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 14

post #391 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Though beautiful to look at, it pales in comparison to Elizabeth in story.
I can't fault the acting here especially Cate Blanchard who gives the kind of performance that we've come to expect. Forget the love story. I wanted to see more of the warrior queen and more of the battle at sea with the Spanish Armada. That part, the most interesting part of the movie was skimmed over briefly. Instead we get lots of court intrigue and politics. The costumes were gorgeous as were the sets. The photography was out of this world. There is a scene with Elizabeth on a cliff looking out at the burning ships. I don't think I've seen a lovelier shot. This movie could have been alot better or at least been equal to the acting, costumes and sets. Very disappointed in a story that had so much potential.
post #392 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
You prefer fantasy over reality?

In all seriousness, who exactly do you think deserves to die? Someone who smokes pot? Someone who plays with himself to Britney Spears videos? Just the rapists and murderers? Is there a limit to who deserves what?

Have you seen I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE? If so, there's something in this movie that's also in THE BRAVE ONE, which I'd like to chat with you about after you've seen it. It's mainly something with Roger Ebert's review of both of them though.

Did you ever seen William Lustig's VIGILANTE? I've got this one on DVD but haven't watched it yet.


I own both "I Spit" and "Vigilante". And they won't help your cause, because they do the sub-genre proud.

And they are exactly what I mean.
In "Vigilante" an appalling injustice was done.
That injustice was put right by the man whose family was butchered and who did not even have the Law do what it should have done to get any kind of closure for him in his time of pain.

So he got it himself.
INCLUDING (and what a GREAT extra treat this was) an extra target who started all the injustice in the first place. You'll HATE it!

BOOM! Fuck reality.

If I want reality I'll watch something else.
Justice may not be done in the same circumstances in real life, but that is WHY vigilante flicks exist. So we can at least see it done for our movie going pleasure.
And I fail to see why you have a problem with that.

"12 Angry Men" is about as unrealistic as any vigilante flick in what happens. It's pure, planned, theatre.
That does not take away it's status, but it does not mean it's somehow above a "Death Wish" in realism.
In fact it's LESS realistic than "Death Wish" which is actually a film grounded in it (unlike the sequels...but that's ok too).


Who deserves to die????
The specific pricks in the film (whichever it happens to be) who have either wronged the main character and/or his family and got away with it, or (as in "Death Wish") the general pricks who thinks it's ok to mug and rape and think they can get away with it. (the rest of your sentence about that was absurd. There was no 'in all seriousness' there.)

And I fail to see why anyone who would watch a vigilante film would ever watch a vigilante film if they did not want that to unfold!
Stick to Cop movies then if you do! there's a lot of them.
But lets keep so called morals about punishing the wronged person who did what the law failed to do for them (and others) out of the genre.
As it negates the whole damn point of why vigilante films exist.

If you want reality and the Law actually doing what's right...Watch cop films (though I'd avoid "Dirty Harry" Mr Elliott) and "Law and Order".
Nothing wrong with that or them. But they are not doing what a vigilante film is doing.

the Vigilante film is a sub-genre that exists for one reason only. To see injustice righted in a way that the audience can enjoy as a break from reality (sort of...again, why does a vigilante in reality HAVE to be found or caught?) which is what a good 50% of all cinema exists for.

"I Spit" is the same.
True...The Law did not fail in it as it was never consulted. So it's slightly different.
But if you look at the facts (and let us not forget it's based on something the director did see when a real rape victim DID go to the Police and found no justice) then you have a sexy newcomer female, all alone in her cabin who screams rape about a group of locals. At least one of which owns a local business and has a wife.
No witnesses either. A small rural town. add it all up and the outcome is obvious.
The director saw what happened to the real rape victim so simply skipped the obvious and had her get her own revenge as the situation of her rape basically left no other way.
And she may not be OK at the end (because she was raped!) but she obviously feels a shit sight better than if she had been humiliated in court with no justice at the end (IF the cops had even let it get that far) or simply walked away and let them get away with it.

And above all...It's an EXPLOITATION film. And court scenes and police procedure and bail hearings and appeals have no place there obviously!

Don't we ALL prefer fantasy over reality at times?
Surely movie enjoyment takes in a whole spectrum of movies. Since when was a 100% dose of 'realistic' films a noble cause?

And Ebert... is a tit.



And to be blunt, if you want reality in these set-ups then simply read the damn papers and watch the news. You can see all the reality you could ever want of criminals getting away with it with nothing done and people who do fight back being sued for assault by the robber who broke into their house... everyday... for FREE. Who want to pay to see it in a film or DVD?
THAT'S why we have vigilante films, so at least the fantasy can cure the depressive ills of the reality of such situations.
And God bless the vigilante film that let's us do that in peace.
post #393 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Invasion (2007)

I solid re-make in the horror sci-fi category though I don't know if I'm exactly thrilled with how it ended. My favourite re-make was the 1970's version with Donald Sutherland. That one was scary. Nicole Kidman was great in this film. Everyone else paled by comparison. I imagine they were trying for a more cerebral approach because the only horrifying or scary part of this movie was the car chases. Still I enjoyed watching it.
post #394 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Dave, the thing that scares me are the ones who try to play God in these films. You can say Bronson, Jigsaw or the characters in any other revenge film. These are just movies so it doesn't matter but there's always some sick bastard who can't separate the two and thinks the only way out is through a weapon. We have an outbreak of school and mall shootings in this country and these people too thought they had the right to say who deserves to die. We can take trash like the DEATH WISH sequels or I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and be entertained by it because there's no reality to it.

I think some people are so bitter and angry that they couldn't separate reality from a movie. Those people are rather scary and perhaps this belongs in a discussion of ELEPHANT. I've heard several people say they cheered for Jigsaw in SAW because those who use drugs deserve to die. There are sicko's out there cheering for whoever to kill the rich, kill the preps, kill, kill and just kill. I think Jigsaw and his twisted mind was a lot more dangerous than some woman selling her body or you and I toking on a joint.

Heck, OLDBOY is another we can put into the genre.


Quote:
I imagine they were trying for a more cerebral approach because the only horrifying or scary part of this movie was the car chases.

That's what I thought too. The movie seemed to be going for a "brains" approach but Warner didn't like it and hired directors to come in with the action scenes.
post #395 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak
BOOM! Fuck reality.

If I want reality I'll watch something else.
Justice may not be done in the same circumstances in real life, but that is WHY vigilante flicks exist. So we can at least see it done for our movie going pleasure.
And I fail to see why you have a problem with that.

