Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2008)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 59

post #1741 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Michael,

Well, I can only speak for myself, but at least half of what I watch is reviewings of dvds I own. You make some good points, and one thing I never do is blind-buy. I only buy a dvd of a film that I've seen before, and that I know I will want to rewatch. And that's why to a large degree my 'reviews' or evaluation of films are so based on whether or not it has rewatchability. Cause that's the most important thing for me, as I'm trying to decide whether to buy or not. There are certainly a number of aesthetic aspects to many films that I could get into, but if the film itself isn't something I'd ever rewatch, a lot of focus on the "somewhat interesting cinematography that occurred during one scene" or the "unusual story twist that happens at one point" or the "symbolism that is more interesting as a unique use of symbolism than the underlying film itself" are of transitory interest to me, cause overall the film didn't succeed as a holistic experience that I want to revisit. The main reason I seek out new films isn't to enjoy the new film experience itself (good, bad or ugly), but to find the rare gem of a film that I want to see again. Which is why, for me anyway, buying thousands of dvds makes sense, and why rewatching is the primary raison d'etre of my home theater.
post #1742 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Nor the overrated 1978 DAWN OF THE DEAD ... in fact, the reviews say that the DAWN Blu-ray is even less stellar-looking than the DAY OF THE DEAD Blu!

I can personally tell you to stay away from the Blu of DAWN. You could rent it from Netflix and compare it to the Ultimate Edition but the color is way off. The same is true with HALLOWEEN, which I've seen with my own eyes. I'm not sure about DAY but as you said the reviews were poor. This is really no shock because Anchor Bay was horrible when they first hit SD because they rushed everything. Oh yeah, their EVIL DEAD 2 is messed up as well.


George, I hear what you're saying. My girlfriend asked me what I wanted for Christmas and I thought about asking for MGM's Hitchcock set, the new Abbott and Costello set or perhaps Gangsters Vol. 4. It then hit me that I own all of these titles yet never watch them so it would be silly to rebuy them at this point.

I just settled on AC/DC tickets.
post #1743 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Police Academy 2 (1985) Jerry Paris

The first sequel to 1984's blockbuster has Steven Guttenberg, Bubba Smith, David Graf and Michael Winslow returning and this time having to do battle with a punk gang being led by Bobcat Goldthwait. If you enjoyed the original then you might enjoy this one but if you hated the original then I'm sure this one would make you want to pick up a gun and end it all. This sequel is a lot dumber than the original (yes it's possible) and a lot poorer on a technical level but as a fan of the series this one here makes me laugh. The scene where Mahoney goes to meet his new partner, a major slob, and the man notices his cat pooped in his bowl of cereal yet he eats it anyways has always struck me as downright hilarious and I'm not sure why but I do have tears flowing from my eyes with laughter each time I see it. The group from the first film all do a nice job here and the added characters of Mauser and Proctor also add some nice laughs. One thing I've never understood is why the producer's decided to turn this into a PG-13 comedy instead of the R like the original movie. The original movie made money with its R-rating so I'm not sure what the point was of turning some of the language and politically incorrect humor down. Either way, as a fan I still enjoy this movie. Sure, it's no masterpiece but it does make me laugh, which was the film's goal.

Bubbles (1930) Roy Mack

Judy Garland makes her film debut in this short working under the title of the Gumm Sisters. This early short runs under ten minutes but that's still too long as most of the song and dance numbers are pretty bland and easily forgettable. Watching this short today is also rather disturbing considering some of the short clothing they've got these kids dressed in. I think most people will be drawn to this short because of the young appearance of Garland who is still working with her two sisters. I believe this is the third short I've seen of the group and it's clear Judy was the main talent out of the group. Also worth noting is that Mae Questel has a small part here and she's go on to do the voices of Betty Boop and Olive Oyl. Not to mention she'd later appear in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

If I Forget You (1940) No Director Credited

Three-minute tribute to Will Rogers has Judy Garland singing the title song. I'm not sure why this short was limited to just the song, running three minutes, because most of these tributes has the star asking the audience to tribute money to his foundation. That doesn't happen here so you have to wonder why the short was so, well...short. The song is a pretty good one but I'd also question why the movie was so downbeat with Garland all puffy faced and looking like she's on the verge of breaking down. I'm not saying the short should have been a party but why not a more upbeat look at Rogers' life.

Eagle and the Hawk, The (1933) Stuart Walker

Extremely hard-hitting and emotional anti-war film from Paramount features Fredric March, Cary Grant and Carole Lombard but for some reason it seems that history has forgotten this movie. March and Jack Oakie play pilots who are sent to France to lead up a group who, with gunners as protection, fly over hot zones to take pictures of the enemy. March quickly becomes a hero but his soul begins to hurt as he feels responsible for the gunners who are being killed on his mission. Soon the third pilot of the group (Grant) shows up to be a gunner for March but by this time the veteran pilot finds himself questioning the war and his missions. I had never heard of this film or even heard a mention of it when early war films were discussed and that's a real shame because this film deserves to be known by more people. I was really shocked at how brutally honest and at times heart breaking this film was and it's wasn't afraid to show it's feelings towards war. Most war films from this era always ended with a strong victory but this one here isn't about the victories but instead the deaths that it takes to get a win in battle. The film is also rather graphic in some of the death scenes with one of the biggest scenes coming when March must wipe blood off his hands. I've always called March one of the greatest actors in the history of film but this might very well be the best I've seen him. There are two sequences in the film, which the actor just really amazed me and surpassed the greatness he delivered to countless other films. One sequence is where he's having a nightmare about seeing pilots on fire and falling through the air. The second comes when he is being toasted for killing an ace pilot and March finally lets his feelings known. Grant is pretty good in his role as is Oakie. Carole Lombard has a brief, two scene role as a woman who helps March. As with many war films from this era, the aerial scenery is quite breathtaking with some beautiful stunts. These stunts are very good but they never take away from the main goal of the film, which is to show what costs there are to victories. I had never heard of this film but I'm so glad I watched it because it's certainly one of the best of the decade.

Night of the Groping Dead (2008) Rich Hillen

Ultra low-budget take off on various zombie films from Seduction Cinema. Even though this sucker has a 2008 release date it was clearly shot in the early part of the decade on a cheap hand held camera. A woman (LaRocca) goes into the laundry mat to do some clothes as well as herself and afterwards falls asleep. She eventually wakes up to a zombie molesting her and later she's turned into the zombie queen. She then sets her eyes on a young woman (Misty Mundae) who is good enough to eat but not in your typical zombie fashion. I must admit that this is a horrid movie that should be down there with countless student films but at the same time the movie is smart enough to make it work. There are countless nods to earlier zombie films including one scene where LaRocca wears a Dawn of the Dead t-shirt. Heck, the dialogue even lifts the "one of us" line from Tod Browning's Freaks. As far as the softcore sex scenes goes, they are all pretty unerotic but what do you expect when zombies are molesting women?

AC/DC: Live at Donington (1992) David Mallet

Hard rocking concert from AC/DC features all their hits as twenty-six cameras pick up all the action in 35mm. This group has released countless concerts over the years and even the bootleg market has quite a bit of footage out there but I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a better show than this. The original release and current DVD/CD contain a great mix and some wonderful visuals that put the viewer right in the center of the concert. Angus Young steals the show with his frantic guitar playing proving that he's one of the most underrated out there. Brian Johnson's lead vocals are incredibly strong and among the best work in his career. The highlights for me are the underrated "Money Talks" and a really hard hitting "You Shook Me All Night Long". The standard classics like "Back in Black", "Highway to Hell" and "For Those About to Rock" also sound terrific. AC/DC fans are certainly going to eat this up but even non-fans will probably enjoy it as long as they're into classic rock.

Decalogue: Four, The (1989) Krzysztof Kieslowski

Michal (Janusz Gajos) and his daughter Anka (Adrianna Biedrzynska) have lived together ever since her mother died but when her father goes away on a trip Anka opens a letter that her mother wrote her before her death. Inside this letter could contain a secret about Michal that might ruin their relationship. The "Honor thy father and mother" is the theme here and once again Kieslowski does a brilliant job at asking some tough questions and making for one incredible drama. I didn't think the previous two films in the series were as strong as the first one but this fourth chapter really hits a grand slam and makes for some highly dramatic scenes. Once again it seems people could view this film in terms of the commandment that's its influenced by or they could just see it as any type of drama. I think this series really depends on how you react to the story and this one here is just downright memorable and at times disturbing. The drama in this film is so incredibly strong that I found myself getting more and more depressed as the movie went along. This in large part is do the the incredible performances by the two leads, which is the one common ground of these first four films. Biedrzynska really comes across with a certain naive nature that is really understandable considering where her character is coming from. I thought Gajos was downright brilliant and unforgettable in the role of the father who gets asked some very tough questions about sexuality and lying. Once again, if you decide to look at this as a religious film, it asks some very tough questions and these questions handle the subject unlike any other film that I've seen. I'm sure a lot of people will be turned off by this film but it's drama at its best.

Clerks (1994) Kevin Smith

Kevin Smith's cult classic about a two store clerks (Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson) who have nothing to do except be bored and deal the cards life gives them. It's hard to believe this film is now fourteen-years-old as it seems just like yesterday when it made a splash on the indie circuit. This was my first time watching this in at least six or seven years and it hasn't lost any of its magic. I still think Smith hit on something truly great in the fact that he manages to take this type of job and show all the hassles and frustration that comes with it. I believe it was Roger Ebert's review that mentioned movies never deal with jobs unless the job is that of a cop, robber or something like that yet here we get to see the life of a clerk who is stuck at a job he hates and surrounded by people that can't really add too much to his life. The real key here of course is Smith's screenplay, which I'd call downright brilliant. To have 90-minutes of nothing but dialogue speaks a lot for his screenplay as it remains so constantly entertaining with the majority of the jokes working. The politically incorrect nature of the humor from the "37" to various other sexual things is downright hilarious and that includes the surprise in the bathroom. The performances in the film have taken a lot of unfair heat in my opinion because while they aren't perfect I do think they fit the roles just fine and mixed with the B&W it makes the film seem all the more like a documentary.

