John Stell

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Relax, Joe. It was a joke - note the emoticon. Jeeze, you can be such a grouch.

Edit:

Mario Gauci

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Re: THE POWER AND THE GLORY (1933)

Although I have never watched the film myself, it is best-known today for introducing flashbacks first and inspiring CITIZEN KANE (1941) second. I can’t verify those claims, of course, but the importance that Preston Sturges and Herman J. Mankiewicz had on the relative films’ final shape and form cannot be ignored. What keeps getting ignored is that the director of THE POWER AND THE GLORY, William K. Howard, is a good film-maker in his own right. He was at his best during the 1930s: I have recently watched two of his films myself – THE PRINCESS COMES ACROSS (1936) and FIRE OVER ENGLAND (1937) – and they were both superior, strongly pictorial examples of their respective genres (screwball comedies and historical epics).

Anyway, I don't buy the idea that knowing how an irreproachably great film (like CITIZEN KANE) had been influenced by a lesser or more obscure one (like THE POWER AND THE GLORY) in any way diminishes the achievement of the later work and, in any case, this example is hardly a solitary one: witness the finale of Rex Ingram's THE MAGICIAN (1926) which startled me by being a virtual template (shot by shot) for the one in James Whale's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)...


Re: INTRUDER IN THE DUST (1949)

I haven’t seen this one in years but agree that it was an unusually mature film for its time, studio and director. It ought to have been released on DVD years ago – perhaps under Warner Brothers’ “Controversial Classics” banner – but, 11 years into the DVD format, there is still no sign of it on the horizon. At least, I do have it on VHS somewhere…


Re: THE CALL OF THE WILD (1972)

Again, I have to claim ignorance of this film’s apparent unanimously reviled status! Maybe it’s nostalgia which makes me take up its defence (having watched it first one childhood morning on Italian TV) but, revisiting it fairly recently, the film didn’t seem all that bad to me even now ()…


Re: Roger Ebert

For having penned Russ Meyer’s notorious BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1970), Roger Ebert has quite surprisingly seeped into public consciousness as probably the most popular American film critic alive; however, as I said in the past, I do enjoy reading his “Great Movies” column whenever I revisit one of the titles included therein:

:: rogerebert.com :: greatmovies_intro (xhtml)


Re: Charlton Heston

Having been exposed to both facets (historical and modern) of the Heston persona from a very young age, I never consciously thought of his latter-day roles as being unworthy or degrading or whatever. In fact, much later I was taken aback on learning of Leonard Maltin’s lowly star ratings for AIRPORT 1975 (1974), EARTHQUAKE (1974), MIDWAY (1976), TWO-MINUTE WARNING (1976), GRAY LADY DOWN (1978) and THE AWAKENING (1980) – which were all films I caught (and enjoyed) during my childhood. Luckily, today I own all of them on DVD-R or DivX so it will be interesting (maybe even fascinating) to watch them again after all these years and especially in light of this discussion of their camp value (or lack thereof).

For the record, BEN-HUR (1959) is the very first live-action Hollywood classic I ever watched in a theater (in the early 1980s) and, at one point around the same time, both MAJOR DUNDEE (1965) and PLANET OF THE APES (1968) were my favorite films!! How times (and opinions) change! With the passage of time, I have also come to prefer the profane and more immediately enjoyable THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) to the grim and overly solemn BEN-HUR. These two may always remain Heston’s most popular achievements but, personally, I think that EL CID (1961) and THE WAR LORD (1965) might well be his finest epics! "Blasphemy" quoth Karlosi...

In closing, although they have all been shown on TV over the years in my neck of the woods, I’d still love to catch the following Heston movies eventually: THE PRESIDENT’S LADY (1953; where he played Andrew Jackson), PONY EXPRESS (1953), COUNTERPOINT (1967), CROSSED SWORDS (1977; where he was King Henry VIII) and the two movies he directed himself in – ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA (1972; as Marc Antony) and MOTHER LODE (1982). Actually, I did watch his even later directorial effort, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1988; TV) but despite all good intentions, it paled besides Fred Zinnemann’s near-perfect 1966 Oscar triumph.


P.S. Joe – although I didn’t like the movie myself on first (dead of night) viewing, I’m surprised by your rating for TOUCH OF EVIL (1958). We may have discussed this topic before but I’m not sure. What gives?

IMDB Reviews

Mario Gauci

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

04/09/08: I EAT YOUR SKIN (Del Tenney, 1964)

This being my first Del Tenney movie, I wasn’t exactly aching to seek out more from him by the end of it! If the immediate influence of George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) is in doubt, one only needs to know that this film was re-released in 1970 and retitled (from the generic original, ZOMBIES) – even though the creatures on display here are of the voodoo variety rather than cannibalistic (and, rather than being resurrected, are scientifically-modified)!

