Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2005)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 65

post #1921 of 2004
Thread Starter 
12/19/05

Convict 13 (1920)

Buster Keaton gets mistaken for a convict and must find a way to break out of prison before they hang him. Here’s another middle of the road short from Keaton, which features plenty of small laughs but not enough to make this one of his better films. Highlights include the scene where he tries to catch the fish who ate his golf ball as well as the scene where they go to hang him.

Daydreams (1922)

Before a father will let him marry his daughter Buster Keaton must go into the city to try and find a good job. Once in the city Buster finds it impossible to keep a job and soon has the police chasing him. Here’s a pretty good short that has several nice laughs including a suicide attempt plus another scene with Keaton working on the stage. The stuff dealing with a parade is another highlight.

12/20/05

Last Gangster, The (1937)

Strange but highly entertaining gangster film from MGM has Edward G. Robinson marrying a woman who doesn’t know about his deadly pass. Robinson eventually has a son with her but before he meets the child he gets sent to prison for ten years. The mother then finds out about his past and decides to kidnap the kid so that he doesn’t turn out like his father. She eventually marries another guy (James Stewart) but soon Robinson is out of jail and looking for revenge. This is certainly a lot tamer than the Warner gang pictures of the time but that’s a good thing because there’s a lot of heart and emotion in place of the violence. Robinson is very good and incredibly touching in the end and Stewart shines in his role. John Carradine has a very good part as a man picking on Robinson inside prison. The ending is predictable but the film still works very well.

Basketball Fix, The (1951)

A poor college freshman is a wiz on the basketball court but soon gets involved with gangsters in a points shaving scheme. Here’s another moral “B” film from the 1950’s this time taking shots at gamblers. The film doesn’t have good acting or a real good story but it remains slightly entertaining throughout. It doesn’t hurt matters that it only runs 65-minutes either. John Ireland stars as the sports reporter who starts to see the star shaving the points.

12/21/05

Dr. Renault’s Secret (1942)

Dull horror film about Dr. Renault (George Zucco) and his little secrets including his mentally challenged assistant (J. Carrol Naish). For some reason this is a rather well known film among horror fans but I can’t see why because the big “secret” is easy to see within the first five minutes and the rest of the film is slow and boring. Zucco and Naish are mildly entertaining but the film goes no where in the end.

Night World (1932)

Strange Pre-Code from Universal takes place at a nightclub during the Prohibition era where the women wear very little clothes and the alcohol is running free. Outside some Pre-Code dialogue and situations the story here is rather weak because it seems the director was only wanting to show the women and booze. The film runs a very fast 56-minutes but a few of the scenes go on a bit too long even with the short running time. Lew Ayres, Mae Clarke, Boris Karloff and George Raft star. Watch for the joke aimed at James Whale’s Frankenstein.

Curse of the Swamp Creatures (1966) BOMB

Incredibly bad film from the infamous director Larry Buchanan. One jackass goes into the Everglades to find oil when he encounters a jackass scientist mixing alligators and humans. The budget of this thing is so low that the director just used black people for his half human/half alligator creatures. When the title character finally shows up he looks pretty good but he doesn’t get on the screen until the very last scene in the movie. Bad on all levels and only recommended to those who are wanting to take off five years of their life.
post #1922 of 2004
Kung Fu Hustle

I'm really torn about this one. It took over 15 minutes for me to laugh once at this film. I knew this was supposed to be a comedy, and I thought that either I had the wrong film, or that the 'comedy' would be such that you'd have to really be a genre expert to get it (like the supposed comedy Samurai Spy, which after it ended an hour and half later had elicited a grand total of zero laughs from me). But this film did have a number of laughs, and while it wasn't constant by any means, when they came, I was laughing very hard and very loudly. Whether there are enough laughs for me to want to watch this again - I just don't know at this point.
post #1923 of 2004
Thread Starter 
Just in case you didn't know TCM has their new site up, which includes a movie database, which is very handy and has some nice information as well as trailers and other goodies. You can also now vote on stuff you want to see on DVD.

12/22/05

Horrors of the Red Planet (1965) BOMB

Four astronauts crash land on Mars where they walk around for an hour’s worth of running time before meeting the planet’s wizard (John Carradine). Here’s a really bad movie that somewhat keeps you interested because you’re expecting something to happen but when nothing does happen you can’t help but be really pissed. Carradine doesn’t show up until the final ten minutes and when he does it’s only his head. The rest of the cast members are equally awful as are the special effects, directing, screenplay and so on.

House of the Black Death (1965)

Two warlocks, one good (John Carradine) and one evil (Lon Chaney, Jr.) battle over human souls. I really don’t have the faintest idea what this film is about because there are three storylines going on and none of them make any sense on their own so mixing them together is even more confusing. One of the stories deals with the warlock’s other brother who’s a werewolf but we never actually see the wolf. Again, here’s a film that you hang onto because you’re expecting something to happen but nothing ever does happen so in the end you’ve just wasted your time. To make matters even worse Chaney and Carradine don’t share any scenes together.

Terror in the Wax Museum (1973)

Set in a wax museum in London, several murders are starting to pile up and everything points back to the museum. Is is a deranged killer, the new owners or are the wax figures coming to life and killing? Here’s another remake/rip-off of Mystery of the Wax Museum, which is pretty flat from start to finish but the veteran horror cast makes it worth watching. Ray Milland, John Carradine, Elsa Lanchester and Patrick Knowles star.
post #1924 of 2004
Thread Starter 
12/23/05

Cyclops, The (1957)

A woman (Gloria Talbott) travels to the Mexican desert to locate her husband whose been missing for three years. She finds him but he’s now a huge, one eyed Cyclops. Here’s a classic of the 50’s sci-fi directed by Bert I. Gordon who would make a career out of these “man/animal grows big” films. The entire cast, including Lon Chaney, Jr. are a lot of fun and the dialogue gets some nice chuckles as well.

Ask Father (1919)

Before he can marry the woman he loves Harold Lloyd must first ask for her father’s permission. The only problem is that her father is the busiest man alive so getting near him will take some time. Here’s a very funny one reel that has plenty of laughs throughout. The stuff with the two bouncers, one a midget, is histerical as is the moving floor in the father’s office. The scene where Lloyd climbs up the side of a building is also great.

