Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in
Tools    





I liked Return to Paradise, but I agree that the romance part didn't work in the movie. It might have worked if it turned out that Heche was just playing Vaughn just to try to get him to save Phoenix, but it wasn't a real romance. But it just didn't work as a real romance.
To me, Return to Paradise is a movie with a great story, but it's components (acting, script) were crummy. I do like your idea of having Heche just playing Vaughn to help save Phoenix. That's much better than the romance subplot and would have been fitting of a sneaky lawyer



I'm not big on animation, but I've liked the Pixar films. Funny thing is I just watched Monsters, Inc. last night. It was nicely done, but I think my favorite Pixar is Wall-E.
Has Wall-E grown on you recently? I noticed you gave it a
when you reviewed it, which is lower than some of your other Pixar reviews.
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



Has Wall-E grown on you recently? I noticed you gave it a
when you reviewed it, which is lower than some of your other Pixar reviews.
It's funny you asked because just a few minutes ago I was thinking about the nature of reviewing films and pondered if my ratings should be based solely on personal experience, or based on if the film succeeded in doing what it set out to do.

With Wall-E there's a lot that I love, but unfortunately there was stuff I hated. I've only seen it once so maybe a rewatch would change my mind. I watched your nom last night and I guess that's what made me think about just what my rating should be based on?



It's funny you asked because just a few minutes ago I was thinking about the nature of reviewing films and pondered if my ratings should be based solely on personal experience, or based on if the film succeeded in doing what it set out to do.

With Wall-E there's a lot that I love, but unfortunately there was stuff I hated. I've only seen it once so maybe a rewatch would change my mind. I watched your nom last night and I guess that's what made me think about just what my rating should be based on?
Yeah, it's tough... I found it especially harder with the Pre-30s films. They're not technically as accessible and enjoyable as some of the films I don't really like much today. But many of them are masterpieces for what they're trying to do... very tough to rate.



Yeah, it's tough... I found it especially harder with the Pre-30s films. They're not technically as accessible and enjoyable as some of the films I don't really like much today. But many of them are masterpieces for what they're trying to do... very tough to rate.
I'll post my review/write-up of your nom in the 20th tonight...my reviews focus will be in how one critiques a movie on a personal level vs a more utilitarian approach.



I'll post my review/write-up of your nom in the 20th tonight...my reviews focus will be in how one critiques a movie on a personal level vs a more utilitarian approach.
Looking forward to it



I'll post my review/write-up of your nom in the 20th tonight...my reviews focus will be in how one critiques a movie on a personal level vs a more utilitarian approach.
Please include how reviews do not require a story summary: people who've seen the movie don't look at a review to be told what they just watched, they just want to read other opinions about it.

While people who've never seen the movie don't want to plot ruined for them - they're only reading a review to find out if the movie is worth investing time in or not. Either way, people don't want a book report telling them what happens in the movie (I wish reviewers on IMDB would realize this!)



I'll post my review/write-up of your nom in the 20th tonight...my reviews focus will be in how one critiques a movie on a personal level vs a more utilitarian approach.
Please include how reviews do not require a story summary: people who've seen the movie don't look at a review to be told what they just watched, they just want to read other opinions about it.

While people who've never seen the movie don't want to plot ruined for them - they're only reading a review to find out if the movie is worth investing time in or not. Either way, people don't want a book report telling them what happens in the movie (I wish reviewers on IMDB would realize this!)
Pet peeve of mine. I always skip over plot summaries in reviews.



Please include how reviews do not require a story summary: people who've seen the movie don't look at a review to be told what they just watched, they just want to read other opinions about it.

While people who've never seen the movie don't want to plot ruined for them - they're only reading a review to find out if the movie is worth investing time in or not. Either way, people don't want a book report telling them what happens in the movie (I wish reviewers on IMDB would realize this!)
Agreed

Pet peeve of mine. I always skip over plot summaries in reviews.
and agreed. I always skip over long summaries.



Aliens (1986)
Director: James Cameron
Writer: James Cameron
Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Carrie Henn
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

'Ellen Ripley is rescued by a deep salvage team after being in hypersleep for 57 years. The moon that the Nostromo visited has been colonized, but contact is lost. This time, colonial marines have impressive firepower, but will that be enough?'

