Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue

→ in
Tools    







Since joining this forum, I've been content to post my write-ups for movies in the Rate The Last Movie You Saw thread. My write-ups are usually no more than a short paragraph, but occasionally, if a film really strikes a chord with me, I want to spend more time discussing what I loved/hated about that particular film. Since so many other people post in that thread, however, my write-ups quickly get lost in the shuffle. By creating this thread, I can keep a catalogue of the films I've watched and what I wrote about each one. So, without further ado, I welcome you to . . .

Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue



About the Reviewer:
After a bloody altercation with authorities, Captain Spaulding's body was never found. He remains at large. This former clown and once proud owner of Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen now resides in a filthy trailer located in Parts Unknown, where he spends most of his time watching movies and torturing the occasional stranger. You may disagree with what what he writes about a particular film, but, considering that he's a sick, sadistic, murderous clown, perhaps it's a good thing if your tastes don't not always align.



Enjoy your stay.
As the sign on the wall states, there is no turning back!




The Shootist


(Don Siegel, 1976)
(Starring: John Wayne; Lauren Bacall; Ron Howard; James Stewart)


In a sense, the same cancer that is diagnosed in John Wayne's character in The Shootist, as well as the cancer that, three years after filming for The Shootist wrapped, would claim the life of The Duke himself, had also afflicted the entire genre. The Traditional American Western was dying. After all, a decade earlier, Peckinpah had infused the Western with a darker, more violent and nihilistic sensibility. And the Italians--- Sergio Leone, in particular--- had started serving the Western with a side of spaghetti. John Wayne's brand of Westerns, however, with their idealism and old-fashioned values, had long since grown stale. The mold, the cancer, was a lack of interest from the movie-going public. This makes The Shootist all the more poignant. Not only is it John Wayne's last film, it's essentially the last film of an entire era.

Everything about The Shootist feels like a funeral, as if Wayne was participating in his own procession. When he struggles for breath in certain scenes, it doesn't feel like acting (and it probably wasn't, considering that his entire left lung had already been removed). When he discusses his inevitable death and how he wants to be remembered, it doesn't feel like a line of dialogue, but a man in the twilight of his life speaking directly to his fans. Considering how well the character and the movie mirrors Wayne's real life, you'd think that The Shootist was written specifically for him, so it's surprising to learn that he almost wasn't cast in the role. What a crime that would have been. Without The Duke, this old-fashioned Western would've been average at best and already forgotten.

It's fitting that James Stewart, Wayne's close friend and co-star of the brilliant The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, is also in this movie, and he adds a certain somber respect to the scenes in which he appears. An aging Lauren Bacall, as well as a young Ron Howard (with hair!), are also great. The directing from Don Siegel is nothing special, but it gets the job done, and perhaps it's appropriate, given the material and the actors involved, that his direction is so straight forward. The main draw, of course, is Wayne himself. I think it's one of the best performances of his career. (Not that I've seen enough to make that claim; the dude appeared in over 140 films!)

From the opening montage to the climactic showdown to the poignant final scenes, The Shootist is a proper, dignified, elegiac farewell to an American icon. Long live the legendary Duke and his extraordinary legacy!






Great. He does all this and then it's a bloody Western. And John Wayne, to boot. Ah well, I'm still looking forward to this thread.
How 'bout a free bucket of fried chicken for your trouble?




Great. He does all this and then it's a bloody Western. And John Wayne, to boot. Ah well, I'm still looking forward to this thread.
We can't exactly call it anti-climactic since it's the first review of (hopefully) many.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



GODZILLA
(Gareth Edwards, 2014)
(Starring: Aaron-Taylor Johnson; Bryan Cranston; Ken Watanabe; Elizabeth Olson; Sally Hawkins)





First, a word about Pacific Rim, since apparently every review for Godzilla feels the need to compare/contrast the two films: I hated Pacific Rim. Hated it, hated it, hated it. I know it's cliché to use the video-game analogy, but, in the case of Pacific Rim, it's appropriate. Unless there is a controller in my hand and I can press A-B-X-Y to make the robot on the screen hit an awesome combo, I have no interest in watching giant robots fight giant monsters for two hours in what is essentially the equivalent of watching someone else play a video-game. From the first few seconds of Pacific Rim, when the voice-over narration started talking about Kaijus and Jaegers, my eyes glazed over. You know how a trained warrior, during a moment of torture, can place his mind elsewhere so that he doesn't feel any pain? That's what I did during Pacific Rim. It was the only way I could make it out of the experience alive.

