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 14

post #391 of 2071
2/13/06 at 7:37am
Cover Up (1946)

Viewed 2/6/2006 (first viewing)

Neat little mystery about an insurance investigator looking into the shooting death of a policyholder. Was it murder or suicide? And why does no one want to help him with his investigation? William Bendix livens things up as an obstinate sheriff.

out of


What Have I Done to Deserve This? (1984)

Viewed 2/6/2006 (first viewing)

Early film from Pedro Almodovar, a black comedy about a woman frustrated by her dysfunctional family. Wild and unpredictable, but it never quite catches fire.

out of


Fear Strikes Out (1957)

Viewed 2/7/2006 (first viewing)

Pretty good biopic of baseball great Jimmy Piersall (Anthony Perkins), whose career was almost derailed by mental illness brought on by his domineering father (Karl Malden).

out of


Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)

Viewed 2/7/2006

Revisited Aardman's latest classic.

out of


Un Flic (1972)

Viewed 2/8/2006 (first viewing)

Jean-Pierre Melville's final film stars Alain Delon as a detective on the trail of a gang of bank robbers led by his best friend. Typically cool and reserved French crime flick, a solid capstone to Melville's career.

out of


Anna Christie (1931)

Viewed 2/9/2006 (first viewing)

German language version of Greta Garbo's first talkie is slightly better than it's English language counterpart.

out of


Green for Danger (1947)

Viewed 2/9/2006 (first viewing)

Superb whodunit set in an English emergency hospital during WWII. Expertly done, a must-see.

out of


The Fallen Idol (1948)

Viewed 2/9/2006 (first viewing)

Carol Reed near-classic about a little boy who innocently and habitually lies without grasping the consequences. When his best friend - the family butler - is accused of murdering his wife, only he holds evidence that would prove the man innocent. But will anyone believe him?

out of


Our Man in Havana (1959)

Viewed 2/9/2006 (first viewing)

Satirical spy movie stars Alec Guinness as a vacuum cleaner salesman in Havana who is recruited as a spy by the English government. Moderately engaging, but bland.

out of


Triple Agent (2003)

Viewed 2/10/2006 (first viewing)

Eric Rohmer's talky but engrossing account of a White Russian Army general working as a spy in 1930s France. A tragic and fascinating tale, based on fact.

out of


My Sassy Girl (2002)

Viewed 2/11/2006 (first viewing)

Overly long but enjoyable Korean romantic drama. A guy falls for a girl angered and haunted by the death of her last boyfriend. Despite her abusive attitude, he refuses to give up on her. La la la. Reportedly based on real life accounts posted on the internet.

out of


Flesh and the Devil (1927)

Viewed 2/11/2006 (first viewing)

Finished off Warner's Greta Garbo Collection with this well-produced melodrama about a woman who comes between two lifelong friends. A few silly moments, but surprisingly effective.

out of


Get Out and Get Under (1920)

Viewed 2/11/2006 (first viewing)

Funny Harold Lloyd short finds the comedian experiencing car problems and a girlfriend who's marrying someone else!

out of


Tony Takitani (2005)

Viewed 2/12/2006 (first viewing)

Minimalist meditation on loneliness and loss, based on a short story by my favorite author, Haruki Murakami. A lonely artist finally scores a wife, but her addiction to buying clothing (!) leads to tragedy. Not for everyone, but fans of Murakami should appreciate it. Now where's that adaptation of Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World?

out of


Le Petit Soldat (1960)

Viewed 2/12/2006 (first viewing)

Jean-Luc Godard's powerful study of a French photographer caught up in the Algerian struggle for independence. Originally banned in France due to its scenes of torture and the proposition that it was a tactic used by both sides. Still as relevant as ever, sad to say.

out of


Kongo (1932)

Viewed 2/12/2006 (first viewing)

Deliciously twisted pre-code tale of a maniacal ivory trader (Walter Huston) holding sway in the Congo. He keeps the natives in check by using magic tricks and plots revenge against the man who crippled him. His diabolical plan includes corruption of the man's innocent daughter! Sort of a cross between Blue Velvet and Heart of Darkness, a must-see for fans of strange cinema.

out of


The Vampire's Ghost (1945)

Viewed 2/12/2006 (first viewing)

Low budget chiller about a cultured (and not entirely unsympathetic) vampire terrorizing an African port. A forgotten little gem, worth seeking out.

out of


Thanks Michael!
Reply
post #392 of 2071
2/13/06 at 7:55am
Steve, how did you go about seeing Fallen Idol? There's a theatrical re-issue starting to tour some of the country now, by Rialto, which usually means a Criterion DVD release once it's out of theaters.
Reply
post #393 of 2071
2/13/06 at 8:01am
Haggai, I have the UK R2 DVD of The Fallen Idol. Since I just bought it - along with Green For Danger (which I'd been wanting to see for ages) and Our Man in Havana - there probably WILL be a Criterion release.
Reply
post #394 of 2071
2/13/06 at 11:45am
02/11/06: THE BIG COMBO (Joseph H. Lewis, 1955) ***

Despite a bland title, this is a top-notch film noir, one of Lewis’ best in fact, with a first-rate cast (Cornel Wilde, Richard Conte, Brian Donlevy, Lee Van Cleef, Earl Holliman, Ted De Corsia, Robert Middleton, Jay Adler, John Hoyt, etc.), a typically hard-boiled script courtesy of Philip Yordan and some memorably violent scenes for its time (police officer Wilde’s torture at the hands of gangster Conte, Donlevy’s “silent” demise by Conte’s henchmen Van Cleef and Holliman, Conte punching his moll, Jean Wallace, in the face, etc.); cinematographer John Alton and composer David Raksin lend their expert support. I had first seen this one some 15 years ago when I caught it one afternoon, quite by accident, on Italian TV and was very impressed by it; I’m glad that my reacquaintance with it via Alpha’s DVD proved to be equally satisfying.


02/12/06: THE BROWN BUNNY [Theatrical Release Version] (Vincent Gallo, 2003) BOMB

Although I had long suspected that the notorious unsimulated fellatio sequence would be the only reason for me to watch this movie, I had no idea that I would have had to suffer through around 75 minutes of excruciating boredom before it got there! Having just come from a 3-month film-making program in Hollywood, I can understand a director succumbing to the temptation of pointing his camera at anything hoping that it will eventually make sense in the editing suite; however, Gallo’s film looks and feels like all the available footage has just been pasted together without any editorial intervention! Scenes just go on and on without any rhyme or reason, characters whisper unintelligibly all through the picture and Gallo’s character comes off as a chick magnet with no sex drive, and a cry-baby in the bargain!! I can’t begin to think how the Cannes Film Festival audience felt when having to sit through an even longer (by 26 minutes!) cut of the film! As for me, I found myself helplessly bursting into laughter occasionally at the sheer self-indulgence, pretentiousness and absurdity of it all; even that sequence is not free of chuckles, as Gallo has his character and Chloe Sevigny’s carrying on a would-be rhetorical conversation while the latter is giving him (pun intended) lip service!! I can understand the furore this sequence has caused given that it features a recognizable, Oscar-nominated Hollywood starlet but, again, Gallo is hardly breaking new ground here, as explicit oral sex sequences featuring established actors were also featured in Nagisa Oshima’s AI NO CORRIDA (1976) and Marco Bellocchio’s DEVIL IN THE FLESH (1986; I can't wait to get my hands on the No Shame DVD)! Maybe he just decided to insert the scene because someone reminded him that the word “gallo” in Italian means “cock” - as in rooster. The "twist" at the end makes everything, particularly that sequence, all the more stultifyingly inept and redundant...
Reply
post #395 of 2071
2/13/06 at 12:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Is this what the legacy of past Hollywood comedy classics amounts to?