Safety Last (1923)

Before marrying his girlfriend country boy Harold Lloyd moves to the big city in order to make lots of money. He fails but tells the girl he’s doing well and when she makes a surprise appearance Lloyd must try to get money quickly. To do this he decides to climb up the side of a skyscraper. There are too many laughs in this here but the final twenty minutes are among the most suspenseful moments ever put on film. I had heard all about the building climbing sequence but damn was this thing brilliantly done. This sequence alone makes this a must see.

Eastern Westerner, An (1920)

A party boy (Harold Lloyd) is sent out west by his parents but once there he encounters a group of masked bandits. I really didn’t find this short very entertaining. Not many laughs to be found here.

From Hand to Mouth (1920)

A tramp (Harold Lloyd) meets a young homeless girl and her dog and the three try to get some food. I’m sure this was meant to be a sweet little film but it doesn’t come off that way and the lack of laughs make it rather uninteresting.

Christmas Party, The (1931)

Jackie Cooper wants to throw a Christmas party for his football team but his house is too small so MGM lets him have it on one of their sets. This is a pretty good short that features cameos by the big boys of MGM including Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Marion Davies, Lionel Barrymore, Jimmy Durante, Wallace Beery and others.

MGM Christmas Trailer (1937)

Judy Garland at 15 years old sings Silent Night. That’s all there’s to this short but it’s a very good singing worth catching on TCM.

Play Girl (1932)

Irresistible pre-code about a working class girl (Loretta Young) who believes in working for something in life and not just marrying into it. She eventually falls for a compulsive gambler (Winnie Lightener) and after their married the ugly nature of gambling comes into play. This is a wickedly funny and in the end depressing little tale that works wonders in its short sixty-minute running time. Young and Lightener make for a terrific couple and the racy sexual dialogue makes for some great laughs. Young is beautiful and charming as ever and delivers a knockout performance. This was the first film I’ve seen Lightener in but he was wonderful as well. Edward Van Sloan has a small part as well.
post #1925 of 2004

(like the supposed comedy Samurai Spy, which after it ended an hour and half later had elicited a grand total of zero laughs from me)


Seeing as how Samurai Spy is an action/adventure film, you expected laughs?

What made you think it was going to be a comedy?
post #1926 of 2004
What made you think it was going to be a comedy?
Obviously, I named the wrong film. I saw a number of 60s Samurai films all around the same time, and I know at least one was supposed to be a comedy. I think it was probably Kill!, which I saw about the same time I saw Samurai Spy. In any case, there was some film introduced as a comedy of the Samurai genre, which I sat through without cracking a smile.
post #1927 of 2004
Yes, Kill! is the film that is the genre parody. I did laugh a few times - the beginning when Nakadai enters the dusty town, a common opening for samurai films and Westerns, and it's shot like a typical "cool epic" entry, but then he gets dust his eyes and coughs; the farmer getting turned on by covering the whore in dirt and that comic freeze frame where he throws her in the air in his excitement; and I think there was a funny line or two here and there. But I agree that it certainly wasn't a laugh-a-minute comedy or even a laugh every 10 minutes comedy.

I agree with you on Kung Fu Hustle too. I liked it to an extent, but it wasn't nearly as funny as God of Cookery.
post #1928 of 2004
Kiss of Death (1947)

Viewed 12/20/2005

Solid noir about an ex-con forced to rat on his former accomplices by a determined district attorney.

out of


The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (1970)

Viewed 12/20/2005 (first viewing)

Beautifully-shot suspenser from Dario Argento. A writer witnesses a near-fatal assault and becomes embroiled in the search for a killer.

out of


Lancelot of the Lake (1974)

Viewed 12/21/2005 (first viewing)

Robert Bresson's austere exploration of the final days of King Arthur's court, centering on the doomed affair of Lancelot and Guinevere.

out of


Flic Story (1975)

Viewed 12/22/2005 (first viewing)

Excellent policier about an ambitious young detective assigned to capture a deadly criminal who's just escaped from prison.

out of


The Milky Way (1936)

Viewed 12/22/2005 (first viewing)

Pretty funny little comedy stars Harold Lloyd as a wimpy milkman whose altercation with a drunken boxing champion turns him into a star pugilist.

out of


McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971)

Viewed 12/23/2005

Robert Altman's western about a gambler whose dreams of success are threatened by a ruthless mining company.

out of


Signs & Wonders (2002)

Viewed 12/24/2005 (first viewing)

Oddly-nuanced drama about a man desperate to regain his family after leaving them to run off with his mistress. Engrossing and unconventional.

out of


Cabiria (1914)

Viewed 12/24/2005 (first viewing)

Early historical epic from Italy follows various characters as they try to survive in perpetually-conflicted ancient Rome.

out of


Happy holidays to all!
post #1929 of 2004
Thread Starter 
Aww yes, a Merry Christmas to all.


12/24/05

Wizard of Oz, The (1910)

Nice if strange version of the classic tale. The production values here are actually pretty nice and it’s a rather strange trip seeing humans in outfits playing the various animals including the lion.

Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914)

The fairies of Oz create a magic cloak, which will give one wish to the person who wears it. Once again the production design is very good here with wonderful and magical sets. The story is quite touching and I’m sure kids would love this version just as much as adults. The highlight of the film is the scene where a horse (played by a human in an outfit) is scratching his butt up against a tree and tries to teach a monkey how to do it.

Wizard of Oz, The (1933)

Pretty good Technicolor cartoon based on the book. The animation is rather nice and the scarecrow and tin man are pretty funny here as well. This was the first version to show Kansas in B&W and then Oz in color.

His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914)

An evil King takes over and wants his daughter to make a no good but when the Scarecrow comes to life he has his eyes on the daughter as well. Here’s a very interesting film written and directed by L. Frank Baum who was also the writer of the Oz stories. The visual effects are very effective especially one scene where the evil witch removes the heart of the Princess and then freezes it before putting it back in her body. Another great scene is one that the kiddies shouldn’t see but the Scarecrow cuts off a head. This effect is done very well and effective. This is certainly the most “adult” version of Oz I’ve seen, which makes it quite interesting.

Sting, The (1973)

I enjoyed this film a lot more on this viewing I think in large parts due to the wonderful transfer. I didn’t see the previous DVD so my only viewings came from a faded VHS, which always made the film appear a tad bit too cheap. With the more vivid colors on this disc I really got caught up in the wonderful art direction and all that stuff. What didn’t change was the great story and the terrific performances from Newman, Redford, Shaw and especially Durning.

