Track the Films You Watch (2005)

“Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

035) 02-07-05 The Petrified Forest (1936) ****
036) 02-08-05 The Maltese Falcon (1941) **1/2
037) 02-08-05 High Sierra (1941) ***”


Joe, given your recent (practically unanimous) “positive” appraisal of several renowned classics you’ve watched for the first time, I was wondering when (if ever) you were going to happen upon one you’ve found “overrated"; in case you’re wondering AMADEUS (1984) is too recent and DARK PASSAGE (1947) was never that highly regarded to qualify as an “all-time classic”…

Anyhow, I’m really surprised that you loved THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936) so much. I’d have thought that you’d find it - to borrow film critic Leslie Halliwell’s exact words - “(a) rather faded melodrama…the settings (are) artificial, the acting theatrical, the development predictable and the dialogue pretentious.” Basically, I find myself agreeing with his view although he does go on to deservedly single out the contributions of Leslie Howard and Humphrey Bogart as being of “a particularly high standard”. Not having watched it for quite some time, I can’t really say whether I’d rate it *** or higher but I certainly wouldn’t give it a ****; perhaps, that’s just me, though. Still, as I said earlier, I’m pleasantly surprised that you liked it so much…

However, I can’t say the same about your opinion on THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). For some reason, I was almost certain that you’d already watched this film so its title didn’t even cross my mind as a possibility of being one of the mysterious Bogarts you’d rented! Which is probably all the more reason why your lowly rating of it left me decidedly dumbfounded.

Ever since watching it for the first time on local TV in mid-1985 - as part of a six film Bogart season which also introduced me to THE PETRIFIED FOREST, SAN QUENTIN (1937), ACROSS THE PACIFIC (1942), CASABLANCA (1942) and KEY LARGO (1948) – I’ve thought of it as one of my favorites…and not just because of the title, either. It was only after successive viewings of CASABLANCA and (particularly) THE BIG SLEEP (1946) that it gradually surrendered its long-held place at the apex of the Bogart pantheon. It’s still a film I’m very fond of, mind you, and as a matter of fact I’ve watched it (at the very least) four times over the years, the latest in 2001 via Warners’ DVD which - although I hate double-dipping - I really hope they revisit sometime in the future as one of their awesome 2-Disc Sets in which they could include either of 2 earlier film versions (neither of which I’ve watched) of the Dashiell Hammet novel: the similarly titled Roy Del Ruth/Ricardo Cortez/Bebe Daniels 1931 version and its maligned 1936 William Dieterle/Warren William/Bette Davis remake, SATAN MET A LADY! It should be noted that the former enjoys quite a good reputation which is not all that surprising given that it also features Dwight Frye (in the part later essayed by Elisha Cook Jr.), Walter Long (Jerome Cowan), Thelma Todd (Gladys George) and Una Merkel (Lee Patrick) in its cast.

Anyway, as regards the film’s “highly convoluted, full of holes and nearly impossible to follow” plot: maybe it’s because I’ve watched it many times but I don’t remember it being all that “headache-inducing” – much less so than THE BIG SLEEP that’s for sure! I won’t even attempt to sort it out for you but, as I had suggested to you when you “reviewed” the latter on another Forum, personally I would have skipped a review at this point in time until I got a chance to give the film another shot when I would have been in a more receptive mood. Before you get all hot under the collar, let me explain: I’m not saying that you should have tried your damnedest to like it more but, rather than writing an “uncomfortable” review based on your first impressions, I’d have given it another shot especially being fully aware of its pretty unassailable reputation and your growing love for all things Bogart. I don’t know if you recall but I made the same mistake when I reviewed Jess Franco’s EUGENIE DE SADE (1970) - I knew going in that it was among the best-regarded of his films; however, I was also aware that when I watched it I wasn’t in the right mood for that kind of film so I labeled my review from the outset as being based on a “first impression”. When I revisited the film a year later (as part of a mini-marathon to celebrate his 74th birthday!), my view had changed completely and I now found it to be one of the Spaniard’s very best works! Now, I’m not saying this to imply that EUGENIE DE SADE is in the same class as THE MALTESE FALCON, obviously; I merely wished to point out that the circumstances under which one watches a film do affect his opinion of it eventually. It’s no use putting on something like THE MALTESE FALCON, THE BIG SLEEP or any self-respecting detective flick for that matter when one is tired, or worse, feeling sleepy. There’s always the chance that you could have been fully awake and not have cared for THE MALTESE FALCON anyway but, knowing your feelings towards other films of its genre and period, it’s highly unlikely!

I see that your misgivings about THE MALTESE FALCON didn’t prevent you from trying out another Humphrey Bogart flick that very same day. HIGH SIERRA (1941) is, like THE PETRIFIED FOREST, a milestone in Bogie’s career paving the way as it did for the most successful period in his career as Warners’ biggest star. While Bogie’s performance, the cast’s solid support and Raoul Walsh’s expert handling are all top-notch, I always found the film’s storyline rather contrived and sentimental: would a really hardened criminal actually allow himself to fall for a crippled ingénue? Likewise, would he truly stick his neck out for his pet dog or even have one in the first place? Don’t get me wrong… these very factors do make the “Mad Dog” Roy Earle character human rather than a one-dimensional stereotype and the climactic mountainside confrontation is a memorable one, but still… At any rate, I’ll still be buying the DVD someday although, as with TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT (1944), I think Warners dropped the ball on this one by not including its fine Western remake (also directed by Walsh and co-starring Henry Hull!), COLORADO TERRITORY (1949) with Joel McCrea, Virginia Mayo and Dorothy Malone, or even the later color remake, I DIED A THOUSAND TIMES (1955; which I’ve yet to watch) with Jack Palance, both of which are Warner Bros. properties! Why do they keep doing this?

You kind of lost me there, Mario. I'm afraid I'll need you to be more specific.


As you can see by my notes, I don't!


I was in a very receptive mood during my viewing of THE MALTESE FALCON, and I still found it hard to follow. Interestingly, my 69-year-old Father-In-Law is a big movie buff, and he loves all the old classics. I recall him mentioning a while back that even he found FALCON to be confusing, and I kept this in the back of my mind for the day I got around to it myself. The next time I see him I'm going to have to tell him I wholeheartedly agree with him on this one


I don't feel it's necessary for me to re-watch it - at least not at this point. I thought Bogart was red hot in FALCON, and he gave one of his greatest perormances as Sam Spade. But the film was full of plot holes and I needed an interpreter to keep up with it. It wasn't as confusing as THE BIG SLEEP (from what I can recall of that one) but I'll tell you this ... I had THE BIG SLEEP scheduled atop my next three films wanted from NETFLIX; but after seeing FALCON it reminded me what I disliked about SLEEP -- and now I've got BIG SLEEP on a back burner way down at the bottom of my interest list.