As much as I love "classics", I'd have to shoot myself if I couldn't watch current trash like ANIMAL HOUSE, PORKY'S, POLICE ACADEMY or any other recent comedy.

Quote:
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.


Again, I'd have to play with a gun if I didn't watch anything recent. I use to watch everything that was released into theaters but this has been cut out. I'll certainly watch anything that gets considered the best of the year or something that just interests me. I think if someone overlooks current films it's just as bad as overlooking silents or B&W films. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us here wouldn't have liked BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN if we had seen it in 1935. Heck, we probably wouldn't have paid it ANY attention since it was just horror trash.

Quote:
Kongo (1932)

Steve, have you seen the original version? If not, TCM will be showing it at the end of April. You can use a spoiler warning for others but did you figure out the "twist" in the story? I'm not sure if you noticed the nudity but around the 45 minute mark, the daughter is outside when the natives start a ritual. She gets scared and runs back into the cabin where she's grabbed by a couple men. I'm going to guess it was an accident but there are two times where they rip her shirt exposing her breasts.


Agreed on THE BROWN BUNNY. I think the director shows talent but this thing was just horrid. I respect what he was trying to do but it just didn't work.
Reply
post #396 of 2071
2/13/06 at 1:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I'll hear you out. But be cognizant of the Italian silent films of the era if you intend to trot out the ol' "BOAN single-handedly created the first inklings of film grammar" canard. (It was frickin' 1915 already.)


I'd actually agree with you here. There were other epics from overseas and it's just movie lore that keeps BIRTH alive has a "historically important" film. It might have been the first American epic but there were others before it. If someone wants to see Griffith as "the father of film" then they'd have to go back five years to when he started to kick in the editing. Everything Griffith did in BIRTH was done in earlier Civil War shorts by him and the editing was done five years earlier. BIRTH just runs over three hours and the movie lore takes it from there. (The same as with Chaplin and the eating of the shoes. Done eight years earlier but lore gives credit to Chaplin)

Now, there's no question that BIRTH is going to upset people but I think this is unfair to the movie and the director. This type of film (with the racist tones) was done earlier and later but for some reason BIRTH is the only movie to get attacked and Griffith is the only director to be attacked. I'm still not sure why this is the case unless folks simply want to treat Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd differently because they were doing comedies. Perhaps Cecil B. DeMille won't be attacked because he went on to create "pretty" films while Griffith's career was pretty much over after INTOLERANCE bombed at theaters.

To attack Griffith as being racist is just showing ignorance IMO but it seems the majority here don't attack him alone. If you'd also seen BIRTH and knew nothing about Griffith someone might say he was racist but again, this is judging a person on one out of 500 movies. The biggest difference between Griffith and other filmmakers of the time is that he wanted to tell stories. THE BIRTH OF A NATION happens to deal with something we see as racist today but it was just a story. It wasn't meant to be spread around as the truth.

BIRTH wasn't the first time Griffith dealt with racial hatred. You can track this all the way back to his first few films in 1909. Racism was shown towards whites, blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Russians and every other type of race. Did Griffith hate all of these people? Of course not, he was simply telling stories. People look at BIRTH and call him racists against blacks but they should see HIS TRUST and HIS TRUST FULFILLED before saying a word. Both are Civil War shorts that attack whites and say blacks were the only "good" people in the entire war. Was it a message film? No. It was simply a story. BIRTH wasn't a message film either. It was simply a story he was told.

Griffith didn't use screenplays, everything on screen came directly from his head, told in ways he remembers the stories being told to him. There's a 1930 interview with Griffith done by Walter Huston, which was included before BIRTH was released back into theaters. Here Griffith tells how he got the story for BIRTH. It came from a book called "The Klansman", which is fifty times more brutal than the film. Had Griffith wanted to spread the message of hate and racism then he could have gone a lot further by being more faithful to the book. The book was the basic storyline for the film.

The second story came from those who actually fought in the Civil War. The film shows blacks being freed and then taking over white people. Is this the racist aspect of the film? Not to me. The idea of blacks overtaking whites sounds silly and stupid in 2005 because we live in a better time. It was far fetched in 1915 that something like this could happen. However, this was a MAJOR fear for Southern people back when these events were actually taking place. If we were living in the days when the Civil War just ended and were in the south, we'd fear the slaves being freed. Why didn't people want slaves freed back then? Probably over stupid fears that would never come to actually happen and if they DID happen, it was because of a single, stupid person and NOT the fault of an entire race.

In the film, the "racist" aspects include blacks overtaking the government. This hasn't happened since the war ended. In the film, the "racist" aspects include blacks spitting in the faces of whites. Again, this here would be up to a person and not an entire race. You can't blame a race for what one person might do. Other racist aspects include a black man trying to rape a white woman. Again, we can't blame an entire race for this.

You could say, and I would say, that BIRTH shows the above stuff happening by ALL blacks, which is where the racism comes from. Perhaps Griffith should have been more clear and said it was the person(s) doing these crimes and NOT the entire race. But this here goes back to what I was saying earlier. Griffith was telling a story, not making a message film warning white people. The book dealt with these storylines and that's what was filmed. The second part of the story comes from folks who actually fought in the Civil War and feared these events would happen. Griffith was a small boy when his father returned from fighting in the war. Griffith has said he'd sit under the table and listen to their stories about the country and its future. What he heard is the story he copied over in BIRTH.

Were these Civil War fighters racist in thinking blacks would attack all white women? Yes. They were racist for blaming an entire race. What the movie does is simply tell their side of the story. The racism shown in the film isn't a message but a story being told. That story isn't coming from Griffith. That story isn't coming from 2005 and that story isn't coming from 1915. That story is coming from men who actually fought in the war and men who believed slavery was right.

It's no different than THE SEARCHERS. In that time Indians were feared and god forbid someone mixed races. When THE SEARCHERS takes place that type of stuff wasn't allowed and the majority of people would feel just like Wayne did. You can even look at GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER and the racism shown by the two fathers because they didn't want races mixed. This type of stuff here, or what's shown in BIRTH, isn't looked at the same way today and that's why it's important to judge this stuff when it happened and not on today's morals.

I'm not sure if I've left out any of the other "racist" issues in BIRTH but the film is just a story. It's not a message that was meant to be passed around as the truth. Griffith had no ill feelings towards blacks but this here is coming from those who knew him. Not what we see in his films. BIRTH tells the story of a racist and how a racist saw things when the war ended. It's not to be seen in 2005 as a warning to start to Klan back up.

People also mention the blackface issues but this was covered in the other thread. Chaplin, Griffith, Lloyd, Roach and various others wanted professional actors and there just weren't many (if any) black actors back then so whites were given the roles. Just like men playing the women roles way back in the day. How many Indian actors can we name from the 10s-60s westerns? Not many but we could name dozens of white actors playing them. The same with Chaney and Oland playing Asians back in the day.