Police Academy 3 (1986) Jerry Paris

The gang is back and this time they must train some new recruits and if they fail the academy might be shut down for good. Once again, for a fan I think this film still has enough laughs be be mildly entertaining but there's no doubt this is where the series started to slip away. While there aren't as many laughs here as the previous two films the thing manages to stay alive due to the nice characters created by the cast. Guttenberg, Smith, Graf, Winslow and Leslie Easterbrook are back with Bob Goldthwait and Tim Kazurinsky returning from the second film. The movie tries to have a plot with the academy threatened to be shut down but of course this just sets up all the attempted laughs. The best moments of the movie happen as we get a semi-remake of the original film as we see the new recruits going through their training. This film only runs 83-minutes, which certainly wasn't the normal thing in 1986 so that should tell you that the screenplay doesn't go for too much.
post #1744 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I am very fussy about my DVD collection, and make every effort to keep it limited to things I KNOW I'm going to rewatch. If I MIGHT rewatch it, then I can get it from Netflix or something. Right now I'm going through the Monty Python megabox one last time with the intention of eBaying it as soon as I'm done. Do I like this show? Sure... but honestly, when am I ever going to want to pop it in the player and watch an episode? I just can't picture that happening.

Likewise, I just decided to get rid of Written on the Wind. I like the movie well enough to give it an 8, but if I'm in the mood for Sirk, I'm far more likely to turn to Imitation of Life or All That Heaven Allows.

Even Greenaway's The Falls, a movie that I gave a 10, is now on the auction block. It's a fascinating, extremely clever bit of avant-garde filmmaking. But it's also kind of a chore to get through, and I think the experience of seeing it once is enough to satisfy me.

Pruning a disc from my collection is almost as satisfying as adding one of my favorites. I really enjoy the conciseness of my library, to me it's all wheat and no chaff (except for the last few Kurosawa movies, which I only hold on to for completism's sake).
post #1745 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mike,


Re: THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK (1933)

It seems that this film is so obscure that nobody has even corrected your typo of naming Gary Cooper as its second lead, when it’s really Cary Grant!!

Seriously though: I have watched this film one afternoon on Italian TV many years ago and I agree that it’s a very good and underrated one (which is strange given its star trio) – even among WWI pics made contemporaneously like WINGS (1927), ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930), THE DAWN PATROL (1930; which I have a copy of but have yet to watch), HELL’S ANGELS (1930), JOURNEY’S END (1930; James Whale’s official debut film is so rare that I’ve actually bought a copy of R. C. Sherriff’s original play just because I fear I might never get a chance to see it!), WESTFRONT 1918 (1930), THE LAST FLIGHT (1931; I’d also love to watch William Dieterle’s acclaimed first Hollywood film someday), etc.


Re: The POLICE ACADEMY Series

The original film was one of the first VHS we ever rented and it went over big in our house when we invited the whole family to watch it (since we were the first ones to own a VCR). It was certainly laugh-out loud funny at the time and we did get to see the rest of the series eventually – albeit with the expected diminishing results.

Incidentally, around Christmas-time I seem to get bitten by the nostalgia bug every year where I find myself hankering for the films I caught (or missed out on) during my childhood which, naturally, was the 1980s. Therefore, anybody from Chevy Chase (FLETCH, THREE AMIGOS!) to Michael J. Fox (the BACK TO THE FUTURE series), from Tom Hanks (THE MAN WITH ONE RED SHOE, THE MONEY PIT) to Eddie Murphy (THE GOLDEN CHILD) and Richard Pryor (BREWSTER’S MILLIONS) and Gene Wilder (STIR CRAZY, THE WOMAN IN RED) might be on the menu at some point in the coming weeks.


Re: Rewatchability factor in DVD collecting

What a can of worms you’ve opened here! Let’s pick on WWI and Christmas-themed movies for a start since I’ve just mentioned them above:

Out of the 8 World War I-set movies mentioned, it’s obvious that ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is the best one of the bunch and, if one was to pick the essential title in there, that’d be it. Would that automatically disqualify the relevance of the others in connection with their making part of one’s collection? Maybe war movies isn’t one’s favorite genre, maybe 1930s movies are way too creaky for the majority – should these films not be shown on TV or released on DVD, then? What’s so bad on setting an hour of one’s time (maybe every day?) to check these out when they’re shown on TCM? Is it really so hard to sift the bad from the good out of TCM’s copious schedule?

Mike and Joe have often commented on my quoting Leonard Maltin (or other film guides) but, had Michael kept abreast of his Maltin guide, he’d have been aware that THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK (1933) was awarded a ***1/2 rating there and is far from an obscure movie. That’s what my twin brother and I used to do as a kid: we’d scour the TV guides for movies we knew Maltin had rated *** or over (or ** or over in Leslie Halliwell’s case, where his ** is equivalent to Maltin’s ***). In this way, we’ve managed to get to know Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, James Stewart, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, etc. from much more than their obvious signature films which any casual movie buff might recognize. For example, VIRGINIA CITY (1940) and AGAINST ALL FLAGS (1952) are two relatively minor Errol Flynn movies which have only recently been given a DVD release but I’ve been familiar with them since the mid-1980s!

Onto Christmas now: everybody knows that the quintessential Yuletide movie is Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946). Would I want to watch it every single Christmas? Yes…but why should I when I can also choose from BABES IN TOYLAND (1934), HOLIDAY INN (1942), MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (1947), THE GREAT RUPERT aka A CHRISTMAS WISH (1949), THE LEMON DROP KID (1951), SCROOGE (1951), WHITE CHRISTMAS (1954), BABES IN TOYLAND (1961), SCROOGE (1970), BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974), CHRISTMAS EVIL (1980), A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983), GREMLINS (1984; for a time this got an annual viewing chez nous during our Christmas dinner and I’ve finally acquired the two movies on SE DVDs just a few days ago), SANTA CLAUS (1985), THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS (1993), etc.

The same goes for one’s DVD collection: who’s that self-respecting film buff who wouldn’t love to watch NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) and PSYCHO (1960) at least once a year? But, cinema being as extensive as it is – and DVD availability and, yes, affordability being what it is – how much time left would there be for Hitchcocks of a lesser profile like SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943) and THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (1955) which, significantly, were Hitch’s own favorites among his own films? Sure, it’s not feasible anymore to keep upgrading such titles whenever a superior edition comes along but that doesn’t count with films like TOUCH OF EVIL (1958) whose upgraded edition offers two alternate versions that show the complete picture of a film noir classic. One is bound to have a version he prefers over the others but he has been presented with a choice and that’s the most important issue here: choice.

It’s not money or value for money, it’s not time or lack thereof, it isn’t nostalgia vs. discovery – it’s choice. I feel good knowing that I currently have 1650 DVDs and 1440 DVD-Rs (and both counting) at my disposal which I can watch whenever I feel like it. Are there movies in there which I think are hard to get a yearning for without a conscious effort? Absolutely. Are there films in there that I know by heart? Yep. That’s the beauty of it, though. I’d hate to have a collection full of movies I know inside out, just as it’s impractical to blind buy all the time. Still, while blind buying has, thankfully, receded into next to nothingness for me over the last couple of years, in the past it was the only avenue open for me if I wanted to watch certain movies – and there were lots of them. I’ve regretted a few purchases, sure, but luckily not too many – and I still haven’t ever gotten rid of any which I thought I’ve been ‘cheated’ on (via overhyped or overgenerous online reviews or whatever)! In this context, I admire Martin Teller for being so single-mindedly ruthless with his collection because I, for one, could never hope to be so cool about it! And, speaking of Douglas Sirk, I've just acquired four "new" films of his: LA HABANERA (1937), A SCANDAL IN PARIS (1946), THUNDER ON THE HILL (1951) and THE TARNISHED ANGELS (1958)...

Having said that, I practically get heartburn everyday as I step into my TV room and my eyes gaze over the layer upon layer of DVDs stacked one next to the other, knowing that almost half of them have never made it into my Pioneer player yet! But then Christmas is upon us once more and Universal has seen fit to release that gorgeous 15-Disc ABBOTT & COSTELLO: THE COMPLETE UNIVERSAL PICTURES COLLECTION which, unlike Mike’n’Joe, will be the first and perhaps only chance for me to catch up with 16 of the 28 movies therein! Will I cringe whenever one of those darned Andrews Sisters steps in to yodel? Sure ‘nuff but vintage Bud and Lou (or “Gianni & Pinotto” as they were called over in Italy, which is how I caught most of their outings in the first place!) will smooth over these intermittent lulls.
post #1746 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
Mike,


Re: THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK (1933)

It seems that this film is so obscure that nobody has even corrected your typo of naming Gary Cooper as its second lead, when it’s really Cary Grant!!

Jesus, I went through that thing before posting here and just posted it at IMDB and I never caught my goof. Duh on my part.

Quote:
WINGS (1927), ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930), THE DAWN PATROL (1930; which I have a copy of but have yet to watch), HELL’S ANGELS (1930), JOURNEY’S END (1930; James Whale’s official debut film is so rare that I’ve actually bought a copy of R. C. Sherriff’s original play just because I fear I might never get a chance to see it!), WESTFRONT 1918 (1930), THE LAST FLIGHT (1931; I’d also love to watch William Dieterle’s acclaimed first Hollywood film someday), etc.

I was thinking about this the other day but this decade is pretty much known for Warner's gangsters, Universal's monsters and MGM's musicals yet if you really think about it the war films from this era are perhaps the best.

Quote:
What’s so bad on setting an hour of one’s time (maybe every day?) to check these out when they’re shown on TCM? Is it really so hard to sift the bad from the good out of TCM’s copious schedule?

There's really not too many bad spots. I try to record the "unknown" movies on there and more times than not they're still fairly good. They're just not as remembered as certain movies but TCM rarely shows "unknown" movies.

