Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 10

Joe, Mike and George,


I’ve read your latest posts with great interest and you’ve all made some relevant and thought-provoking points but, ultimately, I feel we’re going around in circles.

I had already started replying to Joe’s posts yesterday evening but, proof-reading what I’d written later on, I realized that I was merely bringing up the same arguments I’ve been discussing with Joe for over two years now on other Forums. He’s still singing the same old song (as he’s every right to, of course) so I feel it’s kind of futile, tiresome and, most importantly, time-consuming to keep this discussion going “on those tracks”.

I do need to make some points clear, though:

•“Mario - just looking at your own list of ratings on Page 3 - they all seem pretty much consistent with the "popular" opinion. ”

I’m glad that you do keep track of what I’m watching, Joe, which is essentially what this thread is all about…but, I guess you’re just lucky that I dedicated most of January to watching horror movies because otherwise I’d bet that you wouldn’t have watched 25% of them and thus be aware of my ratings being “pretty much consistent with the ‘popular’ opinion”!


•“You say you still manage to give THE BLACK CAT four stars though, despite what you describe as "gaping plot holes" - that's great for you! Do you do so because that's its general reputation? I too give it a solid **** but I don't see any plot holes in that film. That's why we're all entitled to our own opinion.”

Joe, it seems you have a tendency to race through my posts but, given that they’re as long as they often are, I can’t really blame you: it isn’t I who finds THE BLACK CAT (1934) to be a **** film but yourself! Actually, when I saw it for a second time, I found it to be so visually striking and well-acted that I was prepared to give it a ***1/2 had it not been for those “gaping plot holes” which then made me reconsider and settle for just ***; likewise with THE RAVEN where it landed a **1/2 rather than a *** which was how I had rated it on viewing it for the first time. In case you wish to be reminded what my problems with the plots for these two films are exactly, you can always look my reviews up over at the IMDB. As for THE BLACK CAT’s “general reputation”, I didn’t even know it had one before stumbling upon those discussions on the other Forum…


•“You don't need Joe Karlosi, Michael Elliott, George Kaplan or Mario Gauci to give you their own "take" on a film otherwise; you can merely go and check the "Rules of Movie Rating Textbook Guide". Every fan knows what rating AMDAEUS or CITIZEN KANE is supposed to receive (I agree that KANE is a **** though - as you know); everyone knows what rating PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA is supposed to receive. Where's the fun in going by "the book"? Where's the originality and subjective opinion? I want to know what YOU think! ”

Frankly, I don’t know what it is that you have against textbooks. I don’t know the circumstances which brought about your becoming a lifelong film fan but I can say that I became one MAINLY due to all the “textbooks” on film history/criticism I’ve read since childhood. My earliest movie theater recollections are HERBIE GOES BANANAS (1980), SUPERMAN II (1980) and CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) and, while I’m still rather fond of the last two, they didn’t hold the same allure when I caught up with them later on in life so I can definitely say that I didn’t become a film fan through watching those kind of movies. Furthermore, while I do attribute my becoming an avid horror film fan (which, despite all my other cinematic interests, I still am more than anything else to this very day) to my TV viewings of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), KING KONG (1933) and THE WOLF MAN (1941) in the early 1980s, I had previously been held spellbound by copious stills from each of them (and others of their ilk) which I found in two books from my father’s library – both written by Alan Frank - which I still often peruse to this day: “Monsters And Vampires” and “Horror Films”. Some other textbooks which, for better or worse, have shaped my cinematic tastes are: “The Great Movie Stars - The Golden Years” by David Shipman, “Halliwell’s Film Guide”, “Leonard Maltin’s TV Movies And Video Guide” and, much later on, “A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema” by David Thomson and “Cinema - A Critical Dictionary: The Major Film-Makers Vols. 1 & 2” by Richard Roud. Naturally, the medium of the Internet has recently made me reevaluate several long-held beliefs (Jess Franco, Euro-Cult, Slasher movies, etc.) but what I’ve learnt in textbooks throughout the years is still very much valid. I’d love to hear your thoughts on all this, if you’ve got any to share with us…


•“But yet you still acknowledge that you think they're "good and often brilliant", just to keep that toe in the water of "credibility"! If you don't like them much, you don't like them much. If you only enjoy them enough to barely give them a heartfelt ** rating, then go for it, I say.”

Joe, the more I think about it the more I realize that the essential difference between the way you and I rate films is one: your main concern is basically how much they entertain you while mine is mainly how good they really are. A well-made film can end up boring you or leave you with a bad taste in your mouth but, in my opinion, that doesn’t qualify it for a ** rating. But that’s just me, I guess…


•“P.S. - Since I haven't heard any protestations, I suppose I'm "okay" with my four star ranking for KEY LARGO? ”

Well, in case you’re wondering, I’d give KEY LARGO (1948) a ***1/2. Do I need to rewatch it to see why I underestimated it so?


Don’t get me wrong, Joe: it’s always a fun thing to go into these discussions with you. I hope you’re not too disappointed with my “throwing the towel” attitude but, as I said earlier on, these long-drawn out discussions, however passionate, well-meant and enjoyable, rarely lead anywhere or benefit anyone in the end. I must say it’s great, though, that you and Michael have the ability to contact one another (even if not face to face) away from these Forums and I sure hope you do manage to meet someday!

I leave you now to go watch some film I've never seen before. Until next time…

Thank you for summing up my current feelings too, Mario, as I also feel your tune is always being crooned ad nauseum as well - and it's basically the famous ditty that you just don't react well to my (or others) not giving certain classics the praise you feel I (or they) should - and that's what really put the stereo needle back down on that record of my "old song" in the first place. But I certainly agree we're really getting dull with this repetition and we're probably boring everyone else by this point.