The film offers interminable sequences of voodoo rituals full of risibly spastic dances – while the bug-eyed zombies themselves (surely the ugliest ever depicted on screen) look more like demented gingerbread men! There’s also a hilarious scene early on where the novelist hero is inundated with females held rapt by his storytelling skills at a public swimming pool, which meeting is disrupted by the arrival of the irate elder husband of one of the flock who proceeds to beat the crap out of her in front of everybody! Besides, the dumb blonde character of his agent’s wife is thoroughly obnoxious to boot.

The ultra-low budget and an invincibly amateurish feel to the whole production do not provide the expected chills, but rather invites the viewer to have fun at its own expense! As mentioned above, the film was eventually bought by producer Jerry Gross and re-released much later as a double bill with his own similarly titled and equally distasteful production, I DRINK YOUR BLOOD (1970; see below).


04/09/08: REDACTED (Brian De Palma, 2007)

My love of the arts (and cinema in particular) has probably led to patriotism being the quality I least value – given that I live on so small an island that we have no local film industry and the barest minimum of full-time artists! It follows, therefore, that other people’s claims that REDACTED is un-American (and therefore worthless in their eyes) do not effect me and, for what it’s worth, I can look at the thing objectively – even though, admittedly, the film itself is anything but objective with respect to the Iraqi conflict.

I’ve watched several recent films that have dealt with this latest war – THREE KINGS (1999), BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001), FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (2004), JARHEAD (2005), etc. – but this is perhaps the most personal, significant and controversial of the lot. The choice of technique – a series of short films (one of which was in French), Internet links, Internet terrorist messages, interrogation aftermaths, HD footage (which, during the rape sequence, makes the captain look almost like a vampire!) etc. – was a clever one and gave the clichéd events/characterization a much-needed freshness. Besides, pieces of classical music – which are also heard in Stanley Kubrick’s BARRY LYNDON (1975) – are effectively used here. Having mentioned Kubrick, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the Vincent D’Onofrio character in his FULL METAL JACKET (1987) by the figure of the obese and aggressive soldier in the film under review. He and his pals are involved in the afore-mentioned rape (of an underaged Iraqi civilian) which leads to a retaliation in the form of an abduction (of one of their own number) – but this is presented in such a contrived fashion that I was laughing helplessly throughout it all (which could hardly be further from the director’s intentions): how on earth did the kidnappers know that the Angel Salazar character (the geeky film student who’s keeping a record on DV of the conflict) was one of the quartet involved, and how was his camera retrieved? Incidentally, this viewing followed soon after CLOVERFIELD (2008) – which applies a comparable cine`-verite` approach to a monster-on-the-rampage movie. Likewise, the unexpected and violent death of the black captain – via a booby-trap couch lying on a garbage heap – brought back memories of recent personal events.

It’s good to see De Palma going back to his Godardian roots, as well as being relevant again; having said that, he had already tackled very similar material almost 20 years ago in CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989; which I haven’t yet seen). In this context, however, I don’t quite know how to read De Palma’s next project – which also looks back to one of his biggest Hollywood successes (being a prequel to his own THE UNTOUCHABLES [1987]). Ultimately, nothing he did before or since has managed to displace PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) from being my favorite movie from this director…


04/10/08: I DRINK YOUR BLOOD [Director's Cut] (David E. Durston, 1970)

This is considered a “Grindhouse Classic” – the former it may well be, but the latter it definitely ain’t! The film was released as a double-feature with the re-issue of ZOMBIES (1964), now renamed I EAT YOUR SKIN: both of these titles actually end up being misnomers, chosen strictly for their exploitation value. Again, this starts off with a rite (Satanic rather than voodoo) – which here, too, has nothing to do with the rest of it! The gang of youths concerned attack an uninvited girl and then take it up on her relatives when they confront them. Eventually, a young boy decides to avenge himself upon the group in a rather vicious manner (feeding them meat pies from his family’s bakery infected with the blood of a rabid dog!) – and, unwittingly, unleashes an epidemic of madness and murder.

The violence (coupled with the foaming-at-the-mouth make-up) is so unconvincing as to be laughable – and, for added queasiness, there’s a completely gratuitous scene involving a boa! A measure of the film’s contrived nature is the fact that the group takes quite some time to show the effect of the disease (one of them is a nymphomaniac who ravishes a bunch of construction workers – conveniently spreading the virus – before expiring), but their victims all turn rabid at the bat of an eyelid! One more unexplained factor is that each member of the Satanic cult develops a particular abhorrence of one another – with their Indian leader dispatched by his former black pal in memorably grisly fashion.


04/10/08: THE THIRSTY DEAD (Terry Becker, 1974)

This was included in the “Living Dead” 9-film collection I rented; however, there are no zombies here – and the title itself isn’t a reference to anything in particular! The Widescreen print of this one was the best-looking from the four titles I watched – but the same can’t be said of the film, which is perhaps the least of them (certainly the campiest, particularly where costumes are concerned)!

Starting off with a White Slavery-type plot, it soon falls into formulaic “She” territory – involving a lost civilization who has achieved immortality (presided over by a disembodied living head preserved in a block of ice!). This gives it an old-fashioned air (the film is remarkably chaste) and makes the whole incongruous alongside the permissiveness prevalent in exploitation/horror fare of the time (though, at least, three of its female protagonists look good in skimpy jungle attire).

