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 67

post #1981 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

[quote=Michael Elliott]As for Stallone being 60 and fighting again:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think he makes good of thing during the fight. He starts off getting his ass kicked pretty bad until the other boxer breaks his hand. The announcers say that this is Rocky's shot to try and get punches in because it would take several rounds for the hand to go numb. These rounds are where Rocky begins to "comeback" in the fight. After the other boxer's hands go numb then he makes his comeback and eventually wins the fight.


I think some people misinterpreted Michael's last sentence here. . .the "he" is the opponent. I had to read it twice myself because I presumed he meant the opposite first.
post #1982 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Imagine: John Lennon

I never got a chance to see this theatrically, so this was my first viewing. It's well done, and had a smattering of footage I hadn't seen before, but nothing I really need to see again (I'd read about Al Capp, but seeing him be such a moron was almost embarrasing - his subsequent public humiliation for various adulterous activities just makes him look like even more of a horse's ass). The Beatles Anthology remains one of the few documentaries that I will actually rewatch.
post #1983 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Starman

Another big budget B movie from John Carpenter. This guy couldn't direct his way out of bed in the morning. Not my least favorite director by a long shot, but quite possibly the least talented this side of Ed Wood.
post #1984 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

12/26 Savage Weekend (1979) 1/2 (of 5)
Dull and fairly pointless entry in the backwoods horror/slasher vein isn't quite incompetent enough to mock, but not violent or weird enough to recommend. I was convinced the lead actress was Sela Ward even though I didn't see her name in the credits. A few enjoyably strange scenes and overall gauzy 70's milieu along with some bare breasts which I thought belonged to Sela Ward elevate it from the dreaded (and rarely given by my forgiving ass) one star rating.
post #1985 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
This guy couldn't direct his way out of bed in the morning. Not my least favorite director by a long shot, but quite possibly the least talented this side of Ed Wood.

You obvious haven't watched any Ulli Lommel epics.

And I'll skedaddle before Justin comes in here with an axe.
post #1986 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by george kaplan
Starman
This guy couldn't direct his way out of bed in the morning ..............quite possibly the least talented this side of Ed Wood.

Those are pretty harsh words even for you, George! Even those who don't like Carpenter's movie usually admit that he at least has some amount of skill and craft. What specifically leads you to your conclusion?
post #1987 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

What specifically leads you to your conclusion?
Well you've got these big budget (or at least not real low budget) films, with actors that have clearly done a great job acting in other films, and in these films they come across as bad actors, and everything about these films just feels cheesy. It's hard to pin that on anything but the director, since he's the common link.
post #1988 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Rocky Balboa - (8 of 10)

Easily the best Rocky sequel yet--very much in the vein of the first Rocky in story and substance. Stallone's is the only male performance of the year to move me to tears; he wrote some very powerful, very effective, scenes into this film. The filmmaking is outstanding the film looks good, my only frustration is the overdone fight at the end. I know that's how fights are shown now, but I don't think the film needed to take on the TV mantle to present the fight.

On the other hand since every bit of those TV on-screen graphics, sound effects, style etc was created by the assistant editors (editors don't do annoying grunt work like that) and wasn't provided to the film, it's an impressive bit of post work.

Still it didn't feel right, and when I came home to find Rocky on TV (it was boxing day after all), it reminded me of why I hate modern TV sportscasting (ie the ESPN effect), the bastards are all smarmy with annoying voices/personality and couldn't call a sport if their life depended on it. There's no comparison to the actual calling of the fight found in the original Rocky. in my mind the ESPN guys in Rocky Balboa sound like a a four year old jumping up and down shrieking in incomprehensible excitement. And that goes for the retards calling college football for TV as well, I can actually 'see' the game better listening to the radio than watching it because the radio guys know how to call a game. For next season I'm hooking up the radio in my receiver so I can mute the TV and play the audio from the radio.

