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 12

post #331 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I'm not sure if you've ever shown this one to your son but I'd be interested in hearing what he reaction to it was.
I did show it to him, and he did like it, and did think it was both funny & scary at parts. But, I haven't yet gotten around to showing him Frankenstein, so I don't have a comparison.

I still can't find many four-star reviews of the film and I don't see it making any 'greatest films' list.
Well, there was an issue of Total Film called The 100 Greatest Movies of All Time that came out in 2005. It included a lot of the usual suspects for such a list - Vertigo, Godfather Part 2, Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, Taxi Driver, Sunrise, 8 1/2, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man, Raging Bull, 2001, etc., etc.

And at #19 on their list - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

They indicate that Evening Standard critic Alexander Walker called it "the purest of all horror films".

They note that Time ranked it in the 10 most influential movies of the last 25 years.

And that the original print is a permanent part of the collection of the New York Museum of Modern Art.

They also quote from an original review - "It's really fucking scary"

I stand by my overrated comment.
post #332 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Interesting, although I'd take issue with a lot of their research (so to speak). I wouldn't put Total Film on any high list but here are the problems I have with their examples:

They note that Time ranked it in the 10 most influential movies of the last 25 years.

I wouldn't say this even in the horror genre. It's not like we saw countless TCM rip off over the following years with the exception of EATEN ALIVE, which was Hooper follow up to TCM. THE EXORCIST, HALLOWEEN, THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and even F13 had much more of an impact on the genre.

They also quote from an original review - "It's really fucking scary"

I think this is the biggest thing going for the film when it comes to original reviews/thoughts on the film. I've heard horror stories from countless people who watched this in a drive-in and were scared for life. I've heard stories from my own parents, aunts, uncles and countless people on various message boards.

Quote:
And at #19 on their list - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the list to see what else is on it but everyone has the right to their opinion. Hell, GLEN OR GLENDA? made a "100 Greatest Film" list a few years back and sure enough, certain fans started coming around to say the film was misunderstood and that it was actually ahead of its time. I know people who honestly feel PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is better made than 2001 and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL but I still don't pay their opinions too much attention.

TCM is certainly an important movie and one that is a classic but certainly not one of the all time greats.
post #333 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

"TCM" is a damn diamond. I cry at this lack of respect for such a fine work.
I cry.



"Bananas" -

Probably Woody Allen's broadest (and nudest) film is a real mess for the first 20 minutes or so as it hangs a few pretty funny moments on...well...nothing really other than porn mags and comedy gadget testing.

But when the main South American banana republic plot kicks some top moments of comical goodness are offered up for our delight, as broad comedy and political satire slam against each other.

This is perhaps the closest Allen got to the comedy of the absurd (see the likes of "Airplane" and some Mel Brooks) as utterly fantastical comic set-ups are delivered in a real world setting.
The courtroom trial sequence is a joy (Allen's hysterical cross-examination of himself is a highlight) and the live broadcast wedding night nuptials delivered like a boxing match (complete with audience and real life sports anchors) is one of the funniest broad comedy moments Allen has ever done.

As a full-on comedy film it may not be as damn funny as "Take the Money and Run" or "Broadway Danny Rose", and as a more mature relationship comedy it may not scale the majestic heights of "Annie Hall"...but "Bananas" is perhaps the best mix of both of these different aspects of Allens wonderful film comedy legacy.
It's far more successful than "Sleeper" or even "Love and Death" at delivering this mix anyway.
post #334 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Batman Begins

This attempt to anchor the story in a somewhat more realistic setting than usual works fairly well. It's certainly the best of the Batman movies, though both Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy are (or at least come across as) way too young to be taken seriously in their respective roles. I'm frankly undecided about my overall opinion on this one.

The Citadel

Somewhat muddy medical drama wastes some good actors in a story that just doesn't hold together in too many places.
post #335 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Tarzan Finds a Son (1939)

I'm having lots of fun re-visiting these films. Even though Johnny is starting too look alittle long in the tooth, an out of shape Weissmuller is alot better than alot of the other actors that followed him. That Johnny Sheffield is one adorable kid.
post #336 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

A Pocketful of Miracles

Significantly better than the original. Not up to Capra's best work, but he certainly improved on this the second time around.
post #337 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

02/01/08

West Point on the Hudson (1942) James A. Fitzpatrick

TravelTalk entry takes a look at West Point, NY and the history behind it. The Technicolor makes for some great visuals but that's about all this documentary has going for it. The backstory itself really isn't that interesting and we really don't learn too much about what's going on their in 1942.

02/02/08

Blonde Crazy (1931) Roy Del Ruth

James Cagney and Joan Blondell are small time con artists in a small town but they get in over their heads when they go to the big city. This is a decent little film but if it weren't for the stars then I'm positive it would have been worse. Cagney is good in his role but it's certainly not among his best performances. I think the character was meant to be annoying so I can't really blame Cagney for this. Blondell certainly steals the show and her scene in the bathtub was certainly the highlight. Ray Milland plays a small role and comes off quite stiff. A couple others have mentioned the ending and said it was stupid because Milland wouldn't have done what he did but I'm not so sure I agree. A rich rat would do just about anything and trying to get Cagney out of the picture seems like something he could do. I doubt the screenwriters did much thinking about it but in the end this film has some nice pre-code stuff.

Return of the Whistler, The (1948) Ros Lederman

The seventh and final film in Columbia's series tells the story of a man (Michael Duane) who checks his fiance (Lenore Aubert) into a hotel room but when he returns the next day she is gone. He eventually tracks her to a strange family who claims the woman is already married but there's more going on. The series certainly ends on a very high note and I have to wonder why more movies weren't made unless they simply weren't making money. Richard Dix is missing but Duane makes for a good leading man and carries the film just fine. Aubert, from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, turns in a fine performance as does Richard Lane from the Boston Blackie series. What has shocked me the most about this series is that all of the screenplays are "A" level in their style and sharpness. This film offers a lot of nice twists and turns, which make it worth watching for mystery or noir fans.

Red-Headed Woman (1932) Jack Conway

Jean Harlow plays a sexy slut who sets her eyes on her moral believing boss (Chester Morris) in this racy pre-code. I've heard a lot about this film and all the hype surrounding it is certainly worthy and the film ends up living up to all my expectations. The sexual nature of the film is great and certainly among the most racy of its period. The dialogue or the director's willingness to shine the camera on Harlow's legs and chest throughout certainly makes this film memorable. Harlow is terrific in her role and really sells this slutty character. The way she seduces everyone is classic as are her outburst scenes. The cat like voice she uses when it comes to seduction was also very memorable. Morris is great as well as the dimwitted husband who bites the apple only to find a worm. The supporting cast is terrific as well and features May Robson, Lewis Stone, Una Merkle and Charles Boyer. The one thing I didn't like was the ending, which I felt was a major cop out. I'm not sure if this ending was forced on the studio but I think the fate of both Harlow and Morris was very cheap and too Hollywood unlike the rest of the film.

