Malcolm R

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

The Black Cauldron

A Disney animated, ahem, "classic," from the tween years after the "Snow White" and "Bambi" era, and before the later heyday of "The Little Mermaid" and "Lion King."

Only the barest wisp of a plot attempts to hold the film together. Something about a black cauldon that will give power, somehow, to the Horned King, who will then do...something bad, apparently, but it's not clear exactly what. The animation is decent, but not up to Disney's usual quality. Very dark tone, too, for a Disney film (though I kind of liked that).

Also, though this came out before the filmed LOTR trilogy, there seemed to be many similarities. I'm not sure if Peter Jackson was a fan of this film, but much of the artistic vision seems similar between the two films, while Disney seems to have cribbed a fair amount from the original themselves. There was a Gollem-like character (the voice even sounded like Andy Serkis, same inflections and diction), the Horned King looks very much like the Morgul Lord, the castle and surrounding lands look very much like Mordor, the King commands two dragon-like beasts that seem very much like the Black Riders' winged Fell Beasts, the Cauldron is a source of great evil power (much like the One Ring), it is finally destroyed through the sacrifice/death of the Gollum like character, the King's minions were portrayed very like Orcs and Goblins.

At a short 80 minutes, it seems they could have fleshed out the story a bit more with another 10 minute or so and it would have increased the logic and coherence of the plot. It's kind of a mess, as is.

Michael Elliott

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

And if I recall, you enjoyed most of them.


I'm not sure why you get so caught up on titles. So, if the upcoming HALLOWEEN had the title changed to HALLOWEEN NIGHT or DEVIL'S EVE then you'd be okay with it? Hell, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, APRIL FOOLS DAY and various others had different titles but they were still nothing more than F13 clones.


Oh, that post. Forgot about that one.

Not to drag that topic out but I'm sure you remember my little review of DEATH WISH 2 where I said I enjoyed the R-rated theatrical cut more than the uncut, X-rated version. The bottom line in all these films is that yes, we expect something from them but at the same time I feel the film needs to deliver on something other than just torture. Even by the torture standards the SAW films and HOSTEL can't compare to various Japanese horror films where there's nothing but torture. I don't think cheap exploitation should be mean spirited. It should be entertaining. DEATH WISH 2 was cheap exploitation so seeing someone raped by seven different guys was just too much as we got the point after the second guy. Seeing five additional guys take a turn pretty much spoils any fun to have with the film. Does that mean you can't show a rape scene like that? Of course not but the subject matter should fit the crime.


It's on my DVR as we speak actually.


That was my point. There has to be something special for you to watch a silent and that's why I said I didn't think you'd enjoy a melodrama like THE SHOW without something you liked (Chaney in that case).


Which is a different subject all together but I think this only leads to disappointment. If someone isn't interested in a film outside of its rep then that rep usually never lives up to the "thought" that viewer has already put into it. Kinda like people hearing KANE is the greatest film ever made and then being disappointed when it's not THE great (even though they enjoyed it).


2/23/06

Show, The (1927)

Rare and nearly forgotten film from Tod Browning that would play a major influence on his film Freaks. Set inside a Budapest carnival, a love triangle develops between a handsome actor (John Gilbert), a crazy Greek (Lionel Barrymore) and the woman (Renee Adoree) they both love. Browning’s direction is top notch here and I might go as far to say this is the best directing I’ve seen from him. As usual with his silent pictures, the mood and atmosphere is very rich and thick. The meanness and weirdness of the characters and story leaps right off the screen with some very memorable scenes including a decapitation. There’s a scene on the stage where Barrymore plots to kill Gilbert that is highly intense and perfectly staged. The three leads are all terrific and the inside jokes about Gilbert’s good looks are funny as well. “Freaks” like the Human Spider, the Half Woman and a mermaid also make an appearance.


Or as I like to say, there are way too many great films out there to see that there's no point in watching something 15-20 without checking out major classics. Having seen most of the majors, I can slip into the B's now.

IMDB Reviews

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

But I'm pretty sure I've explained before that films I have enjoyed like HOUSE OF WAX '05 and DAWN OF THE DEAD '04 weren't remakes at all. They were totally new movies which only capitalized on their old forerunners' success by using their popular titles for guaranteed box office power.


It would be only a tad easier to take, as I pretty much like having films with their own individual identities which are simpler to tell apart. But still, if there is a new Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode in "HALLOWEEN NIGHT", that doesn't exactly help.