Otherwise the writing in Rocky Balboa is top notch and the performances outstanding, the final fight is just a bit dissappointing, but very much in the vein of the first Rocky. I also thought the ending was a bit of a letdown, it works for the original Rocky because he and Adrian are fighting to get to each other, there's not an equivalent here.

But one fantastic swan song for the franchise.


---------------
Here Comes Mr. Jordan - (9 of 10)

I've wanted to watch this for ages, and it was on TCM last night. The film is better than I hoped and an excellent companion to films like A Matter of Life and Death. Claude Rains gives one of his best performances in this film. If there's one thing I disliked about the film it's the ending was a little annoying and somewhat unexpected, but I imagine that would fade with a repeat viewing.

Robert Montgomery plays Joe, a boxer who has a shot at the title--he's in the pink--and while flying his private plane he goes into a spin and a dive. A nearby 'courier' sees him and decides to spare him the agony of a plane crash, but Joe would have survived and pulled out of the dive. Unfortunately by the time they sort things out in the next world Joe's body has been cremated by his well meaning manager. So now Joe has to pull a 'Quantum Leap' and jump into a recently vacated body. He'll appear to us as the same Joe but everyone else will see the appearance of the body.

A very fun, well made and enjoyable film. Joe's a bit of a dummy about things, but that's forgiveable, unlike me, he never saw Quantum Leap, so he has to figure it all out in the space of a one film.

Adam
post #1989 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Glad you liked HCMJ as much as I did, Adam. It's coming on DVD in February. Did you see my reviews for this one and for Beatty's remake? You should definitely see his version as well now (Heaven Can Wait). It's been on DVD for a long time already.
post #1990 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
And I'll skedaddle before Justin comes in here with an axe.

Hopefully Justin doesn't visit this thread because it could lead to the first murder in HTF history.


Quote:
Another big budget B movie from John Carpenter. This guy couldn't direct his way out of bed in the morning. Not my least favorite director by a long shot, but quite possibly the least talented this side of Ed Wood.

A few comments....

Since you aren't a fan of the genre and since you've never seen an Ed Wood film, the last part of your quote is pretty unfair. Even if someone isn't a fan of the genre I can't believe you'd make such comments but I think those comments come from you not seeing many genre films. If you want to see some really bad stuff then check out D'Amato, Franco, Cunningham, Miller, Adamson, Girdler and hundreds of others. If you watched these you'd probably see why many consider Carpenter one of the strongest directors over the past few decades.

STARMAN is considered the best among his non-horror work and since you didn't like HALLOWEEN, I'd be willing to be there's nothing in his filmography for you to enjoy. As for the film being cheesy, well, it is but so is every other science fiction film with the exception of a few.

I'm really starting to fear your reviews when you get to some of the Euro Horror out there but who knows. You might become a fan of something off beat like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.


BTW, I didn't want to clog up the other thread but you can go directly to your post if you do what Bill says. You can also just save your post to your computer and update it that way.
post #1991 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

A few comments....
A few back at ya
since you've never seen an Ed Wood film
Hmm. Did I say something somewhere to give this impression. If so, I was either misunderstood, or didn't make myself clear. I have seen films by Ed Wood, therefore I disagree that
the last part of your quote is pretty unfair.
Even if someone isn't a fan of the genre I can't believe you'd make such comments but I think those comments come from you not seeing many genre films. If you want to see some really bad stuff then check out D'Amato, Franco, Cunningham, Miller, Adamson, Girdler and hundreds of others.
Genre meaning what exactly? You seem to be using the term interchangeably with bad b horror movies, which is a genre that I am not particularly a fan of, but certainly not one that I haven't seen any number of films in.
If you watched these you'd probably see why many consider Carpenter one of the strongest directors over the past few decades.
I do hope you mean strongest directors in this particular subgenre, not in general. To call him a strong director in general would be laughable. Again, there are certainly worse films technically, but it's kind of like baseball. The worst managers are the ones on teams loaded with talent that end up underperforming, not the managers of the least talented teams. I'll grant you that Morrissey's films like Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula are worse films than Halloween or Starman or Big Trouble in Little China, but when you take into account the relative budgets and talents involved, Carpenter is by far the worse director even if Morrissey films are worse.

