Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 68

Adam_S · 12-29-2006, 03:45 AM

Poland has an interesting article up on B movies and the concept of cinematic correctness if you want to take a look over at mcn (I'm on dial up it would take me ten minutes to get a link). He's sort of annoyed that everyone is elevating children of men, when he claims its really just another Blade Runner (a film that is happy to stay in the limitations of its b movie boundaries I believe he put it). I think he's barking up the wrong tree with those examples, but oh well.

Speaking of B movies, how about a movie everyone agreed to hate? after seeing it I can kind of comprehend why some people disliked it, but this a movie so wonderful and charming that it struck me straight to the core. I wish more movies were like this.

Elizabethtown -

(8 of 10)

My one dislike is some of the narration, some of the time. It starts off as a lovely tribute to The Apartment but when it crops up a little here and there it's occasionally annoying occasionally perfect. The opening sequence was a little long, the film really doesn't start until he's on the plane. But from there on it was pure magic for me.

The humor in the film was so accurate, Crowe nailed it. Sight gags, dialogue, simply the way it was edited together, the film was downright brilliantly funny. Great soundtrack, lovely performances, wonderful story and an almost perfect ending (just end on the kiss, geez).

60B!

-----------------------------
introduced my family to A Matter of Life and Death - still a perfect movie. Perhaps even better. my mom pointed out that Niven is barefoot at some significant moments following his initial stroll on the beach when he takes off his shoes. Wonderful movie, I'll watch it again in a couple weeks on the big screen for a second time.

Adam

Joe Karlosi · 12-29-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

With all that in mind, I never quite understood how March won an Oscar for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. I personally find this to be one of his lesser performances but he won the Oscar somehow.

Because he was brilliant in a dual performance, but mainly as Mr. Hyde. His acting as Jekyll is overly theatric, but it's the sharp contrast in personalities that's well done.

Sandro · 12-29-2006, 10:22 AM

There is a historic bias against horror/sci-fi product by critics (movie and literary) and the Oscars. As Adam points out above some films which are clearly sci-fi are not labelled as such because of how much the critics like them, what other themes are explored or because of who actually made them or appeared in them etc. To think that Karloff would have been nominated for his turn as Frankenstein's monster (as brilliant as he is) is laughable. March won because he got to play two "different" characters, one of which is a showy role. Also he is the lead in the movie.

Karloff's performance in The Body Snatcher should definitely have been nominated but again I'm sure that the Academy never even considered nominating a performance in a horror B-movie.

Bob Turnbull · 12-29-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

What's so bad about a no-talent making a bad film? Wouldn't you agree that it's a lot worse when someone like Ford, Huston, Spielberg or Kubrick make a bad film considering they do have talent, money and actors?

Do you mean from some kind of moral perspective? Yes, it would be much more disappointing and even inexcusable for a talented director with a budget to fail than for a "limited" director with no money. But if you are looking at the quality of a film (at least from each person's subjective standpoint), you shouldn't care about any of that. My guess is (and I'm making no definitive statement here, just using it as an example) that I would enjoy Spielberg's worst film much more than Ed Wood's best film (whether or not I applaud Wood for putting his heart and soul into his work and shake my head at Spielberg for messing up).

I think I've only seen 2 Ed Wood films and my biggest problem with them was the vast dullness of them. Sure there are moments to laugh at the sheer "badness" of them, but boredom takes over for the most part. Unless of course Tom Servo is talking over it...

Quote:

He's sort of annoyed that everyone is elevating children of men, when he claims its really just another Blade Runner

And there's something wrong with that?

Quote:

Elizabethtown

I really wanted to like this film. I really tried too. And there are some good parts and ideas, but it just came across to me as a huge mess. Orlando Bloom hit a couple of good notes, but mostly fell flat. Kirsten Dunst's character annoyed me at times. However, it's worst sin for me was many of the plot points feeling staged and sometimes even cliche.

Wish I could provide examples, but I'd have to rewatch it...

Adam_S · 12-29-2006, 01:29 PM

Kirsten Dunst is basically exactly like on of my cousins, Elizabethtown is basically my Mom's hometown, the kids running around shrieking I see every holiday, I 'know' most of the adults in some manner or another and most of the jokes hit home perfectly.

It was that wierd instance of a film really hitting home for me.

Michael Elliott · 12-29-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Elizabethtown is basically my Mom's hometown

I'm not sure where you grew up but ELIZABETHTOWN certainly wasn't like my hometown, which was the real Elizabethtown, which the movie is based in. I really tried to love this film since I enjoy most of the director's work but I found it a pile of crap. The stereotypes were embarrassing, the story was stupid, there wasn't anything between the leads and Crowe's attempt at capturing a Southern town was a joke. They had a couple pre-release screenings in Elizabethtown and it didn't take long for the bad word of mouth to get around. The film still did good but most of the reviews were pretty negative.

Quote:

Do you mean from some kind of moral perspective? Yes, it would be much more disappointing and even inexcusable for a talented director with a budget to fail than for a "limited" director with no money.