This has happened to me and can undoubtedly happen with the timing of a film, but it didn't happen for me with THE MALTESE FALCON; I was more than in the proper state of mind and mood for it. "Mistake"? -- I was in a perfect mood for the film. I'm sorry, but like I used to tell you at our other forum -- sometimes I am just not going to enjoy what's generally considered a "classic, great film" and that's all there is to it.

I still maintain that I think too often people do indeed "make" themselves enjoy a great film with a classic reputation. They'll watch it and watch it and watch it until -- if it doesn't get a full-scale **** from them, at least they can manage a respectable *** and somehow feel validated and they think they can "save face" by saying that at least they thought it was "good"! But I don't do that, as you know by now! I'm a law unto myself.


I'll grant you that -- but where did I give you any impression that I was "in the improper set of circumstances" when I watched THE MALTESE FALCON? Just because I didn't see this AFI Top 100 film as being worthy of inclusion on that list?


Mario, you know I love these talks with you - but I really hope we're not going to go through this each and every time I don't praise a film that's generally praised by the majority! I'm sorry to put a dent in your theory, but I was off from work yesterday when I watched FALCON, and I watched it at 10:00 in the morning, very much alert and awake.


Of course not. And I did prefer HIGH SIERRA.

I somewhat agree with Joe that TMF is confussing and really doesn't make too much sense at certain points however, it's not nearly as confussing as THE BIG SLEEP. However, I've learned to pretty much turn my brain off and just sit back to enjoy the films. TMF was never one of my favorites on my first viewing but it keeps getting better and better for me now. I'd rank it fifth on my Bogart list behind TREASURE, KEY LARGO, CASABLANCA, THE CAINE MUTINY and ANGELS.

I recorded the two "original" versions of FALCON off of TCM and plan to watch all three together at some point. However, I'm working 12 hour days again so it might be quite some time.



I did leave a few of these out. DORIANA ***, NIGHTMARES ** 1/2, BLUE RITA **, SEXY SISTERS **. I was really disappointed with the last two titles that I've yet to buy VOODOO or LOVE CAMP. However, I'm in another Franco craze so I'll probably order them early next week along with the GOLDEN AMAZON disc whenever Tony gets them in stock. I'm waiting for the Image disc of EROTIC RITES so that will have to wait until August.

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“You kind of lost me there, Mario. I'm afraid I'll need you to be more specific.”

It’s very simple, Joe: since the beginning of the year, by accident or by design, you’ve managed to catch up with 13 “classic” films which had eluded you so far - MASH (1970), AMADEUS (1984), CHARLEY VARRICK (1973), THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931), WHITE HEAT (1949), LITTLE CAESAR (1930), KEY LARGO (1948), TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT (1944), TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962), DARK PASSAGE (1947), THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936), THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) and HIGH SIERRA (1941). Out of all these, only three did not meet your expectations: AMADEUS, DARK PASSAGE and THE MALTESE FALCON. I was further narrowing that list down to just FALCON since, in my opinion, (a) AMADEUS is too recent a film to be considered a bona-fide classic and (b) DARK PASSAGE never enjoyed such a high reputation anyway. In this way I merely wanted to imply that your track record for such films (compared to the past where it was generally more hit-or-miss) was improving. Clear enough now?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“I was in a very receptive mood during my viewing of THE MALTESE FALCON, and I still found it hard to follow. Interestingly, my 69-year-old Father-In-Law is a big movie buff, and he loves all the old classics. I recall him mentioning a while back that even he found FALCON to be confusing, and I kept this in the back of my mind for the day I got around to it myself. The next time I see him I'm going to have to tell him I wholeheartedly agree with him on this one ”

I bet the the wife will be ecstatic to see her husband and her father agreeing on something for once!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“I don't feel it's necessary for me to re-watch it - at least not at this point. I thought Bogart was red hot in FALCON, and he gave one of his greatest perormances as Sam Spade. But the film was full of plot holes and I needed an interpreter to keep up with it. It wasn't as confusing as THE BIG SLEEP (from what I can recall of that one) but I'll tell you this ... I had THE BIG SLEEP scheduled atop my next three films wanted from NETFLIX; but after seeing FALCON it reminded me what I disliked about SLEEP -- and now I've got BIG SLEEP on a back burner way down at the bottom of my interest list.”

That’s exactly what I feared would be the result – THE BIG SLEEP (1946) paying the price for FALCON’s “flaws”! Oh, well…you’ll get to it when you’ll get to it. However, it does strike me as rather odd that, despite having “one of Bogart’s greatest performances…sensational dialogue…smart casting…(and) dark and brooding noir photography”, the film still did not make the grade because of its “incomprehensible” plot. Frankly, I have yet to see one film noir/detective thriller in which all “their loose ends (truly) become tied up by the time the end credits begin to roll”. I can think of countless examples (especially those of a more recent vintage) where a new revelation or plot-twist nullified a conclusion one had arrived at earlier on. I guess it’s a necessary evil that comes with the territory…but, to me, it doesn’t necessarily detract from my admiration for (or the enyojment level of) THE THIN MAN (1934), DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944), LAURA (1944), MINISTRY OF FEAR (1944), MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (1945), THE BIG SLEEP (1946), GILDA (1946), THE KILLERS (1946), CROSSFIRE (1947), OUT OF THE PAST (1947), KISS ME DEADLY (1955), TOUCH OF EVIL (1958), ALPHAVILLE (1965) and FAREWELL, MY LOVELY (1975) to mention a few notable examples of the genre.

By the way, allow me to share with you a sound piece of advice one Joe L. gave me on 09/14/2003 on another online Forum when we were discussing the (in my opinion) gaping plot holes in THE BLACK CAT (1934; a **** masterpiece in his view, no less!) and THE RAVEN (1935; his prime candidate for the title of “the most underrated 30s horror film”): “Lastly, don't go crazy analyzing the ‘why this?’ and ‘why not that?’ imperfections. Enjoy the movies.” I wonder what happened to that fellow these days…?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“This has happened to me and can undoubtedly happen with the timing of a film, but it didn't happen for me with THE MALTESE FALCON; I was more than in the proper state of mind and mood for it. "Mistake"? -- I was in a perfect mood for the film. I'm sorry, but like I used to tell you at our other forum -- sometimes I am just not going to enjoy what's generally considered a "classic, great film" and that's all there is to it.