"Clones", "remakes", "ripoffs".... we're just getting our lines tied up in semantics. No, I think all the films you mentioned are their own, despite simialr themes to F13. Now, if APRIL FOOL'S DAY featured a character with a mask called Jason Voorhees, that'd be a remake to me. But can you use any other examples apart from those repetitious "slasher" films to make the argument? You can use THE WICKER MAN, THE PINK PANTHER, THE LITTLE RASCALS, or something else.


But to some people, torture scenes are entertaining, for whatever their reasons. Hey, I am AGREEING with you -- I also think there should me "something more". But this goes back to a previous discussion where you (and other big film fans) were saying that "people should try to enjoy films for what the director intended and for what they are, and not criticize them for what they're not." I'm saying that sometimes ALL us film fans do this - we want "something else, or something more, or something less" from a film, even though that wasn't the filmmaker's "intent". And we do judge it by how we feel, as you're demonstrating.


I like Browning, but I didn't like that movie.


I see what you mean there - advanced expectations and so forth. All I can say in my case is that there have been many films which I've felt completely lived up to their legendary reputations (CITIZEN KANE, SUNSET BLVD.) and some which didn't (SHANE, GONE WITH THE WIND). I do think that for some people a "too great" rep can get in their way though.


Well, at least we both were impressed by the great Barrymore/Gilbert stage moment, and even went so far as to mention it in our notes.


Yes, that too. Though it could be said it's up to any individual and there's no "rule" about how to watch, what to watch, etc. I always ask: why own so many movies (as I and so many here do) if we're not going to enjoy them over and over (which is the point of owning them in the first place)? Since I have branched out in the past few years with so many new titles, I am constantly buying even MORE discs for an already-overstocked collection! Today I just picked up the double feature of DON'T KNOCK THE ROCK and ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK because I just saw the former on TCM and enjoyed it enough to own it!

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Blue Hawaii (1961)

Elvis is a G.I. returning home to Hawaii after a 2 year stint in the service but remains a kid at heart who doesn't want to grow up. His parents want him to work a good job at his father's pineapple business (!) but all Presley wants to do is have a good time, so he becomes a tour guide (ho-hum). This was really the film that would take Elvis into a silly direction for most of his future movies in the '60s. Here we also get a heaping helping of corny twangy throwaway Hawaiian songs from "the King", with embarassing titles like "Ito Eats". One saving grace music-wise is his featured classic tune "Can't Help Falling in Love", but unfortunately it's an abbreviated version and is sung to an old lady. Angela Lansbury puts in a good effort as Presley's flighty mom, but it doesn't help matters any. I do, in fact, enjoy some of Elvis' later goofy 1960s fun flicks for what they are, but this one was just too standard and aimless.

Rock Around the Clock (1956)

Though it wasn't the first film to mention "rock and roll," this is known as the "first real rock film" and it's a mixed bag. Basically it's a vehicle for rock and roll pioneer Bill Haley and his band, The Comets. In the very thin story, two older music managers realize that their old type of traditional dance music is dying out in favor of the latest "rock 'n' roll" fad. When they see Haley and the Comets perform their classic "See You Later Alligator" at a small town dance and witness all the kids dancing up a storm, they decide to try and get this group to play full-time and make it big. The film's not very interesting when it veers away from the music, but along the way we get several more Haley songs (the famous title hit, plus "Razzle Dazzle," "Rock Rock Rock" and others), and we're also treated to The Bellboys. But the main attraction is easily The Platters, who perform two big hits - "Only You" and "The Great Pretender". The latter sends chills up the spine.

Grumpy Old Men (1993)

I love Lemmon and Matthau but never caught up with this one. At first I was worried because the first 50 minute half of this movie seemed to do nothing but showcase the comical pair insulting each other and little else of any substance. They're two senior citizens who live next to each other and have known each other since dhildhood, fighting throughout. But just when it looks like that's the whole story, things luckily come alive and a narrative takes shape with widow Ann-Margret as a new neighbor who moves next door and then the retirees have something new to argue over. But we come to learn more about everyone, and the movie becomes somewhat endearing.

PatW

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Wild Guys (2004)

Mildly entertaining story about 4 guys who get lost in the woods. Adequate enough to warrant 3 stars. I found one of the characters extremely annoying, but I guess that was the point. I found myself with a smile on my face when the movie was over and comedies rarely do that for me anymore.

Baby for Sale (2004)

A couple who hopes to adopt, becomes part of a sting operation to take down a baby broker. If I'm in the right mood this kind of movie will tug at my heartstrings. The acting was generally good and the baby was just adorable. Not bad for a made for tv movie.

Michael Elliott

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Yes, when you enjoy the film then you claim they aren't remakes. Either way, I actually got TOURIST TRAP sitting here but your negative review has kept me from actually putting it in the player.