We could look at "racial" humor in the forms of Bugs Bunny, Daffy, Tom & Jerry or even The East Side Kids. Back in the day this type of humor was considered funny. After Pearl Harbor people wanted to hear The East Side Kids make fun of Japanese people. After 9/11 how many jokes did we hear about that race of people? These films show what the attitudes were in the day and as history, they should be left alone. Thankfully this type of attitudes aren't excepted today but that's no reason to pretend they weren't around back in the day.
Reply
post #397 of 2071
2/13/06 at 1:39pm
Michael, that could be the longest thread you ever wrote. That said, my interest on the very controversial BIRTH OF A NATION is still sizzling.
Reply
post #398 of 2071
2/13/06 at 2:18pm
Thread Starter 
Well, if you actually read all of that, I hope you enjoyed it.
Reply
post #399 of 2071
2/13/06 at 3:24pm
If people want to quote Last Days of Pompey and Cabiria that's all well and good, but BOAN and especially Intolerance, are head and shoulders above those films technically and as a filmic story.

I'm tempted to go on one of my old school rants since I rate The Brown Bunny as the best American film from 2004, I just don't have the time to get into it. I'll just say that self-indulgence is what makes the film so special, just as it made Bunuel films like The Phantom of Liberty and The Exterminating Angel special. We clearly see the soul of the artist at work. We see something unique that could only come from inside them.

Bad Timing (1980) - Nicholas Roeg's film stars Art Garfunkel as a psychology professor who becomes possessive and sexually obsessive toward his girlfriend in Cold War Austria. Like Walkabout and Don't Look Now, Bad Timing is superbly edited and displays a talented camera eye. Unlike them though, it rarely makes for compelling viewing. Garfunkel has little screen presence and the script does neither him or any of the other actors many favors which can be boiled down to well-to-do peoples' self-obsession with their love lives.

I perked up whenever Harvey Keitel, playing a police detective, showed up, as he provided such a marked contrast in talent from the leads. Ultimately by the time the film gathered steam toward the ends with Garfunkel's character spinning out of control, I had long since been watching the DVD time counter. - C

Dark Water (2005) - As a drama about a woman trying to hold her life together and take care of her daugher while going through a divorce, Dark Water is not bad. Jennifer Connelly is convincing as a mother who will do what it takes even if it means settling for a crappy apartment. I also liked John C. Reilly's brief comic turn as a sleezy apartment manager.

However, Dark Water is ostensibly a horror film, and here it fails horribly. From the "desaturated color = atmosphere" school of modern horror, it has no suspense, scares, dread, nothing. It falls completely flat. It is also the umpteenth "scary ghost kid" film to come out of Japan. Top it off with a ending of sheer "only in the movies" stupidity and you have a film that I can only hope doesn't linger long in my memory. - D
Reply
post #400 of 2071
2/14/06 at 1:28pm
added:

title: whisper of the heart
rating: b
comments: another ghibli feature not directed by miyazaki. unlike only yesterday, this one held my interest. i don't know if this came before or after "the cat returns", but you can see where the baron and mutu (sp?) came from. as usual, wonderful animation.

title: cinderella man
rating: b
comments: howard really knows how to pull those sentimental punches (ouch), but this one worked. i think any father could identify with braddock's desire to provide for his family. nice supporting role by giamanti (sp?) ... a personal fave of mine.
Reply
post #401 of 2071
2/14/06 at 2:31pm
Ted, "Whisper of the Heart" came before "The Cat Returns".

The Baxter (2005) - A "baxter" (presumably named for The Aparment's C.C. Baxter) is a nice guy that finishes last. In this romantic comedy, Elliot the nice guy accountant has an attractive fiance he is about to marry. Their relationship is threatened when an old boyfriend shows up who is everything Elliot isn't. At the same time he develops a friendship with his plainer and quirky temp secretary (played by Michelle Williams). Antics ensue as he begins to act out of character to try and save his impending marriage.

This film offers a few chuckles, a charming performance by Michele Williams and a funny appearance by Peter Dinklage as a wedding planner. However, the writing and other characters are as bland as the titular baxter. The film is never as clever as it thinks it is (Dinklage's character is named "Benson Hedges" ha ha) and fails the basic tests of both comedy and romance. - C+

Transporter 2 (2005) - The Transporter returns, this time as a driver for a wealthy family. When their child is kidnapped while in his care, it's up to him to track down the perpetrators and deliver some butt whuppin.

This sequel doesn't live up to the quality of the original. It has a solid car chase and a couple of good action sequences, but lacks the tightness, energy, and inventive stunts of the first film. Transporter 2 also deletes almost all character moments in favor of buddy comedy schtick. That said, I still enjoyed the film because I really like Jason Statham in this role. He's believable in the action scenes, can handle the dramatic moments, and he is comfortable with comedy. Statham is one of the very few action stars today who can project that Marvin-Bronson old school toughness, instead of merely acting tough. Give him some of The Rock and Vin Diesel's roles and I might actually want to watch those movies. - B-

Café Lumière (2003) - Japanese studio Shochiku commissioned Taiwanese filmmaker Hou Hsia-Hsien to make a tribute to Yasujiro Ozu for the Ozu Centenary. He created this film which reflects the changes in Japanese society since Ozu was making his 1950's family dramas. Centering around a young woman involved in researching the career of a Taiwanese composer, we see her relationship with her family, a bookshop owner secretly in love with her, and how she relates to the world around her.

While it includes such Ozu signatures as laundry on the line and repeated shots of trains, it doesn't attempt to ape Ozu, and is stylistically of a piece with other Hou films. Often shown in discrete long shots, its characters communicate but never really connect with one another. An event like the daughter's pregnancy, which would be a family crisis in an Ozu film, is here taken with resignation and no fireworks. The film is thematically interesting, includes some beautiful images and expresses sadness for a more intimate family life lost in modern Japan. But the distance from the characters and lack of drama make for problematic viewing. Another problem is Hou's overuse of extended shots of landscape. Whereas Ozu used "pillow shot" interludes, Hou almost reverses this to the point that delivering lines and doing something beyond walking and looking becomes the interlude. For all of Ozu's formal aesthetics, he never failed to tell a compelling, humanistic story. - C+
Reply
post #402 of 2071
2/14/06 at 3:17pm
02/12/06: VIVRE SA VIE: FILM EN DOUZE TABLEAUX (Jean-Luc Godard, 1962) ***

If I had any real doubts that most American filmgoers are not entirely in tune with European sensibilities, this would have been the ideal film to prove it! As I rewatched VIVRE SA VIE, I was reminded that Godard had actually employed some "extreme" directorial touches which I had tried to use in shooting my own short films in Hollywood a few months ago, but to which most of my classmates and directing teacher objected to as being too "avant-garde"!! In any case, I have to admit a personal bias in favor of Godard's 1960-68 output which I find to be extremely innovative, intoxicating and, yes, perplexing; I also have a big crush on Godard's muse of the time, the enchanting Anna Karina - and the mere fact that she's in practically every frame of this film certainly aids in my overlooking some of Godard's cinematic excesses! It's always amusing for me to read Godard's dedications at the start of his films (in this case, B-movies!) which, invariably, hardly resemble anything found in the following product. Godard would go on to deal with the theme of prostitution in several other films throughout his career (including some of the many multi-national portmanteau films he had a hand in), most notably in TWO OR THREE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER (1967) and EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF aka SLOW MOTION (1980). And whoever says that streetwalkers have no culture, better think again, as Anna Karina's character is seen reacting very emotionally to a theatrical screening of Carl Theodor Dreyer's sublime THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928)!

For some odd reason, the first time I had watched this movie a couple of years ago on Italian TV, it was severely truncated (lasting barely over an hour rather than the official 85 minutes!) but, for the life of me, I can't figure out now what had been cut - as the nude scenes in the film's latter stages were all intact!! What's worse is that this wasn't even the first time that an Italian TV screening I saw of a particular film was considerably shorter than anticipated: Carol Reed's ODD MAN OUT (1946), Jean-Pierre Melville's L' ARMEE` DES OMBRES (1969), etc.!!



