Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 13

Re: EXORCIST DOMINION -- I felt that this highly anticipated Schrader version wound up being such a limp and lifeless bore that it easily made Harlin's pre-judged film an improvement by comparison. It turns out that Warner may have been correct in opting to release the better-paced Harlin edition instead, because if you think fans and critics skewered THE BEGINNING before, during, and after it hit theaters, just imagine the reception this yawn-inducing DOMINION would have gotten! Poor CGI effects and a silly climax really marred BEGINNING (though DOMINION had lousy CGI too), but I think the Schrader offering would have tanked just the same, if not worse.


Well, as you've always told DVD buyers who complain about one thing or another, "they're never satisfied and will always find something to bitch about". I generally would agree that Lions Gate could be more on top of things, yes, but as I said earlier, in the case of PRIVATE LESSONS it's a very rare film and apparently it's hard to find even the proper elements on it, according to the audio commentary I heard featuring the director. I don't condone the "lazy way out," but there's only so much you can do with certain titles, as you're aware on occasion.

added:

title: the corpse bride
rating: b
comments: about what i expected (and hoped for). didn't quite have the magic of "nightmare...", but i think that's because i've seen this before. still, a decent story with wonderful animation and visuals.

title: only yesterday
rating: c
comments: possibly my least fave studio ghibli release so far. i know miyazaki didn't direct this one, but it just didn't have the charm or magic i usually associate with ghibli's work. the story didn't hold my attention ... i really felt like i was just watching a regular movie.

Glad you enjoyed it, Sandro. Another great musical that has some similarities, mainly the screenwriting team of Comden and Green, that I recommend you try as well is The Band Wagon.

Haggai, thanks for the recommendation - I will keep an eye out of Bandwagon. I was shocked how much I enjoyed "Singin' In The Rain". Not because I don't like old movies but because I am not that keen on musicals - I think it's the air of artificiality that hangs over them. I had recently seen and somewhat enjoyed "On the Town" and "An American in Paris". However I found "Singin...." to be vastly more satisfying and enjoyable because of the humor and the setting. I am a great fan of silent movies (and silent comedies in particular) and the presentation of that era in film history was fantastic. It's also a very energetic and cinematic film which is not always the case with musicals. Contrast that with "My Fair Lady" (which I just watched) which is a fairly sedate, unimaginative filming of a stage musical.

Well, I also love My Fair Lady, but I know what you mean. For energetic and cinematic musicals, another one that's tough to top is Love Me Tonight, from 1932, which seems decades ahead of its time in many ways.

I'm curious on what you're basing this. I've checked the IMDB ratings which, regardless of one's opinion of that place itself, at least provides us an indication of what many "average" moviegoers thought of both, for our purposes. Here's what I found...

Harlin's BEGINNING - 5.1/10 (average for 6,192 voters)

Schrader's DOMINION - 5.9/10 (average for 938 voters)


Naturally, it's to be expected that many more people saw Harlin's version because it played more widely in theaters and was the more commercially planned out. But the overall ratings for both are still pretty bad and as you've said, the Schrader edition is the slightly preferred one. But the reception for both is pretty even. The Schrader reception is not "excellent" compared to Harlin's.

The Big Chill (1983) 1/2
I saw this in 1983 but didn't remember much about it so I rented it for a new viewing. I figured that since now I'm older myself I might be able to identify with the people in the film, but the only thing I realized is that I had a good reason for not remembering this. The idea is promising enough: a mutual friend dies of suicide, and so a group of now-grown yuppies gather together in a house for the weekend to re-evaluate their own lives. Problem is, none of these characters with their hip eighties 'free spirited' attitudes are very interesting or likeable, and nothing is really going on here, neither intellectually or physically. A real nothing of a film, despite the soundtrack of classic '60s hits and bumping hips around the kitchen to the sounds of "Ain't Too Proud To Beg".

Regain (1937) 6/10
Marcel Pagnol's rural comedy features Fernandel in a hilarious role as the third wheel in a romantic triangle, plus some nice countryside landscapes. But the extremely slight story is unable to fill the 128 minutes of screen time, with at least 40 minutes or so simply dragging on with nothing interesting happening, probably because Fernandel isn't in any of those scenes. A much shorter story might have worked better for what turns out to be a pretty boring movie to sit through.

