Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2006)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 65

post #1921 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Re: Sturges

After thinking about it, it might have been unfair to compare him to Capra but I know several attack Capra for being "light" and "too cute". The light and too cute were what I didn't care about in the Sturges films. I've got six more Sturges films here to watch but it'll probably be next year before I get to them. I'm a tad bit nervous since I wasn't overly fond of LADY, TRAVELS and PALM.

Quote:
Perhaps it was just getting used to the delivery of some (at times) complex dialogue and setups. For example, the early scene in The Lady Eve where Barbara Stanwyck is carrying on a monologue of description of the different approaches other women were taking on the Henry Fonda character.

Perhaps the comedy just struck me the wrong way but this is the perfect example of me not laughing. The character of "Lady Eve" being used to get Fonda back also hit me the wrong way and the entire story that followed left me cold and uninterested. I can accept dumbness is a comedy but there wasn't a single second that I believed Fonda didn't know this was the same woman. Again, that might be a nitpick but at that point of the film I had pretty much had enough.

Quote:
No chemistry between Stanwyck and Fonda?

This is probably more to do with me not being a fan of Stanwyck. I haven't seen too many of her films but she's never really impressed me as an actress or as a beauty since I prefer blondes like Loretta Young.

Quote:
I thought Michael would like that scene just because she mentions a high school in Louisville.

That high school mentioned is one I visited a lot when I was a teenager (trying to pick up girls) so that did give me a little grin.
post #1922 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Ah, I see. The sarcasm was so biting that I was unable to pick up on it
I think the word you're looking for is 'subtle'.

Michael,

Be sure to check out Stanwyck in Christmas in Connecticut before writing off her beauty.

Having said that, I actually agree with you about The Lady Eve. It doesn't really work for me (it's kind of like My Girl Friday, and most Coen films - clever, but not really funny). On the other hand, I love most of the other Sturges films, especially Sullivan's Travels and Hail the Conquering Hero.
post #1923 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by george kaplan
Eric,

I read your post re: The Village, and while you put forth some reasons why they might have sent the blind girl (as opposed to some other children), it really does not adequately (for me anyway) explain why one of the elders didn't go. If the point was (and I still think it was) to get the medicine as quickly as possible, and avoid revealing the secret, then any of the elders would have been a far better choice.

I think I went a bit off the deep end there. Just a bit.

Anyway, I agree that it would have been faster, but, as I mentioned before, perhaps if one of the elders went to get the medicine, others, in the village, may be tempted to go into the forest. Whereas if Ivey goes, than the belief that, "Those whom we don't speak of" may still be out there. As mentioned before, they left Ivey alone, because she is blind and innocent.

Like I have said, though, perhaps I am putting too much thought into it.

Thanks for reading the post George. Now I think I'll watch Lady in the Water and write up what I thought of it. For the record I felt the movie was decent when I watched it before; the ending, with the music, made me feel good.

-Eric
post #1924 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Michael,

Be sure to check out Stanwyck in Christmas in Connecticut before writing off her beauty.

I've actually got this coming from Netflix but I'm not sure I'll get it on before Christmas. If not, it'll probably get pushed back to next year.

12/18/06

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

James Whale directed film about a Canadian soldier (Kent Douglass) in London who falls in love with a woman (Mae Clarke) not knowing she's a prostitute. Whale has always been considered one of the greatest horror director's but after seeing this film he certainly should be considered one of the greatest directors ever. No matter which genre he was working in Whale managed to bring out every sort of emotion and that talent is on full display with this rather heartbreaking pre-code. I wasn't sure what to expect from this film but I might go as far as to say it's better than Frankenstein, which was released the same year. The way Whale manages to get drama and laughs is once again quite remarkable, although we've seen him do this in countless horror films. The most shocking thing for me about the film is the performance by Clarke, who in my opinion gives one of the greatest performances from any actress. The way she handles all of her emotions is a real treat to watch. Everything from her characters pain to the humiliation of having to tell the guy's mother what her real job is. There are countless great scenes in this film and they all work perfectly. Douglass is very good as the young man, Bette Davis is nice in her few scenes and Enid Bennett is terrific as the mother. It was also nice seeing Frederick Kerr who also appeared in Whale's Frankenstein. I've heard that the 1940 remake is even better but I find that hard to believe as I see this film as one of the best of the decade.

Remember Last Night? (1935)

Above average whodunit from director James Whale about a group of rich people who drink the night away and then the next morning one of them has been shot to death. The only problem is that they were so drunk none of them can remember a thing. This is probably the weakest Whale film I've seen to date but there are a few interesting moments but the humor really lets the film down. The actually mystery is pretty good and remains interesting up until the very end. The biggest problem is the humor, which is flat from the start and never picks up. There's an outrageous blackface dance number, which has to be seen to be believed. The cast are all strong but it's Robert Armstrong who steals the show. On a side note I already knew about the joke to Bride of Frankenstein but was caught off guard to the joke about Dracula's Daughter, which Whale was suppose to direct the following year but backed out.

Great Garrick, The (1937)

James Whale film about an ego maniac British actor (Brian Aherne) who insults a French acting group only to fall victim to a prank that might destroy his career. Here's a rather interesting "comedy" that features no laughs. Whale can brilliantly do comedy but it seems like he can only pull it off when he mixes it with horror or drama. The performance by Aherne is good and the supporting cast, which includes Olivia de Havilland, Lionel Atwill, Marie Wilson and Lana Turner, are also good. The idea of the plot is an interesting one and could make a good film but this isn't it.

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)

John Ford's loving tribute the the early years of Abe Lincoln with Henry Fonda. I think the film's biggest fault is that it's somewhat all over the place but this could be due to Ford wanting to put a lot more stuff in and instead of going into details regarding certain events he just hit upon several things. Henry Fonda is one of the greatest actors ever in my opinion and he does a lot of justice to Lincoln with his performance here. It was very uncanny in a few shots because if you didn't know better you'd think Fonda was Lincoln. I'm not sure what all they did to Fonda but there are several scenes where the look is somewhat eerie. This is the type of role Fonda was born to play and one he'd play several other times. As for Ford, this film certainly isn't among his greatest but I feel it contains some of his strongest work as a director. The entire parade scene leading up the murder just shows what a master the director was. The way Ford can balance the laughs of the parade to the drama of the murder and then the suspense and poetry of Lincoln trying to fight off the angry mob is quite remarkably done.

Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)

Minor John Ford film with Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert getting married and trying to grow a pretty farm but it's destroyed by bloodthirsty and evil savages (Ford's showing of Indians) so the husband takes arms and fights them off. This is somewhat interesting as it's a Western mixed with the Revolutionary War but this is part of the problem. It seems on one end Ford wanted an epic dealing with the war but it just came off as one crazy man (John Carradine) and a bunch of bloodthirsty Indians. I'm one who defends the "racism" in The Searchers but the Indians here seemed pretty mean spirited, which gave the film a rather one sided view of everything. Even the performances seemed a bit minor but you can't expect Fonda to be brilliant in everything he does. He remains interesting to watch but again, I wouldn't call this one of his greatest performances. The scenery is terrific and the Technicolor gives plenty to look at.


