Joel's Reviews

I'm confident you will enjoy it

Placeholder/Reminder..review Lone Star. I've been wanting to really get my thoughts out about that film. Peculiar story on that one.

LONE STAR (1996)
Director: John Sayles


Back in 1996 or so, I used to frequent a little art theater that would show everything from "Smilla's Sense of Snow" to "Sling Blade" to "Novocaine" to "Ghost World". I was around 22 years old, and it really took a lot from a movie to keep me in the seat back then.

I saw a teaser poster for "Lone Star" outside while I was having a cigarette, and was intrigued. I decided to roll the dice and check out this film I knew nothing about. I was with my life long movie buddy. We were both a little excited to see this, judging by the poster, which seemed to indicate a crazy thriller. Since we were well aware this was an art house theater, we both figured that this film would have something about it that transcended the thriller genre into something more profound and particular.







About an hour into the film, we both looked at each other and decided that we would finish the film, but were not happy with what we were seeing. Boring, dull, too long, went absolutely nowhere.

Too "adult" for our tastes.

As we walked out, I glanced another Lone Star poster inside of the lobby, this time with some critical blurbs going on and on about what a masterful film this was, and how John Sayles really triumphed.

My friend and I had already been a fan of Sayles's "Brother from Another Planet", so when we saw the teaser poster outside, we had at least that for ammunition and incentive.

We balked at the write ups on the theatrical poster and muttered things like "Pretentious reviewers", "Naked Emperor", so on and so forth.

A few minutes later, in the car, I kept wandering back to Lone Star. Telling my friend that maybe we didn't give it a fair shake, or that maybe we were watching it in the wrong environment (that was back when we thought seeing any movie in a theater was the right environment). He looked at me like I was nuts and said something like "You can watch that trash again, I'm all set. I have zero interest".

So I did watch it again, some 2 or 3 years later. I made it to about 40 mins in, and then I shut it off again. I called my friend and told him what I had done. He was dismissive and once again lectured me to just give it up, and stay away from "Lone Star".

I was on a mission. I did not like to dismiss a film if I wasn't 100% sure that it was unworthy...and I did remember some convincing critical sentences on the poster and possibly even in a newspaper.

I don't know exactly how many years later it was, but I finally watched Lone Star for the 3rd time (or 3rd attempt). I think I finally got it.




I couldn't be sure, but I think I may have finally seen part of the light on the film. The reason why critics applauded it. I called my friend again to report my progress. Once again, he was a bit dismissive and remarked that he would check it out on VHS at some point and get back to me. He was not in any sort of rush to do that, though.

Finally, at about age 29, I watched Lone Star again, giving it my full attention, uninterrupted..comfortably sitting in my recliner, with a tasty beverage and not much else on my mind.

I saw an incredible film. A layered mystery with pitched performances across the board, beautiful cinematography, incredible scene transitions, a real sense of place and a mind bender of an ending. I saw the writing, and how it was so meticulous and nuanced. Everything just clicked. I realize that "Brother from Another Planet" was not Sayles's best film. Lone Star was..to me...so far.

I have to confess, it may have taken an additional 2 more times of watching this film after my revelation to fully understand and appreciate the scope of this epic drama, but that's just how it was for me. I am not the most literate or cultured person. But I was determined to join the club and be amongst the positive reviews because I really like John Sayles. I just didn't know why I liked him. I knew I liked something, I just wasn't sure what.

Since my Lone Star "awakening", I have been enjoying other, more obscure John Sayles pictures. I consider Lone Star a personal victory for me as well as John Sayles. He made a picture for adults, and I became one, destined to enjoy his film I found so repellent at a young age.