I agree completely -- that's the whole point, that our dopey system never gets the job done and always caters better to the criminal rather than the victim. A vigilante film should be where a person says "enough of that crap," and takes the law into his own hands and gets away with it as the Good Samaritan. It's the whole point of the genre.

And though it depends on the movie in question, to answer your question, yes -- I usually prefer fantasy over reality when going to the movies. But I enjoy both, depending on the subject.
post #396 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I've heard several people say they cheered for Jigsaw in SAW because those who use drugs deserve to die. There are sicko's out there cheering for whoever to kill the rich, kill the preps, kill, kill and just kill. I think Jigsaw and his twisted mind was a lot more dangerous than some woman selling her body or you and I toking on a joint.

You don't have to say "some people", Mike - just say me. The reason SAW worked so well for me is yes, I loved the idea that Jigsaw (at least as I took it in the first film, though things have morphed a bit in the sequels) was a guy dying of cancer who wanted to teach these idiots that life is very important, and to do the right things by themselves and try to lead a better life and learn from their mistakes. In the first film, Jigsaw's young female apprentice says he "saved her", if memory serves... he helped her.

Now, this doesn't mean it's okay to go around setting booby traps to kill people! Jigsaw is still a crazy lunatic.... but I did enjoy the angle. I don't have cancer myself, but I do have my share of health annoyances, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing people who "have it all," like a Britney Spears, destroying themselves. I despise this... these people have money, good looks, great health, popularity, anything any human being could ever desire or need, and yet somehow they feel compelled to throw it all away by poisoning their bodies, driving drunk, overdosing on pills, and basically spitting in the eye of God who bestowed a special blessing on them, and squandering it. "Good riddance" is what I say each and every time another of them bites the dust; there are too many sensible non-users in the world who do not abuse themselves yet who are desperately trying to be healthy and find the answers they seek, and who, sadly, cannot. These people have to actually work hard for a meager living, while many (not all) rich and spoiled ungrateful celebrities throw it all away.

But by the same token, I champion and respect those people who recognize they're the only ones to blame for wrecking their lives, and they go about correcting it. I salute these people with all my heart, those who wake up and make the choice to stop putting themselves into harm's way.

So call people like me "sicko" if you want; I don't consider myself the sicko, and I surely will never hurt anyone... but it is satisfying to watch the films. I can certainly separate reality from fantasy and right from wrong, so maybe you weren't referring to someone like me...
post #397 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I’ve been catching up on my reading the last few pages of this thread and I seem to have missed out on a lot of hot topics – Grindhouse flicks, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974), cinematic depictions of homosexuality, vigilantism, etc. – to which I could – and perhaps should – have contributed. Still, it’s nice to see people getting mildly worked up about these themes even if, in the long run, it’s only a movie…

Anyway, some belated comments on things I met along the way of my reading through this thread:

I had to laugh when I read George’s views that Frank Capra did a much better job at directing the overlong and badly-miscast (and, unsurprisingly, his cinematic farewell) POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961) – than with the Oscar-nominated original, LADY FOR A DAY (1933). Talking of Capra, while it’s been years since I’ve seen them, I’d say that the blackly comedic LONG PANTS (1927) was the most fascinating of the three best-known Harry Langdon movies…even if, overall, THE STRONG MAN (1926) was the most satisfying vehicle for his talents.

Dave, kudos to you on your insightful reviews of SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950) and VICTIM (1961); as for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), I did watch it but, like Michael, I found the second half to be far more interesting and emotionally involving than the hyped-up gay cowboy segment. Not something I’d ever watch again definitely… which, in hindsight, perhaps nullifies my own rating!

Finally, Michael: as much as I love Burt Lancaster (and particularly his collaborations with European auteurs), I’ve always felt that John Hurt was criminally robbed of a much-deserved Oscar for his overwhelmingly emotional turn as the misshapen John Merrick in THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980) which, in my mind, is still the only wholly satisfying film David Lynch ever made; it’s a damn pity that it was only years later that it became fashionable for actors to portray handicapped people in search of surefire Oscar glory!! I’m not totally discounting De Niro’s victory here but I suppose I’ve pointed out my views on Martin Scorsese’s films often enough on HTF already…

Also, to know the “Carry On” series only through CARRY ON EMMANNUELLE (1978) is like judging all the Hammer horrors via PREHISTORIC WOMEN (1967)!! Film-buffs who enjoy the Espionage, the Epic, the Western and the Horror genres should seek out and eventually enjoy CARRY ON SPYING (1964), CARRY ON CLEO (1964), CARRY ON COWBOY (1965), CARRY ON SCREAMING! (1966), FOLLOW THAT CAMEL (1967), CARRY ON…UP THE KHYBER (1968), CARRY ON UP THE JUNGLE (1970) and CARRY ON HENRY (1971).
post #398 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)

A charming little film directed by George Pal, made brilliant solely by Tony Randall's tour de force in taking on several different roles. He starts out as the oriental Dr. Lao, who is magical and can transform himself into various forms within his own traveling circus. When a small western town starts to come apart at the seams due to an unscrupulous businessman, Lao helps the community see through the manipulation and helps everyone come to their senses by entertaining them at his mystical circus. Randall wears many different makeups courtesy of the award-winning William Tuttle: Dr. Lao, Merlin the old magician, the Abominable Snowman, Medusa, Pan, and Apollonius of Tyana. He also has a brief cameo in his own face as a member of the audience.


Untraceable (2008)

Entertaining thriller about a crazed young computer whiz who becomes moderator of his own "Kill With Me" live internet feed where he displays new victims being slowly tortured to death. The more hits he gets at his site, the faster the people die. This is disturbing in making us realize what depths we've sunk to in our society, and what morbid curiosities can do. I especially liked that the 40-something Diane Lane is the star as the police woman who tries to apprehend the killer, instead of relying on the usual Jessica Alba or Sarah Michelle Gellar "honeys" of late.


The Brave One (2007)

Jodie Foster plays the "Death Wish" game in this tediously overlong movie which drags its feet much of the time in reaching its destination. She's a New York radio DJ who gets attacked in Central Park (oh, that stereotypical old chestnut again) while taking a walk with her lover, and he is murdered while she's beaten severely and survives. Once she's out of the hospital her mental state is a bit unbalanced, so she decides to buy a gun and finds herself in the middle of a few Bronson-like contrivances which she settles with her convenient new firearm. I didn't really buy into much of this, and for me the most interesting aspect to the film was Terrence Howard's laid back and likable detective with a good heart, who finds himself having a semi-relationship with Foster... but this idea really doesn't go very far either.
post #399 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Dave, the thing that scares me are the ones who try to play God in these films.