Hold Your Man (1933) Sam Wood

MGM tearjerker has a couple con artists (Jean Harlow, Clark Gable) falling in love but after an accidental murder they're separated. Gable takes off and Harlow ends up in a reform school where she learns she's pregnant but fears that she'll never see her man again. I really wasn't sure where this thing was going as it blends a strange mix of comedy with drama but in the end I found it quite touching. The first half plays as a comedy and gets a lot of laughs including a hilarious scene where Gable tries hiding from the police by getting in a tub and putting soap all over himself. There are plenty of pre-code moments mixed in with most of them coming from Harlow showing off various limbs. Gable is as good as always but it's Harlow who really steals the show. This is the first time I've seen her take on a dramatic role and she nails it perfectly. She's given several emotional scenes and she comes off very well. The ending is very dramatic and contains a beautiful message that comes across very well. It's also worth noting that there's a black preacher in the film and I think this is the nicest role I've seen a black actor play in this era of Hollywood. The stereotypes we normally see in this type of film are thrown out the window and this must have been one of the earliest films to show a black man in such a nice form.

Girl from Missouri, The (1933) Jack Conway

Jean Harlow plays a Southern girl who goes to the big city to land a millionaire and she thinks she finds on in a lawyer (Lionel Barrymore) but soon his son (Franchot Tone) starts coming onto her. The film has a pretty weak screenplay and there's really nothing too original going on. Even Harlow seems a tad bit bored as she doesn't contain any of that spark or energy that made her a legend. We do get several shots of her body, which are nice but it's not enough to save the film. Tone makes for a good leading man but it's Barrymore who steals the show with his maniac like performance. What laughs the film does get are due to Barrymore but Lewis Stone also comes off well in his small role. Oh yeah, one of Harlow's sexual scenes includes her being thrown into a shower with her clothes on and then walking out with her nipples showing through her dress.

Chato's Land (1972) Michael Winner

Charles Bronson plays an Apache Indian who kills a racist sheriff and then takes off into the wilderness while Jack Palance forms a posse to go after him. The screenplay isn't exactly original but the film remains slightly entertaining, although it gets off to a very slow start. For an action movie there's very little action for the first hour, which really gets tiresome after a while. The first half of the movie deals with them tracking down Bronson so there's really not too much going on but things eventually pick up once the killing gets going. There's some pretty good action scenes and some rather strong violence but even then the film just keeps on going and going. Cutting out fifteen-minutes wouldn't have been a bad idea. Bronson is very good in his role which doesn't require him to speak much but he can say plenty with his body gestures and looks. He spends the second half of the film running around in a loin cloth so the ladies should like that. Palance is good in his role but his final speech comes off pretty funny. The supporting cast includes some familiar character actors including James Whitman and Victor French. It's also funny how much stuff you could put into a PG-rated film in 1972. There's a lot of violence here but there's also a couple rape scenes with plenty of female nudity.

Brokeback Mountain (2005) Ang Lee

My girlfriend wanted to see this, which was fine with me because I had been meaning to revisit it since the passing of Ledger. I think I enjoyed the movie more this time than when I saw it when it was first released but my thoughts on the opening remain. I think the first stretch in the mountains goes on a tad bit long and probably could have used some editing. Outside of that I really think this is a great love story that has nothing to do with homosexuality. Yes, I said it has nothing to do with being gay. I don't think Dances with Wolves was the first movie to show Indians in a positive manor but it's the first film where the media picked up on it so they treated it like the film. The hype surrounding this film got so big for no reason that many people would believe this was the first film to feature gay characters. We all know that is bullshit. Having watched it for a second time my feelings on the best parts of the movie are still the same. I think the real story here has nothing to do with homosexuality but the impact that their secret has on the rest of their lives including their relationship with their wives. The best moments of the film are when Heath Ledger is going out "fishing" and just turning his back on his wife (Michelle Williams) and their two kids. I think the ending speaks volumes because how this secret between the two men really destroyed not only their own lives but the lives of those around them. The performances are great with Jake Gyllenhaal and Williams doing terrific work. I haven't seen all of Ledger's work but I think this film proves that he had great things in his future, which we won't be seeing any more of. I think silent acting is the hardest thing to pull off and Ledger does a great job with his here as his eyes, body gestures and just the way he carries his body tells you everything we need to know. I'm not sure if I'll ever watch this film again but it's certainly great and misunderstood IMO.

My girlfriend didn't care too much for it saying it was too slow and she didn't like Ledger's characters. She didn't care for the way he did things in the movie, like treating his wife, so she said she didn't care what happened to him, which I guess is a fair argument.

02/03/08

City for Conquest (1940) Anatole Litvak

James Cagney's brilliant performance is the highlight of this film about a boxer (Cagney) who risks it all for the love of his girl (Ann Sheridan) and his brother (Arthur Kennedy). It's rather amazing at how great Cagney can be in so many different type of roles. Yes, he mainly played wise guys but whenever he broke this mode he just shows what a great actor he was and that's certainly true with his performance here, which has to rank as one of the greatest of his career. The transformations his character goes through is certainly a juicy role for an actor and Cagney nails all of the different moods without any problems. When the boxer starts to lose his site is when Cagney really shines and his performance here is brilliantly done. I'm not sure what they did to Cagney's eyes but whatever they did looked terrific. I didn't care too much for Sheridan as I thought she brought the film down and a better actress would have suited the film better. The supporting cast is excellent and features nice performances by Kennedy, Frank Craven, Donald Crisp, Frank McHugh and George Tobias. Anthony Quinn is terrific in his role as Cagney's rival and future director Elia Kazan also shocked me with how great he was. The big boxing scene was brilliantly filmed and looked extremely well bringing in all sorts of intense action. The ending is pretty hokey but otherwise this is a highly impressive little film.

Lady Killer (1933) Roy Del Ruth

James Cagney plays a movie usher who gets fired and then gets mixed up with some gangster being led by Douglas Dumbrille and Margaret Lindsay. Soon a crime goes wrong so Cagney runs off to Hollywood where he starts work as an extra but quickly becomes a movie star. This is an enjoyable little comedy that works pretty well as a spoof of Hollywood and it gives Cagney a chance to make fun of his own image. Cagney is very good in his role, which once again shows him as a cocky, high tempered thug but there's also other moments including Cagney playing an Indian as well as showing off his comic side. Mae Clarke plays Cagney's love interest in Hollywood and the two are very good together with that infamous scene of Cagney dragging her across the floor by her hair. Both Lindsay and Dumbrille add nice support in their roles. One of the film's highlights is when Cagney orders two dozen monkeys to a party where they escape and cause all sorts of trouble. There's also plenty of nice gags aimed at Hollywood and directors. The film starts to run out of steam during the final act but if you're a fan of Cagney or films of this era then this is certainly worth checking out.

Castle of the Living Dead, The (1964) Luciano Ricci

A group of entertainers are invited by Count Drago (Christopher Lee) to perform at his castle but soon they start to fall dead. An old evil witch (Donald Sutherland) would have you believe that the castle has a certain evil inside. This Italian made horror film is also known as Castello dei morti vivi, Il but under either title this film is a dud. As with many Italian horrors of this period, you have the dark castle, creepy locations and weird storyline but none of them come off very well here. The story moves at a snails pace, which is another thing that haunts many of the horror films from this era. The music score was actually the best thing about the movie so listening to the soundtrack would be better than watching the film. Lee gives a decent performance but for the most part it seems like he's just cashing a paycheck. I did like the fact that they had him looking like Lugosi's character from White Zombie. Donald Sutherland steals the show as he plays three different characters including an old man and the old witch that the troop stumble across on their way to the castle. Sutherland is excellent as the old woman and you really have to look hard to notice that it's him.

