Jabs at the movies

Ed Wood
I revisited this film recently because I fondly remembered it as one of Tim Burton's best. Focusing on Edward Wood Jr., one of Hollywod's worst directors, it gives a great insight on the B-Movie industry of the 40s and 50s as well as part of the 60s. The ridiculousness is off the charts at times, but it fairly accurately portrays real events, which makes the film even funnier and more appealing.

Both Johnny Depp and Martin Landau give good performances, which undoubtedly required a lot of research.The settings are excellent and the fact that the film is shot in black and white puts you deeper into the era itself. It is the good kind of campy and self-aware through the obliviousness of its characters. The final act focuses on Plan 9 from Outer Space, which has been characterized as the worst film of all time. It is worth, giving that terrible film a watch before delving into Ed Wood, as it would enhance the experience significantly.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale
I have to applaud the effort it takes for a horror film to avoid going down the jump scare route. The atmosphere is eerie and the mystery is nicely integrated, although there are some jumps in the story early on. What threw me off was the fact that adding a "thee" or "dost" was supposed to make them sound like pilgrims. I do appreciate the attempt to make the film more authentic though. The paranormal elements were on point and not exaggerated and the story as a whole was decent. Recommended for people who want to watch a different type of horror film.

1922
I had high hopes for the Netflix film but it kind of disappointed. The pacing was a bit off, essentially leaving you with the feeling that the climax of the story came in the first 30 minutes and you spent the next 90 dealing with the aftermath. There were some cliches that could have been avoided but luckily nothing too extravagant. The feel of the era was spot on though which was nice to see.

The film mainly focused on family drama and not as much as it should on the crime aspect of the events that were unfolding. About half way through we are introduced to a paranormal aspect that didn't really fit the thriller set up and unfortunately it was used as more than a manifestation of guilt. In any case, I found myself losing interest in the film after the first hour or so. Definitely a film that had some potential but played its cards wrong.

Batman: The Movie (1966)
Having never watched the series (but having a brief glimpse of the Adam West version of Batman from the animated movies), I went into this not sure what to expect. I know it shouldn't be judged by today's standards but man oh man that was hard to watch all the way through. Low production value, campy atmosphere, goofy jokes that made this look more like an after-school special that a superhero movie and loads of other problems constituted a 2 hour long mess.

The premise was ridiculous and flooded with pseudoscience (re-hydrating humans? seriously?) while the acting was terrible all around. Fun fact: Romero didn't even bother shaving his mustache to play Joker. They just put make up over it hoping it wouldn't show. This whole experience just made me glad we no longer live in an era when films like this were popular.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

@mark f why so serious?

Deadpool 2
If you are in a hurry here is the short version: Deadpool 2 is Logan minus the emotional attachment plus a ton of jokes.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets delve in with the spoilery stuff.

All the things that made me love the first film, got on my nerves this time around.What do you do when you've already subverted expectations on what superhero films can be? The answer Deadpool gives in his 2nd outing on the big screen is "copy another successful film from pretty much the same franchise and crank your shenanigans up to 11."

From the very beginning, the film tries to show that it won't be much different than what we saw last time, it will just be more of what we loved times 20. On paper this might have worked, but in practice it rapidly became tiring. Incredibly low stakes coupled with an uninspired story, made this a 2 hour long exercise in jokes, gore and 4th wall breaking. Lets face it, Deadpool is all about the fun...but it's not very fun to hear joke after joke after reference after joke. The whole structure fell forced to recapture the success of the first one without adding much to the story.

Now onto the 4th wall breaking. It's Deadpool's signature, it's interesting and when used well it can shock you and snap you back to reality abruptly. But when it happens every 10 minutes or so, it stops you from being immersed into the film itself. I know I am watching a film, but let me buy it and go with the flow for a while before you snap me out of it.