Quote:
Mike and Joe have often commented on my quoting Leonard Maltin (or other film guides) but, had Michael kept abreast of his Maltin guide, he’d have been aware that THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK (1933) was awarded a ***1/2 rating there and is far from an obscure movie.

I've seen over 300 movies that weren't in Maltin's guide but the term obscure would probably fit as there's a few war threads at this very site without mention of the movie. Not to mention no VHS, no DVD and not too many votes over at IMDB. I was shocked to learn in the intro that this was the first time it had been on TCM considering the three legends in the film.


Re: The rest of your post

Just today I received 8 discs worth of films from 1890-1910 with a total of around 200 films. I've got around 500+ films from this era that I haven't watched yet and probably another 500 that I have seen in my lifetime. Trying to watch this stuff from start again would just be too hard but after going through all of them I could then go back and pick out my favorites of the group. Or, even with Griffith, I will try to watch all 500 but I'll never rewatch all 500 again so that's when picking out favorites come into play.

Even going back through these POLICE A. films is already getting to be a chore because I really don't need to watch any of the sequels again. I know every scene by heart and they just aren't cutting it anymore. The same with various Universal films that I've seen 50+ times. I just can't see how some people rewatch the same stuff over and over decade after decade. There's a girl at one of these threads who watched THE KARATE KID two, three or four times a month. Doesn't watch anything "new" but watches the same twenty or so films over and over. Never saw Keaton. Never saw Kurosawa. Never saw KANE. No 2001. To me, this is just downright crazy but then again some find it crazy that TKK should be remade.

You asked earlier why wouldn't someone donate an hour to try something new and I agree but at the same time I should probably donate an hour to rewatch something. I thought about taking all of December to do this but who knows what will happen by then.
post #1747 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mike,


You know I don't mean you when I occasionally say that I can’t understand how some so-called movie buffs have TCM capability but largely ignore it; I know how you operate and I have several priceless TCM recordings (off the top of my head REMEMBER LAST NIGHT?, THE WALKING DEAD, THE GREAT GARRICK, THE UNINVITED) to prove it. I may not get TCM USA but Italian TV channels show obscure stuff (mostly from Italy, France and Germany) practically daily (in the afternoon and at night) and at the moment I have a huge backlog of some 140 such VHS recordings which, try as I may, I can never seem to diminish because other similar movies keep taking their place! After burning myself out somewhat on Horror last month – where, in spite of my respectable final showing, I was still disappointed that so much stuff had to be left out! – I’ve decided to take this month very easily where I won’t get all twitched up if a day goes by without my watching anything and, when I do get something watched, it won’t be anything very challenging…which is why I’ve watched that batch of Italian dross recently (Westerns, Crime movies, etc) and there’s still many more where they came from.

Do I really need to watch Maurizio Merli grind his teeth at the bad guys anymore? Do I need to get more ‘grubby landowners vs. laconic Western loners’ stories under my belt? Probably not but, had I not made this my practice for the last 4 years (since my oft-quoted trip to Venice), I’d have missed out completely on obscure Spaghetti Western gems like the JFK-allegory THE PRICE OF POWER (1969; with Giuliano Gemma, Van Johnson and Fernando Rey) and the psychedelic oddity MATALO! (1970; with Lou Castel) and unheralded Poliziotteschi gems like the ultravicious ALMOST HUMAN (1974; with Tomas Milian, Henry Silva and Ray Lovelock) – onto which the genial Mr. Maltin slapped a clueless BOMB rating in his guide – and EMERGENCY SQUAD (1974; with Milian and Lovelock again plus Gastone Moschin). As it happens, the first two of these have been officially released on DVD in Italy and the last two in both Italy and the U.S. but I wouldn’t have eventually sprung for them at all had I not sampled them first via those Italian TV screenings. Will I be revisiting them any time soon? Not likely given the multitude of films as yet unwatched that I own – but, truthfully, I’d only have to make a slight but conscious effort to have them in the running for future revisits by, say, dedicating a month from next year to exclusive Western or Euro-Cult viewing – or War or Noir or whatever.

In fact, I’ll be dedicating this December to pure entertainment via films that I’ve watched once, haven’t watched at all or haven’t seen in ages: from animated Disney classics (BAMBI; 101 DALMATIONS) to live action Disney films (THE ADVENTURES OF BULLWHIP GRIFFIN; THE ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD), from big-budget comedies (IT’S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD; THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES) to comedian vehicles (WHERE THERE’S A WILL, WINDBAG THE SAILOR), from swashbucklers (ARABIAN NIGHTS, CARTOUCHE) to musicals (THE MUSIC MAN, DOCTOR DOLITTLE), etc. For January, then, I’m planning to repeat what I did this year and spend the entire month in the company of a long-running comedy series: it was the CARRY ONs last year and it’ll hopefully be Martin & Lewis (and solo Lewis) – and perhaps Abbott & Costello as well if I do decide to bite the bullet and spring for that Universal Box Set. I’d have been more than glad to do so right away given the generous “25% off” promotion from both Deep Discount and DVD Planet but those darned local Customs authorities have been charging me hefty fees every time I’ve ordered from them of late, and since such a promotion is bound to make my potential order a big and expensive one and the Customs charges equally so, I’m afraid it’s no dice yet!! Thankfully, there are American (DVD Empire) and Canadian (DVD Pacific) online DVD retailers which go past the local Customs radar and it’s them I intend to use exclusively from now on.

For the record, while I keep my database of purchased DVDs up-to-date, it’s only just this past weekend that I’ve taken time off from film viewing to do the same with my DVD-Rs and I’ve almost completed updating my VHS database as well. Actually, I divide my DVD originals database into 3 sections: unwatched DVDs, DVDs of sole viewings and watched DVDs of familiar titles. The first section is then similarly subdivided into three: unwatched DVDs of unwatched films, unwatched DVDs of films watched once and unwatched DVDs of films watched more than once. Sensibly, it’s the first of these that should be my priority most of the time but, as I intimated in my plans for next December, I’ll still make time for those films I’m quite familiar with every once in a while. But, in the long run, even though I’ve had the SE DVDs of childhood favorites like THE GUNS OF NAVARONE (1961; the first edition) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963) for 6 years or so, it’s much more likely that I’ll be watching, say, THE PURPLE HEART (1944; a film I’ve never seen) or GUNS AT BATASI (1964; a film I’ve only watched once) before I’ll ever get to revisit NAVARONE or ESCAPE again. The thought of substituting the former for the much more recent 2-Disc “Collectors’ Edition” Set had crossed my mind, of course, but in this age of BluRay (and the inevitable RedLaser, YellowBeam, GreenLight, etc.), it hasn’t happened yet!
post #1748 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
Mike,

You know I don't mean you when I occasionally say that I can’t understand how some so-called movie buffs have TCM capability but largely ignore it;

Gee, Mario - I wonder who you're thinking of? Anyone I know?

And yes, I will continue to call myself a Movie Buff, though not a Movie Junkie or Movie Completist.

I just am always amazed at how you and Mike just don't understand that not everyone feels they wish to watch every film ever made. You two have an obvious desire to always watch new things and go into all sorts of directions; doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same thing; and bear in mind that these other people are the ones who are happily content with their viewing; it's you who seems to get perturbed.

As to your question "Why not spend an hour a day trying something new?" it's not always just an hour - it is rarely an hour, in fact; most times a movie would be 90 minutes or better. And speaking for myself, I'm just dead tired after work and most nights it requires an incredible amount of stamina on my part to stay awake, even for repeat viewings of films I'm already familiar with and don't have to concentrate too much on. Besides, as I said earlier, what's the point of owning so many movies if they're not to be watched and re-enjoyed again during the course of one's life? Theoretically, I could never watch a first-time viewing ever again and STILL not have time to see all the titles I already own! In a perfect world my ideal routine would be to watch 1 movie per day, every day. But in addiiton to the sleepiness at night from a hard work day, I then have other things I do in my life like going out with the wife and friends. But it's still a goal of mine to dedicate 90-120 minutes a day to a film, so I'll see what happens in 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I just can't see how some people rewatch the same stuff over and over decade after decade. There's a girl at one of these threads who watched THE KARATE KID two, three or four times a month. Doesn't watch anything "new" but watches the same twenty or so films over and over. Never saw Keaton. Never saw Kurosawa. Never saw KANE. No 2001. To me, this is just downright crazy

See? Even Michael is driven "crazy" by this. But why not just live and let live and let people do as they please? Personally, I don't want to limit myself to the same 20 films either, but not everyone has the same goals and aspirations. Where is the law written that they must?
post #1749 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Gee, Mario - I wonder who you're thinking of? Anyone I know?

And yes, I will continue to call myself a Movie Buff, though not a Movie Junkie or Movie Completist.

I just am always amazed at how you and Mike just don't understand that not everyone feels they wish to watch every film ever made. You two have an obvious desire to always watch new things and go into all sorts of directions; doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same thing; and bear in mind that these other people are the ones who are happily content with their viewing; it's you who seems to get perturbed.

As to your question "Why not spend an hour a day trying something new?" it's not always just an hour - it is rarely an hour, in fact; most times a movie would be 90 minutes or better. And speaking for myself, I'm just dead tired after work and most nights it requires an incredible amount of stamina on my part to stay awake, even for repeat viewings of films I'm already familiar with and don't have to concentrate too much on. Besides, as I said earlier, what's the point of owning so many movies if they're not to be watched and re-enjoyed again during the course of one's life? Theoretically, I could never watch a first-time viewing ever again and STILL not have time to see all the titles I already own! In a perfect world my ideal routine would be to watch 1 movie per day, every day. But in addiiton to the sleepiness at night from a hard work day, I then have other things I do in my life like going out with the wife and friends. But it's still a goal of mine to dedicate 90-120 minutes a day to a film, so I'll see what happens in 2009.