News for the Church (2004) Andrew McCarthy

Extremely well made short about a young Catholic woman (Nora-Jane Noone) who goes to see her Priest (Jarlath Conroy) so that she can confess a one night stand. The editing and cinematography to this short is among the best I've seen in any recent film and first time director McCarthy (Weekend at Bernie's) does a great job at telling the story. It appears the film is a slam at the Catholic church for being so hard on sex yet letting child abuse go as if it were a lesser crime. The story of the girl and the Priest is mixed with another story and the way it's edited makes the film come off very powerful in the end.

Raving (2007) Julia Stiles

A troubled young woman (Zooey Deschanel) and a lonely middle-aged man (Bill Irwin) meets in a cafe and soon their secrets start to come out. The story is a little hit and miss here but Stiles shows some nice directorial touches and the two actors come across very well. It's never quite clear what issues are going on until the very end and even then it doesn't come over as any big shock but the acting keeps this short moving well. Stiles does a good job building up the two characters but a tighter screenplay would have helped.

School, The (2003) Jonathan Hayes

A school teacher (Russell Bennett) has various animals and plants die in his classroom, which makes the students wonder what death is and how life comes to be. Apparently there have been several versions of this film over the past few years including two from 2003. This is the only one I've watched and it was a pretty good little film that manages to be a little cute but at times it comes off rather creepy. The way the story is told is rather unique.
post #338 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Heath Ledger was phenomenal in Brokeback and the main reason the film was as good as it was. I agree that the silent acting he pulled off is one of the most impressive feats seen in recent years.
post #339 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

"Chato" was cut to get a PG in America. That's sadly the version on American DVD too.
German DVD is fully uncut. UK DVD is uncut bar a couple of horsefalls.

I was surprised at how serious and thoughtful "Chato's Land" was.
I've never agreed that Winner was a hack ("Death Wish", "The Jokers", "Hannibal Brooks", "Lawman" or even "Death Wish 2"-for a stirling example of studio lensed exploitation - show that) he was just astonishingly hit and miss.

Fro a supposedly crass action film the fact that the greatest threat to the posse is themselves, as internal struggles, hates and differing outlooks on justice conspire to rip them apart.

Palance I thought was a real surprise here. At first he seems like he's going to give us another of his scene chewing, steely eyed villains to enjoy, but as the movie progresses we see in fact that his character is emotionally deep and fascinating.
He's full of contradictions, bitterness, loss and corrupted thoughts of what justice means and how far any man should go.
"Chato's Land" may not be a masterpiece but it's perhaps the most thoughtful, multi-layered and serious work Winner has ever done.


Not seen "Brokeback", does not interest me. Hetro or Homo.
But I always thought the fact it had to add a 'sacred' Hetrosexual marriage to the mix that the Homosexuality destroyed smacks of not the promoting of Homosexuality the Bible thumping nutters said it was...But a rather tiring and obvious swipe at Homosexuality as a destroyer of marriage.
Why does either of them have to be married at all? To create a tediously obvious 'victim' of such unnatural practices?
Then we add in it all ends tragically (THOU SHALT BE PUNISHED FOR YOUR PERVERIONS!!) just reinforces the negative aspects of even being 'one of those'.

Not only that, on a more general level, it makes them (no matter what the sexuality) marriage breakers and adulterers.

Seems the Baptist brigade should actually have loved this film as it seems the cinematic version of one of the levels of Hell to me.
post #340 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Absence of Malice (1981)

Interesting dipiction of the lengths the press will go, to obtain a story whether true or not.

Michael Gallagher a legit businessman reads in the newspaper that he is under investigation. The local justice department wants Gallagher to give them info on the mob. It seems Gallagher is the son of a former mobster and nephew of a known local mobster. The justice department and a newspaper article leads to the death of a good friend of Gallagher's and he decides to turn the tables on them and sets everyone up.

This is a well acted movie with especially good performances from Paul Newman as Gallagher and Sally Field as the news reporter. But the star of the show has to be Wilfred Brimley. He shows up for only the last 15 minutes but they were memorable minutes. His matter of fact approach as he was uncovering the various shenanigans of the different people involved in this sham had me howling. Great movie and great story.
post #341 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatW
Absence of Malice (1981)

But the star of the show has to be Wilfred Brimley. He shows up for only the last 15 minutes but they were memorable minutes. His matter of fact approach as he was uncovering the various shenanigans of the different people involved in this sham had me howling.

He was great wasn't he!? Saw this years ago and I always remember his scene at the end.
He's a shockingly underrated actor. He was superb in "The Thing" and was memorable again as the Sheriff in the forgotten Slasher/Road trip flick "Death Valley".
post #342 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak
He was great wasn't he!? Saw this years ago and I always remember his scene at the end.
He's a shockingly underrated actor. He was superb in "The Thing" and was memorable again as the Sheriff in the forgotten Slasher/Road trip flick "Death Valley".

Yeah, he had a great career playing small parts. He was also good in Cocoon.
post #343 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

"Boogeyman 2" -

A barely related sequel to a little liked film, I had no desire to see, was not perhaps the best start for this (wrongly sent straight to DVD) movie, but some good word of mouth made me take a risk.

I was glad I did as well as, although there is nothing new here, the film delivers some well crafted, glossy, shocks that lead to a very satisfying and (amazingly today) coherent finale.

It's pretty much a repeat match as far as most of the killings go ('Boogeyman' gets one alone, does gruesome and nasty things, body then found by someone else) but at least the demises are suitably gory and nasty and carry a heavy "Saw" feel in the way some of them play out.

Much blood and gore later we are left with a solid, does the job well, glossy and modern Slasher flick (with possible supernatural tinges) that will come as no big revelation to anyone who has seen more than 4 horror films but is ultimately well worth a look for those in need for simple, well made, gory fun.

Its one to sit on the shelf ready to be pulled out at Halloween or on Friday the 13th's when you invite a few mates round for a bit of popcorn horror entertainment.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
post #344 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak
Not seen "Brokeback", does not interest me.

Why does either of them have to be married at all?

Your question is answered by your first sentence actually.
post #345 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

01/27/08: CARRY ON AGAIN DOCTOR(Gerald Thomas, 1969)

Being the third outing in the series to be set against a medical backdrop, I was fully expecting this to be a tired rehash of old gags and ideas; however, I found it quite an agreeable latter-day entry – if still essentially second-tier material.

The cast sees Kenneth Williams, Hattie Jacques and Jim Dale in more or less similar roles as its predecessor CARRY ON DOCTOR (1967); on the other hand, Sid James, Joan Sims, Charles Hawtrey and Barbara Windsor play different characters. Also, the mid-section of the film reverts to a tropical island setting (to which Dale has been assigned as a punishment, and where wily orderly James is stationed – though, even in such remote surroundings, he manages to keep up-to-date with English soccer results via coded drum-playing from the natives!).