I'm well aware of what the "popular" opinion of all kinds of films is, horror or otherwise. I don't know why you're singing the "same old song" again by "attacking" my love of horror films, but I'm very proud of that passion of mine, yet my quite versatile film choices from my movie watching lists of 2004 and 2005 (not to mention what's in my IMDB database) speak for themselves.


Thanks.


It's time for some new entries on the IMDB, Mario. It's a very handy way to keep storage of all your reviews in alphabetical order which anyone may access at a touch. I hope you seriously consider going back to keeping a steady file there, even if you might have to shorten the comments a bit.


I think you're bending things a bit, Mario. Of course I have nothing against reading books on film - I do it constantly, and all of my life. But I think it's obvious that what I'm suggesting is for a person not to allow somebody's written rule or a film's majority reputation to necessarily influence a rating.


Well, obviously! For a guy like me who's supposedly been "singing the same old song" forever, I'm surprised you've just realized this. But this is important to remember also and I'll put it in bold so it stands out: my opinion is not "solely" based on entertainment level, but "mostly". I certainly consider how "technically good or bad" a film is too - otherwise I would give a badly made film like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE just because I enjoy it, without compensating for how poorly it's made, and thus arriving at my own personal evaluation: either or a 1/2, as a compromise".

That's why I mentioned the "texbook" thing-- We all "know" what every film is supposed to get, and how technically proficient every film actually is or isn't, when viewed as a piece of cinematic work; so then what's the point of our individual ratings, then? It's to express how entertained we are by it, on a personal level. This only enforces my theory of some folks (mostly unconsciously) gravitating more to rating films from what their cinematic reputation is, rather than their own gut.


See Above!
But seriously - so, let us use the great CITIZEN KANE as an example. If you honestly were bored to tears throughout the entire film, and if you had a bad taste in your mouth when it was all over -- would you still give it anyway? If the answer is yes, then that's my "textbook reviewing" case made for me.
But if you still admired its cinematography and Welles' vision, then maybe you'd let it get off with a healthy 1/2? I'm sincerely curious about this.


Well, that's your thing, not mine. I think you can hold your head up high enough with ***1/2, though.


I agree with you that it just goes around in circles after awhile, so I'm not disappointed, no. The only thing I'm kind of disappointed in a little would be myself for wasting so much time here just because you didn't approve of my rating for THE MALTESE FALCON. I don't mind spending a paragraph or two elaborating on my view if I'm asked, but after that it's going to be "oh well, sorry".


Since my latest Netflix films are on their way, I spent the afternoon off today with a triple feature of GODZILLA films.
Just my luck, the timing! Anyway, I hope you don't mind

That's certainly one way of looking at it, but it implies that there's an objective way to evaluate greatness of films, which I disagree with. Roger Ebert has a new book out, The Great Movies II, which has a couple of quotes I very much agree with:

This sums it up for me perfectly. I've always felt this way. No matter how technically proficient a film is, it is great to me if I can't bear to not see it again. And for many of those films not only could I bear to not see them again, I couldn't bear to see them again! A well-made boring film is a bad film, not a great one.

Which brings me back to the Maltese Falcon. To paraphrase Ebert, Joe's rating is just an opinion, which can't be right or wrong, except in the case of his rating of the Maltese Falcon, which is wrong.

Humor aside, I do think that greatness is in the eye of the beholder, not something inherent in the film itself, and so of course there's no wrong opinion, but one can still disagree with other's opinions and be baffled when you find yourself in agreement with them on some things, but then extremely far apart on others.

Well said, George (and Ebert). And I'm mostly of a similar view. But the nagging element of personal film rating for me is that I see that not every rule applies to every film all the time! For example, there are films I've seen which I thought were "good" movies (CHICAGO for example) and yet I have no desire to see ever again. So, objectivity often works as part of my system too, just to put that on the record.



Well, one thing I like about Ebert is that he seems to take chances. I'll never forget the praise he gave what's generally considered to be a lousy film - LIGHT OF DAY (1987) - 1/2 !!


Absolutely in agreement. At the same time, there is some validity to the "majority view" on movies setting the tone for a film's "general reputation". So with something like LIGHT OF DAY, Roger Ebert would be -- not "wrong," -- but in the minority. Likewise, I fully recognize that I'm not "wrong" for finding THE MALTESE FALCON "Above Average", but I'm certainly out of the loop as far as the film's accepted "great reputation" is concerned.

And I've always felt that a person doesn't really "need" to explain why he likes or dislikes a movie when he's in the "majority"; that's up to the guy in the minority.


You're right.

Behind Locked Doors (1948)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

Good, low-budget noir has a private eye checking himself into a sanitarium to ferret out a felonius judge who may be hiding inside.

out of


You Can't Cheat an Honest Man (1939)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

W.C. Fields comedy has the master playing a tightwad circus manager who feuds constantly with co-stars Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Fun, but a bit overrated.

out of


French Cancan (1955)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

Jean Renoir's delightful romp depicts the opening of the famed Moulin Rouge nightclub. Jean Gabin is the man behind it all, but will his tumultuous love life get in the way?

out of


Orpheus (1959)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

The second installment in Jean Cocteau's Orphic trilogy updates the legend of Orpheus. A troubled Parisian poet is fascinated by a mysterious princess who, as it turns out, is the personification of his death. Surreal and fascinating.

out of

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Thank you for summing up my current feelings too, Mario, as I also feel your tune is always being crooned ad nauseum as well - and it's basically the famous ditty that you just don't react well to my (or others) not giving certain classics the praise you feel I (or they) should - and that's what really put the stereo needle back down on that record of my "old song" in the first place. But I certainly agree we're really getting dull with this repetition and we're probably boring everyone else by this point."