Long Lost Father (1934)

A deadbeat father (John Barrymore) leaves his daughter at a young age only to bump into her as an adult. He soon learns that she’s partying and gets into some trouble so will he rise up and finally be a father? This is a rather strange film that plays for laughs the first 45-minutes and then goes for drama the final 20 and the two really don’t mix well. Barrymore’s comic timing is right on the mark and he keeps this thing going but his daughter is such a bitch you really can’t care what happens to her. Another strange thing is that there are a couple weird moments in the film where Barrymore talks about how nice his daughter's legs are. Produced by Merian C. Cooper and directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack.
post #1930 of 2004
Le Samourai (1967) - A hitman is doublecrossed and hunted by those who hired him in this existential crime film. Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, the film is tremendously well shot and edited, simply gorgeous to look at. But the film makes Alain Delon's hitman a remote figure, stuck in the anonymous solitude of modern life. I felt little for the character and this sucked much of the energy from the suspense scenes of Delon both being pursued and coming after those who've wronged him. A film worth another look in the future, but given how much I've heard about this, my love of Melville's Bob Le Flambeur, and enjoyment of Le Cercle Rouge; I found this disappointing. - B-

The Devil's Rejects (2005) - A revisit of Rob Zombie's southern-fried exploitation throwback. With a very fine cast of characters and character actors, and Zombie's burgeoning cinematic skills that enable it to rise head and shoulders above the ultraviolent pack, this is both one of the surprises of the year and one of the year's best films. A-

Godzilla: Final Wars (2004) - This everything and the kitchen sink Big G installment has some high points - plenty of montster action with almost the entire rogue's gallery of Toho Kaiju, the very cool redesigned King Ghidorah and Gigan, the return of the super cute baby Godzilla, and a human story that makes sense, human actors with some measure of ability, and is short on groan-worthy dialogue.

However, I found the whole film to lack energy. While I enjoyed seeing so many different monsters fight, most of the fights are over very quickly and lacking in "Wow" factors (other than stuff like "Wow! They actually brought back King Caesar! Man, he got his ass kicked in about 30 seconds."). And as others have mentioned, the Matrix-esque stuff and human action is lame and a waste of screen time. Tokyo SOS and G2000 remain my favorites of the "new" Godzilla films. - B-

Four Brothers (2005) - Once one gets past the plot conceit of 4 interracial brothers coming together to avenge their mother's death with some old fashioned vigilante justice, John Singleton's latest is a pretty good action film. The actors are not exceptional, but fit their roles and deliver plenty of fun action dialogue. The film provides a detective type hunt for the killers through a web of crimes and conspiracies along with more visceral thrills, the best of which is a killer car chase on the ice-slicked streets of Detroit in Winter. - B

A Christmas Story (1983) - Annual watching of the familiar Christmas classic about a boy's quest for a Red Rider BB gun with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time. Love many things about this film; my favorite probably being Ralphie's imagined blindness from soap poisoning. I know I went to sleep many a night thinking my parents would be sorry for some wrong they'd done to me. Ultimately this is a joyous portrait of family togetherness. - A

It's A Wonderful Life (1946) - Annual watching of this classic, the best art film to come out of mainstream Hollywood cinema. I always wonder at those that find this film unbearably sappy, as I find it to be quite dark. After all, much of it deals with a man's unfulfilled dreams and disppointments, causing him to hate his life to the point that he is going to abandon his wife and children and end his life. I was struck this time by one shot in which Jimmy Stewart runs toward the camera, with Capra freezing for a split-second on a close-up of a face filled with madness and desperation, much in the way that Stanley Kubrick loved to use close-ups of faces.

I remain convinced this is one of the five best films ever made. - A

Rear Window (1954) - When it came out today during a game of Apples to Apples that my Mother had never seen Rear Window, I took it upon myself to correct that immediately. As soon as the kids were in bed we watched Hitchcock's classic thriller and I loved watching the effect it had on my mother and brother - the hand over mouth, the "oh no's!", "Get out!" "Don't go in there!", etc as Hitchcock's magic weaved its spell yet again. I can never decide between this and Psycho as my favorites. - A

The kids are going back to Missouri with my parents tomorrow so I'll probably hit the theater and watch a DVD or two. Still need to watch the long making-of doc for The Devil's Rejects. Then Tuesday I'm off to Missouri for a week to hang out with friends, play poker at one of the casinos and maybe squeeze in a few movies, too.

Happy Holidays and God bless us everyone!
post #1931 of 2004
Greetings from Israel, where I've been visiting relatives for the last week and a half or so, coming back to the US later this week. Not much chance to see any movies, although there's plenty of other fun to be had around here.

I did just see a popular Israeli movie from the early '70s with my mom and my aunt, on DVD. My Hebrew is only very basic, and unfortunately the English subtitles were somewhat bungled and sometimes didn't stay on the screen for more than a fraction of a second. But most of it was subtitled well enough, and I could follow at least the more basic exchanges of dialogue without them when I had to.

Azulai the Policeman (1970) 7/10
This comedy about an inept cop who's on the brink of being fired starred Shaike Ophir, the most popular entertainer in Israel for a couple of decades. Not exactly a great movie, most of the comedy is pretty basic, with a few amusing fantasy sequences that are very Billy Liar-esque. There are some pretty funny parts, especially near the end when some of the criminal underground get word of Azulai's impending dismissal from the police force. Since they don't want to have to deal with anyone competent patrolling their beat, they hatch a scheme to get a big robbery-in-progress arrest for Azulai to take credit for, so that he can stay on the job. But they find themselves having to go out of their way to overcome his bungling, just to get their guy arrested!

The best thing about the movie is Ophir, really a great performer. He creates a complete character, wholly sympathetic in spite of his incompetence on the job, and he gets laughs through character instead of with any shtick or mugging for the camera. But he was apparently a great situational comedian as well: my mom said that she loved his radio skits when she was growing up in Israel (no TV in this country until the late '60s), especially one where he played a crusty Iraqi immigrant teacher who was trying to teach his high school students Shakespeare.
post #1932 of 2004
First time viewings in Blue

The Last of the Mohicans (1936)
Randolph Scott plays Hawkeye in this oft told adaptation. Interesting but I much prefer Michael Mann’s rousing 1992 version.