**Complete nitpick but since I only found this to be a minor film in Fonda and Ford's career my mind started to wonder somewhat during the film. For some reason it finally struck me during the labor scene that in these older films the guys always wait outside while the women are giving birth. I was rather curious if this is how
post #1925 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

title: the big lebowski
rating: b
comments: i'd give this a c, but bridges performance was just too inspired. unfortunately the rest of the cast (especially goodman) felt too phoney for me. the story was typical coen bros, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they've done better.

title: hostage
rating: d
comments: the story and cast were just silly, with way too many moments of unbelievability (as in this movie gets the "biggest-air-ducts-ever-seen" award). willis (as usual) was enjoyable to watch ... he can say so much with just a look or facial expression.
post #1926 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Jeeee-zus…so much to reply to!!!

First things first:

Quote (originally posted by Jeff Reis):

“I rarely post comments--in the internet age it often feels like every possible opinion has already been expressed, but for my money Mario, Michael, Joe, Haggai and many others have made this thread my favorite on this forum. I'll try to do a little better on comments next year. That said...”


Very glad you’re enjoying this thread, Jeff and I can only second my fellow HTFers in looking forward to your own comments over here in 2007!


Now…where to begin?


Re: IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)

The proverbial “I told you so response” won’t really cut the mustard here as I know Joe Karlosi expects more from me on this one: being one who has always loved this film (from the very early 1990s), I never understood Joe’s objections of overlength (if it's 130 minutes, it’s 130 minutes!) or “unChristmasy” nature (even if it’s a perennial Christmas favorite, it doesn’t have to be exclusively about Christmas or just plain upbeat, does it?).

Still, I’m glad that he came around to it eventually especially since, as he said himself, now he knew what to expect. Actually, this could apply to any ostensibly great film one is let down by on first viewing i.e. in my case, I know now that I should not expect to roar with laughter for two hour plus whenever I watch Jacques Tati’s PLAYTIME (1967) again, etc.


Re: SCROOGE (1951)

Joe might be expecting me to vociferously disagree with him on this one but the awful truth is that I’ve only watched it once in the mid-1990s and colorized to boot!! I’m far more familiar with the 1970 musicalization of the old chestnut with a 34-year old Albert Finney heavily made up to look a convincing, cantankerous old miser; incidentally, I’ve just gotten hold of this one and will (hopefully) be rewatching it on Christmas Day. Besides, I’ve also watched the 1938 MGM version entitled A CHRISTMAS CAROL as well as the similarly-titled 1984 TV adaptation with George C. Scott.

But, to go back to the Alastair Sim version for a moment: it’s such a pity that the so-called definitive Scrooge film version has so far been negated a definitive DVD edition despite various attempts on both Regions 1 and 2. I’d bet that this is Joe’s first viewing of an Alastair Sim movie and perhaps his eccentric character/face/traits were too much to take; however, he is a great asset to any movie he is in once you get past that and I especially relish his presence in HUE AND CRY (1946; the first official Ealing comedy) and his ancient bishop in THE RULING CLASS (1971). Perhaps, if Joe would try out Criterion’s upcoming disc of GREEN FOR DANGER (1946) – one of the Best British thrillers and arguably Sim’s finest (and most subdued) hour – he will warm up to him…

As for the silly objection that the story was too familiar to him, so are those of Frankenstein and Dracula…!


Now, let’s turn to Michael Elliott: I really like the guy for three reasons: he watches even more movies than I do, his tastes are just as eclectic and his opinions are totally unpredictable!


Re: THE LADY EVE (1941):

As others have said, this is a very surprising rating. Although I was slightly underwhelmed by the film myself on first viewing via the Criterion DVD – what with some critics hailing this as Preston Sturges’ masterwork – I liked it more when I watched it at the Egyptian Theater in Hollwood last January (on a double-bill with THE PALM BEACH STORY [1942]). Personally, my favorite Sturges film is still THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK (1944) – which I’ll be revisiting in early January on DVD along with SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS (1941) and UNFAITHFULLY YOURS (1948).

Frankly, I have a thing for Barbara Stanwyck (both in looks and that voice) and this here – as well as the same year’s BALL OF FIRE – showed her at (arguably) her sexiest. The plot may have been familiar for devotees of screwball comedy but the film’s trump card was in the great supporting cast and the effortlessly brilliant dialogue. Also, who but Sturges would pick Henry Fonda to play a perennially befuddled, clumsy jungle explorer with a pet snake?


Re: WATERLOO BRIDGE (1931) and THE GREAT GARRICK (1937):

Unfortunately, I haven’t watched either of these two yet but Michael’s excessive (?) claims for WATERLOO BRIDGE certainly increased my desire to see it tenfold. I’ve watched the Mervyn LeRoy/Robert Taylor/Vivien Leigh remake and it’s a good film overall but, as with much of MGM’s Post-Code product, glossy on the surface but without too much depth underneath.

THE GREAT GARRICK I know I’ll love because it’s said to be Whale’s closest film – in spirit – to THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932). And who can resist the chance to watch Lionell Atwill under James Whale’s direction?


Re: REMEMBER LAST NIGHT? (1935)

James Whale’s fondness for this film was, admittedly, not shared by many critics or filmgoers but, personally, I was thoroughly captivated by it. While it may have been intended as a comedy-thriller in THE THIN MAN (1934) tradition, it’s much more than just that: the audacity of some of the jokes, the exuberance of the décor and Whale’s subversively witty imprint are all over the film. I hope and pray (and hope and pray and…) that Universal will one day release a James Whale Franchise Collection and include this one, ONE MORE RIVER (1934), THE ROAD BACK (1937), GREEN HELL (1940), etc. I think they owe it to the Star Director of their Golden Age.


Re: YOUNG MR. LINCOLN (1939) and DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK (1939)

I’ve reviewed these two films earlier this year on HTF – as I have REMEMBER LAST NIGHT? – so there’s not much point in going further about them other than post their respective IMDB coments links:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026921/usercomments-10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032155/usercomments-22

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031252/usercomments-25


Steve and Brook,

Which version of TRISTANA (1970) did you watch - the Spanish or the French-language version? The film is so utterly Spanish thematically and in its texture that it's a pity I've only watched it (on VHS several times) in French myself. True, it does have Catherine Deneuve's own speaking voice but I'd still love to experience it in Spanish (despite not being fluent in the language other than its rudimentary similarity to Italian). Hopefully, the upcoming R2 DVD from Optimum - included in their 8-Disc Bunuel Box Set - will include both language tracks for completeness' - and comparison's - sake and boast a superior video quality to the disc already released by the British Film Institute.

By the way, are you aware of the fact that Alfred Hitchcock was a great admirer of TRISTANA and had even called Bunuel "the greatest film director ever"?
post #1927 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
Re: IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)

I never understood Joe’s objections of overlength (if it's 130 minutes, it’s 130 minutes!)

Well, it doesn't feel too long to me now because it worked for me this time. I don't judge a film as "too long" just based on its actual running time; it's based on how long it feels. BEN-HUR (59), for example, feels rather brisk to me!

Quote:
or “unChristmasy” nature (even if it’s a perennial Christmas favorite, it doesn’t have to be exclusively about Christmas or just plain upbeat, does it?).

This was my mistake in 2003 when I first watched the movie. I expected it to be all about Christmas and got knocked for a loop.

Quote:
Re: SCROOGE (1951)

But, to go back to the Alastair Sim version for a moment: it’s such a pity that the so-called definitive Scrooge film version has so far been negated a definitive DVD edition despite various attempts on both Regions 1 and 2. I’d bet that this is Joe’s first viewing of an Alastair Sim movie and perhaps his eccentric character/face/traits were too much to take;

No, I just didn't think he was anywhere near mean and cantakerous enough for me.