Some of the best gags involve Dale’s accident-prone antics at the hospital early on (including his examination of scantily-clad starlet Windsor) and the latter stages set in Dale’s private clinic (James has devised a concoction which turns out to be an effective slimming treatment – subsequently exploited by Dale under the patronage of wealthy Sims), which also sees Hawtrey once again in drag (he’s a doctor who’s jealous of Dale and has infiltrated the clinic on a mission for Dale’s ex-superior/now-rival Williams). Series regular Peter Butterworth only has one wacky scene; other bits highlight Wilfrid Brambell (uncredited as an eccentric patient), lovely Valerie Leon (as Dale’s sultry secretary) and future Mrs. Michael Caine Shakira Baksh (as a native-girl who successfully undertakes James’ miraculous cure).


01/27/08: THE PIRATE MOVIE(Ken Annakin, 1982)

Rated a BOMB by Leonard Maltin, this is not really quite bad if certainly misguided – what was veteran British director Annakin thinking?: an old-fashioned pirate adventure, inspired by Gilbert & Sullivan’s operetta “The Pirates Of Penzance” (contemporaneously receiving the big-screen treatment), set to horrid electronic music. Yet, the thing is fitfully amusing in spots (often campily so)…

Christopher Atkins is bland as the unwilling buccaneer hero, but tomboyish leading lady Kristy McNichol is cute (she even naively says “Ole`” instead of “Touche`” during the swordfights!). Ted Hamilton, then, is The Pirate King – whose matinee`-idol looks seem like a cross between Adam West and Randolph Scott! Scenes from Fox’s classic swashbuckler THE BLACK SWAN (1942) with Tyrone Power actually play throughout the opening credits: it transpires to be a TV screening of that film – since the narrative here is given a modern-day framework, with the adventure within turning out to be a dream set off by the nerdy McNichols’ visit to a pirate attraction! Apart from much romance and derring-do, we get a bumbling group of singing and dancing bobbies (cops) who constitute an obvious anachronism. Still, they’re involved in one of the film’s more inspired bits: during the climactic bout, they gang up on a isolated pirate – and one of them attempts to obscure the camera’s viewpoint (recording the event, as it were)…which, of course, lampoons the usual expose` of police brutality!


01/28/08: THE TRAP(Giuseppe Patroni Griffi, 1985)

This pretentious, claustrophobic sex drama – which plays like a cross between LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972) and THE NIGHT PORTER (1974) by way of LOVE RITES (1988) – was concocted by directors Francesco Barilli and Lucio Fulci, while helmer Patroni Griffi was also behind the acclaimed ’TIS PITY SHE’S A WHORE (1971) – which I own, but have yet to watch.

To begin with, it does boast a good cast: Tony Musante is O.K. as the object of desire for several women; Laura Antonelli glamorous but no longer young (in fact, I don’t think she has any nude scenes here); Florinda Bolkan is underused in a thankless role; best of all are the sultry Marsillach sisters (Cristina – playing Antonelli’s character at a younger age when she had a clandestine fling with Musante – and Blanca as her daughter, who finds herself just as much attracted to him). The latter are involved in (or are witness to) several steamy situations and, although according the IMDB they were of age when the film was shot, they sure as hell don’t look it and, as such, the result is quite disturbing in spots and certainly leaves one with a bad taste in the mouth.

Anyhow, the narrative deals with Antonelli’s elaborate revenge on the selfish Musante whose sado-masochistic practices she endured as a child and which have subsequently traumatized her for life: she now lives across the hall from his current lover Bolkan and eventually, with her daughter’s help, he ends up trapped inside their apartment for days. The trouble is that the jealous offspring wants her mom’s lover for herself! The abrupt open-ended conclusion is fashionable – but, essentially, rather blah and Ennio Morricone’s score isn’t one of the maestro’s best, either.


01/29/08: CARRY ON GIRLS(Gerald Thomas, 1973)

This latter-day “Carry On” entry doesn’t feature such series stalwarts as Kenneth Williams, Hattie Jacques or Charles Hawtrey, but still manages to be great fun – if, in no way, a classic. Council member Sid James (tied up with hotel manageress Joan Sims) decides to drum up business for their modest town by organizing a beauty contest. Kenneth Connor (sporting a funny accent and fuzzy hair-do) is the long-suffering Mayor – who, apart from his office duties, has to contend on a daily basis with openly contemptuous wife Patsy Rowlands (theirs is inspired mismatch casting indeed). Another couple is James’ best pal Bernard Bresslaw and his young wife Valerie Leon (initially made to appear frumpy-looking but who eventually undergoes a make-over when, unbeknownst to her spouse, she determines to enter the contest herself out of jealousy).

Barbara Windsor is “Miss Easy Rider”(!) and she’s involved in rivalry throughout – erupting soon enough into a catfight in Sims’ hotel lobby – with ex-roommate Sally Geeson. June Whitfield is the feminist council member who opposes the contest; to this end, she engages photographer nephew Robin Askwith (later star of several naughty “Confessions” films – I’ve never watched any, but am on the point of acquiring a few) to cover the preparations in order to uncover some misdeed which would allow her to put a stop to the whole ‘debasing’ event. Jack Douglas as the hotel concierge incorporates his hilarious twitching routine (also seen in CARRY ON ABROAD [1972] and “Lamp-Posts Of The Empire”, an episode from the CARRY ON LAUGHING [1975] TV series). The finale – in which the contest is systematically sabotaged by the puritanical female townfolk (including the Mayor’s own wife!) is an undeniable highlight of the film but is, essentially, a direct lift from a much earlier entry in the series – the superior CARRY ON TEACHER (1959)!


01/29/08: DIAMONDS(Menahem Golan, 1975)

Elaborate caper movie which, while nothing special, is redeemed by its unusual Israeli setting. Robert Shaw has a dual role as an industrialist and his security device-maker twin (the karate match between the two Shaws constitutes perhaps the film’s low-point!). Ex-con and thief Richard Roundtree (often clad in conspicuously outlandish costumes) and lover Barbara Hershey (billed Barbara Seagull) are industrialist Shaw’s unwilling accomplices in a diamond robbery – whose security system was devised by none other than his brother (whom he admits to not liking!). Shelley Winters turns up in irrelevant bits as an annoying American tourist; GET CARTER (1971)’s Roy Budd provides the score. Caper movies are among my favorites (maybe, it’s because I work in a bankJ) but this is a very mild addition to that exciting thriller subgenre – chiefly because of an unconvincing plot also involving child kidnapping, a counter robbery from a church to mislead the Israeli police, the gang donning a series of silly disguises and, ultimately, a burglary which remains unfulfilled (again, a fashionable twist in the cynical 1970s but rather ludicrous in this context!).


01/30/08: CARRY ON EMMANNUELLE(Gerald Thomas, 1978)

This film exhibits a severe drop in quality in this popular long-running comedy franchise and is deservedly considered its nadir (no wonder it proved the last entry for 14 years!). Despite the connection to the soft-core French series (which offset a parallel Italian one), it’s really quite tame: statuesque Suzanne Danielle is quite delightful, and the film is chiefly tolerable because of her – the rest is generally tasteless and, sadly, rather lame! On the other hand, the series stalwarts are given little of substance to do, none more so than top-billed Kenneth Williams (who’s embarrassing, given that he has to appear butt-naked several times throughout!); guest star Beryl Reid is also wasted as a doting mother of one of Emmanuelle’s conquests, and Albert Moses (from the MIND YOUR LANGUAGE TV series) turns up as Williams’ bemused psychiatrist.