Chinatown (1974) 10/10
Re-visit of a longtime favorite, pretty much top 10 all time for me. The impact of the whole story keeps increasing all the way through the gut-wrenching ending, set up in part by something I don't think I've seen in any other movie, or at least not as successfully realized: the huge scope of what the villain is really after. The question of, "how much better can you eat, what more can you buy that you can't already afford to own," is answered with, "The FUTURE, Mr. Gitts! The FUTURE!", which is a pretty amazing insight for a villainous character to have. It's not just power-for-power's sake here: this is someone who wants his power to extend far beyond his own lifetime, and in ways that almost nobody else, not even the few people who might be able to match his wealth and influence in regular life, would even consider.

Holiday (1938) 9/10
Sort of a dry run for The Philadelphia Story, in many ways: based on a play by the same playwright, one common screenwriter, same director, Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in lead roles. The story and characters seem a little more basic and not as layered as in Philadelphia Story, but this one is still very funny and very moving in other parts. Some of the dialogue does lay it on a bit thick, but not too often. One key scene with Grant and Hepburn dancing together is stunningly great, just in the way the characters look at each other. And just about all of the supporting case it teriffic, including Lew Ayres, Edward Everett Horton, and Henry Daniell.

Boudu Saved from Drowning (1931) 8/10
Michel Simon's great lead performance is the main drawing point in this one, as a vagabond with no connection at all to the normal expectations of human interaction. A little slow at times, including the beginning, but the bedroom-comedy situations are pretty amusing. And some elements of Renoir's style from his late '30s movies were already in place here, including some deep focus scenes, with different characters placed in focus all throughout the depth of the frame.

I'm not surprised EXORCIST 2 now gets a higher rating these days than it did in 1977. Likewise, I believe the 2004 Harlin film will go up a bit as decades go on. We'll just have to see.


Spoken like a man who liked EXORCIST 3 better than the William Friedkin original (though I like E3 a lot myself). What did Rotten Tomatoes say about THAT one?

Do you really ABBY (1974) was original? Other than its having a black cast it was just THE EXORCIST.

I think EXORCIST 2 is one of the worst films ever made, but not original? One thing I would have to say about it is that yes, it is definitely different and completely unlike the first movie, which is why it's so bizarre.

You may take a remake over the sequels and prequels, but would you also take it over THE EXORCIST itself?

02/08/06: THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE (Don Sharp, 1963) ***

As I lay watching this film, I was reminded all over again why Horror is my favorite cinematic genre: despite the absence in the cast of any major stars from the Hammer stable, this well-directed shocker is arguably one of their best efforts. The film is bracketed by two bravura sequences: the opening scene at the graveyard where an obviously drunk and distraught Professor Zimmer (the Van Helsing figure here vividly essayed by Clifford Evans as a boorish and cynical man) unceremoniously plunges a spade into the wooden coffin of his dead daughter thus releasing her soul from the curse of the undead; and the startling climactic destruction of the vampiric cult at the hands of (irony of ironies) some admittedly fake-looking vampire bats! As usual with this type of film, the young leads (Edward De Souza and Jennifer Daniel) are merely adequate but the film benefits immensely from a deliciously villainous turn by Noel Willman as Dr. Ravna, a worthy Dracula stand-in, whose soothing, calm composure and tonality starkly contrast with the more energetic antics of a Christopher Lee, but exude just as much evil. Although judging from the IMDB synopsis, the added-for-TV scenes (for an alternate version of the film entitled KISS OF EVIL) are nothing to write home about, I would still like to have seen them included as a supplement to the DVD - although apparently that would have been too much to expect from Universal...