Quote:
Perhaps, if Joe would try out Criterion’s upcoming disc of GREEN FOR DANGER (1946) – one of the Best British thrillers and arguably Sim’s finest (and most subdued) hour – he will warm up to him…

I have nothing against the actor or his style; I just thought he made a disappointing Scrooge.

Quote:
As for the silly objection that the story was too familiar to him, so are those of Frankenstein and Dracula…!

You may find that objection silly but I don't. I didn't already know the stories of FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA when I first saw those early Universal films as a kid. As for any type of subsequently upgraded or tweaked re-imaginings based on the Frankenstein and Dracula themes, those films are always somewhat different.

At any rate, I don't believe it has to be a "one rule fits all" mentality here anyway. I'm just honestly telling you what I felt about 1951's SCROOGE, and even if it seems to you that it may somehow contradict how I felt about the Frankenstein and Dracula thing, all I can say is that it's the way I feel. Film talk and observations often go like that.
post #1928 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Steve and Brook,

Which version of TRISTANA (1970) did you watch - the Spanish or the French-language version?

I have the R2 BFI DVD which has both versions - I only watched the Spanish language version though.
post #1929 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

13 Going on 30

Not all romantic comedies are chick flicks by a long shot. The ones that are actually make up a relatively small (but extrememly painful to watch) subgroup.
This one isn't horrible like Bridget Jones, but it definitely leans in that direction. Recommended for 13 year old shallow girls.
post #1930 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

I saw Tristana on VHS 5-6 years ago so I don't remember which version I saw. I want to say Spanish, but I can't be sure.

My fav Sturges is Sullivans, Eve, Hail in that order. I was underwhelmed by Morgan's Creek the first time I saw it, but liked it a lot more after a 2nd viewing. It's Sturges' stock crew, particularly William Demarest, that really makes his films work so well. My favorite casting of Lady Eve is Eugene Pallette as the millionaire ale baron and how Sturges' introduces the character. Instead of a snooty upper crust type we might have expected to be the father of Fonda's character, we get a boisterous, fat, "regular guy" with that one-of-a-kind growlly voice.

I have Sophie Scholl on the way from Netflix, plus a newish French movie I'm hoping has plenty of tea-sippin' action.

Hey, I liked Bridget Jones! ....

I need to borrow someone else's daughter. I must have the only 7-year old in the world who doesn't want to go see Charlotte's Web.
post #1931 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

title: miracle on 34th st (1947)
rating: a
comments: i can see why this is such a beloved classic. a wonderfully told story about the power of faith. it was interesting to see such a young natalie wood. plus, i just *loved* the judge ... his expressions were priceless.
post #1932 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Funhouse out of Among horror fans Tobe Hooper is characterized as the director of a classic (the orginal Texas Chainsaw Massacre) but little else of note and whose career bottomed out years ago. While Hooper's later films are weak (in particular, The Mangler and Spontaneous Combustion are awful) his early films are better than their reputation. The Funhouse is a cut above most other 80s slashers because it catches the atmosphere of a cheap carnival extremely well - the strange performers, garish attractions (love the two-headed cow!), customers. The teens in jeopardy are trapped inside the title attraction (a cheap ghost ride) and Hooper makes the most of the interiors. The film may not be TCM but it demonstrates that Hooper was far from a one-trick pony.

Battleground 1/2 out of TNT's series of Stephen King adaptations, Nightmares and Dreamscapes, varied from poor to average apart from this standout episode starring William Hurt. In fact this is one of the best horror/suspense movies of the year executed with skill by adapter Richard Christian Matheson and director Brian Henson. There is no dialog (there's no need for any), no flashy direction or editing, just a simple story about a hitman whose latest job evokes some unusual revenge. And for a TV show the effects aren't bad.
post #1933 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
plus a newish French movie I'm hoping has plenty of tea-sippin' action.

Oh! Oh! What is it? What is it? Me likes French tea-sippin' action!
post #1934 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

I'm not terribly vocal on this thread, but thought I would add my word to Sandro's RE: battleground.
I thought it was one of the more brilliant hours of TV I have seen in a long time.
post #1935 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

12/19/06

Trip to Salt Lake City, A (1905)

Edison comedy about a Mormon man who realizes that several wives and kids aren't good on a train trip. This is believed to be the first film that deals with Mormons and it's pretty funny. The closing scene is priceless as the man finds a way to keep everyone calm.

Trapped By the Mormons (1922)

Extremely bizarre and twisted British film, which is based on a 1911 novel written by a woman who tried her best to end the Mormon faith. This propaganda film is about an innocent young girl who falls prey to an evil Mormon man. First the man steals her away from her parents and then he tries to control her every move. The film tries oh so hard to spit on the Mormon faith and in the end it comes off as the Reefer Madness of faith films. The film is just so over the top in its writing and direction that you can't help but laugh at everything you see. The close ups of the man's eyes whenever he does anything evil is downright funny but sadly there aren't enough funny spots to keep this "drama" from being any good. The performances are all pretty bad as is everything else in this film. It's certainly worth watching once for its insane views but that's about it.

Lady in the Water (2006)

M. Night Shyamalan's latest was apparently thought up as a story to put his kids to sleep so it's a damn shame the viewer has to suffer for him not wearing a condom. A landlord (Paul Giamatti) discovers a water nymph (Bryce Dallas Howard) in his swimming pool so he must try and figure out who she is, what her purpose is and how to get her home before a hairy creature kills her. I enjoyed the director's first three films (not counting the first two, which I haven't seen) and I was hoping for some sort of a comeback after the dreadful The Village but this film is pretty bad as well. Even after two stinkers in a row I'm not willing to say the director is done for but perhaps it's time to bring in a co-writer. The story is as stupid and silly as the "twist" in The Village but at least that film was mildly interesting up to a point. The story of the water nymph is just downright uninteresting from the very start but I kept hanging in there hoping something would happen but it never did. Shyamalan tries to get a message across but fails horribly. The performances are all a mixed bag starting with Giamatti, who can be a damn good actor but he needed a lot more direction here. The comic undertones he plays with his character here are out of place for the film. Howard didn't impress me much either. I'm going to guess this film had a pretty big budget but I think it would have worked a lot better with a $5,000 budget being directed by someone like Jess Franco. You have a lonesome guy and a beautiful nymph who likes to go around naked. I'm sure Mr. Franco could have done a lot more with that set up than what's here.

Wicker Man, The (2006) unrated version

Earlier in the year I gave a glowing review of the original film where I also stated that I think the film could be well made with the religious views being updated to today's times. Well, I finally viewed the remake and it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. As I suspected, the religious aspect of the original film is taken out but if you've seen that movie then you aren't going to be too shocked about anything that happens here. A cop (Nicolas Cage) travels to upper Washington when he receives a letter from an ex saying that her daughter is missing. Once arriving in the small village, the cop soon begins to realize that there's a lot more going on than just a missing person's case. As I said, if you've seen the original then you're not going to see anything new here but I suspect that if you didn't see the original then you might enjoy this as it stays close to the mystery of the original. The ending here packs a nice little punch and manages to be disturbing so this is no doubt the best part of the film. Everything leading up to the ending is decent but again, there's no room for any suspense since I already knew what was going on. Cage has proven to be a great actor but he's also proven to sleepwalk through a few roles. This here is a so-so performance as he does good in certain scenes but in others he's just too bland. Either way, no matter what type of performance he gives he always manages to be somewhat entertaining. Ellen Burstyn takes over the Christopher Lee role and actually gives a very good performance.
post #1936 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

title: ultraviolet
rating: d
comments: visually an amazing film to look at. the oversaturated colors, the visual fx and (i have to admit) milla are all gorgeous. and that's where it stops. the villan is just stupid, the plot silly and predictable, and the movie as a whole just doesn't work.
post #1937 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Postman's Knock

I've never seen an episode of the Goon Show, though I've heard so much about it as an influence on Monty Python, The Beatles, etc. This film stars Spike Milligan, one of the members of the Goon Show. I guess in the back of my mind I was thinking watching this would give me an idea about the show, but in retrospect that's like expecting someone to watch Continental Divide and know what SNL was all about. This movie really told me nothing about the Goon Show at all. At least I hope not. If that show is like this movie, that would be a major disappointment.