Aliens
, a satisfying watch with a little something for everyone. I'd only seen this once many years ago. I mostly didn't remember it, mostly.


+

LOL!




Blazing Saddles (Mel Brooks, 1974)

I was not offended by anything in the movie. I repeat, I was not offended...And no I don't think this movie is being racist. In fact it's poking fun at the uptight white people who freaked out when a black sheriff came to town, and that was a funny premise for a movie.

So why didn't I like it? I find one liners and sight gags to be a bore. I found nothing funny about Mel Brooks' character, the governor. Though I did find plenty stupid about his on screen time. Sorry, but crossing your eyes for a joke, last worked on me in grade school. Same with the GOV on the back of his coat, if that was suppose to be funny I didn't laugh, not at all. And there was a lot I didn't laugh at in this comedy, I mean 5 minutes of fart jokes isn't funny to me.

I did like Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder's scenes together. Those scenes, especially the first one in the jail were funny because both men have natural comic talent and didn't rely on cheap gags to get a laugh.

Blazing Saddles reminds me of one of the most beloved comedies of the 1980s...Airplane!. BTW, I hated Airplane!, same style of broad comedy that just doesn't work for me. If you like broad vauldeville style comedy than this movie might be right for you, it wasn't for me.






Charade (Stanley Donen, 1963)

Director/Producer Stanley Donen...now that's a name cinema fans should know. Before he became a director, Donen was an accomplished choreographer working on top level musicals for over 10 years. That impeccable sense of rhythm and timing is a trait of great choreographers, and it translates into one very skilled director.

Stanley Donen's Charade is near perfection. The film flows from act to act and scene to scene. Part of the perfection is the brilliant casting, topped off by one of the most charming actresses to grace the silver screen, Audrey Hepburn. One never gets a sense that she's acting as she's so natural and down to earth, that she seems like someone we might know in real life. There's an old saying about actors that's still true today, 'dying is easy, comedy is hard!' It takes a special talent to make comedy and romance come through the screen in a believable way. Audrey does that with so much ease that one forgets they're watching a movie.

Cary Grant had that easiness about him too. He's funny because he doesn't even try. It's his straight face delivery of funny lines that makes this and many of his other films classics. The few times he strays from that, tried and true straight comedy delivery, it doesn't work. The shower scene where he decides to take a shower in his suit, as he hams it up...is the only scene that didn't work for me.

For the rest of the cast, all I can say is what a good bunch of baddies! Is there anybody more brutish than George Kennedy or James Coburn, and along with the little guy in the glasses they make for a good counter balance to the effervescence of Audrey.

Charade came out of a unique time period at the height of the cold war and the Cuban Missile Crisis was in full swing during production. This cold war tension then launched a spree of spy thriller movies. Charade is one of the best of the bunch for it's effortless balancing of thriller-romance-drama-comedy elements all with wit and charm.

+




Divorce American Style (Bud Yorkin, 1967)

For starters I didn't find anything even remotely funny. The first 20 minutes of screaming between Dick Van Dyke and his neurotic flake of a wife Debbie Reynolds, was grating on my nerves! And remarkably all that screaming didn't tell me a damn thing about the problems in their marriage. Nor did it give me any insight into the then current trend of divorce. That's poor writing, as all we get is filler dialogue and all of it shouted too. I guess the surly house keeper with the cig butt hanging out of her mouth was suppose to be comic effect. Well how about making her an integral part of the household where she's the only one who can see the truth. Or even just do something interesting with her.

After the screaming of the first act, did the film finally find it's footing? Nope, it continues on with scenes that take forever to get to the punchline. Prime example is the tedious kids-in-the-park scene with Tom Bosley. Within in the first 15 seconds I got the joke...the kids all belong to different past marriages and everyone is divorced or remarried again and again and again! The scene must have went on for 5 minutes until we get the one forgotten kid left standing alone in the park. Oh boy, that was a long ways for a little joke.