BREAKFAST WITH CURTIS (2013)
Director: Laura Colella

Before I started this movie, I had already mostly made up my mind that I would not like it.
I had seen way too many hipster-indie movies lately - most involving either a moped, a unicorn, rainbows, lots of great big, bushy beards, go kart helmets, thick black rimmed glasses and ukulele/glockenspiel music scores all sounding like everyone with a half a mil was investing their money into aping Wes Anderson's Rushmore (which is a terrific, highly original film). I also had reservations about a possible "Napolean Dynamite" vibe that was not welcome in my head at that moment because I had felt that movie ran its course years ago.

Nevertheless, I started the movie. Within about 5-7 minutes, I was already worried at what I was seeing. A hippie commune, is it? I have nothing against hippies, it's just that I generally don't like them very much. They strike me as hypocritical extremists who use a gentle front to be aggressive and s.h.i.t.t.y. Then again, I'm not a hard nosed war monger. I had just been through the ringer with hippies already in my life and didn't want to spend the next 2 hrs watching them pretend to be on a higher artistic and spiritual plane while they spit venom about anyone with a different point of view..

But none of that happened. I was wrong. I can relax now. Man am I uptight!

Yes, it's about hippies. But it's awesome. It's funny, fiendish, very offbeat, not pretentious in a way that will make you ill. It's straight forward and the acting doesn't even exist.

This is a documentary fiction film. Everyone's performance is so naturalistic, you'd swear that they weren't even aware of a camera at all.

I won't spoil the plot, but be prepared for a very cool movie. I don't know how to describe it. I don't think I want to describe it. It's just a good movie that makes you feel good in a non conventional way.






"Breakfast with Curtis" is funny and interesting all the way through. It earns its stripes to stand head and shoulders above the many clone hipster indy flicks out there. It doesn't trick you and throw you into a disturbing place to try and be edgy or profound. You're safe with this film. I can call this a film, even though it was shot on a Canon high end digital system. This is a film. There should be more like it. Laura Collela, the director, deserves more budget and more time off from work. She made a great picture. Truly great.

test

THE STATION AGENT (2003)
Director: Tom McCarthy

"The Station Agent" stars Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones) as a small man who goes into a semi-retirement after he moves into a railroad cart sized property he inherits from a close friend.

All he wants is peace and quiet, as he has been in combat with his own insecurities for the better part of his life.

Soon enough, potential friendship comes knocking, and from there we are treated to a maturely paced comedy drama film about hobbies, interactions and the bonds formed with an uncommon mixture of people who differ vastly from one another.





The performance of Dinklage in particular, is what really sets this movie apart from just a typical road movie, or stationary road movie, as it were. Peter's controlled demeanor and low key reactions really let the other cast come through as a perfect collaboration, giving the picture a great dynamic range, lending itself to a more poetic scene-by-scene layout. You can see how this film was probably a real joy to edit. Every new page of the script is endowed with enough breathing room to really encompass locations and mood.

This is the kind of movie that needs to be seen relaxed and attentive. Though it is not an action film, the run time feels easy, and the conclusion is very satisfying.

It's a beautiful film that deserves all of the accolades it has and will receive.

SPLIT (1989)
Director: Chris Shaw





Once upon a time a mathematician made a low budget sci-fi comedy that went virtually unnoticed direct to video. The effects used were rendered frame by frame with live models, and were also representative of some of the very first use of CGI.







Though this did get some press at the time, it has since been forgotten and ushered out of public eye by weak distribution and a seemingly reclusive director Chris Shaw.

Picture George Orwell at a dinner party with Alex Cox. That is "Split".

There is a keen sense of awareness on display from Director Shaw much like that of Alex Cox's "Repo Man". Shaw's characters aren't stupid, and if they appear stupid, they are only pretending to be really stupid.







A man uses multiple disguises to harbor the secret god particle from the mad man government.

Our protagonist dodges dangerous operatives, spy plants and waitresses. His sugar addiction has him manic, but his panic runs much deeper. He is seen eluding art snobs, extremists and even veterinarians.

Scenes weave from exotic location to picturesque America.