Miracle on 34th Street

Another great Xmas movie. I've seen this so many times that I now start thinking about stuff when I watch it like where's Mrs. Claus.
post #1938 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

ChrisBEA, what did you think of the rest of the Nightmares and Dreamscapes series? I was shocked at how good Battleground was but it turned out to be an anomaly as the rest were underwhelming and in some cases were just irritating.
post #1939 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Susan Slept Here

Movie about an Oscar-winning writer, written by someone who obviously isn't.
post #1940 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

12/16/06: DR. JACK (Fred Newmeyer and, uncredited, Sam Taylor, 1922) **1/2

Harold Lloyd’s third feature-length film can be divided into three loosely-related sections: a) episodes in the life of a country doctor (presenting several typical gags while taking swipes at then-fashionable exclusive sanitariums and the nascent psycho-therapy at the same time); b) the poker game sequence (which has no real purpose in the film but is also its comic highlight!), and c) the ‘escaped lunatic’ routine (I don’t know if there were actually any ‘old dark house’-type films around this time – other than D.W. Griffith’s solitary venture into the subgenre ONE EXCITING NIGHT [1922] – but this was already making fun of them!). While enjoyable and undeniably inventive on occasion, DR. JACK displays a definite drop in quality from its immediate predecessor, GRANDMA’S BOY (1922); Lloyd’s next film, then, SAFETY LAST! (1923), not only would see him back on form but actually heralded his greatest period.


12/16/06: HIGH AND DIZZY (Hal Roach, 1920) ***

Fast-paced fun which, as often with Harold Lloyd, features distinct – and proven – backdrops for his gags: first, the doctor’s office (where the star, as a novice M.D., is forced to impersonate his own clients as a ruse to attract genuine ones!); then, the city streets after a drinking binge with his pal (capped by a pre-SAFETY LAST! [1923] scene in which they fall foul of a policeman); next, the hotel lobby where the reception desk and an elevator become the ‘targets’ of Lloyd’s drunken havoc; and, finally, the trademark ‘thrill’ sequence in which both the tipsy Lloyd and sleep-walking heroine Mildred Davis are seen walking perilously on the ledge of a tall building!


12/16/06: NOW OR NEVER (Fred Newmeyer and Hal Roach, 1921) ***

Being a three-reeler, this Harold Lloyd vehicle commands more attention than his typical short – though it’s not quite as rounded as his feature-length films either!

Train-set for a good part of the duration, it provides plenty of gags characteristic to such a situation: being a stowaway with a small girl in tow, Lloyd has to devise several ways in which to avoid detection; there’s a lengthy scene in the berths (at one point, Lloyd causes the train to make an emergency stop in the middle of the country-side simply because his spoilt ward wants a glass of milk!); and the star even contrives to find himself on top of the train as it’s speeding towards a tunnel.

As with many of his other shorts I’ve watched, a good enough comedy but these, somehow, aren’t as highly regarded as the equivalent work of a Keaton or even Laurel & Hardy!


12/16/06: GRANDMA'S BOY (Fred Newmeyer, 1922) ***

Harold Lloyd’s first great feature pits him in his ideal homespun setting with a simple and archetypal plot in which the mild-mannered Boy gradually learns to overcome his cowardice – with the help of his loving grandmother – to become the toast of the town; in this respect, it predates the star’s more celebrated THE FRESHMAN (1925) in being, above all, character-driven (with a dash of sentimentality). That said, perhaps the film’s most hilarious scene is a typical one in which both Lloyd and his rival for the affections of leading lady Mildred Davis unwittingly mistake moth-balls from Lloyd’s ancient costume (which had belonged to his grandfather) for sweets.

It’s climaxed, however, by three lengthy and impressive set-pieces: the Civil War feat of the hero’s grandfather (also played by Lloyd and remarkably anticipating Keaton’s THE GENERAL [1927]); the chase leading up to the capture of the town bully by the newly-brave Lloyd (brought about by the presence of a Zuni doll – more than 50 years before such an artifact would achieve immortality via the classic made-for-TV compendium TRILOGY OF TERROR [1975]!); and our hero’s settling of accounts with his mean-spirited rival, which features some rather physical tussling for this kind of film. As ever with Lloyd, apart from providing the requisite attention to gag structure and the creation of atmosphere, the film results in being quite technically proficient.


12/17/06: DR. JEKYLL LIKES THEM HOT (Steno, 1979) **

From the little there is available to read about this film, I can’t believe how vehemently it’s condemned (obviously by people unfamiliar with star Paolo Villaggio’s unique brand of comedy); he’s been one of Italy’s biggest comedians since the mid-1970s, particularly his seminal 9-film series revolving around hapless everyman Ugo Fantozzi made between 1975 and 1999. By the way, I saw the actor (who occasionally dabbled in writing and directing) in 2004 at the Excelsior Hotel in Venice – while I was attending the Film Festival there – as he mingled with the other guests on the terrace, still in his pyjamas!

Anyway, it’s no surprise that the film bears little resemblance to the plot of Stevenson’s original novella, and was, in fact, extremely topical in its satirical treatment of various social issues (industrialization leading to dehumanization and aggressive marketing competitiveness yielding nothing less than chemical warfare) close to the troubled Italian situation of the time – despite being set (and shot) in London! Still, the Italian title – which translates to DR. JEKYLL AND KIND LADY – misleadingly suggests that it will be taking a gender-bending spin on events in the vein of Hammer’s DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE (1971), with Villaggio metamorphosing into the luscious Edwige Fenech…but, actually, the ‘kind lady’ is none other than the curly-haired and effeminate do-gooder into which the evil Dr. Jekyll (dwarfish and given a hairy look for maximum effect) is eventually transformed! Actually, the Jekyll here is only the grandson of the famous doctor (a photograph of Fredric March is lovingly displayed on his mantel-piece); the latter still lives, unbeknownst to the current owner, chained to his bed in the basement of the mansion!

As is to be expected, the film has an anything-goes attitude (with proposed candidates to act as promoter for the doctor’s formula narrowed down to the Pope, the Queen and Sir Laurence Olivier!) and a surreal tone (a running gag lifted from the Fantozzi films but which never fails to crack me up – and would, therefore, probably go over the head of most foreign audiences – is the long list of derogatory titles which precede figures of authority); the finale, then, is pure wishful-thinking as everybody is eventually turned into the image of benevolence – but this produces an unfortunate side-effect in that the working class takes to picketing against their employers’ just treatment of them!! Clearly the most disappointing aspect about the film is its sad waste of Fenech: despite appearing as Dr. Jekyll’s voluptuous secretary (who falls for his alter-ego, but he’s too saintly to reciprocate her affections – while the repulsive Jekyll can only hope to lust after her!), she has little to do and, worse, there’s barely any nudity (especially since she, too, succumbs to the benign formula before long – turning into a blonde, with the equivalent curly hairdo, but saddled with a pronounced lisp)!

