-sided tropes for the most part. Injured guy who can still shoot very well, little kid who wants to fight for his family, angry black man fed up with racism, I mean, there's really NO imagination going on here. The villain is especially empty. He acts like a gentlemanly soldier, and that is the complete extent.

Well, this is a relatively short review in comparison to the one I'm gonna write later. In relation to Lenny, this was the one I finished first and it didn't even take a lot of brain power to watch this or even keep up. This is a by-the-numbers western with a few shining moments in the first half and a lot of standard stuff in the second. Not really gonna recommend this one even for Western fans.

= 54

Paul Wendkos needs 2 more films to qualify for a Directorial Score.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-02-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 2, MOVIE 2

Lenny

(1974) - Directed by Bob Fosse
--------------------------------------------
Dramedy / Biopic
-------------------------------------------------

"OK, what is dirty? And what is clean?"

Watched this at the same time as Guns of the Magnificent Seven.

I've been watching the Bob Fosse filmography by order of release date. What with the Musical Countdown foing on at Movieforums, it's time for me to actually get to a few of these. I've been mostly focused on albums until the third Hall of Infamy, and now I'm back on movies. So here's my review for Fosse's fourth: Lenny.

This is a biopic about the controversial comedian Lenny Bruce, who was once a terrible comedian and a loser, at least until he took the limits of acceptable vulgarity and pushed them far past the line. With the following he got, eventually he became half public speaker, and many of the points that he made in his routines are used today. Unfortunately, this guy wasn't Jesus. He would often be found cheating on his wife, and he and his wife have both been arrested for drug use. Eventually, the arrests and the stress get to him.

Since we're on the subject of Bob Fosse, who's always been about style.

This movie is intended to be a combination of stand-up comedy, interviews and drama, and there's a perfect balance between all three in terms of both style and storytelling. Everything is a performance mirroring a different brand of reality, which is part of what holds it all together. There were even times where the cinematography ruled for a few seconds in total black-and-white glory. Forty minutes in you'll even get this beautiful shot of a car pulling up to you. In terms of direction, this is unique and certainly awe-inspiring. And it's consistent in its storytelling almost every step of the way. The combination of excellent cinematography and organized storytelling through this wild format makes it a constant eye-grabber without resorting to blockbuster behavior of ANY definition. Fosse really outdid himself in that vein.

I suppose when those who've seen Lenny hear about it, the first thing they'll think of is Hoffman's acting. And that's for good reason. I knew nothing about Lenny Bruce even up to the five seconds it took me to turn this movie on (just based on wanting to watch all the Bob Fosse movies in order of release date). But I've seen people who act like these kinds of comedians, and I can promise you this: this is one of the most convincing, enigmatic and realistic performances I have ever seen. Hoffman's an absolute treasure in this. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't have captured Lenny Bruce as he was. Hoffman captures the vulgarity, the loser behavior of Lenny's original format, the jackass in family life as well as the social-political speaker who brilliantly displays vulgarity while deconstructing thorough points, and the eventual lawyerific side.

But we cannot, and I mean absolutely CANNOT, knock off Valerie Perrine. She is as cute and sweet as a button in her motions and speech, yet being so intrigued by such a filthy man despite her appearance makes her all the more charming through a somewhat more jovial brand of intrigue than what intrigue usually entails.

This movie also manages to be REALLY SEXY at times. The shower scene with the jazz music, the stripping scene early on, these things are perfectly lit with a high-quality black-and-white camera and a pair of perfect leads sinking right into their roles with this kind of stuff as easily as they do with the vulgar humor. I mean, it's not like I'm gonna be turned on by Dustin Hoffman at any point in my life, but I think I have an idea of when an actor's so deep into his own character that he even gets the sexual bits right. Pair him with Valerie, and hot diggity all over.