02/12/06: GRIZZLY MAN (Werner Herzog, 2005) ***

Herzog gives us another of his compelling portrayals of obsessive larger-than-life characters in telling the inspirational but tragic story of earnest if ultimately misguided bear activist Timothy Treadwell. I'm not usually a fan of documentaries but Herzog's involvement and the positive buzz created by this movie on HTF led me to give it a try...and I'm certainly glad I did so. The film elicits an emotional response from the viewer, not only because of its eccentric protagonist and his (and girlfriend's) eventual fate, ironically, at the hands of the same creatures he so ardently wanted to protect and bring to the world's attention, but also because Herzog (for the most part) wisely lets Treadwell's own uniquely fascinating footage - down to a few hours before his death! - do most of the talking for him.


02/12/06: THE INTERPRETER (Sydney Pollack, 2005) **1/2

Solid if unremarkable political thriller which, after an oddly tedious first half, picks up the pace considerably with a couple of exciting chase sequences. The performances from the two leads (Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn) seem surprisingly half-hearted but the main problem with this film, in my view, is that we have been here once too often and, considering the talent involved in front of and behind the camera, one can't be blamed for expecting something more memorable and significant. In case anyone's wondering, this isn't a patch on Pollack's exemplary espionage thriller, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975)...


02/13/06: BAD MAN'S RIVER (Eugenio Martin, 1971) **1/2

This eccentric Euro-Western has more in common with the revisionist, light-hearted approach of BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969) than with any of the sadistic Italian fare shot around the same time and on the same locations. A great, eclectic cast (Lee Van Cleef, James Mason, Gina Lollobrigida, Sergio Fantoni, Jess Hahn, Simon Andreu, Eduardo Fajardo, Gianni Garko, Diana Lorys) finds itself somewhat stranded - and in the case of Mason, evidently embarrassed - in the face of the film's bizarre changes of mood, some of which work (there are a few enjoyably comical action sequences) and some of which don't (why the director chose to overdose on the "freeze-frame" stuff at the beginning is anyone's guess); in light of all this, the involvement of talented Hollywood veterans Philip Yordan, Irving Lerner and Bernard Gordon is even more baffling. All in all, however, BAD MAN'S RIVER emerges as a surprisingly pleasant, if ultimately forgettable, diversion.


02/13/06: LAND OF THE DEAD [Unrated Director's Cut] (George A. Romero, 2005) **1/2

While I can honestly say that I wasn't expecting anything particularly great from this fourth installment of Romero's zombie saga, I was pleasantly surprised by the end result: it's smart, silly, engaging, gory, predictable, funny and preposterous. Even if, like Joe Karlosi, I was confused by the film's timeline i.e. when this is supposed to be happening (although the caption at the beginning does clearly state "Today"!), I wasn't too bothered by it; also, Dennis Hopper's by-now immortal line - "Zombies, man. They creep me out" - also serves to unmistakably identify him as a remnant of the "Flower Power" generation! I also concur with Joe's dislike of the main zombie's incessant roaring. The flesh-eating sequences, as usual with this type of film, are needlessly protracted and overly gruesome and, while I can understand their necessity, they still seem to be catering mainly for the gorehounds in the audience, effectively diminishing the film's overall impact as a satirical allegory. For the record, I've only watched the previous entry, DAY OF THE DEAD (1985), once several years ago and I've yet to get Anchor Bay's 4-Disc edition of DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) - a film I'm not excessively keen of, actually - so, off-hand, I wouldn't really know where to put Romero's latest addition to filmdom's zombie lore in comparison with the others in the series, except to say that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) is still the best - and scariest - of the lot!


02/14/06: CROSSFIRE (Edward Dmytryk, 1947) **** - DVD {Third Viewing}

The real Best Picture of 1947 also deals with Anti-Semitism and is superior to Elia Kazan's GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (the eventual winner at that year's Academy Awards) in practically every department. Edmard Dmytryk's near-perfect direction, John Paxton's terse script and J. Roy Hunt's expert Expressionist lighting are wonderfully abetted by a superb ensemble cast. Although Robert Young (playing an easy-going, methodical and very likeable cop) and Robert Mitchum (who actually does have the occasional throwaway witty remark) are the nominal stars of the film, it's Oscar nominees Robert Ryan and Gloria Grahame - as well as Paul Kelly, in the small but pivotal role of Grahame's pathetic husband - who give the film's most memorable characterizations; Ryan proved so convincing as a homicidal racist that he was eventually typecast for a while, excelling in equally villainous roles in such films as ACT OF VIOLENCE (1948), CAUGHT (1948), THE RACKET (1951), CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), THE NAKED SPUR (1953) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955). The film is also notable for its atypical structure in that Ryan's "flashback" sequence, a complete fabrication, is shot in a straightforward manner while the actual truth emerges from the hazy, distorted recollections of the real protagonist of the film who, furthermore, isn't even played by any of the film's stars! Also, CROSSFIRE was originally to have treated homosexuality (as per Richard Brooks' original source novel, "The Brick Foxhole") but this taboo subject was unacceptable to the Hays Office at the time - a far cry from the situation we have today when (at least) 3 gay-themed films are in the running for this years' major Oscars!

The print utilized for Warners' DVD transfer shows some regrettable signs of wear-and-tear at times but the Audio Commentary by noir experts, James Ursini and Alain Silver, is a good one, even though I don't happen to share their opinion that Dmytryk's career declined steadily after his HUAC troubles, as such excellent pictures as THE SNIPER (1952), THE CAINE MUTINY (1954), BROKEN LANCE (1954), THE YOUNG LIONS (1958), WARLOCK (1959) and MIRAGE (1965) amply prove; having said that his collaborations at RKO with producer Adrian Scott and screenwriter John Paxton - MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), CORNERED (1945; hopefully this will be part of the next Film Noir Box Set from Warners) and CROSSFIRE - do constitute his best work. In any case, in my opinion, the latter is not only one of the key films of the 1940s but also one of the finest noirs ever made, period.
Reply
post #403 of 2071
2/14/06 at 3:25pm
Quote:
I'm not usually a fan of documentaries but Herzog's involvement and the positive buzz created by this movie on HTF led me to give it a try...and I'm certainly glad I did so.

Mario, I've been interested in the subject of this documentary since I first learned about it a while back. As you say, it's been very popular here on HTF, and it's been on my Netflix queue. You've inspired me to give it a little boost to the top.
Reply
post #404 of 2071
2/14/06 at 6:12pm
This film offers a few chuckles, a charming performance by Michele Williams and a funny appearance by Peter Dinklage as a wedding planner.

Completely agree with this statement and also some of your negative points about The Baxter Brook. Overall though, I think I liked it a bit better as those high points were enough to win me over. In particular, Michelle Williams was just terrific and I couldn't wait until she was back on screen. But yeah, there were definitely moments that fell flat - particularly when The Baxter overplayed the goofiness of his character.
Reply
post #405 of 2071
2/14/06 at 8:11pm
One more point on Grizzly Man that I haven't seen mentioned too much is the connection between Treadwell and Klaus Kinski (or the characters he played in Herzog's movies). The blond hair, devil-may-care attitude, delusions of grandeur, egotism were all there to see. And Herzog himself even mentions at one point how he was "familiar" with some of the character traits that Treadwell exhibits.