Ahhh...Now we have a thingy here.
I think you are accusing the vigilante film of doing something it doesn't do.

I think that this 'playing God' attitude is normally punished, because it's an attitude that (obviously) gets out of control.
But almost all vigilante films never actually go the 'I am God' route.
4 examples;

"Death Wish" Bronson only kills those that ARE doing something (like in the alleyway scene) or whom he baits into doing something (by simply walking where these animals dictate you can't walk).
He never just shoots someone because of the way they look, talk, where they are or anything else. They literally make their own destiny.

"I Spit" - She kills those that raped her. That's controlled and targeted, not God like.

"Death Wish 2" - He hunts down those that raped and killed his daughter and who are a gang of ruthless criminals. Again it's targeted against those that HAVE done wrong.

"Death Sentence" -He simply targeted those that murdered his Son and then his Wife. There was nothing random and no God-like personal judgments...They WERE guilty. (again which is why he should have walked away).

The Law itself would see all these people as guilty.

But a perfect, oh so perfect, example of punishment dealt out to a vigilante when that just cause and targeted approach fails and becomes corrupted by madness and squirly personal prejudice (and as such the moral shield of simply 'doing what's right and what the Law failed to do' is lost) is Abel Ferrara's masterful "Ms.45"

It starts out as a "Death Wish" style 'bait the creeps' vigilante film where she only kills those that choose themselves to attack her (and as such would do it to anyone who might not be able to defend themselves...no doubts about guilt here...would you prefer Zoe to bump into them or your Gran?), but later on her judgment is lost, she is now seeing all men as a possible target.
No man is safe from her as they have all become the rapists in her damaged mind.
As such she literally does become God-like, blasting out her own personal, unjust as it turns out, retribution against men who have done nothing other than look at her.
And for this...she is punished at the end.
She is put down like any rabid dog would be as it snapped its way through a terrified crowd.
She lost the moral high ground, she lost the cause of justice, she became the kind of psychopath that she was hunting. She became the problem.
And judgment was forthcoming.

So I don't think the vigilante film does, ever (as far as I can remember), approve of 'Playing God' and does indeed punish those that go down this route.



"The Dirty Dozen: The Next Mission"
-

Perhaps THE most damning examination of the effects of warfare on those men caught up in it. WHAT!?
Well, because despite it being set just a few months after the first movie...everyone who returns from that movie looks like they've actually aged 18 years!!! I thank you.

Pretty lame, but sporadically enjoyable, sequel to the classic original film with Borgnine, Jaeckel and the mighty Marvin returning to their roles 18 years later.
The 'Dozen' cast is TV movie level indeed (as indeed this film is) and has none of the memorable enjoyment of the first film.

The plot is at least unusual though (to kill the man going to kill Hitler, as Hitler is actually The Allies best weapon in ending the war as soon as possible because he's so...er....crap at running his army quite frankly) but the action is not that thrilling or well staged (mind you some of the staging in the first film is not that good. Like the 'watch in horror as a comrade is killed, pause, then all turn and kill the German that did it' oft-repeated moments) and cheap looking for the most part. An unexpected bit of gore at one point aside this lacks the brutal edge the first film had as well.
Something only for a wet afternoon really.
post #400 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Michael,

Thanks for the heads up on that documentary. It sounds interesting, and I'll have to see if I can find it for rent.

Dan in Real Life

I can't quite put my finger on why this doesn't quite work. It's pretty good in most of the ways that a romantic comedy should be, though I guess it basically falls kind of flat on the comedy per se. The idea (man meets great woman, she turns out to be dating his brother) should have been fodder for a lot more laughs than this one gives us.

The Pacifier

Expectations are an amazing thing. It doesn't really matter how good or bad a company does, if they beat expectations (no matter how low) their stock rises, and if they fail to meet them (no matter how high) their stock plummets.

I think if I had (in admittedly some strange alternate universe) read tons of great reviews of this, and thought it was going to be a masterpiece, I'd be ripping it to shreds. But having heard how horrible it was, it turns out to be a lot better than that, and so, while not good, or anything I'll bother watching again, it's certainly not as bad as people make out by a long shot.
post #401 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Holiday (1938)

Johnny Case is a free thinking individual one who feels you only need enough money to meet your basic needs and the rest of your time should be devoted to being on holiday. Johnny Case (Cary Grant) is engaged to a millionaire's daughter Julia (Doris Nolan) a somewhat cold individual who along with her father is astounded by Johnny's attitude. The one who does 'get it' is Linda (Katharine Hepburn) Julia's sister, who finds herself first attracted and then falling in love with Johnny.

This story's appeal is boosted by the great chemistry that is present between Hepburn and Grant. Both of them are enormously appealing stars especially Grant who has a flare for this type of material. I loved Hepburn's spirit in this movie in contrast to the more controlled behaviour of Doris Nolan playing Julia. This has been labelled a screwball comedy. I don't see anything madcap about it. To me it's more a dramatic comedy that speaks to the choices we make in life. This is one of Hepburn and Grant's finest.


The Jane Austen Book Club (2007)

Each month a group of women and one man meet at different locales to discuss an Austen Book. Through discussing the various books we learn about each of the people and the different interpersonal relationships that encompasses their lives. All the acting was adequate especially Maria Bello who was able to express quite aptly the loneness and self-imposed isolation of her character. It's not necessary to have read any of Jane Austen's books but it does help in an understanding of the motivations of the different characters. Great story.
post #402 of 1907
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
The reason SAW worked so well for me is yes, I loved the idea that Jigsaw (at least as I took it in the first film, though things have morphed a bit in the sequels) was a guy dying of cancer who wanted to teach these idiots that life is very important, and to do the right things by themselves and try to lead a better life and learn from their mistakes.

So call people like me "sicko" if you want; I don't consider myself the sicko, and I surely will never hurt anyone... but it is satisfying to watch the films. I can certainly separate reality from fantasy and right from wrong, so maybe you weren't referring to someone like me...

It wasn't aimed at you but we can chat.

Once again I ask, who in the hell is Jigsaw to say how someone should live their life? Let's not forget that his little games caused innocent people to die as well. Jigsaw says I shouldn't smoke a joint so he kills me? Jigsaw says you shouldn't take presciption drugs so he kills you? Tom Cruise says birth should be natural and if you take drugs to bring down the pain then you should die?