No Regrets For Our Youth (1946)
Early Kurosawa melodrama as a young woman’s boyfriend is executed for being a radical student, she goes to live with his family in the country. This one is for hard-core Kurosawa completists.

Trail Street (1947)
Average oater as Randolph Scott cleans up Kansas as Bat Masterson.

Seven Men From Now (1956)
Outstanding Budd Boetticher/Randolph Scott psychological Western co-stars a young Lee Marvin in one of his best roles. Scott plays an ex-sheriff who’s hunting down the seven men who robbed a bank and killed his wife. This one has eluded me for years. Hopefully Columbia with release the other 5 films (Warner controls the 6th) Boetticher & Scott made together especially their masterpiece The Tall T.

Panic in the Year Zero (1962)
Ray Miland and family roam the outskirts of post-nuclear holocaust LA civilization in their RV.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Terry Gilliam fantasy as the Grimm brothers are a pair of shysters who are forced to deal with a real supernatural curse place on the children of a remote German village. Not Gilliam’s best but pleasantly entertaining.

Four Brothers (2005)
Four adopted brothers avenge their mothers shooting. The interaction between the brothers make this one rise above the standard revenge film.

The Great Raid (2005)
True-life military exploit about the rescue of American POW’s from a Japanese camp in the Philippines. Interesting story, but unfortunately this really lacks any style & has a bland made-for-TV feel.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
OK genre mix as the courtroom drama meets the horror film as an agnostic lawyer tries to defend a Catholic priest when an exorcism goes awry.

King Kong (2005)
Peter Jackson does it again, this time updating a cinema classic & making an A-list monster movie for the ages. Outstanding on every level, though it’s character building scenes require an adequate attention span from the viewer. Now bring on the 4 hour extended cut DVD.
post #1933 of 2004
Thread Starter 
12/25/05

Svengali (1931)

Svengali (John Barrymore) becomes obsessed with a young woman and puts her under his hypnotic spell. This comes as a major disappointment to me after hearing such good things over the years. The film is incredibly slow making it rather hard to get through and it really doesn’t seem to know what type of film its trying to be. Barrymore gives a decent performance and his look is great but that’s about it.

Abraham Lincoln (1930)

D.W. Griffith’s first talkie takes a look at the life of Abraham Lincoln (Walter Huston) from his early days in Illinois up to his assassination. This film comes as a major disappointment considering the talent involved. I’ve read that Griffith wanted to make a huge epic surrounding Lincoln and the Civil War but couldn’t get financing and this film certainly looks like it. The movie jumps around the events so fastly that we never really get to know Lincoln or the people on both sides of the war. There’s one small battle scene, which is pretty lifeless and the assassination scene is pretty poor especially compared to the one in Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. Huston gives a wonderful performance but that’s pretty much all the film has to offer.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

The legendary film keeps getting better with each new viewing thanks in large part because its still very relovent today. There’s really not much else I can say that hasn’t already been said so I’ll just leave it at that. J

East of Eden (1955)

Incredibly hard hitting and emotionally draining film from Elia Kazan from the John Steinbeck novel about a brother (James Dean) trying to get love from his father while meeting his real mother (Jo Van Fleet) for the first time since she ran out on him as a baby. Even though this is an incredibly hard film to watch I still think it’s one of the greatest ever made due in large part to the brilliant performances by the entire cast especially Dean who delivers one of the greatest performances ever caught on camera. Julie Harris, Raymond Massey and Burt Ives are also incredibly strong in this film. The ending is one of the most devastating in screen history.

12/26/05

Forever James Dean (1988)

Pretty good, if too short documentary taking a look at the short life of James Dean. It’s mainly interesting because a lot of non-famous friends of Dean are in the interviews talking about him. Another interesting, off topic aspect is the horrid P&S quality of some of the video clips, which makes you appreciate the work done by Warner on these recent DVDs.

Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

Eye opening and visually stunning original about Ben Hur (Ramon Novarro) who is thrown into slavery only to eventually take on the Romans. It’s been over a decade since I’ve seen the Heston remake so I won’t compare the two until I see it again but this thing here is a really amazing achievement of the silent era. The costume design is flawless and the sets are really unbelievable and mammoth. The chariot race here certainly matches the one in the remake and that film’s director was also one of sixty(!) director’s who worked on the race here. The famous ship battle here is also a lot better because it was real, not faked. Apparently a fire really broke out on the sets so a lot of what we’re seeing in the slave quarters are the actors really freaking out and not just acting it up. The visual effects are also quite nice especially in the opening sequenced in Bethlahem. The 2 ½ hour running time flashes by very quickly and smoothly so hopefully more folks will watch this version of the film.

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, A (1955)

A made for TV version of the classic story features Boris Karloff as King Arthur. I guess the only thing this movie proves is that TV movies back then were as worthless as the ones today. Poor on all accounts and the director is some of the worst I’ve ever seen. Even Karloff sleepwalks through the film.

Unknown Chaplin: My Happiest Years (1983)

Incredibly interesting documentary from Kevin Brownlow uses outtakes, behind the scenes footage and other goodies to tell the story of Charles Chaplin during his Mutual years of 1914-1917. Since most silent “extras” are gone it’s rather amazing they were able to find all of this stuff, which really puts a face on the rumors surrounding Chaplin’s work methods. It is known he was a genius but no one ever saw how that genius came to be. Some said he was sadistic and others said he was a terror to work for. With these outtakes we see why people would feel this way as Chaplin takes little scenes and runs off fifty to one hundred takes. But we also see the genius this creates especially during outtakes of The Immigrant where the same scene is shot over and over using different actors, clothing and other things to pull the scene off. This was part one of a three part series.

Alice’s Wild West Show (1924)

Wonderful Disney short has Alice (Virginia Davis from their Alice’s Wonderland) putting on a Wild West show only to have the neighborhood bully show up and try to wreck it. The mix of live action and animation here is very well done and highly entertaining especially one scene where Alice’s coach is being chased by Indians. A lot of laughs and some nice suspense as well.

Alice Gets in Dutch (1924)

Alice finds herself in another adventure after the teacher sits her in the corner where she dreams out a little revenge. Once again the mixture of live action and animation work wonderfully well together in this cute short.

Alice’s Egg Plant (1925)

Alice and her cat Felix are in trouble at the egg factory when the chickens go on strike just as an order for 5,000 eggs comes in. A lot of laughs and great animation make this one of the better titles in the series. The highlight is when a snake eats three of the eggs.