I guess if I had to fault this movie for anything, I'd only say this: even though their charisma of both a character and even sensual nature went well together, the storytelling dynamics of the leads are pretty standard for biopics relationships. Their personalities rarely emerge beyond their characters' careers, although it can easily be argued that much of Lenny's development is told through the shows.

In relation to the other movie I was watching, Guns of the Magnificent Seven, I was closer to finishing that one because the service I used for Lenny had ads and Lenny's slightly longer. However, I paused during the later stages of the "blah blah blah" comedy act and the court trial afterwards. Lemme tell you, that whole scene ensured the five-star rating that I wasn't QUITE sure of throughout most of the movie, especially when the tragic end came around.

Gotta hand it to you, this is a movie that's just TOO real at times, and that's the glory of it, as Bruce is practically saying throughout the whole film. This is EASILY the winner between the two movies for today. Lenny isn't quite one of my favorites, but it came close, and I'm currently listing this as my number 1 Bob Fosse film.

= 95

Bob Fosse's Directorial Score (4 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Lenny: 95
Liza With a Z: 95
Cabaret: 90
Sweet Charity: 82

Score: 90.5 / 4

Bob Fosse moves up on my Best Directors List from #77 to #73 between Sam Mendes and Kenji Misumi.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-03-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 3, MOVIE 1

The Snowman

(2017) - Directed by Tomas Alfredson
--------------------------------------------
Nordic Noir / Mystery / Cop
-------------------------------------------------

"I apologize for Oslo's low murder rate."

Watched at the same time as Midnight Cowboy.

It's been ages since I saw Tomas Alfredson's incredible vampire movie, Let the Right On In. Since I just got through a couple of Jan Troell movies, I was in the mood for another Swedish film. I've hardly seen anything Swedish outside of Ingmar Bergman, so whether or not this movie was going to be any good (even though I knew a lot of people hated it), I decided it might do me some good to get through it anyway.

Harry Hole is a Norwegian cop who leaves his family due to his alcohol addiction. Even though his girl's boy isn't even his own son, he really does care about him. His current case involves a serial killer who leaves notes with a snowman-shaped signature, and marks all of his killings with a snowman built outside the murder scene. Joined by a new recruit who's willing to break the rules to solve a case, Harry nbow has to deal with a number of suspects and very little clues.

For the entire first half hour, I wasn't seeing anything that different from what I can get from a standard thriller, save the conversation with the little girl by the end of that half hour. It was practically impossible to relate to these characters because they meet serious basics. Griseled cop suffers with alcohol. Lady's dad was murdered. Whoop-dee-doo. Even when there are murders involved, the light moments of gruesome imagery barely do anything for the overall effect, because throughout most of the movie there's this feeling that we're just ambling along with Fassbender rather than going through an interesting case. The plot picks up around halfway, but by this point the only reason I cared was to finish the damn movie, hoping that the increased plot progression would lead somewhere interesting.

Now I'm quite the Fassbender fan. I might even watch anything that he's in, considering how brilliant he was in X-Men, Jane Eyre, Frank, etc. But it seems like the only point to Harry's character is to be sad, lifeless and potentially stoned. While you can imagine that Fassbender will nail this emotion perfectly, the fact that he feels so one-sided kind of counteracts that. As far as everyone else goes, they're all finely cast,. but none of them are engrossing enough for me to really care about.

I guess the only thing that kept me from absolute boredom was Alfredson's direction. As I said, I chose this movie simply because of him and my need to check out more of his movies, so I wanted to see if there was anything redeeming about this movie considering Letterboxd's surprising 1.8 / 5 average score. And so his direction showed instances of decent imagery and a perfectly slow pace when it came to the cinematography. There are some fantastic shots of snowy landscapes here, but they really can't compensate for the boring plot progression.

In relation to watching Midnight Cowboy, that might've been the shorter movie, but no matter how I adjusted the volume it was also the louder one, so I had to pause MC a couple times. On top of that, Midnight Cowboy was on Tubi, and that always has ads. I ended up finishing this one first.