02/08/06: PARANOIAC (Freddie Francis, 1963) **1/2

The shadow of LES DIABOLIQUES (1954) and PSYCHO (1960) always loomed large over much of Hammer's output set in contemporary times; this is a moderately well-done example of that subgenre with the usual driving-an-heiress-mad plot here given a boost by the return of a long-lost brother and a would-be last minute revelation that all is not well with hard-living brother Simon Ashby (a perfectly cast Oliver Reed in a showy role). For some odd reason, I could have sworn that this film was directed by Michael Carreras, so much so that I did a double-take when Freddie Francis' name (whose first directorial job for Hammer this was) appeared on the screen; as it turned out, I was confusing this film with the similarly-titled MANIAC (1963) - unsurprisingly, another Hammer thriller in the same mould!

Although I watched these two Hammer films back-to-back quite by accident, I later recalled (from an old movie magazine of my father's) that they were actually shown as a double-feature when originally released theatrically in the U.K.!


02/09/06: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (Terence Fisher, 1962) **1/2

A relatively lush, if ultimately modest, version by Hammer of the venerable classic which, to me, seems unjustly maligned by fans as it certainly offers consistent entertainment value throughout and an effective shock moment or two typical of director Terence Fisher. Herbert Lom makes for a fine tragic figure (virtually reprised a decade later for AIP's MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE [1971]) and Michael Gough provides delicious villainy as always. The leads are a matter of taste, particularly Heather Sears, but the film's handsome production design is the film's real star anyway; as for the operatic sequences, they are sufficiently baroque to avoid being an intrusion to the unfolding drama (as was definitely the case with the 1943 Universal version). I also wasn't bothered by the liberties taken with the plotline and, in fact, quite liked the ending with the hero aiding in the Phantom's 'cause' and the latter's final sacrifice; here, too, the Phantom eschews the overt romanticism of earlier (and later) versions by only wanting to turn Christine into a great star rather than falling for her and try to compete with her true love.


02/09/06: THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (Terence Fisher, 1961) **1/2

This film, more by accident than design, has become one of my most-watched Hammer films. Actually, I liked it immediately and, therefore, I return to it willingly...though I wouldn't really rank it among their top films! Still, for being the studio's only stab at the werewolf legend, the plot is pretty stacked with fanciful lore which differs quite a bit from what Universal came up with in the 30s and 40s...or, for that matter, anything that we've seen since! Truth be told, it's highly improbable and even rather silly but, then, the film is so thick with atmosphere throughout (belying the typical low budget) that it doesn't matter at all! Oliver Reed essays his most significant starring role for Hammer with dignity and a brooding quality, in my opinion, and the supporting cast does pretty well by their roles but, again, the film's main asset is its beautiful look (including the wonderful werewolf make-up). I also don't mind the fact that we see the fully-fledged transformation only once as the build-up to it is terrific and the film, on the whole, emerges as one of Fisher's most assured efforts.

This concludes my viewing of "The Hammer Horror Series" 2-Disc Set (started while in Hollywood late last year) and I must say that I'm very glad to report that no freezing or other glitches reared their ugly head during playback - keeping in mind that the four titles I watched earlier from this set (all of them first-time viewings) were played on a different DVD model...


02/09/06: LOS DESESPERADOS (Julio Buchs and, uncredited, Lucio Fulci, 1969) **

Sub-par Spaghetti Western with a decidedly unique but highly improbable premise. Little to recommend it (despite the alleged involvement of Fulci) and the piss-poor dubbing certainly doesn't help. Ernest Borgnine's snarling villain is just one of many unsymphatetic characters but his presence isn't enough to offset the dreary goings-on, culminating in a showdown which takes place in a Mexican corrida.


02/10/06: BLACK FRIDAY (Arthur Lubin, 1940) **1/2

I quite liked this film, though it's more interesting for the trademark Universal 'atmosphere' and the Jekyll/Hyde-style psychology of the plot than its more straightforward and rather dreary gangland milieu. Despite the title, it's not a horror film and it certainly doesn't work as a Karloff/Lugosi vehicle (not least because they don't even share any screen-time): Lugosi just isn't credible as a gangster and Karloff, though good, tends to be overshadowed by a marvelous turn from Stanley Ridges (seldom used so well, and hampered only by a silly change of hairstyle to differentiate the meek Professor from the vicious Gangster!).