See? Even Michael is driven "crazy" by this. But why not just live and let live and let people do as they please? Personally, I don't want to limit myself to the same 20 films either, but not everyone has the same goals and aspirations. Where is the law written that they must?

Pass.
post #1750 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

"Pass" on the replies if you wish, but then why bring it up?

Oh, and I forgot to mention above that I also have an extensive television collection, and it's much more palatable after work on most nights to dedicate that hour or so to watching TV episodes.
post #1751 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
"Pass" on the replies if you wish, but then why bring it up?

I know all about how you feel on this subject, Joe so we don't need to go there any longer. However, it seems to me that Martin Teller also shares your views on this and, if that's fine by you, he's also been invited to contribute to this ongoing discussion. But, if you want to take the lead and reiterate your position, be my guest...
post #1752 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
I know all about how you feel on this subject, Joe so we don't need to go there any longer.

It's not just for your benefit that I supply a response, though. If there is something pertaining to me posted on the board, I'd like to respond, is all. I'm not conceited to think "everyone" who's reading already knows where I stand on this from the past. We always may gain some new readers.

Quote:
However, it seems to me that Martin Teller also shares your views on this and, if that's fine by you, he's also been invited to contribute to this ongoing discussion.

I may have missed it, but from what I have read by Martin it seems quite the contrary - that he is more along the lines of your own belief. I have never seen someone watch as many different types of films as he does.
post #1753 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I may have missed it, but from what I have read by Martin it seems quite the contrary - that he is more along the lines of your own belief. I have never seen someone watch as many different types of films as he does.

I hope Martin will pardon me in bringing him up again, in absentia as it were, but if Joe had read the latter's last post #1744 - instead of most probably bypassing it because of the mention of movies Mr. Karlosi has apparently little to no use for - he would have realized that Martin was all for pruning down one's DVD collection and hang on to old favorites which, if I'm not mistaken, is basically Joe's mantra on this matter, too.
post #1754 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
he would have realized that Martin was all for pruning down one's DVD collection and hang on to old favorites which, if I'm not mistaken, is basically Joe's mantra on this matter, too.

Actually, now that I have gone back I've realized that I DID originally read Martin's post. I recall the great line where he said: "I really enjoy the conciseness of my library, to me it's all wheat and no chaff". Very nicely said. But I thought you were suggesting that Martin agreed with me in so far as "watching many of the same movies" was concerned. He obviously watches much more new variety, it's true.

So yes, then he and I are of a like mind on the "pruning" aspect. And I'm finding out that many other collectors feel that way, not only here but over at the CHFB as well. It just doesn't make any sense in owning a warehouse of so many DVDs or DVDRs which we can't watch even once, let alone a couple dozen more times within our lifespan. (And nope, one can NEVER get an urge to watch thousands of movies, all multiple times, at random points of his life). It's not so much about accumulating a DVD store as it is fine tuning your own private lil' home library to suit your needs.

Quote:
but if Joe had read the latter's last post #1744 - instead of most probably bypassing it because of the mention of movies Mr. Karlosi has apparently little to no use for -

Well, the one post where Martin was explaining his pruning habits was not part of a post dealing with his movie reviews. Having said that, I do happily concede that you're correct in that I usually bypass peoples' reviews for movies I don't have any interest in. When I see a title that I am familiar with and want to know the other guy's take on it, I read. Or if there is some reason that I have an interest in seeing a movie reviewed here, I read. But life's too short to read long, long, long, diatribes - especially if they're ones which mostly namecheck OTHER films - if I have no ounce of interest in the title whatsoever.
post #1755 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Having said that, I do happily concede that you're correct in that I usually bypass peoples' reviews for movies I don't have any interest in. When I see a title that I am familiar with and want to know the other guy's take on it, I read. Or if there is some reason that I have an interest in seeing a movie reviewed here, I read. But life's too short to read long, long, long, diatribes - especially if they're ones which mostly namecheck OTHER films - if I have no ounce of interest in the title whatsoever.

So I'm Mr. Watch-A-Lot, Know-A-Lot & Write-A-Lot. So sue me, pal. Big deal.

If one watches many movies, he's bound to find less and less originality as he goes on and be able to connect the dots between more and more movies. The point is: despite how much I know, I want to learn even more. You just don't. And that's not much of a big deal for me either if you ain't bothered by it yourself.

Just to put you in the picture, however, please be advised that I have three upcoming Bond reviews and I apologize beforehand if they're too long for you and full of namedropping...
post #1756 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Re: Which DVDs to buy and which new movies to watch

The example of only watching 20 movies for the rest of one's life is pretty extreme, especially if the person is a movie fan. However, there does come a point where the collection does get too big, and not everything can or will be watched even one more time. Right now, I'm in my mid-20s, and I've got about 200 movies and 10 complete TV series on DVD. I've also got decent libraries of other media: books, music, and video games. If I never bought another DVD, I still would be quite happy with what I have. Every movie and show has a very good chance of getting watched again, and I've got a decent variety to choose from.

At this point, I have to be very selective in what I choose to purchase. There are some classics and new movies being produced that I would like to see. They do take away time that could be spent watching something I know I will love, but they are movies that hold at least a chance of being on par with the movies I already own. However, the bar to enter my collection is set very high. The movie either must get >=4.5 stars from me and merit rewatching, or it must be a decent entry in one of my current subcollections, such as Disney animated features or Star Trek films.

I'm at a stage in life where I can no longer be a strict completionist. For one thing, who cares if I am missing one or two movies in a series? Also, if I'm never going to watch it again, it's still a waste of money even if I pick it up for $2 used. Speaking of holes in collections:

11/15: Quantum of Solace (2008) out of

I was not a big fan of Casino Royale from 2006, but at least it had competent direction and some memorable set pieces and moments. Quantum of Solace has absolutely no scene in it that I want to see again. Even Diamonds are Forever and The Man with the Golden Gun, which previously tied for last place in my Bond rankings, have some fun moments, action, and/or dialogue that give them some redeeming value. There really isn't much story here, and the action scenes are hampered by far too many close-ups and quick cuts. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are fine actors, and their interplay is the only reason this movie gets any stars. This will be the first official Bond movie that does not get a place in my collection.
post #1757 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

My goodness, there's some bitterness here. I don't know how much more I can say on the matter. I think having more than 1000 movies is pretty ridiculous, but to each their own. I used to have a massive (2000+) CD/record/tape collection but at some point something just clicked and I realized that I wanted a more minimalist lifestyle. Having media around makes me feel compelled to consume it, or else why own it? I feel guilty about NOT rewatching movies more often, pretty much the only time I do is when I acquire a new DVD. But there's still so many movies I haven't seen yet that I'm interested in, I'd really have to force myself to rewatch something.

However, I have been feeling like I've explored most of the avenues I want to explore, movie-wise, and will soon start delving more into other leisure activities I enjoy. For instance, as of today I'm taking a break from movies, except when something comes in at the library or from Netflix. Gonna concentrate on gaming for a while, I really miss it. And I've got a ton of books I want to read. At some point I'll come back around to my DVD collection (and don't get me wrong, it's still pretty large... about 300 titles, I think) and rediscover all those treasures.



Malpertuis - Very much in the same vein as Kumel's later film, The Arrival of Joachim Stiller, this is an eccentric surreal horror/mystery (with some of bits of lame humor) based on a novel. It takes the story of an overbearing patriarchal figure (Orson Welles, in a small but central role, dubbed in Flemish) whose last will compels his family and associates to remain in his spooky mansion after his death, and weaves in assorted references to Greek mythology. It's a little hokey but also quite spellbinding in its strangeness, and packs a lot of surprises in its ending. Also on the DVD is a terrific feature about Welles' drunken diva behavior. Kumel has yet to "wow" me, but I'm finding him pretty entertaining so far. Rating: 8


Futurama: Bender's Game (Blu-Ray) - I can appreciate a movie that kicks off with a Yellow Submarine tribute. Plus heaps of other pop culture references... "The Twilight Zone", Mazes and Monsters, Logan's Run, multiple Star Wars films, Ghost, the list goes on. Although it sometimes threatens to devolve into "Family Guy" territory, for the most part the gags are pretty good. But things go south when, about halfway through, it all turns into an extended Lord of the Rings parody. This stuff gets pretty tedious, and I don't think the feature-length format is working very well for "Futurama". The writers seem to be struggling to pad out the stories. There's only one of these left and at this point, my hopes for it are quite low. It'd be nice to see "Futurama" return as a regular series, but on the other hand, maybe the well has run dry. Rating: 6


Antonio Gaudi - Gaudi's architecture is a thing of beauty and mystery. His unusual structures often have organic contours and features, as if some massive polymorphous alien creature had squatted down on a Barcelona street and tried to disguise itself as a building. They are also drenched in incredible detail, mosaics and lettering and sculptures. The film culminates with the Sagrada Familia, Gaudi's enormous unfinished cathedral (it's still being constructed) so complex and intricate that it seems impossible for such a thing to exist. Teshigahara lets Gaudi's work speak for itself. There are only a few scraps of narration during the Sagrada Familia portion, providing just the barest background information. And there are a few street scenes to establish a sense of location. Beyond that, the camera simply explores the structures, very gracefully picking out details. Takemitsu's lovely score is an appropriate blend of the traditional and the otherworldly. If you want to learn about Gaudi's life and history and context, Criterion provides some bonus features for that purpose. Teshigahara's film is simply a celebration of his magnificent art. Rating: 8
post #1758 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
For the record, while I keep my database of purchased DVDs up-to-date, it’s only just this past weekend that I’ve taken time off from film viewing to do the same with my DVD-Rs and I’ve almost completed updating my VHS database as well.

My list is about 2+ years old but it just included DVDs. To show you how bad I am. Before I got a DVR I was just recording my TCM stuff straight to DVD-Rs. I went back a few days ago and counted these and I'm at 207 discs worth of movies. To make matters worse is that some have upwards of 7 movies on them and all of them have at least 4. Just do the math there and the big thing is that the majority of them I haven't watched. I had to clear off some space on my DVR just this morning because I've got too much stuff on there.