Now I see why so many people dislike this movie. Underdevelopment accidentally became the focal point. The movie's based on a best-selling novel, but you're not gonna find out why the book's so good from watching this overlong, generic and lifeless movie. The only reason to watch it is for Alfredson's shots of snowy landscapes, and that's pretty much it. Even though there were a bunch of pros involved in the making of this movie, there are MST3K movies I've liked more.

= 32

Tomas Alfredson needs 1 more film to qualify for a Directorial Score.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-03-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 3, MOVIE 2

Midnight Cowboy

(1969) - Directed by John Schlesinger
--------------------------------------------
Drama / Buddy
-------------------------------------------------

"In front the headlights shine."

I'm thinking after I'm finished with my top and bottom 50 of 1972, I'll head towards 1969 because quite a few directors I've checked out for the first time in the '72 marathon have 1 '69 movie. Examples are Eric Rohmer, Jan Troell, Luis Bu�uel and Pier Paolo Pasolini. On top of that, my letterboxd ratings pre-70's is looking a bit sappy. So I'm gonna get a jumpstart now that I'm pretty far in '72 and focus on what is arguably the most famous movie of 1969: the Best Picture winner.

Joe Buck (Jon Voight) has had it with dishwashing and travels to New York to try out a more exciting career: prostetution. But it doesn't kick off very easily, especially when he gets conned by hustler Rico (Dustin Hoffman) who pays him back by sharing his apartment. Now the two are working together to make a quick buck in the big city and move to Miami. But NOTHING goes as they planned. Joe can't hold down a job, Rico's sick and the two have to steal. Are they ever gonna get a break?

At the start of the movie, the audience is introduced to Jon Voight's incalculable level of charm. I'm not really a fan of Jon Voight and I can't even recall any other movie he's been in (was he in Transformers?) but I gotta admit that his performance is perfect. He might be at the foreground of everything that happens, but for the most part, the direction and frantic plotting match up with his outspoken and cheerful disposition. And after Lenny, I was really happy to see Dustin Hoffman come on. I already know him for less hyper roles like in The Graduate and Sphere, so seeing him as the obnoxious Lenny Bruce made me wanna see more of him. So it this movie he's playing an Italian-American hustler with a friendly approach, and he's nailing it about as well as De Niro nailed his own early roles. I don't think it's as good as his Lenny performance but it's another enigmatic disposition to relate to, and conflict with, Joe Buck.

I think my favorite aspect of this movie, however, was how in-tune it was with pop culture at the time. The clothing and the behavior of everyone around you bleeds of the psychedelic age without overdoing it, until we're taken into an Andy Warhol style party, and everything you see is wonderfully shot with the same careful, visual, sometimes hypnotic and sometimes frantic direction that pairs with both Joe and Rico's perceptions of their own world. There's a psychological basis to the story and direction which practically cements interest in seeing the ending the first time it happens, be it harsh flashbacks or even mental fantasies.

There is one little problem I have with the movie, and I think it really needs to be addressed: why the hell does the movie play the theme song like three or maybe four times at the start of the movie? Do you rehash the same song three times in a musical? Hercules didn';t even do that when they recycled the same rhythm three times during the prologue sequence; they switched the genre from gospel to cinematic classical to acoustic blues. I mean, this is the 60's, man! This whole movie's practically shoving the 60's in your face, and Nilsson only sang one song!? It made the whole intro feel a bit slow despite featuring Joe Beck's strong personality. I even found myself begging the movie not to play it against until the credits (reasonably so).

In relation to watching The Snowman at the same time, It was so much easier to care about these characters than it was for the others. But I didn't let them distract me from the other movie. But because this movie was louder, I had to pause this to hear the other one a couple of times. And because of ads, I finished the other one first despite it being longer, and I had about 20 minutes left in this one before I was finished with the other.

