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 3

post #61 of 2071
1/3/06 at 12:45pm
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
The first movie I saw this year, and it was weird how it happened. My 15-year-old nephew wanted to borrow it, and I gave it to him a couple of weeks ago but he hadn't gotten around to it. We wound up at his house for New Year's Eve, and right after midnight we decided to run the film to kick off '06. He really enjoyed it, and there's not much I can say about it here - Jack Nicholson is still great in his performance, the film is funny, tragic, touching, very emotional. 'Nuff said.
Reply
post #62 of 2071
1/3/06 at 2:00pm
Frank & Ollie

A good example of how my rating system is often misunderstood. This is a great documentary, but like almost all documentaries, once you've seen it, it holds little rewatchability (at least for me). There's no narrative story, it's informative. It's like a well-written textbook compared to a well-written novel. One you learn from, but don't re-read for fun. The other you can read and enjoy many times over. That doesn't make the textbook bad, it's just not something you re-read.

If there were a sideways thumb smiley, I'd use that.
Reply
post #63 of 2071
1/3/06 at 2:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree, cause I can't for the life of me figure out how you can watch some great film for the first time such as Gunga Din, Bambi, The Seventh Seal, Laura and Rashomon and look forward to not having to rewatch those again, so you can better spend that time seeing other films you've never seen before like White Chicks 2, Smallpox Returns, Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tillie Comes Back, Manos the Feet of Fortune, and Queen of Kong Island.


Now now George, don't knock FRANKENSTEIN'S GREAT AUNT TILLIE until you've seen it. I'm not sure if you knew this when making fun of the title but there is a QUEEN KONG that was released during the 70s.

You mentioned a few titles but I did watch a lot of "BOMB" rated films last year and I'm sure I'll see plenty more this year. The horror genre is an exception for me because I've seen the majority of the "A", "B" and "C" titles so now I'm searching for those "X", "Y" and "Z" titles, which will lead to a lot of BOMB ratings. Am I wasting my time watching them? Probably but the "reward" of finding some entertaining trash like BILLY THE KID VS DRACULA is worth it.

What I did last year was cut out a lot of the "watch once a year" titles like ON THE WATERFRONT, COOL HAND LUKE, HUD, ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN and various others. This let me try the new stuff, which I will continue to do this year. I'll rewatch some of these great films but I've seen them enough times where there's no suspense or shock in the story so I might as well find a new film to give me that.

Like you, I'm going to guess I've seen 10,000 films, which leaves us with around 110,000 films we've never seen. We'll never get all of those watched but you've gotta think there are many more hidden gems to be discovered. Many hidden gems that are now forgotten but thanks to TCM we can find them. That's probably why I record 10-15 movies from TCM each week.

I seriously doubt someone's going to come and take my collection away but if they did I'm sure I could find just as many films in those 110,000 that would keep me busy the rest of my life.


Haggai, so far I've got discs sitting here from Lions Gates, EC Entertainment (overseas company) and Rhino. A couple other studios will donate some titles as the year goes by. I'm just going to let the studio pick the "winner" each month and I'll go from there. I'm not going to get involved on who wins so no one can send me the death threats. :b

I'll announce the first month's titles at the end of the week because I'm expecting another package by the weekend. All the titles will be brand new, never viewed but I'm going to guess some screeners will be out of the wrap just like they're sent to reviewers. EC Entertainment has never put wraps on their discs but I assure everyone they will be new discs. Rhino is mixed with how they send but most of the Lions Gate titles are sealed from the studio. I've got four titles here and will announce them as soon as I see what else is delivered this month.
Reply
post #64 of 2071
1/3/06 at 4:07pm
Quote:
The fact that I had to watch tons of crap to get to such great films, stuff like L'Age D'Or, Fashions of 1934, The Sea of Grass, The Snake Pit, The River, The Pride & the Passion, L'Avventura, Shock Corridor, The Masque of Red Death, Au Hasard Balthazar, Arabella, Kill!, The Night Porter, Dawn of the Dead,

George, George, George -- when will you ever learn to stop watching non-mainstream "B" horror films? You just cannot appreciate them!
Reply
post #65 of 2071
1/3/06 at 5:51pm
Michael - you're going to dominate this list just like the Horror Movie Challenge! Man! 12 films already? Congrats!

Haven't seen a flick just yet. About to watch my second episode of Lost for the evening with my wife. That will be episode 5 from season 1. We hadn't been watching the show over the past year and just got the dvds. It's pretty good so far. Intriguing even if the writing is rather poor.

Also, I watched the "I'm King Kong" documentary. Really excellent and inspiring. Reminded me of how much I wanted to be an explorer as a child. Began the second documentary on the disc, but will have to finish it tomorrow.

Cheers,

Jason

P.S. - Finished up the episode of Lost. Just realized watching the "I'm King Kong" documentary probably counts as my first film of the year! So here goes:

Bold for first time viewing.

