Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 47

Mario Gauci · 08-13-2005, 05:58 AM

THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942) ***: I have something of a love-hate relationship with this film. It was only the second in the Frankenstein series I had watched: shown on Italian TV in the summer of 1989 as part of a late-night show hosted by 2 oddly endearing monster puppets(!), I managed to tape the transmission and saw it again a few days later, enjoying it a great deal both times. However, when I caught up with it again on DVD 12 years later, its charm had ebbed considerably and I felt it was a very routine effort all around with little of the high style which had marked the three previous entries in the saga; viewing it, by way of Universal's double-feature DVD, paired as it was with the magnificent SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) - which, up to that point, I had never watched in its entirety! - certainly didn't help matters any

!

So, this time I decided to reverse the formula, as it were, and watched GHOST prior to SON - and it worked, as I found much to like in it all over again

! In fact, now I would rate it above the even more contrived monster bashes HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945) - as here we still have the luxury of one monster for the entire duration

. Of course, the film doesn't remotely measure up to the irreproachable quality of its predecessors and the reduced budget is quite evident, but the formula seems to work all the same - even if the end result is relatively discreet, particularly when compared to SON's ornate set design and its overgenerous running time.

The brain transplant plot is interesting enough and one actually wonders why it wasn't utilized earlier since the abnormal brain given to the monster clearly is behind its anti-social, criminal behavior (though, in all fairness, it was never given much of a chance by the suspicious, unfriendly townsfolk!). The cast, as always, is first-rate although the performances aren't: Cedric Hardwicke clearly wishes he was elsewhere (it was unfortunate as well that when the titular ghost appears, it does so in Hardwicke's persona and unmistakable voice!); Ralph Bellamy and Evelyn Ankers are no great shakes as the romantic leads; Bela Lugosi (who returns as evil shepherd Ygor), fails to repeat the character's essential repulsiveness since here he has no opponent to equal Basil Rathbone in SON; Lon Chaney Jr., in his sole stint as the monster, is only fair (he's best at demonstrating the creature's strength - controlled by Ygor - but his scenes with the little girl, intended to bring its emotive powers to the fore, aren't as interesting and result only in being sappy); also, for those who know about his fate, I can't help feeling that Lionel Atwill as the once-great doctor brought down by a scandal and reduced to the level of assistant - albeit a duplicitous one - to his former student (Frankenstein) is basically playing himself here!

The lack of a proper budget (forcing the use of standing sets and musical cues from THE WOLF MAN [1941]!), however, doesn't preclude some effective shadowy lighting throughout or a fiery climax which is so well done that Universal would recycle sections of it into the finale of HOUSE OF DRACULA!!

SteveGon · 08-13-2005, 10:45 AM

The Milagro Beanfield War (1988)

Viewed 8/11/2005

Charming, whimsical comedy from Robert Redford. A chicano farmer diverts water slated for an Anglo development project to his beanfield and sets off an escalating war of wills. Likeable film, well-acted by a large ensemble cast.

out of

The Addiction (1995)

Viewed 8/11/2005

Interesting vampire flick from Abel Ferrara. A philosophy student, disgusted by mankind's violent past and propensity for evil, is bitten by a vampire! Turned into a vampire herself, her newfound addiction to human blood forces her to confront her own heart of darkness...

out of

Ken Park (2002)

Viewed 8/11/2005 (first viewing)

Frank and graphic teen angst drama from Larry Clark. Engrossing and surprisingly effective, though it could have used a bit of restraint. Definitely not one for the masses.

out of

Shutter (2004)

Viewed 8/12/2005 (first viewing)

Good, if unexceptional, ghost story from Thailand. A photographer discovers that his photographs are haunted by a vengeful spirit. What does the ghost want? Could it have something to do with his old girlfriend who mysteriously disappeared? Features the obligatory appearance by a CGG (Creeping Ghoul Gal).

out of

Shadow of the Thin Man (1941)

Viewed 8/12/2005

Fourth in the Thin Man series is pleasantly diverting though not particularly distinguished. Nick and Nora investigate a murder at a race track. Pretty much carried by star chemistry and a boffo supporting cast. Of note is the clue to the identity of the killer that is given out during the opening credits!

out of

Brook K · 08-13-2005, 12:55 PM

Glad you enjoyed Red Lights Haggai.