How to Break 90 #5 (1933) George Marshall

Another entry in the series of golf shorts with Bobby Jones. This time out a group of men are trying to get the perfect swing but their coach keeps giving them bad information. Thankfully Jones is on the field and offers them (and the viewers) advice on making impact with the ball. This film has its nostalgic charm and it's nice to see a legend doing his job but I doubt too many find much interest in this thing. There's very few attempts at humor and for the most part you're just watching a golf lesson so unless that's what you're wanting then I doubt it would do you any good to track down this series. It's funny to see Marshall directing this as well as other Jones shorts as he had a rather big silent career and would go on to have a great sound career.

Blackbird, The (1926) Tod Browning

Lon Chaney plays duel roles in this crime melodrama from MGM. The Blackbird, a mastermind criminal and The Bishop, his crippled brother who is loved by everyone in the town. They're both the same person and the plan is to keep it that way but soon another criminal (Owen Moore) enters the picture as well as the love for a woman (Renee Adoree). I've know seen every Chaney feature that is currently not lost and I must say my appreciation of him as an actor has never been so high. I've always looked at him as one of the greatest actors in film history but after seeing this film I might go even further to call him the greatest actor in the silent era. It's really amazing at how brilliant this guy was and his acting abilities are on full display here. The viewer is the only one who knows that Chaney, playing both Blackbird and Bishop, are the same person yet like the characters in the film we forget because at how wonderful Chaney is. You could call this a Jekyll and Hyde type role as we're seeing good and evil and I'd probably say this is the greatest performance at that type of characters. How evil Chaney can come off and then how nice and holy is just amazing to watch and he really sells these characters perfectly. It's also rather amazing watching him play a cripple and deform his own body. Both Moore and Adoree add nice support but it's clear who this picture belongs to. Browning also should get a lot of credit because the screenplay here isn't too original nor is the love story that breaks out and controls most of the running time. While it's not original Browning does bring a lot of style to it and makes the movie flow like a stream. I've never been too fond of his sound features but I think his silents make him one of the most visual directors out there.

Inflation (1942) Cy Endfield

WW2 propaganda short features Ester Williams in a small role in her film debut. The film tells the story of how Adolf Hitler calls the Devil (Edward Arnold) and asks to make American's start spending more money so that their war efforts can be washed down the toilet. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Stephen McNally, Williams) begin a shopping spree not knowing what they're doing to the country and their souls. It's rather amazing to see how far these shorts would go in terms of the war and one can't imagine any actors doing something like this today. Arnold wasn't the biggest star in Hollywood but he did have countless lead roles at MGM and was a fairly well known face. He is quite good in his role of the Devil and you can tell he's having fun. Williams is pretty much centered in a thankless role but she isn't too bad.

Inside Sex: Censored (2007) Lesli Klainberg

Nice documentary taking a look at how films have been censored due to sexual acts. There are quite a few movies out there on this topic but this one here does a good job at gathering up the various eras and discussing them. Not only to do we discussions about the Pre-Code era of the 1930s and the breakthrough of the 1970s but we also get those early stag films from 1915 through the 1960s. Also on hand are discussions of the underground filmmakers like Russ Meyer who were creeping nudity into their films and getting them shown around the country. And of course we have discussions about recent films like Eyes Wide Shut and Shortbus. If you know your history on this subject then you're not going to learn too much new stuff here but I love the earlier sections dealing with the pre-code era. I just love how certain people always think that the "early" days of cinema and culture were clean and pure yet they've never done their homework and looked at some of the trash being put out then. Of course, this stuff wasn't being shown in mainstream theaters but it's still out there.

Carmencita (1894) N/R William K.L. Dickson

Infamous Edison short, which features the title dancer, quite famous at the time, doing one of her dances. The film runs only 24-seconds but who today could really imagine how much trouble this film would get into with such a short running time. The movie was famous because it came under a lot of censorship issues wherever it would be played. The most famous incident happened in Boston where it was pulled from theaters after a preacher complained that it was sinful. We only see a brief bit of the dancer's leg (below the knee) so that should tell you something. There's certainly nothing great here but from a historical standpoint this is a very important film.

What Happens in Vegas (2008) Tom Vaughan

Cameron Diaz gets dumped. Ashton Kutcher loses his job. They meet up in Vegas, get drunk, get married and then sober up and realize they hate one another. The judge orders them to stay married for six months after they hit the jackpot. Blah, blah, blah. I enjoy both of the stars but this film here is just a complete disaster from the opening to closing scene. I'm really not sure where to start but this has to be one of the worst screenplays I've ever had to sit through and it's rather sad that something like this would get a greenlight but it's clear all you need is a catchy title to bring people in. The story is just downright stupid from start to finish and some might say this is expected out of a romantic comedy. Perhaps but when the two "adults" act like three-year-old kids then you have a problem. Another problem is that the two stars have no chemistry whatsoever. Most romantic comedies have the two hating each other until the very end of the movie and that's fine but even so they still have charm to where the viewer can believe they actually fall in love. That's not the case here as Diaz comes off extremely bad here and Kutcher comes off laughable during his dramatic scenes towards the end. None of the supporting players add much, although Rob Corddry does steal the film as Kutcher's lawyer. The only scene that made me laugh was one dealing with popcorn so you can keep an eye out for that. In the end, this is just a complete disaster that's not worth renting even if it only costs you $1 like it did me. It's rather sad that so many films aren't getting viewed today while something like this makes millions.

Elvis Mitchell: Under the Influence (Joan Allen) (2008)

Disappointing entry into the series, which is suppose to talk with movie stars about their favorite films and how they influenced them. I don't think there's any question to Joan Allen being one of the better actresses out there but it appears she isn't too fond of films or doesn't have much knowledge of them. Where this series usually had actors talking about their favorite movies, this time out we don't hear too much outside of Allen answering questions about her own movies. The Upside of Anger, Nixon, Tucker and The Ice Storm are discussed among other things but we can hear her discuss these movies during countless other interviews. Allen really doesn't open up too much about other movies, although at the end we get a brief mention of Carrie, Lady Sings the Blues and Raging Bull.

Indie Sex: Teens (2007) Lisa Ades

Very good documentary that takes a look at sexuality in films aimed at teenagers. The majority of the documentary takes a look at the past thirty years and how the big take off in the genre started in the early 80s and how the genre got shut down when AIDS came into play. We also get talk about the recent trend in the genre as well as how the art house films took them to a new level. This documentary does a great job at breaking down the various points to this genre starting with the fun movies like Porky's and then moving into the darker stuff like Kids and Fat Girl. A lot of directors from the art house are interviewed here to discuss their films and how they drew from personal experiences. The most interesting aspect is talking about how people shy away from female sexuality if it isn't aimed at the male's pleasure. The earliest films talked about take place in the mid-50s with stuff like Rebel Without a Cause and Too Soon to Love, which is interesting as there really aren't too many examples from the decades before that.

Police Academy 4 (1987) Jim Drake

The police force is overworked and understaffed so they come up with an idea to train citizens so that they can patrol their own streets. Of course our gang gets a group of rejects that they must train into shape. This was the beginning of the end for this series and while there are a few funny scenes the thing still can't keep afloat. The regular cast including Guttenberg, Smith, Winslow, Graf and Easterbrook are back but we've also got G.W. Bailey coming back as Harris, the main villain from the first film. Harris actually steals the film and gives an energized performance but that still isn't saying too much as the screenplay is very weak and basically just recycles jokes from previous films. Even the regulars seem rather tired and bored. Bobcat Goldthwait is back as well but most of his jokes seemed aimed at his bad speech. Heck, we even get a pre-fame Sharon Stone and David Spade but neither add much. The best sequence for me has always been the one where the veterans try to teach the new guys that they aren't ready to be police and take them out on the case of a voodoo man who is actually being played by Smith.
post #1759 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Isn't it sad that that's what it takes, though?

Joe, after all the years you and Mario have known one another I'm still shocked you take it so personal. You said "live and let live and let people watch what they want" yet this above quote is you talking about people who would need a remake to watch an original film. You like to complain that people would rather watch a remake over an original and you think it's dumb that someone would rather watch the remake of TEXAS CHAINSAW over the original. You don't see how it's possible and so on. I'm sure this is the way Mario feels towards someone not wanting to watch certain films. You really shouldn't take it personal. It's just one fan questioning another fan.
post #1760 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Joe, You said "Isn't it sad that that's what it takes, though?"
this above quote is you talking about people who would need a remake to watch an original film.

Well, you've pinched my quote there from a completely different thread about the proposed remake of THE KARATE KID. My quote in that other thread was referring to some young people who will not watch ANY movie that is "old", under any circumstances... it's not just a matter of "not wanting to watch an original over a remake". And I'm only referring to MODERN remakes anyway -- I'd be thrilled if a youngster watched the 1939 HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, even though it's also a remake. It's mostly about the resistance to watching older films in general. Sometimes it will take a new remake to stir up their interest in anything older, and yes - I think it's sad. But the main thing is, my saying that wasn't snidely aimed at any regulars whom we know in our daily thread discussions.

Quote:
You like to complain that people would rather watch a remake over an original and you think it's dumb that someone would rather watch the remake of TEXAS CHAINSAW over the original. You don't see how it's possible and so on.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never used the word "dumb", and I never specifically referenced the remake of TEXAS in that regard, either. I realize that this is the way you write, taking liberties and putting your own interpretations in there.. but I just wanted to get the record straight on that.

And by the way, having watched the beautiful new TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE Blu-ray disc (ummm... that's the Original 1974 Tobe Hooper Version, which of course I now must clarify any time I mention the title in a discussion) I thought it was a greater achievement in the genre than ever before. I know this isn't part of our discussion, but I still have ZERO interest in seeing the needless modern remake (which still take splace in the '70s - so why even remake it?!) And yet I'd still consider myself a Movie Buff.