I still maintain that I think too often people do indeed "make" themselves enjoy a great film with a classic reputation. They'll watch it and watch it and watch it until -- if it doesn't get a full-scale **** from them, at least they can manage a respectable *** and somehow feel validated and they think they can "save face" by saying that at least they thought it was "good"! But I don't do that, as you know by now! I'm a law unto myself.”

Frankly, I don’t ever see you doing that and, believe it or not, I respect you for it. It does take a certain amount of guts to declaim (to mention a recent example) AMADEUS a * dog in an online Forum perused daily by thousands of film fans. I’m repeating myself here I know but I’d like to quote a passage from a post I wrote earlier this year when we were discussing “distinctive directors”:

“Personally, I may care little for the work of film-makers as diverse as Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Peter Greenaway, Alejandro Jodorowsky, David Lynch, Gaspar Noe, Yasujiro Ozu, Sergei Paradjanov, Eric Rohmer, Alexander Sokurov, Jacques Tati, Lars von Trier and Andy Warhol but I can’t really blame those who think not only highly of them but of them as being world-class artists.”

Honestly, I don’t ever recall "making myself enjoy a great film with a classic reputation”. Quite the contrary, in fact: while I find, say, GOODFELLAS (1990) and PULP FICTION (1994) to be good and often brilliant films, I rarely revisited them over the years because the unpleasantness of one and the self-indulgence of the other (not to mention Bruce Willis) put me off. There are other examples, I’m sure, but those are the only two I could think of (apart from all those directors mentioned above) on the spur of the moment.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“I'll grant you that -- but where did I give you any impression that I was "in the improper set of circumstances" when I watched THE MALTESE FALCON? Just because I didn't see this AFI Top 100 film as being worthy of inclusion on that list?”

Should I be faulted now for giving you the benefit of the doubt?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Mario, you know I love these talks with you - but I really hope we're not going to go through this each and every time I don't praise a film that's generally praised by the majority! I'm sorry to put a dent in your theory, but I was off from work yesterday when I watched FALCON, and I watched it at 10:00 in the morning, very much alert and awake. ”

Good heavens…that sure dented my theory all right! You needn’t worry too much about a repeat performance of this debate: I know full well that that prospect won’t be holding you back from airing your views in the future however “controversial” they might be.

By the way, I don’t expect this question to get a reply, but what’s up next on your Netflix queue?

We've discussed this about me MANY times over the years and I know very well that you think I'm "kind" to certain films so that I won't look bad. We've discussed other people that you've felt done this and I think you have a good debate....up to a point. If someone is watching 50-100 movies a year then there's a very good chance that they might say they like something better than they do so that no one thinks them less of a fan. I remember hating to discuss films at school because I would talk to a guy who would agree that a film was horrid and then we'd get in a large group and ALL of them loved the movie. Suddenly, to fit in, that same guy would say he loved it so that no one would question him or feel less of him.

As we've discussed on the phone countless times, I think certain films need repeat viewings in order to get the full impact that they offer. I've seen THE SHINING 15+ times and with each viewing I always notice something I hadn't seen before. I never understood AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMEN because I didn't know what a period was at a young age but as an adult, I then understood this adult talk so I understood the film better. The more films you watch the more you will learn. Knowledge is a very important thing and you gain this by watching more films. I'm interested in having more knowledge so that's why I try to watch new things more than repeat viewings all the time.

I'm certainly not gaining popularity with my girlfriend by watching films from 1895 but it is making me understand later filmmaking tech. We watched these films together tonight and she said what was the point. I told her I'm interested in film and especially interested in seeing how these guys influenced the likes of D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille who in return would go on to influence many others. Seeing how these guys formed filmmaking is interesting to me. I've told you there were several classics that I didn't enjoy the first time around and some of them took multiple viewings to fully enjoy. Did I keep watching them so I could be "cool" and give them four stars? Of course not. If I didn't find enough to like in them then I wouldn't have watched them a second time. If a film is going to get a repeat viewing then it must have something I'm interested in. TAXI DRIVER is a film I never cared for because I always missed the point of the film. One day I read Ebert's review and that "point" was then clear and I've loved it ever since.

If I had to vote for the greatest film ever made then I'd go with ON THE WATERFRONT. The first time I viewed this film I gave it four stars but it wasn't even in my Brando top 5 let alone a film I'd call the greatest ever made. The second viewing had it jump into my Top 100. The next viewing jumped it to my Top 50. Then Top 25 and then Top 10. The film sat at #3 before RAGING BULL and BRIDE OF FRANK until last year when I finally put it at the #1 slot. As with many other classics, the films gets better with each passing view.

You didn't enjoy KILL BILL VOL. 2 much the first time and now I believe it's your favorite movie. Did you opinion really change or were you trying to fit in? You called me after your viewing of M this year and we had a two hour chat about the problem's you had with the film. You then watched the movie again and loved it, giving it a four star rating. I believe the same was true with ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES. I know you're very honest and your opinion changed on these. You didn't change the ratings to just fit in. I think this changing opinions will happen more and more over time.

However, like we've also discussed, you could lose some respect for other favorites because your knowledge is growing deeper. I grew up watching slashers and thought FRIDAY THE 13TH was the greatest film ever made yet, as my knowledge of film grew, my opinion of these slashers got very low. That doesn't mean I don't still enjoy them but I certainly look at them in a different way. You know I love Ed Wood and love his films but I'd certainly never say he should be considered the Orson Welles of his day.


02/05/05

Death Hunt (1981)

Wonderful adventure film about a trapper (Charles Bronson) who kills a man in self defense but a local officer (Lee Marvin) gathers a posse and heads off into the Canadian wilderness in the dead of winter to get him. This is an action packed film with some graphic violence but the real key is the two tough guy stars. Bronson and Marvin do a wonderful job playing against one another in their few scenes together but that toughness of theirs carries the film all the way. The beautiful locations also help matters. The ending is the perfect way to close this tale.