Allow me to pile on Crash 1/2 out of Tough to rate this movie which is extremely uneven and frustrating. Somewhere there's a good movie in amongst all the characters and contrivances. The trouble is that a movie like this lives or dies by its realism and, to me at least, it did not seem realistic. A lot of the characters did not ring true and some of the dialogue put me in mind of satire but that was surely not the intention. Still there are some powerful moments but overall it's a missed opportunity. However, since I live out in the "boonies" in the NorthEast US, I may be totally wrong and that is how people in LA behave
Reply
post #406 of 2071
2/14/06 at 8:53pm
Thread Starter 
02/13/06

Jones Have Amateur Theatricals, The (1909)

A theatrical family gather together to act for one another. I think that’s what this D.W. Griffith comedy is about but it’s rather hard to gather what the film is going for. There are a couple smiles giving but not any laughs.

Politician’s Love Story, A (1909)

A dirty politician sees a comic spoof of himself in the newspaper so he goes out to kill the cartoonist. Mack Sennett shows up in this D.W. Griffith short, which is mildly amusing with a few nice laughs as the crazy man rips through the newsroom looking for the man he wants to kill.

02/14/06

Ghastly Ones, The (1968)

Three couples spend the night in an old dark house so that they can collect an inheritance but a killer is running loose. This is my first Andy Milligan film and it’s really no worse than countless other exploitation films that were out at the time. Everything about the film is bad, especially the sex scenes, which are probably the worst I’ve ever seen in a movie. The director does try to build suspense but this here comes off rather laughable.

Seeds of Sin (1968)

Somewhat of a producer’s cut of Andy Milligan’s lost film Seeds, which adds various sex scenes in so that the film could be sold to sex theaters. With all the added sex scenes it’s really impossible to judge Milligan’s original film but for this here it isn’t too bad. The sex scenes will certainly keep you interested and they’re actually better done than what you’d normally see in a film like this.

Exorcism of Emily Rose, The (2005) unrated version

A priest (Tom Wilkinson) performs an exorcism on the young Emily Rose and when she’s killed he is taken to court for her death. His lawyer (Laura Linney) tries to uncover the truth, which all goes back to an audio recording of the events. When I was in middle school I did a report on exorcism, which had me talking to several people including my grandfather who was a preacher as well as many others, including a Catholic priest. Everyone agreed that The Exorcist was pure B.S. and that’s why this film here worked so well even though there are some flaws. The film comes off very realistic and looks at Satan and exorcisms as something real and not just a horror event. I’ve never understood how God equals a religious film while Satan equals a horror film. With this here both are looked at as being real and that’s why the film is unlike any other one that deals with the issues. While the film is very intense I think it’s a very fair and balanced look at the events. Both Linney and Wilkinson deliver very good performances and the debate regarding religion and science comes off very compelling. The one flaw with the film is the early flashbacks, which try to push the “scary” factor. The first scene inside the dorm room is very intense so the following scenes weren’t really needed. It’s a shame Sony tried selling this as a simple horror film because it’s a lot smarter than that. It’s one film that looks at religion and exorcisms in a mature and smart way.
Reply
post #407 of 2071
2/15/06 at 3:03am
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) 1/2
Saw this sequel in 1985 and didn't think much of it, but it held up better for me this time and was enjoyable enough as a continuation from FIRST BLOOD. Very lightweight "turn your mind off" type of material, as Vietnam vet John Rambo becomes a hero when sent to Cambodia to take photographs of any surviving POW's he finds still being held there. He becomes tricked by the US goverment and turns into a long-haired Superman as he takes it upon himself to rescue his captive brothers from the clutches of the enemy. Sylvster Stallone doesn't always register much emotion and seems to be on auto pliot some of the time here, but I enjoyed Julia Nickson as the woman he's teamed up with for his mission, and Charles Napier makes a fine baddie. Richard Crenna wasn't bad either. George P. Cosmatos' direction is concise as he juggles exciting action sequences in between occasionally interesting cinematography.
Reply
post #408 of 2071
2/15/06 at 7:04am
Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"As much as I love 'classics', I'd have to shoot myself if I couldn't watch current trash like ANIMAL HOUSE, PORKY'S, POLICE ACADEMY or any other recent comedy."

While none of the examples you mention are all that "current" anymore, for what it's worth POLICE ACADEMY (1984) was a very popular title in my house at the time of its release since, being probably the first VHS owners in my village, we used to invite relatives every Saturday night and watch this film, and others of its period - BEVERLY HILLS COP (1984), GHOSTBUSTERS (1984), GREMLINS (1984), SPIES LIKE US (1985), COMING TO AMERICA (1988), etc. - on VHS; I've also watched all the other entries in the POLICE ACADEMY series, although far less regularly than the original. As for ANIMAL HOUSE (1978), while it's been shown continuously on Italian TV during my childhood days, it's only fairly recently that I caught up with it as a DVD rental; still, while it does have some very funny spots, I was mostly underwhelmed by it. With regards to PORKY'S (1981), then, I'd rather remember Bob Clark as being the director of such great little horror films as DEATHDREAM (1972) and BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974) and Yuletide favorites as A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983); still, knowing that you gave it **** might inspire me to catch it next time around.

Having said that, the last mainstream comedy hit which I recall watching is probably THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998; on the big screen, no less!) back when gross-out comedies where still a novelty; this means that I've seen next to nothing of the work of such contemporary comedy "superstars" as Jason Biggs, Jim Carrey, Martin Lawrence, Chris Rock, Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Will Smith, Ben Stiller, Chris Tucker, etc. As I said earlier, I haven't even bothered with most of Woody Allen's output of the last decade so it's small wonder that I'm not familiar with these other "comedians" either!


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Again, I'd have to play with a gun if I didn't watch anything recent. I use to watch everything that was released into theaters but this has been cut out. I'll certainly watch anything that gets considered the best of the year or something that just interests me. I think if someone overlooks current films it's just as bad as overlooking silents or B&W films. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us here wouldn't have liked BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN if we had seen it in 1935. Heck, we probably wouldn't have paid it ANY attention since it was just horror trash."

Don't get me wrong: I do try to catch up with most well-regarded films released nowadays but, as I said, while I do think that films like, say, THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS (2001), LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003), SIDEWAYS (2004), BROKEN FLOWERS (2005), etc. are all worthwhile, intelligent movies, I can't see myself adding any of them to my DVD collection (although I still would tape them off the TV when they get shown on Cable just to have them). As for contemporary horror movies, I do try to keep myself "up-to-date" as much as possible, although I still need to watch stuff like CABIN FEVER (2002), DARK WATER (2005), THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005), HOSTEL (2005), HOUSE OF WAX (2005), SAW II (2005), WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005), WOLF CREEK (2005), etc.


Quote (originally posted by Brook K):

"I'm tempted to go on one of my old school rants since I rate The Brown Bunny as the best American film from 2004, I just don't have the time to get into it. I'll just say that self-indulgence is what makes the film so special, just as it made Bunuel films like The Phantom of Liberty and The Exterminating Angel special. We clearly see the soul of the artist at work. We see something unique that could only come from inside them."