As was the case with the French original, there’s little plot to tie the relentless sexcapades: the liberal Emmanuelle’s wrecking of a society dinner is immediately followed by a would-be satirical sequence showing her go through various public offices delivering her own special favors. At one point, she even bets with chauffeur Kenneth Connor that she can seduce the Queen’s guards – but the scene has an ironic (if predictable) twist; throughout the course of the film, an entire soccer team, an infatuated naïve young man (Reid’s son) and a body-building celebrity also figure among the insatiable Emmannuelle’s endless parade of lovers.

She even arouses Williams’ servants – all of them series stalwarts – who open up to reveal their most unusual individual experience in the matter: while these scenes show some invention, essentially they’re just a lazy form of padding!; incidentally, Barbara Windsor was supposed to incarnate all of their ‘dream lovers’ – but, wisely, she dropped out of the project. At the end, husband Williams suddenly finds himself willing (he’d otherwise been obsessed with keeping fit!) and feeds Emmannuelle fertility pills behind her back…leading to a multiple-birth finale which may (or may not) be intended as a nod to Preston Sturges’ THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK (1944)!!


02/03/08: MINNESOTA CLAY (Sergio Corbucci, 1965)

Corbucci’s second Spaghetti Western is an improvement on the first – MASSACRE AT GRAND CANYON (1965) – but still a long way from his best efforts in the genre (namely DJANGO [1966] and THE GREAT SILENCE [1968]). The leading man is Cameron Mitchell, who wisely opted to appear in European films tackling starring roles rather than be stranded in Hollywood playing poor supporting ones; that said, in the same year as this film, he was featured in a fine ‘B’ Western by Monte Hellman – RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND (1965) – alongside rising star (and screenwriter) Jack Nicholson! The narrative provides many typical Spaghetti Western elements but, as I said, it’s an early example yet – so that it lacks the baroque touches inherent in later outings (suffice to compare Corbucci’s relatively sober treatment here to the tongue-in-cheek approach to the same concept in the self-explanatory BLINDMAN [1971]!).

Here, as in his two better-regarded genre classics, Corbucci gives us a hero – his name probably derives from Jackie Gleason’s character, Minnesota Fats, in the pool-room drama THE HUSTLER (1961)! – who has to battle not just the villains but a physical ailment (he’s slowly going blind). Besides, he has a daughter who thinks him dead – and he’s willing to offer her his protection, while remaining silent about his paternity (only at the climax, when the villain callously exploits his condition by putting the girl in Mitchell’s line of fire, does he confess to their kinship!).


02/03/08: TODAY IT'S ME…TOMORROW YOU (Tonino Cervi, 1968)

I’m sure this title has been broadcast on Italian TV many times over the years but, only after renting it on DVD along with many another Spaghetti Western, did I bother to check out whether it was any good – and I was surprised to see it receive a ratong on the “Cult Filmz” website! As it turned out, I found myself agreeing with that assessment – which makes the film one of the better (if largely unsung) entries in this profuse, eclectic and erratic genre.

An interesting name in the credits is that of co-screenwriter Dario Argento; actually, early in his career the soon-to-be horrormeister worked on several such efforts in this capacity (including the ultimate genre masterpiece, Sergio Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST [1968]). Similarly, director/co-screenwriter Cervi started out as a producer on films by such Italian arthouse heavyweights as Antonioni, Bertolucci, Bolognini, De Sica, Fellini, Lattuada, Monicelli and Visconti, etc. – though, later, he even dabbled in nunsploitation flicks!

Anyway, as I said, this is a pretty good Spaghetti Western – albeit saddled with a catchpenny (and meaningless) title – involving a typical revenge plot: leading man Brett Halsey (appearing, unnecessarily, under the amusing pseudonym Montgomery Ford!) emerges from prison after five years, having been framed for the murder of his Indian squaw bride (shown in sepia-toned flashback, this is pretty much a genre fixture); he rallies a compact but formidable band of gunmen/mercenaries (shades of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN [1960]) and sets out in pursuit of the real culprit, ex-pal Tatsuya Nakadai (the celebrated Japanese actor is given the Mexican name of Elfego, though he wields a deadly machete in the fashion of a samurai!).

Halsey appeared in a number of low-brow Spaghetti Westerns (one of them being ROY COLT AND WINCHESTER JACK [1970], incidentally an irregular – and disappointing – stint in the genre by Mario Bava, another seminal figure in Italian horror cinema) but this is most probably the best one he did. Accompanying the appropriately dour and black-clad lead, among others, are beefy Bud Spencer (a future icon of brawling comic fare – by the way, I have three more Spaghetti Westerns of his lined up for this week, one of which also credits Argento among its scriptwriters) and genre/Euro-Cult stalwart William Berger (his character is something of a fop and, furthermore, has a gambling addiction).

Nakadai’s presence here, then, is a delightful surprise – which definitely works to the film’s advantage (his demise, in a confrontation not unlike that in a Budd Boetticher Western, is a particular highlight); with this in mind, prolific composer Angelo Francesco Lavagnino incorporates several weird Oriental sounds into the traditional Spaghetti Western motifs – and the result is effective indeed. Sergio D’Offizi’s notable cinematography, however, isn’t rendered justice by the English-dubbed print utilized for the VCI DVD – which is considerably scratched and muddy (at one point, Halsey remarks that “It’ll be dark soon”…but the sky, as it appears, is already pitch-black!). Needless to say, the film contains the expected set-pieces of violent action – including an admirably sustained forest ambush at the climax.
post #346 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
01/30/08: CARRY ON EMMANNUELLE(Gerald Thomas, 1978)

You're a lot nicer than I am. I watched this last year and found it to be quite horrid from start to finish. I'm not sure if the rest of the series is as bad as this one but it certainly pushed me away from the series.
post #347 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
You're a lot nicer than I am. I watched this last year and found it to be quite horrid from start to finish. I'm not sure if the rest of the series is as bad as this one but it certainly pushed me away from the series.

I had no idea you've seen any of the "Carry Ons", Mike - let alone this one! I don't know if you've been reading my reviews and Dave's comments...but, having just watched 2/3 of the series in quick succession for the very first time, I can safely say that its evergreen popularity is well-deserved and, truly, a handful of them are genuine comedy classics.
post #348 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
I had no idea you've seen any of the "Carry Ons", Mike - let alone this one! I don't know if you've been reading my reviews and Dave's comments...but, having just watched 2/3 of the series in quick succession for the very first time, I can safely say that its evergreen popularity is well-deserved and, truly, a handful of them are genuine comedy classics.

...and none of them (even dire crap like "Carry on England") is really like "Emmannuelle". In fact the early ones are NOTHING like it.
post #349 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Your question is answered by your first sentence actually.

What? Having not seen it?
Nothing to do with it.
It was a choice to make the Homosexuality break up a marriage that was chosen to be put in there.

So why have any marriage in there?
Why can't you do a film on two single men (many problems, conflicts and obstacles would still exist too fashion a drama around very obviously) without the typical puritan poster boy 'Marriage' still being held up as a victim of it?
Especially when there are so few mainstream films that even tackle Homosexual relationships. Such a shame then that perhaps the biggest one ever made turns it into a marriage wrecking tragedy.
post #350 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

First off Dave, why aren't you interested in watching BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? You've wrote quite a bit about it so I'm curious as to why you won't watch it.