Alice in the Jungle (1925)

Alice and Felix find themselves in the jungle trying to get away from some mean crocs. The animation is a huge step up from previous entries in this series but there aren’t as many laughs but in the end it’s another enjoyable Disney short.

Primitives (1978)

Three college kids and their professor travel to Indonesia where they go into the jungles in search of cannibals. They find them but soon learn the cannibals are rather hungry. Here’s a rare jungle/cannibal film from Indonesia, which tries hard to recapture the Italian cannibal genre but pretty much fails. The biggest problem is that there are so many cliffhanger moments that you really can’t take the film too seriously. The worst thing is that none of the characters are all that likeable so you have a hard time wanting to see them live. Be forwarned that there are a lot of real animals slaughtered (and eaten) on screen.

Cannibal Curse (1987)

Incredibly bad Hong Kong flick but I’m really not too sure what it’s about. A mad doctor (or something) in the jungle has beautiful Asian women bath in a (?) magic pond then go out and have sex with men. Or something like that. Either way the film is simply boring and pretty poorly made and no, there aren’t any cannibals in the film. The original title was Curse but perhaps they should have added some flesh eaters. The only thing that keeps me from giving this sucker a BOMB is the fact that there’s a lot of beautiful Asian chicks getting naked throughout the film. Yeah, I’m nice like that.
post #1934 of 2004
Quote:
Outstanding on every level, though it’s character building scenes require an adequate attention span from the viewer.



-- And those nonstop CGI sequences require NO attention span!
post #1935 of 2004
Quote:
Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

Eye opening and visually stunning original about Ben Hur (Ramon Novarro) who is thrown into slavery only to eventually take on the Romans. It’s been over a decade since I’ve seen the Heston remake so I won’t compare the two until I see it again but this thing here is a really amazing achievement of the silent era. The costume design is flawless and the sets are really unbelievable and mammoth. The chariot race here certainly matches the one in the remake and that film’s director was also one of sixty(!) director’s who worked on the race here. The famous ship battle here is also a lot better because it was real, not faked. Apparently a fire really broke out on the sets so a lot of what we’re seeing in the slave quarters are the actors really freaking out and not just acting it up. The visual effects are also quite nice especially in the opening sequenced in Bethlahem. The 2 ½ hour running time flashes by very quickly and smoothly so hopefully more folks will watch this version of the film.


I'll never understand how anyone can judge any of the two BEN HUR's higher than one star, well let's say one star and a half . It's annoyingly religious, it's ordinary melodrama (the silent version in a mindnumbing way), it's mediocrely acted (the silent version again worse than Wyler's film) and it's not even well constructed (shouldn't the chariot race be the high point?).
Two entirely unremarkable films. Except for the fact that they were expensive, but that's not enough.
post #1936 of 2004
I'll never understand how anyone can judge any of the two BEN HUR's higher than one star, well let's say one star and a half
Well I rate the 1959 movie 1 1/2 stars. But then, that's on a scale from 0 to 1 stars.

Why? Of course you'll never understand, and this won't help you, but it's simple. I can sit for 3 hours and 42 minutes, and be entertained that whole time and never be bored. And when it's over, I know that in a couple of years I'll enjoy watching it again. There are some 'so-called' great German films that have me wanting to put hot pokers into my eyes after 5 minutes. Ben-Hur on the other hand, is enjoyable entertainment for almost 4 hours.

Now, of course, you don't find it so, and for you 1 star is correct. But I don't see why you can't understand that other people are different than you and find things you like boring and things you find boring to be entertaining.
post #1937 of 2004
Thread Starter 
Quote:
(shouldn't the chariot race be the high point?).


Perhaps to those who prefer action over a story and drama.

Quote:
It's annoyingly religious


Well...if someone's annoyed by religion then of course they'd find a "religious" film annoying. Aren't you a major fan of THE EXORCIST though? Does the religion aspects in that film annoy you?

Quote:
it's mediocrely acted


I'm not sure how to reply to this because I'm not sure if you one who attacks all silent acting. If so, I can respond to that later. If not and you're only talking about these two films then I'll hold my comments until I get a more recent viewing of the remake.

Quote:
Except for the fact that they were expensive, but that's not enough

I would agree with you here to an extent. I will agree regarding the remake but not in regards to the original. From reading a few of your posts it seems clear that you are very fond of film history so I don't see how anyone could disrespect what was accomplished with the original film. Even with the $4 million budget there's no denying this film changed how films would be made all the way until today. If THE BIRTH OF A NATION broke the ground on filmmaking then BEN HUR at the very least broke in new ground on all epics to follow.

Quote:
it's ordinary melodrama

I guess it depends on one's opinion of "melodrama". I read your posts in the 30's Challenge where you were saying Hollywood films (of that era) were all melodramatic and that's why certain foreign films were "better". I agree that the Hollywood films of that era were over dramatic but I think the foreign films are just as overdramatic. We can look at the films being made in America and overseas from the 1890s all the way to the 1930s and I personally don't see much difference.

I mean seriously, is there any American director more overdramatic than someone like Ingmar Bergman? Bergman likes to beat people over the head with sadness, death and depression yet he gets praised (rightfully so IMO) for this. If an American director tries this the terms melodrama gets thrown on him.

Is the ending to CITY LIGHTS or EAST OF EDEN melodrama? Perhaps but I wouldn't change a moment of them anymore than Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING or Allen's INTERIORS.
post #1938 of 2004
Quote:
Of course you'll never understand, and this won't help you, but it's simple. I can sit for 3 hours and 42 minutes, and be entertained that whole time and never be bored.

George, the art of film criticism is entirely lost on you. Watching films isn't just sitting on the couch and being entertained. Not that it's not important, but it's also thinking about what you like and why you do like it. You seem to see films in a rather instinctive way waiting for your reaction and then throwing it away or keeping it while it's interesting to find out how something is made and how it works on you. You also learn something about yourself in the process.
Quote:
Perhaps to those who prefer action over a story and drama.

Don't tell me Michael that you particularly care for the 40 minutes after the chariot race. Ben Hur trying to put together armies and Jesus being crucified but not without healing the family ... that's predictable and one dimensional religious stuff.
Quote:
Well...if someone's annoyed by religion then of course they'd find a "religious" film annoying. Aren't you a major fan of THE EXORCIST though? Does the religion aspects in that film annoy you?