The whole point is who is anyone to tell someone else how to live their lives? I guess if I hit the bar scene and start picking up girls for sex every weekend then Jigsaw would look at me and say I should die. I guess if I'm speeding and risking my life then Jigsaw would say I have the right to die.

The character in SAW is different than those in a vigilante film but we can take this whole "bad = death" thing to various other films including our beloved horror genre. I'm not sure how much I believe in the theory that the bad die but this always happens while the virgin lives. Why in the hell should someone die simply because they have sex? Do these killers really think that sex is a death penalty?

Of course, taking these films serious is a joke in itself since they are mostly junk but for them to put themselves as the law makers of the land is a joke and something that should have been put into TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.


Quote:
So I don't think the vigilante film does, ever (as far as I can remember), approve of 'Playing God' and does indeed punish those that go down this route.

Perhaps someone who was around in 1974 could comment but DEATH WISH hit theaters with a storm of controversy. The film was criticized because Bronson never got the guys who did the rape/murder. I always overlooked this because he did go after those who came after him but as Ebert said, it's hard to believe that this one person would keep running into trouble. If NYC was like that then Bronson's character wouldn't have lived as long as he did.

The other examples you gave are exploitation trash that don't contain an ounce of brains in them so there's no point in commenting on them. They were made to exploit and they did that very well. These films weren't made to be realistic or try to do anything other than showing rape and violence.

DEATH SENTENCE and THE BRAVE ONE are different as they try to look at things seriously, although IMO, THE BRAVE ONE fails due to the horrid ending as well as the fact that Foster keeps getting in situtations that just aren't believable.

Quote:
I especially liked that the 40-something Diane Lane is the star as the police woman who tries to apprehend the killer, instead of relying on the usual Jessica Alba or Sarah Michelle Gellar "honeys" of late.

Which films are the ones with Alba and Gellar? Are you talking about THE GRUDGE movies?
post #403 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Once again I ask, who in the hell is Jigsaw to say how someone should live their life? Let's not forget that his little games caused innocent people to die as well.

You ARE kidding, right? It's a horror movie about a maniacal killer! You've seen hundreds of thse things, right? Who is Jason to say that teenagers should die in F13 films? Who is any mad doctor in numerous old horror films to say he should punish those who discredited him at medical school and scoffed at his theories? Who is the makeup man in HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER to say that the new studio heads who fired him should die? Who is the killer in MANIAC (1980) that he has the right to decide that hookers should die?

Michael, obviously this is the whole point in such films -- these people are homicidal maniacs! Even in real life -- who were the two shooters in the actual Columbine murders to decide who should die in their school, and how or why? They were insane!

Quote:
Jigsaw says I shouldn't smoke a joint so he kills me? Jigsaw says you shouldn't take presciption drugs so he kills you?
Tom Cruise says birth should be natural and if you take drugs to bring down the pain then you should die?

Well, unless Tom Cruise goes mad tries to kill you, it's not quite the same thing. But I really cannot believe you don't see why this is done in movies about homicidal maniacs, and whatever their motives may be.

Quote:
Why in the hell should someone die simply because they have sex? Do these killers really think that sex is a death penalty?

Because they're NUTS! How else do you have such films? Not even horrors, but also police dramas, or any type of movie featuring a demented nutcase? I just saw UNTRACEABLE, and it's about a guy who's got an ax to grind, too --- who is he to judge and place victims on live webcams to torture and kill them?

Quote:
but for them to put themselves as the law makers of the land is a joke

LOL! I just can't believe you're reacting in such a way to this. Even in one of your favorite movies, SEA OF LOVE, there's a guy in it who "makes his own rules" and has a certain criteria for why he wants to kill people --- it's called 'going crazy'!

And you're right - who the hell are these people to make their own sick rules? That's why we have good guys and cops/heros stopping them!

Quote:
Which films are the ones with Alba and Gellar? Are you talking about THE GRUDGE movies?

Alba is currently in THE EYE. I could have used any other young teen or 20something example. I find it refreshing to see someone not as young and nubile in a film like UNTRACEABLE for a change. Much more realistic.
post #404 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
DEATH SENTENCE and THE BRAVE ONE are different as they try to look at things seriously, although IMO, THE BRAVE ONE fails due to the horrid ending as well as the fact that Foster keeps getting in situtations that just aren't believable.

I rented DEATH SENTENCE last night as well, and I'll get to that soon enough. But while I agree that Foster's situations came off largely as unbelievable in THE BRAVE ONE, I didn't mind the ending... I thought that worked okay.
post #405 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Perhaps someone who was around in 1974 could comment but DEATH WISH hit theaters with a storm of controversy.

The film was criticized because Bronson never got the guys who did the rape/murder. I always overlooked this because he did go after those who came after him but as Ebert said, it's hard to believe that this one person would keep running into trouble. If NYC was like that then Bronson's character wouldn't have lived as long as he did.

FUCK Ebert! The guy's a whining old hypocrite with little sense. As his moronic "Blue Velvet" review shows. It's like listening to a Granny with dementia on the merits of "Death Wish" and taking it seriously.
Seems the guy was ok to trash it up with Russ Meyer though.

Of course the fact he found muggers so often was unlikely...But without him finding muggers there wouldn't be a film!
For Christ's sake. More reasons to hate Ebert the dullard.

And as the overwhelming audience response to the film shows...a hyped up example of reality does not mean it has no basis in reality. And those audience members who may have bumped into only ONE mugger were happy to see that ONE mugger represented many times and to see justice dealt out.

Of course there was controversy. But that has what to do with the point you made about 'playing God'.
He does not play God in deciding who is the guilty.
He kills MUGGERS. Not guys he thinks are muggers...but actual, doing the deed, about to do the deed, muggers.
Who CHOSE to do the mugging.

Why do I bother to try and hold a discussion on what you specifically mention when you just ignore everything in the reply.


Quote:
The other examples you gave are exploitation trash that don't contain an ounce of brains in them so there's no point in commenting on them.

SO!? What has that got to do with your assumption about 'playing God'?
Again, I showed that in fact these films (be they worthy of your consideration or not) do not employ any 'playing God' tactics.
That was why I mentioned them.
They all contain specific targets who WERE guilty. Even in the eyes of The Law!

But I said all this above and it gets ignored.

Quote:
DEATH SENTENCE... different as they try to look at things seriously,

Oh rot! Bloody seriously indeed.
"Death Sentence" played the full on gratuitous, lets make this look as hip and cool as possible, violence card as much as any "Death Wish" film.
It was just so up its own hypocritical arse it punished that fact while playing up to it to get bums on seats.