As for the film being cheesy, well, it is but so is every other science fiction film with the exception of a few.
Well you can quibble about what 'few' means, but I can name dozens of non-cheesy sci-fi films - Blade Runner, Terminator, 2001, Star Wars, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, A Clockwork Orange, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the film Starman was trying, very unsuccessfully to imitate), E.T., Back to the Future, Soylent Green, Dark City, Total Recall, The Abyss, Minority Report, etc., etc.

BTW, I didn't want to clog up the other thread but you can go directly to your post if you do what Bill says. You can also just save your post to your computer and update it that way.
I may try that, though frankly I got out of the habit this past year.
post #1992 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

You said this in Wood's director thread:

Quote:
I've seen the film Ed Wood, which makes me feel like I've seen some Ed Wood films, but in reality I haven't.

That was on old post so I guess you've seen some since then.

Quote:
Genre meaning what exactly? You seem to be using the term interchangeably with bad b horror movies, which is a genre that I am not particularly a fan of, but certainly not one that I haven't seen any number of films in.

You've given thumbs down to some of the most respected and loved horror films ever made. If you didn't like HALLOWEEN then it's doubtful you'd like some minor work like STARMAN. If you didn't like DAWN OF THE DEAD then it's doubtful you'd like THE CRAZIES. If you didn't like THE INVISIBLE MAN then it's doubtful you'd like THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS. That's all my comment meant.

Quote:
I do hope you mean strongest directors in this particular subgenre, not in general. To call him a strong director in general would be laughable.

The strongest in the genre, yes. However, I think even non-genre fans love stuff like HALLOWEEN and THE THING.

Quote:
I'll grant you that Morrissey's films like Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula are worse films than Halloween or Starman or Big Trouble in Little China, but when you take into account the relative budgets and talents involved, Carpenter is by far the worse director even if Morrissey films are worse.

A very good point and an interesting subject. I agree that a "great" director like Spielberg, Ford, Scorsese and various other legends should be bashed a lot harder since they have talent and money. Non-talents like Ed Wood and Al Adamson, who worked with no budgets, shouldn't be compared. These guys didn't have the talent, time or money to make films so I think Spielberg should take more of a beating than just about anyone else in history. The same with any other great director.

However, at the same time I think some of these "B" and "Z" directors deserve credit because I'm not sure Spielberg or Kubrick could have made a film in 5 days for $7000. As great as a talent as Ford was, could he deliver something without a budget, without time and with non-actors?

Quote:
Well you can quibble about what 'few' means, but I can name dozens of non-cheesy sci-fi films - Blade Runner, Terminator, 2001, Star Wars, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, A Clockwork Orange, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the film Starman was trying, very unsuccessfully to imitate), E.T., Back to the Future, Soylent Green, Dark City, Total Recall, The Abyss, Minority Report, etc., etc.

STAR WARS is pure kid cheese and I've never heard of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE being sci-fi, but I love all the films you mentioned here. The far out stories could be considered cheese but with the direction, acting and money, they work and are believable as sci-fi.
post #1993 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
with actors that have clearly done a great job acting in other films, and in these films they come across as bad actors

So that's why Jeff Bridges received his first and only Lead Actor Oscar nomination for Starman!

Thanks for the explaination, George!
post #1994 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Thanks for your clarification George which I somewhat understand. I don't agree with you in general as, to me, the acting is not the most important thing in a movie. I specifically don't agree with you concerning Starman as the two leads actually improve the film, which I rewatched recently. I found it to be sweet, humorous and a little moving - all testaments to the director's skill since the plot is a little hackneyed, especially the chase. As a big Carpenter fan I consider this one of his mid-level efforts.