2006 Movie List
1. I'm King Kong 4.5/5 Jan 3
2. RKO Production 601: The Making of King Kong 4/5 Jan 3,4
3. The Santa Clause 2/5 Jan 4
4. Annie Hall 5/5 Jan 4,5
5. The Nightmare Before Christmas 5/5 Jan 5
6. North By Northwest 5/5 Jan 5
7. Treasure of the Sierra Madre 3.5/5 Jan5,6
8. Chinatown 3.5/5 Jan6
9. Roger Ebert Commentary Track, Citizen Kane 5/5 Jan6
Reply
post #66 of 2071
1/3/06 at 7:11pm
George, George, George -- when will you ever learn to stop watching non-mainstream "B" horror films? You just cannot appreciate them!
As soon as they stop getting recommended by various lists of great films that I use to help me try to decide which of the 110,000 films I haven't seen to watch next.

I seriously doubt someone's going to come and take my collection away but if they did I'm sure I could find just as many films in those 110,000 that would keep me busy the rest of my life.
I could certainly stay busy the rest of my life watching as many of those 110,000 films as possible, but I suspect I could watch for 50 years and only find 1 or 2 that are as good as my current top 100. 10,000 out of 120,000 may only be 8% of all films, but it wasn't a random selection, and if God provided me with a rank-ordered list of all 120,000 according to how I'd like them, I suspect that the vast majority of the top films are in the 10,000 I've already seen. That won't stop me from seeing as many of those unseen 110,000 as possible, but no way would I trade that for the ones I own.
Reply
post #67 of 2071
1/3/06 at 7:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I could certainly stay busy the rest of my life watching as many of those 110,000 films as possible, but I suspect I could watch for 50 years and only find 1 or 2 that are as good as my current top 100.


This is an interesting point because you've been watching movies a bit longer than I have. I'm not sure what your age is but I'm 25 so "new" films are always taking me by shock and making my Top 100. Perhaps after ten more years a viewings I'll find less and less to make my list but within the past few years several films have jumped into my tops including last year's viewing of INTOLERANCE, which might very well end up as my #1 film. Others like SUNRISE, HE WHO GETS SLAPPED, WILD STRAWBERRIES and various others come to mind.

The one viewings I'm deadly lacking in is the foreign genre, which I plan to change this year. As I said in the other thread I watched seven Bergman films this year and gave six of them four stars. This is just one foreign director I've discovered so there's a lot more out there for me to see and a lot of chances that one will end up in my Top 100.


Now, to carry over the CGI stuff from the 2005 thread:


Quote:
Have you seen King Kong Michael?


Yes, all three versions plus countless rips. For my money the 1933 version still has the best effects. The most up to date effects? No but in terms of quailty I'd rank the 1933 tops. In terms of difficulty I'd also put the 1933 version at tops. The guys of today and work on a computer and make effects. It wasn't that easy in the older days when everything had to be built by hand.

I mentioned Jack Pierce in the other thread as well. There have been many recent FRANKENSTEIN films that used CGI for the monster but again, not one of them comes close to the look of Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN and its sequel THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Quote:
Oh get over it already and join the 21st century.


I was on a date the other night bitching because this girl wanted to listen to Master P and I was trying to introduce her to Dylan, Lennon and a Johnny Cash CD I had just picked up. She said the exact same thing!!!

Quote:
Watch any Pixar doc to see some of the mind boggling things they've done to simulate certain specific effects.


Pixar is a different matter just as Disney's animation of the 40's would be different and not right to compare to a live film. Pixar does incredible work but using these same effects for something like KING KONG just doesn't work because it's so obviously fake. It's so obviously fake that it takes me right out of the story and I have a rather hard time building up any suspense. Someone mentioned the dino chase in KK and this is the perfect example for me.

Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and Charles Chaplin risked their lives to bring certain stunts to the screen. These things are done in real time and are 100% real. Keaton broke his back during SHERLOCK JR. and nearly killed himself twice during THE GENERAL. These stunts work a lot better than the CGI stunts of today because one is real while the other is just so obviously fake.

They might make a "big, beautiful NYC" on a computer but I can see the real thing in the 1933 version. A computer might build some epic battle but we can see a real epic battle with real people and real sets in films like INTOLERANCE, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, BEN HUR and countless other films.

Quote:
Now that I agree with. Here's where Pixar excels. Can't comment on King Kong.


Which is why I'd only let Spielberg use CGI. A lot of it was used in MINORITY REPORT and WAR OF THE WORLDS but in both films it looked real because Spielberg uses it as part of the story. It's not just there to look pretty and Spielberg never lets it take over the center story of what's going on. For my money these are the two best examples of great CGI with WAR OF THE WORLDS being 100% better than KK because it looks real. The CGI isn't used in an over the top fashion that makes it seem fake.
Reply
post #68 of 2071
1/3/06 at 7:47pm
First-time viewings will be in bold. Ratings are out of 5 stars.