Camera movements are particular and elaborate.
Transitions are acid trip inspired.
On screen personalities waver from anchored to completely fried within a minute at a time. Dialog is clever and concise, shrouded in an obnoxious tone.







The viewer has to look past the budgetary limitations and surrender to the complete weirdness. If one does this as they should, one will be rewarded with a thought provoking comedy.

This is a film not to miss for cerebral types with a healthy and twisted sense of humor.

"Fedoras", a 1930's prohibition era crime comedy isn't quite up to the task it's been called on to perform. While some of the performances are decent, and some of the lighter moments at least show promise, the whole experience just feels uneven and amateur.

At almost 30 minutes, this backyard production is missing one key ingredient that may have made the difference between Fedoras being a minor cult offering and a major chore to sit through: the editing.

It is not only guilty of being too schizophrenic tone wise, but it is also lazy. This should have never been released as it is. There are things that teeter on the brink of plausibility, only to be sideswiped by a completely ridiculous stroke of what I can only describe as mental retardation. This is inexcusable. The laziness is in the editing. As complex as it tries to be with cross cutting and time lapse parlor tricks, it simply cannot save the lack of direction and cohesive narrative.






Who are these people? Where are these people? Why are these people acting like these people? We get nothing. Rarely do we even get the courtesy of a master shot to reveal the surroundings, never do we get a transitional shot of any kind of exterior, and constantly do we get establishing close-ups with rushed pacing so that by the time we realize what is supposed to be happening, we're on to the next scene, underwhelmed and underfed.






There are some nice touches by some of the cast, most notably Jimmy Mancini in the role of Padraic, a wise assed Irish Sicilian upstart bent on standing tall against his many loan shark associates. Dan Liebman has a nice couple of scenes as well, playing a transitioning henchman to Padraic, ready to join another crime family. The problem with his peformance isn't him, again, it's back to the editing. During his rare master shots, we are shocked at how stiff his lines are, but when we get his close ups he is in the pocket, totally immersed in his character. Why do I strongly suspect that the editor used the outtake shots for his masters and then haphazardly inserted the close ups to try and bring the scene home? Clearly, this is what happened. Liebman is far too skilled to be deserving of such carelessness.

Then we have the music. As new age and dark as it may be, the soundtrack to Fedoras cannot decide whether it wants to put across a Giorgio Moroder, a Michael Mann or a John Carpenter styled score. If they had picked one style, it may have worked, but all these different tones are just confusing and make zero sense, especially against the scenes in which they run under. "Ladyhawke" comes to mind. Luckily, there was no studio that lost money on this decision. Fedoras was made with absolutely no budget, whatsoever.

There are some good things about this truncated and short lived series-made-film short that shine through. The performances, almost across the board, have a bit of weight behind them. There is real passion in a good portion of the acting. It is an interesting cast. It's just such a letdown that the editing doesn't give them a chance.






The biggest problem, aside from the editing, is the fact that the editor was also responsible for the music, the sound, about 75% of the camera work and even some of the re-writes. This was a big mistake. Not because a capable hand shouldn't have that much power over a piece of work, but rather because the project was never seen through. It becomes clear from the disjointed sequencing, the incorrect eye lines between dialog driven scenes and the uneven pace that the editor/composer/script doctor/boom operator/camera operator just had too much on their plate.

The real crime in this crime daydream is the troubled scenes were not re filmed, re-edited and re-released proper. The train just stopped and what we are left with is a mess of a movie. To me it doesn't matter what the reasons were. It doesn't matter that the producer may have abandoned the project, or that some of the actors moved away, or that some behind the scene romance wrecked working relationships. What matters to me is what I see, and what I see is a missed opportunity for something truly original, unique and filled with potential, had this film short become an ongoing series.






I'm giving Fedoras a solid 3 boxes of kernels for the effort, but nothing higher because of the laziness. The auteur responsible for this crap shoot should have gotten what they needed and not given up until it was in the can.

It's been a few years but I remember really liking Lone Star and disliking Maximum Overdrive.