My relative lack of enthusiasm for much of post-1983 cinema has resulted in my not being so sure anymore when a particular film was released; in fact, the latest film guide I own is Leonard Maltin's 1996 edition! Therefore, I can't even begin to argue whether THE BROWN BUNNY is the best (or worst) American film of 2004 or not. However, it's significant that you mention Luis Bunuel (who, as you may be aware, is not only my all-time favorite film-maker, but also died in 1983 - hence that all-important date!): while I agree that movies like THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) and THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974) are indeed self-indulgent, they are also vastly enjoyable and repay countless viewings; for the record, together with my top Bunuel film, THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, these three titles constitute my favorite Bunuels. Despite my misgivings, I concede that THE BROWN BUNNY is indeed a brave piece of work from a talented director, but that doesn't diminish or excuse in any way the fact that it bored me (and many other viewers I'm sure, not least Michael Elliott and Roger Ebert) to tears for most of its (relatively short) running time; still, if it's any consolation, I would have gladly stood in for leading man Gallo during his scenes with Chloe Sevigny...!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Mario, I've been interested in the subject of this documentary since I first learned about it a while back. As you say, it's been very popular here on HTF, and it's been on my Netflix queue. You've inspired me to give it a little boost to the top."

It's good to know that my review of GRIZZLY MAN (2005) in a way made you put the film at the top of your Netflix queue...but I would have been even happier had you told me that you've also decided to rent Herzog's AGUIRRE: WRATH OF GOD (1973) along with it, after all...!

By the way, Joe, your taking up those "Directors Polls" again has inspired me to do likewise.
Reply
post #409 of 2071
2/15/06 at 12:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
but I would have been even happier had you told me that you've also decided to rent Herzog's AGUIRRE: WRATH OF GOD (1973) along with it, after all...


Sadly, Mr. Karlosi had AGUIRRE in his hands but decided to send it back since he called off that little challenge.

Back to THE BROWN BUNNY: I think this film does need a second viewing since it's such a weird film. Even though I gave it a BOMB rating I will be going back to it.

DEATHDREAM and BLACK CHRISTMAS are two of the most overrated horror films of the decade IMO. I was really letdown by DEATHDREAM even though the Blue Underground disc was great. CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS would be, IMO, his best horror film. POPCORN was awful too.

Re: New Films

As I said, I no longer watch everyone of them but I will watch the horror titles, those considered the best or any other thing that gets me interested. I've actually got quite a few more 2005 films coming to me this week including NINE LIVES, SAW 2 and BAD NEWS BEARS, which I can't wait to watch since the original is one of my favorite films.
Reply
post #410 of 2071
2/15/06 at 1:54pm
Quote:
I would have been even happier had you told me that you've also decided to rent Herzog's AGUIRRE: WRATH OF GOD (1973) along with it, after all...

Mario, this post of yours is perfectly timed! I was home today and watched two films, one of which (in case you haven't noticed yet) will no doubt make you grin from ear to ear.

The Men (1950)
Marlon Brando makes his debut in a moving if not excellent film. As a soldier left paralyzed from the war, he must try to deal with the challenges of becoming a paraplegic, and struggling through his misfortune with other injured comrades in the rehabilitation hospital which he considers his true home. Teresa Wright is the devoted woman who loves him and wants to marry him despite his accident, if only Brando can begin to accept his own fate. While Brando gives a pretty good performance here, I think he was to much improve later on, and got even better.

Belle de Jour (1967)
Mario, I decided to go for "Pot Luck" by reaching into my large "unwatched" pile of discs, and chose to see this Luis Bunuel film this morning, and boy am I glad I did! What a fine piece of work this was, and it has made me long to see even more Bunuel (as you know, I also enjoyed EL, which was the first movie I watched from your favorite director). I thought Catherine Deneuve was beautiful, and very elegant in her part of a frigid newlywed who harbors a masochistic need to prostitute herself in order to improve her relations with her quiet husband. So many nice directorial touches and surreal moments within Deneuve's living of a double life ... the dream sequences, the changes from what is real to what may be a fantasy. A very erotic film, and consistently interesting. I enjoyed it so much that I decided to watch it again with the audio commentary right away, and I've already picked up on a lot about Bunuel just from that alone. I nearly gave this a complete four-star rating, but the ambiguous ending got in the way for me by a hair. I've come to understand that there are all sorts of critical interpretations for the conclusion, but while this is often an asset for a movie like BELLE, this one left me a tad unsatisfied - at least on first viewing (this one's a keeper).
Reply
post #411 of 2071
2/15/06 at 9:19pm
Thread Starter 
Mario, check your e-mail.

02/15/06

Bad News Bears (2005)

Workable remake of the 70’s classic has Billy Bob Thornton taking over the role originally played by Walter Matthau. This isn’t a great film and it’s certainly miles behind the original but it still works pretty well on its own. Ol’ Billy Bob manages plenty of laughs and I’m glad they kept in (most) the politically incorrect humor. Making one of the kids wheelchair bound was pretty brave in this day and age but it gets some nice laughs. The biggest problem is that the film runs nearly two hours long and the final game itself goes on for nearly thirty minutes, which is just way too long.

Nine Lives (2005)

Writer/director Rodrigo Garcia’s tale of nine women and their nine stories is certainly a unique film but I’m not quite sure about the payoff. I think a second viewing is going to be needed because I felt the film started to get a bit long because after six or seven of the nine stories I started to think about the earlier stories conclusions, which made the current stories seem to drag. In the end there wasn’t any conclusions so perhaps I just missed something. Either way, I’ll view this again at a later date. Even with that said this is a highly interesting and brilliantly directed piece that should be seen by any movie fan. The performances by the ensemble cast is downright terrific. Kathy Baker, Robin Wright Penn, Amy Brenneman, Glenn Close, Sissy Spacek, Dakota Fanning, Joe Mantegna and Aidan Quinn are just some of the names here doing great work. Those I didn’t mention were also great. The real star was Wright Penn who delivers the best work of her career. I did love the fact that the stories were told in real time without any edits.
Reply
post #412 of 2071
2/16/06 at 6:33am
Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Sadly, Mr. Karlosi had AGUIRRE in his hands but decided to send it back since he called off that little challenge."

Yes, I know all about that but, at least, his renting GRIZZLY MAN (2005) is a good sign and I'm confident that, in time, he'll get to AGUIRRE: WRATH OF GOD (1973) as well - and will probably regret it took him so long, too!


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"DEATHDREAM and BLACK CHRISTMAS are two of the most overrated horror films of the decade IMO. I was really letdown by DEATHDREAM even though the Blue Underground disc was great. CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS would be, IMO, his best horror film."

It's too bad you feel that way about DEATHDREAM (1972) and BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974) but it's ironic that you rate CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS (1972) higher given that, when I was in Hollywood a few weeks ago, I gave up on it while watching it at 03:00 as part of a frustrating transmission entitled "Macabre Theater" which continuously interrupted the film with totally irrelevant footage of a sultry host (a` la Elvira) and some bizarre Asian candid camera skits!!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"The Men (1950) ***

Marlon Brando makes his debut in a moving if not excellent film. As a soldier left paralyzed from the war, he must try to deal with the challenges of becoming a paraplegic, and struggling through his misfortune with other injured comrades in the rehabilitation hospital which he considers his true home. Teresa Wright is the devoted woman who loves him and wants to marry him despite his accident, if only Brando can begin to accept his own fate. While Brando gives a pretty good performance here, I think he was to much improve later on, and got even better."