1/7 Muppet Treasure Island:
1/11 The Great Mouse Detective:
1/12 Titanic:
1/14 Glory Road:
1/30 Dr. No:
2/1 King Kong (1933):
2/7 Dune (1984):
2/18 A Shot in the Dark:
2/19 From Russia With Love:
2/19 The Sound of Music:
3/3 Lady and the Tramp:
3/5 Walk the Line:
3/11 Eight Below: 1/2
3/24 V for Vendetta:
3/26 Chicken Little: 1/2
3/27 Goldfinger: 1/2
4/1 Inside Man: 1/2
4/1 Ice Age: The Meltdown:
4/1 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
4/6 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: (2 times total in 2006)
4/13 Mission: Impossible:
4/18 Mission: Impossible 2:
4/20 The Wild: 1/2
4/26 The Forty-Year-Old Virgin:
4/27 Thunderball:
5/5 Mission: Impossible III: 1/2 (2 times total in 2006)
5/19 You Only Live Twice: 1/2
5/26 X-Men: The Last Stand: (2 times total in 2006)
6/1 King Kong (2005): 1/2
6/2 Robin Hood (1973): 1/2
6/3 On Her Majesty's Secret Service: 1/2
6/3 The Sword in the Stone:
6/4 The Black Cauldron:
6/7 Dumbo:
6/8 Oliver & Company:
6/10 Cars: (2 times total in 2006)
6/12 The Rescuers:
6/12 The Rescuers Down Under:
6/18 The AristoCats:
6/19 Saludos Amigos: 1/2
6/20 The Three Caballeros:
6/21 The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad: 1/2
6/21 Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin: 1/2
6/22 The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh:
6/26 Batman:
6/27 Superman Returns: (2 times total in 2006)
6/29 Batman Returns:
6/30 Batman Forever:
7/2 Batman and Robin: 1/2
7/9 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest:
7/10 Diamond Are Forever: 1/2
8/2 Live and Let Die:
8/3 Treasure Planet: 1/2
8/6 Fantasia:
8/7 Fantasia 2000:
8/13 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl: 1/2
8/18 Snakes on a Plane:
8/20 The Haunted Mansion:
8/21 Mary Poppins:
8/21 The Hunchback of Notre Dame:
8/24 The Usual Suspects:
8/27 Sgt. Bilko:
9/3 The Man with the Golden Gun: 1/2
9/9 Chicago:
10/5 Jet Li's Fearless:
10/12 The Little Mermaid:
10/14 The Fox and the Hound:
10/21 The Incredibles:
10/22 Flicka:
10/28 The Spy Who Loved Me:
11/4 Borat:
11/11 THX-1138: The Director's Edition: not rated
11/12 Babel:
11/16 Moonraker:
11/18 Casino Royale: 1/2
11/18 Happy Feet:
11/26 The Fountain: 1/2
12/3 Singin' in the Rain:
12/3 For Your Eyes Only:
12/6 Seven Samurai: 1/2
12/9 Superman: The Movie (Theatrical Edition):
12/9 Superman II:
12/9 Superman III:
12/9 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: 1/2
12/10 Superman: The Movie (Expanded Edition):
12/10 Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut:
12/27 Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut: 1/2
Reply
post #69 of 2071
1/3/06 at 8:15pm
Thread Starter 
01/01/05

Annie Hall (1978)

I usually watch this 2-4 times a year but since I didn’t watch it any in 2005 I decided to start it off this year. Whenever someone asks my favorite movie ever I always mention this Woody Allen classic about relationships, love and breaking up. The entire film is flawless to me with plenty of great laughs, wonderful jokes and in the end it’s very touching. The opening and closing monologues are wonderful as are the performances by Allen and Diane Keaton.

Blob, The (1958)

Here’s a personal favorite of mine from the 50’s sci-fi movies. Steve McQueen tries to get the adults in town to believe him when he says a slime like creature is trying to take over. The special effects don’t hold up that well but this is still a very fun movie that moves at a nice pace. I always get a kick out of seeing tough guy McQueen playing a prep teenager.

12 Angry Men (1997)

By the numbers remake from director William Friedkin tells the same story as the original film. When I say “by the numbers” I really mean it because for some reason this film uses the same story and dialogue from the first film, which really makes no sense but the film is somewhat entertaining even though we’ve seen it all before. The all-star cast includes Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini and Edward James Olmos. The one interesting change is that four black jurors were added and the way Friedkin uses this is rather interesting in some dialogue about race.

Fatty and Mabel’s Simple Life (1915)

Fatty Arbuckle and Mabel Normand wish to be married but her father promises her to another man so the two must try and find a way to run off. I gave these Fatty shirts a break last year after not really enjoying them and that trend continues this year. I’m not sure what it is but Fatty just isn’t working with me and he’s certainly not making me laugh. The film is just so dry that nothing really works, although there’s a wonderful physical gag at the end.

Fatty’s New Role (1915)

A hobo (Fatty Arbuckle) is kicked out of a bar but the guests there decide to play a joke on the owner by saying the hobo was the notorious bomber who bombs the places he’s thrown out of. This here manages to be quite funny thanks to the performances of the supporting cast who really sell the joke.