Just curious, Joe: would I be wrong in assuming that it would bother you somewhat were I not to post any more comments about your ratings/reviews in the future?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I'm well aware of what the 'popular' opinion of all kinds of films is, horror or otherwise. I don't know why you're singing the 'same old song' again by 'attacking' my love of horror films, but I'm very proud of that passion of mine, yet my quite versatile film choices from my movie watching lists of 2004 and 2005 (not to mention what's in my IMDB database) speak for themselves."

Come on, now - be honest! How about this: would you care to tell me (out of the 78 films I've watched so far this year) how many you've watched yourself? I can take a wild guess but I'd rather let you tell me in case my prediction implies that I'm assuming things about you and I should never do that, right? How many of them hadn't you even heard of? However, I'd be willing to bet that if you take that result and compare it with, say, any other month from last year (when my horror film viewing wasn't so concentrated into one particular month) the percentage would be significantly higher in this year's case. Just so you know: starting tomorrow I intend to go through 23 foreign-language films I have on DVD - and after that a bunch of Silent movies, so... I'm not saying all this to seem smarter than you...I'm merely "challenging" your assertion that you are "well aware of what the 'popular' opinion of ALL (my emphasis) kinds of films is, horror or otherwise"...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"It's time for some new entries on the IMDB, Mario. It's a very handy way to keep storage of all your reviews in alphabetical order which anyone may access at a touch. I hope you seriously consider going back to keeping a steady file there, even if you might have to shorten the comments a bit."

Thanks, Joe - I sincerely appreciate it. But, knowing that you won't be replying to most of them (since you wouldn't have watched them) kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? I'M KIDDING. Seriously, I could have written about several of them - particularly those, like SECONDS (1966) and TARGETS (1968), which I know you're especially fond of, but I'm finding myself pressed for time most of the time these days, unfortunately. Perhaps, little by little, I may get into my "reviewing" stride again - I just have to get that attitude back into my system...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I think you're bending things a bit, Mario. Of course I have nothing against reading books on film - I do it constantly, and all of my life. But I think it's obvious that what I'm suggesting is for a person not to allow somebody's written rule or a film's majority reputation to necessarily influence a rating."

I'm glad that you have and do still read film history/criticism books but I see that you haven't mentioned a single example? Why? Are you afraid that they wouldn't meet with my approval just because they deal mostly with horror films?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Well, obviously! For a guy like me who's supposedly been ¡¥singing the same old song¡¦ forever, I'm surprised you've just realized this. But this is important to remember also and I'll put it in bold so it stands out: my opinion is not ¡¥solely¡¦ based on entertainment level, but "mostly". I certainly consider how technically good or bad a film is too - otherwise I would give a badly made film like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE just because I enjoy it, without compensating for how poorly it's made, and thus arriving at my own personal evaluation: either or a 1/2, as a compromise".

Of course I KNEW all that beforehand but I repeated it again so that you might consider considering my system for once but I see that you won't. Tough luck...for both of us! Why, because in that way you might put off watching something which you "know" isn't very enjoyable. For example, Ingmar Bergman's films are not synonymous with laughter - unless it's SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT (1955; ****) - quite the contrary, in fact. I don't know why Michael never managed to catch up with any of his films until now but I'm not all that surprised because, quite coincidentally, a Maltese friend of mine who's about my age (which also, incidentally, has been a major-league horror film buff since childhood) has also only managed to do so around last Christmas-time. In fact, he told me that he put on FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) at midnight intending to sample it but couldn't get himself to stop watching and ended up going through its ENTIRE 5 HOURS of running time! He told me later he's been hooked on his work ever since and he even managed to rent PERSONA (1966) from our local DVD rental shop a few days ago. Truly, I couldn't hope for a more perfect illustration of what I've been going on with you all these years, Joe, even if I wanted to...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"That's why I mentioned the "texbook" thing-- We all "know" what every film is supposed to get, and how technically proficient every film actually is or isn't, when viewed as a piece of cinematic work; so then what's the point of our individual ratings, then? It's to express how entertained we are by it, on a personal level. This only enforces my theory of some folks (mostly unconsciously) gravitating more to rating films from what their cinematic reputation is, rather than their own gut."

O.K., let's play a little game shall we. One book I know you own (or at least have perused in the past) is "Leonard Maltin's TV Movies and Video Guide". Therefore, I'm giving you a few fairly recent examples of films I've watched and comparing my ratings with his. I purposefully chose several titles with which I know you're already familiar. I'll let you decide whether I'm always merely following critics' leads:

1.THE CAMERAMAN ***1/2 (mine) v. *** (Maltin's...or one of his staff)
2.ANIMAL CRACKERS ***1/2 v. ***
3.HELL'S ANGELS **** v. ***1/2
4.HORSE FEATHERS **** v. ***1/2
5.INTERNATIONAL HOUSE *** v. ***1/2
6.THE BLACK CAT *** v. ***1/2
7.IT'S A GIFT ***1/2 v. ****
8.THE RAVEN **1/2 v. ***
9.A DAY AT THE RACES **** v. ***1/2
10.YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN HONEST MAN *** v. ***1/2
11.MY LITTLE CHICKADEE *** v. **1/2
12.THE BANK DICK ***1/2 v. ****
13.EYES WITHOUT A FACE **** v. ***
14.HATARI *** v. ***1/2
15.THE PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES *** v. **1/2
16.THE NIGHT OF THE GENERALS *** v. *1/2
17.PLAYTIME **1/2 v. ****
18.VENUS IN FURS (Jess Franco) *** v. *1/2
19.MAN OF LA MANCHA **1/2 v. BOMB
20.THE DON IS DEAD **1/2 v. *1/2
21.THE SERPENT'S EGG **1/2 v. *1/2
22.THE BROOD ** v. BOMB
23.STAR 80 **1/2 v. *1/2
24.TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. **1/2 v. *1/2
25.THE EXORCIST III *** v. **

I'm sure there are countless other examples which, for all I know, could prove my point even more fully but I'm too lazy to go through my 793-title long list of films viewed last year so these will have to do for now...