Two more questions for you. Why do you choose to watch movies by a director who you think is so bad? How many of Carpenter's films did you actually see before you decided he was so bad?
post #1995 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

You've given thumbs down to some of the most respected and loved horror films ever made.
Perhaps. But I've also given thumbs up to some of the most respected and loved horror films ever made, including Psycho, Frankenstein, Rosemary's Baby, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, Misery, Wait Until Dark, Alien, The Most Dangerous Game, The Birds, and others, though admittedly none of those are cheesy B movie horror films.

So that's why Jeff Bridges received his first and only Lead Actor Oscar nomination for Starman!
You want to start using Oscar nominations as the benchmark for great acting? Do you really want to go there? I can't explain that oscar nom anymore than I can explain why Cimarron won best picture, but I do know that Jeff Bridges was a far better actor in The Last Picture Show than in Starman.
Two more questions for you. Why do you choose to watch movies by a director who you think is so bad?
Cause I don't judge films without seeing them. I hated all the Bunuel films I saw, but kept watching them, and viola, found a great one that he had done - The Exterminating Angel. Who's to say Carpenter hasn't done a great one? Not likely, but still possible.
How many of Carpenter's films did you actually see before you decided he was so bad?
Hmm. I don't recall the order I saw them in, or when I'd seen enough to form the more general opinion, but it was probably somewhere between Assault on Precint 13 and Big Trouble in Little China. Or maybe it was Ghosts of Mars. I don't remember.
post #1996 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Perhaps. But I've also given thumbs up to some of the most respected and loved horror films ever made, including Psycho, Frankenstein, Rosemary's Baby, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, Misery, Wait Until Dark, Alien, The Most Dangerous Game, The Birds, and others, though admittedly none of those are cheesy B movie horror films.

Perhaps this is true but FRANKENSTEIN and THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME would probably fall into the "B" genre since that's what they were to the studio. You have to remember that studios in the 30's didn't look at their horror films as anything but B pictures (in my opinion, this continued up until recently). Just look at the cast of FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA. Universal didn't go out of their way to get "stars" in either of them. Heck, I guess you could argue that Karloff and Lugosi never got out of the "B" movie state, although both men appeared in small parts in some "A" productions. Even PSYCHO was a lot smaller than several Paramount pictures that year and a lot smaller than anything Hitch had done since his British years (or perhaps ROPE).

Quote:
Cause I don't judge films without seeing them. I hated all the Bunuel films I saw, but kept watching them, and viola, found a great one that he had done - The Exterminating Angel. Who's to say Carpenter hasn't done a great one? Not likely, but still possible.

I actually agree with you here. You won't know until you try them but if someone doesn't like to see animals get slaughtered on screen then I think it's a safe bet they should stay away from the Italian cannibal genre. If someone doesn't like extreme torture, rape and graphic violence then I think it's a safe bet that I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE isn't for them. I know you didn't like HALLOWEEN because you called it "a gory, slasher flick" so with that in mind, I'm not sure I'd pick FRIDAY THE 13TH to watch with you if you came to my house for a movie night.

But hell, who knows. I keep hearing people say BRAZIL and THE LADY EVE are classics but they certainly went over my head.


12/26/06

Harem 2000 (2001)

Joe D'Amato's hardcore flick is about...... I'm not sure what it's about but it takes place in a "whore traders club" so I guess you know the rest of the story. Once again, it's rather hard for me to review a film like this because well, I'm really not sure how to review one. D'Amato's greatest talent was that of a cinematographer so he had an eye to use and the work here is very well done. On the other hand, I think most of the slow motion, never stop moving camera tricks would turn off the majority of people who would watch a flick like this very entertainment. I've seen D'Amato's earlier horror/sex films like Erotic Nights of the Living Dead and Porno Holocaust and I found both quite distasteful. This film here is tastefully done but I didn't find it very erotic or very sexy. If it weren't for the director I wouldn't have wasted my time on something like this but apparently I've got over fifty more to go.