Revenge of Doctor X, The (1970)

A doctor from NASA moves to Japan where he tries to mix a Venus Fly Trap with a man, which ends up turning into a monster. This is a rather weird horror film written by the one and only Edward D. Wood, Jr. and it’s probably his best written screenplay but that means we don’t get any of that zany dialogue, which made his films “so bad they’re good”. Overall the film is rather lame with way too much dialogue and not enough action. The look of the monster is pretty good and it’s somewhat nice hearing Wood’s use of dialogue from the early Universal horror films.

Wives Under Suspicion (1938)

A tough as nails D.A. (William Warren) is seeking the death penalty on a man charged with killing his wife after catching her cheating. The D.A. refuses to see any other side of the story under he begins to think his own wife is cheating. This is the first non-horror film from director James Whale that I’ve seen and while it isn’t too bad I’m certainly thankful he stayed in the horror genre. Warren gives a good performance but the story is rather flat and way too overly dramatic to be too interesting. This was a remake of the 1933 film The Kiss Before the Mirror also directed by Whale.

01/02/05

Haunted Spooks (1920)

Harold Lloyd and his new bride move into a new house she’s inherited and soon the ghosts start to show up but are the real? Here’s one of the better shorts I’ve seen from Lloyd since there’s laughs from start to finish. The various failed suicide attempts at the start are very funny but this got me remembering that all of the comedy greats of the silent era got laughs from suicide attempts. When the film moves to the haunted house more laughs follow including some politically incorrect ones.

Hot Water (1924)

Harold Lloyd feature about the married life and those annoying mother in laws. This film is pretty much broken into three segments, all of which are full of nice laughs even though this certainly isn’t a classic. The second segment involving Lloyd taking the family out in his new car gets the most laughs as the family destroys the car within minutes. The final segment has Lloyd thinking he’s killed the mother in law only to have her come back as a ghost.

Never Weaken (1921)

Another good Harold Lloyd short has him trying to injure people so that his girlfriend, who works in a hospital, won’t lose her job due to lack of patients. There aren’t too many laughs here but the thing remains entertaining throughout. The joke with the soapy street is clearly the highlight and the ending has Lloyd fumbling around on another skyscraper.

Buried Loot (1935)

An embezzler steals $200,000 and says he gambled it away. This isn’t exactly true because he’s buried the money and plans to get it when he’s released from prison in five years but a few twists changes things. Here’s a terrific MGM short from their “Crime Does Not Pay” film line, which back then was what the TV show Cops is today. Cops would tell true life crimes and then re-enact them. This story is full of wonderful twists and turns and the ending is downright jaw dropping. One of the best of its kind.

Important News (1936)

MGM moral short has a news editor torn about which story to run on the front page. The story of a big time gangster being killed or a story warning farmers that a frost is coming in. There’s really not anything too special here other than an early, supporting performance by James Stewart.

01/03/05

Night Monster (1942)

Decent Universal horror/thriller has a group of doctors going to a country estate to look at a paralyzed man only they soon start getting killed one by one. There’s some good stuff to this film but overall it really doesn’t work due in large part to the rather bland direction and the fact that the 73-minute running time feels way too long. The mystery of the killer is pretty good and Bela Lugosi has a nice, plump role, which is good for a change. There’s some nice atmosphere scattered around but overall this is still rather dull. Lionel Atwill is wasted in a thankless role.

Murders in the Zoo (1933)

Lionel Atwill plays a game hunter/zookeeper who uses his animals to seek vengeance on the men who dare flirt with his beautiful wife. This early horror film from Paramount still packs a nice punch even today thanks to some pretty graphic violence, which is still shocking today so there’s no telling what people thought back in 1933. The film starts off with Atwill sewing a man’s mouth shut and things just get more graphic from there. The performance from Atwill is wonderful and Randolph Scott is also very good in his role.

Billy Blazes, Esq. (1919)

Billy Blazes (Harold Lloyd) rides into a rough Western town to take out the bad guys and escape with the girl. This 13-minute short remains interesting throughout but the strange thing is that it appears the director forgot to go for any laughs. It’s not like there are gags on screen that don’t work but instead there aren’t any gags for some reason.
Reply
post #70 of 2071
1/3/06 at 9:15pm
Pixar is a different matter just as Disney's animation of the 40's would be different and not right to compare to a live film. Pixar does incredible work but using these same effects for something like KING KONG just doesn't work because it's so obviously fake. It's so obviously fake that it takes me right out of the story and I have a rather hard time building up any suspense.

Well, that's fine if it didn't work for you Michael. As I mentioned, I haven't seen King Kong. The point was that CGI, like any other tool available to the film making artist, is a creative choice. It can be used shoddily or beautifully (just like some of the old style special effects). Pixar was just one example of top notch CGI (where story still really comes first). Another interesting example would be its use in Robert Zemeckis' Contact. During one of the commentary tracks you hear how much of it was used to fill in or change some of the scenes in the movie and it really wasn't noticeable.