Foxy Brown (1974)

Enjoyable, over the top blaxploitation classic about Foxy Brown (Pam Grier), a woman who seeks revenge on the evil white people who killed her fiancé. This is an incredibly silly, racist and over the top film but I really enjoyed it. The performances are beyond bad but Grier still has a style that’s able to carry the film and her nude scenes aren’t too bad. The violence is so crazy that you can’t help but laugh. The stereotypes also get major laughs especially one politically incorrect scene where Foxy enters a lesbian bar and fights some “manly” women.

02/06/05

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Incredibly bad “versus” film that has a poor story and some very bad director, all by Paul W.S. Anderson. A group of researchers travel to Antarctica in hopes of finding a pyramid but instead they get caught in the middle of a war. Versus films have always been something I’ve enjoyed but this sucker here is just plain bad. There’s absolutely no energy to the film and worse of all is that the director forgot to make the thing fun. Also, for some reason, the Predator seemed too cute compared to the previous two films.

Fat Girl (2001)

12-year-old Anais (Anais Reboux) and her 15-year-old sister Elena (Roxane Mesquida) are on summer vacation when the two discover sex and start to explore their virginity. Things take a change for reality when the older sister meets a boy who claims to love her. This is an incredible little film and there’s no wonderful it caused so much controversy here in the States. I think it’s a damn shame that American films no longer contain any guts and when a film with a true message comes along it usually stirs up trouble. This is an incredibly moving, heartbreaking and shocking look at two young girls and how they view their virginity. The ending was outrageously shocking but the message was right there. It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen a film that left such an impact. I’m sure most will be turned off by the subject matter and the films blunt truthfulness towards that subject but this is a real gem.

02/07/05

Rhythemitis (1936) C+

Somewhat charming musical spoof has a doctor creating a pill that causes people to get “rhythemitis”. There’s a few good songs and a few laughs but the short goes on way too long in the end.

The Coo Coo Nut Grove (1936) A

Very fun short takes place in a bar where we see all sorts of spoofs from Hollywood stars. The best joke is the one aimed at Laurel and Hardy but others like the Marx Bros. and Clark Gable are nice as well.

02/08/05

Pluto’s Quin-puplets (1937) B+

Pluto’s the proud father of five puppies but when he’s left alone to watch them all hell breaks loose. This is a pretty funny short that has the puppies fighting an air compressor, which is spitting out paint at them. Pluto accidentally gets drunk and that’s another highlight.

02/09/05

The Movies Begin Disc 2: Louis and Auguste Lumiere

Leaving the Factory (1895)
Baby’s Meal, The (1895)
Demolition of a Wall (1895)
Demolition of a Wall (1895) Backwards version
Sprinkler Sprinkled, The (1895)
Arrival of Congress (1895)
Arrival of a Train (1895)
Card Party (1895)
Leaving Jerusalem by Railway (1896)
Snowball Fight (1896)
Fire Run, A (1896)
Niagara Falls (1897)
Spanish Bullfight (1900)

These films are from Louis and Auguste Lumiere and are all equally impressive, especially when you compare these to the films being made in America. These here tell that the director’s had a very keen eye for detail. The American shorts often just featured one performer in the center of the screen doing something but these shorts are full of detail and every inch of the frame is always in use. The Baby’s Meal is a good example due to the lavish “set” of the table. The Sprinkler Sprinkled is a good early comedy, which features some slapstick. A Fire Run is very fun to watch because you get to see what firemen wore and drove to fires. It’s not wonder most buildings always burned down before they got there. The most interesting short is Demolition of a Wall, which was projected normally and then the director’s wanted it shown in a backwards motion so that we could see a special effect. The wall falls down in the normal version and then the “backwards version” creates the effect of the wall going back to where it started.

Huh, what do you know, George Kaplan and I both happened to watch Black Hawk Down today. Thumbs down from him, thumbs up from me.

Regarding the Bogart films: as much as I love High Sierra it's not as good as either The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep, and all three of those films are far better than The Petrified Forest. I'd rank the Bogart films as:

1. Casablanca
2. The African Queen
3. To Have & Have Not
4. The Big Sleep
5. The Maltese Falcon

and would put all of those in my top 50 greatest films of all time. I'm as puzzled as Mario by Joe's ratings, especially his low rating of the Maltese Falcon, but hey, to each his own.

I didn't think it was a bad film, I just have zero desire to ever see it again.

The Elephant Man - John Hurt is pretty damn astounding in the role of John Merrick. His deformities are a bit hard to stomach early on, but Hurt gives the Elephant Man such humanity that you barely notice his appearance by the end. Lovely film.

Some Kind Of Monster - I enjoyed this document of the making of Metallica's last album all the way through, but not as much as many who have praised it. I think that's specifically because I thought James Hetfield was a self-centered jackass for most of the film. But there were enough interesting moments. Some pretty spiffy riffs from the St. Anger album as well...

Minus Man - Pretty decent indie study of a serial killer. Has it's odd unsettling moments - some worked well with the feeling of the moment, but others just felt out of place or awkward. Janeane Garofalo has a nice turn as the small town woman smitten by Owen Wilson's killer.

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind - My fifth time through this brillant film (with my sister who saw it for the first time). Love it, love it, love it.

The Terminal - I enjoyed Tom Hanks' performance , the set design and some of the set pieces, but the story just felt very rote (as did many of the secondary characters - especially Stanley Tucci's terminal manager). Started to roll my eyes at the end and I finished with a feeling of "eh".

Ice Age - Another "eh". Again, some enjoyable moments (I liked Ray Romano's mammoth and the rat that popped up throughout the film), but it still felt like a Pixar test film. Even the animation felt like it was only about 3/4 of the way to being complete. Suppose I've been spoiled by Pixar...

The Battle Of Algiers - Amazing documentary style film showing France's occupation of Algeria in the late 50's. Great tension throughout and some really great scenes that you swear were spliced in from real footage of bomb attacks. The most effective parts though were the scenes that showed the way Algerians were treated in their own country. I'm not familiar enough with the actual history of what happened, but you get a strong feeling of what it must be like to be an outcast in your own country...

Story Of The Weeping Camel - Essentially a modern day version of Nanook Of The North...Though the focus of the story is a white camel calf rejected by its mother, the main purpose seems to be to capture the essence of life in the Gobi desert (some scenes were "staged" or recreated I believe as the characters are listed as actors and there are writers listed for the film). A life that they take in stride, but for someone like me seems brutal and impossibly tough. On top of this document is a wonderful tale of the camels.