Body Count (1987)

Ruggero Deodato, director of Cannibal Holocaust, tries his hand at the American slasher genre but fails on pretty much all levels. A campground is built on an old Indian burial ground and then a bunch of teenagers show up to party and have sex. Guess what happens? The gore scenes are decent but we've seen this type of film countless times and the director doesn't try to do anything new. Instead of trying anything new, he rips off films like Friday the 13th 3, Psycho 2 and various other slashers of the day. The performances are all rather poor and the dubbing is bad as well, although this leads to a few laughs. The film tries so very hard to be "American" by throwing in the names of American movies and actors but this too comes off quite poorly. David Hess has a small role.

12/27/06

Return of the Thundering Herd (2006)

Documentary about the 1970 Marshall football team that died in a plane crash. I didn't realize this while watching We Are Marshall but this was the very first time that any athletic squad at the university had ever taken a plane and wouldn't you know that it would crash. I'm really not sure why this story has hit me so hard but once again I found myself getting really sad watching this thing. Perhaps it's because I played sports when I was younger so the idea of losing an entire team is something I can think about. The documentary runs 45 minutes and is basically a warm up for the film but it does a nice job at telling the story, which is more unbelievable than anything Hollywood could have written on their own.

Bobby (2006)

Emilio Estevez's look at the assassination of Robert Kennedy seen through the eyes of twenty-two various characters. Estevez has created a pretty good, if somewhat unnecessary, look at the day of the assassination and he gathered an all star cast to tell the story. The cast includes: Harry Belafonte, Nick Cannon, Estivez, Laurence Fishburne, Heather Graham, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Joshua Jackson, Ashton Kutcher, Lindsay Lohan, William H. Macy, Demi Moore, Martin Sheen, Christian Slater, Sharon Stone and Elijah Wood. However, this wonderful cast is part of the problem because everytime one of them popped up I wasn't thinking of them as a character but as the stars they are. Seeing so many stars, some just coming in for a few scenes, is rather distracting and takes away from the stories trying to be told. Estevez does a terrific job holding everything together and the movie has a wonderfully poetic flow throughout. I think the political nature is a bit over the top at time but the ending packs a nice little punch and will have people leaving the film with something to think about.
post #1997 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
As great as a talent as Ford was, could he deliver something without a budget, without time and with non-actors?

Isn't that where most of his hundred plus features came from? his first fifteen years as a director?

Clockwork Orange is scifi, so is Being John Malkovich. Critics don't call them scifi because they've spent so much time and effort trying to keep scifi inside the ghetto walls they erected. :p

Star Wars is hardly dismissable as pure kid cheese. why would it be so? because it's popular?

---

Marie Antoinette - (four out of ten)

They finally cut the stupid bitch's head off, thank GOD!

Sophia Coppola had made every point she was going to make thirty minutes in. Then we just got everything repeated ad nauseum until I hated every aspect of the French aristocratic culture. Can we reenact the revolution and kill them all again? because I'm ready to. a buck fifty was too much to pay and I didnt even buy the ticket.

Geez, no wonder the french hated this movie at Cannes, it's mocking their culture, eccentricities and heritage and pointing out that nothing really changes and that people with too much money and nothing to do generally transform into loathsome examples of humanity.

Some of it was pretty funny though--oh those wacky, silly French.
post #1998 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

FRANKENSTEIN and THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME would probably fall into the "B" genre since that's what they were to the studio.
Well, here is where it gets fuzzy (it kind of reminds me of the old arguments around here about whether film noir was a style or a movement), but to me a B movie (at least as I'm using the term) isn't about what the actual budget was, or the (probably) unknown intent of some studio exec, but the quality of the final product. I guess for me, it boils down to the cheese factor. And even there, you're not going to get agreement in a world where someone thinks Star Wars is cheesy. And even for myself, I have a hard time explaining it adequately. It's especially hard to explain to others why I think a comedy is or isn't, because good comedies are often silly, etc., but that doesn't make them cheesy. To me, what's clearly cheesy is when a non-comedy (such as a horror film or a drama) dips too much into silliness and bad acting.