I'm not making a case for CGI over other means. Buster Keaton is one of my all time favourite artists in ANY medium. What he did was incredible. I much prefer stunts like his or even Jackie Chan's to a great deal of what we see today in "typical" action films. I just don't believe you can wave your hand at CGI and dismiss it. It's so much more than "pushing buttons" - both in difficulty and creativity.

Which is why I'd only let Spielberg use CGI.

And that would've meant that Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wouldn't have been made. That would be just plain wrong. No way you ever get my vote for Supreme World Commander For Life...:p)
Reply
post #71 of 2071
1/3/06 at 9:22pm
This is an interesting point because you've been watching movies a bit longer than I have. I'm not sure what your age is but I'm 25 so "new" films are always taking me by shock and making my Top 100. Perhaps after ten more years a viewings I'll find less and less to make my list
That's a very good point. It's not all about age, cause certainly you've already seen more (and a much wider variety of) films than most people twice your age. But at 43, I may have seen a lot more films than you. When I was 25 I had probably seen a lot less than you have, and back then, it would have been dumb to just watch only films I'd seen. But I do feel that I have reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of the percentage of new films that yield gold. I remember a time when I'd only seen 1 or 2 Hitchcocks, and I went on a video store Hitchcock spree, renting one after another. While I didn't love every film he made, that was certainly a time when new films were yielding great payoffs.

Certainly there are films out there I'm going to love, but as much as there are problems with the so-called canon, those films are there for a reason, and when you've seen most of that canon, you've probably seen the films that have the highest chance of making a significant impact on you (e.g., breaking into your top 100). For example, I love the Most Dangerous Game (I think it's better than King Kong), but it entered my list at #344, and is nowhere near knocking out my current #100 Out of the Past. The most recent film I saw that did break into my top 100 was The Incredibles, and that only made it to #96.

Believe me, I'd love to see a first time film that made my top 10. It would be amazing to be able to once again discover a film for the first time as good as Rear Window, Citizen Kane, Dr. Strangelove or The Apartment. But I have to ask myself, what are the odds that said film is not on any of the AFI lists, or S&S lists, or Ebert's Great Movies, or any of the other lists I use to help guide my viewing? Is there really an obscure film that isn't on some top 100 or top 1000 list that is as good as Casablanca or Citizen Kane? Color me skeptical, though hopeful that I'll some day come across such a film. Frankly, I think it much more likely that it'll be some new film not yet made, rather than some existing 1930's Peruvian film that I just haven't stumbled upon yet.
Reply
post #72 of 2071
1/3/06 at 9:36pm
Kingdom of Heaven

This turned out to be just about what I expected, and I came away from this viewing a bit disappointed. I found it very difficult to become engaged in the story or characters, most likely due to the fact I know little about this historical period. Although the film was well crafted technically, I expected just a bit more from Ridley Scott.
Reply
post #73 of 2071
1/4/06 at 3:39am
Quote:
I mentioned Jack Pierce in the other thread as well. There have been many recent FRANKENSTEIN films that used CGI for the monster but again, not one of them comes close to the look of Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN and its sequel THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

A-M-E-N


Quote:
Oh get over it already and join the 21st century.

I'd rather have needles in my eyes.
Reply
post #74 of 2071
1/4/06 at 5:03am

I was on a date the other night bitching because this girl wanted to listen to Master P and I was trying to introduce her to Dylan, Lennon and a Johnny Cash CD I had just picked up. She said the exact same thing!!!


That's an interesting story. I have an alternate one. I met someone a couple of years ago at a party. The guy was a writer (afraid not a very good one either) & was terrified of change , be it music, movies, fashion but especially changes in technology, the guy refused to own a cell phone, still listened to music on his old phonograph, reluctantly watched movies on his VCR (pre early 1980's movies and P&S only - refused to get used to those black bars I'm afraid), had a word processor instead of a computer. The internet? - forget it. He even dressed like it was circa 1979.

The guy just couldn't adapt and lived perpetually in the past - I felt sorry for him. I think he ended up being institutionalized.
Reply
post #75 of 2071
1/4/06 at 8:09am
I finally have a decent sound system in my home, so I thought I would be drawn to watching some big budget action spectactles this week. Instead, I've been gravitating to the old classic horror movies that made me a movie nut in the first place. Last night I viewed THE GHOST SHIP and THE SEVENTH VICTIM. I had seen SHIP once before, but it's been awhile, so I found it genuinely gripping and suspenseful. VICTIM is one of my favorite of the Lewton films, but it is very odd and slow. The film ends strongly(and very disturbingly), and that's what I always remember when I think about it.
I think I'll watch THE OLD DARK HOUSE today. And perhaps a loud spectacle after that.
Reply
post #76 of 2071
1/4/06 at 1:43pm
Nobody Knows - A great start to the year. What a wonderful engaging movie this is. The story of 4 children abandoned by their mother is equal parts depressing and hopeful. It's very episodic in nature and contains some beautiful performances by the young actors (as many have mentioned, it almost feels like a documentary sometimes).

