Mario Gauci

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

06/24/08: VIOLATED ANGELS (Koji Wakamatsu, 1967)

I’d watched three films by the same director prior to this one: while no discernible point seemed to emerge from them other than to show the dehumanized state of modern society, I certainly wasn’t enthralled by the unrelenting gloominess of Wakamatsu’s approach. With this in mind, I knew more or less what to expect here – but, then, there were other factors involved which rendered it even less appetizing than his other works!

To begin with, the film opens on a disorientating montage of naked female bodies in a magazine being scrutinized (as it transpires, contemptuously) by the unbalanced protagonist. Then we cut to a group of female nurses in an isolated dormitory – a number of whom spy on two of their colleagues making love; in the euphoria of the moment, they invite in a male passer-by – an unwise decision, as he turns out to be none other than the misanthrope we’d been introduced to earlier…who unhesitatingly shoots dead one of the lesbians! Even if I caught the film mid-way through the credits myself, the whole thing runs for just 57 minutes: while the inherent tension within the central situation could well have sustained such modest duration, this is negated by the static direction – which renders the single-setting claustrophobic and the proceedings merely boring!

Anyway, one by one, the six women (except one who had stunned the madman by questioning his motives!) fall prey to his violent outbursts: one is tied and tortured, while another gives herself to the killer in the hope of escaping her fate!! One wonders why they just don’t turn on him all at once or, even more obviously, try to escape via one of the other rooms in the house (in any case, this is said to have been drawn from a true-life incident). For the record, the black-and-white images are interrupted towards the end by brief flashes of color (such as the aftermath of the above-mentioned bondage scene and the tableau-like depiction of all the characters – naked and bloodied – huddled together in the main hall of the dormitory). The film, then, ends abruptly with the unannounced arrival on the scene of the military forces.


06/25/08: WHITE WITCH DOCTOR (Henry Hathaway, 1953)

This is one of several adventure films produced by Hollywood and set in the African jungle made in the wake of KING SOLOMON’S MINES (1950). The narrative offers no surprises whatsoever – but the end result is nonetheless watchable thanks to the soft color, the star combo of Susan Hayward and Robert Mitchum (with Walter Slezak in support), and a notable score from the ever-reliable Bernard Herrmann.

Hayward was married to a doctor who died before embarking on a mission in Africa; so, being a qualified nurse in her own right, she determines to make his wish come true by going over there herself. When she arrives, the woman discovers that the current (female) medic had succumbed to an epidemic and, so, has to take over all by herself. An American guide/hunter (Mitchum) who also operates there as procurer of animals for international zoos - paving the way for the film's most exciting sequence when a gorilla springs out of its cage - is skeptical about whether she’ll be able to cope…but, naturally, Hayward’s a lot tougher than she at first appears – soon enough, ‘converting’ even the natives when her medicine proves more effective than the potions concocted by the local witch doctors (hence the title)! At one point, she’s called in to treat a chieftain’s son (after he’s attacked by a lion during his rite of passage) whose tribe had been the sworn enemy of the white people!

The latter emerges to be true once again when Slezak – for years involved in an undercover search for a lost treasure, which partner Mitchum is also aware of – and his men kill members of the tribe who try to oppose their path to the gold; Mitchum, no longer interested in the booty, faces off with Slezak while Hayward is held hostage by the tribe. It goes without saying that the happy ending sees the couple re-united and the chief’s son cured – with the tribe showing their gratitude at this by putting on an impromptu dance. Incidentally, there’s an excess of local color and native chatter – with which interpreter Mitchum seems uncomfortable – throughout the film…but, I guess, both these elements go with the territory!


06/25/08: THE THIN MAN GOES HOME (Richard Thorpe, 1944)

This was the fifth of six THIN MAN movies made by MGM between 1934 and 1947, featuring William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles – the debonair but perennially tipsy married detectives created by Dashiell Hammett; it was also the first not to be directed by W.S. Van Dyke.

The classic original had set a standard for mystery-comedies until THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) – coincidentally another Hammett adaptation – took the thriller genre down darker alleys (heralding the advent of the “Film Noir” style). The THIN MAN sequels were content to repeat the formula which, in the wartime years, rendered them perfect escapism – especially given the increase of the homespun quotient with each new entry – but also positively bland when compared to what was being accomplished in the adult-oriented work made at other studios (such as RKO and Warners)! Anyway, a lot of the success (and lingering popularity) of the series depended on the undeniable chemistry between Powell and Loy – displaying charm, wit and finesse (even when indulging in slapstick!) at every turn…not forgetting the cute antics of their inseparable fox terrier, Asta.