And what the heck was the tacked on hypnosis lounge act scene about? And could that scene be milked any more or be any more inane? Talk about lazy writing. You know a movie is bad when Lee Grant is the best thing in it






Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)

Such a prestigious film deserves a huge photo!..I love that war room set! And Kubrick shot it from so many different angles that it was hard deciding which photo I wanted to use. I almost just went with a photo of Tracy Reed, I mean who doesn't love a photo of a pretty girl in a bikini Though it's funny that she's in General 'Bucks' (George C. Scott) bedroom at 3am and is laying in bed wearing high heels and a bikini. I guess General Buck likes em that way But what exactly was he doing in the bathroom when Brig.General Ripper calls? I guess we'll never know and that's what makes the movie so cleverly funny, it's all of these hidden comic situations that are so subtle that you have to think about them to get them. Like the scene where Keenan Wynn finds General Ripper shot dead in the bathroom...while shaving. While shaving? Ha, Did that have something to do with conserving precious bodily fluids?

Kubrick is undeniably one of the great directors. Most all of his movies show spectacular-ism, coupled with restraint...which then results in a beautiful crafted film that never force feeds emotions onto us. I could go on and on about the sets and filming techniques that Kubrick employs, the word 'superb' is hardly adequate for the level that Kubrick takes his films to.

Kudos to the army base battle scene. I'm talking about the choice of a hand held (16mm?) camera that's used at near ground level to simulate actual war footage. The results is a noticeably grainy stock that looks like early Vietnam war documentary film. For Kubrick to do that back in 1964 was pure genius.

And kudos to the interior of the B-52 bombers. Hot damn, those cockpits and bomb controls looked real to me. Of course most of us have never seen the inside of a B-52 but I can image they'd look a lot like what we seen on the screen. The entire film is amazing in the visuals.

And a huge shout out to some very fine performances. Everyone seems to single out Sterling Harden as the war and fluid obsessed Brig Gen Ripper...and he owned that role too! But my favorite was Peter Sellers as the President and as Capt. Mandrake.

The other stand out for me (and every actor was good in this) is George C. Scott. Loved how the film started off with this crusty General who's more interested in his secretary than an important call from a superior officer, ha!

Oh, damn forgot to say how much I loved the opening title sequences with the B-52 refueling in air and that font, how cool was that!

And the end sequence with all the atomic blast, while that haunting song played, gosh that was so melancholy and such a good choice for the end of the world.



I could write a few thousand words on this movie But I'll wrap it up, I promise!.....Freakin amazing film This was my second watch. The first time was many years ago and I liked it then. This time around my opinion has climbed even higher. Who knows how high it could go with a third watch.
+








Hobson's Choice (David Lean, 1954)

I've always enjoyed British films with Charles Laughton zestfully playing colorful characters, set in the 19th century, England. I loved the way Hobson's Choice created this unique microcosm world and made it so believable. We don't see much of the countryside around Salford Lancashire. But what we do see gives the movie a feeling of wet cobblestone and dimly let shops, where people work long and hard for a living. Around the bend, so to speak, is the industrial center of the city boarded by the river Irwell.

Damn...that's a real river too and it's so heavily polluted that in the background you can see foam spray rising from the currents, like a dirty bubble bath. Behind the river are smoke stacks and heavy industry that pour their pollutants into the dead river. Wow, what a place for a pair of lovers to stroll too. Yes, the dirty river isn't what the film is about but the choice of shooting scenes through the entire movie set the emotions and feel of the film.

Laughton once again is literally larger than life and the film is made more special because of his presences. Only Laughton could be so overbearing in a film and yet still invoke the needed sympathy.

The drunken moon chaser scene is a gem. Probably that credit should go mostly to David Lean, though it's Laughton stomping in the puddles in the most humorous way imaginable.

My favorite though was Brenda de Banzie as Maggie the oldest daughter. She's a spinster at 30, according to the times. Her father doesn't want her to marry, so he can keep her as a built in shop keep, maid and cook. At first Maggie seems just stern. Then we see she's driven. Then we discover her cleverness as she marries the shop's boot maker played wonderful by John Mills. It's this marriage that allows the actress to show another unexpected emotion, pride and love for her new husband. It's that support and belief that rises the boot maker from a babbling nobody to a self made man with respect for himself.

John Mills, Brenda de Banzie and Charles Laughton make the story special. David Lean too. Wonderful movie.