Yeah well, I can see Maximum Overdrive being a film that turns people off. It is a joke of a movie. I was milking a rock because I have nostalgia for it. I do that quite a bit lol.

THE


Back in 1987 on T.V. at age 11 I kept seeing spots for "The Hidden". The ads would interview casual moviegoers as they exited the theater, and comments would range from "wild!" to "knock your socks off!".

I decided I had to see this film. I had never seen such conviction before.

When I finally was able to see it, it came as a rental from a convenience store (back when this was just starting to become a thing).

I had a strong case of butterflies, and made sure no one was around so I could give this picture my full attention.

What I saw was not at all what I expected. There was a very mellow mood about it. It had explosions, gunfire, gore, profanity, sexuality..everything an 11 year old would want in a movie they're not supposed to be watching. But it was different than what I thought it would be. It wasn't some shrouded sci-fi with other-worldly atmospherics as I had imagined it would be.

The Hidden was a light movie that I knew as soon as it finished, that I would have to see again and again. There were layers to it. It mixed comedy, suspense, science fiction and drama. It was like a tough cop picture with a style I latched on to immediately.

The beige Porsche 928, the gray fine tailored suits, the machined editing, strange colors of light laser beams that emitted a choral hum, glowing green matter around the title card, new wave punk music toted around by a gastro challenged middle aged grump. bad stripper with a gold jacket, bureaucratic daytime contrasted with Summer city night chases through a warehouse filled with mannequins. This movie was on fire with style and sophistication. And it was just a genre picture? If it was a B-movie, it was made like a Hollywood blockbuster that was closer to a Tony Scott or even a Martin Brest aesthetic than it was to a shoestring budget picture it got compared to.

Jack Sholder, the guy who did that Nightmare on Elm Street sequel directed this one. How did he do that? It was like a magic trick. Everything was tight and delivered with that after hour adult tone that I usually only saw when sneaking into the cellar to catch my Aunt and Uncle laughing it up to La Cage Aux Folles. But this wasn't a gay romp like Birds of a Feather or a Nightmare on Elm Street Part II were. This was a macho movie with a light touch. That's what made it interesting. A shoot em' up action thriller made with a boutique sensibility.

Bringing this all home is a music score by Michael Covertino who uses unconventional brass and percussive,stabbing sounds of music that taper back into a haunted refrain.

Like this...


To keep going with this review would only be tiresome at this point. Here are some shots I cap'd and found of the picture.

Love The Hidden, always have.

Be great if they put it out on blu ray and ported over the commentary with a few extra features like a new documentary.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Director's Cut)









Two things save this movie from mediocrity;

The return of Brad Fiedel's updated moody score, and James Cameron's devoted coverage of action scenes. The music keeps the same sense of despair and claustrophobic dread as the original, thus maintaining the Terminator trademark that adheres the importance of tone in the first act of the film, as well as intermittent sections of the length overall run time of this big 102$ million budget blockbuster extravaganza.

Director Cameron's coverage allows for a breathable edit pace, enabling a rhythmic and crowd pleasing sustenance that holds water throughout the run time. There is certainly plenty of room here to see what happens, with a perfectly timed cadence, where the final cut proceeds to stick to a dramatic beat that evades patchwork and projects a cocksure riff fest, filled with nuances that will titillate the discerning film buff.

Also saving T2 are some of the thematic elements in the script such as humanistic qualities within the Terminator's soul chip reset and militant bonding, with a brief example on display in the form of a hand slap pump between Hamilton and her supposed longtime Mexican desert refugee supply connection (refer to Aliens for a similar style of "we're in this together" mentality). Cameron keeps some strong emotional beats in T2 which definitely help the overall digestion, if not completely deter some of the more convenient plotting that render this sequel into a hard R rated Disney foray. ("God, it hurts" - refer to the A-Team. Nice programming, kid. "He'll live")

The visual effects in T2 are somewhat flawless, if you do not account for the hair pin improvements in visual rendering since. The sound design is deliberate, sectioning off transitions to blend with real dramatic flair, as well as feathered necessity.