[b]Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

¡¨But seriously - so, let us use the great CITIZEN KANE as an example. If you honestly were bored to tears throughout the entire film, and if you had a bad taste in your mouth when it was all over -- would you still give it anyway? If the answer is yes, then that's my ¡¥textbook reviewing¡¦ case made for me. But if you still admired its cinematography and Welles' vision, then maybe you'd let it get off with a healthy 1/2? I'm sincerely curious about this.¡¨

I've been enjoying CITIZEN KANE (1941) and loving every frame of it for some 17 YEARS now while you've only managed it barely 23 MONTHS ago so it's hardly the ideal example for you to "make your textbook-reviewing case with" in my case...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"§Well, that's your thing, not mine. I think you can hold your head up high enough with ***1/2, though. ¡¨

I do, Joe, I assure you I do.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I agree with you that it just goes around in circles after awhile, so I'm not disappointed, no. The only thing I'm kind of disappointed in a little would be myself for wasting so much time here just because you didn't approve of my rating for THE MALTESE FALCON. I don't mind spending a paragraph or two elaborating on my view if I'm asked, but after that it's going to be ¡¥oh well, sorry¡¦.

Since my latest Netflix films are on their way, I spent the afternoon off today with a triple feature of GODZILLA films. Just my luck, the timing! Anyway, I hope you don't mind"

Seeing that you've dedicated what seems like an entire day yesterday to watching only GODZILLA movies, I'd consider THAT a wasted day but, what do I know, I've only ever watched KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962) and I found it to be embarrassingly BOMB material. Let's see now - Mr. Maltin gave it a **1/2! What gives? I REALLY ought to brush up on those laugh-fests one of these days...

Hi,

I'm sorry for joining so late. The dates for January are to the best of my Memory.

Here's the rating system I'll use:
- Excellent
- Very Good
- Good
- Fair
- Waste Of Time

First time viewings are in Bold.

02/01/05
The Terminal (2004)

03/01/05
Hero (2002)

12/01/05
Earth Girls Are Easy (1988)

15/01/05
Ragtime (1981)
Tarzan, The Ape Man (1932)

18/01/05
Silver Streak (1976)

20/01/05
In America (2002)

23/01/05
The Game (1997)


27/01/05
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

28/01/05
Foul Play (1978)

29/01/05
The Return of the King: Extended Edition (2004)

31/01/05
The General (1927)

03/02/05
Angels in the Outfield (1951)

04/02/05
Peter Pan (2003)

09/02/05
The Terminal (2004) (Watched it with my wife this time and enjoyed it even better)

11/02/05
Mystic River (2003)
Tarzan and His Mate (1934)

Well said, Mike - of course, probably because I see it the same way! When I set out to review certain movies, I can't compare one to the other, especially if we're talking about totally different subjects and film types...

For instance, just yesterday I began watching some Godzilla films (and I've decided to gradually go through the entire run - which spans some 50 years!). I'm certainly not going to consider them in the same vein that I might consider, say, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT or SUNSET BLVD. With the Godzilla movies I'm evaluating them on their own terms, or more specifically as Godzilla films. The question is more or less, "how good or bad does this film fare as a monster movie/Godzilla romp?" The fact that I gave KING KONG VS GODZILLA ( ) while I only gave THE MALTESE FALCON ( 1/2 ) does not mean that I think KKVG is the "superior movie" ... it just means that I think KKVG succeeded better for what it was than TMF did for what it wanted to be. I find KKVG more entertaining on a personal level, but no way would I call it a "great movie" (in the technical sense).

The best example I've always liked to use would be something really odd like FRIDAY THE 13th PART 6 - JASON LIVES. Now, this is a film that should be considered practically worthless if we're talking about "cinematic art" in general. As a "piece of cinematic art," I'd have to rate FRIDAY 6 as either a BOMB or maybe a .

However - as a horror movie, FRIDAY 6 fares a bit better. I'd say it's a good, solid horror movie, around

And now, let's ask this question - how does FRIDAY 6 stack up specifically as a FRIDAY THE 13th movie? In that case, it earns a full , as I consider it the best of the series (as do many F13 fans)..

A very unusual example to be sure, but it works perfectly to illustrate what I'm saying. Certain films should be approached on their own turf, and there's usually no way someone who turns a blind eye to those types of more offbeat films can ever see past that.

You'd be very wrong, Mario. As you're aware, I always welcome talk and feedback (as long as it's not overtly pompous), but I also couldn't care less if you chose to ignore me. Suit yourself.


I'm not going to go back and check your list now, but I'm not going to deny that in all likelihood you're correct that I probably haven't watched a good amount of them myself. But that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I know what the reputations of many films are that I haven't seen for myself. I've not gotten around to GONE WITH THE WIND yet (it's in my Netflix queue but there's a long wait for it), but I certainly know it's considered a four-star classic epic, without having viewed it. I also knew that DARK PASSAGE wasn't considered a great film before I ever watched that one.


And you said "I" wasted a day by watching Godzilla movies? (though actually, the Godzilla films were foreign language too!) Now, seriously -- Once again, Mario, I'll try to impress upon you that it's all a matter of opinion. You'd think this would be a general rule of thumb you could grasp, but I guess not! I had a great time watching those films yesterday and I was greatly entertained, and that's what matters to me - not trying to earn "points" in your book or to "impress" you.


My only assertion was that I am not 'only' aware of the reputation of horror movies. Was it the use of the word "all" that bugged you?