Yes. When people say, "Carpenter's film is junk like an Ed Wood film"..... that's really not fair to Wood since he had no talent. I think it would be more fair to compare that bad Carpenter film to a bad film from some director who did have talent. Spielberg's 1941 would be a good thing to compare to a bad Carpenter film.

Wood: $7500 budget, no talent, no stars, 5 days
Spielberg: $100 million budget, talent, major stars

I think Wood can be excused for making a bad film while Spielberg has no excuse.

Haggai · 12-29-2006, 03:51 PM

Cast a Dark Shadow (1955) 8/10
This British thriller from '55 stars Dirk Bogarde and Margaret Lockwood, directed by Lewis Gilbert, who later did Alfie with Michael Caine, and several Bond movies. Bogarde is a young fortune-hunter plotting to knock off his much older wife, and when some will-related issues pop up, he sets his sights on a sarcastic middle-aged widow played by Lockwood. The first half or so is extremely well-made and terriffically entertaining, starting off with an excellent opening scene. The plot starts to unravel a bit when it comes to rely on Lockwood's character being simultaneously shrewd about some things but careless about others, and some silly plot points pop up near the end, while building up to a somewhat ridiculous climax. Still, I liked it a lot, in spite of the not so strong finish.

Volver (2006) 8/10
Almodovar's latest centers around two sisters, one of whom has to deal with a Lana Turner-type situation involving her husband and daughter, and the other who seems to have encountered the ghost of their dead mother. It takes a little while to get going, but the touches of humor and the emotional resonance of a long-delayed family reunion are very strong. Penelope Cruz has one of the best roles of her career, and the rest of the cast is great as well.

Meet Me In St. Louis (1944) 10/10
It's fun seeing this classic with an audience at a screening, especially for the collective reactions to all the weirdly hilarious gallows humor. I see this movie not so much as one of the best musicals ever, though of course the musical numbers are great, but as one of the greatest cinematic examples of family-centered storytelling. The relationships and dynamics of the large family are realized as well as they possibly could be, with the cast, the production values, the use of color, and the smooth visuals all operating at the highest level. And boy, Halloween night for young kids sure isn't what it used to be!

Without Warning! (1952) 6/10
B-movie noir about a homicidal gardener (yes, a gardener) who keeps targetting the same type of young woman for death. The cast and the story isn't particularly good most of the way through, but some pretty good suspense sequences make the last third or so worthwhile, as two detectives close in on the killer just as he's about to knock off another victim.

All Through the Night (1942) 8/10
I finally started getting around to some of the post-Maltese Falcon discs in the recent Bogart DVD set. This one is a really fun comedy/propaganda movie about a bunch of Damon Runyon-type high rollers who do battle with a group of Nazi fifth columnists. The cast is full of great character people--Bogart's associates are William Demarest, Frank McHugh, and an extremely young Jackie Gleason, with Conrad Veidt and Peter Lorre leading the Nazi saboteurs. Jane Darwell plays Bogart's mom, and even Phil Silvers shows up in a small part. The action/fight scenes usually go on for too long, but there are a lot of great one-liners, and everyone in the cast pulls it off very well.

Tarkin The Ewok · 12-29-2006, 09:42 PM

12/27: Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut (2005)

1/2 out of

This Ridley Scott epic has a powerful message, colorful characters, and magnificent scope and detail. The half-star reduction is just a gut reaction and not targeted to any specific flaw in the film. I'm looking forward to watching the extensive DVD extras; every other Ridley Scott movie I own has had a fascinating journey to the screen.

I will see you all in the 2007 thread in a couple of days.

george kaplan · 12-29-2006, 10:25 PM

I think Wood can be excused for making a bad film while Spielberg has no excuse.

A couple of problems with your example. One, 1941 is a pretty good movie to begin with, and compared to something like Plan 9 or Glen or Glenda (2 Ed Wood films I have seen), it's Citizen Kane. Two, this isn't about excuses or blame. I'm not suggesting that Ed Wood be put in jail for being untalented, only that his films suck regardless of talent. And Carpenter should be more closely compared to Ed Wood than Steven Speilberg, cause Speilberg could make a film on an Ed Wood budget that would outshine Carpenter on a DeMille bugdet.

Bon Voyage

Aventure Malgache

Two of Hitchcock's lesser known works, both French language WW2 propaganda shorts. Bon Voyage, while short, is excellent. Not Rear Window, but very, very good. Aventure Malgache is good, though weaker, with a strange and unneccesary and kind of baffling bookend story.

The Cowboy & the Lady

OK comedy, but not great.

The Wreck of the Mary Deare

Not bad, but one can only fantasize about what the originally slated director, Alfred Hitchcock, could have done with this. Herrmann's music, Lehman's writing, Hitch's direction, this could have been something special.

Man on Fire

Would benefit from judicious editing, but overall, a top-notch kidnapping flick.