The liquid metal villain does exactly what it was intended, and one may get a sense of the absolute tedium that the effect crew and Cameron must have gone through to ensure that every effect shot was not only adequate, but would transcend the passage of time to be equipped to stand up in an age far removed from the 20th century.

The inventiveness continues along at top speed as Cameron and his tech crew create ever changing scenarios in which we see the evil Terminator transpose in a chameleon-like way, reacting to taking on tones and shapes of safety rails and diamond plate staging. As unfounded as these technical revolutions may be, they are nonetheless fascinating in a visceral sense, and propel the viewer through the obligatory action-filler scenes with enough zeal to guarantee a ride that is not boring.

Terminator part II does not take itself too seriously with it's dialog and some of the elements of story, but when it is locked into its mechanized overtures, stand back. It is an amazing, technically sound film with nary a flaw save for maybe a sped up nitrogen tanker 18 wheeler and a dummy tumble shot in high speed. But who cares? Where details matter, T2 keeps the mucky tone of the original Terminator, and injection molds some fresh, new and fiscally beneficial energy into a franchise that could have afforded to end right here, at Terminator 2: Judgment Day. And as hammy and overblown as it may come off at times, it's a film better appreciated on a 2nd or 3rd viewing, as the first time may be too intense to soak everything in.

I tried, for my 4th time, to sit through this film. I could not do it. I can't and I won't. It's simply an awful film. The very few things that may work on a technical level are so quickly overshadowed by large, dopey contrivances, that the second you register what may have been OK, you realize sharply what this movie is about. What is this movie about?

A stupid and boring fun park, no John Ashton, they SHOT the captain from Detroit right after a motown musical number that belonged in an outtake credit roll for a completely different movie!


WHO CARES?!!?!?!!



I hate this movie with every fiber of my being. It's a sickly cash in on a once great film. Well, I mean, the first film is still great regardless, but seeing this movie will stain the memories. You have to never see this. Never ever.

FUNNY MAN
(1994)
Director: Simon Sprackling


Here's a movie I would have never, ever seen had it not been for me scouring ebay for a dvd copy of "Future-Kill", the 1984 punk/slasher turkey. "Funny Man" came as a package deal with the purchase, and the price was right, so I got them both.

I let this film sit on my shelf for about 3 months and then finally watched it last night.

Absolutely insane movie.
Basically, it's about a record producer who wins a hand at a card game and is given a mansion as his winning from an intense older gent played by Christopher Lee. Once the man arrives at his new home, him and his friends begin to experience real trouble with a demonic jester who wreaks havoc on everyone, but not without throwing in jokes and breaking the 4th wall continuously.

Director Sprackling totally acknowledges his humor is turned up to 11, and a lot of the time you sense he is laughing at his own jokes, but they aren't all that funny all of the time.






There are some really inspired scenes in Funny Man, and the gore is pretty disgusting and brutal. A dark and twisted tone hangs above the film until it unmasks itself in the last minute. I won't spoil anything, and I don't think this is a movie to rush out and see, but I will give it a passing mark for being highly original and having some really good atmosphere to it. Very creative film, for what it is. Those who like top shelf movies with strong acting and stories will need to look elsewhere as this is not something to consider, ever, for as long as you live.





The film is completely bonkers. I am actually very surprised that this isn't a bigger cult hit. It has all the ingredients that make "one of those movies", yet it is virtually invisible.

Funny Man is indeed full throttle and in your face, and it is a bit of a shame that nothing is really out there about it. Luckily, with a dvd purchase, you get tons of features, a big booklet insert which is a production diary, director commentary and some nice slipcover action to boot.

Worth it for the die hard b movie weirdo hounds.

This looks so awesome; my cup of tea. Thanks for the review! I'm now in pursuit...