No, you're not kidding. You're trying to soften the "blow," but it's how you really feel. And I'd say to you that you'd be entering your comments on the IMDB for anyone and everyone to see, not for me specifically or exclusively. I'm certainly not keeping my list there for you (no offense). Most important of all, it's your own personal "journal", if you will - the place you can always go to locate a past review at a touch.


But look at how much time you've wasted here. Me too, for that matter!


You need to get over yourself, Sir.

I have all sorts of movie books of different kinds, but the truth is, I wouldn't spend that much space typing out the all the titles (and complete with author's names as you do - maybe even year of publication!). In one of your last posts you listed a bunch of your books and I must confess I zipped right over those titles. I think the problem you have with your long posts is, you tend to go into so much detail! Even when you mention films you've seen, you always include the year and often the director - even in casual conversation, I mean. That takes time!

Anyway, don't you see that the very fact that you keep trying to paint me as a person who reads/watches either "exclusively" or "only" horror stuff makes you come off as a real snob? Hey, I'm proud to praise Horror and Science Fiction as my FIRST LOVE. Why do you still get so stuck in that groove? Because you somehow think it discredits everything else I say?


Just browsing your list I was of the impression that your ratings are not very far off from the books'. The biggest range of disagreement seemed to come from those lesser titles that didn't really matter if they veered very far off. Surely none veered as much so as my unorthodox AMADEUS rating went.


And of course, let us not forget that it's safe enough for your self-imagined reputation as a "chief film enthusiast par excellence" that you may comfortably give a non-classic, Japanese Giant Rubber Suit Monster Cheese Flick like KKVG a "BOMB"...!

Since the purpose of watching films is supposed to be entertainment (something I hope I never lose sight of as I constantly juggle so many new films for the first time), I'd watch KING KONG VS GODZILLA ahead of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL or THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD any day!

*Just wanted to say that three more Netflix movies arrived today (two for me, one for my wife). Man, those people are FAST!! I can't recommend this service enough for film fans - at least, so far

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“You'd be very wrong, Mario. As you're aware, I always welcome talk and feedback (as long as it's not overtly pompous), but I also couldn't care less if you chose to ignore me. Suit yourself.”

Anybody in the house have a towel for me to throw?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“I'm not going to go back and check your list now, but I'm not going to deny that in all likelihood you're correct that I probably haven't watched a good amount of them myself. But that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I know what the reputations of many films are that I haven't seen for myself. I've not gotten around to GONE WITH THE WIND yet (it's in my Netflix queue but there's a long wait for it), but I certainly know it's considered a four-star classic epic, without having viewed it. I also knew that DARK PASSAGE wasn't considered a great film before I ever watched that one.”

No need to rush it, Joe…34 years from now will mark the 100th Anniversary of GONE WITH THE WIND’s premiere – a perfect occasion for you to get around to watching it.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“And you said ‘I’ wasted a day by watching Godzilla movies? Now, seriously -- Once again, Mario, I'll try to impress upon you that it's all a matter of opinion. You'd think this would be a general rule of thumb you could grasp, but I guess not! I had a great time watching those films yesterday and I was greatly entertained, and that's what matters to me - not trying to earn ‘points’ in your book or to ‘impress’ you.”

It’s kind of reassuring to know that by the time I’m your age I’ll be spending what little time I have left in this world more wisely than you seem to be doing now.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“My only assertion was that I am not 'only' aware of the reputation of horror movies. Was it the use of the word "all" that bugged you?”

Yet being aware of their reputation and a self-proclaimed authentic film buff with a versatile taste, you waited until NOW to get acquainted with them. Odd.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“No, you're not kidding. You're trying to soften the ‘blow’, but it's how you really feel. And I'd say to you that you'd be entering your comments on the IMDB for anyone and everyone to see, not for me specifically or exclusively. I'm certainly not keeping my list there for you (no offense). Most important of all, it's your own personal ‘journal’, if you will - the place you can always go to locate a past review at a touch.”

For someone who mainly seeks “entertainment” in movies, you do seem unable to appreciate humor…particularly the sarcastic kind.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“But look at how much time you've wasted here. Me too, for that matter!

Don’t remind me, please!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“You need to get over yourself, Sir. ”

How shall I get over myself, O Lord?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“I have all sorts of movie books of different kinds, but the truth is, I wouldn't spend that much space typing out the all the titles (and complete with author's names as you do - maybe even year of publication!). In one of your last posts you listed a bunch of your books and I must confess I zipped right over those titles. I think the problem you have with your long posts is, you tend to go into so much detail! Even when you mention films you've seen, you always include the year and often the director - even in casual conversation, I mean. That takes time!”

So now you're saying that thoroughness and meticulousness are flaws? No wonder you keep going back to those beloved schlocky, B-pictures so regularly.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Anyway, don't you see that the very fact that you keep trying to paint me as a person who reads/watches either ‘exclusively’ or ‘only’ horror stuff makes you come off as a real snob? Hey, I'm proud to praise Horror and Science Fiction as my FIRST LOVE. Why do you still get so stuck in that groove? Because you somehow think it discredits everything else I say?”

Oh, I’m a film S-N-O-B alright – and I wear my badge with honor…but it’s you who realized some years ago that you needed to catch up on a boatload of classic films not me!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Just browsing your list I was of the impression that your ratings are not very far off from the books'. The biggest range of disagreement seemed to come from those lesser titles that didn't really matter if they veered very far off. Surely none veered as much so as my unorthodox AMADEUS rating went.”

Oh, so “disagreeing on a ‘lesser’ title doesn’t really matter” but bashing a “classic” – and I’m not specifically referring to THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) here – proves you’re individualistic. Isn’t that attitude kind of snobbish too?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“And of course, let us not forget that it's safe enough for your self-imagined reputation as a ‘chief film enthusiast par excellence’ that you may comfortably give a non-classic, Japanese Giant Rubber Suit Monster Cheese Flick like KKVG a ‘BOMB’...!”