And actually...realism is not leaving your family in the house the killers know about when they have been threatened!
You want to put this pile of crud up above the other examples as it's realistic it better BE realistic.
And Bacon taking out a gun toting hardcore gang-banger with his fucking briefcase is not realistic either.
The only 'realism' here was that the moral police decided he was going to get punished for doing what the Law failed to do.
THE cardinal sin in any vigilante flick.
And again (as I seem to have to type everything twice) why is it realistic for the vigilante always to get caught?

And as my example write-up of "Death Sentence" said, this was not even doing the 'playing God' thing you seem to accuse vigilante films of (again, targeted, KNOWN, killers, no God-like judgments on guilt needed) but you utterly ignored that fact as much as you ignored it in those other 'unworthy' films you mentioned.

My example of a rare case of 'playing God' that taints the vigilante seeing the vigilante punished for it, "Ms.45", (again, showing up that your accusations against vigilante films are wrong) was also ignored.
In fact any view of "Ms.45" that describes it as "exploitation trash that don't contain an ounce of brains" shows just how out of touch you are with this type of film.

Instead all you replied with was a snotty, "Those films are not worthy of discussion" reply and another moronic view from Ebert which shows why he, like you, should actually just stay away from such films full stop.

Am I being rude? YES I am. Because when I do take the time to offer up specific films and make specific points to seriously cover points you made, it just gets ignored.
So a blunt instrument is all I have left to use.
I'm out of the conversation as it's pointless wearing down my fingerprints typing this stuff if it just gets ignored.

Just stay away from vigilante films. Sell "Viglilante" off as there is no point you watching it, and buy another copy of "Death Sentence"...it needs all the help it can get.

And as Joe's post shows...Just stay away from most horror films as well as everything seems lost on you, even the fact that the nutters are nuts and the fact that actually Bronson would go after these guys not share a common bond with them.
post #406 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I rented DEATH SENTENCE last night as well, and I'll get to that soon enough. But while I agree that Foster's situations came off largely as unbelievable in THE BRAVE ONE, I didn't mind the ending... I thought that worked okay.

I think I know the end...Is it Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
that he let's her off?


As actually there is nothing unbelievable about that as I, a real person, would also do it.
And i hope that is the end. As if it is, I'll buy it.

Let me know, Joe.
post #407 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Bedknobs and Broomsticks - 6 of 10

I really wanted to rate this a lot higher but the film actively sabotages itself. There's a really charming story at the heart of the film, but this is filmmaking by formula, so useless musical numbers and tedious diversions amongst other offenses of good storytelling. Still it was a fun revisit, and nice to finally see it in widescreen. The young girl is a very good actress but everyone else is far too hammy. this could have been as good Mary Poppins if anyone that cared had tried.

The essence of the derogatory phrase "just a disney movie." every sort of bad stereotype of the genre is exemplified.

All that said the sum of the movie is still much better and much more entertaining than it has any right to be.
post #408 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Emperor Jones

Admittedly it's kind of hard to know how much of the role of Jones here is 'supposed' to be done that way, but it's hard to watch this and not think that Robeson is a much better singer than an actor. On the one hand, the character goes through lots of transformations, on the other hand, he remains kind of stereotypically grinning and not very bright. On the one hand the character stands up to and even bad-mouths white characters to their face (this is 1933 after all), on the other hand, you get more n-words out of Robeson's character both at himself and other black characters than in a whole rap album. On the one hand the character manages to take over an entire island, using clever ruses against the superstitious natives, on the other hand, the story ends with him being taken in by a bunch of superstitious rot himself. And God only knows how to take the whole beginning where a bunch of 'savages' are doing a primitive dance that morphs into a baptist church meeting.

A lot of interesting stuff here, but in the end, not a terribly good film.
post #409 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak
I think I know the end...Is it Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
that he let's her off?


As actually there is nothing unbelievable about that as I, a real person, would also do it.
And i hope that is the end. As if it is, I'll buy it.

Let me know, Joe.

Yes, that's basically the idea, since you asked. And there is a little more to it than that, which I personally think added to it.

Quote:
FUCK Ebert! The guy's a whining old hypocrite with little sense. As his moronic "Blue Velvet" review shows. It's like listening to a Granny with dementia on the merits of "Death Wish" and taking it seriously.
Seems the guy was ok to trash it up with Russ Meyer though.

Speaking of Roger Ebert, I know that Mike is fond of him, but I don't know why he often mentions him as if he's the be-all and end-all of movie critics. I've admired the fact that Ebert is willing to go the distance in giving some really questionable movies four stars, but a lot of times I raise my eyebrows at things he says, too. I've just glossed over his recent book on FOUR STAR MOVIES, by the way, and I've been wondering what others thought of it (Michael, please respond if you've read the book). But in the long run, Roger Ebert is just another guy who likes to watch movies.
post #410 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Scarface (1932)

Okay, controversial discussions are really starting to crop up at this time, and this one may be another. I finally obtained the single DVD of the Howard Hawks film, and to tell you the truth, I think I enjoy the DePalma 1983 re-do with Al Pacino a bit more. Some thoughts...

I have often lashed out against the idea of remakes, and finally I think I've come across the perfect single film example of why. Because there's always the possibility that a newer version can "replace" the old and become more popular, more definitive. For me, I saw Pacino's SCARFACE in the theater in 1983 when I was 21, and I really had a great time with it. To me, this was "Scarface". But I also love old movies, and especially the 1930s... I bought Warner's Gangster Collection, and I loved every film in the set... so I was excited about seeing the Paul Muni version at long last - and all the while I found it necessary to keep in mind what period the movie was made, and how powerful and important it was for its day.

It's very rare, if ever, that I am able to step inside the shoes in the sense of how a young kid might feel today when watching "old black and white movies", and yet that's how I got a lot of the time while watching the 1932 film. It was definitely exciting, full of over the top action and gunplay, and I'd imagine quite a shock for its day! But at the same time, I couldn't help remembering how I felt in the theater 25 years ago thrilling to DePalma's "epic". It seemed like the 1983 version really enhanced and yup, even improved on certain aspects of the 1932 classic.

Some of the acting here was really way-out theatrical style. I often had to struggle to try and understand what Paul Muni was saying, and sometimes the really fast-talking old gangster dialogue, "see", kind of eluded me. Much as I love Boris Karloff, he's just not very convincing to me as a gangster, and I think here was another example where it looks to me like he's "acting", and it doesn't come off as natural. I thought all the scenes with Tony's "young" (she sure as hell didn't seem so young!) sister were pretty poor, and I think they were bested in the '83 film (although some of them at the end of the Pacino film bordered on absurdity too!).