Another thing that ticked me off was how they introduced a "team" out of nowhere, just to pull off a scene where they all die 20 minutes later. Which frankly wasn't even that funny. Vanessa's death was unnecessary as this didn't even turn into a revenge story, and she is a big loss for the continuation of the franchise. Unless of course the post-credit scene where everything is reversed will stand its ground. In which case, what is the freaking point?

Finally, Brolin gives another stellar performance in a superhero film, but Cable's character feels out of place here. He is a lot darker than everyone else around him and he ends up having to lighten up to suit the mood of the film. I could also delve into the forced "emotional" scene where Deadpool supposedly dies (which he didn't even need to), and the #1 time travel cliche resolution that is given, but this is already too much.

I hope a potential third film will try to dial back the craziness and strike a better balance than this one.

The Pride of the Yankees
Not my favorite Hollywood era, but I thought I'd give this film a shot as it was a chance to learn a bit more about Lou Gherig and his story. Undoubtedly the main interest in this would be his disease and how his life turned during it. However this was treated more like an homage of his life and especially his happier days, rather than an exploration of his tragic story. His illness gets very little mention towards the end of the film and is never specified, nor do we see any efforts from the medical community back then to diagnose something for which the cause is unknown 95% of the time.


Instead we are treated to family friendly typical golden-era-of-Hollywood story which doesn't leave any significant aftertaste. Decent performances throughout, especially from Teresa Wright and definitely interesting to see real baseball stars of the era playing themselves, but there is not more than that in this. Whenever tension is about to break out, it immediately draws back or is hastily and lightheartedly resolved which gives an appearance of an unrealistic fairy-tale life.



In a film like this, you would expect at least some dramatic sequences but the fact that this did not go that route was quite disappointing.

Killing Them Softly
In parallel universe this could have been a hidden gem of a film. It was quite intriguing, took some bold directorial decisions that often worked and had intended to convey a serious message through the story. As it usually happens with films though, the final result didn't manage to connect all these dots coherently enough to create a final product that lived up to the original plan.

We see a lot of bits and pieces of what would constitute a great story: from Liotta's gambling house scam, to Gandolfini as an alcoholic has-been assassin, to two junkies biting more than they can chew, to Pitt organizing the whole thing as a high level manager/assassin. But it seems like all of these moments play out individually and the invisible thread that connects them is so thin that it makes the film suffer for it. Given that Andrew Dominik directed and wrote the screenplay adaptation of the novel, I can't help but feel that he failed in transporting a complete story in the big screen and just gave us the highlight reel. Perhaps the problem was the mere 95 minutes of run time.

In any case, it wasn't a bad film, but it left me with the taste of an unfinished one. More like an extensive skeleton of what you wanted the story to be, but someone released it before they got a chance to fill all the gaps. As a side note, the parallelization made with American politics was pushed a bit too much with Bush and Obama speeches casually playing over every other scene and a final speech explaining everything for even more clarity. It is never nice to talk down to your audience. I would have prefered it if he had presented some clues and let us figure things out on our own.

Battlefield Earth
Some films, you expect to be bad, but the surprise you with how bad they actually were. Welcome to the world of Battlefield Earth. Constantly referred to as one of the worst movies of the 2000s, I believe it has earned the title. There were 3 major problems in this, so lets get to it...

The script: Utterly ridiculous at times, filled with cheesy lines and corny scenes that didn't give anyone a chance to really act. Some of the great ideas the writers had were that an advanced alien civilization would care for something like gold, that humans who rode horses and new nothing about technology could learn to fly fighter planes and disarm nuclear bombs within a week, that one nuclear explosion can evaporate an entire planet bigger than Earth in a matter of minutes and many man others that I don't even want to get into.

The direction: I haven't seen direction this bad in quite some time. Jarring cuts during hand to hand battles that only managed to disorient you and seem to have been taken right out of Bay's playbook, was just the first indication that this wouldn't end well. Scenes shot from awkward angles, slow motion where there shouldn't be any and cutting techniques that were last used in the 1930s which puzzled me as to why would someone use them when there are so many more advanced tools available.