The bottom line is, that to me, neither Frankenstein nor Most Dangerous Game, and certainly not Psycho nor Rope are B movies, regardless of budget. And likewise, having a big budget* doesn't stop a film like Big Trouble in Little China from being a B movie, IMO.

* - I base this on the IMDB bugdet estimates. Big Trouble is listed as 25 million. Other films I checked from 1986 include Top Gun (15 million), Star Trek 4 (25 million), Platoon (6 million), Aliens (18.5 million), Three Amigos (25 million), The Money Pit (10 million). I think it's safe to say that Big Trouble in Little China was financially a big budget film.
post #1999 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Once More, with Feeling!

Yul Brynner isn't much of an actor, but his low-key style works pretty well in films like Westworld, Magnificent Seven and Ten Commandments. However, in this comedy, he ramps it up, and he's no comic actor, and the end result is less than stellar.
post #2000 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
You want to start using Oscar nominations as the benchmark for great acting? Do you really want to go there?

The year's best performances are sometimes overlooked or ignored by the Academy (particularly if they appear in 'difficult' films), but generally speaking, performances in which actors "come across as bad actors" usually don't receive Best Actor noms.

Quote:
but I do know that Jeff Bridges was a far better actor in The Last Picture Show than in Starman.

And the Academy sort of agrees with you George, since they gave Bridges a Best Supporting Actor nom for that one too!

Have your cake and eat it too, George
post #2001 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

However, at the same time I think some of these "B" and "Z" directors deserve credit because I'm not sure Spielberg or Kubrick could have made a film in 5 days for $7000.

Check out Duel to see what Spielberg can do in 10 days for about $400,000.

Doug
post #2002 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Check out Duel to see what Spielberg can do in 10 days for about $400,000.

$400,000 is a lot more than $7,000-$10,000

I've seen DUEL. Spielberg talked about how hard it was to get this film done so imagine how hard it would have been with non-actors, 5 days and $5,000. Heck, there have been directors who made 12 films in one year for under $400,000 (and I'm not talking porn).

The main point is that Spielberg is one of the most talented men to ever make a movie. He can have any star he wants and he can have any budget. With all three of those, there's no reason for him to make a bad movie and if he makes a bad movie, then he should be attacked for it. Why say, Ed Wood, gets picked on for being a bad director when he had no stars, no talent and no money is a tad bit unfair IMO.

Quote:
Isn't that where most of his hundred plus features came from? his first fifteen years as a director?

When did Ford ever work with non-actors and without budgets? Now, if he had to make THE SEARCHERS with Tor Johnson then I'd agree with you.

Quote:
why would it be so? because it's popular?

I'd say on the fan base level. I don't want to play Triumph since I enjoy all three of the original films but it's a huge item because of the fans.

Quote:
Clockwork Orange is scifi

Well, then I guess we could count FRANKENSTEIN as sci-fi as well. It's hard to place films in genres anyway.

Quote:
And even there, you're not going to get agreement in a world where someone thinks Star Wars is cheesy.

The director would probably agree with me.

Quote:
unknown intent of some studio exec, but the quality of the final product. I guess for me, it boils down to the cheese factor.

That's fine for your def but I doubt anyone is going to label TITANIC as a "B" movie (I think you hated that film?). You are constantly putting down "B" movies yet you've enjoyed several of them from the horror genre, ala FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE and A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN. These films were one step up from Poverty Row but they got lucky with the talent involved and turned them into what most consider classics. The noir genre is very popular on this board and it seems, outside the Warner/RKO stuff, that most of the favorites are B films. Heck, I guess plenty of the RKO stuff would be considered "B" films.