Nope, it's not me. I find religion in a film mostly a bad idea. If you include Christ into a film you immediately kill every nuance and subtlety. Christ and the people who support him are good and the rest bad. Any film immediately falters into a speech of religious conviction.
Oh just by the way, I don't know who's is christian here, but isn't the idea that god in order to take away the sins of the people (which he created as potential sinners) slaughters his own son in a horrible way a bit strange. Surely there could have been another less showy and bloody way than human sacrifice.
Quote:
I'm not sure how to reply to this because I'm not sure if you one who attacks all silent acting. If so, I can respond to that later. If not and you're only talking about these two films then I'll hold my comments until I get a more recent viewing of the remake.

Again no, silent acting is a very complicated matter with performances ranging from theatrical acting of Italian silents to Louise Brooks. But Bushman is merely a villain and Novarro simply not very good with his gesturing. Broad acting isn't necessarily bad acting if it has a certain rhythm, it's ballet like and very convincing if totally different from today's acting. Wyler is the much better actor's director and he has a better visual sense, too.
Quote:
I would agree with you here to an extent. I will agree regarding the remake but not in regards to the original. From reading a few of your posts it seems clear that you are very fond of film history so I don't see how anyone could disrespect what was accomplished with the original film. Even with the $4 million budget there's no denying this film changed how films would be made all the way until today. If THE BIRTH OF A NATION broke the ground on filmmaking then BEN HUR at the very least broke in new ground on all epics to follow.

the silent BEN HUR would be insanely expensive today to make with the real sets, the sea battle and so on. But I always felt that a movie shouldn't be too expensive. You have to do a simple story wehich has very universal appeal which lead the way to today's dumb action blockbusters.
Quote:
I guess it depends on one's opinion of "melodrama". I read your posts in the 30's Challenge where you were saying Hollywood films (of that era) were all melodramatic and that's why certain foreign films were "better". I agree that the Hollywood films of that era were over dramatic but I think the foreign films are just as overdramatic. We can look at the films being made in America and overseas from the 1890s all the way to the 1930s and I personally don't see much difference.
I mean seriously, is there any American director more overdramatic than someone like Ingmar Bergman? Bergman likes to beat people over the head with sadness, death and depression yet he gets praised (rightfully so IMO) for this. If an American director tries this the terms melodrama gets thrown on him.
Is the ending to CITY LIGHTS or EAST OF EDEN melodrama? Perhaps but I wouldn't change a moment of them anymore than Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING or Allen's INTERIORS.
I entirely agree with your last points, I always thought that's a double standard with which art films are considered.
But I think of melodrama as the melodrama of the late 19th century with the villain, the young innocent girl and the hero, something which you find very much in Griffith's and Chaplin's films. That's probably the most stereotypical way to tell a story and btw quite offensive in its gender politics. I think it's a considerable problem with many silents and films up to the thirties in the whole world. Especially silents often don't give a damn which story is filmed as long as it is a visual delight. While I think Chaplin succeeded by adapting his fascinating tramp persona and Griffith at least partly via sheer poetry, in BEN HUR you have the original melodrama even enforced by religious propaganda. You have the Romans (always evil) and the Judeans (soft, understanding, good and winners because they have the right religion). You have an array of stereotyped female roles, the femme fatale who works for Messala, the dutiful mother and the eternally sweet sister (victims) and a very bland love interest for Ben Hur who is merely in the story because such an epic demands a love story.
It's simply a very uninteresting and uninvolving character arrangement.
post #1939 of 2004
Quote:
If you include Christ into a film you immediately kill every nuance and subtlety.

Huh? The use of Christ in the 1959 version is very subtle and reserved. There is a great deal of nuance in it.

I'm going to have fun with this discussion later, but I have to leave for work at the moment...
post #1940 of 2004
Thread Starter 
I'll reply later Armin but I'm off to see the new KING KONG with my father (yes at 10:30am ).

The religious aspects of any film really doesn't bother me except when it comes to THE EXORCIST but I'll explain this a tad bit later.
post #1941 of 2004
George, the art of film criticism is entirely lost on you.
No, the idea of difference of opinions and the obvious subjectivity of film criticism is entirely lost on you. You have a subjective reaction to a film (based on your own religious background, experiences and how those color your perception of a film that includes various religious symbolism and story), and decide that this must be some sort of true, objective reality about a film's worth (sounds pretty fundamentalist to me ).

If you include Christ into a film you immediately kill every nuance and subtlety
What about irony? You make a blanket statement that any film that includes Christ in any way whatsoever kills nuance and subtlety? That is the least nuanced or subtle statement I've ever heard in film criticism on any board, in any book or on any show.
post #1942 of 2004
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Christ and the people who support him are good and the rest bad.


You could also say those movies showing serial killers in a bad way make the sin of making them look bad and their victims look innocent. WALK THE LINE makes Johnny Cash look bad for using drug and makes June Carter look like God because she tries to stop him YET people seem to forget she's the reason he's using them. Reminds me of the song Sympathy for the Devil by The Rolling Stones.

Quote:
Don't tell me Michael that you particularly care for the 40 minutes after the chariot race.


I enjoyed them enough to the point where I don't feel the film would have been better had Ben Hur walked off the screen after winning the race. That would have left a lot of things unanswered for one but the scene where the mother and sister try to reach out for him but can't was very touching and wonderfully done by the director.

Quote:
that's predictable and one dimensional religious stuff.


Oh, of course it is to someone who doesn't believe. However, for those who don't believe is it really that big of a stretch to just "believe" for the sake of the film? If we can watch a movie and pretend Bruce Willis can kill 200 terrorists without getting scratched himself or that aliens come to Earth or whatevere else, why not a faith healer?

Quote:
the silent BEN HUR would be insanely expensive today to make with the real sets, the sea battle and so on. But I always felt that a movie shouldn't be too expensive. You have to do a simple story wehich has very universal appeal which lead the way to today's dumb action blockbusters.

If we were discussing DeMille I'd probably agree with you. Just not in the case of this film. However, if BEN HUR is the reasoning behind that new piece of trash KING KONG then I'll curse the film.

Quote:
That's probably the most stereotypical way to tell a story and btw quite offensive in its gender politics.