So, after hearing that Godzilla featured giant monsters besides just our titular lizard, I worried that I'd have to resort to my ninja mind tricks to make it through the two-hour run-time. Luckily, that wasn't the case. Instead of trying to be the cinematic Ritalin for modern audiences, Godzilla forces the audience to sit and wait for the payoff. Director Gareth Edwards doesn't pull a Michael Bay. He doesn't throw constant action at the screen and pile CGI spectacle on top of CGI spectacle. Instead he lets the story grow on its own by allowing the movie to breathe and build toward an actual climax. The anticipation grows stronger by the minute. The tension steadily escalates. Whereas most blockbusters only give you a quick handjob, Godzilla spends a hour and a half on foreplay before delivering us to a toe-curling orgasm in the last act.*

(*Forgive the crude sexual analogies. I guess giant lizards get me all hot and bothered.*)


(A reminder to always have your giant lizards spayed and neutered.)

I've heard a lot of people--- probably the same kind of people who loved Pacific Rim--- complain that they wanted more Godzilla in their Godzilla movie. But I admire Edwards approach. I like that he teases the audience to the point of frustration. We get glimpse after glimpse, making the ultimate reveal all the more satisfying. When the camera finally pans up and reveals Godzilla in all his scaly glory, just in time for the monster to deliver his trademark roar, it's a breathtaking sight. This is the most impressive and awe-inspiring Godzilla has ever looked. No matter what anyone says about the film, nobody can criticize the special effects. The movie looks amazing.

Unlike Roland Emmerich's 1998 abomination, which featured a story that was an insult to the original movies and a Godzilla that looked more like an over-sized Tyrannosaurus Rex than the King of Monsters, Edwards's Godzilla features a loving, honorable, reverential portrayal of the titular monster. It's clear that the people involved with the making of the film are fans of the Japanese films. This Godzilla is essentially a God in reptilian form--- a protector of the earth. Yeah, he might level entire cities while vanquishing a foe, but even the Man of Steel does that nowadays, so who's to judge?


("King Kong ain't got nothin' on me!")

For a movie like this to transcend to greatness, however, there has to be a captivating human interest. Judging by this film and his debut feature Monsters, Edwards understands that approach. Unfortunately, both films have contained flat-as-paper characterization. With the exception of Bryan Cranston, every other character in Godzilla is just fodder. Elizabeth Olson only exists to clutch her child and run. Sally Hawkins does nothing but spout exposition. Ken Watanbe mostly just stares into the distance and mutters "Godzilla" in his thick Japanese accent. And the lead, Aaron-Taylor Johnson, doesn't do much but give the camera something to center on as he continuously finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. This, along with a few plot holes, is the film's biggest flaw.

Perhaps my bar has been lowered when it comes to modern day blockbusters, but I don't expect great characterization when I visit the theater during the summer months. All I ask is to be entertained and thrilled, and Godzilla delivered that in spades. This is the kind of spectacle that deserves to be seen on the big screen with a bucket of popcorn on your lap and a cold soda in your hand. Godzilla might be cinematic junk food, but it's mighty damn tasty!






Awesome review. I agree that Godzilla was used appropriately, I think the complaining that there wasn't enough of him is stupid. When he was on screen, it was epic, and having too much of him would ruin that.

I disagree about Pacific Rim, though. I really like that movie.



Awesome review. I agree with Godzilla was used appropriately, I think the complaining that there wasn't enough of him is stupid. When he was on screen, it was epic, and having too much of him would ruin that.

I disagree about Pacific Rim, though. I really like that movie.
Epic is the perfect word. If half the movie had been Godzilla fighting the MUTOs, much of the impact would've been lost. As the saying goes, you want to leave the people wanting more, and I left the theater wanting more Godzilla, which is a good thing, in my opinion. I'm already looking forward to the inevitable sequel, even though I worry that it will take a different approach. Hopefully they will leave the structure somewhat the same, however, and just strengthen the human side of things.