As for BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, I never really saw the appeal of this one. They were trying to make a big budget action film but it just didn't work for me, although it's gained a big cult following over the years. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the budget was $15 million according to Carpenter's commentary track.

God knows what actually happens with these budgets. I saw a brief clip of THE HOLIDAY yesterday and then I learned it cost $80+ million to make. Personally, I don't see why someone would need $80 million to make a romantic comedy. Perhaps they could have taken away a couple million and restored IT'S A MAD MAD.....WORLD.
post #2003 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Well Bill, if you want to use Academy Award nominations as the yardstick for great acting, then I'll throw out these examples, and then shut up about it.

According to the Academy, the best acting job in 1944: Bing Crosby in Going My Way (he also got a nom for best actor in 1945 for Bells of St. Mary's).

Now I like both those films, but to call it great acting is a bit much.

I also like Ben-Hur, but according to the Academy, the best actors that year were Charlton Heston in the lead, and Hugh Griffith playing the sheik.

Those actually aren't bad acting jobs (just not great, and certainly not the greatest), but I'm not going to even list examples of truly atrocious acting, cause it's all a matter of opinion, and then some people would try to defend some of the atrocious overacting that's gotten Oscar nods, and mostly they'd use the Oscar nods to defend the atrocious overacting as great acting, and it's a vicious circle. If you think the Oscars are a good judge of acting, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly don't share it.
post #2004 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

That's fine for your def but I doubt anyone is going to label TITANIC as a "B" movie (I think you hated that film?)
I hated Titanic, but never called it a B movie (it certainly isn't). (To avoid rehashing another old debate this is in spoilers. Please don't read it if you like Titanic and are spoiling for a fight Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It's a big budget, well-done film for pre-teen girls. Since I'm not a pre-teen girl, I hated it.
I hate lots of A pictures.
You are constantly putting down "B" movies yet you've enjoyed several of them from the horror genre, ala FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE and A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN.
I enjoyed them yes. They are NOT B movies IMO. I don't know what their budgets were, but the final films are great, and Ed Wood and other B directors couldn't make films this good if they had unlimited budgets and the best actors in the world.
post #2005 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott


That's fine for your def but I doubt anyone is going to label TITANIC as a "B" movie (I think you hated that film?). You are constantly putting down "B" movies yet you've enjoyed several of them from the horror genre, ala FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE and A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN. These films were one step up from Poverty Row but they got lucky with the talent involved and turned them into what most consider classics. The noir genre is very popular on this board and it seems, outside the Warner/RKO stuff, that most of the favorites are B films. Heck, I guess plenty of the RKO stuff would be considered "B" films.

Dracula was made in 1931 for $355,000 dollars. That was an A list budget even by MGM's standards in 1931. A modest “A” but an “A” budget none the less. Universal was not even close to being a "Poverty Row" studio like Monogram.

As for "B" movies themselves, they were not nor were they ever intended to be BAD movies. They were just inexpensive, and a training ground for talent. If you look at the Val Lewton horror films done at RKO. They are often better than the "A" pictures being made at the time.

I personally like Carpenter's films and think The Thing is one of the creepiest movies I've ever seen.

Doug
post #2006 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Dracula was made in 1931 for $355,000 dollars. That was an A list budget even by MGM's standards in 1931. A modest “A” but an “A” budget none the less. Universal was not even close to being a "Poverty Row" studio like Monogram.

If I'm remembering correctly, a huge part of the higher budget was due to paying for the rights and Browning's take as director. The point of calling this a "B" movie is from studio heads and critics at the time. These were considered throw away films no matter if they're looked at as classics today. The public ate them up but the studios still looked down on them, which is something that continued throughout the decades. I think the big reason FRANK and especially BRIDE didn't get any Oscar noms is because so many people just looked at them a stupid "B" films that Universal was making to bring in extra cash for other projects. Even Whale was forced into making BRIDE so that he could make his dream project.