As can be deduced from the title, this time around Nick and Nora leave the big city (and their offspring, Nick Jr., behind) to pay a visit to Charles’ elderly parents; however, they’ve barely arrived when a corpse literally lands on their doorstep! While Nick professes to be on vacation and lets local Police Chief Donald MacBride take charge of the investigation, he actually does his own sleuthing surreptitiously (with the help of reformed criminal Edward Brophy, a typical figure in THIN MAN films, and doctor/ex-buddy Lloyd Corrigan); on Nora’s part, believing her husband has really taken a hike from work and determined to impress his father (Harry Davenport) – who disapproved of this particular line of business – gets in on the act herself but, invariably, makes a mess of it! Traditionally, the plot – involving concealed identities and industrial espionage – is so convoluted that, for the benefit of all concerned (the audience included), Nick brings together the endless list of suspects and slowly, confidently lays the trap for the real culprit (which, as always, turns out to be the least likely villain!).

A solidly entertaining effort, therefore, if a clear step behind the first two outings – thanks also to a cast peppered with familiar faces (including Lucile Watson as cheerful Old Mrs. Charles, Gloria De Haven as an aspiring young actress who brings the whole thespian baggage into her home-life, Anne Revere’s pivotal crazed-villager character, Leon Ames as the man who devises the elaborate plan to pass off the designs to a factory into the hands of a rival firm hidden behind four innocuous paintings, Donald Meek’s nervous art dealer, Anita Bolster’s eccentric maid in the Charles household secretly admiring of Nick’s activities) and a script co-written by Robert Riskin (best-known for his work on Frank Capra pictures) and Dwight Taylor (ditto on Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers vehicles, though he did contribute the occasional hard-boiled effort, notably providing the story for Samuel Fuller’s PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET [1953]) featuring such sure-fire gags as trying to cross a densely-populated corridor in a train and Loy being cajoled by an eager sailor into a jitterbug routine (to Powell’s cringing embarrassment).

IMDB Reviews

Mario Gauci

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Hi Martin,

Although it was always my intention to watch MR. FREEDOM (1969) first, my reception of it was underwhelming enough for me to postpone the viewing of the others indefinitely - especially since I can't get the English subtitles to work on my DivX copies! But, hey, don't let me deter you from pursuing the rest of the William Klein set and, in fact, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on MR. FREEDOM and THE MODEL COUPLE (1977) whichever way they lean - pro or con.

By the way, I've been meaning to chat with you ever since you expressed a desire to have your reviews 'dissected' as mine or Michael Elliott's are in this thread! It's only appropriate to make you aware of the fact that the ongoing converstion between Michael, Joe Karlosi and myself goes back over 5 years from other online forums, etc. Therefore, we are already familiar with one another's tastes, viewing habits and reviewing methods and there is obviously a measure of comfort and friendship (or, occasionally, friendly antagonism) involved. As much as one would like to have the same kind of rapport with each and every significant individual posting on HTF, it's virtually impossible to do so. Suffice it to say that even though I often give a lengthy blow-by-blow reply to Mike's copious viewings, it sometimes takes me several weeks to find the time to sit down and put my thoughts/opinions in writing. It goes without saying, then, that my own verbose reviews do not only take time to get written down but impinge on the time available for me to interact with fellow HTF posters.

Anyhow, rest assured that I do read your posts in this thread and the "Sight & Sound" thread and I also like to follow your frequent posts in the Directors' Polls section. Actually, I've recently started going through those again alphabetically but I've already stalled at C because of time constraints. Yet another reason why I may not feel the need (for lack of a better phrase) to reply to your reviews is the fact that I may have just posted on a particular film myself only recently: a case in point is Miklos Jancso's THE ROUND-UP (1965) which I was glad that somebody else (other than SteveGon and myself) had seen and been mightily impressed by.