I merely learn from the best, Sir. Besides, who was it that felt “uncomfortable” reviewing THE MALTESE FALCON lately? However, in view of that GODZILLA marathon you're about to embark on, I do apologize profusely for erroneously assuming that you don't watch too many foreign- language films.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Since the purpose of watching films is supposed to be entertainment (something I hope I never lose sight of as I discover so many new films for the first time), I'd watch KING KONG VS GODZILLA ahead of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD any day.”

You and twenty million other guys, I’m sure!

Well, Mario, there's no more point in addressing everything quote-by-quote anymore. I mean, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I really apologize to the people here who might have been browsing and wishing we'd just both let it go.
The goal of this thread was never to bicker and fight.

The one thing I'd like to address specifically is that I'm going to continue to do what I've been doing in the area of experiencing many great new films for the first time. You seem to think that because I'm only getting around to certain classics for the first time in my middle age (I'll be 43 soon) that this somehow invalidates me. But rest assured there are many others like me, and I think yours is a very, very sad way to think of older people with a thirst for trying out new genres/actors/directors, etc... Hell, I probably wouldn't have been able to like as many of these films as I do if I had seen them when I was too young to appreciate them.

One of the best things about film boards and talking to many other fans is, sometimes we can inspire one another. And I'm certainly glad that by meeting with you, Mario (and others) online in the last few years, I've gained a deep inspiration to seek out so many worthwhile and satisfying films that I might never have considered before. But why that's thought of as "invalid" merely because I've only acquired this passion relatively recently is truly confusing, and way beyond me. I think a fan of all types of film is a good thing, whether one begins at 6 years old, or 76.

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Well, Mario, there's no more point in addressing everything quote-by-quote anymore. I mean, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I really apologize to the people here who might have been browsing and wishing we'd just both let it go.

The goal of this thread was never to bicker and fight.”

(in best Elmer Fudd mode): “Ahh…peace and wewaxation at wast!".

Seriously, now: I agree completely with your above sentiments, Joe. I can picture several HTF posters scratching their heads and wondering what we were going on about and for so long, too. Don’t worry, guys - it’s nothing serious. We’ve been doing this for years now and we kind of expect it from each other every now and then!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“The one thing I'd like to address specifically is that I'm going to continue to do what I've been doing in the area of experiencing many great new films for the first time. You seem to think that because I'm only getting around to certain classics for the first time in my middle age (I'll be 43 soon) that this somehow invalidates me. But rest assured there are many others like me, and I think yours is a very, very sad way to think of older people with a thirst for trying out new genres/actors/directors, etc... Hell, I probably wouldn't have been able to like as many of these films as I do if I had seen them when I was too young to appreciate them.”

Francois Truffaut used to say that “Film lovers are sick people”…and sadness is the one emotion synomymous with sickness, is it not?

By the way, mentioning Truffaut, here’s a funny little story I found about him over at the IMDB:

“Picked up a hitchhiker once and started a conversation about movies. When it turned out the man had too little knowledge about this subject to participate, Truffaut insisted on him leaving the car”.

Well, at least Joe you’re still riding along with me…


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“One of the best things about film boards and talking to many other fans is, sometimes we can inspire one another. And I'm certainly glad that by meeting with you, Mario (and others) online in the last few years, I've gained a deep inspiration to seek out so many worthwhile and satisfying films that I might never have considered before. But why that's thought of as "invalid" merely because I've only acquired this passion relatively recently is truly confusing, and way beyond me. I think a fan of all types of film is a good thing, whether one begins at 6 years old, or 76.”

As I’ve often said myself here and elsewhere, even somebody as “knowledgeable” as me has discovered many movies thanks to such online communication tools as Forums, e-mails, private messages, DVD review websites, etc. More important still, even though it might not appear so on the surface, deep down I have come to consider people like Joe Karlosi, Michael Elliott and a few others as personal friends – which, actually, is why I think Joe and me and Joe and Mike keep going through these “ups and downs” in our “friendships” periodically! Anyway, if over the years I ever managed to contribute even an infinitesimal measure of "inspiration" to you, Joe, I’m content.

Well, Mario, all I can say is I've very oftened agreed with Truffaut's statement that "film lovers are sick people".


I consider myself to have a good amount of film knowledge already, and now I'd like to pass on just a tiny bit to you*:


* It's actually "west and wewaxation at wast " (they were playing on those mispronounced "r's", y'see)

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"* It's actually "west and wewaxation at wast " (they were playing on those mispronounced "r's", y'see) "

And I "accused" YOU of racing through MY posts?

I see that you've watched GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967); not that it matters but I agree with your rating this time around.

Spencer Tracy's performance was the real standout for me (notes will be up later).

5 Fingers (1952)

Viewed 2/12/2005 (first viewing)

Pretty good spy thriller with James Mason as a cool and determined British valet. Unhappy with his station in life, he uses his job at the Turkish embassy to obtain secret British documents which he then sells to the Nazis. Supposedly based on a true story.

out of


Whirlpool (1950)

Viewed 2/12/2005 (first viewing)

Gene Tierney stars in this melodrama as a troubled woman being taken advantage of by a womanizing hypnotist (Jose Ferrer). When his evil ways lead to murder, will she take the fall?

out of


The Three Musketeers (1921)

Viewed 2/12/2005 (first viewing)

Exciting version of the Alexandre Dumas novel stars Douglas Fairbanks as D'Artagnon.

out of

The Leopard (1963) out of

I saw an excellent new print of this yesterday at the AFI theater in Maryland. Lots of great scenes throughout, including a big sweeping battle and its grisly aftermath, and the stunned reactions of the other main characters when Claudia Cardinale makes her first appearance. It does drag every now and then (though not very often), particularly in a scene near the end where Burt Lancaster and another nobleman have a long conversation about...well, something, I was rather bored by it. But that transitioned into the glorious ballroom sequence finale, rightly celebrated in Roger Ebert's Great Movies review, which I knew would be spectacular about 10 seconds into it.