As one can see from this review, I quite enjoyed the film – thanks also to an Armando Trovajoli score that includes an infectious recurrent pop song – and generally found it more consistent than the episodic and usually patchy Fantozzi series; that, however, may be due to the fact that it’s helmed by an expert in the field, having directed the films of many an Italian comedian – foremost among them the great Toto`…and the modest ** rating is merely a reflection (or admission, on my part) of its inherent low-brow nature and middling i.e. not exactly good overall quality.


12/17/06: FEET FIRST (Clyde Bruckman, 1930) ***

This was Harold Lloyd’s second Talkie but the first one I watched, since WELCOME DANGER (1929) is currently unavailable. It’s a typical star vehicle and, in fact, the plot is quite similar to that of SAFETY LAST! (1923) – from the shoe-store background replacing the department store of the earlier film (hence the title) to Lloyd’s attempts at impressing his girlfriend by pretending to be a wealthy businessman and, of course, its lengthy climactic shenanigans of our hero dangling from the side of a building.

Still, it’s entertaining – and inventive – enough to stand on its own (even if, being so dependent on sight gags, the dialogue scenes feel awkward in comparison); the initial shoe-store segment involves Lloyd falling foul of the boss’ wife, while the middle section is set aboard a sailing ship (which Harold contrives to be on along with the boss, his wife – who says she never forgets a face – and his own girl, the boss’ secretary and whom Lloyd thinks is actually his daughter!)…but the genuinely hair-raising stuntwork (which, it must be said, sees no obvious repetition of the innumerable gags from the climax of SAFETY LAST!) is what really makes the film – also because it involves a lethargic black janitor (played by Willie Best, appropriately nicknamed “Sleep ‘n’ Eat”) who, I’m afraid, wouldn’t pass muster with today’s PC-brainwashed audiences (especially when dubbed “Charcoal” by Lloyd himself!) and who clearly results in being more of a hindrance than a help to Harold’s singularly hazardous predicament.

This was actually the star’s fifth and final ‘thrill’ picture, which also features regular character actor Arthur Houseman invariably – and somewhat irritatingly – playing a drunkard; as for Lloyd co-star Barbara Kent, she’s adequate, having already played his leading lady in WELCOME DANGER (I was also surprised to learn that she was the heroine of Hungarian director Paul Fejos’ most renowned Hollywood film, LONESOME [1928], a part-Talkie which I’ve only managed to catch in snippets on late-night Italian TV: I did record a recent broadcast of it, presumably shown in its entirety – as the film, curiously, still bears no opening credits or any underscoring of any kind!).


12/17/06: THE KID BROTHER (Ted Wilde, J. A. Howe and, uncredited, Lewis Milestone, 1927) ****

Arguably Harold Lloyd’s greatest film, made contemporaneously with Buster Keaton’s equivalent, THE GENERAL (1927); interestingly, while the former was a box-office hit, the latter’s reception was more lukewarm – its reputation having been cemented (indeed vindicated) with time; ultimately, while THE KID BROTHER may lack the scope of Keaton’s masterwork, it’s no less meticulously crafted or well filmed. Still, it’s not quite as renowned as other Lloyds – such as SAFETY LAST! (1923) or THE FRESHMAN (1925) – which actually makes its discovery as an unequivocal gem, not only in the pantheon of comedy but among the finest productions of the Silent era, all the more sweeter!

The plot was admittedly borrowed from the famous Silent melodrama TOL’ABLE DAVID (1921) – which I’ve never watched myself – but, like THE GENERAL, it seamlessly mingles dazzling comic invention with a serious (a sure indication of this is the fact that it dispenses entirely with Lloyd’s typically sarcastic title cards), compelling and exciting plotline; in this case, Harold (again, like Keaton’s rejected soldier) has to prove he’s the equal of his stalwart family by standing up to the villain – a sinister-looking medicine-show strongman – and recover a cache of stolen money, thus righting a wrong done his father (largely at the instigation of his eternal rival – the long-lasting family feud had also been utilized by Keaton for one of his most beautiful films, OUR HOSPITALITY [1923]).

It’s quite futile to mention individual gags from the film because it has a plethora of them, all being incredibly clever (apart from hilarious) and are milked for all they’re worth – generally so as to play up to the resourcefulness of our hero. As a matter of fact, the film rarely pauses for breath between one set-piece and the next – while the last half-hour (largely confined to an offshore boat) is thrillingly packed with intense action and suspense, as it speeds towards a happy resolution of all its various plot strands. Jobyna Ralston is once again Lloyd’s leading lady here; actually, this proved to be their last collaboration.

I’ve failed to mention before now the invaluable contribution which the scores by either Carl Davis or Robert Israel have contributed to these Silent films, but Davis’ sterling work here (composed for Kevin Brownlow’s Photoplay re-issue of 1990) is particularly effective. By the way, the film was started by Lewis Milestone but had to step down from the director’s chair due to a contractual dispute; it was taken over by Ted Wilde but even he was replaced (by J.A. Howe) at some later point after he was struck by an illness; this led to the film’s shooting schedule extending to a six-month period – but all these various calamities, thankfully, didn’t affect the ultimate quality of THE KID BROTHER one bit!


P.S. The film was partly shot on the spot where Forest Lawn cemetery (where many a Hollywood star is buried) was eventually built – and which happens to be located near the Universal studio offices that host the New York Film Academy classes I attended last year!


12/18/06: DON'T LOSE YOUR HEAD (Gerald Thomas, 1966) **1/2

I’ve only watched 8 of the long-running and hugely popular “Carry On” films; their overall quality is quite patchy, but the most consistently entertaining so far have been CARRY ON…UP THE KHYBER (1968) and CARRY ON HENRY (1971). This one was actually in the same vein as the latter i.e. a period romp and, in fact, I find their brand of bawdy humor works best in this environment – not only because it allows for a contrast between modern times and the era being lampooned (including, in this case, parlor entertainment that features a minstrel tune whose chorus is lifted from The Beatles’ “She Loves You”!) but also because it gives the low-budget films a semblance of grandeur not possible with their outings having contemporary settings.

I decided to check this film before others in the series (happily, my local DVD rental outlet carries a handful of them) because I’m currently going through a bit of a swashbuckling phase as part of my Christmas marathon. Anyway, it’s an extremely typical offering (despite dropping the “Carry On” from the title, though it did get renamed CARRY ON PIMPERNEL for the U.S.) that obviously deals with the French Revolution, which is being thwarted by a Scarlet Pimpernel-type figure who calls himself “The Black Fingernail” and leaves as his calling card a drawing with the “Up Yours!” gesture: the overall effect is hit-or-miss and the pace rather sluggish for what should essentially be a zippy adventure – but the host of practiced regulars from the series are in good form, thus ensuring the occasional hilarious moment or quip (usually for this gang, these would be double entendres and even include asides to the audience!).