When Muni angrily "offs" his friend, I didn't get anywhere near the emotional jolt I felt in the '83 movie; it just didn't seem to me that their friendship had been played up long enough or deeply enough to feel the anguish of the lead character. Which brings me to the feeling that, in general, most of the characterizations in the DePalma movie were more realized, better drawn.

Now, I am a believer in trying to judge a movie as its own entity... but now and then there is no denying that this type of situation arises where a remake, a sequel, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example, comes along and "spoils" the full intended impact of an original classic, depending on when you've seen it. It's a rarity for me, I've found; this is not something which happens to me with any degree of regularity. It happened with the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS ... I caught the '78 remake first, and then the '56 original seemed trite by comparison. Other than this, I can't recall another example... I recall liking the 1991 CAPE FEAR, but when I saw the 1962 original it was still strong (owing greatly to Robert Mitchum).

One last thing for now -- I haven't seen the Pacino SCARFACE in several years now, but the last time I did it didn't even hold up as well as I'd remembered... I thought it had become kind of like a parody or satire, in a way. Sometimes my rating on movies may change, and I think the last time I saw the 1983 version I gave it three stars, too - just like I am giving the Paul Muni movie (I'd have to revisit the DePalma film to be certain). All the same, two movies can get the same amount of stars but yet one can still be "preferred" over the other. It's not that I didn't enjoy the Howard Hawks film; it's just that I couldn't help thinking I would have loved it much more had I never seen the 1983 one. I know this isn't really fair, in a way, but our reviews are at least partly a reflection of ourselves.
post #411 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I never liked Muni in "Scarface". He was just annoying. As I find him in general.

I love the Warner/Warner type Gangster films (the Warners box set is a gem if people have not picked it up), love Cagney, Bogart, Edward G and Raft...But I never took to "Scarface" at all.

Give me the glorious excess of DePalma on this tale.
post #412 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

True Crime (1999)

Suspenseful crime thriller acted and directed by Clint Eastwood. Here Clint plays a womanizing, boozing crime reporter who becomes convinced that a man scheduled to be executed at midnight may be innocent.

All the acting was superb here. Clint Eastwood certainly knows how to play these flawed individuals. James Woods was also great as Clint's amoral boss. Though not terribly original with a convenient ending, I still found myself on the edge of my seat especially during the final thrilling minutes.
post #413 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatW
True Crime (1999)

James Woods was also great as Clint's amoral boss.

This was a nice surprise. Very engaging and entertaining.
LOVED the scenes between Wood and Eastwood, very funny.

My one gripe was the obviously aging fast Eastwood (keep that shirt on) being this young woman chasing super stud. Seemed more like star/director perks to me.
post #414 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Scarface (1932)
...Some of the acting here was really way-out theatrical style. I often had to struggle to try and understand what Paul Muni was saying, and sometimes the really fast-talking old gangster dialogue, "see", kind of eluded me. Much as I love Boris Karloff, he's just not very convincing to me as a gangster, and I think here was another example where it looks to me like he's "acting", and it doesn't come off as natural. I thought all the scenes with Tony's "young" (she sure as hell didn't seem so young!) sister were pretty poor, and I think they were bested in the '83 film (although some of them at the end of the Pacino film bordered on absurdity too!)...

Agreed. Muni's 'thatsa spicy meatball' act and persistent mugging wears very thin very fast. I realize as Hollywood's 'first' method actor that he probably needed some sort of mannerism as motivation but it's irritating. I prefer both The Public Enemy and Little Caesar due to Cagney and Robinson. I do however like Muni in the biopics and I Am A Fugitive. Ann Dvorak ('Cesca') has never been more than terrible in anything I've seen her in (hmm, she was 18-19 yrs old during production). All that being said, I'd still give it three stars like you did. The flat-out brutality (there's a huge body count!) and the subtext between Tony and Cesca is pretty sensational. Raft, tapping into the only thing he had going for him, insolence, is great. I used to get a kick out of spotting the X's, which are indicative of the expressionistic photography. And yeah, you have to appreciate it in its context and credit it for that. Could take or leave Scarface '83 though the soundtrack is certainly hilarious, I'll give it that.

Quote:
Now, I am a believer in trying to judge a movie as its own entity... but now and then there is no denying that this type of situation arises where a remake, a sequel, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example, comes along and "spoils" the full intended impact of an original classic, depending on when you've seen it. It's a rarity for me, I've found; this is not something which happens to me with any degree of regularity. It happened with the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS ... I caught the '78 remake first, and then the '56 original seemed trite by comparison. Other than this, I can't recall another example... I recall liking the 1991 CAPE FEAR, but when I saw the 1962 original it was still strong (owing greatly to Robert Mitchum).

If you haven't already, please see the original The Day the Earth Stood Still. I'd never forgive myself if you saw the remake first, then had the original made redundant by Keanu Reeves as Klaatu, and I could've done something about it.
post #415 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York
If you haven't already, please see the original The Day the Earth Stood Still. I'd never forgive myself if you saw the remake first, then had the original made redundant by Keanu Reeves as Klaatu, and I could've done something about it.

I'd never watch the remake of this one. But I have already seen the original with Michael Rennie, and I was rather let down by it, actually. However, I've been meaning to give it a fresh evaluation for several years.
post #416 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Death Sentence (2007)

More of the same stuff we've seen many times over, where a disgruntled man (Kevin Bacon) begins to want revenge after witnessing his eldest son getting murdered by one of a gang of toughs. Only thing he doesn't really consider is that this isn't just one bad guy; it's a whole gang, and if he settles the score with one of them there are bound to be others to jeopardize him and the rest of his family. John Goodman has a small role here and he's seen better days and had better start taking care of his weight problem before it's too late. I really despised the look and style of this movie, the lighting and the cinematography.

