Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 23

Mario Gauci · 04-22-2005, 08:36 AM

REEFER MADNESS (1936): for the uninitiated, this much retitled film may have given the impression of being a very low-budget variation on the contemporary socially-conscious "message" pictures made by major studios like Warner Brothers when, in actual fact, I believe this is just surface coating and, underneath, a tawdry, cheap and campy exploitation flick is trying to get out; this is borne out by the utterly sensationalistic and risibly over-emphatic (in other words, completely unrealistic) treatment replete with rampant eye-rolling by the "victims" in the throes of marihuana addiction which reaches ridiculous new heights in acting of this sort; I'd be willing to bet that many more people tried the weed AFTER watching this movie than were eventually put off by it

! Even so, I still managed to get a perverted sense of enjoyment from it and wouldn't mind trying a couple of others from its stable like MANIAC (1934), COCAINE FIENDS (1935) and MARIHUANA (1937).

THE FURY OF THE WOLFMAN (1970): apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually

. Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein

character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic

!

LADY FRANKENSTEIN (1971): although I had previously watched this one some time ago on Italian TV, I found it to be a surprisingly tolerable potboiler this time round, buoyed by an international cast of familiar faces (including a bemused Joseph Cotten as the Baron) and, contrary to many another film of the Euro-Cult sub-genre, an accident-packed plot in place of lethargic pacing. The creature itself looks a bit dodgy and Cotten is a bit too old to be taken seriously as an eager scientist still dabbling in creating life-forms out of corpses (one would have thought that he would have made himself an army of them by now and not struggling at perfecting his technique still) but Ms. Neri does look good in and out of costume and reliable Herbert Fux probably comes off best as a lecherous grave-robber/blackmailer.

george kaplan · 04-22-2005, 08:42 AM

Stage Door (1937) (6/10)
Katherine Hepburn & Ginger Rogers star in this drama

While I disagree with your rating (too high), I'm glad that someone else sees that this is a drama, not a comedy. I also feel that way about Dinner at Eight, which despite a humorous line at the end, is much more drama than comedy. Which is one of the main reasons I don't like either of those films.

SteveGon · 04-22-2005, 09:18 AM

I agree that Dinner at Eight is more drama than comedy and is out of place in Warner's boxed set. Stage Door fits better as it leans more towards comedy, but I think two other films would have been better suited for the set.

Haggai · 04-22-2005, 09:53 AM

George, I see you just watched Kill Bill V. 1 again, but for some reason I'm thinking that you haven't seen V. 2--have you?

george kaplan · 04-22-2005, 11:10 AM

George, I see you just watched Kill Bill V. 1 again, but for some reason I'm thinking that you haven't seen V. 2--have you?

You are correct.

I never saw Kill Bill in the theater, and had finally seen it fairly recently. I liked it a lot, so I bought it, and also Vol. 2, which is technically a blind buy, which I don't do, but not really since it's a continuation of a film I really like.

My wife and I just watched Vol. 1 last night, and we'll be watching Vol. 2 probably in the next week or so.

Haggai · 04-22-2005, 11:21 AM

Excellent. It's great.

Opinions varied, of course, as some people said they liked V. 1 more than 2 and others vice versa, with some even actively disliking one despite liking the other. But I think it's fair to make a general statement that most people who really liked V. 1 were just as happy with V. 2 (myself very much included).

Michael Elliott · 04-22-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

so the Karloff/Lugosi enthusiasts who post here might be interested in this one.

I didn't like SECRET LIFE either. I remember the thing feeling like it ran 9 hours.

This will probably be my last update for two weeks because the job is sending me off to Mississippi for some sort of training. I'm bringing the DVD player along for the trip there but I'm not sure how much time I'll have for watching movies.

Joe, I expect at least four of those films viewed and commented on by the time I get back.

04/20/05

Bad Boy (1925)

A man (Charley Chase) will do whatever it takes to please his parents even though they disagree about everything. The early scenes with Chase trying to do construction work are funny but things fizzle out a bit afterwards.

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Good, if somewhat disappointing follow-up to Meet the Parents is highlighted by legends Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman going up against one another. I really wish there had been more scenes with these two but Stiller also does a nice job, although I wasn’t too thrilled with Streisand. The film was charming throughout and kept a smile on my face but it certainly wasn’t as good as the original. I think the biggest problem was too many sexual jokes, which seemed like lazy writing more than anything else.

04/21/05

Behind That Curtain (1929)

Sir George hires a private eye to investigate his niece’s boyfriend but soon the P.I. is found dead and the niece and her boyfriend run off. Col. John Beetham (Warner Baxter) is called in to investigate. This is the first Charlie Chan film, although he doesn’t appear until the very end. Baxter makes for an interesting character and the mystery plot works very nicely. Boris Karloff has a small role as a servant.

Black Camel, The (1931)

Before accepting a proposal, an actress goes to see a psychic (Bela Lugosi) who sees something in her past. Later that night the actress is murdered and it’s up to Charlie Chan (Warner Oland) to find out who committed the crime. Oland is brilliant as Chan and the wonderful dialogue gives him all sorts of brilliant and memorable quotes. Lugosi is quite nice as well and the supporting players all fill their roles very nicely. The murder investigation is quite interesting all the way through. Dwight Frye has a small role as the caretaker.

Joe Karlosi · 04-22-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

My wife and I just watched Vol. 1 last night, and we'll be watching Vol. 2 probably in the next week or so.

George, please let us know what you thought of VOL. 2. My story with this excellent saga of KILL BILL is that I enjoyed VOL. 1 so much that initially I was let down by VOL. 2. However, it was one of those times where there was enough in the second chapter of interest for me to see it a second time with different expectations, and I loved it so much with the second viewing that I saw PART 2 in the theatre a total of NINE times! That's a record for me. And as would be expected, each time I saw it I got something new from it and noticed more things, appreciated the soundtrack even more, etc...

Needless to say, the entire saga of KILL BILL (I now can't wait to see both parts released together with an intermission card as the total epic it was meant to be) is now one of my very favorite movies of all genres and decades.

So George - here is a classic example (for me, anyway) where one viewing did not do a film justice. At first I was let down that VOL. 2 was not as unrelenting as VOL. 1 was. Had I never gone back to it I probably never would have come to love it as much as I do. I now think it's superior to VOL. 1 and that the two chapters together as a whole pice is sheer magnificence.

Joe Karlosi · 04-22-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

THE FURY OF THE WOLFMAN (1970): apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually

That's good to hear, Mario. I just wanted to mention that FURY also utilizes footage from Naschy's first werewolf film, FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR (aka LA MARCA DEL HOMBRE LOBO). In the "new" footage of FURY, the character of the werewolf stands upright and walks slowly much of the time; but then there are scenes of him from the first film, with the wolf man crouching down and running more actively! FURY OF THE WOLF MAN is an incomprehensible mish-mash...

Also - I'm so glad to see you offering mini-comments here (see? I knew you could write your remarks a bit shorter) and I've been checking your IMDB list regularly. One question -- why don't you include star ratings here?

george kaplan · 04-22-2005, 05:22 PM

At first I was let down that VOL. 2 was not as unrelenting as VOL. 1 was.

I'm not quite sure what 'unrelenting' means - it could be pace, gore, etc., and I don't want to know (I'll find out soon enough).

I loved the pacing and the story in Vol. 1 and hope it continues in Vol. 2, but if Vol. 2 tones down the gore, that'll be just fine by me. I would have liked Vol. 1 even better if there'd been less gore, and there are certainly other movies (e.g., Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs), where the gore was a deal-breaker for me.