02/10/06: MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (Robert Florey, 1932) **1/2

A fascinating if unsatisfying addition to the Universal horror cycle (co-written by John Huston[!]) with a splendid turn from Bela Lugosi - complete with his inimitable delivery - and some highly interesting sets obviously inspired by THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1919). The leads are among the blandest in 30s horror cinema but Robert Florey's stylized direction and Karl Freund's Expressionistic camerawork make up for this deficiency in spades: the foggy night-time sequences, carnival scenes and the gorilla rampage at the end (which reminded me of the similar finale of Hammer's THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF [1961], incidentally!) are quite effective. The film followed the trend of sadistic violence (which reached a peak in Universal's THE BLACK CAT [1934]) and sexual overtones (first touched upon by DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE [1931]) prevalent at the time - which certainly aided its box-office potential - but these elements now seem very tame. In the end, while MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE may not be in the same league as the best Universal horrors, it's still a worthy effort which repays repeated viewings.

As a side note, I would like to say that having watched 4 films from "The Bela Lugosi Collection" disc in 1 day (my first viewing of THE INVISIBLE RAY [1936] took place late last year while in Hollywood), I experienced none of the notorious playback problems which have afflicted this release. Phew!


02/10/06: THE LAWYER (Sidney J. Furie, 1970) ***

Likeable, if not terribly engrossing, courtroom drama in which Barry Newman originated his trademark role of opportunistic lawyer Tony Petrocelli (reprised in a subsequent TV series). Generally well-handled by director Furie but the murder sequence, re-enacted in three different ways during the course of the trial, seems unnecessarily flashy. A smart script and a lively music score ensure that the film be an eminently watchable one.

Detour (1945)
Since a friend and I had just seen Edgar Ulmer's THE BLACK CAT (1934) together at a revival theatre, he decided to bring this film to one of our Movie Nights, which came highly recommended by him. Frankly, I didn't get what all the fuss was about. This was a short noir film that suffered for us due to an inferior and very old VHS tape copy from "Admit One Video" of the early '80s, and I could not get full advantage of the brooding atmospheric photography. All the same, I can still tell my opinion would not likely be much changed even by a pristine DVD copy; I found the leading man Tom Neal to have some amusing lines, and his volcanic co-star Ann Savage infrequently entertaining with her bitchy antics, even though hers is a pretty poor performance. I also didn't spot very many cinematic flashes of brilliance that I was hoping to enjoy. After seeing Ulmer's BLUEBEARD, DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL, THE AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN and now DETOUR, my opinion that he just got lucky with the superior THE BLACK CAT (1934) is even more affirmed.

Weird Woman (1944) 1/2
After the femme fatale angle of DETOUR we decided to pop in this Universal "Inner Sanctum" mystery. Standard stuff, as Lon Chaney stars as a brilliant writer who tries to get cute wife Anne Gwynne out of her occult practicing rituals. Chaney seems uncomfortable in these types of parts, but it's interesting to see his WOLF MAN co-star Evelyn Ankers cast as a villain for a change. This was based on "Conjure Wife" and later remade as BURN, WITCH, BURN.

Female Prisoner 701 - Scorpion (1972)
I'm still a novice when it comes to asian cinema like this, but here is a solid Japanese "women in prison" film which, I'm told, was the first in a long-running series. What immediately struck me as a bonus was how well-directed this was by Shunya Ito, in his first feature film. It really felt ahead of its time and I would have believed it was a brand new movie. Slow motion effects are not always my cup of tea but they were strategically strong here and many other sequences were rendered with a flair for the surreal. It's a violent and sometimes bloody affair which I've encountered before as another wronged, disgruntled, and tough-to-crack pretty heroine (Meiko Kaji) is put into an all-woman prison and abused by its sadistic staff, who try everything they can think of to break her. It's easy to see, especially at the climax, that this movie was probably the 'inspiration' for THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (1974). Its theme song was also borrowed by Quentin Tarantino thirty years later for inclusion in his KILL BILL epic.

Princess Mononoke

Spirited Away was a pretty easy decision. The animation was a mixed bag (some I loved, some I hated), but the story left me flat.