I'm in the minority about Pacific Rim. A lot of people love it. However, to me, it might as well have been Transformers 16 or whatever the hell number we're up to now.
__________________



Great to see your glowing review of The Shootist; I saw it last month and gave it the same rating. I thought it worked so well as a human drama, especially given the circumstances you mentioned. I'd be really happy to see it sneak onto the 70's list.

As far as Godzilla, I'll watch that when I can watch it at home.



I'd be really happy to see it sneak onto the 70's list..
I'm not crossing my fingers. The western seems to be a very under appreciated genre around here.



I'm not crossing my fingers. The western seems to be a very under appreciated genre around here.
I disagree, if anything, I'd say it was overrated. Of course, by that, I mean that at least one person likes them. TBF, there are a few fans of the big wide open.

I liked your review for Godzilla. I'm not that interested in the film as I prefer my Godzilla, when I watch them, to be a Japanese man stomping around a styrofoam city in a rubber suit, but it does seem that people are liking this, which is good.



It's easy for me to wax poetic about films I enjoy, but I also watch a lot of films that don't warrant the time it would take for me to write a full-fledged review. I could ignore those films and not do any write-ups at all, but that wasn't my intention for creating this thread. After all, I never intended for this to be a typical review thread. That's why, besides just the lame attempt at alliteration, I chose to name this thread 'Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue.' I plan to write about every film I watch, regardless of quality or the length of my write-up. Some films will receive longer, more detailed reviews, but there will also be a lot of posts like this one where I bunch two or three films together and write no more than a short paragraph about each film.
-
-
-


Ride Along
(Tim Story, 2014)

I'm not overly familiar with Kevin Hart. I've seen him make guest appearances on various programs, but I've never watched any of his stand-up. I don't know if he's funny or not. Judging by his performance in this film, however, as well as the brief snippets I've seen from him in other things, he seems to confuse manic energy for comedy. The thought process seems to be that if he talks really fast and moves around a lot, people won't realize that his jokes are flat. That might work for a talk show appearance, but not in a ninety-minute movie. The laughs are almost non-existent, and even the funniest moments aren't really that funny. You might chuckle under your breath a couple of times or muster a weak smile, but that's about it. As for the recycled plot? Well, if you've ever seen a buddy-cop movie, you'll be able to accurately predict everything that happens in Ride Along. The wheels are flat on this lame ass comedy.



A Single Shot
(David M. Rosenthal, 2013)

This had the potential to be so much better, but the weak script is too much of a burden for the talented cast to overcome. Sam Rockwell gives it his all and Jeffrey Wright does wonders with the little that he's given, but the story is too reliant on dumb decisions, too full of contrived situations, and too predictable to be anything but a below-average thriller.



Dark Skies
(Scott Stewart, 2013)

Take the same insipid formula from every lame PG-13 horror movie released in the last few years, replace the paranormal with the extraterrestrial, and you'll have Dark Skies. It's as if the director had a checklist of horror movie clichés: the kid who draws pictures of the unwelcome entity; strange behavior from animals; shadowy figures caught on security cameras; the old wise man who tells the characters what's really going on; the woman who hears strange noises in the night and wanders through the dark house, leading to numerous opportunities for JUMP SCARES. Some of it is unintentionally hilarious. None of it is scary. All of it is boring.




All those films look and sound like their not worth your time. Did you go into them thinking they would be? Single Shot has the look of a film which, once upon a time, might've been worth making, but by the time everyone has had their say, it's done.



All those films look and sound like their not worth your time. Did you go into them thinking they would be? Single Shot has the look of a film which, once upon a time, might've been worth making, but by the time everyone has had their say, it's done.
I'm an equal opportunity provider. Good films, bad films, foreign films, classic films, silent films. . . porno films.

I like Sam Rockwell, so I was looking forward to A Single Shot. I recorded Dark Skies during a free trial of Showtime. I don't know why I watched Ride Along. I figured it'd be pretty bad, but it was worse than I expected.



I'm an equal opportunity provider. Good films, bad films, foreign films, classic films, silent films. . . porno films.
I'd be proudly boasting of watching porn before I told anyone I watched Ride Along.

I like Sam Rockwell, so I was looking forward to A Single Shot.
I have to say that seeing someone like Sam Rockwell in this is why I said it looked like something which might have once been worth making.