Bad Timing - I sometimes think that the word "elliptical" was invented for Nicolas Roeg's films. The plot of this film is really a simple "what really happened?" story of a woman who is brought into an emergency ward because of an overdose. Through flashbacks, we not only see the events leading up to the overdose, but the ebb and flow of the central relationship of the film. It's really a look at the issues we have with letting others be themselves and accepting each other for what they are. An early scene shows the Teresa Russell character doing a colour test to show which colours she is most sympathetic to. Throughout the film you always see her in various brightly coloured outfits while her boyfriend Art Garfunkel is always in drab greys and browns (which she ranked as the ones to which she would be least sympathetic). Further study of the film I'm sure would bring even more meaning for each individual scene. Though there were moments halfway through that I doubted I would give this a thumbs up (I did), it eventually gained enough interest via the plot, its deeper ideas and the techniques being used. The best thing to say about it is that I'm still thinking about it.

Murders In The Rue Morgue - Far better than the first Lugosi flick I saw at the tail end of last year - The Black Cat. While the latter fit all my expectations of a cheapo early period "horror" film (as well as containing 2 characters that reminded me of Brad and Janet from Rocky Horror), Murders evoked a much more spooky atmosphere through its lighting and story elements.

Grizzly Man - Like the 2 previous Herzog docs I viewed late last year (The White Diamond and Wheel Of Time) there are some staggering images presented here. Most of them in the film shot by the title character Timothy Treadwell (the lovely footage of the foxes and the bear fight for 2 examples). Treadwell's story is also fascinating as we see him act for the camera, rail on about how the world is trying to kill his animals and make puffed up pronouncements about how he is their sole protector. Mix this with Herzog's own narration and likely scripted "involvement" in the film and you have a really interesting film on many different levels.

Real Women Have Curves - In many ways this is a pretty standard fare family story of a teenager growing into adulthood conflicting with their "old ways" parents about their future. It has many charms to it though and doesn't actually follow the standard pattern in several ways. For example, the mother character here actually remains steadfast in her opposition to the central character going off to university all the way through to the end - there's no late turnaround and touching hug at the airport. I appreciated that...Having said that, the mother character is one-dimensional and wholly unlikeable throughout the film.
Reply
post #77 of 2071
1/4/06 at 1:43pm
Quote:
The guy was terrified of change , be it music, movies, changes in technology, the guy refused to own a cell phone, still listened to music on his old phonograph, reluctantly watched movies on his VCR (pre early 1980's movies and P&S only - refused to get used to those black bars I'm afraid), had a word processor instead of a computer. The internet? - forget it. He even dressed like it was circa 1979.

Wow, that truly IS horrific, Jim... I think this fella should have been institutionalized. I mean, imagine preferring pan and scam!!!!


Quote:
I was on a date the other night bitching because this girl wanted to listen to Master P and I was trying to introduce her to Dylan, Lennon and a Johnny Cash CD I had just picked up.

I guess we'll just have to wait to see if people still will know Master P in 40 years. Or 40 minutes.
Reply
post #78 of 2071
1/4/06 at 2:03pm
The Penalty (1920)
First starring role for Lon Chaney, and he's terrific playing an amputee whose legs were both needlessly cut off as a boy by a young doctor in a wrongheaded effort to save the child after an accident. He grows up as a bitter underworld leader, looking to settle the score. Chaney gives a great performance and he is still amazing to watch today, even 86 years later, while painfully contorting his body to produce the effect, utilizing only his talent and ingenuity in place of today's CGI effects. Sure, Hollywood would have used CG back then if they could have, but I still find it more mesmerizing this way. The direction is solid and the story is consistently interesting and multi-layered. It's very easy to sympathize with Chaney's character through his strong performance, but I felt that the way his criminal behavior was explained at the end was a tad of a letdown. Still, quite a worthwhile film.
Reply
post #79 of 2071
1/4/06 at 2:23pm
Quote:
most likely due to the fact I know little about this historical period.


Don't worry Joe, neither did Ridley Scott.
Reply
post #80 of 2071
1/4/06 at 3:55pm
Today I watched Wedding Crashers for the first time. I read a couple of reviews beforehand so I think that's why I liked the movie so much. If I would have gone in only seeing the trailers for this one, I would have been disappointed. It wasn't the laugh-a-minute comedy advertised.

I usually don't find Vince Vaughn to be funny, but he was pretty good in this. And Will Farrell's cameo was good too. I also thought that Vince and Owen had good chemistry together. Overall, I laughed quite a bit and enjoyed the story, even though it isn't going to win any Shakespeare awards. And the gratuitous nudity wasn't bad either.
Reply
post #81 of 2071
1/4/06 at 9:25pm
Walk, Don't Run

Cary Grant's last film. This little romantic comedy from 1966 has always been a favorite of mine. I must have gone to see this film at least 20 times during it's theatrical release at the old Roosevelt Theater in downtown Chicago. I was going to college at the time and had a couple of hours to kill every afternoon between classes, so I wound up going to see this movie day after day after day. I can still remember the funny look I'd get from the ticket taker as I entered the theater. I've always thought this was a charming little film. Yes, some of the jokes were kind of lame but I still laugh at some of the gags. But, truth be told, the real reason I saw this film as many times as I did was due to the fact I had a big time crush on Samantha Eggar.