The Ruling Class - Is it a comedy? A musical? A social commentary? Quite the schizophrenic film which is perfect for Peter O'Toole's schizophrenic Lord of the manor and his totally insane performance. Alistair Sim and Arthur Lowe are both very funny as the bishop and butler, while O'Toole chews every scene he's in with delight. Though overlong at 2 1/2 hours, I still enjoyed this immensely.

The Horse's Mouth - I enjoyed the Ealing comedies with Alec Guinness that I've seen, but not as much as this late 50's film about a painter looking for his canvas...Guinness just becomes the starving artist and does it with great wit and charm.

Ikiru - Slow unfolding tale of a man who finally figures out how to live in his dying days. The most touching part for me was when he finally reveals to his young female co-worker that he is dying of cancer. Emotional from all angles as he moves through desperation, frustration, confusion and towards understanding in a few minutes. Sad and still uplifting, it's still not really something I would revisit often.

X: The Unheard Music - One of my favourite 70's punk bands come to the screen with live footage, rehearsals, videos and interviews. More than your standard document of a band as there is some wonderful montages of the city of L.A. Not overly focused on the L.A. punk scene in general, but you still get a good feeling of what it must have been like...Still love that band's first 4 albums.

For All Mankind - Freaking wow! Documentary footage of Apollo missions is as fantastically amazing as I thought it might be. Words fail me...Statement of wonder! Exclamation of amazement! Wish for greater vocabulary!

Actually, we're very much alike in many ways!


But haven't you, Michael, and myself each agreed that THE BIG SLEEP is even MORE convoluted than THE MALTESE FALCON? Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that if FALCON is confusing, then SLEEP is even more so. Consider also that there are a lot of other first-time films in this world to catch up on.


That's the nature of this odd world we live in -- everyone has their own views and opinions! I rated it "above average" due to the ingredients I mentioned, but for me, a film being hard to follow along with and understand is often one of those "cardinal sins" (which is usually reserved for a film that's "boring").
Mario - just looking at your own list of ratings on Page 3 - they all seem pretty much consistent with the "popular" opinion.


No, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not just talking about figuring it all out by the conclusion, or a new revelation changing a pre-decided conclusion; I'm referring mainly to the inability of being able to keep up with the plot as it's moving along (this even happens in some heavily plotted James Bond films). It's okay to get "lost" on the way, so long as the movie can bring you back.


I'm still here, and there is not one rule that always applies for each and every film. Some films may be confusing and yet they somehow work because of that. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY makes little outright sense, but to me that's part of its appeal - that the viewer has to think what it means for him. Indeed, many viewers hate 2001 precisely because it's so nonsensical for them.

When I watch THE RAVEN, I know precisely what's supposed to be going on each and every step of the way, unlike I did with FALCON. It's not hard to keep track of characters, their dialogue, the facts, their relation to one another, their intricate dialogue about what's supposed to be occuring...

You say you still manage to give THE BLACK CAT four stars though, despite what you describe as "gaping plot holes" - that's great for you! Do you do so because that's its general reputation? I too give it a solid **** but I don't see any plot holes in that film. That's why we're all entitled to our own opinion.

If you're suggesting there are little inconsistincies in my movie reviewing habits, well -- that happens with everyone ("you said that about 'A' but how come you don't mind it in 'B' ...??") Some movies still work for people even with all the flaws they ordinarily despise in other movies, for whatever reasons.


Yes, because what's the whole point of giving our own (personal) opinions then? If everyone is going to give every "bad" film a lousy rating and every beloved film a "positive" rating, where is the individuality there? The whole point of giving our own personal movie reviews should be to be "subjective" about it as we see it. You don't need Joe Karlosi, Michael Elliott, George Kaplan or Mario Gauci to give you their own "take" on a film otherwise; you can merely go and check the "Rules of Movie Rating Textbook Guide". Every fan knows what rating AMDAEUS or CITIZEN KANE is supposed to receive (I agree that KANE is a **** though - as you know); everyone knows what rating PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA is supposed to receive. Where's the fun in going by "the book"? Where's the originality and subjective opinion? I want to know what YOU think!


But yet you still acknowledge that you think they're "good and often brilliant", just to keep that toe in the water of "credibility"! If you don't like them much, you don't like them much. If you only enjoy them enough to barely give them a heartfelt ** rating, then go for it, I say.

And just to use your quote as an example that everyone does the same thing with "little inconsistincies", I'd wager that there are other films somewhere that you find sort of "unpleasant" or "self-indulgent," yet for some odd reason you find yourself liking it and watching it more (CITIZEN KANE certainly may be considered "self-indulgent", for instance, and you love that one). So there's no point bringing up the fact that I said that with some films people should stop "trying to analyze the 'why this' and 'why that' -- because we all bend our own rules at times, usually involuntarily, for certain movies. It happens.


Of course it did! You pre-assumed I didn't enjoy THE MALTESE FALCON because it's not right to be in "the improper mood for it", or because "you can't be sleepy and non-receptive when you watch it" ; but the fact is, I was quite awake and in a very clear frame of mind! Maybe I just didn't think it was that good.

However, you are correct in theory ... there have been times where the wrong mood or fatigue is not condusive to a true movie experience. God knows it's happened to me before. FALCON was not one of those times, however.


You bet!

As for the next Netflix films, I'm going to keep it a mystery I'll be mailing back the three Bogarts this morning; hopefully that will mean I'll be getting three more by Saturday (or maybe two, as I'm now allowing the wife to pick one of every three for herself).

P.S. - Since I haven't heard any protestations, I suppose I'm "okay" with my four star ranking for KEY LARGO?

With all due respect, I don't think it's always a conscious thing. You are a film reviewer here at HTF, and I respect that you're a BIG fan of films, especially impressive for your young age. You clearly have a desire to be taken seriously as a major film buff. But even so, I think there has to be SOME film(s) that are considered "great" that you don't even think merit ***/**** . This is the easiest way to check this out; are there any films on the AFI TOP 100 list that you'd give anything less than *** for?


And when we've talked, I've agreed completely. I've listed films that didn't work for me the first time, but got better with subsequent viewings. I've told you films that only worked when I got older and could better appreciate them, and films that deteriorated for me precisely because I've gotten older! I definitely DO agree that a film may often benefit from multiple viewings...