Divine Intervention is definitely worth seeking out. I saw it in LA a couple of years ago. It isn't some deeply serious, intellectual film about the conflict, it contains a good deal of humor and a very effective romantic scene. But includes a good deal of symbolism and cultural factors that flew over my head until I read J.Hoberman's excellent review at Village Voice.

Can't quite share your enthusiasm for Ken Park, Steve. It certainly contains some compelling scenes but he always leaves me wondering whether he's trying to make some sort of cultural/moral statement or if his interest simply lies in images of young flesh. His worlds of absent or indifferent parents and shirking of moral responsibility is certainly not without basis, but at the same time his films could serve as catalogs for the worst traits of human behavior. He wants to have it both ways, telling an artistic, dramatic story while also shocking and titillating the audience. But the shocks undermine the credibility of his characters.

Ditto for Me and You and Everyone We Know which had enough verve and heart to be satisfying, but was too intentionally quirky and tragically hip for me to fully embrace. It's terminally bleak outlook also did not seem to fit with the whimsical nature of many of the scenes.

Greenaway's The Baby of Macon, Wow! I don't even know how to talk about it. On one level with its play-within a play-within a movie structure it seems groaningly pretentious(and I hate using that word). However it is extremely strong thematically with its story of a young child who for reasons unknown is seen as a miracle worker and saint, thus ripe to be used to exploit the masses, both rich and poor; first by his sister and then by the Church. I definitely need to see k out some reviews.

Huge weekend with Herzog's Grizzly Man and Bergman's Saraband opening here, plus The Aristocrats.

SteveGon · 08-13-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

His worlds of absent or indifferent parents and shirking of moral responsibility is certainly not without basis, but at the same time his films could serve as catalogs for the worst traits of human behavior. He wants to have it both ways, telling an artistic, dramatic story while also shocking and titillating the audience. But the shocks undermine the credibility of his characters.

I felt the same way. Three scenes in particular were, I thought, unnecessary and over the top:

Spoiler:

Fortunately the good outweighed the bad - the rest of the film was compelling enough for me to overlook its negative aspects and give it a "good" rating.

I'd like to see Grizzly Man (Herzog was interviewed on NPR recently; you might be able to find the interview on the net).

Spoiler:

I'll be watching The Baby of Macon within the next couple of days. Thanks to John who let me borrow his copy - I got TBOM and KP, he got The Reflecting Skin.

Haggai · 08-13-2005, 06:32 PM

Love Me or Leave Me (1955) 6/10
Doris Day and James Cagney starred in this musical biopic about 1920s/30s singer Ruth Etting (apparently quite loosely based on the real events, not surprisingly). The first half is pretty good, with some strong scenes for Cagney, classic songs for Day, and an occasionally interesting dynamic between them where they're both using each other to get ahead. But it's dragged down by a mostly dull and unconvincing second half.

Hard Boiled (1992) 9/10
One of the craziest action movies of them all, which I loved when I saw it at a campus screening back in college, and it still holds up great today. The humorous approach to a lot of the story, particularly with Chow Yun Fat's character, fits the unhinged insanity of the action quite well, which makes this one stronger than what I remember (been a while since I've seen them) about A Better Tomorrow and The Killer, which go for more straight-up melodrama. Some turgid dramatics here as well, but not too much. The action scenes are just so amazingly fun to watch, utterly absurd in every way, but breathtakingly stylish. I had forgotten most of the details about Tony Leung's character in Hard Boiled, and of course it's almost exactly the same as his character from Infernal Affairs.

November (2004) 7/10
This low budget indie thriller starring Courteney Cox played at Sundance in '04, and it's just now getting some limited theatrical distribution. It also has three other recognizable actors, James LeGros as Cox's boyfriend, Anne Archer as her mom, and Nora Dunn as her shrink. Some nepotism-by-association went into my seeing this one at all: the director is a friend of my older brother's. It's one of the kinds of suspense movies that asks more questions than it answers, more about building mood and atmosphere than piecing together a puzzle, with the story told elliptically in several different parts, and with conflicting/subjective flashbacks. All brotherly associations aside, I must say that I thought it was very well directed, especially some of the editing, which is where this director has previous experience as well. Kind of shy in the story department, in terms of establishing interest to hook into the fractured narrative, but it's very cinematic and has several good scenes, and in particular some good transitions between scenes. There's an interview with the director here at Turner Classic Movies, of all places. More info on the movie's website as well.