I'm not sure I agree here. The only people I hear crying about this stuff are those who need their names in paper or need money for their so-called helpful groups. The majority of the folks I work with are minorities and I haven't heard any of them complain about Tom and Jerry being racist. I haven't heard any of them curse BIRTH OF A NATION, Buster Keaton or any other oldie that used stereotypes. Outside myself, I haven't heard anyone complain about the stereotypes in WHITE CHICKS.

Quote:
Especially silents often don't give a damn which story is filmed as long as it is a visual delight.


True but this is just a product of the day issue. I'm not sure how many filmmakers today could make a film and get their "points" across without having to use sound.

Quote:
Griffith at least partly via sheer poetry, in BEN HUR you have the original melodrama even enforced by religious propaganda.


I actually felt the religious stuff was more "in your face" during Griffith's INTOLLERANCE, although it was certainly never preachy or trying to be forced down the viewings throat.

Quote:
You have the Romans (always evil) and the Judeans (soft, understanding, good and winners because they have the right religion).


True but (I think) if you asked the majority of those who believed, they'd believe this story even if it wasn't correct. Just a part of the history/belief that people have in their minds. DeMille's THE KING OF KINGS changed all this "history" around to a silly effect yet I think that films message still came across.

Quote:
You have an array of stereotyped female roles, the femme fatale who works for Messala, the dutiful mother and the eternally sweet sister (victims) and a very bland love interest for Ben Hur who is merely in the story because such an epic demands a love story.


This here could come back to the fact that us in this thread have seen way too many movies. I use to go to mainstream movies and wonder how those people watching it with me couldn't figure out what was going to happen and it was because they didn't watch every movie ever made. If you've seen enough horror films you'll know who will live and die as soon as the film introduces the characters to you. If you've seen enough romantic comedies you'll know that the two will fall in love at the end. If you've watched enough film noir then you'll know that mysterious lady will always have something up her shirt.

If (like most) someone only watches a few movies a month they'll probably not know the "rules" to these films and will be able to see them as something fresh and original. By watching so many films like we do I guess it's harder to be shocked at what's happening.

Fresh ideas were out of moviemaking after 1900. Having watched countless films from 1890s this year I can honestly say fresh ideas started to go downhill. The only thing that changed was the technology that went into making them.
post #1943 of 2004
Jesus. I haven't updated my list in God only knows how long.

EDIT: Just finished updating it.
post #1944 of 2004
If you've watched enough film noir then you'll know that mysterious lady will always have something up her shirt.
Actually it's usually up her skirt. She's got a couple of things up her shirt too, but those aren't really a mystery.
post #1945 of 2004
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure which noirs you've been watching George but I don't think I've seen any where the women had things hidden in their skirts.

12/28/05

King Kong (2005)

America’s love making with Peter Jackson continues with this horrid piece of junk that for some reason is getting great reviews (but thankfully it’s failing at the box office). My dad and I went to see this and afterwards I asked him what he thought of it and he said it was the worst film he has ever seen (and he’s seen a lot). While at Steak ‘n Shake eating the table across from us were in the same screening and they all hated it as well so thankfully I’m not alone. Gee, where do I start? I’ll start with the fact that Peter Jackson needs to go back to film school and learn what an editor does. There’s no way in hell this thing should have ran over three hours. The dino fight sequence was dreadfully slow and boring. In fact, it nearly put me to sleep, which isn’t good for an “action” scene. The love story between Kong and the woman had me wanting to scream at the screen. The ice skating scene between the two almost had me walk out of the theater. The three leads are all incredibly boring especially Jack Black and his delivery of the final line almost made me lose my popcorn. The film is way too loud with a poor story, poor acting and there was way too much CGI. Another bad thing is that Jackson really “remade” the original and didn’t really add anything new to where those who have seen the previous films wouldn’t feel like we’ve been there and done that. Not for once did this Kong feel real. I’m not a huge fan of the 1933 version but it’s miles ahead of this sucker as is the 1976 remake and even King Kong Lives is better than this trash.

Munich (2005)

I haven’t seen too many films released this year but so far this is hands down the best. Steven Spielberg’s brilliant film telling the story of what happened after the 1972 Olympics is a sad, depressing and incredibly violent film that hopefully people will go see. I know there’s all sorts of controversy already surrounding this film and while I do think the film favors the Israeli’s there’s no doubt its message hits right at home without being preaching and without Spielberg adding a B.S. happy ending like he’s done throughout his career. Spielberg is being very brave here in how he tackles the revenge subject and especially in the way he shows the violence. Again, had this not been Spielberg the film probably would have gotten a NC-17 rating because of the gore and violence but not once is it shown in a stylish way or in a way trying to make it look like a good thing. The film starts off depressing and Spielberg keeps it that way all the way till the ending. The performances by the entire cast are wonderful and the film hits on all levels. A crowning achievment for Spielberg, which is a lot better than Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. My father loved this one as well.
post #1946 of 2004
Quote:
Christ and the people who support him are good and the rest bad.
You could also say those movies showing serial killers in a bad way make the sin of making them look bad and their victims look innocent.

Might be a problem as well, psychopaths are often used as menace and you don't need to waste much time with explanations, you must just say: "He's nuts" and that's all. But a serial killer might be at least potentially interesting, Christ is just a very boring guy who preaches all the time and is obviously right in every thing he does. Not exactly a fascinating character, eh?
Quote:
I enjoyed them enough to the point where I don't feel the film would have been better had Ben Hur walked off the screen after winning the race. That would have left a lot of things unanswered for one but the scene where the mother and sister try to reach out for him but can't was very touching and wonderfully done by the director.

I admit that's a marvelous sequence where she caresses his shadow, but nevertheless it's a movie in urgent need of a story for the last 40 minutes.
Quote:
Oh, of course it is to someone who doesn't believe.

Makes no difference. If I would be religious, it would be still one-dimensional.
Quote:
I'm not sure I agree here. The only people I hear crying about this stuff are those who need their names in paper or need money for their so-called helpful groups. The majority of the folks I work with are minorities and I haven't heard any of them complain about Tom and Jerry being racist. I haven't heard any of them curse BIRTH OF A NATION, Buster Keaton or any other oldie that used stereotypes. Outside myself, I haven't heard anyone complain about the stereotypes in WHITE CHICKS.

Which would tell more about the people than about the movie. The last years show also a strange retreat of feminism though women still are underpayed and not on equal level with men. Again this says more about the time than if it's good or bad. I would be quite offended if my race would be portrayed as lecherous niggers eager to sleep with and ready to rape white women and the director would be so racist he wouldn't even use a black man as actor but a white man to play the role of the potential rapist.
Quote:
I actually felt the religious stuff was more "in your face" during Griffith's INTOLLERANCE, although it was certainly never preachy or trying to be forced down the viewings throat.