Dr. No

Off and running on the Bond-a-Month Challenge. This film still holds up pretty well, although I've always thought the climax in the reactor room was kind of cheesy. Bond really had a hard edge in those early films.
Reply
post #82 of 2071
1/4/06 at 9:30pm
Joe,

If you haven't already seen it, you should really check out The More the Merrier, a great film, of which Walk, Don't Run is a remake.
Reply
post #83 of 2071
1/4/06 at 10:33pm
added to master post:

title: the sea inside
rating: b-
comments: originally rated a c+, but i decided it was better then that. interesting right-to-die storyline, decent acting, didn't fully identify w/characters though.
Reply
post #84 of 2071
1/5/06 at 7:43am
Quote:
This film still holds up pretty well, although I've always thought the climax in the reactor room was kind of cheesy.


Yeah, the ending of DR. NO reminds me of any number of science fiction flicks from the same era(not that there's anything wrong with that!). The series definitely found a more unique footing with it's next picture, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

For a loud spectacle, I chose to watch THE PHANTOM(1996) yesterday. I remember seeing this on opening nignt in a nearly empty auditorium. I've always felt it was a good, old fashioned nod to the serials, with lots of charm. The DVD needs to be remastered, though. Edge Enhancement all over the place.
Reply
post #85 of 2071
1/5/06 at 4:04pm
Pather Panchali

So-so drama about the early life of Apu. Well-made and well-acted, with excellent music by pre-famous Ravi Shankar, but not very interesting or much different than tons of other such dramas.

I find Apu's later life, when he opens a Quikimart, to be far more entertaining.
Reply
post #86 of 2071
1/5/06 at 8:43pm
Thread Starter 
01/04/05

Zombies of Mora Tau (1957)

Silly horror film from Columbia about zombies guarding some diamonds on the bottom of the sea. This little set up should have made for an interesting film but the poor direction makes this film quite hard to get through. Even at 70-minutes the film moves way too slowly without too much life anywhere to be found. The only good features are a few items, which seem to have influenced Romero. Allison Hayes co-stars.

Catman of Paris, The (1947)

Cat piss poor Republic horror film about a werewolf like creature stalking the streets of Paris. This is a pretty poor, extremely lame and overly talky horror film that goes no where in its short 65-minute runtime. Not for a single second does the film quite talking, which grows quite tiresome after the first five minutes. The “creature” is only on screen for three scene and probably a total of thirty seconds. Carl Esmond stars with Lenore Aubert of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein fame.

Gift of Gab (1934)

A fast talking con man (Edmund Lowe) becomes a huge radio star and soon it all goes to his head. It appears Universal Studios threw everything but the kitchen sink into this film but it easy to see why the studio has never issued this on home video. Legendary cinematographer Karl Freund directed this film, which co-stars Gloria Stuart with guest performances by Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Victor Moore, Hugh O’Connell, Gene Austin, Ruth Etting, Ethel Waters, Paul Lukas and various others. The film is very fast moving but also quite annoying as is the over the top performance by Lowe who we tire of within the opening minutes. The only reason to watch this turkey is due to all the guest appearances but be warned that the stars are only on screen for a few seconds up to a minute. Karloff and Lugosi appear in the same mystery skit but sadly (and dumbly) they don’t share any time together.

Alice’s Mysterious Mystery (1926)

Another entry in Disney’s “Alice” series has the young girl and her pet cat trying to figure out why all the dogs in town are missing. This isn’t really good in the true sense but it’s rather interesting seeing such an adult cartoon with some pretty dark themes.

Alice The Whaler (1927)

Another in the Alice series, although she’s basically reduced to a cameo here. Animals aboard a boat sing, cook and eventually try and catch a whale. The story really isn’t anything too good but the lively animation makes this worth viewing at least once.

01/05/06

Thieving Hand, The (1908)

Very interesting, if not totally successful comedy about a one-armed man who buys a fake arm, which turns out to have a life of its own. The special effects and set design are terrific in this short and pretty much ahead of their time but the “laughs” just never come due to some timid direction.

Impossible Convicts (1905)

Interesting short about four convicts who try to escape from jail. The technique used here is that the film was shot in a few takes with the action-taking place backwards. This makes for some nice scenes as well as a unique feel.

Fall of the House of Usher, The (1926)

While this thing is missing the wonderful Vincent Price performance it does manage to outshine the Corman film with its use of brilliant visual effects, which are quite remarkable considering when this was made. The infamous Poe tale is retold in this short, which uses various visual effects to get the horror across. Those into weird cinema will certainly want to check this film out, which manages to have a couple creepy spots.