The effects: For a film that has little else going for it, effects should have been a must, especially in sci-fi. At 73 million, the budget was not extremely high for the era and for the task undertaken, but it still justified something much better than the final outcome in the effects department. Watching it today, the effects feel outdated bordering on terrible.


I would urge anyone who has seen the film, to check out it's history as there is an interesting story there in connection to scientology.

Shrek
I don't understand why this became a classic and spawned so many sequels. The transition period from classic to computer-animation hit smack down in the middle of the uncanny valley effect and the whole thing looked a bit weird. The story felt like a mash-up of fairy-tale characters and the jokes were mostly a miss for me.I appreciated the parody of the normal fairy tale story lines as in, instead of the princess changing the frog, the frog changes the princess, but I found no real value to it beyond that. Still the voicing from Cameron Diaz and Eddie Murphy was pretty good and that in many ways slightly salvaged the experience in my eyes.

Start Trek: Beyond
I was never a big fan of Star Trek, but there have emerged some good films out of the franchise. Beyond was certainly not one of them. The plot felt generic and the dialogue approached the usual style of the franchise, which I assume must had pleased hardcore fans, but seemed too soft for my taste. The story seemed uninspired and riddled with plot holes and of course found some way to introduce elements from modern day Earth. From the music to the motorcycle scene, you can't help but feel that for a science fiction film taking place hundreds of years in the future, there is an irrational adherence to the early 2000s.


The film in general wasn't very bad, but it had a myriad little flaws that made this no more that a mediocre addition to what is starting to feel as a tired and outgrown franchise, even so soon after a reboot.

House on Haunted Hill
From the very beginning you could tell that although this played into the paranormal element, the conclusion would dispute that and provide a fairly rational explanation. The film sets up some intricate relationships between its protagonists early on, and that keeps you engaged for some time, trying to understand how things will unfold. About half way through its very short run time though, you can make out a very clear outline of what is happening because there is only one scenario that explains the story coherently without delving into spirits and so on. Subsequently, this takes away much of the initial intrigue and the third act essentially leaves you watching exactly what you already suspected.

The direction doesn't leave a lot of room for conversation, and the effects -which might have raised an eyebrow in the 50s- have aged very badly. There are also a couple of plot holes created by the writers attempt to make the audience believe in a paranormal element half way through, but that are never explained and seem kind of pointless. All in all, although this wasn't a very good film, it definitely provides an insight on horror films of that era, and with a run time at about 75 minutes, it might warrant a quick watch.

High Noon
A great Western that much like Unforgiven, wasn't a Western in the conventional sense. The vast majority of the film explores human relations and how easily people can be swayed by fear and other factors to abandon someone close to them at a difficult time. Gary Cooper gives a great performance as the veteran sheriff about to live this life behind. Zinnemann's direction is very good and he builds up suspense expertly throughout the film. The score is extremely fitting and the main song that plays in various scenes sets the tone for what is about to come.

The train station scenes with Miller and his gang brought the One Upon a Time in the West to mind, and this could have very well have served as an inspiration to Leone's classic. Surprisingly enough, the much talked antagonist gets very little screen time, but so does the final face-off and it is perhaps because Zinnerman wanted to accentuate that this was not the important part of the story. On the whole, this was a very carefully crafted film engaging in important themes and I can fully understand why it became a classic.

Captain Corelli's Mandolin
I can't begin to describe how one-sided the story of this film is. For the sake of introducing a romantic element to the story, the film treats Italian oppressors under Mussolini's rule as simple neighbors visiting a Greek island and only presents the Nazis as the sole bad guys. The story is highly detached from reality although it is supposed to be taking place in the midst of historical events. The performances by the leading cast are mostly bad, with Cage and Bale in first place while Cruz is a close second. On the other hand, most of the supporting cast, which were all local actors and actresses do a surprisingly good job and lend a modicum of authenticity to the experience.