It's hard to answer your question since you haven't seen the movie. For one, the film takes place in 1963 with two men doing "manly" jobs so it's not like they could walk around holding hands. They would have been killed, blacklisted or whatever else but it would be impossible for them to be together, which is one of the big things in the movie. Ledger constantly says they can't be together outside their fishing trips.

As for why they're both married, you'd have to ask the author of the book but it gives the film its heart. Again, you'd have to watch the movie but the heart of the film centers on how this "secret", which neither man can reveal, comes back to haunt them. This secret could have been a wide range of events but for this film the topic is homosexuality. There are at least two scenes where Ledger says (and I'm quoting) "I'm not queer". Is he in denial? Is this something more than a homosexual thing? Should love not be labeled under such words? I'm really not sure what the movie was going for. I don't recall the topic ever coming up but perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the message, as I said, this isn't the first film to deal with homosexuality so anyone who gets caught up with that idea is just a fool to the media, who in return, are fools themselves. I'm not gay and never will be but I can still watch the movie. Some sides said this was a "gay movie" while other sides said it was "gay porn". I took a lot of shit from straight friends for even watching it. They were just joking around of course but this movie and the media attention made it something like God and something like Satan depending on your sexuality. I think this is pure bullshit on the part of the media but then again, the cast, director and producers didn't mind cashing in on it.
post #351 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci
I had no idea you've seen any of the "Carry Ons", Mike - let alone this one! I don't know if you've been reading my reviews and Dave's comments...but, having just watched 2/3 of the series in quick succession for the very first time, I can safely say that its evergreen popularity is well-deserved and, truly, a handful of them are genuine comedy classics.

I gave it but felt the humor was just too stupid and the spoof was downright bad.
post #352 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
the film takes place in 1963 with two men doing "manly" jobs so it's not like they could walk around holding hands. They would have been killed, blacklisted or whatever else but it would be impossible for them to be together, which is one of the big things in the movie. Ledger constantly says they can't be together outside their fishing trips.

Obviously, which is why I said that just having two single men would have still offered up many problems, conflicts and obstacles to fashion a drama around. And the secret would still have to be kept.


Quote:
As for the message, as I said, this isn't the first film to deal with homosexuality

No, but it was easily the most high-profile, mainstream film to tackle a Homosexual relationship perhaps in history. True, if the book dragged in a poor broken marriage to be victim then I guess the film did to.
Or just make another film instead.

As for fools, the fools would be those that think a tragedy filled tale of two heartbreaking marriage wreckers is in anyway pro-Gay.
As they are fools though I guess it means that just having a Gay relationship makes it pro-Gay...as of course they should all be locked up out of the sight of decent folks full stop.

As for not seeing it...The story has no interest to me in general and the non-stop tragedy of homosexuality and all the heartbreak it causes would just annoy me. As you can see.

Quote:
I'm not gay and never will be
Yes indeed as you're not Gay, then no...you won't be Gay later on.

I'm married, but bi-sexual. So I can look at the thing from both sides.

In fact I covered a highly influential for the time movie on Homosexuality (though far more to do with certain laws than actual Homosexual relationships) above with "Victim".
But it's sad that the tragedy of simply being Gay is still the only thing the highest profile Homosexual relationship film, to perhaps ever come along, feels it has to cover even these many years on.




"The Spectre of Edgar Allan Poe"

Beardy Freak Reviews

Pretty much forgotten gothic tinged horror flick starring Robert Walker Jr as Poe, who places the stricken Lenore into the less than safe hands of Cesar Romero's asylum owner.

A rather sedate and mannered, sometimes rather bland little item but one that thanffully manages to bounce into life during the last third and that pulls off a few effectively atmospheric moments of the macabre throughout.
post #353 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mutiny On the Bounty (1935)

I actually watched Mutiny on the Bounty in June of 2007 but will include it here for continuity purposes. Charles Laughton is deliciously hammy as Captain Bligh, tyrant of the Bounty, who pushes his crew towards mutiny because of his cruelty. First Mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Cable), stands up for Bligh at first, but then even he can no longer stomach Bligh’s abuses and leads a mutiny. Unfortunately for new Midshipman Byam (Franchot Tone), he gets caught in the middle and must decide between his loyalty to the captain and his friendship with Christian.

This truly rousing adventure story features fine performances, impressive sea effects, a twisty plot, and a suspenseful courtroom finale. Laughton, who was so funny as the shy butler Ruggles in Ruggles of Red Gap, excelled in villainous roles (e.g. Dr. Moreau) and here he’s nastier than ever. Bligh has no sense of humor, and his complete lack of compassion makes him an easy man to dislike. But one cannot help but admire his seafaring abilities, such as when he’s able to survive after being booted off the Bounty with a minimum of supplies. And while Clark Gable is better known for his romantic leading roles, his playing of Christian as the unwilling hero is every bit as strong as Laughton’s. They have great chemistry and it makes the audience feel the tension as their relationship becomes more combative. Tone is sympathetic as Christian’s friend, coming to Christian’s defense during the court martial. Byam’s fate is quite a punch to the gut.

Under Frank Lloyd’s direction, Mutiny on the Bounty moves swiftly and holds up very well as one of the best action/adventure films from Hollywood’s Golden Age.

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

Florenz Ziegfeld Jr. was one of the great showmen of the 20th Century. His lavishly produced Broadway shows made him rich and famous, but he died in 1932 in debt (due to the 1929 stock market crash). MGM’s three-hour opus to the Ziegfeld hits the highlights and lowlights of his career.

We first meet Ziegfeld (William Powell) at the 1893 Chicago World's Columbian Exposition where he’s promoting strongman Sandow (Nat Pendleton) and competing with fellow showman Billings (Frank Morgan), a friendly competition that lasts their entire lives. Ziegfeld hits upon away to exploit Sandow and the two eventually end up in New York. Not being satisfied, Ziegfeld cons and cajoles his way into a contract with hot French songstress Anna Held (Luise Rainer), promising her stardom in America. She signs, the two fall in love, but Ziegfeld is still driven to make his shows bigger and bigger.

The Great Ziegfeld is certainly entertaining, features a winning performance by Powell, and boasts some impressive stage numbers (“A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody”, Ray Bolger’s dance number). Luise Rainer is adorable as Anna Held. But like so many bio-pics, we never get a really good idea of what makes Ziegfeld tick. He is constantly broke, squandering his money instead of putting something aside. We aren’t clued in to why Ziegfeld takes such risks. He is a likeable fellow, even when he’s not the most loyal of husbands (the film has him and Held married, although they were not in real life.) But it would have been nice to get inside his insecurities, or whatever it was that made him so reckless financially.

Myrna Loy as Billie Burke is second-billed but doesn’t show up until the final hour. Not surprisingly, she and Powell (who had already made their first Thin Man film together) have terrific chemistry and their love story makes the last third the best part of the film.

The Great Ziegfeld is so good natured that it’s an easy film to like. But the final dramatic moments don’t have the power they should have because the character of Ziegfeld is still something of a mystery. It’s a shortcoming that prevents this good film from being great.
post #354 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Life of Emile Zola (1937)

Paul Muni was one of the Golden Age’s greatest actors. His performances during the 1930s earned him five Oscar nominations. He won for The Story of Louis Pasteur (1935). Muni totally inhabits the role of French author and activist Emile Zola – his voice work, his body language, and his mannerisms. It is a totally captivating performance. I absolutely loved this movie.