12/18/06: CARRY ON LAUGHING: THE PRISONER OF SPENDA (TV) (Alan Tarrant, 1975) **1/2

The raunchy “Carry On” humor eventually found its way to the small-screen in the form of half-hour TV shows – which, perhaps, served their specialized comedy style better since no padding was necessary to stretch the generally thin plotlines to feature-length and would, therefore, not overstay its welcome. Even so, their decision to adapt the swashbuckling favorite “The Prisoner Of Zenda” as part of this series rather than for the big screen was a mistake, not only because the spectacle (of which there is very little given the limited, and mostly interior, sets) would be lost on TV but the convoluted narrative could never be satisfactorily fitted into a mere 25 minutes (which allows for only the bare outline of Anthony Hope’s classic adventure to be utilized) – but, then, one must remember that literature’s definitive tale of impersonation had already been parodied by Blake Edwards in THE GREAT RACE (1965)! Still, it’s a pleasant enough trifle that clearly benefits from the presence of some of the “Carry On” notables – namely Sid James, Barbara Windsor, Joan Sims and Peter Butterworth.
post #1941 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandro
ChrisBEA, what did you think of the rest of the Nightmares and Dreamscapes series? I was shocked at how good Battleground was but it turned out to be an anomaly as the rest were underwhelming and in some cases were just irritating.
lol ... i know you're not asking me, but i agree completely. the first one was so amazing, i had nothing but high hopes for the rest of the series.

well, let me put it this way. after about the third one i stopped watching.
post #1942 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Sandro,
I found it to be very hit and miss, emphasis on the miss. Battleground was brilliant and I could watch that over and over, but have no interest in buying all of them.
Of the watchable ones, I thought Umney's Last Case was decent, as was You Know They Have a Hell of a Band. Crouch End had moments, but.....

I missed a couple, looking at the titles, I don't think I saw Autopsy Room FOur or The Fifth Quarter.
post #1943 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisBEA
Sandro,
I found it to be very hit and miss, emphasis on the miss. Battleground was brilliant and I could watch that over and over, but have no interest in buying all of them.
Of the watchable ones, I thought Umney's Last Case was decent, as was You Know They Have a Hell of a Band. Crouch End had moments, but.....

I missed a couple, looking at the titles, I don't think I saw Autopsy Room FOur or The Fifth Quarter.

You didn't miss much. I thought Battleground and End of the Whole Mess were interesting, besides that the miniseries falls into the category of most Stephen King adaptations: underwhelming. Crouch End was especially disappointing to me, as I remember the audiobook of that story being one of the more frightening things I've ever heard, and on screen its a horrible CGI mess with music video-style camera work.
post #1944 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

12/20/06

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

A family of losers, including a suicidal uncle (Steve Carell), a cocaine addict grandfather (Alan Arkin), a failed father (Greg Kinnear), his wife (Toni Collette) and their two children hit to road for a beauty contest but things go from bad to worse. The story of a dysfunctional family going on a road trip certainly isn't anything new and in all honesty the film really didn't make me laugh as much as I was expecting but for some reason it still worked for me. What I enjoyed most were the performances by Carell and Kinnear. Both men are extremely sharp with the comedy but they also do the drama very well. Perhaps I went in expecting more laughs than the film meant to give but I felt the drama aspects went a bit too far. I found the ending somewhat disturbing but for the most part the film worked well.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Clint Eastwood's love letter to WW2 soldiers is a film I really need to see again. I had a few problems with the movie on this first viewing, which might improve on a second viewing. After another viewing I might bump the film up to a four or drop it to a three. Needless to say, Eastwood does a brilliant job directing this film, which on some levels is familiar ground but Eastwood makes it seem all his own. The most interesting aspect of the film for me was hearing about what happened to the three soldiers after the battle at Iwo Jima. I wasn't too familiar with the history surrounding these events so this part of the story really sucked me in. The problem I had with the film was all the scenes at Iwo Jima, which just seemed rather tame and tiresome compared to others films that deal with the subject. While watching the battle scenes I couldn't help but think of Saving Private Ryan and how uninvolving the scenes were here. As the film went on, Eastwood's poetic beauty in storytelling had me thinking that perhaps he handled the battle scenes the right way by keeping them rather low key. I'll need a second viewing to see where my opinion lies on this. The final thirty minutes of the movie contain some of Eastwood's best direction as we see the outcome to the three soldiers lives. The stuff dealing with Ira Hayes was the most interesting and I wish the other two soldiers had as much detail. I had heard reviews that said this film wasn't anti or pro war but I think it was certainly anti-government showing how much bullshit was surrounding these events.

Nazarin (1958)

Luis Bunuel's "religious" film about a good hearted priest (Francisco Rabal) who does anything he can to help sinners but this might cause his fall from grace. I don't normally mind Bunuel's overbearing religious stances but this film got on my nerves. Technically speaking it's well made and has a good performance by Rabal but it goes too over the top with its speeches about good and evil. The priest is just showed way too good and everyone else is just showed way too bad. The good vs. bad aspect just seems too false for me to take the film too serious.

Young One, The (1960)

An innocent black man (Bernie Hamilton) is accused of rape by a white woman so he runs off into the swamps of Louisiana. Once there he meets a young (11-13 year oldish) white girl (Key Meersman) and her racist guardian (Zachary Scott) who is also having sex with her. I've seen quite a few Luis Bunuel films now and earlier I said I wished he would do a normal film and tell a normal story without all the dreams and surreal aspects. Well, this is a film like that and I must say it's subject matter is still quite graphic and hard to watch even forty-six years after being released. I have a hard time imagining this thing got released in America due to its sexual and racist nature but apparently it did as the IMDB lists an American title for the film. It's also worth noting that this pre-dates To Kill a Mockingbird but this film here goes a lot further than that film even dreamed. The "N" word is constantly thrown around and unlike the blaxploitation films that would follow a decade later or the earlier Sidney Poitier films, that word has never had a more damaging saying than what's on display here. I'm not exactly sure what the director felt about race but everytime that word is said it's used in such a graphic and evil way that you can't help but want to wash your ears out. Race is an issue throughout the film but thankfully Bunuel never lets his message get preachy. He lets the viewer see the hypocrisy and that's enough. The sexual aspect is also quite shocking since there are a couple love scenes between the older guardian and the younger girl. Bunuel also doesn't shy away from showing the girl taking a shower, showing shots of her legs and even a shot of her breasts. No nudity is used and in some ways this makes it seem all the more dirty because of the innocence lost. The performances are all remarkable and even in their most evil ways, the actors make you care for them. Scott steals the film as the racist redneck who's also having sex with the young girl. Just watch the actors eyes and you'll see him thinking, which is something a lot of actors don't do. The thinking of whether or not he should kill the black man and if it's right for him to be sleeping with this girl. The three actors are always looking at one another and you can see that they are thinking about their actions and what could follow. I was rather shocked to see this film get a * 1/2 in Leonard Maltin's movie guide but I guess this film would be rather hard to watch for most people. It doesn't shy away from its subject matter and Bunuel hits the viewer with punches from all sides. The film shows evil and bad people but he also shows the good in such people so it's rather refreshing to see a film that deals with race and isn't one sided towards any point of view.
post #1945 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

12/18/06: WELCOME TO SHERWOOD! – THE STORY OF "THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD" (TV) (Jeff Kurrti, 2003) ***

A typically solid and thorough Turner Classic Movies documentary about the making of this classic film: running for some 56 minutes, it’s highly informative – but, given the subject matter, it’s also done in an entertaining way. Of course, it deals with several behind-the-scenes anecdotes that I mentioned in my review of the film itself…but it’s also easy to see how, 70 years on, all the participants are still in awe of the film’s achievement: the wondrous use of color, the spectacle, the stuntwork involved in the action highlights – in essence, the sheer professionalism of Hollywood at its best.