Quote:
I'm sure this is the way Mario feels towards someone not wanting to watch certain films. You really shouldn't take it personal. It's just one fan questioning another fan. Joe, after all the years you and Mario have known one another I'm still shocked you take it so personal.

His comment here:

"Mike, You know I don't mean you when I occasionally say that I can’t understand how some so-called movie buffs have TCM capability but largely ignore it;

And he's pointed that out in reference to me in the past. It's his right, but it's also my right to respond. That's how this whole "thing" started, so let's keep that in its proper perspective. I just responded to it. Oh, I can live with it; I just like to give my own retort. And I returned the favor later.
post #1761 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
So I'm Mr. Watch-A-Lot, Know-A-Lot & Write-A-Lot. So sue me, pal. Big deal.

Why, Mario - why "take it so personal"? I never mentioned you ...
But you see, this whole "big deal, so sue me" thing is exactly how I felt when you made the remark about "so called-movie buffs who have TCM but largely ignore it". So I don't watch TCM very often -- so sue me, big deal...

Let's just make sure we put the chicken and egg in their proper order.

Quote:
If one watches many movies, he's bound to find less and less originality as he goes on and be able to connect the dots between more and more movies. The point is: despite how much I know, I want to learn even more. You just don't. And that's not much of a big deal for me either if you ain't bothered by it yourself.

Well, first -- it does seem like a big deal to you because you occasionally make roundabout remarks in that direction, or else why even bring it up if you don't care? Second, the whole thing about "learning and knowing more and more" is not the reason I set out to watch movies; the reason I watch films is to be entertained, first and foremost. After that, the natural gaining of more film facts, knowledge, and familiarity with different directors and actors and studio politics and so on is just icing on the cake that comes with the territory. But there's sometimes a feeling too much of all the "fun" going out of movie watching when someone starts looking at it as some sort of a job or responsibility, or some sort of history lesson. Sometimes people trying to run through so many dutiful movie viewings and on to the next, that I feel priorities are backwards, IMO. The day that takes priority over having a good time is the day I'm completely done with watching movies.

For specific areas or certain films that I am extra-interested in, I invest more time in reading books and watch documentaries and/or interviews and commentaries.

Then, I also try to learn more about other areas in life besides just watching films.

Quote:
Just to put you in the picture, however, please be advised that I have three upcoming Bond reviews and I apologize beforehand if they're too long for you and full of namedropping...

No problem... for those particular titles I'd be very interested in reading your (and your twin brother Roderick's, if I'm not mistaken?) joint effort in your opinions... and if I find too much padding in there for my taste, I'll just skim past those parts.
post #1762 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

I don't say this loosely when I designate this new entry as the LEAST of all the James Bond films of the past 46 years. I loved CASINO ROYALE and thought it was near the top of the standings and a return to form for this aching series, and Daniel Craig fit the bill perfectly. But with QOS, this is a very much run-of-the-mill action film with little heart, and probably the most "un-Bond" installment yet. Those action sequences are badly shot to the point where it's impossible to tell what is going on as we're assaulted with too-quick cutting and confusion.

Much as I liked Daniel Craig last time, his tough act of being his own man who breaks all the rules and does what he chooses by not giving a damn about what his boss M thinks, is getting all too familiar by now. And Judi Dench, whom I used to enjoy as the head commander, is becoming a one-trick pony with her tired routine of loathing Bond's disobedient ways one moment, but then actually admiring him the next... this has been going on since the earliest of the Pierce Brosnan films. It's time for her to move away from this franchise.

This isn't a "bad" movie, but there's nothing here I haven't seen already, and there's not much of a feeling of retaining 007's true trademark persona on hand, either. When it comes to ranking a series of 20-something movies, there has to be one at the bottom. For me it's now QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
post #1763 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Why, Mario - why "take it so personal"? I never mentioned you ...
But you see, this whole "big deal, so sue me" thing is exactly how I felt when you made the remark about "so called-movie buffs who have TCM but largely ignore it". So I don't watch TCM very often -- so sue me, big deal...

Let's just make sure we put the chicken and egg in their proper order.



Well, first -- it does seem like a big deal to you because you occasionally make roundabout remarks in that direction, or else why even bring it up if you don't care? Second, the whole thing about "learning and knowing more and more" is not the reason I set out to watch movies; the reason I watch films is to be entertained, first and foremost. After that, the natural gaining of more film facts, knowledge, and familiarity with different directors and actors and studio politics and so on is just icing on the cake that comes with the territory. But there's sometimes a feeling too much of all the "fun" going out of movie watching when someone starts looking at it as some sort of a job or responsibility, or some sort of history lesson. Sometimes people trying to run through so many dutiful movie viewings and on to the next, that I feel priorities are backwards, IMO. The day that takes priority over having a good time is the day I'm completely done with watching movies.

For specific areas or certain films that I am extra-interested in, I invest more time in reading books and watch documentaries and/or interviews and commentaries.

Then, I also try to learn more about other areas in life besides just watching films.



No problem... for those particular titles I'd be very interested in reading your (and your twin brother Roderick's, if I'm not mistaken?) joint effort in your opinions... and if I find too much padding in there for my taste, I'll just skim past those parts.


Joe,


I won’t be saying here that I didn’t have you in mind when I made that “not watching TCM” remark because you won’t believe me – but I’m sure there are many other HTFers who have TCM capability but, at least to me, seem not to make use of it because, apart from Michael, Jim K and, yes, sometimes even you and good ol’ George Kaplan, I don’t see many people here writing about those movies that are typically shown on TCM.

Believe me when I tell you that I’m past the point of caring if you ‘broaden your cinematic horizons’ (or whatever you want to call it) or not; the reason I keep picking up this subject from time to time is mainly because I don’t have that possibility myself. Had TCM USA been available to me, there’s just no way that my DVD collection would have been as large as it is today because anything from old Warner Bros. movies to arthouse fare would have been watched this way instead of my having to fork out dough to acquire it. I really don’t mind spending part of my salary on DVD collecting but, on the other hand, I hate the sheer fact that my crappy day-job deprives me of 8 solid hours (of movie-watching or writing or reading or listening to music or just be with my 10 pets!) for 5 days straight a week!! Basically, it’s a double-edged sword: if my bank job didn’t pay so good, I wouldn’t have been able to afford my huge VHS/DVD/DVD-R collection for the past 13 years, but if I didn’t work I’d then have been able to watch much more of it, bought less and consequently have had less backlog! So, please, think of me whenever you turn on (or rather off…zzzzzzzz) your TV set!

By the way, I should also say here that I don’t drive so I don’t have car expenses (maintenance, licences, etc.) to pay and, apart from large-scale events like the Midsummer and Christmas parties at work, I’m not much of a party animal. In fact, I just hate it whenever somebody at work comes up with that much-dreaded “let’s organize an extra-curricular activity” idea – which is generally a dinner engagement or some such useless social outing. Frankly, my colleagues are just my colleagues and only a handful of them over the years (usually just as anti-social as yours truly) have really made it into my close circle of friends. Besides, I’m not a fan of any sport (which doesn’t preclude me from enjoying sporting movies, however) so I don’t devote any time to following the fortunes of this or that team in some championship or other. In a few words: I breathe, think, sleep, dream, drink, eat, burp, fart cinema (heck, I even take the bloody Leonard Maltin/Leslie Halliwell guide with me whenever I go to the crapper). Some people (even among you folks) might think of my lifestyle as being pretty blah but, hey, at least I (generally) don’t let some job I thoroughly despise tire me out so much that I’m unable to exercise (and, I assure you, enjoy) my hobby during the spare time to which I’m entitled! In fact, I wish I had insomnia like Mike does because I sure think sleep is another useless occupation most of the time.


P.S. Roderick sez “Hiya, Joe!"
post #1764 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
I hate the sheer fact that my crappy day-job deprives me of 8 solid hours (of movie-watching or writing or reading or listening to music or just be with my 10 pets!) for 5 days straight a week!! Basically, it’s a double-edged sword: if my bank job didn’t pay so good, I wouldn’t have been able to afford my huge VHS/DVD/DVD-R collection for the past 13 years,

I can relate to that. But I've come to the point where I just have to accept that I am going to have to work unless I hit the lottery or something. And the way I justify it is, as you say, if not for the working I wouldn't be able to afford things, like the new Blu-ray player, my new 46" HDTV, and the new Blu discs I'm acquiring. It's a trade-off, and one I'm stuck with.

Quote:
In fact, I just hate it whenever somebody at work comes up with that much-dreaded “let’s organize an extra-curricular activity” idea – which is generally a dinner engagement or some such useless social outing. Frankly, my colleagues are just my colleagues and only a handful of them over the years (usually just as anti-social as yours truly) have really made it into my close circle of friends.

Man, do I hear that!

Quote:
Some people (even among you folks) might think of my lifestyle as being pretty blah but, hey, at least I (generally) don’t let some job I thoroughly despise tire me out so much that I’m unable to exercise (and, I assure you, enjoy) my hobby during the spare time to which I’m entitled!

When it comes to working, I have no choice but where I'm at in my 40s, and at this point I have to have a good job with benefits and a retirement plan, and all of that stuff. Plus my wife is injured and out of work for over a year and I have to help her out too. Even though it makes me have to compromise a lot of things. But I'm not as bad as the rest of my co-workers... I am the ONLY guy who refuses to work overtime, or multiple jobs. I work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week - period. There are rare times I'll devote a couple months to working a few more hours just due to the Christmas Season (I'm not doing it this year however), but overall I am no workaholic.

Quote:
In fact, I wish I had insomnia like Mike does because I sure think sleep is another useless occupation most of the time.

I've always slept well most of my life. In recent years I've got health problems which have prayed on my mind and thus I don't sleep as solidly as I always used to .. but I'm glad I don't have insomnia; I wouldn't want that.