While I promise to keep reading your stuff and make a greater effort to interact more in future, I do have one question for you which has always intrigued me:

Although I usually rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 with half-stars included, I then translate these ratings into numbers out of 10 when posting the reviews on IMDB. Thus, my original ratings become

= 10
= 9 or 8
= 8 or 7
= 6 or 5
= 5 or 4
= 3 or 2
BOMB = 1

Anyway, I've noticed that even though a film may get a 7 or even an 8 from you, it still receives some kind of a beating in the following commentary (evidently merited, of course); conversely, a 7-rated film from me gets a mostly positive review. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right - it's just that I find it curious that you still go for the higher rating despite your reservations. Of course, all of this goes hand in hand with Joe's recent questioning of my "going overboard with star ratings" statement in respect of Michael's four-star review of RAMBO (2008)...

IMDB Reviews

Martin Teller

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario Gauci Although I usually rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 with half-stars included, I then translate these ratings into numbers out of 10 when posting the reviews on IMDB. Thus, my original ratings become = 10 = 9 or 8 = 8 or 7 = 6 or 5 = 5 or 4 = 3 or 2 BOMB = 1 Anyway, I've noticed that even though a film may get a 7 or even an 8 from you, it still receives some kind of a beating in the following commentary (evidently merited, of course); conversely, a 7-rated film from me gets a mostly positive review. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right - it's just that I find it curious that you still go for the higher rating despite your reservations. Of course, all of this goes hand in hand with Joe's recent questioning of my "going overboard with star ratings" statement in respect of Michael's four-star review of RAMBO (2008)...

The answer to that is simple: I find it much easier to articulate what I didn't like about a movie than what I did like. So if I sound negative, it's only because I don't know to put the positives into words.

In rough terms, my ratings break down like this:

10 - An absolute favorite, gets added to my collection if it isn't already there. (A+)

9 - Excellent film, with one or two minor reservations, about 35-40% of these end up as purchases. (A-/A)

8 - Enjoyed it and overall think it's strong, but there's something keeping me from making a personal connection. Or conversely, something that I recognize as flawed but I have some kind of personal attachment to it (e.g., a favorite director). (B/B+)

7 - An all-around good film that does nothing special for me. (C/C+)

6 - Not bad enough to be a stinker, but without any outstanding qualities. (C-)

1 thru 5 - various degrees of sucktitude (F/D)

The ratings are fairly arbitrary anyway, but I suppose I am occasionally too generous.

Also, FYI, I don't think we're supposed to talk about "DivX copies" on this forum, but maybe the rules have changed....

Mario Gauci

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Technically, I understand if it's not permitted to talk about this over here but, realistically, I'd say that if the technology is there, why not use it?

By the same token, should somebody with a DVD recorder not be allowed to record something off of TCM and be made to purchase the upcoming DVD release of a particular title even if he doesn't care about the extras included?

I guess it pays that my reviews are generally long so that only those interested in the movies themselves get to read them. And, in any case, I often criticize the deficiencies of the new 'format' itself in my comments...so it's not like I'm an outright advocate or promoter of it!

IMDB Reviews

Martin Teller

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Inagumi Family - It's been a while since I've seen a new (new to me, that is) Ichikawa movie. I keep hoping to find one as exhilirating as An Actor's Revenge. This one isn't, but it comes really close in some ways. It has the same bold, kinetic style to it: Ichikawa keeps throwing curveballs at you, with freeze-frames, rapid edits, odd camera effects and unusual music choices (which sometimes make it too obviously a product of the 70's). The story is an intricate murder mystery that involves an extremely complicated genealogy without allowing the viewer to get TOO confused... though there were a couple parts where it took me a few minutes to catch up. But it falls short of greatness. The style is inconsistent, and for every interesting, astonishing shot, there's another one that's just kinda bland. Where Ichikawa's compositions in the widescreen scope of Actor are almost uniformly stunning, here in the narrow frame he seems to have trouble getting inspired. But there are enough wonderful moments to make it a very good movie, and one with an entertaining plot. Rating: 8

Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mario, I've been wondering what you might have thought about my recently revisiting the Sherlock Holmes SPIDER WOMAN movie and granting it a complete **** rating?

I think that one is a perfect example for such a discussion. When I watched it I felt it hit every nail on the head, and was as perfect and complete a viewing experience as possible for that particular series. I then started to realize that the only thing possibly preventing me from awarding it this full rating was some sort of bias, predjudice, popular film rating etiquette, or pre-arranged school of thought against it, if you know what I mean. Whereas if it had been, say, CITIZEN KANE (or even the very first Rathbone Holmes movie, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES) it may have been deemed more "okay" to give it the full **** ranking, without any reservations. That's what I mean when I often say that I believe people - whether conciously or unconsciously - tend to feel comfortable awarding **** only to films which traditionally have been known to receive four stars. But THE SPIDER WOMAN!??!?? -- "Hey, this is a fifth installment in a 'B' movie series'...!!"