Here's a possible spoiler to discuss something with Michael Elliott, who has been talking about the film with Dave:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
From what I could make out in the movie, although Bacon wants to at first go and kill the guy who murderered his son, once he corners him in the alley, all they do is roll around the floor and fight each other and Bacon just starts punching him, letting out his anger. It seems like the knife that winds up killing the guy was an accident and Bacon looked shocked and possibly wasn't really going to kill the guy after all.
post #417 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

La Collectionneuse (1967)

Viewed 2/1/2008 (first viewing)

Disarming tale from Eric Rohmer, another in his Six Moral Tales series. Two stuffy twits and a hedonistic young woman vacation at a rambling villa, a situation that has the men pointedly trying to avoid personal affairs with the girl. Deeming her a shallow "collector" for her pursuit of men, they vow not to stoop to her level, but are their haughty values and moral posturing really justified?

out of


Innocent Voices (2004)

Viewed 2/1/2008 (first viewing)

A young boy comes of age during the civil war in El Salvador in this grim, harrowing tale of innocence lost.

out of


A Very Long Engagement (2004)

Viewed 2/2/2008 (first viewing)

Revisited Jean-Pierre Jeunet's epic WWI romance.

out of


A Great Wall (1986)

Viewed 2/3/2008 (first viewing)

Amiable culture clash tale of a Chinese-American family who vacation with relatives in China. Slight, but enjoyable.

out of


Merci Pour Le Chocolat (2000)

Viewed 2/3/2008 (first viewing)

A young woman enters the lives of a well-heeled couple with whom she may have a deep-rooted connection. But what dark secret will her arrival uproot? Middling but engrossing film from Claude Chabrol, the dramatic elements here are more effective than the thriller elements.

out of


]Up and Down (2004)

Viewed 2/4/2008 (first viewing)

Solid Czech drama follows the intersecting lives of two smugglers who find themselves saddled with a baby, a fractured family who must deal with an ailing patriarch and the return of a prodigal son, and an ex-con turned security guard whose wife desperately wants a child. Not especially original, but well done.

out of


Reconstruction (2004)

Viewed 2/4/2008 (first viewing)

Surreal, haunting tale of a man who commences an affair with a woman other than his girlfriend only to literally lose his past and quite possibly his future.

out of


The Jane Austen Book Club (2007)

Viewed 2/5/2008 (first viewing)

Pleasant enough concoction has a group of women forming the titular literary group in response to their boorish/unfaithful spouses. Unoriginal to say the least, but carried by an attractive cast.

out of


Across the Universe (2007)

Viewed 2/5/2008 (first viewing)

Julie Taymor's visually intoxicating (if somewhat overlong) Beatles-based musical follows young lovers as they're caught up in the events of the sixties.

out of


2 Days in Paris (2007)

Viewed 2/6/2008 (first viewing)

Julie Delpy wrote, directed and stars in this tale of a French woman and her American boyfriend who vacation in Europe. They stay several days in Paris with her family where culture shock and old boyfriends converge to produce to no small amount of frictionbetween them. Witty and funny, if not terribly original.

out of


Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

Viewed 2/7/2008 (first viewing)

Lavish sequel to Elizabeth finds England's queen romanced by Sir Walter Raleigh while Spain threatens invasion with its fearsome armada.

out of


The Invasion of the Dead (1973)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

A strange black sphere crashes to Earth and causes the dead to rise and attack the living. Can Mexican wrestler Blue Demon and escape artist (too bad he couldn't get out of this movie) Zovek save the day? Maybe, but Zovek hogs the spotlight and gets the girl while Blue Demon spends much of his screen time bickering with the comedy relief. (Somehow though, two werewolves are worked into the plot and the azul avenger gets to smack 'em around a bit.) The DVD I watched didn't have English subtitles and with my Spanish being poor I suppose I missed some of the finer points. Still, I know queso when I see it. Es muy stinky.

out of


The Face of Marble (1946)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

Old school zombie flick stars John Carradine as a scientist so wrapped up in his experiments with life and death that he ignores his wife. Their voodoo-trained housekeeper who dotes on the wife then plots to hook her up with Carradine's assistant. But the untimely arrival of the assistant's fiancee complicates matters and results in a bad case of soap opera zombies! Well, only one actually (two if you count the intangible dog zombie) and she's not really all that scary. I'm pretty sure there were lesbian undertones in that bedroom scene with the wife and the fiancee so I'm not really sure why zombies were even needed. For fun, take a shot whenever Carradine refers to his assistant as "my boy."

out of


Voodoo Man (1944)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

More old school zombie madness. Bela Lugosi stars this time, with John Carradine relegated to the role of a retarded lackey. Unlike Carradine's character in The Face of Marble, Bela plays a scientist who loves his wife too much. So much so that he's willing to sacrifice any number of young women in his quest to revive her long dead body! Doesn't take itself too seriously and there's a cute joke at the end.

out of


One Dark Night (1982)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

Weird eighties horror stars Megalicious Tilly as a student who wants so badly to get into a school clique that she's willing to go through an initiation rite that requires her to spend a night in a mausoleum. Too bad for her (and the clique members who sneak in to scare her), that a recently entombed psychic turns out to be not so deceased! This electricity-spouting (don't ask, I ain't got time) Uri Geller then begins using his telepathic powers to raise the dead so they can attack the living. Yeah, that's what I'd do if I had telepathic powers, forget about undoing Meg's bra. Fun enough though, with a nice, gooey climax.

out of


The Dead Don't Die (1975)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

The tan man himself stars in this Robert Bloch scripted telezombiefilm set in 1930s Chicago. After his brother is executed for a murder he possibly didn't commit, navy man George Hamilton launches an investigation to clear his name but runs up against a voodoo master who controls a squad of killer zombies! Undead dames, ballroom dancing and (always nice to see) Ray Milland all figure into the plot. Nifty mix of horror and noir.


out of


The Zombie Hunters (2007)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

B movie stalwart Billy Drago goes slumming in this SOV cheapo that has him playing a mad scientist who wants to interbreed humans and zombies. (Humbies? Zombans?) Unfortunately the Zombie Hunters (all two of 'em) spend too much time acting goofy and drooling over the hot secret service agent who's accompanying them. Not bad, but too many dumb moments weigh it down.

out of


Day X (2007)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

Or 28 Days Later in the Colonies. The usual ragtag group of survivors holes up in an abandoned warehouse after a mysterious epidemic turns people into raving cannibals. Modestly-budgeted affair is pretty good of its type.

out of


Better Off Undead (2007)

Viewed 2/8/2008 (first viewing)

Well done (if not terribly original) short has three nerdy friends trying to survive after an outbreak of the living dead.

out of


A Woman Without Love (1951)

Viewed 2/10/2008 (first viewing)

Minor Bunuel piece from his Mexican period. A family is thrown into turmoil after an unexpected inheritance brings to light the fact that one son is illegitimate. Okay, but not really much of a "Bunuel" film.

out of


Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007)

Viewed 2/10/2008 (first viewing)

Earnest if not especially outstanding account of the defeat of the Sioux nation in the late 19th century.

out of
post #418 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveGon
The Zombie Hunters (2007)

a mad scientist who wants to interbreed humans and zombies.