It is hard to get past the simplicity with which a lot of the situations are handled and the film rarely portrays the conservatism that characterized the rural Greek society in the 40s. The story ends up disrespecting itself when it makes light of a catastrophic event like WWII and this alone would be enough to ruin the experience even if that were the only flaw of the film. However, the problems keep piling up during the movie's run time and it only gets worse as it goes on.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
I am always surprised when I can laugh at comedies made so long ago, and this certainly had a few good moments in it. Of course the cultural differences are plenty, with the film essentially rewarding the idea of being a gold-digger. The acting wasn't at a very high level and some of the scenes were plain ridiculous, sacrificing realism in the altar of making a comedy, but that is to be expected from that kind of film.

We were treated to a lot of mediocre songs as well as 'Diamonds are a girl's best friend' which has achieved a cult status. Monroe does what she always did best, playing the naive yet gorgeous woman, although in this film she is always acting naive but is actually pretty cunning. All things considered, I wouldn't call this a good film, but it definitely was an interesting experience.

In the Heat of the Night
I find films tackling racial issues extremely interesting and when combined with a good crime story, the result is inevitably good. Poitier and Steiger give great performances and the grim setting of a 60s Mississippi gives ground for some very nice scenes. The score is always on point and complements the very good direction provided by Norman Jewison. There are many layers to the film, and the unspoken conclusion of the story with the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie remain largely unchanged adds a cynical tone to this. Even after their adventure together, Gillespie doesn't seem any warmer towards Tibbs in the farewell scene, illustrating the difficulty of uprooting ones beliefs, especially when one has been raised and bred in such an environment.

I feel that this film spawned a number of similarly themed endeavors like Mississippi Burning, A Time to Kill and others that add an extra layer to the story by having it take place in Southern States in the midst of racial tension.

Any comment on it's satirical nature?

Sunset Blvd.
I think I went into this with my expectations being a tad too high due to the IMDb rating. A solid film throughout, starting with some noir elements and a very good narration style, it provided the audience with glimpses of Hollywood throughout the 20s and up until the 40s, showing how the industry changed. It illustrates both the pitfalls of turn your back to progress in general -via the delusional Norma Desmond- and how easy it can be to slip into comfort and abandon your beliefs -as was the case with Joe Gillis.

Every aspect of the film achieved a passing grade, but there weren't very many things that went beyond that. Some notable exceptions were the atmosphere created by the art direction and mild mannered portrayal of the characters surrounding Norma Desmond, which created a juxtaposition to Gloria Swanson's excellent and overly dramatic portrayal of a long forgotten silent film star. Swanson hits all the right notes, creating an extra element in her work, as an actress playing an actress. Her highly theatrical reactions, her demeanor her arrogance and her vulnerabilities truly made you feel like she was portraying a real character. She was the saving grace of this film, with a performance that seemed oscar-worthy.

Tom Jones
Having heard many people dub this as one of the worst Oscar Best Picture winners of all time, I was intrigued to watch it. I fail to realize why this type of film would fascinate critics and earn itself such a prestigious award. The highly comedic performances in the film were mostly off-key and the direction as well as the score seemed amateur at times. The story serves simply a comedic relief with -to my knowledge- no significant commentary lingering behind it.

The whole concept and structure reminded me of Woody Allen's Love & Death (a review of which can be found here). Essentially, a story set in the 18th century, with a rascal of a character that just keeps getting into trouble and uses his charm to get out of it. That particular description seems shallow, but so was the whole film in this writer's opinion. Even the comedy, which the film heavily relies on to make up for other shortcomings, wasn't even on point most of the time, even taking into account the era of its release.

I am on my way to watching every Oscar Best picture winner since the conception of the award, and I have to say, that so far this has been the worst one yet.