PatW

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

A Teacher's Crime (2008)

Pretty routine movie of the week fare. This time a young pretty history teacher is blackmailed by a troubled student and his unsavory ex-con uncle. A bit better than most movies of this type but lacking any re-watchability.

The Magic Cloak of Oz (1914)

A silent fantasy short based on the L. Frank Baum novel Queen Zixi of Ix. Though it lacks any of the characters we come to know and love, it's still quite a charming little story with good production values for its time. My granddaughter wanted to watch Wizard of Oz and I talked her into watching this one first. There are many cute little scenes in this movie that she might have enjoyed but she was up and on to other things after watching just a few minutes. So it failed to capture her attention but this adult was amused.

6/27 X-files: Fight the Future (1998)

I saw this one when it first came out in the theatre 10 yrs. ago. I was a rather ardent x-files fan, still am to a much lesser extent, and this movie was extremely disappointing. Since then I've revised my opinion and have come to enjoy it for what it is.

Directed by Rob Bowman from a story by Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz, our two intrepid FBI agents have been reassigned after the closure of the X-files. The two agents Mulder and Scully are in Dallas investigating a bomb threat. They are in the building across the way from where the bomb is suppose to be. Unwittingly Mulder comes across the bomb in a vending machine and he is told to evacuate the building by a superior which he is able to do before it explodes. Inside this building was the bodies of three fireman and a little boy who have been infected with the alien virus known as the black oil. I won't go into anymore details because it becomes quite complicated and hard to describe in a few words. But the movie involves conspiracies and cover-ups, aliens, incubation of a alien species inside of a human host, corn fields and bees and cancer man.

The X-files dealt with cases that fell out of the usual scope of the FBI. In other words there was plenty of monster type episodes or episodes involving the paranormal. But a theme that ran through this series was the alien abduction and government conspiracy angle or which has been termed the mythology or mytharc. You don't need to have a knowledge of the series to enjoy the movie but it sure helps. It's hard to gain an appreciation for the movie unless you understand the dynamics behind the Mulder/Scully relationship and the mythology.

The acting as always is great. Mulder and Scully (David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson) have great chemistry together as only two characters who have been together for five years can have. It's nice seeing how well these two mesh together and needless to say my anticipation for I Want To Believe to be released soon, has reached a fever pitch. Many complain about Duchovny's acting style, my brother included who just hates him. I think he has a subtle and laid-back style which people mistake for lacking emotion. As far as I'm concerned, he's been perfect as Mulder and his particular acting style suits this character quite well. Anderson was also good in her part but she doesn't come off as well as she does in the series. It was also nice to see William B Davis, John Neville and Mitch Pileggi have brief but pivotal roles in the movie as well as our lovable three geeks.

Preparing myself for the new movie, I've been re-watching the series and this movie has been a welcomed re-visit.

Sandro

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Out of

Rabbit-Proof Fence
One of those movies that is remarkable for the true story it tells and not how it is told.

Bird with the Crystal Plumage
With his debut film, Argento took the giallo in a different direction and spawned a whole plethora of imitations. While I'm not a huge giallo fan this one is stylish, colorful, entertaining and mysterious.

Trauma 1/2
Argento's only feature made in the US has plenty to recommend it but is ultimately compromised by the "bloodless" approach to the killings and is one of his weaker films. There are also some serious plotholes.

Paranoia 1.0
This is a fine example of low-budget, ambitious sci-fi. The story about a young programmer who starts receiving empty packages is a starting point for a study of human and computer viruses, the dehumanizing effect of technology, the power of corporations and, of course, paranoia. The setting is a future that is slightly more advanced than ours and the visuals are presented in a garish color scheme of metallic greens and yellows. The film features good performances and is well thought out in terms of script, characters, props and setting. The ending is inconclusive but I think that is deliberate.

Sugar Hill 1/2
AIP nonsense about a woman who uses voodoo zombies to get revenge on gangsters that killed her fiance.

Airplane II - The Sequel 1/2
More of the same just not quite as funny.

Son of a Gunfighter ;star:
Russ Tamblyn is completely unconvincing as a gunfighter looking for revenge in this lame Western that has a good climax.

Hate for Hate 1/2
I had never heard of this spaghetti Western before it played on TCM (unfort