Seeing this in a theater, and with such a nice print, was really overwhelming. Even on the infrequent occasions where I was sort of uninterested in the story or the characters, the incredible beauty of practically every scene was more than enough to soak in and enjoy. The Criterion DVD got good reviews for picture quality, and I'm sure it looks great on a good 16X9 display, but I consider myself very fortunate to have experienced this film in this way.

First time viewings in Red
Out of


White Heat (1949) (10/10)
Fast paced & brilliant Gangster/Noir classic has the great James Cagney starring in his greatest role - insane mamma’s boy Cody Jarrett. This is one of the all-time greats.

Touchez pas au Grisbi (1954) (9/10)
A.K.A. Hands off the Loot
Brilliant French Gangster flick stars the great Jean Gabin as a semi-retired aging gangster who’s living off his last big score. When a rival gang finds out about the loot & kidnap his best friend, all hell breaks loose. This ranks among the best French crime films I’ve seen, from the early classics (Pepe Le Moko, Port of Shadows, Daybreak etc.) to Melville’s top genre films (Bob le Flambeur, Le Samouri, etc.). Looks like Mr Gon was spot-on about his recommendation.

The Big House (1930) (7/10)
This interesting early talkie prison drama has Robert Montgomery in for manslaughter. His cell-mates are soon to be sprung forger Chester Morris & killer/lifer Wallace Berry.


The Lost Patrol (1934) (7/10)
Grim adventure tale has a British patrol holed up in a remote oasis, while they fend off Arab snipers. Stars Victor McLaglen as the patrol sergeant & Boris Karloff as a bible thumping nut-job. Directed by John Ford.

The Search (1948) (6/10)
Montgomery Clift stars as a GI who helps a young boy & death camp survivor, search for his parents in post WWII Europe. A better than average film though it’s a bit too overly-sentimental, while the plot turns out to be very predictable.

Tarzan Escapes (1936) (4/10)
3rd? Tarzan adventure features more of the same from the first two along with usual trite “Me Tarzan, You Jane” moronic trashing of Edgar Rice Burrough’s classic character. The only thing of interest about the first two entries was it’s pre-code daringness, which is lacking here.

Well of course!

Always wanted to see The Lost Patrol, but I was never able to find a VHS copy and never bothered to order one online. I believe there's a French DVD that I'll look into.

Michael, what are your #1's in those categories?

I'd seen it 4 or 5 times (including once in a theater) before I got the new DVD, but not in the last 3-4 years or so, a period in which I think I've become a much more knowledgeable movie fan. Having a greater appreciation for cinema just made this movie all the better for me, and I hope I'll get even more out of it in the future, as I see more movies and become an even better film-watcher. That I can reasonably expect this to happen with Raging Bull is as good a sign of a masterpiece as any I can think of.

Michael, I'd also be interested in what your #1 Movie is, after reading your RAGING BULL comments. I ask because I was of the belief that RB was already your favorite. I know how favorites can change, so I'd be curious -- is it GOODFELLAS?

I don't know if it's available to you or not but Turner Classic Movies is something you should look into Steve. I've had it for years on my cable provider. Recently I've joined the 21st century & got a satellite hookup with a DV-R, which is how I'm catching so many of the films that TCM is playing.

I do have TCM but hardly ever watch tv what with work and everything else. Guess I'm going to have to start checking their online schedule more. Meanwhile, it looks like that French DVD of The Lost Patrol is a good buy...

Two Bogart programmers:

Tokyo Joe (1949)

Viewed 2/13/2005 (first viewing)

Enjoyable blend of melodrama and intrigue as Bogie returns to a post-WWII Tokyo hoping to re-open the gambling joint he had run there prior to the war. He then discovers that the wife he thought dead is actually alive, remarried and hiding a terrible secret. Blackmail, war criminals and judo! Good fun.

out of


Sirocco (1951)

Viewed 2/13/2005

Bogie plays his jaded expatriate persona to the hilt as he once again runs guns to rebels, this time in Damascus. He comes into conflict with a French colonel for both professional and personal reasons. Will he regain his scruples in time to save the day? Admittedly routine as Bogie goes through the motions with a nondescript love interest, but Lee J. Cobb as his rival livens things up. Bogart fans like me will enjoy it more.

out of

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I'd also be interested in what your #1 Movie is, after reading your RAGING BULL comments. I ask because I was of the belief that RB was already your favorite. I know how favorites can change, so I'd be curious -- is it GOODFELLAS?"

Joe, I believe Michael has already revealed what his #1 Movie was in a post from Page 9 of this very same thread. I hope he doesn't mind me answering his questions for him:

"If I had to vote for the greatest film ever made then I'd go with ON THE WATERFRONT. The first time I viewed this film I gave it four stars but it wasn't even in my Brando top 5 let alone a film I'd call the greatest ever made. The second viewing had it jump into my Top 100. The next viewing jumped it to my Top 50. Then Top 25 and then Top 10. The film sat at #3 before RAGING BULL and BRIDE OF FRANK until last year when I finally put it at the #1 slot. As with many other classics, the films gets better with each passing view."

And, in case you're wondering, he also named his choice for the greatest performance in an earlier post on this page:

"I think LAST TANGO IN PARIS has some major flaws but it contains the greatest performance I've ever seen so I have no troubles giving it a perfect four star rating. Writing a "review", I'll certainly mention the problems but that's not going to effect my final score."