But we can't watch each and every film that underwhelms us over and over and over and over. Didn't you say you tried Lugosi's DRACULA 100 times or something (I'm assuming you're generalizing)? The very fact that you feel such a need to give a "classic" film dozens of screenings to try and "get it" because its reputation is so large just seems that you can't rest with yourself for not enjoying a revered film as much as you think you must. You've told me that this was an insult to you, and I apologize because I'm not trying to offend you here. I recognize that you figure that if so many films are universally loved by a majority, there must be "something to it" that maybe you've "missed the first time". Then again, sometimes maybe it just won't work for you.


I agree that we gain more knowledge as far as "film history" goes; but the quality or entertainment level of any given film is purely speculative, debatable and SUBJECTIVE. Though there may be exceptions, I generally believe you cannot "learn" to gain an "aesthetic" appreciation for any and all well-regarded movies.


We've always agreed on this. I'm just wondering if most of the time, what you're "interested in" to urge you to watch again and again is its "good reputation", though. I don't think it's always a bad thing -- I've done this with a few films that underwhelmed me the first time. I wil be trying THE BIG SLEEP, VERTIGO and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL again, for example - and maybe IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. SO, it happens even with me sometimes!


But would you be so insistent on trying to "get it" if it was a film that was not universally loved? Would you try harder to "get" THE OUT OF TOWNERS [1970] (just as an example)? No - because there is no "need" to, as it's not considered a classic.


Whoa! Easy there, pardner! KILL BILL VOL. 2 is indeed ONE of my favorite films, but not "the" favorite! Beware generalizations! And you're correct that I didn't think much of it the first time, but by the second it was a whole new experience - you're correct. As you say, there was a motivation to try it again - because I liked the first volume, but realized that my opinion on the second was unfair because I was expecting it to contain as much action as VOL. 1. As you say, there was "enough there to like" to prompt me to see it again, and I do love it now. It's a better film than VOL. 1, and the whole KILL BILL Saga as a whole entity is just a masterpiece IMO.


For beginners, the entire jist of our 2-hour discussion did not center solely on "M"! And I don't consider ANGELS quite a four star film, though. Yes, ratings changes can go up (or down for that matter) over time. Which is why I'm glad the IMDB allows you to go back and change your ratings if you wish
Thanks for reminding me about "M" though -- when I gave it **** I was going by my old general "exceptional film" system; but now that I've returned to splitting hairs with half stars, I'm going to go back and give it ***1/2.


I agree again - I enjoy something like, say, FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER enough as a 50s drive-in flick to give it three stars, but I'd never consider it a "well made film"; just at the level of *** in the enjoyment department. There has to be a different criteria when judging films like the F13 series. You can't hold it up to the same level of BEN-HUR, for example and expect the same type of cinematic perfection. When I judge a slasher film, I judge it for its worth as a slasher film.

But again, you use "knowledge of film" to somehow judge what a movie is supposed to get as a rating, based on technical expertise or whatever. This is where people call us "elitists" or "film snobs", I think. There's not really that much "knowledge" needed when it comes to deciding what's purely a more entertaining film viewing experience for a moviegoer. You must agree, because you gave Jess Franco's horrid FEMALE VAMPIRE a rating of **** (which I believe you've now reduced to ***1/2).


Yes, I'm not the first to find TMF confusing.
I do certainly advocate the "turning off my brain" practice when watching junk stuff like FRIDAY THE 13th: A NEW BEGINNING or The Monkee's film HEAD --- but I think we need it to follow the complicated and crucial plotlines for both THE MALTESE FALCON and THE BIG SLEEP!

Well, George, that all depends on the criteria you're using. Are we talking about which movie "speaks best as entertainment for us as individuals," or are we going by "what its historical reputation is, and how technically proficient it is as a movie" (and THE BIG SLEEP is anything but coherent/proficient!)? Sorry, but THE PETRIFIED FOREST was completely captivating for me throughout the running time whereas the others weren't. The thing for me is, just because I give a film a higher rating doesn't mean I think it's a "better" movie in the technical sense; just a more entertaining one.


Let's see ... that sounds about correct (though isn't FALCON "supposed" to be a little higher?)


Let's see your star ratings for your films. Come on, don't be shy!

Well that's easy. Using a 5 star system:

1. Casablanca
2. The African Queen
3. To Have & Have Not
4. The Big Sleep
5. The Maltese Falcon

I was asking you to do this for ALL your films, not just the Bogart ones! What do you think of all of them?

That wouldn't be particularly useful. For me, films tend to bunch up. On a 10 point scale, almost every film I like, from cinematic greats like The Apartment to "guilty pleasures" (for lack of a better term) like Home Alone all range from 9 to 10 or so. And the films I don't like, ranging from well-made, but ultimately non-rewatchable (for me) films like Lawrence of Arabia to well made crap like Cries & Whispers, to well-made racist films like Birth of a Nation or Do the Right Thing to complete crap like Performance all rank somewhere from 0 to 1 point or so. I can certainly rank order the films at those tails, but to me, there is far less difference between Rear Window and The Brady Bunch Movie than there is between The Brady Bunch Movie and Raging Bull. The fact that I want to see the Brady Bunch Movie again, and never want to see Raging Bull again is a much, much, much larger and more important difference to me, than the fact that the acting/production values of Raging Bull are greater. I realize that, but ultimately great acting/direction etc., in a film that doesn't inspire me to want to see it again is worthless to me.

And since almost everyone would disagree with my ratings, and we'd constantly have to go through this, it is simpler to just use a / rating that is explicitly whether or not I ever want to see the film again.

I haven't seen LAWRENCE OF ARABIA yet, George, but in all fairness I think you might agree that a lot of people might be as "puzzled" (the word you used at my ratings) as to your feeling on that film being "non-rewatchable" or HOME ALONE (which I did see) as being a 9 or 10.


Also potentially "puzzling", but it's something which I certainly DO understand, and that's why I'm so taken aback at your reaction to my THE MALTESE FALCON and other Bogart ratings! So in other words I guess some of your preferences/ratings would be just as "controversial" as mine!


Well put!


Well, it's not ethically cool to react to one's star rankings if you don't want to come to bat yourself, IMHO.
It's true that people will often disagree, but don't let that sway you from speaking your mind.

I've often thought of doing the "thumbs up/down" or simple "Yes/No" technique myself, but I like to try and get a little more specific. Besides, something you may want to see again today won't feel as re-watchable in the future, and vice-versa.