Midnight Cowboy was definitely the winner of these two movies. The pair of leads has perfect charisma with or without each other's company, the story keeps progressing with that slight outrageousness that pairs well with the leads' personalities, and perfect direction that switches styles without breaking the vibes. I can't say it's a perfect movie, or even my choice for the best of the year (currently Army of Shadows), but it's certainly top 5.

= 96

John Schlesinger needs 2 more films to qualify for a Directorial Score.

MovieGal

Msg

антигероиня

08-03-24

Originally Posted by KeyserCorleone

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 3, MOVIE 1

The Snowman

(2017) - Directed by Tomas Alfredson
--------------------------------------------
Nordic Noir / Mystery / Cop
-------------------------------------------------

"I apologize for Oslo's low murder rate."

= 32

Tomas Alfredson needs 1 more film to qualify for a Directorial Score.

I love Eurocrime films but The Snowman was lacking as it was a Norwegian novel made by Hollywood.

It would have been better in it's native language, I think.

You should try Priest of Evil ( Finnish), The Treatment (Dutch) and The Department Q films (Danish) if you are into Eurocrimes.

__________________
Its tougher to be vulnerable than to actually be tough.

90's Redux Seen: 18/34
My List 2/25
#12 The Crow
One Pointer: The Polar Bear King

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-05-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 4, MOVIE 1

Super Fly

(1972) - Directed by Gordon Parks, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Blaxploitation / Crime
-------------------------------------------------

"Dealin' good, for the Man, super fly, here I stand."

It's about time I forced myself into a little more blaxploitation. I was looking for another 1972 film to watch, and got tired of not having seen Super Fly or Shaft. Now I believe Super Fly's soundtrack to be one of the greatest albums in history. Pusherman is one of my favorite funk songs, and was ever since I first heard the album. Since it's so popular, I was really hoping for a good plot on this one.

Youngblood Priest is a drugdealer who wants out of the business, and plans to retire with a friend after selling enough to make a million dollars. He even recruits his old friend and partial mentor to help out. Unfortunately, a white police officer who deals in drugs has now got Priest on a leash, so Priest has to find a way out.

Half the time the movie's trying to progress the plot, and the other half of the time it's trying to be stylish. Now this is blaxploitation, and I expect (and maybe even a small part of me demands) a little style in any movie deeply rooted in aesthetic culture. However, I'm not really fond of the style here. There are too many slow scenes in the intro involving boring and lifeless walking and driving, and they make other appearances in the movie. The bathtub scene could've been a bit sexier, but it was zoomed in and blurry. As cool as the song Pusherman is, I really don't need to see a bunch of photos of faces just barely resembling doing business and selling keys and doing the drugs. This took up four minutes.

When plot became a part of the picture, it was very deeply rooted into Preist's plan to get rich quickly, and you hear all his opinions on it as well as everyone else's. HOWEVER, I really can't see any of these characters as anything more than blaxploitation tropes that were beat out by the same year's Across 110th Street as well as made fun of in the Black Dynamite franchise. And at the same time, it really didn't help that most of our characters were meeting base standards and expanding on them in ways I came to predict, despite all the decent-to-good actors on board. I mean, Ron O'Neal's performance is quite a good one, and I want to see more of his movies as a result of this one, but he really needs more character to work with and expand his talent.

In relation to Sniper: Special Ops, I was already familiar with the music for having heard the soundtrack by Curtis Mayfield a couple times, so getting through the action sequences with little plot development made it easy to watch both movies at once.

Since the album is in my top 200, I was really hoping for a better plot than this. Super Fly might've been a cultural staple, but I think it's more for the performance and for the music. I'm just not that impressed with this one, and I really hope Shaft is much better. This movie managed to convince me to see more of Ron O'Neals' movies, but that's about it. Decent scenes and a cool ending don't really build up a desire for me to return to this, but because of my interest in blaxploitation, I'll check out the rest of the series. I wonder if Jr. was trying to IMITATE his father?