IMO, I've always seen CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN as FRANKENSTEIN with blood and more sexuality. As for Zombie, I'm not a fan of his but I'd much rather have his reworked version (ala Carpenter's THE THING) rather than a MTV director doing part 9.


The director intended for SAW to be unpleasant, which he did. He just failed to deliver anything else, which is why the film(s) only got 2 1/2 instead of 3 (like the third). Still far from a bad review.


Knowing the rep of Gilbert (especially with Garbo) added to a lot of the sly humor about his good looks, which I found quite funny. Plus, Browning's just at home with the carnival nature.


Well, I've seen the majority of the "great" American films but when it comes to foreign titles, I always go in with low expectations so that the film can take me on its journey without my brain wrapped around what the film is suppose to be like.


Which is why I've totally quit buying DVDs. I can't think of any "all time favorties" that I don't already own so I don't buy anything new. In fact, I'd say I only bought maybe five or six titles last year, which was normally what I bought in one week. With Netflix, Wild and Wooley (a store in Louisville) and TCM there's really nothing I can't see. I just got a DVR and this allows me to catch anything that's on TV, which is why you've seen and are going to see a lot more shorts. I can set the program to just record the shorts so these are going to be easier to spot now.

In reality, the only thing I buy are things that will never get an official release. The Franco titles, various Z horror films and I've gotten into ordering some rarer Mexican horror films.


I recorded all these rock films the other day on TCM but they'll be fine on DVD-R. If I'm only going to watch these once every ten years then I'll pay for a $0.10 DVD-R rather than $15 for the DVD.


Now this is the most shocking thing you've said in this years thread. I could have sworn you had seen this and its sequel before. In an older thread I criticized THE ODD COUPLE 2 because it was more like the GRUMPY films rather than a sequel to the original. I enjoyed both GRUMPY films because, well, it's funny to hear two old people insult one another.

IMDB Reviews

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

If I see a modern remake and it's good, I'll say so. For example, I did like 1998's MIGHTY JOE YOUNG and it was certainly a remake. It's a needless and already forgotten film, but it's still a remake.


After I'd seen and enjoyed HOUSE OF WAX (2005) I learned it was similar to TOURIST TRAP, which I hadn't seen. When I finally got around to TOURIST TRAP I found there are similarities, as with any "wax" film of this type, but is the 2005 film an actual remake? If it was, these days I don't think they'd have any trouble calling it TOURIST TRAP (2005), straight up. And the commercial title HOUSE OF WAX was itself a misnomer; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the old 1933 and 1953 versions. It qualifies as one of your "slasher" examples more than anything else! But don't let me keep you from seeing TOURIST TRAP; I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority when it comes to horror fans' reviews on that one so the odds are more with you.


More repetition we've long discussed -- because as I always say, for one thing, I don't really have a problem with the various takes on literary characters like Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc. Second, the CURSE film you mentioned is (again) an older remake from 1957 when I believe they could still make them right, not like today. Third, they're not remaking the Karloff film, they're doing another take on Mary Shelly's classic. Fourth, the film is completely its own separate entity, being called THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN.


Well if I had to choose, I'd rather have Zombie doing HALLOWEEN than someone else... but even better, I'd rather have nobody touching the original HALLOWEEN, which stands on its own as an already classic film of its genre. There is no need whatsoever to "update" this already-modern film.

As for a HALLOWEEN 9, this franchise became a joke many years ago already. It didn't even know what direction it wished to go in for many years and I'd be happy personally if there weren't ever anymore HALLOWEEN movies made. The very satisfying conclusion of HALLOWEEN: H20 should have put the lid on the whole thing. Having said this, if I had to choose I'd still rather them do another sequel than try to remake a classic that works perfectly as it is.
As I asked last time, why always go to the horror remakes in your points? There are plenty of others in different genres.


As I was watching those two geezers swearing at each other I kept thinking to myself, "I bet Michael Elliott loves this stuff". Well, comedy's completely subjective when it comes to what we all find funny and nobody's right or wrong, but I don't think that getting cheap laughs by cussing or hurling insults at one another constantly is very good comedy writing, and it pretty much demeans the great Lemmon and Matthau, who didn't need to do that stuff to be funny. Oh, don't get me wrong -- I'm not a total prude or anything and it can be humorous to see an old lady tossing out a good old fashioned "screw you, a--hole!", say if a man is trying to be nice and help her across the street -- but I think the main things required are that the writing be good in how the moment is presented, and the biggest of all is that it should be used sparingly; too much becomes a bore. I'm glad the film got on a better track for its second half.

Michael Elliott

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)