+




Murder by Death (Robert Moore, 1976)

With a star studded cast, a script by Neil Simon and a creepy old mansion filled with spoofs of literary's greatest detectives, 1976's Murder by Death should have scored a knock out comic punch.

Instead the jokes are as stiff as a dead butler, the premise as thin as the hair on James Coco's head, and the sets are spartan. But what really killed the film for me were the low hanging fruit jokes. Those broad comedy, one liners, were delivered by actors who seemed to be sleep walking their lines. As a result, comic timing and delivery nuance, which is everything, was missing. Very few of the jokes were funny to me and some of the ethnic slander jokes were hard for me to watch.

The plot is paper thin, the detectives arrive at the mansion and are seated at the dining room table...then one of them will leave the room and later return to find that it's mysteriously empty. Then in the next scene all guest are back in the dining room. And that's, the big mystery of the movie.

We later learn that the house has a 'sliding dining room' that can be electronically moved around the house. In other words there wasn't enough money to build additional rooms for extra scenes. The simple plot reminded me of Scooby Doo. I half expected Truman Capote to say at the end, "I would've gotten away with my plan too if it hadn't been for you meddling kids, err...I mean detectives."

Yes, it was nice to see so many stars, though most were mediocre in their roles which surprised me. Elsa Lanchester is usually the highlight of any movie, but here she was wasted. David Niven and Maggie Smith's characters were the only ones I really liked. Peter Falk's take on Sam Spade was downright creepy.

I'm really surprised to learn that this wasn't a made for TV movie. One good thing about watching this, I now have a desire to rewatch William Castle's House on Haunted Hill.





Pillow Talk (Michael Gordon, 1959)

Loved the opening title credits with the two people in bed throwing pillows at each other, across a third panel. So clever and fun! The whole movie was very innovative with it's use of split screen and tri panel screens, which shows us the action that's going on in different apartments. The funnest split screen panel is the naughty (for the 1950s) bathtub scene, where Doris and Rock each take a bath while playing footsies with each other, ha! Of course the script itself is laced with sexual innuendos that to a 1950s audience must have seemed quite daring.

Perhaps what stands out the most in Pillow Talk is that it marks Doris Day's transition from a young virginal 'goody-two-shoes' to a more mature sexual woman, who's willing to spend the weekend alone in a secluded house with a man she's just met. For 1950s that was bold. Of course today we get movies like Silver Linings Playbook where a woman just says to the guy of her fancy, 'you want to go inside and f***?' I say give me Doris Day any day...the lady had class!

Rock Hudson is good here too, this is one of his better roles. Rock made a number of movies with Doris and they both seem to get along quite well and that chemistry shows on screen. His character is well defined and the entire romance story is elevated over the usual silly rom-coms, to a sophisticated adult romance drama with just the right touch of comedy to bring a smile now and then.

From the opening song Pillow Talk, zestfully sung by Doris Day....to the last scene of a confused doctor that believes it's possible for Rock Hudson to have a baby...we get one fun, colorful and refreshingly adult story.

+
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	MV5BM2RjZjhjYTctOGIxMi00NTA0LWEzZTAtNzUyODcyMGY2NjFiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI3MDk3MzQ@._V1_.jpg
Views:	149
Size:	330.4 KB
ID:	58080  




A Shot in the Dark (Blake Edwards, 1964)

"I love this Comedy HoF! There's so many fun films to watch that each movie night I actually look forward to seeing the next nomination." CR
Another fun flick with laughs a plenty, a tally of talent and a bodacious babe...what more could you asked for? Well, maybe just a bit more of Miss Sommer's, say like in the nudist scene

Inspector Cousteau is dumb as door knob and I thought I might not like the movie. But what works for me is that Peter Seller's plays it like he's the world's greatest detective! He's self assured and even a bit cocky. When he falls into the water or pokes his hand through the door glass, he doesn't act like a dummy, he plays it cool, way cool.

I loved the scene where he walks into the wall and tells George Sanders it's the architectures fault for placing the door in the wrong place, ha! That confidence, despite his ineptness, makes him funny. I'm so glad he didn't play Inspector Cousteau like Jerry Lewis would of I can't stand watching those old Jerry Lewis movies.

So to sum up: fun movie, I did laugh...Elke's pretty and Peter Sellers is a huge talent.