It's good to see that you're catching up on more of Brando's work although I have to say that it's been ages since I've seen this one (on Italian TV) and, although over the years I considered buying it on PAL VHS and R1 DVD, I still haven't done so!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Belle de Jour (1967) ****

Mario, I decided to go for "Pot Luck" by reaching into my large "unwatched" pile of discs, and chose to see this Luis Bunuel film this morning, and boy am I glad I did! What a fine piece of work this was, and it has made me long to see even more Bunuel (as you know, I also enjoyed EL, which was the first movie I watched from your favorite director). I thought Catherine Deneuve was beautiful, and very elegant in her part of a frigid newlywed who harbors a masochistic need to prostitute herself in order to improve her relations with her quiet husband. So many nice directorial touches and surreal moments within Deneuve's living of a double life ... the dream sequences, the changes from what is real to what may be a fantasy. A very erotic film, and consistently interesting. I enjoyed it so much that I decided to watch it again with the audio commentary right away, and I've already picked up on a lot about Bunuel just from that alone. I nearly gave this a complete four-star rating, but the ambiguous ending got in the way for me by a hair. I've come to understand that there are all sorts of critical interpretations for the conclusion, but while this is often an asset for a movie like BELLE, this one left me a tad unsatisfied - at least on first viewing (this one's a keeper)."

You were right, Joe - I sure grinned when I saw this rating and review! I have to admit that I was a little apprehensive about how you were going to greet your first encounter with BELLE DE JOUR (1967), not only because of its constant interweaving of fantasy and reality, but also because of its relatively serious tone. As I said before, on first viewing even I was bothered somewhat by that open-ended conclusion but once I accepted it, I came to see it as just another genial example of "self-indulgence" on Bunuel's part.

It's good to know that you've also listened to the Audio Commentary which I thought it was quite good myself - although there are many who were disappointed with the DVD as a whole, not just with regards to the supplements but especially because the transfer was ported over from the Criterion LD rather than a new one.

I don't want to push you into anything at this stage but since you're longing to see even more of Bunuel's work, I'm listing those titles available on R1 DVD in the hope that you might eventually rent them from Netflix:

UN CHIEN ANDALOU (1929) - MVD
L' AGE D' OR (1930) - Kino
EL BRUTO (1952) - Cozumel
ROBINSON CRUSOE (1952) - VCI
DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1964) - Criterion
THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972) - Criterion 2-Disc Set
THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974) - Criterion
THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE (1977) - Criterion


You can see how I rate them in the relevant "Directors Poll" thread and don't forget you also have THE CRIMINAL LIFE OF ARCHIBALDO DE LA CRUZ (1955) in your "unwatched" pile...unless you want to wait for Michael to have a go at it first!


P.S. Mike, I'll reply to your e-mail in the weekend. Thanks!
Reply
post #413 of 2071
2/16/06 at 2:51pm
The Baxter just didn't make me laugh enough. I think Ebert came up with a "minimum laugh quotient" he described that a comedy must include to be enjoyable. The Baxter didn't hit mine. Whereas, Wedding Crashers did, I laughed hard and long at a number of points in the film. Because it made me laugh, I can forgive some of it's obvious flaws, like the poor transition from raunch comedy to romance.

Deathdream was one of my favorite discoveries from the 2004 Horror Challenge. I think Bill McA turned me onto it. I watched Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things this past year and enjoyed it as well, but I definitely think Deathdream is superior. Haven't seen Black Christmas. Maybe I'll finally get to it this year, although I'm planning on spending a high percentage of my viewing for the 2006 Challenge on Hammer.

Ma Mère (2005) - Taking the phrase A boy's best friend should be his mother. to the extreme, Ma Mère sets up a devout young man (The Dreamer's Louis Garrel) home for the summer from Catholic school at his parent's Riviera chateau. After the sudden death of the father, the wild child mother (Isabelle Huppert) takes her son on a journey of sexual exploration, including incest.

The film is generally a frightful bore. It offers some pretty images (like Bill McA's current sig pic), but is otherwise a slow-moving exercize in watching bored people trying to find meaning in their lives through mechanical sex and S&M. It isn't that their behavior is particularly repulsive, nobody's being raped here, it's that unlike Barbet Schroeder's Maitresse, the characters and story aren't interesting enough to merit watching what they do to one another. Garrel's main character is completely amoral and unsympathetic. The film spends a long time setting him up an almost monk-like character, a man of faith lost in a sea of immorality, and yet he drops all his pretensions as quickly as one of the women drops her clothes. Then he proceeds to shift back and forth between extremes two more times. None of the characters are consistently drawn, they act whichever way the script requires them to for a scene, then their personality may completely shift for the next one. Top it off with an ending of such utter mindlessness; a cheap shock tactic I can't imagine any human being actually performing, it left me dumbfounded. - D-

Serenity (2005) - Revisit of Joss Whedon's filmic wrapup of his defunct Firefly TV series. I enjoyed this more now that I've seen Firefly and have a deeper connection and an affection for the characters. Knowledge of the backstory was helpful too. But I can't completely embrace it, despite it exhibiting many of the positive qualities of the show. Part of it is Mal acting out of character toward Summer and Simon. It's as if several episodes of the series never occurred and they had only been on the ship a short while. Loved the ending, an emotional wrapup to a story that is ending well before its time. - B+

Elizabethtown (2005) - As I said somewhere else, I gave this film 35 minutes of my life and that was as generous as I could be. I've seen many a terrible film, but I just couldn't force myself to stick this one out. It just has nothing to offer, I was annoyed and bored within the first minute. Seemed like Crowe was trying to write like Wes Anderson and doing a really, really poor job of it. Plus Kirsen Dunst was just accepted for membership in the Renee Zellweger Club for Actresses who Annoy the Hell Out of Me. - BOMB/Incomplete
Reply
post #414 of 2071
2/17/06 at 11:04am
Howards End (1992) 9/10
As per Merchant/Ivory at their best, the production values, dialogue, and lead performances are all top-level. Certainly Emma Thompson, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Hopkins, and Helena Bonham-Carter are about as good as anyone possibly could be. Turns out to be a bit of a soap opera, with sudden revelations of ex-lovers from years ago, pregnancies from sudden one-night-stands, danger from falling bookcases, etc. So I do prefer the breezy rom-com style of A Room With a View, but this is terrific stuff as well.

The Virgin Spring (1960) 9/10
Bergman's take on a medieval Swedish poem (as I found out from the DVD commentary) is a pretty rough experience, but surely about as beautifully filmed and as powerful as any revenge-type story ever has been in the movies. Some occasional weirdness in the story, like when Ingeri encounters a bizarre pagan man in the forest, or when one of the farmhands randomly tells an ominous fable to the young boy, doesn't intrude very much on the main thrust of the narrative. The Criterion disc looks very nice, although the revival print I saw at a Bergman festival two years ago can't be topped; that was one of the best-looking 35mm prints I've ever seen.

A Face in the Crowd (1957) 8/10
Great performances by Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal, some really dynamic direction by Kazan, and a lot of good stuff in the script make this one well worth seeing, although it eventually gets overly preachy. The whole storyline involving Lonesome's far-reaching political goals is a little much. But some of the over-the-top satire is fun, like when Lonesome gets a mountain named after him! And Lee Remick is REALLY hot in this one, maybe hotter than she ever was in anything else, which is saying quite a bit.

The Talk of the Town (1942) 8/10
Kind of a mixed bag, a weird blend of social issue/courtoom drama/slapstick comedy. Jean Arthur, Ronald Colman, and Cary Grant are all great, and a lot of the comedy is pretty inspired, so I enjoyed most of it quite a bit. The script could have used some work, though, and the "which one will she choose" climax seems oddly inconsequential, in that the movie doesn't seem like it would have been very different at all regardless of which choice she made.