One of the women happens to look just like the painting of a blonde who had appeared to these enlightened people in a vision – so, instead of draining her slowly of blood, they want her to join their fold and be initiated into their lifestyle (which doesn’t sit well with one of the girl’s companions, a go-go dancer, who would love to exchange places with her…especially since the heroine will have no part of this deal!). A high priest falls for her and, eventually, helps the survivors escape (and liberates the imprisoned old hags, remnants of their ‘experiments’ over the centuries) – except that, once he gets near to the modern world, starts reverting to his real decrepit age!

The film offers no surprises whatsoever but, what really gets it down, is a serious pacing problem – being not so much slow-moving as ineptly-handled, the direction showing a distinct lack of judgment with respect to cutting where it could benefit story and suspense the most! For the record, I followed this with a bunch of trailers included on another disc in the set: I was particularly enticed by the ones for THE ASTRO-ZOMBIES (1968) – for how bad it appears to be, not to mention the momentous pairing of John Carradine and Tura Satana! – and THE CHILD (1977) – yet another EXORCIST clone.

IMDB Reviews

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Yes, sometimes I can be.

I've been trying to use emoticons less these days. Emoticons when used along with a dig, to me, are a way of people trying to pretend they "don't really mean it" when they actually do. Besides, the emoticon you used was of the "popping eyes" ("shocked") variety, not a smile. As this is only a message board and there's no way to really know, I had every reason to believe you were being genuinely grouchy about my Siskel & Ebert remark.

Martin Teller

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi I've been trying to use emoticons less these days. Emoticons when used along with a dig, to me, are a way of people trying to pretend they "don't really mean it" when they actually do.

I totally agree. I've noticed this more and more, especially from certain people. The smiley is often being used as a "cover your ass" technique to say something rude but not get called out for it.

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I've got THE AWAKENING on a very old VHS, and I plan to watch it. This was a film that was so slow and dull to me the first time I tried it many years ago now, that I never finished it.

Mario, I just wanted to ask you -- are you aware that Leonard Maltin himself does not write all the reviews for his book? I ask because a lot of times fans write things like "Leonard Maltin gives this film..."


I know you're kidding, but I couldn't honestly cry "blasphemy" because I haven't seen THE WAR LORD nor EL CID. I did pick up EL CID on DVD recently though... and although I once owned THE WAR LORD, I don't have it any longer.. and it's now a valuable DVD!


How do you mean "surprised"? In that I liked it or I didn't? Because I think it's a good film, but not a great one. Three stars is a good rating.

Of course now we can watch the new version more or less the way Orson Welles intended it to be seen. My feeling is that it still feels somewhat uneven though, and it could have and should have been even better. You've got to love the lighting and the noirish trappings, the gloomy settings and grim photography.

Heston himself is often considered miscast and while I would go along with that on the surface of it, once you get deeper into the movie I think we can forget that this character is Charlton Heston, and begin to believe he is a mexican narcotics policeman. I think he manages to pull it off despite the obvious attempt to slap dark makeup on him, give him a mustache, and slick his hair and dye it black. I think Orson Welles himself is the standout as the slobbering and crooked cop, and Janet Leigh is tough as nails early on but then pretty much disappears and doesn't figure into the story. Akim Tamiroff is cunning in his part of the crime leader.

It seemed like a bit of a hodge podge of different ingredients this time, but still an interesting film.

george kaplan

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Mikado

I'm not much of a Gilbert & Sullivan fan. For the most part the music is all of a certain bland type, largely indistinguishable, and sort of blandly pleasant without having any real tunefulness. Only one song in this movie rose above that to any meaningful degree. The lyrics, while often clever, are presented in a hyperstimulated fashion that is difficult to do, so admirable in that sense, but not terribly enjoyable to listen to.

The comic acting (especially Martyn Green) was pretty good, but not enough to overcome the lackluster music.

Mafioso

Film about a Sicilian who's moved away and comes back for a visit and ends up having to do a hit in New York or else face retribution against his wife and kids. Interesting for the mafia insights circa 1962 (ten years before the Godfather) and done in a very lighthearted style, though not really ever funny.

The film has a lot of good points, but in the end, isn't anything I'd watch again.

"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock

"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I am vastly superior to everyone else." - Ramrod Clerk

Tarkin The Ewok

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

3/28: National Treasure (2004) out of

This is a harmless, mildly entertaining Bruckheimer/Cage film. My perceptions may be colored by having seen the superior sequel and the scene where they trick the villains on television before seeing the original in its entirety. While not a break from formula, I still enjoyed the Riley humor.

4/6: Fistful of Dollars (1964) out of

The Man With No Name (or Joe) is an intriguing screen persona, and the cinematography is quite well done. Otherwise, the film is pretty slow and uninvolving. The biggest flaw is the lack of any other characters that I can either root for or against. I don't care about Clint's cleanup of the town because the townfolk and the bosses are so bland and cardboard.

My DVDs