12/18/06: GLORIOUS TECHNICOLOR (TV) (Peter Jones, 1998) ***

This 1-hour documentary details the history of this most famous of color processes, still considered the most satisfying – and durable – ever devised for purposes of filming. It also provides biographical data about the two people most important for its development and promotion – Dr. Herbert Kalmus and his wife Natalie; their thorny relationship and hers with the various studio bosses, when she eventually took Technicolor under her wing, is a great story in and of itself…but the documentary pays tribute as well to the many film-makers and auteurs who adopted the color system as their ideal mode of expression. There is a bit of an over-insistence on musical extravaganzas of the 1940s and 1950s but, then, it also affords reasonable time to classic illustrations of Technicolor on the screen – in particular, GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) and other David O. Selznick productions – and even touches upon how it fared in other countries, primarily Great Britain (where the process was perhaps seen at its best advantage in the idiosyncratic visions of The Archers’ films).


12/19/06: A SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola, 1977) ***

I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni’s passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances – and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here – she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual!

By the way, the film’s title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars’ ‘brief encounter’ in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion – though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film’s abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters – save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety – which include Loren’s gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn’t deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I’ve watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result – though essentially low-key – is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.

The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it’s interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it’s Mastroianni’s moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences!


12/20/06: THE WICKER MAN [Unrated Version] (Neil LaBute, 2006) BOMB

I never had faith in this Americanized updating of the 1973 cult classic (which happens to be one of my favorite films) but, as I lay watching it, I was utterly appalled and disgusted at just how bad the whole thing actually was – easily the most misguided remake I’ve ever come across (worse even than Tim Burton’s PLANET OF THE APES [2001])!!

While the essential plot points of the earlier film are retained, the alterations/additions are truly idiotic – particularly its depiction of Summersisle [sic] as a female-dominated society, in which the male population is virtually insignificant and entirely subservient (with honey as the foremost product of the community, its symbolism couldn’t be less subtle). Of course, it doesn’t help that I personally can’t stand Nicolas Cage: despite his professed admiration for the original and his credit as one of the film’s myriad producers, the Hollywood star (with all the baggage that comes with such a moniker) is hopelessly out of his depth here; Edward Woodward’s bewildered police officer in the 1973 version had strong and believable opposition in such figures as Diane Cilento (the teacher) and Christopher Lee’s Lord Summerisle, whose faith in their ancient ways was genuine and steadfast – but the people seen here are merely fruitcakes, and Cage a wimpish hero who can only resort to pulling guns on them (at one hilarious instance, so as to take possession of a bike!), throw the occasional punch (at women, no less) and name-calling (“Bitches!”)…

Besides, where in the hell is the brilliant dialogue (some of the exchanges here are laughable, to say the least)? Where’s the music (which gave the original so much atmosphere and texture)? Where’s the contrast in ideologies (Cage’s religious beliefs are never once brought up – other than the fact that he’s been severely tested by the road accident which opens the film – so that his final breakdown has no meaning whatsoever)? To say nothing of the eroticism which was so integral to the Anthony Shaffer/Robin Hardy masterpiece. By the way, the in-jokey nods to the lead of the original film – Cage’s character is called Edward, while the missing girl and her mother’s surname is Woodward (there’s even supposed to be a photo of him early on, in character, among the missing persons on a notice-board at the police station!) – are as desperate as everything else about the film! And there are even influences from other 70s horror classics – such as the crushing of Cage’s legs at the climax (THE DEVILS [1971]), the recurring appearance of the girl in the red shirt (DON’T LOOK NOW [1973]) and Leelee Sobieski’s leaping on Cage in an attempt to prevent him from thwarting the all-important festival (THE OMEN [1976]). As for the female protagonists, Ellen Burstyn made a disappointingly weak chief villainess, Sobieski (who had been so impressive in Stanley Kubrick's EYES WIDE SHUT [1999]) was strangely flabby and unattractive(!) and only Kate Beahan (as Cage's ex-fiancee`) manages to emerge with a grain of dignity from the wreckage.

One had hoped that the remake would turn audiences on to the 1973 version but, in the face of the appalling (indeed depressing) results, such a thing is highly doubtful: what was fascinating, powerful and haunting – in one word, unique – about the original has been killed stone dead by this hollow, wretched and totally unnecessary revamping!! The “Unrated” version I watched featured an alternate, “shocking” ending to the one provided in the PG-13 theatrical-release print (for which the violence was reduced but, apparently, had an open-ended postscript added to it)!


12/20/06: CARRY ON AT YOUR CONVENIENCE (Gerald Thomas, 1971) ***

Considered by many the best ever “Carry On” film, I think I still prefer CARRY ON…UP THE KHYBER (1968) to it, but it’s certainly one of the more tolerable entries in the series. Essentially an update of I’M ALL RIGHT, JACK! (1959) in its concern over working conditions in a factory and the frequent strikes ordered by the union’s representative (usually over a trifle, or even a technicality in the regulations!), the fact that the manufacture involved is toiletware, the lavatorial humor associated with this team is quite appropriate here – though it never descends to the grossness which seems to be the norm for today’s would-be comedies.

Most of the regulars of the series can be seen strutting their stuff (though perhaps the most notable contribution is given by newcomer Kenneth Cope as the shop steward) and there’s no shortage of lewd remarks but, as I said, it’s all done in fun (while these films may have been restricted to adult audiences back in the day, they’re quite PG stuff today!). There’s still a bit of padding involved – such as Sid James’ winnings at the races (following the predictions of his wife’s pet bird!), the love triangle involving Cope, Jacki Piper (as James’ daughter) and Richard O’Callaghan (as the son of factory boss Kenneth Williams) and especially the lengthy outing in Brighton; all things considered, however, an enjoyable vintage comedy which is ideal viewing for the festive season.


12/20/06: CARRY ON LAUGHING: THE CASE OF THE SCREAMING WINKLES (TV) (Alan Tarrant, 1975) ***

Part of the TV show that followed in the wake of the popular film series, this is a quite engaging comic mystery with a period setting; numerous people converge in a hotel to investigate a murder, which turns out to be much more convoluted than at first appears and eventually leads to the capture of a notorious criminal. The best thing about this episode is the interaction between detective Jack Douglas and his even brighter butler/sidekick Kenneth Connor, which involves some clever gags and wordplay.
post #1946 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Remember the Night

Preston Sturges wrote, but did not direct, this film, which ends up being good but not great. Without his direction, the story doesn't quite gel at the beginning (the defense attorney comes off more irritating than funny), and the rest of the film, while better, just doesn't quite work. The ending is pure Sturges, but seems kind of jolting and unfinished here, which again I lay at the directing, which isn't bad, it's just not fully meshed with the tone of the script.
post #1947 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quotes (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

“Nazarin (1958)

Luis Bunuel's "religious" film about a good hearted priest (Francisco Rabal) who does anything he can to help sinners but this might cause his fall from grace. I don't normally mind Bunuel's overbearing religious stances but this film got on my nerves. Technically speaking it's well made and has a good performance by Rabal but it goes too over the top with its speeches about good and evil. The priest is just showed way too good and everyone else is just showed way too bad. The good vs. bad aspect just seems too false for me to take the film too serious.”