Joe,

I think the most important line in my original post about The Maltese Falcon was I don't really disagree with most of the rest of your post, except for I don't find it at all unethical or uncool to comment on your star ratings just because I'm not using star ratings. If you want to see my star ratings, just take all of my thumbs up, and consider them and all of my thumbs down and consider them zero stars. That's not exact, but it's close enough for you to have a star system to counterattack if you so desire. I also disagree with that. I have NEVER seen a film that I didn't like, that later I liked. Now, in most of those cases, I've never seen the film a second time, but there are a number that for one reason or another I have ended up seeing more than once, and in each and every case I felt as negative about it on subsequent viewings as I did on the first.

I've also never "unliked" a film that I saw and liked as an adult. Obviously, my tastes have changed since I was a young kid, and there are a few films that I never saw since I was a kid that don't hold up (though most do). For example, I loved the Lost in Space tv show when I was 4. I saw it again on tv when I was in my 20s and no longer liked it. But there aren't any films I liked when I was 18 that I don't still like now that I'm 42, so I see no reason to suspect that I won't like them when I'm 66 or 90.

Maybe too strong a choice of words on my part, but it's just easier to add some balance that way.


I'm unaware of any "attack," though I have indeed come to feel it's gone kind of that way toward me by Mario -- after all, the longest topic of the first 9 pages in the thread sure seems to be about me not giving THE MALTESE FALCON its "required" rating! Yes, I know that doesn't concern you, but it kind of fit in right here since you mentioned a "counterattack".

Anyway, the "zero" or "five star" extreme is just .. well, ... never mind...


I was going to suggest that it may have been because you never would give a film another chance - but you already covered that you have, on occasion. All I can say is that it has changed from negative to positive for me and others now and then, so I figured it could have for you, too.


There are indeed some films that have become, I guess you could say, "played out" for me.

Quote (originally posted by George Kaplan):

"And the films I don't like, ranging from well-made, but ultimately non-rewatchable (for me) films like Lawrence of Arabia to well made crap like Cries & Whispers, to well-made racist films like Birth of a Nation or Do the Right Thing to complete crap like Performance all rank somewhere from 0 to 1 point or so."

In light of all this, Joe Karlosi's "controversial" views don't seem so controversial anymore!

By the way, George, is THAT your REAL name?


P.S. Joe and Michael, I won't be able to reply to your latest posts before Saturday afternoon at the earliest so please try to be a little patient. Maybe by that time, Joe, you'd have already watched your latest 3 Netflix rentals and they won't be so mysterious then!

I actually don't get to review any classic films here because they aren't part of my studios. If LORD OF THE RINGS is a "classic" then I guess you forgot the beating I took over giving that film a simple three stars and pointing out other "epics" I felt were a lot better.



As we've discussed, these lists are good for nothing except for those who have never seen a "classic" and need a list to start with. NETWORK, THE JAZZ SINGER and MASH are three that I would give a "thumbs down" to. I'll have to take another look at the list to go beyond that. From the titles I remember from the list, most, if not all would get four stars from me. But, as I've told you, nearly half of those would also be replaced with other four star movies that I feel are a lot better.



To be honest, this isn't something I've started in the past four or five years. This started around the age of 8 so I've been watching older films for quite some time. Why? Because I ran out of horror films to rent at a young age so I wondered off into the other genres. The closest thing to the horror section was the classics section.



I think 8 times was more like it but I don't recall this being on ANY "greatest" lists so this might not have been a good example. I gave this two stars. Hmm...why do I constantly watch BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA when I only gave it * 1/2? Am I trying to fit in with something or do I actually enjoy watching the film no matter how bad it is?



If this is the case then we should stop watching anything that has a bad reputation. By doing that, I don't think we're going to have many horror films to watch. Why waste my time with Wood, Adamson, Franco or those Arkoff titles? What group am I trying to impress by watching 180+ Franco titles? Does my reputation suffer when I say I love Ed Wood and give PLAN 9 a four star rating? Does my opinion on ON THE WATERFRONT not matter if I consider BRIDE OF THE MONSTER to feature one of Lugosi's best screen moments?



Why would I even bother watching it to begin with?


I'll have to disagree here and I think you'll change your mind once you see more of these films.



I'm certainly a film snob. I have been for years and will be until the day I die. I don't care if Peter thinks PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is better than 2001 but the snob in me wants to know why he thinks that. I don't care if someone thinks Adam Sandler is greater than Keaton and Chaplin but the snob in me wants to know why. I allow them their opinion but when it comes to a real discussion, I'd like to know why they feel the way they do.



No more so than you giving FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER a higher rating than THE MALTESE FALCON, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY or THE BIG SLEEP. In the end, I defended my reasons for the rating and I think I made it clear why I was supportive of a film that is considered "bad". But with Franco, who's to say what is good or bad because even the die hard fans each have different opinions.


I'm not sure why you're so concerned over the ratings we're giving films. You don't enjoy certain classics so to defend your opinion, you try saying those who do enjoy them are only saying they do so that they can fit a certain group. If you hate KANE and I love it, I only love it because I'm suppose to or I'm wanting to look good. Think about it Joe. That is an insult. Take a look at my list. If I was just trying to look cool then I wouldn't waste so much of my time, my money and my life towards films.

BTW, I've never seen a Bergman film before but my goal is to see at least ten by the end of the year. What does it say about me that I've got WILD STRAWBERRIES and FANNY AND ALEXANDER here, two films considered among the greatest ever made, yet I'm going to watch "crap" like I DRINK YOUR BLOOD and KILLER BARBIES VS DRACULA first? :b

edit

Yes, but even though you obviously didn't think much of the film at all, you still managed to give it a ***/**** which makes things a little more "credible", I would think.


There are other four star movies I'd substitute on that list too, but that's not really my point. Are there any of the 100 that you'd give under three stars? Maybe someone can print out the list and we can check it out. Surely you can't think every film on that list warrants **** ( or even ***) .


I dunno -- you always told me you rated films based on how much you enjoy them despite how bad they are (which is why you give PLAN 9 ****).


No, I never will change my mind on that. I've already seen tons of classics in my life and I continue to see more all the time; and while I agree with a great many of those "four star" ratings, I do not agree with "all" of them, and I'll go out on a limb in saying that I'd doubt any person ever would or could, either -- not for every classic!


Well, so do I. I love to hear discussions and opinion defending "the underdog". So I guess by your definition I am a "film snob," too. But the real question is ... do you think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to who is better (Chaplin/Sandler, etc...)?


Same here in such cases where I defend a lesser film; and I also think my notes on THE MALTESE FALCON make it clear why I don't consider it a four-star movie (which is how this all began)


Well -- umm, -- it's the very essence of film discussion, I would think. We're here to talk about films, say what we think, exchange views and all that "fun" stuff. And besides, this whole thing began because of MY ratings for THE MALTESE FALCON!