Hey I said Griffith partly succeeded. He's more successful in WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS less so in BIRTH and INTOLERANCE.
Quote:
True but (I think) if you asked the majority of those who believed, they'd believe this story even if it wasn't correct. Just a part of the history/belief that people have in their minds.

Just because it's an old cliche, it doesn't get better. It's tiresome to see vicious decadent Romans and against them pure and good Christians. It's dumb and it's propagandistic.
Quote:
If (like most) someone only watches a few movies a month they'll probably not know the "rules" to these films and will be able to see them as something fresh and original. By watching so many films like we do I guess it's harder to be shocked at what's happening.
Fresh ideas were out of moviemaking after 1900. Having watched countless films from 1890s this year I can honestly say fresh ideas started to go downhill. The only thing that changed was the technology that went into making them.

That's a bit too much, but I remember the mid 19th century novelist Gottfried Keller stating in one of his novels that pretty much everything has been already told.
Which makes it all the more important not to bore us to death with the oldest cliches and most melodramatic stories. You have to find a certain new angle on old stuff and reproducing completely outdated conceptions of women isn't exactly the thrill of the century. And it's anyway hardly a good idea to have a movie take place in antiquity because you haven't the feel for this time, no certain idea how people walked, talked and behaved. You mostly and up with good vs. evil stories and a stilted faked speech. A problem Wyler and his author realized as well as Hawks and Faulkner did during LAND OF THE PHARAOHS. Anyway BEN HUR is together with MRS.MINIVER the Wyler film I could do without most easily and I've seen almost all of them.
post #1947 of 2004
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I would be quite offended if my race would be portrayed as lecherous niggers eager to sleep with and ready to rape white women and the director would be so racist he wouldn't even use a black man as actor but a white man to play the role of the potential rapist.

Perhaps but there's really nothing we can do about it and there are bigger issues in the world than what took place over 80 years ago. I'm sure fifty years from now we'll look back at today's films has being politically incorrect.

Quote:
Just because it's an old cliche, it doesn't get better. It's tiresome to see vicious decadent Romans and against them pure and good Christians. It's dumb and it's propagandistic.


I think your hatred towards religious films is the same hatred I had during the 90's regarding all the romantic comedies. If we were discussing romantic comedies of the 90s then everything I quoted above (minus Romans/Christians) would be my exact words. We might hate certain tiresome films but the majority has seen a lot like us so they can watch this stuff twice a year and it still feels fresh.

Quote:
Hey I said Griffith partly succeeded. He's more successful in WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS less so in BIRTH and INTOLERANCE.


I haven't seen WAY DOWN EAST yet but I've got the DVD sitting here for that right moment. However, I'd have to disagree re: BIRTH and INTOLERANCE. The second film mentioned is probably the best "first time viewing" I saw this year. Griffith really needs no defending IMO since that film was a good 3-4 decades ahead of its time.


12/29/05

Big Bad Mama (1974)

Roger Corman produced gangster film has Angie Dickinson leading her two teenage daughters on a crime spree. This is one of the best “B” movies of the decade due in large part to great action and some wonderfully wicked dialogue. The opening scene inside the church as Dickinson breaks up a wedding is classic as are the various sexual scenes scattered throughout the movie. Dickinson is wonderful as the title character and quite sexy in her sex scenes. William Shatner, Tom Skerritt and Dick Miller co-star.

Unknown Chaplin: The Great Director (1983)

Part two of Kevin Brownlow’s documentary about Charles Chaplin, this one taking a look at the making of The Kid, The Gold Rush and City Lights. Once again you get a perfect idea of who Chaplin was and how he was able to create the masterpieces that he did. The alternate ending and footage from City Lights is certainly the highlight here.
post #1948 of 2004
Quote:
-The first (or second) page is reserved so people can edit their lists as they view more films.


This simple request from the thread creater seems to be clear enough.
Why would two posters who between then have nearly 500 posts in the 2005 version of "Track the Films You Watch" clutter up the first page of the 2006 version with inane comments?
[c]Insert frowning face here[/c].
post #1949 of 2004
Quote:
I'm sure fifty years from now we'll look back at today's films has being politically incorrect.

I doubt it. In the last decades the derogatory attitudes against homosexuals, non-white people and women were systematically smashed. All these nasty attitudes were against the constitutions of the Western world and the heritage of the Age of Enlightenment. Sure some thinhgs will look ridiculous to future viewers but nothing will be as offensive.
Quote:
I haven't seen WAY DOWN EAST yet but I've got the DVD sitting here for that right moment. However, I'd have to disagree re: BIRTH and INTOLERANCE. The second film mentioned is probably the best "first time viewing" I saw this year. Griffith really needs no defending IMO since that film was a good 3-4 decades ahead of its time.

Don't tell me INTOLERANCE is also a film !!!
I think the fact that a film is "big" which not only means expensive but also leaden with visual and philosophical ambitions strangely leads to an automatically generated praise and especially so in the silent era. But big concept and big pictures don't mean a good film. INTOLERANCE tries to force four stories together which have wildly different agendas and tries to convince us that it all has something to do with intolerance which is not the case. It's a badly conceived film and again an example where the visual excitement overwhelms a rather silly story.
Let's see what you think of WAY DOWN EAST, but please fast forward every time if you see something which looks like a funny scene. I assure you it will be everthing but certainly NOT funny .
post #1950 of 2004
Paths of Glory (1957)
A riveting film from Stanley Kubrick regarding the insanity of war, well directed and emotionally charged. Powerful sequences include the battle scene and the fate of the three prisoners. I especially got a kick out of George Mcready as the uncouth general, especially the pseudo-comedy bit early in the movie where he checks out his troops and asks each soldier if he's ready to kill.

The King of Kings (1927)
Very impressive for its day with its "big" look and grand special effects (like in the final massive earthquake and the resurrection scene). Cecil B. Demille took a few liberties and made a change or two from the actual scriptures, but overall there were a lot of faithful moments from the bible which he managed to include; which sometimes calls attention to elements from the scriptures he missed. I watched this at a time where I wasn't really in the right mood for it, so I would guess it would play even stronger to me at the proper time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2005)