Mike,

You may want to go back and re-read my 1,455-word review of NAZARIN which I posted on HTF back in early October…but, in short:

As I said earlier, while I wasn’t immediately struck by the greatness of the film, the more I thought (and read) about it, the more my impressions of it – for lack of a better word – improved. To stress the obvious, the film deals with a priest who takes Christ’s teachings literally so having him portrayed as being too good is hardly “false”; likewise, the constant “good vs. evil” aspects in the movie cannot really be deemed “overbearing” as Christ himself did nothing else but preach about just that conflict. It is my view that the subtlety with which Bunuel equates Fr. Nazario’s plight with that of Christ is truly impressive and the end result is far different (and better) that what a lesser director would have made of it.


”Young One, The (1960)

An innocent black man (Bernie Hamilton) is accused of rape by a white woman so he runs off into the swamps of Louisiana. Once there he meets a young (11-13 year oldish) white girl (Key Meersman) and her racist guardian (Zachary Scott) who is also having sex with her. I've seen quite a few Luis Bunuel films now and earlier I said I wished he would do a normal film and tell a normal story without all the dreams and surreal aspects. Well, this is a film like that and I must say it's subject matter is still quite graphic and hard to watch even forty-six years after being released. I have a hard time imagining this thing got released in America due to its sexual and racist nature but apparently it did as the IMDB lists an American title for the film. It's also worth noting that this pre-dates To Kill a Mockingbird but this film here goes a lot further than that film even dreamed. The "N" word is constantly thrown around and unlike the blaxploitation films that would follow a decade later or the earlier Sidney Poitier films, that word has never had a more damaging saying than what's on display here. I'm not exactly sure what the director felt about race but everytime that word is said it's used in such a graphic and evil way that you can't help but want to wash your ears out. Race is an issue throughout the film but thankfully Bunuel never lets his message get preachy. He lets the viewer see the hypocrisy and that's enough. The sexual aspect is also quite shocking since there are a couple love scenes between the older guardian and the younger girl. Bunuel also doesn't shy away from showing the girl taking a shower, showing shots of her legs and even a shot of her breasts. No nudity is used and in some ways this makes it seem all the more dirty because of the innocence lost. The performances are all remarkable and even in their most evil ways, the actors make you care for them. Scott steals the film as the racist redneck who's also having sex with the young girl. Just watch the actors eyes and you'll see him thinking, which is something a lot of actors don't do. The thinking of whether or not he should kill the black man and if it's right for him to be sleeping with this girl. The three actors are always looking at one another and you can see that they are thinking about their actions and what could follow. I was rather shocked to see this film get a * 1/2 in Leonard Maltin's movie guide but I guess this film would be rather hard to watch for most people. It doesn't shy away from its subject matter and Bunuel hits the viewer with punches from all sides. The film shows evil and bad people but he also shows the good in such people so it's rather refreshing to see a film that deals with race and isn't one sided towards any point of view.”


Wow…now this rating came out of left field, Mike!

When I first watched the film, I was already aware of Maltin’s *1/2 rating so I couldn’t believe that the film was as good as it ended up being (a solid *** effort). At first, I suspected that it was my genuine, unlimited fondness for Bunuel’s work which made it seem better than it was but subsequent viewings only confirmed my initial impression. Lately, I found that this film is getting mentioned more and more when Bunuel is discussed and, in fact, eminent film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote a piece on the film in a book I purchased recently called “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die”! On closer inspection, I was even more shocked to discover that Bunuel’s THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) was nowhere to be seen on that list!! Still, THE YOUNG ONE did emerge an award winner at the Cannes Film Festival but its reputation in general, as Rosenbaum suggests, could hardly be less “prestigious” among Bunuel’s films.

Anyway, although all my 3 viewings of the film so far – on Italian TV in its original English soundtrack but with forced Italian subtitles – were plagued with a recurring problematic TV reception, I certainly concur with Michael’s views that the film is as disturbing to watch because of Bunuel’s subtle handling of the controversial material. Both Zachary Scott and the lovely Key Meersman are totally convincing in their difficult roles and, indeed, when I later watched the latter in Damiano Damiani’s ARTURO’S ISLAND (1962), she was nowhere as expressive. The film also boasts expert black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa and a memorable theme song, “Sinner Man”, which (astonishingly) I recall being sung (translated into Maltese) as a Church hymn from my childhood days!!

Michael brings up comparisons with TO KILL A MIOCKINGBIRD (1962) but, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Russ Meyer must have watched the film before making some of his oversexed, low-budget, black-and-white melodramas set in the American South like LORNA (1964), MOTOR PSYCHO (1965) and perhaps even FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! (1965). Thankfully, THE YOUNG ONE is getting a R2 DVD release as part of Optimum’s 8-Disc "Luis Bunuel Collection" which gathers together 8 of Bunuel’s last 11 films and, hopefully, I’ll grab the set during the famed London January sales while I’m over there for the National Film Theatre’s Bunuel retrospective…
post #1948 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Mario, I think you nailed it on Nazarin. The point is that Bunuel is also satirizing the priest and the strict tenets of a religion that will not bend on any points. Of course those who are bending the rules don't get a lot of sympathy either.

Last year TCM played about 5 movies by Bunuel and I was completely astounded by all of them. They are intelligent, sophisticated and uncompromising films yet also humorous.
post #1949 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Re: NAZARIN

Bunuel's point and message just didn't work with me. I forgot to mention the priest being a Jesus like thing but this is the part that I found too overbearing. I think the film would have worked better for me had it been a little more laid back and not so much in my face. As you can see, I didn't write too much about it because it really didn't hit me the way I think the director wanted it to. There were a few times throughout the film where I wanted to hit the priest like the others.

Re: THE YOUNG ONE

If you remember, I watched the first twenty minutes of this back in March but the disc froze up and I just got a replacement a few weeks back. I enjoyed what I watched back then and I loved the rest of the film when I finally watched it last night. The point about Meyer is a good one (and got me thinking about his BLACKSNAKE) but I was also curious if Bunuel had seen the 1938 film CHILD BRIDE, which features a few similar scenes.

As for the film's rep and Maltin's poor review, IMO this has something to do with its graphic subject matter and the fact that this doesn't seem like any Bunuel film I've seen. Again, the racial slurs and talks are very graphic and certainly a lot more "on target" than the previous Poitier films or even future films that deal with race. I'd say this film would be protested if it were made today so it was rather shocking to see this stuff in a 1960 film. We could talk about the sexuality and rape as well in regards to a film from 1960.

I had meant to follow these two up with ILLUSIONS TRAVELED BY A STREETCAR (I think that's the title) but something else came up.

Re: THE WICKER MAN

I think, as a fan, you're being rather tough on the film. You asked where certain things were in the remake compared to the original but I'm thankful we didn't get a direct remake. I didn't like all the changes but at least something was altered. At the very least I feel the film deserves at least a half star rating for:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Earlier in the year I said the remake would certainly let Cage live in the end but this ended up not happening. In 2006, not many movies would let Cage die so I give them credit for staying true here.
post #1950 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

The Polar Express

Another winner from Bob Zemeckis. I think Zemeckis is for me, what the Coen Brothers (just to name one example) are for others, and vice-versa. Lots of folks love the Coens, but they just don't work for me. And a number of folks seem to have problems with Zemeckis films, whereas, I think he's one of the most underrated directors out there. I don't like everything he's ever done (e.g., What Lies Beneath, Death Becomes Her), but he's made a number of great films (e.g., Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, etc.).
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 (2006)