Princess Mononoke is much tougher. Here the story is actually very good (not perfect, but very, very well done). But again the animation is a mixed bag. The landscapes are beautiful, but man, my 5 year old son can draw faces better. I just don't like anime-style faces. No, that's not right - I hate anime style faces. And in the end, that's enough to ruin this film for me. Everytime I see someone's face in this film, I get pulled out of it. That's makes it pretty tough to enjoy.

I just might drink to that!

Mike,

I have never watched SUPERNATURAL (1933) and, come to think of it, I have to compliment you on your exceedingly eclectic taste and penchant to come across films which I've been wanting to watch for ages; hell, just looking at your 2006 list, there are 18 such movies - ONE EXCITING NIGHT (1922), THE MAGICIAN (1926), THE ROAD TO MANDALAY (1926), THE SORROWS OF SATAN (1926), SPARROWS (1926), THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER (1928), THE TELL-TALE HEART (1928), KONGO (1932), MURDERS IN THE ZOO (1933), WIVES UNDER SUSPICION (1938), HORROR ISLAND (1941), THE BOOGIE MAN WILL GET YOU (1942), NIGHT MONSTER (1942), HITLER'S MADMAN (1943), THE CAT CREEPS (1946), THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK (1946) and FRANKENSTEIN 1970 (1958) - not to mention BURIED LOOT (1935) and THE VAMPIRE'S GHOST (1945) which I'd neer even heard of but which your comments made them sound very enticing indeed. How d'you do it?


Joe,

I'm sorry that DETOUR (1945) didn't do much for you but, personally, I wouldn't write Edgar G. Ulmer off so soon. He may have had a very erratic career but from what I've seen of his films (7 of them), they were never less than interesting and sometimes considerably stylish. In any case, I'd be interested in catching other stuff of his, namely PEOPLE ON SUNDAY (1929), ISLE OF FORGOTTEN SINS (1943), STRANGE ILLUSION (1945), THE WIFE OF MONTE CRISTO (1946), RUTHLESS (1948), PIRATES OF CAPRI (1949), THE MAN FROM PLANET X (1951), LOVES OF THREE QUEENS (1953), MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955), DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957), BEYOND THE TIME BARRIER (1960), SIREN OF ATLANTIS (1961) and THE CAVERN (1964)!


As for THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961) and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962), you are both wrong!! Incidentally, Joe, I've re-read your IMDB comments on both, as well as my own on THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE RAVEN (1935); interestingly enough, I still had the very same qualms (described more fully in my comments) with both movies but I was more tolerant this time around and altered my star ratings accordingly...!


P.S. By the way, Joe, have you ever watched NIGHT OF THE EAGLE aka BURN, WITCH, BURN (1962)?

Yes, it's possible that as I see more films by Ulmer I may change my opinion, but I have to call 'em as I go along. But I have to admit I'd forgotten that Ulmer also did THE MAN FROM PLANET X (1951). I did see this one too but, unfortunately, it only helps add fuel to my fire!


No, the closest I got was when I was at a friend's house and we put it on for about 10 minutes but decided we weren't in the mood and chose something else.


Talking about cures for insomnia...

Wedding Crashers (2005) BOMB
Oh My God. I love crazy and untamed comedies when I'm in the mood for them, and last night I was in the mood for one. Everybody I knew had told me how hilarious and wild this film was supposed to be, including my own wife, who had already seen it in the theatre with a bunch of her girlfriends one day. So she was willing to watch it again and we rented it. Well, it just so happened that my sister and her husband were getting ready to rent the very same title, so we decided to go to their place and watch it together, along with my 16-year-old nephew.

Well, we all hated this movie - including my wife this time, and she couldn't understand how she'd previously found it so amusing. There are practically no laughs here, and it's a one-joke film that shoots its load early on. Yes, we get that Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn find their kicks by crashing people's weddings and it's a chuckle for the first couple of minutes of montages... so now what? Well, we then introduce more unlikable people (another insufferable appearance from Christopher Walken, blah) and toss in an excruciating love story to involve the one Wedding Crasher with the busted nose falling for one of the pretty young females at one reception. I hate to sound so juvenile, but only getting to gawk at the still-lovely 50-something Jane Seymour in the nude roused my interest for a minute. And it's too bad the DVD became defective and pixelated and jumped ahead during her seductive sequence; evidently I wasn't the only renter who at least found this scene interesting.