= 63

Gordon Parks, Jr. needs 2 more films to qualify for a Directorial Score.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-05-24

TWIN CINEMA WEEK, DAY 4, MOVIE 2

Sniper: Special Ops

(2016) - Directed by Fred Olen Ray
--------------------------------------------
War / Action
-------------------------------------------------

"Did you ever do promotion for Kindergarten Cop, the movie?"

The direction has its pros and cons, as well as the sets. You're always given exactly what you need to see, action, scenario, etc. The movie moves along at a proper pace, and the camera follows along just fine. Unfortunately, you won't get anything fancy here. We're here in the middle of the desert and we can practically feel the Taliban threat around us. But not every decision makes it feel real. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think a Taliban base in the middle of a desert war zone town would use their resources on cleaning supplies for their lockers, so I picture these places being a lot dirtier than what's warranted in this film. In other words, FOR pulled a Christopher FORbes, quickly choosing a "decent enough" place to film a scene with no budget spent on realism.

Now Seagal fans are going to be sorely disappointed in the fact that he has very little action involved throughout the whole movie. When you've got Steven Seagal, you should at least get some real martial arts in, but no. Instead, he ends up abandoned and rescued while sitting in a room doing nothing, you know, the kind of thing you don't put a martial arts star in. So there's one very good reason for people to dislike the movie, because it means a serious expectation was met with sore disappointment for fans. Now I suppose that's a fault of advertisement rather than the filmmaking, but he's still one of those guys who demands some real action if you're going to include him as a relevant character in an action movie. This is not the same situation as when Statham joined the crime comedy Snatch, in which Statham was intentionally cast out of type and expanding his relevance in film beyond "guy movies." This is literally sticking an action star in an action movie and doing nothing with him. At least make him shoot more people with a cheesy explosion behind him. Even when Seagal was sitting in his room and saying, "I'm right where I need to be," my immediate first thought was:

Well, I wrote a lot more on that than I wanted, and my second Spongebob reference this week, so let's talk about the plot. I'm waiting the entire time for the plot of the movie to be as bad as Letterboxd said, but I just kept NOT getting that. Instead, I got a couple interesting details here and there than kept the plot moving forward, even more quickly than Super Fly did. And on top of this pro, the characters might not have had the best acting (it was typically palatable and acceptable), but the conversations they had were always reasonable if never brilliant. I'm actually paying attention to the conversations, having my expectations for the next Alien Dead or Dire Wolf, but no. Everyone at least feels half-real, but real enough. Unfortunately, the ending doesn't really tie everything together well. It throws everything into one place and offers a quick-ass resolution that left an empty feeling in me.

In relation to Super Fly, it was easy to get through this during the empty-plotted stylistic scenes, but I was more engrossed in Super Fly's plot considering that I was expecting a good movie from the Letterboxd ratings, so I paused this one a little bit more.

Well this wasn't anywhere near as bad as the usual Fred Olen Ray fodder, but I wouldn't even say it was one of his best. It could've been one of his best had he handled the ending and Seagal's presence beteter, but in the end it's another low budget war movie with some redeeming qualities. Overall, there's really do need to see this whether or not you're into war movies or bad movies. Basically, it was a 5/10 movie until the very end, so this movie was the loser of the two films. The winner is Super Fly.

= 45

This film does not affect Fred Olen Ray's Directorial Score. He remains at #31 on my Worst Directors List with an average score of 21 / 5.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

08-05-24

Shaft

(1971) - Directed by Gordon Parks
--------------------------------------------
Blaxploitation / Crime
-------------------------------------------------

"Can you dig it?"

After seeing Super Fly, I was sorely disappointed in how plotless it got at times, sacrificing basic filmmaking strengths to gloat about Curtis Mayfield's incredible soundtrack. Since I didn't have an incredible moviemaking experience today, I decide do spend the last remaining minutes of night before bedtime with Shaft, another movie I got tired of being curious about and decided to role with it. Also, consider this in honor of the recently deceased Richard Roundtree's memory.