But I've always been a very early riser. No sleeping later than 6am for me, and sometimes I wake up 5am (which is a bit TOO early, and a rut I'm in). To me, life is meant to be lived, hobbies are meant to be enjoyed, and so sleeping your life away is never an option for me. I like the old saying: "There's plenty of time to sleep when you're dead". I just don't see the point of sleeping til noon, or what have you - but that's just me.

Quote:
P.S. Roderick sez “Hiya, Joe!"

"Hi" right back. Does he write all your reviews with you, or just some?
post #1765 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Bob: What's the point?

Jane: The point is everyone does it so why take it so personal man.

Bob: Gee, I never thought of that Jane. Want a smoke?


Big Dog House, The (1930) Jules White, Zion Myers

One of nine "Dogville" shorts from MGM with this one spoofing their prison drama The Big House. A department store working gets accused of murder and is sent to prison even though in truth it was his boss who did the killing. In case you don't know, these Dogville shorts were basically spoofs of various MGM films with the only catch being that dogs act everything out. This movie really isn't funny but I found it interesting as to what must have happened in order to get the dogs to act all of this stuff out. It's very clear that there's a ton of editing being done in each scene just to pull off the talking or walking but at other times, like when a dog changes another dog's diaper, you can see their hands moving and I'm going to guess strings or something was attached to them. Either way, the movie isn't a total success but it's certainly not bad but I'm sure kids would get more of a kick out of it today.

Who Killed Rover? (1930) Jules White, Zion Myers

Another in MGM's "Dogville" series, a wealthy man leaves all his money to a nephew who is eventually kidnapped. Detective Phido Vance (get it) is called in to try and find out what's going on. Naturally it's the Philo Vance series being spoofed here but the title really doesn't make any sense because of how the events unfold in the movie. I won't spoil anything but a different title or a different set up were needed. The mystery to the film is pretty weak but I guess there's a reason for that but the main draw here is seeing the dogs move and talk like humans. This gimmick is neat to watch but once again I didn't really find it funny. There are certainly some cute moments but not enough to really keep the film moving like it should. The best part is during the title sequence when the card reads "An All Barkie Murder Mystery".

Until They Sail (1957) Robert Wise

WW2 melodrama about four sisters (Jean Simmons, Joan Fontaine, Piper Laurie, Sandra Dee) living in New Zealand and not having much going on since all the men are fighting in the war. Their one shot at meeting new men is when American soldiers come in and the widow (Simmons) gets another shot at love with one played by Paul Newman. Considering the wonderful cast and great director, I was somewhat surprised to see how rather lame this movie was. Lame might be the wrong word but it's certainly very flat compared with other WW2 films out around this time and in the end the movie has way too much soap for it to be fully entertaining. While the screenplay isn't the greatest that's not the biggest problem I had with the film. The biggest problem for me was that I never believed the settings of the film as in it taking place during WW2. There was never any real atmosphere to the film nor was there any real attempt to make it feel authentic. Another problem is that we're dealing with four different women's love lives and the film never really knows if it wants to center on Simmons or Fontaine and in the end there seems to be a lot of stuff missing. The film would have been much, much worse if it weren't for the incredible cast. The four women really come off as sisters and I loved how the screenplay at least gave them different characters with different problems. Simmons steals the film with her touching and mature performance but Fontaine is just as good as the more hard and bitter sister. Dee, in her film debut, does a very good job at playing the youngest and naive sister. Newman is still a little rough around the edges but he does remain fun to watch and even at this early point in his career he has his smile commented on by one of the women.
post #1766 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Bob: What's the point?

Jane: The point is everyone does it so why take it so personal man.

Bob: Gee, I never thought of that Jane. Want a smoke?


LOL


By the way, thanks for the exhaustive reply, Joe. Frankly, I wasn't expecting it but I sincerely appreciated it. I don't have time to reply right now (I have to get some more non-essential movies under my belt) but let's see what you make of (at least, one of) the following:


11/13/08: LEFT HANDED JOHNNY WEST (Gianfranco Parolini, 1965)

This was still early days for the Spaghetti Western, so the plot clearly looked to the basic American formula for inspiration; besides, there’s the constant intrusion of comedy relief (via three scruffy, good-natured but belligerent individuals – two of them ex-boxers and the other the obligatory town drunk) rather than a general self-mocking tone, which the genre would go through on its way out.

The hero, then, is a dour and somewhat enigmatic half-breed (a white girlfriend of his ends up dead on his account, while he rejects the doe-eyed advances of a child-like squaw); he’s either referred to as Johnny Cherokee or Left Handed Johnny West throughout (the latter is crushed, HUSTLER-like, at one point – but, soon enough, he learns to become as deadly as ever with his other hand), and is constantly accompanied by an amiable white-haired mutt called Gypsy which even sacrifices itself for him at the climax. One mildly interesting point is that the villainous figure here is actually twin brothers, with the more vicious of the two identified solely by his dark attire and pencil moustache; also, when one of them is killed off and his coffin is brought to the town square to ‘witness’ Johnny West’s own demise, the other is ingeniously hidden behind a revolving panel inside it! Incidentally, the actor’s face seemed oddly familiar to me and, when I looked at his filmography on the IMDb, I realized he was the male lead in Cesare Canevari’s Nazisploitation effort GESTAPO’S LAST ORGY (1977) – which I watched not too long ago!

A subplot revolving around the appropriation of a gold mine and the revenge sought by its murdered proprietor’s hotheaded but inexperienced young son is as dreary as it sounds. The passable score is by veteran Angelo Francesco Lavagnino, which comes with a typically emphatic (yet pointless) theme tune complemented by wailing female vocals. For the record, the film was co-written by French exploitation producer Robert De Nesle – a valued Jess Franco collaborator, but who was also involved with Georges Franju’s sublime JUDEX (1963). Director Parolini is perhaps best-known for the three “Sabata” Spaghetti Westerns, none of which I’ve watched – though all are readily available for rental (albeit in English-dubbed editions) via the MGM/UA R1 Box Set. In conclusion, the lowly rating for this one is chiefly due to the fact that it has more brawls than gunfights – while the treatment is, at best, indifferent: a bad combination.


11/15/08: THAT DAMNED HOT DAY OF FIRE (Paolo Bianchini, 1968)

I’d never heard of this one before its recent late-night Italian TV screening; on a hunch, I looked the film up on the “Spaghetti Western Database”, where it’s given a favorable write-up – and I’m glad I did, because this is a solid entry within the genre. I also wasn’t familiar with director Bianchini – but, then, the same also held true for Mario Lanfranchi of DEATH SENTENCE (1968), another unconventional Spaghetti Western I was impressed by of late.

The film is enjoyable, reasonably stylish and displays plenty of invention throughout; at the same time, we have to contend with some resistible (albeit brief) humor. It’s also quite a violent offering: the hero is dragged by a horse, tied to a tree and beaten-up en masse, buried alive and shot at a number of times (the film’s single most startling moment – which I’m amazed wasn’t cut for TV – involves the graphic extraction, in gloating close-up, of a bullet from his hand!). The action scenes are undeniably well-staged – with the hero always managing to outwit the villains and emerge victorious (despite being greatly outnumbered).

Having mentioned all of this, it’s interesting that I should be following the film with the newest James Bond adventure – I may be wrong here, but this Western seems to have been inspired to some extent by that highly popular franchise (then in its heyday): the complex plot (involving espionage at the time of the American Civil War, having a Gatling gun for the obligatory “McGuffin”, and where one of the characters is revealed to be a ‘defector’), dour womanizing hero (with the leading lady typically picked out from the opposite side and another who’s dispatched by the villains for her involvement with him), etc. Casting, too, is more than adequate: Robert Woods (who would feature in a dire Spaghetti Western I’d watched not too long ago, SAVAGE GUNS [1971], but also six Jess Franco movies – including the haunting THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR [1973]), John Ireland (excellent as an uncouth half-breed bandit who can throw a deadly knife with his toes[!] and, to feign a tough exterior, lights a match against his bare feet and eats an onion raw – though there’s also an anti-racist angle surprisingly attached to his character), Evelyn Stewart, George Rigaud and Gerard Herter.

With respect to the soundtrack, apart from an effectively atypical jazzy score by Piero Piccioni, there’s a nice atmospheric touch in the constant buzzing of flies (due to the oppressive heat). For the record, the framing on the edition I watched was slightly compromised by being opened up from the original Techniscope (2.35:1) to the 1.85:1 ratio. By the way, an alternate title for the film is GATLING GUN – another Western by that name was made in 1973 (and one which is readily available for DVD rental locally).


11/15/08: QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Marc Forster, 2008)

Daniel Craig has had to face almost as tough an opposition as James Bond does in his movies when he took on the role of everybody’s favorite British secret agent two years ago but CASINO ROYALE (2006) had effectively silenced his critics by being, for my money, one of the all-time Top 5 entries in the long-running series. However, I can see an onslaught of bad vibes creeping up again following his second stab at the role. Actually, he’s not really the one to blame as his is a good performance under the circumstances; clearly, the major culprits here are the screenwriters and director for not really understanding (or caring enough) who James Bond is – and has been for practically the last half-a-century – and the producers (who should have known better) for letting them tamper with the beloved character far too much.

Before I sat down to watch this, I skimmed through online film forums to gauge the general reaction to the new Bond outing and, being a largely negative one, I prepared myself for the worst. While the film didn’t prove to be as bad as all that, it’s still inferior to its direct predecessor to such a dispiriting extent that the production team decidedly need to go back to the drawing-board fast if the next installment is to keep the momentum brought on by the breath of fresh air that CASINO ROYALE had been. It’s well-known by know that, uncharacteristically for the series, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a continuation of that film’s storyline in that Bond is more interested in rooting out the man responsible for the death of his precious Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) – despite his all-too evident bitterness (read emotionless brutality) at her betrayal of him – than he is in catching the bad guys in this one.