Joe,

Sorry to be picky, but it's Owen Wilson.

Geo

About Wedding Crashers:


I gave it a thumbs up, but barely...There were some fun moments - the opening 15 minutes and some other scenes scattered through the movie (come on, you had to like the balloon bicycle!) - but there was also a lot of wasted time once they went to the family house for the weekend. The Owen Wilson/Rachel McAdams relationship was actually reasonably well done, but they also fell into the stock character cliches a bit too (ex. McAdams' fiancee). Overall very lukewarm on it, disappointing, but enough laughs to make me happy I saw it.

Crash on the other hand...Blech. Just saw it last night and really didn't like it. I was actually trying to be very open minded on it as I've heard quite a bit of negative reviews recently, but from pretty much the opening lines of dialogue there was barely any subtlety to the script at all. I liked the idea of the film, the episodic nature and intertwining storylines. The acting was solid. But the script was terrible. Everyone had deeply racist feelings of some sort and spat them out at every available opportunity.

Matt Dillon's scene when he's asking for help for his father was an example of how I wish the rest of the film had been. It's much more interesting to look at and attack the problem of subtle racism. It's also probably a much more prevalent and real problem too...

Thanks for the correction. Oh well - at least I get Sir Laurence Olivier right.


That's what I thought -- everyone I've talked to loved the film. Unbelievable. But now you can make it six people you know who hated it, including my sister and her husband, my wife who liked it the first time for reasons she can't fathom now since she hated it the second time around, and even my soon-to-be-16 nephew. The sixth "no" vote came last night from a friend I spoke to on the phone - and that guy usually is rather forgiving and can enjoy just about ANYTHING.

Check the IMDB function under "Hated It" and you'll see a ton more.

Joe,


Re: BURN, WITCH, BURN (1962)

I hope you will get the "itch" for this one day as it is an excellent little shocker with a memorable climax and a couple of good performances; hopefully, it will get released on DVD soon enough, especially since the LD included an Audio Commentary from Richard Matheson!


Re: WEDDING CRASHERS (2005)

It's no secret that I'm not too keen on modern movies (I can live quite happily without most of what has been released after 1983) but, if I needed any indication of the tragic state of cinema today, I have to look no further than such supposed comedies which Hollywood has been churning out endlessly for the last two decades. Mind you, I've watched only snippets of WEDDING CRASHERS myself but I don't have to sit through it all to make my mind up. Is this what the legacy of past Hollywood comedy classics amounts to?


Mike,


It's a pity that you've put your foreign film watching temporarily on hold but even so I'm looking forward to which obscure, long-lost gems you are going to unearth next...

Besides, while I usually like to catch up with all major Academy Award contenders, this year is a pretty bland affair in my opinion and the only ones I'm interested in are CAPOTE, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK and WALK THE LINE and I've already watched CRASH and MUNICH. The thing is that, while I may liberally give most of these ***, it's very rare that I mange to summon enough enthusiasm for any contemporary movie to give it a second look. Besides, MATCH POINT may be a Woody Allen movie but it's Scarlett Johansson's presence which will eventually make me watch (practically) my first Woody film since BULLETS OVER BROADWAY (1994)!

As for SINNERS IN PARADISE (1938), no - I haven't watched it; actually, I've seen my first non-horror James Whale flick just a couple of weeks ago, the highly enjoyable GREEN HELL (1940), which I managed to rent on DVD-R from "Cinefile", a exceptional DVD rental store on Santa Monica Boulevard!

While in Hollywood, I also managed to catch up with two terrific Laird Cregar films, THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945), which have been rumored as upcoming Fox DVDs for ages. I'm still interested in watching THE LODGER (1932) despite your low opinion of it...

By the way, BIG BUSINESS (1929) is my all-time favorite L&H Silent short, and one of their best ever...!