Woman of the Year (1942) 8/10
George Stevens' other 1942 film is also lots of fun, and certainly Hepburn and Tracy are great together in their first on-screen pairing. But the story's pretty basic, and the ending seems kind of patronizing toward her character, even given the standards of the day. Lots of good scenes, though; certainly the long silent scene near the end where she's trying to cook for him is a highlight. And being a big sports fan, I really enjoyed all the sports-related humor.

La Bete Humaine (1938) 9/10
Renoir's Zola adaptation doesn't have the most interesting script he ever did, as the forces motivating Gabin's character are barely explained in any way, but the direction is so great (plus some really good performances) that it's completely compelling all the way through. The direct links between sexual desire and violence are terrifically realized, and they make this one an unmistakably proto-noir-type story, as Bogdanovich points out on the Criterion DVD. The train-related scenes are also extremely well done, which makes for an interesting contrast with some great films that were largely set on trains (this one doesn't have quite that much train-related material) but filmed entirely on studio sets, like The Lady Vanishes and The Narrow Margin.

Also re-watched Lubitsch's Design for Living from the Universal Gary Cooper DVD set, which I bumped up to a 9/10 from the 8/10 I gave it last year. The wit and charm are more than enough for me to make up for the occasional silliness in the story, which I didn't even notice all that much of in this viewing.
Reply
post #415 of 2071
2/18/06 at 9:05pm
Thread Starter 
THE VIRGIN SPRING certainly was a powerful film. A lot more powerful than the countless horror rip offs like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, NIGHT TRAIN MURDERS and HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK. Those three used really graphic violence but none of them came close to the power of the Bergman film.

WOMAN OF THE YEAR is one that I actually prefer to ADAM'S RIB. Hopefully Warner will release a Tracy/Hepburn box because what's out now are in pretty rough shape. Plus there are three others that they own that are MIA including the underrated WITHOUT LOVE.

I just bought Columbia's The Cary Grant Collection last weekend but haven't had a chance to go through it. HIS GIRL FRIDAY is the only one I've seen from the set.


02/17/06

Yellow Submarine (1968)

The Beatles must save Pepperland from the Blue Meanies. The animation is very good and the music is great but that’s about it here for me. The story is somewhat charming but it got old rather quickly. Perhaps it would have been more interesting with some LSD (as I’ve heard a few say).

Joe D’Amato: Totally Uncut 2 (1999)

This part of the documentary covers the director’s work in the horror genre including films like Beyond the Darkness, Anthropophaugus and Absurd, among others. Again, it’s nice hearing the late director talk about these films and the stuff with George Eastman talking about the infamous abortion scene is great.

02/18/06

Tremors (1990)

Terrific sci-fi/horror film from Universal that really works like all their classic monsters from the 1950’s. Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward battle huge monsters that attack from under the ground. I remember this was the first film I ever saw at a theater by myself and it’s the film that made me fall in love with movies. I hadn’t seen this in a few years but the thing still holds up incredibly well with great action, wonderful characters and some very funny moments as well. Bacon and Ward work perfectly together and the monsters are some of the best out there. An all around great adventure.

Tremors 2 (1996)

Extremely poor follow up has the creatures attacking people at a Mexican oil rig so two surviving members of the first film (Fred Ward, Michael Gross) go down to clean things up. The film starts off rather lame and just goes downhill from there due to the incredibly poor script that tries to recreate the magic from the first film but fails. The added bonus of the monsters having babies doesn’t work either nor does the lame comedy work. I now know why it took me so long to start on the sequels to one of my favorite films.

Tremors 3 (2001)

A slight upgrade from the previous film but this here still comes nowhere near the original. This time out Michael Gross must battle the big, underground creatures but this time they can also fly and shoot fire out of their ass. The stupid, over the top comedy from the previous film is thankfully cut out of this one but once again the film is pretty lifeless during the middle section but things pick up towards the end. The cast really isn’t all that interesting and the direction is below average. Oh well.

Tremors 4 (2004)

Prequel to the original film has the underground monsters striking a mining town. Michael Gross once again returns, this time playing a relative to the man he played in the first three films. What works really well here is the Western setting, which makes for a fun adventure as the horror and western genres are mixed. Adding a gunslinger to the action was a nice touch and there’s some nice comedic moments but nothing to match the original.
Reply
post #416 of 2071
2/19/06 at 9:41am
Army of Darkness

I didn't realize this was part of a series. I see that I have the first one, the Evil Dead, on my to rent list (via one list or another), but having seen how stupid this film was, I'm wondering whether to leave it on the to rent list or not. If it's got this same dumb character, it's hard to see how it would be much better.
Reply
post #417 of 2071
2/19/06 at 11:01am
2/18: A Shot in the Dark /

I did a blind buy on this one and got burned. It was so bad that I traded it at a used DVD store less than an hour after the credits rolled. Part of my dislike comes from the fact that innocents are dying because of Clouseau's bumbling. The main flaw is that I didn't find it to be very funny. I found the ending of The Pink Panther disappointing, but at least the rest of the movie was entertaining. This sequel, however, only had one standout sequence: from synchronizing the watches to the moment the lights go out.

Edit: grammar
Reply
post #418 of 2071
2/19/06 at 12:11pm
Thread Starter 
Wow George, what made you watch ARMY OF DARKNESS? I actually agree with everything you wrote. For the life of me I'll never understand the huge cult following to the Ash character. He's a character I'd like to kick in the face so I certainly don't fall into his cult following.

Out of the three films ARMY is certainly the worst but that's not me telling you to go rent the first two EVIL DEAD films. Knowing your opinion on gore, I'd say stay far away from the first two even though they are pretty good, well made films. They're also VERY gory so if you aren't a fan of that stuff then I doubt you'll enjoy them.


I bought the Pink Panther Collection as a blind buy when it was released but sold it after viewing the first film, which I thought was quite dull and as you said, not funny at all. I plan on renting the sequels at some point though.....
Reply
post #419 of 2071
2/19/06 at 1:51pm
what made you watch ARMY OF DARKNESS?
Every Saturday morning, I go through my TIVO and set up the recordings for the week (it's long and complicated and I won't bore you with the details). Part of that is checking a couple of High Def channels on DirecTV to see if any movies I want to see are coming up. Sometimes they'll have a film on there that isn't on my to rent list, but i've just heard about enough that I check it out. I saw Army of Darkness on there, and really had no idea what it was, but I'd seen the title talked about a lot around here, so I decided to see what all the fuss was about. This is also how I ended up watching Zardoz, but it's also how I ended up watching Heat, so while it leads to some bad movies, it also leads me to some great ones I haven't seen before.
Reply
post #420 of 2071
2/19/06 at 1:53pm
2/19: From Russia With Love /

This film still stands as one of the greatest Bond flicks. At every moment, FRWL is eminently watchable.

One of the strengths of the movie is the music. The title song and score are wonderful, and Matt Monro is great on the end credits. The action set-pieces are quite memorable, especially the gypsy camp and the Orient Express. As a fan of film explosions, I have a special fondness for the helicopter and boat scenes at the climax.

This has arguably the best full cast of all of the James Bond movies. Even the minor operatives and hotel staff light up the screen. Of course, all of the stars turn in top-notch performances, my favorites being Daniela Bianchi (Tatiana Romanova) and Pedro Armendariz (Kerim Bey).

I love that we meet the villains first, then the Bond girl, and Bond is finally introduced after 20 minutes. I think this is the only Bond film that does not have the real James Bond in the pre-credits sequence.

All of the elements combine to make a fantastic movie experience, and it gets my highest recommendation.
Reply
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)