John Shaft is an NY PI with attitude, charm, skill and street smarts. He's already seen it all and can dish it all out. But now he's in really deep when he's called in by a crime lord to find the dude's kidnapped daughter. Aided by a police lieutenant who's patient with Shaft's antics as well as a black militant leader with a heart, Shaft and his new partner undergo their own investigation into the criminal underworld with their own dirty tricks.

I was a bit bored with Super Fly considering the characters were all so one-sides, but not this time. The personalities of the cast are a bit more lively. I am LOVING Roundtree in this! Shaft is such a cool character. He has his serious threatening side which I don't even wanna see the good side of, but he's got wisdom in his approach to life, as well as that jovial, almost prankster-ish snark about him that lets you know that he doesn't shut people out at the drop of a hat. I just love the line, "Why don't you stop playing wich yourself, Willie?" He's a BRO, a really threatening BRO. And it's not just him. It's totally other people, too. Seeing that one gangster go to near tears because one of his men was killed was humorous and unexpected. Ben Buford (Christopher St. John) is a militant who really does care about his own people, and this opens up some charmisma between him and Shaft. Although, it must be noted that while the other characters feel quite alive, Roundtree commands the movie.

And I kinda love the plot. It gives you the whole blaxploitation experience without feeling ham-fisted for the sake of a movement, ideal, genre, etc. I even found myself loving this more than the lauded Across 110th Street, which I gave a 9.5. Shaft's badassery is only one strong ingredient. We're given a thick and constantly developing crime plot where the characters exchange dialogue of both a personal and a storytelling nature. And sometimes, you just gotta sit down and have some booze with "one-zillion percent" alcohol, and afterwards you gotta swing a bottle and kick ass. In this plot we are seeing New York as it is, was, and has to be shown on the big screen, whether it be a coffee shop's failed attempts at pseudo-luxury for those who wanna calm down, or the deep inner workings of the crime that might get you a taste of real luxury. There may be some campiness attached to this, but that's all a part of the blaxploitation charm.

And the second best thing about the movie is definitely the soundtrack. The man behind Hot Buttered Soul and Black Moses, Isaac Hayes, takes the reins here, and there's a powerful level of funk, soul and jazziness being shoved in your face in the background of these crime-ridden city streets. It's a glorious combination, even though the soundtrack on its own isn't comparable to Super Fly's soundtrack by Curtis Mayfield.

Now there is one complaint I MIGHT have with the movie, but I don't think it applies too harshly. Since Roundtree is leading the whole film on his side of the investigation, we're pretty much seeing everything through Shaft's eyes. So while these characters have their personalities, we only see the sides that directly affect Shaft. But in these situations we see the crime unfold in interesting and even exciting ways at a great pace. On top of which, my number 1 movie of all time is all about a bunch of characters affecting one: Michael Corleone. I think we got what we needed here for the most part. We don't even really need a villain this time to enjoy the ride. On top of that, many great detective movies don't give a lot of development to the lead, so why should Shaft develop THAT much? We're here to see how he uses his fighting skills and street smarts to save the day AS an already experienced detective who already learned a lot from this world.

Anyway, ride around town, soak in the sights, infuse yourself in the campy coolness, and spend some time with an excellent protag: John Shaft. This is the movie that defined blaxploitation and is an excellent example of what it's all about. It's not about some grand adventure with a hero, a villain and a death scene. Neither was Taxi Driver. Neither was Godfather. With any of that it would be less about the man and more about the paycheck. This is a movie about a man and his magic. The technique, the character, the soundtrack and the excitement are all there in either light and strong amounts, and I am honestly in all my years of studying movies, totally oblivious to why this movie isn't considered one of the best. This is raw nostalgia here, a celebration of a culture that was skyrocketed into popularity because of this very movie and one that ages beautifully because it's so dated.

= 96

Gordon Parks needs 2 more films to qualify for a Directorial Score.

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 08-05-24 at 07:05 PM.

KeyserCorleone