Utterly random connection that's especially weird to see in a movie that I went to because of an association with my older brother: one of the supporting characters is played by a guy I knew in college! Actually, he spends most of his on-screen time in this one lying dead on a store counter-top. That was a very amusing aspect of it for me.

Michael Elliott · 08-14-2005, 12:31 AM

08/13/05

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956)

Alfred Hitchcock’s remake of his 1934 film, this time with James Stewart and Doris Day as parents who learn of an assassination attempt. I’m really not sure which version I prefer but I was entertained by this one, which I hadn’t seen in at least fifteen years. I think the biggest problem is that this is rather weak when compared to other Hitchcock film and another problem is Doris Day. I don’t hate the woman but I thought she was pretty weak in this film and some of the comedy bits just didn’t work nor did her singing numbers.

The most interesting thing, and the main reason I watched this was because the Louisville Palace was having a Hitchcock festival the last few months and this was the first time I was able to make it. There were around 750+ people to watch this and everyone seemed to be having a great time. I was also VERY happy to see that at least 200 of these people were my age or younger. Not with their parents but there on their own to see an older film. I was a little annoyed that they were showing this Open Matte from what appeared to be a VHS transfer. I don’t know how these things are projected but perhaps my “trained eye” took a little away.

The biggest problem now is next week they have Vertigo and North By Northwest playing with the following week Psycho and The Birds. I want to see all four but I’m worried the first two will be hampered if they’re shown Open Matte. I’ve seen Vertigo on the big screen when it was re-released several years ago. I’ll probably end up going but I wish these were being shown widescreen.

Mario Gauci · 08-14-2005, 01:30 AM

Mike,

When I saw that you hadn't watched anything for nearly a week, I was getting worried that something had happened to you again

...but, now, I'm relieved!

Anyway, it's great that you'll have the chance to catch some of Hitch's best work on the big screen; I particularly envy you for NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) and PSYCHO (1960) which are possibly my favorite Hitchcocks of all

!

For myself, I remember when, in the very early 90s, 3 Hitchcocks - REAR WINDOW (1954), THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956) and VERTIGO (1958) - were re-released theatrically over here and, since I was already quite familiar with them from Italian TV viewings, I foolishly chose not to go

! I don't think anyone else did either because re-releases are practically unheard of in my neck of the woods. In fact, I can only recall 2 such re-issues in the last decade: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) and both versions of THE EXORCIST (1973) and, in both cases, it was because the films in question had been banned for so long!

The only time I manage to catch up with an "old" movie on the big screen over here is when it's part of an ongoing series of screenings (usually lasting for a week or two) organized by foreign embassies - as was the case with this year's screening of the Spanish CALLE MAYOR (1956) and the Japanese SCANDAL (1950) and CONFLAGRATION (1958).

But, to go back to Hitchcock for a moment: when I visited London for the first time in 1999, the National Film Theater (of which I'm a member) were holding a complete retrospective of his work as part of his centennial and I managed to catch up with two of them - the boxing drama, THE RING (1927) and the rarely-seen Silent version of BLACKMAIL (1929; which is superior to the more famous Talkie version which I caught up with a year later).

As for THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, I certainly think that the original 1934 version is the better one and, while I do enjoy the remake, it's not one of Hitch's best by a longshot. I do have it on DVD waiting to be rewatched...along with 24(!!) other Hitchcocks

!

Michael Elliott · 08-14-2005, 01:39 AM

My cousin had a new baby this past week. Since her and the husband were in the hospital I volunteered to take care of their 2-year-old so that they could get some rest. That didn't leave too much time for movies, although I showed her clips from THE WOLF MAN and she does a pretty good impression of Chaney.

Plus I'm back to working 10 hour days in 100 degree weather, which takes most of my energy. By the time I get home I just want to sit in the cold.

I'm somewhat upset that I missed REAR WINDOW, ROPE and LIFEBOAT (among others) but PSYCHO is a certain see. I'm going to call and ask about VERTIGO and NORTH BY NORTHWEST before seeing them. Considering how many people went to see MAN, which isn't considered one of his best, I'm thinking these bigger four will sell out.

I can't remember too much about the 1934 version but I'm going to try and get it on this week. I've seen all but four Hitchcock films but I haven't seen most since the early 90s. STRANGERS, REAR, VERTIGO and PSYCHO go on at least once a year but the others are in need of another viewing.