I don't have to defend my opinion. But by the same token, I don't have to boost my rating of THE MALTESE FALCON up to a more respectable *** just to look like I "know my stuff"! I come to that conclusion because it's just not possible to fully enjoy "all" classics as their reputations stand.

I'm not saying "everyone" does this, by the way!

Joe,

Just one last thought. There are plenty of movies that I rate much higher or much lower than most people, and so I don't usually even mention it when someone else has such ratings of films. However, I guess it sticks out more when it's within a narrow genre or pool of work.

For example if someone said they didn't like Rear Window, I would be surprised, but not much. We all have different tastes. But if someone rated Topaz, Torn Curtain, Under Capricorn and Jamaica Inn all much higher than Rear Window, North by Northwest, Vertigo and Psycho, I'd find that much stranger. Or if someone loved the Beatles, except they'd rather listen to Air Supply than Abbey Road.

My "puzzlement" to your Maltese Falcon rating was in the context of being surprised because of it's relative ranking for you in the Bogart canon.

And for the most part you've started over the past couple years due to these debates. I don't think Mario or I are trying to say you're wrong and if we are coming on too strong then we're both doing it with good thought.



Let's put this on you for a second. You and I know a guy who thinks Jess Franco is one of the greatest director's of all time. Better than Kubrick, Hitchcock, Ford, Griffith and many other legends. Is he wrong? I believe we've both had some laughs at his comments when he says Franco is better than so and so.



Perhaps but you're telling people they're liars. We're only saying we enjoy films so that we can look good. That would be like us telling you that you don't enjoy classic films.



You're defending your opinion by saying others lie when they rate films.



Are you sure? You've discussed this with three people on this thread and it seems you're saying all three are making up ratings.

I see what you mean here. But you might take some solace in knowing that I thought it was one of his best characters/performances. If I were ranking his characterizations, it would be near the top. To me, the movie itself was a mish-mash.

I've just spread out to many different genres the last couple of years, absolutely. And a huge part of that is thanks to my interest getting stirred on forums like this one. But this has nothing to do with anything, really.


Well, here you're avoiding my question by asking ME another question. But okay, I'll play -- The answer would be "NO" - that person is not "wrong" at all, just of a very unusual opinion. And yes, I think it's a very odd and funny one. But he's just in a minority, that's all. You seem to think that following the large, majority, popular opinion is the "right" one, which takes us right back to where we began, Mike! It's not a "fact" that so and so is "better"; just that the majority opinion kind of sets the general reputation.


I didn't know 3 people make up the world's moviegoing universe - or even this whole specific thread!

We just got done discussing this for nearly two hours on the phone but I'll put this to an end here on the board. Of course this statement is true. I already mentioned NETWORK, THE JAZZ SINGER and MASH as three AFI films that I hate. I think THE EXORCIST 3 is a better movie than the original. I think THE GODFATHER is overrated only in the sense that I think GOODFELLAS, TG2 and ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA are better. I don't consider Brando's performance in THE GODFATHER to be among his best, although I still think it's great.

My "hate" towards LORD OF THE RINGS isn't because it's a bad movie. For the life of me, I just can't see how anyone would look at it (or STAR WARS) as anything else other than mindless popcorn flicks. LORD OF THE RINGS is a three star, entertaining film. However, I think it's VERY low in the rank of epic films going back to BIRTH OF A NATION and even upwards of GANGS OF NEW YORK or even THE AVIATOR. Not to mention BEN HUR, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and various others.

Okay, Mike - as you say, we just talked about this over the phone and I think we've got this all out of our systems. "Live" phone conversation sure is a lot better than online chat!

Wonderful man, that Alexander Graham Bell!

Fallen Angel (1945)

Viewed 2/10/2005 (first viewing)

A hardluck press agent is stranded in a California coastal town where he falls in love with a sultry and spoiled waitress. Being broke, he needs money quickly so he decides to romance and marry a rich spinster, intending to quickly divorce her once he has her money. Naturally a murder complicates things. Noirish drama plays like a low-rent variation on The Postman Always Rings Twice. Good on its own terms.

out of


The Hidden Room a.k.a. Obsession (1949)

Viewed 2/10/2005 (first viewing)

The great Robert Newton (in a subdued performance) plays a doctor who concocts a grand and grisly scheme of revenge on his wife and her lover.

out of

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Viewed 2/10/2005

This second sequel may be unnecessary, but it's a top-notch actioner. "I'll be back." I'm sure you will.

out of


The Yakuza Papers: Police Tactics (1973)

Viewed 2/10/2005 (first viewing)

Part four in Kinji Fukasaku's gangster epic finds Hiroshima awash in blood as various yakuza clans battle each other. Public outcry over the violence results in a massive police crackdown. Will series protagonist Shozo Hirono survive?

out of

First time viewings in Red
Out of


Sign of the Cross (1932) (5/10)
Cecil B DeMille’s pre-code Roman Era spectacle is full of hammy performances & cheesy dialog. Interesting because it’s pre-code & it sports a small role for Charles Laughton as Nero, but this was ultimately unrewarding.

Little Caesar (1931) (8/10)
Once you get past the creakiness of the direction, this is a rather entertaining & important work. Edward G Robinson shines as the gangster who rises to the top & then sinks back to the gutter.

Public Enemy (1931) (9/10)
James Cagney stars as a bootlegger in Prohibition Era Chicago in this fantastic early gangster picture. The direction, camera movement & performances are more fluid compared to Little Caesar. This film has been a favorite of mine for years.

The Palm Beach Story (1942) (9/10)
The absolute king of the Screwball Comedy IMO is writer/director Preston Sturges & this is one of his funniest & lightest films (Overall I’d rank it #3 behind Sullivan’s Travels & The Lady Eve).

Ice Station Zebra (1968) (7/10)
This Cold War submarine/spy/adventure has it’s flaws such as pacing/length & a very poor music score but it did hold my interest throughout.

Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993) (5/10)
The Big G reappears, the UN builds a Mechagodzilla (never been a fan, give me Ghidrah any day of the week for a G Villain), Rodan is brought back (kind of cool) & throw in a Baby-zilla (ugh). This is a silly middle of the road G film, far from the worst but nowhere near the top heap of the Godzilla flicks IMO (’54-’66 & GMK).