Emile Zola is a struggling author in Paris who becomes a major success with his book “Nana,” based on the life a professional woman he meets at restaurant one evening. His future published works are critical of the government, the military, and any and all powerful institutions. When his career is threatened to be derailed for his inflammatory writings, he settles down into a less controversial approach and becomes a rich and famous author.

But one evening Zola is visited by Lucie Dreyfus (Gale Sondergaard), whose husband (Joseph Schildkraut) was convicted for treason. She offers evidence that not only is her husband innocent, but that the military knows this and is covering up their mistake. Zola’s crusading batteries now recharged, he embarks on a campaign to free Dreyfus and expose those responsible for his false incarceration.

The Life of Emile Zola is an engrossing, rousing, and ultimately moving story of something that we’d all like to believe: that one person can make a difference. But it is Muni’s enthusiastic performance that drives the film. He speechifies, argues, investigates, writes, and does everything else with so much passion and conviction that he’s like a force of nature. Muni, virtually unrecognizable here under curly wig and behind glasses, brings such incredible energy to every scene, without ever becoming hammy, that Zola truly comes to life.

Muni is such a joy to watch that we miss him when he disappears from the action so the film can set up the Dreyfus story. Luckily these moments are well handled by director William Dieterle, who builds up the suspense and tension while documenting the circumstances surrounding Dreyfus and his false conviction. Sondergaard and Schildkarut are very good and sympathetic as the wronged couple. (The film makes it clear that the final “proof” of Dreyfus’ guilt is his being Jewish.) They have a truly emotionally wrenching scene as they say goodbye before his incarceration.

But this is Muni’s show, and brings Zola to life in a way that very few bio-pics able to do. While it is true that the story is set up so that we know who the villains are which makes it easy to know who to cheer for, Muni has already captivated us with his performance before this story thread is introduced. We are well aware of Zola’s intolerance for injustice. Watching Zola react to Lucie’s story, trying but being unable to ignore it, is just one of many great moments that the film provides.

The Life of Emile Zola is a great story with a classic lead performance. It’s a movie I was sorry to see end.
post #355 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

You Can’t Take It With You (1938) 1/2

Frank Capra won his third and final Oscar for directing You Can’t Take It With You, based on the popular stage play. The story has an eccentric family that makes ends meet by making and selling firecrackers and chocolates, butt heads with wildly successful businessman Anthony Kirby (Edward Arnold) who wants to buy their home. But when Kirby’s son (James Stewart) falls in love with a member (Jean Arthur) of the flamboyant clan, a whole new set of complications presents itself.

For the first hour or so, You Can’t Take It With You is a delightfully goofy comedy. Grandpa Martin Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore) who owns the house and oversees the family (his daughter and her family) lets everyone do as they please, whether it’s tinkering with inventions, taking ballet dancing lessons, or playing the xylophone. Everyone has fun, and this leads to madcap, juxtaposed scenes of merriment on the first floor while things explode in the cellar. These are complimented by sweet romantic scenes between Arthur and Stewart, who genuinely likes the Vanderhof family.

But then the “crisis” arrives, and the film switches from outlandish comedy to heart-wrenching drama. And even though the film ultimately rebounds and regains its footing, the initial switch is so jarring that one is taken out of the film for a while. Suddenly no one is happy anymore, sobbing and moping about. It’s just too dramatic a shift in tone.

Capra has balanced these elements successfully before in films such as It Happened One Night and It’s A Wonderful Life. But these films perfectly blend the laughs with the more emotional moments. It Happened One Night focuses on the budding romance between Gable and Colbert so we know exactly where the relationship is heading. We are told right at the beginning of It’s A Wonderful Life that George Bailey is contemplating suicide, so we know that, in spite of many laughs and pleasantries, that we are in store for a dark turn.

But the turn in You Can’t Take It With You is not as smoothly played as in the aforementioned films. It such a hard dose of reality that invades the Vanderhof family that it feels like we’re suddenly in a different movie. Luckily, Capra is able to regain his footing and the finale is wonderfully moving.

The main cast is uniformly excellent – Arthur, Stewart, Barrymore, and Arnold all turn in the expectedly fine performances. But the film also boasts terrific supporting turns from Mischa Auer as a Russian ballet dancer who always shows up in time for dinner, and the wonderful Donald Meek as a frustrated officer worker who quits and comes to live with the Vanderhofs. They are all so much fun to watch and/or listen to that they carry the film through the missteps.

You Can’t Take It With You is still a very good film from a director who loved to make us laugh and cry. It’s just that this time out he fumbles a bit during the change over. But the film is filled with many great moments and a memorable finale that make You Can’t Take It With You an easy recommendation.
post #356 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Gone With the Wind (1939)

Even those who’ve never seen Gone With the Wind know who Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara are, and are familiar with Clark Gable’s famous exit line. But its running time and reputation are rather intimidating – how can it possibly live up to expectations as one of the greatest films of all time? Can it possibly be engrossing for its entire almost four-hour length? The answer to both questions is thankfully an unqualified, “Yes!”

Near the eve of the Civil War Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) learns that the man she loves, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), is going to marry another, Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). At the party announcing the engagement she briefly meets Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), who is instantly attracted to her, because he knows just what kind of troublemaker she is. Over the next several years the two meet and spar, as Scarlett manipulates, cons, and tricks those around her to get what she wants, only realizing too late what she wants out of life.

Gone With the Wind is an engrossing soap opera in the best sense of the term. Leigh’s O’Hara is so initially off-putting because of her spoiled nature, which gets only worse, that it’s a testament to Leigh and the storytelling that we ultimately become so absorbed in the story. Butler and O’Hara are not nice people; they are selfish and arrogant – in short, perfect for each other. But they each have moments where they make admirable choices: O’Hara helping the pregnant Melanie escape the coming Union Army, and Butler helping the ladies return to Tara Plantation. The final hour sets up an emotional domino affect as tragedy after tragedy befall many of the main characters and the resulting emotional blows are crushing. By carefully setting up the characters and setting the events against a period of time that was devastating to the South’s wealthy class, the film reaps emotional dividends unlike few films before or since. These characters – good or bad – stay with you.

Technically, the film is a marvel. Oscar’s first Best Picture in color, Gone With the Wind is visually breathtaking. The burning of Atlantic and the view of corpses littering the once prosperous Georgia are juxtaposed against images of glorious homes and beautifully clad ladies. Max Steiner’s main theme is instantly recognizable. And Hattie McDaniel’s Academy Award-winning turn as Mammy is an absolute gem – a servant whose wisdom and sassiness endears her to all.

Gone With the Wind lives up to its status as one of the truly great movies. It’s a virtually flawless film that sweeps the viewer up in its epic story of love amongst the spoiled. It is truly one of Hollywood’s finest epics.
post #357 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Dave, none of your comments hold any water because you haven't seen the film. You might take away something different than I did. You might see more in the men's relationship that I did. You might feel different than my girlfriend and I did towards the Williams character.

Quote:
But it's sad that the tragedy of simply being Gay is still the only thing the highest profile Homosexual relationship film, to perhaps ever come along, feels it has to cover even these many years on.