EDIT:
I've been browsing the rest of the thread. We seem to have somewhat similar taste. I'm really looking forward to whatever else you're planning. Lone Star and Witchboard have been added to my watchlist.

I appreciate you sir. I remember the days of going off cover art in Blockbuster. It led to such tour de forces as Adrenalin Fear the Rush, The Dentist, and Rottweiler. Dose wuh da days.

@re93animator,

Thanks, man! I started your thread, as well a few days ago. I plan on going back. I agree we seem to have tastes on the same page. I appreciate ya right back!

BLUE THUNDER (1983)
Director: John Badham





Well...it's about a helicopter. A souped up military experiment chopper that can hear through walls with a telescopic microphone, a camera zoom range of thousands of feet, a thermograph that can see through walls, a database that acts as a personnel internet, and machine guns that can unload a thousand rounds per minute, not to mention back up 3/4" video capabilities tucked into the rear cab.

So, a salty cop with a track record for losing his ***** gets the job of taking her for a spin, this Blue Thunder, and along the way finds out his old war nemesis from Vietnam is helping spearhead the government operation that is still debugging the chopper. More intrigue and espionage (to use bigger words that reflect something much smaller scale) ensue and soon or a later, it's a showdown between one rogue cop and the city of Los Angeles police force.



I liked the writing for this film. It has little things thrown in to keep you interested in the characters. Daniel Stern is a rookie and often the butt of department jokes, but he eventually is allowed to stretch out a bit and show some personality, which makes us kind of care for his character. He's funny and sharp, but still kind of a dope, too.


Scheider rarely does bad work, and this is no exception. He carries the movie without a doubt. He has a very natural way of carrying on that is understated yet still manages to hit those power chords of macho riffing needed to keep a movie like this large and in charge.

Surprisingly, it's Malcolm McDowell who is the weakest link in Blue Thunder. He's not bad or anything. He plays his part as a snakey and annoying villian well enough, it's just that he feels cartoonish next to the rest of the cast, who all seem to have more invested in the picture, especially Candy Clark as Scheider's on-off again girlfriend and Warren Oates as the Lieutenant who keeps up Scheider's ass just enough to protect him because they have a history together.





The helicopter sequences are still exciting to this day, and even moreso because it's all REAL. There are no CGI backgrounds or maneuvers. If something needs an explosion, it gets one. There are some skyscraper city action shots that are some of the best I've seen, and the miniature work is phenomenal. Also a virtuoso display is the tight editing that keeps things moving and engaging. This film was shot with a great deal of care and it really shows, even to an untrained eye, you will pick up on the subtle yet effective aesthetic of Blue Thunder. It wants to be the color blue, and it picks its moments to be such. You'll see.






It's just a cool little movie with some expert care put into it.




Credit should also go to Don Jacoby writing most of the material and everyone's favorite nut job Dan O' Bannon who really is more an inspired character behind the pen than I have seen documented before. His sense of humor is ace. He knows his way around a script, as does Jacoby with his large contribution to the film as a whole. I believe O'Bannon's name was first but he contributed only outlines with Don Jacoby fleshing out many of the details and dialog.

John Badham used to make some damn fine movies back in the day, he really did.
Blue Thunder is among his best work.

The Mortenson Entrail (2003)
Director: Pat Benetar

I'm not sure I know why this film was made. Pat Benetar being an 80's icon of sorts seems to be trying to say something poetic but just ends up making a fool of her cast. Tom Hanks, a very thin John Goodman (177 lbs widely unreported at the time) and Ed Harris seem wasted. Sure, all of the performances are oscar worthy, it's just that the amount of time spent on long stretches of dialog that could have been summed up in a few seconds drags this picture down into Jarmusch territory, but not in a good way.

Why not in a good way?

Because this movie doesn't. Pat Benetar is crap. She can't direct. Tom Hanks isn't even acting anymore and John Goodman wasn't born back in 2003. As forSHUT UP.