Life and Death of 9413, A Hollywood Extra (1927)

A huge technical achievement from director Robert Florey who’s best remembered today for his Bela Lugosi chiller Murders in the Rue Morgue. This short tells the story of an actor, number 9413, moving to Hollywood to become a star but hitting dirt instead. The “story” really isn’t anything at all but the visuals, done through miniatures and mirrors, is quite nice to look at and pack a nice little punch.

Love of Zero, The (1928)

Robert Florey directed film tries to recapture the mood and feel of early German horror films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The film is about a man who wins something only to lose it soon afterwards. Once again this film offers terrific visual effects, which keeps the viewer entertained.

Tell Tale Heart, The (1928)

Wonderful adaptation of the Poe classic about a murderer who starts to breakdown when he begins to hear the heart of his victim. This is one of the better Poe adaptations that I’ve seen due in large part to the surreal direction, which makes for some interesting camera angles as well as a strong performance from the lead actor.

Violence in a Women’s Prison (1982)

Infamous Italian director Bruno Matti takes a stab at the WIP (Women in Prison) genre as well as makes another entry in the famous Black Emmanuelle series. Emanuelle (Laura Gemser) goes undercover in a prison to see if it’s true about the sadistic warden who likes to beat, torture and rape the women prisoners. If you’ve seen one WIP film then you’ve pretty much seen this one since the director doesn’t try to do anything new or original here. You’ve got the countless lesbian scenes and constant nudity but this here grows old after a while. There’s really not any shock value and the violence is rather low and contained to one scene where rats attack Gemser. Okay film but there are better WIP movies out there.

Tomato Is Another Day (1930)

Incredibly unique, original and downright smart sound film that makes various punches at sound films taking over silents. In the film we have a love triangle being played out but the director and the screenplay make such smart touches to show why films didn’t need sound and how sound would make viewers dumb. No matter what you think of this film you’ll never think of sound films the same way again. A wonderfully smart little gem that all film buffs should see.

Hearts of Age, The (1936)

Orson Welles acts and co-directs this, his first film, which is a take off on surrealist filmmaker Luis Bunuel. It’s interesting watching this film knowing what Welles would go onto do but overall this isn’t overly good. The visual technique is nice as is Welles plus we get to see him act with his first wife Virginia Nicholson.

Children’s Jury, The (1938)

A film about absolutely nothing except showing various strange images ranges from clowns getting ready to elephants rampaging. Interesting images and a strange music score is about it.

Carousel Animal Opera (193x)

Again, no story but just clips of various animals in a zoo. The editing really sets this apart and makes the film flow pretty well and keeps it interesting.

Jack’s Dream (193x)

Another interesting animated short about a guy daydreaming various stories including Little Red Riding Hood. Nice animation makes this worth at least one viewing.
Reply
post #87 of 2071
1/6/06 at 6:51am
The Sound of Music (1965) 9/10
One of those smash hits that I'd somehow never seen before, so it was nice to get a first viewing in a theater with a big screen. Sugary and sentimental, to be sure, but Julie Andrews is compelling and convincing the whole way through, and Robert Wise's smooth direction elevates the big musical numbers as well.

The Producers (2005) 8/10
Reviewed here in the movie's own thread.

Under Capricorn (1949) 6/10
Hitchcock's Technicolor period piece has some involving drama near the end, plus some nice scenes for Ingrid Bergman, but not much else to recommend it. A decent movie might have been hiding in there somewhere, but way too much of it consists of very un-Hitch-like scenes of people standing around and talking to each other within one camera angle.
Reply
post #88 of 2071
1/6/06 at 6:53am
Well Haggai, you liked Under Capricorn more than I did. I consider it Hitchcock's worst film.
Reply
post #89 of 2071
1/6/06 at 6:58am
It's probably the least interesting of his movies that I've seen, although Topaz isn't too hot either. I didn't quite think it was a genuinely bad movie, but it isn't good. By Hitch standards, it is pretty crappy, because it isn't just the script not working (i.e. Topaz), it's the long dull conversations with nothing happening visually.
Reply
post #90 of 2071
1/6/06 at 12:40pm
I figure I'll chime in when the spirit moves me.

The other night I watched Howard Hughes' at turns maligned and revered WWI film Hell's Angels ( 1/2). I was impressed by the brinkmanship and bravado of the aerial scenes, but found the story dull and predictable. The filmmakers used both tinting and two-strip Technicolor (?) to convey emotion, but the acting (including that of a callow Jean Harlow) was uninspired.

My rating may be a bit stingy, because I'd rate the action sequences a full , but I struggled to stay awake through the uninteresting exposition.


As for Hitch's Under Capricorn, I think Haggai's got it right. There are some decent moments in the film, but with the master directing Bergman and Cotten, I expected much more. This is more of a period melodrama, with some suspense elements than a suspense film. As George has said elsewhere this is not Hitchcock's forte. I don't think it's his worst though.
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)