For the record, both ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) and Marlon Brando would be in the running were I to name my all-time greatest American film and all-time greatest male performance in a film.

As for LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972), I watched it for a second time as part of a mini-marathon I watched in tribute to The Great Man's passing and, while I was naturally impressed by his performance, I had some problems with the film itself particularly the overly pretentious dialogue and the dreary Jean-Pierre Leaud subplot; the fact that I watched an unsubtitled print couldn't have helped much either, I guess. Consequently I ended up giving it a *** rating so, as you can see I didn't bypass the film's flaws just because of how great Brando was in it. I have no trouble forgiving the "tiny" flaws of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and CITIZEN KANE every time, though!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Spencer Tracy's performance was the real standout for me (notes will be up later)."

I've always thought of Katharine Hepburn's Oscar win for her performance in GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967) as being more of a tribute to the memory of Spencer Tracy. Maybe Academy members thought that they had to honor somehow the legendary actor's passing, one who could rightfully claim ownership of the title of "America's greatest screen actor" and thus gave the nod to the person who not only "shared" his career but his life. Of course, Hepburn herself was arguably Tracy's female counterpart but her role in DINNER wasn't really that much of a stretch for her - definitely not in the same league as her magnificent turn as Eleonor of Acquitaine in THE LION IN WINTER the following year; I really ought to add this one (sooner rather than later) to my DVD collection.

Anyhow, Joe, I'm with you when you say that Tracy's moving final performance is what really stands out here, although the cast is uniformly good; Sidney Poitier was decidedly on a roll that year - what with his starring roles in (ironically enough) IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and TO SIR, WITH LOVE preceeding this one. The film was just one of a whole bunch of "message pictures" which Stanley Kramer had been making for almost 20 years and, while it certainly delivers its points smoothly across and in an enjoyable fashion, the end result is perhaps a tad too saccharine.


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Wild Strawberries (1957) .

Brilliantly moving film by Ingmar Bergman features Victor Sjostrom as an elderly academic who takes a trip to receive an honorary degree. Along for the trip is his daughter in law (Ingrid Thulin) as well as a couple strangers he meets along the way. This is a brilliant character study and Bergman does a wonderful job with the various dream sequences as well as some nightmarish hallucinations. The performances are all very strong especially Sjostrom who really captures the personality of the character."

I pretty much agree word-for-word with your assessment of this one, Mike. Bergman's films certainly aren't for those in search of mindless entertainment and one probably needs to be in the right mood for them to get as much as possible out of them...which is, basically, why I've owned the Criterion DVD of this one for a couple of years but have yet to watch it but I'll get to it later on this year for sure; at any rate, I've watched the film twice already in the 1990s. Incidentally, I should be catching up with his SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973) and AUTUMN SONATA (1978) on DVD in a couple of weeks.
Mike, I assume you already know that Victor Sjostrom was a distinguished Silent era film director who also worked in Hollywood, most notably on HE WHO GETS SLAPPED (1924) and THE WIND (1928), prior to acting in Bergman's film.


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Dracula (1931) American version

Tod Browning's 1931 "classic" about Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and everyone is as slow, boring and lifeless as any other horror film with the reputation of being a classic. The direction is downright horrid and lifeless, which is a shock considering the silent work Browning has done but over the years it has been questioned whether or not he actually directed this. The bit players all deliver pretty bad performances, which causes some unintentional laughs. The performances are the only saving grace with Edward Van Sloan, Dwight Frye and David Manners all doing nice work. The visual look of Lugosi is the greatest for any Dracula player but his bad English also brought a few laughs."

Needless to say I disagree almost completely this time around: while I find the film to have its fair share of flaws - stagy, creaky, slow-moving and missing several opportunities - its virtues (the performances of Lugosi, Van Sloan and Frye, some memorable dialogue, Karl Freund's expert lighting and Charles D. Hall's atmospheric sets) make up for those losses in droves, in my opinion. We've discussed this one to death over the years in other Forums but it never fails to surprise me how unloved this old chestnut seems to be nowadays even among fervent horror film fans like yourself!

Jeez, you're right! I actually forgot about that, and to top it off he's mentioned the movie many times before. I guess I'm just getting old! Anyway, ON THE WATERFRONT is very soon to be delivered to my mailbox.


"Saccharine" is a good word to describe my feelings on GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER; I wish I had thought of it when I was writing my notes.


Same here, Mario. Bela Lugosi's "bad english" (as Mike called it) makes Dracula the legend he is, and it's a voice that has often been imitated though never duplicated. I believe that Lugosi's hesitating delivery was deliberate, and added menace and creepiness to a very otherworldly type of strange boogeyman. Try to imagine Browning's talky and stagy DRACULA without Bela Lugosi! It should also be noted that in Bram Stoker's book, the Count speaks improper English as well in his early conversations with Jonathan Harker. I'd also have to question why Michael placed the word "classic" in quotations; although DRACULA may not be a perfect film, it is still worthy of the "classic" label, being the first true sound horror film and the vehicle that made a star out of Bela Lugosi. I believe the word classic in films means more than just a throroughly entertaining movie.

I also like Dracula more than Jim, but it is admittedly stilted. I think I prefer the Spanish version - have you guys seen it?

Yes, I've seen the Spanish Version of DRACULA and it's got a lot of better and more innovative camera technique in it. In some visual ways, it's superior to Browning's movie, but I found it just as "talky" as the Browning version is said to be, and the final thing that topples down the House of Cards is that Carlos Villar makes a poor Dracula. IMO, it's all a matter of how much you like or dislike Bela Lugosi in the role; he's the whole movie despite the technical flaws.

They both have their merits, and I give them each though I prefer the American version.