You're making these assumptions without seeing the film. You are making this political when it really doesn't have anything to do with the actual film. You wrote "the tragedy of simply being gay". I really don't think they made a big deal about it. It was just part of the story.
post #358 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Here Come the Girls

Bob Hope made a lot of good and funny films. This isn't one of them. Weak script, weak songs, weak film.
post #359 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stell
Gone With the Wind (1939)

Even those who’ve never seen Gone With the Wind know who Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara are, and are familiar with Clark Gable’s famous exit line. But its running time and reputation are rather intimidating – how can it possibly live up to expectations as one of the greatest films of all time? Can it possibly be engrossing for its entire almost four-hour length? The answer to both questions is thankfully an unqualified, “Yes!”

Near the eve of the Civil War Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) learns that the man she loves, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), is going to marry another, Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). At the party announcing the engagement she briefly meets Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), who is instantly attracted to her, because he knows just what kind of troublemaker she is. Over the next several years the two meet and spar, as Scarlett manipulates, cons, and tricks those around her to get what she wants, only realizing too late what she wants out of life.

Gone With the Wind is an engrossing soap opera in the best sense of the term. Leigh’s O’Hara is so initially off-putting because of her spoiled nature, which gets only worse, that it’s a testament to Leigh and the storytelling that we ultimately become so absorbed in the story. Butler and O’Hara are not nice people; they are selfish and arrogant – in short, perfect for each other. But they each have moments where they make admirable choices: O’Hara helping the pregnant Melanie escape the coming Union Army, and Butler helping the ladies return to Tara Plantation. The final hour sets up an emotional domino affect as tragedy after tragedy befall many of the main characters and the resulting emotional blows are crushing. By carefully setting up the characters and setting the events against a period of time that was devastating to the South’s wealthy class, the film reaps emotional dividends unlike few films before or since. These characters – good or bad – stay with you.

Technically, the film is a marvel. Oscar’s first Best Picture in color, Gone With the Wind is visually breathtaking. The burning of Atlantic and the view of corpses littering the once prosperous Georgia are juxtaposed against images of glorious homes and beautifully clad ladies. Max Steiner’s main theme is instantly recognizable. And Hattie McDaniel’s Academy Award-winning turn as Mammy is an absolute gem – a servant whose wisdom and sassiness endears her to all.

Gone With the Wind lives up to its status as one of the truly great movies. It’s a virtually flawless film that sweeps the viewer up in its epic story of love amongst the spoiled. It is truly one of Hollywood’s finest epics.


I find GWTW to be one of the most overrated of all revered films:


I finally got around to dedicating four hours to this celebrated film, and while I had to admire its radiant Techincolor cinematography, strong characterizations and magnificent musical score (thank you, Max Steiner), I could not savor much of the actual movie itself. Therefore, I consider GONE WITH THE WIND way overrated in the rankings of all time "best" films. While it's very appealing on a technical level, it struck me as an ordinary soap opera dressed in vibrant garnish. It's an ugly, gloomy movie that's all prettied up with fancy decoration. If not for this lavish treatment, this would not be anywhere near as praised as it is today.

This is one of the long epics that really feels like it, and the meandering love story could have been told in half the time. The first side of the picture is mostly drawn out exposition, and it isn't really until the second half that WIND kicks into higher gear and finds its stride. As I said from the top, one positive is that all the characterizations are quite potent, and that goes double for Academy-Award winning Vivien Leigh, who succeeded continuously in making me despise her as Scarlett O'Hara, a hateful and abusive witch that makes you wonder why anyone would want to spend these four hours with her, never mind a lifetime (as clueless Rhett Butler so desperately wants to do). Scarlett is so mean and self-centered that I couldn't have cared less what happened to her (and I really wanted something to happen to her). I suppose that's part of the idea - but I can't get four hours of entertainment out of that unless O'Hara is actually Baby Jane or Lizzie Borden. How are we supposed to sympathize with her plight?

What does Scarlett see in geeky Ashley Wilkes? More importantly, what does Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) see in HER? Oh, right, I forgot - she's feisty, strong, says what's on her mind, etc. -- but it should have been quite clear to Butler that a marriage with this user could never work. And when they finally do tie the knot (after she's been married twice already to men she cared even less about than Rhett! HELL-LO!) it turns out that Butler finally sees he made a mistake. Well, maybe not -- because one minute he wants a divorce, the next minute he's hoping they can work things out, then it's back to divorce, then a pregnancy lights up his eyes again. Back and forth, back and forth, two and a half hours, three hours -- and finally, like me, he decides he just doesn't give a damn. Well, duh!

So Rhett rejects Scarlett. Their little girl dies. Goodbye Ashley Wilkes. Lovable Melly bites the dust too. But at least there's always tomorrow, and Scarlett still has her old land and another chance for Rhett. Ugh. While dramatically well rendered, it's all so sullen for this kind of a movie.

I still give GONE WITH THE WIND a rating of **1/2, because it's certainly better than average - and especially taking into account its great cinematic strengths. When I think of this film, I keep hearing that marvelous, grandiose main title theme, and I keep seeing the beautiful orange sky with Leigh as a silhouette in the night swearing she'll never be hungry again. I see impressive camera shots, like the tracking sweep where Scarlett walks among row after row of fallen war-worn bodies. The only way I could use the word "classic" in good faith is to say this film is a classic case of style over substance.

Quote:
You Can’t Take It With You (1938) 1/2

We DO agree here!


Well deserving of its Best Picture status, this took a while to settle in for me, but once it did I really enjoyed it. Delightful and very funny at times, but it also makes you think about what you're doing in life. How free-spirited it would be if we could all heed the advice of Lionel Barrymore in the film and simply walk away from our humdrum jobs and responsibilities. Alas, in reality we must get around to paying our bills and putting food on the table. But it's still a nice dream and it's a pleasure to be carefree for two hours while watching this wonderful movie.

James Stewart was fine in this picture, but he didn't really figure that prominently in it; I was much more interested in the Lionel Barrymore grandfather who long ago decided to have some fun in life and leave everything else behind, and Stewart's stuffy old rich father (well played by Edward Arnold), who eventually learns that money really means nothing in the end.


Quote:
Mutiny On the Bounty (1935)

Another disappointment for me. I don't have notes handy on this one, but I recall thinking that, even though I like Laughton in general, he was really way too unbelievably over the top for me, and I only rated this
post #360 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Bullfighter and the Lady

This may be the best bullfighting movie ever made, but unless you're into bullfighting, after that, all you're left with is a predictable drama, with an unrealistic love story.

The Strong Man

Harry Langdon had a brief time as a top silent comedian, but it didn't last long. Trying to describe him, one does think a lot of comparisons to Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, but that's mostly cause he's a hodgepodge of them, with no truly original aspect. Frank Capra directed this silent, and you can see his directorial skill shining through.

Tramp Tramp Tramp

Another Langdon film, without Capra, but co-starring Joan Crawford. Not great, but solid.

Long Pants

Langdon's last big picture is the weakest of these three. Capra is directing again, but it's kind of a mess. Turns out that comparisons to Chaplin had gone to Langdon's head, and he actually would end up 'firing' Capra after this film. It's easy to see in hindsight that the silly, lightweight, and poorly structured film is Langdon's fault, not Capra's. Langdon faded away after this, Capra sailed to new heights. Nuff said.
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)