And, frankly, who can blame him when he’s saddled with a potentially impotent wimp of a villain (Mathieu Almaric) – with an even more effete right-hand man – whose nefarious crimes extend merely to controlling the water supply of Bolivia to the detriment of the perpetually poor populace? Besides, Vesper Lynd had conclusively proven not to be just another Bond girl in more ways than one – being a woman whose death Bond was still mourning and a memorable character in her own right. Despite the beauty of her substitute here (which still comes up short, if you ask me, next to the stunning Miss Green), the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is so one-dimensional that Bond doesn’t even entertain the notion of making love to her (a first for a Bond film for sure) and the one episode where he does go to bed with a girl – a red-headed M16 desk clerk (Gemma Arterton) that goes by the name of Strawberry Fields (‘tis pity she didn’t wear flowers in her hair, though) – seems like an afterthought merely intended to make her death scene a welcome tribute to Shirley Eaton’s iconic fate in GOLDFINGER (1964)!

After the extended, breathlessly-paced opening action sequence, I wasn’t too bothered by the rapid cutting which is said to imitate the BOURNE trilogy (but I wouldn’t really know since I’m not familiar with it and have little interest in finding out) but, apart from a good sequence at the Opera House, even the action set-pieces seemed indifferent to me. Equally pointless were the cameo appearances of both Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright from CASINO ROYALE but the low-point of the movie must surely be the fact that the villain – lame though he might be – gets his come-uppance off-screen (which must be another first for this series)! The obligatory title song (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys) has also received a lot of flak but, again, I didn’t find it as painful to listen to as others seem to have. Significantly, however, while QUANTUM OF SOLACE is, at 106 minutes, officially the shortest-running Bond movie ever (which is all the more remarkable because it follows the longest entry of all), it feels much longer than that – which is never a positive sign. One final thing: I still don’t quite know what to make of the film-makers’ decision to go back in time with Bond – making him a still up-and-coming secret agent that has yet to earn M’s complete trust – and yet have him operate in this advanced technological age of ours (represented by mobile phones and touch-screen graphics).
post #1767 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

That's actually a quote from a movie and if anyone can guess the title then I'll send you a copy of REEFER MADNESS.


Here's something else about watching "everything". You do eventually run out of new things to watch, which is kind of a drag. I've still got countless foreign films to watch so I've still got several gems to look for. When it comes to American classics, I've got very few left and in some ways I'm putting the remaining few off just because I know it's the "last" that I need to see. WEST SIDE STORY is a "classic" that I haven't watched but I recorded it a couple days ago.

Another case in point is Lon Chaney. I just watched THE BLACKBIRD, which is the last Chaney picture I need to see. I've seen all of his features and all of his shorts, which aren't lost. There are (I think) six more shorts out there with Chaney but all of them are in the hands of private collectors so I won't be seeing them anytime soon. I had to search them out hard in terms of some of these Chaney titles but there aren't any more for me to search for and it's somewhat sad that I'm at the end of my search.


I'm not much on Bond, although I haven't seen anything after Connery and before ol' Pierce but I loved CASINO and was looking forward to this new one but I'm not sure now. I was going to go this week (along with the Eastwood and Smith flicks) but I might just wait for DVD.
post #1768 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Marc Forster, 2008)

Daniel Craig has had to face almost as tough an opposition as James Bond does in his movies when he took on the role of everybody’s favorite British secret agent two years ago but CASINO ROYALE (2006) had effectively silenced his critics by being, for my money, one of the all-time Top 5 entries in the long-running series. However, I can see an onslaught of bad vibes creeping up again following his second stab at the role. Actually, he’s not really the one to blame as his is a good performance under the circumstances; clearly, the major culprits here are the screenwriters and director for not really understanding (or caring enough) who James Bond is – and has been for practically the last half-a-century – and the producers (who should have known better) for letting them tamper with the beloved character far too much.

Before I sat down to watch this, I skimmed through online film forums to gauge the general reaction to the new Bond outing and, being a largely negative one, I prepared myself for the worst. While the film didn’t prove to be as bad as all that, it’s still inferior to its direct predecessor to such a dispiriting extent that the production team decidedly need to go back to the drawing-board fast if the next installment is to keep the momentum brought on by the breath of fresh air that CASINO ROYALE had been. It’s well-known by know that, uncharacteristically for the series, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a continuation of that film’s storyline in that Bond is more interested in rooting out the man responsible for the death of his precious Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) – despite his all-too evident bitterness (read emotionless brutality) at her betrayal of him – than he is in catching the bad guys in this one.

And, frankly, who can blame him when he’s saddled with a potentially impotent wimp of a villain (Mathieu Almaric) – with an even more effete right-hand man – whose nefarious crimes extend merely to controlling the water supply of Bolivia to the detriment of the perpetually poor populace? Besides, Vesper Lynd had conclusively proven not to be just another Bond girl in more ways than one – being a woman whose death Bond was still mourning and a memorable character in her own right. Despite the beauty of her substitute here (which still comes up short, if you ask me, next to the stunning Miss Green), the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is so one-dimensional that Bond doesn’t even entertain the notion of making love to her (a first for a Bond film for sure) and the one episode where he does go to bed with a girl – a red-headed M16 desk clerk (Gemma Arterton) that goes by the name of Strawberry Fields (‘tis pity she didn’t wear flowers in her hair, though) – seems like an afterthought merely intended to make her death scene a welcome tribute to Shirley Eaton’s iconic fate in GOLDFINGER (1964)!

After the extended, breathlessly-paced opening action sequence, I wasn’t too bothered by the rapid cutting which is said to imitate the BOURNE trilogy (but I wouldn’t really know since I’m not familiar with it and have little interest in finding out) but, apart from a good sequence at the Opera House, even the action set-pieces seemed indifferent to me. Equally pointless were the cameo appearances of both Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright from CASINO ROYALE but the low-point of the movie must surely be the fact that the villain – lame though he might be – gets his come-uppance off-screen (which must be another first for this series)! The obligatory title song (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys) has also received a lot of flak but, again, I didn’t find it as painful to listen to as others seem to have. Significantly, however, while QUANTUM OF SOLACE is, at 106 minutes, officially the shortest-running Bond movie ever (which is all the more remarkable because it follows the longest entry of all), it feels much longer than that – which is never a positive sign. One final thing: I still don’t quite know what to make of the film-makers’ decision to go back in time with Bond – making him a still up-and-coming secret agent that has yet to earn M’s complete trust – and yet have him operate in this advanced technological age of ours (represented by mobile phones and touch-screen graphics).

Nice review there, Mario (which is easy for me to say because I pretty much agree with you word for word). There were some things I left out while jotting down my notes here, but I've fleshed it out a bit over at the IMDB.
post #1769 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Band's Visit (2007)

Viewed 11/11/2008 (first viewing)

An Egyptian police band accepts an invitation to play in Israel but ends up in the wrong town. There they make connections with the townspeople that they wouldn't have thought possible. Then they leave. Decent enough, but I'm not so sure it's deserving of all the acclaim.

out of


The Counterfeiters (2007)

Viewed 11/12/2008 (first viewing)

Various Jewish criminals, including a master forger, are forced by the Nazis to make counterfeit money in order to fund the flagging German war effort. Interesting story is well told, but frankly we've been to this well a few too many times for it to be very memorable.

out of



Short Order (2005)

Viewed 11/14/2008 (first viewing)

Flat, meandering, wannabe Jean-Pierre Jeunet film about a pretty young female chef who takes a job as a short order cook in order to avoid the responsibilities that go along with being a maser chef. A fine cast (including the engaging Emma de Caunes) can't save this dark comedy about food and death.

out of


The Art of Travel (2007)

Viewed 11/15/2008 (first viewing)

A man jilts his unfaithful fiancee on their wedding day and jets off to South America to find himself. There he joins up with an expedition that plans on crossing a near-impenetrable jungle. Engaging characters highlight this otherwise slight indie effort that lacks the gravity necessary to convey its philosophical message.

out of
post #1770 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/15: Rocky (1976) out of

Rocky is both a Best Picture winner and a part of our popular culture in America with multiple sequels, so I was probably expecting a bit too much from it. The filmmakers wisely limited the boxing scenes to major bookends of the film instead of having several fights interspersed throughout the movie. Boxing is not an extremely popular sport with me (and probably a good segment of the population), and a little goes a long way.

Rocky Balboa himself comes across as a very real person just trying to get by in life. Just about every scene fleshes out his character a little more and shows him dealing with problems that we all can relate to. The dialogue sounds very true to the setting and characters, but it's a little too naturalistic and repetitive for my taste. Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind are from the same period and also use this dialogue technique, but Rocky does not have Spielberg at the helm to make it work for the scene. The most interesting and/or likable characters are Rocky, Adrian, Apollo, and Mickey. Paulie and Mr. Gazzo do not come across as particularly nice or sympathetic, and I expect that they cause complications in the sequels. For example, that $500 has to have some strings attached.

Rocky is a decent movie with a smile-inducing ending, but I have a hard time believing it was the Best Picture winner of 1976. I haven't seen the other nominees or many other movies from that year, but I have to believe that I would give at least one movie of 1976 more than three stars.

11/16: To Catch a Thief (1955) 1/2 out of

As one of the supplements said, this movie really has a bit of everything that made Hitchcock so popular as a director. What stood out for me were the casting and the writing. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly had amazing onscreen chemistry, and the supporting actors all had great faces and voices. The banter between the leads is full of wit, double entendre, and charm, and it makes every scene of theirs a joy to watch and listen to.

This may become clearer on a second viewing, but I was unsure exactly what actions the "mastermind" was taking to move things along. The Cat seemed plenty capable of doing everything. My other quibble is that some of the French-accented English was hard to make out, but the plot is easy enough to understand without hearing every word.

To Catch a Thief is an easy recommendation and a movie I will seriously consider purchasing someday. I know what I said earlier about having higher standards for adding a DVD to my collection, but Hitchcock at his best can meet those standards. I definitely want to see more films by Hitchcock, Cary Grant, and Grace Kelly (obviously in separate pictures).
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 (2008)