These certainly weren't Monogram titles but the funny thing is that Monogram actually paid their actors more than Universal and MGM.

Quote:
As for "B" movies themselves, they were not nor were they ever intended to be BAD movies. They were just inexpensive, and a training ground for talent. If you look at the Val Lewton horror films done at RKO. They are often better than the "A" pictures being made at the time.

I agree 100%.

Quote:
They are NOT B movies IMO. I don't know what their budgets were, but the final films are great, and Ed Wood and other B directors couldn't make films this good if they had unlimited budgets and the best actors in the world.

Since you haven't seen a Wood film perhaps you should start calling him a "Z" grade director. There's a big difference between FRANKENSTEIN and THE APE MAN but even that Monogram film is a far cry from something like GLEN OR GLENDA?, THE UNEARTHLY or various other "Z" films, which I doubt very many have seen.

I certainly don't think Wood, Adamson or various others had any talent but I ask you again. What's so bad about a no-talent making a bad film? Wouldn't you agree that it's a lot worse when someone like Ford, Huston, Spielberg or Kubrick make a bad film considering they do have talent, money and actors?

As for TITANIC, I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. I think a lot of films we enjoy weren't made for us but that doesn't mean we can't like them. TITANIC might have become the biggest grossing film of all time because of the *teen girls but I don't think they were the targeted crowd. Heck, Disney films are made for kids but they are enjoyed by just as many adults.

*I actually saw TITANIC six times at the theater because the girls we were hanging with kept wanting to see it. I always found it freaking funny that so many of them didn't know it was based on a true story.
post #2007 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Now I like both those films, but to call it great acting is a bit much.

Yes, but those Oscars were given out in 1944 & 1959...not in 2006.

You may laugh at those performances today, but back in the day those performances were all that anyone could talk about upon leaving the cinema (audiences, critics & fellow actors alike).

We could probably both pick out better performances from those respective years, but Crosby and Heston's work is what was considered the pinnacle at that time. It was what made everyone happy.

It was only a few years later with the introduction of the 'method' that those attitudes towards 'good' acting changed and evolved into what we would consider a 'good' performance today.

Jeff Bridges's performance in Starman is a far cry from Crosby standing around looking bored and disinterested (and occasionally crooning a tune) and Heston looking all sweaty and baring his teeth!

Try and keep it in context, George
post #2008 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Along Came Jones

A subtly comic take on the western. For those not very familiar with the genre, I doubt if they'd even realize it's a comedy. For those who, like me, are familiar with, but don't necessarily like the types of westerns that are being parodied, the comedy is understood, but not really very funny (unlike the much broader and funnier comedy of something like Blazing Saddles). For fans of these kinds of westerns, I suspect this is a very funny movie.
post #2009 of 2071

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
If I'm remembering correctly, a huge part of the higher budget was due to paying for the rights and Browning's take as director. The point of calling this a "B" movie is from studio heads and critics at the time. These were considered throw away films no matter if they're looked at as classics today.

I think the first Dracula film was actually considered to be a fairly classy production all the way around. My understanding is that even the critics thought so. You are right of course once they got to the Brides and Returns and Son ofs then of course they became "B" movies in every sense of the word.

Doug
post #2010 of 2071
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2006)

Well, I think Karloff gives one of the greatest performances ever in BRIDE so I always found it shocking that he didn't even get a nomination. I can't remember the book but it had several reviews from older horror films and the critics really tore them apart. Pretty much every classic horror film, including the beloved BRIDE, was ripped apart. Even a lot of the silent horror films were ripped apart. With all that in mind, I never quite understood how March won an Oscar for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. I personally find this to be one of his lesser performances but he won the Oscar somehow.

I guess the one exception was Lon Chaney who was loved and respected by fans and critics.
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)