(Humbies? Zombans?)

post #419 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

who framed roger rabbit 10 of 10

Such a great, great movie. I've not seen it in probably fourteen years and I enjoyed so many little things more, the pre Chuck Jones Daffy, all the little asides and references to animation and noir. How naughty Jessica Rabbit is. All sorts of jokes that flew over my head back in the day when I watched this five or six times a year (along with Back to the Future and Empire Strikes Back it was one of my very favorites). Excellent cinematography, biting script and superb effects work, some of the compositing is still breathtaking Like jessica in front of the lights when she sings and walks towards Eddie and Acme.

Five Star Final - 9 of 10

I've wanted to see this for about five years, and never had a DVR when I found out it was playing on TCM. It is absolutely superb, and one of Edward G Robinson's very finest performances. Wonderful. The script incisively attacks tabloidism and the oppurtunistic journalists that pursue ruination to sell papers.

The circulation of the Gazette is down, but the owner has an idea to boost circulation. There was a woman twenty years ago, Nancy Voorhees, she was a secretary. Her boss mistreated her and took advantage of her. When she turned up pregnant, he refused to marry him, so she killed him, but was acquitted for temporary insanity. The owner wants to fictionalize and serialize the story to boost circulation (and proffer it up as a moral story about why women shouldn't have loose morals (cause you know it's her fault)). The story is to be written by Isopod (played by Karloff), one of the drunkard reporters on staff, while posing as a 'revererend' writing it, so everyone knows such a salacious story is really a moral lesson.

The editor in Chief, Randall, (Robinson) sends out Isopod to dig up fresh information on Nancy Voorhees, and soon enough she does. Fortunately for her, she had her daughter and met and married a bank attendent who adopted her daughter. That daughter is going to be married tomorrow, and the reporters can't believe their luck at getting this juicy information and the oppurtunity to ruin Nancy's family's lives with their 'great story' The story runs, more melodrama unfolds and in all ends in a fairly shocking fashion for the thirties, it's painful watching the newspaper men and women be so vicious and callous because you love Nancy's family so much so quickly--they are good people--but once their shock and dismay at being 'exposed' by the thirties paparazzi the film settles into it's relentlessly great groove again.

Superb from start to finish, the print TCM aired was very beat up though, I hope Warner restores this one very nicely.
post #420 of 1907

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

02/08/08: ACQUASANTA JOE (Mario Gariazzo, 1971)

Like SARTANA IN THE VALLEY OF DEATH, I watched this via C’Est La Vie’s R2 DVD and, in hindsight, both film and disc are of similar quality. The lead is Lincoln Tate in the title role of the bounty hunter pursuing Ty Hardin’s band of Renegade Union soldiers; Richard Harrison appears as one of the latter’s associates who later double-crosses him.

Having watched so many Spaghetti Westerns this past week, the films’ plots get intertwined in my mind – and, frankly, I can’t recall much of what this one was about!; I do know that Hardin’s gang carries with it a cannon to aid in their bank robberies and that his leadership is challenged at one point by a bald-headed associate whom Tate eventually dispatches with a horde of arrows in the style of Akira Kurosawa’s THRONE OF BLOOD (1957). Hardin eventually joins forces with Tate to retrieve a stash of money hidden in a cave, and also involved is Hardin’s half-breed (and gun-toting) woman – who has her eyes on Tate as well.

The director biography, included among the extras, makes some claim for him being a versatile film-maker but, personally, it’s the first I’ve ever heard of him: his career spanned all sorts of genres from Spaghetti Westerns to crime thrillers, horror, sci-fi and even erotica (as it turns out, he also made the sentimental drama THE BALLOON VENDOR aka THE LAST CIRCUS SHOW [1974] – starring James Whitmore and Lee J. Cobb – which, when released in Malta back in the day, proved a huge box-office success)!


02/08/08: HOLD-UP (Alexandre Arcady, 1985)

This is an earlier French film version of Bill Murray’s QUICK CHANGE (1988) which was here adapted by distinguished screenwriter Francis Veber (its American appeal extends to the attractive Montreal locations and a title song in English!). Jean-Paul Belmondo, at 52, is pretty wacky as the bank robber-dressed-as-clown. The supporting cast is not very well-known but the main characters (Belmondo’s meek partner, his police nemesis and his disgruntled ex-cellmate) are all played with gusto; also featured in the film as the love interest (of sorts) is future Hollywood starlet Kim Cattrall.

Having only read a negative review of it on the “Films De France” website, I found the film to be quite engaging overall with a surprisingly consistent first half; it does peter out eventually but is enlivened again in its latter stages by the appearance of the fat cab driver (Jacques Villeret). Alexandre Arcady is a new name for me but his half-hour interview on the R2 DVD supplements is fairly interesting (albeit if only in French) as he says that Belmondo violently bumped his head while performing one of the film’s stunts himself; also worth watching was the featurette seeing celebrated stunt co-ordinator Remy Julienne rehearsing the scene in which Belmondo’s car breaks into another bank through the front glass facade.


02/09/08: SAVAGE GUNS (Demofilo Fidani, 1971)

This is the first film I’ve watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films’ Michael Carreras’ one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMEN…although it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli!

While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors’ own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!!

Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director’s own daughter!) as the villain’s broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn’t get to do much in the film – despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.


02/09/08: CAN BE DONE…AMIGO (Maurizio Lucidi, 1972)

One of Bud Spencer’s star vehicles without his partner Terence Hill takes him back to familiar Spaghetti Western territory. Despite a good cast (Jack Palance, Francisco Rabal, Luciano Pigozzi) and crew (screenwriters Rafael Azcona and Ernesto Gastaldi, cinematographer Aldo Tonti and composer Luis Enriquez Bacalov), the film rambles amiably along without ever becoming sufficiently memorable.

Spencer seduces Palance’s virginal sister (having mistook her in the dark for another dance-hall girl) and flees from her pursuing pistolero/showman brother until he meets an abandoned child in the desert whom he takes under his wing (shades of two films Bud would later make with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND [1977]’s Cary Guffey); as it turns out, the boy is the proprietor of a dilapidated wellspring which turns out to be rich in oil but they soon fall foul of outwardly harmless sheriff/judge/preacher Rabal. Spencer indulges himself in several of his typical fist-fights and even “Paco” Rabal gets to taste his trademark hammer-blow to the head; amusingly, he puts on his glasses before a fight so that he can think more clearly! Palance scores best as Spencer’s laid-back, black-clad, pursuer-cum-partner and brother-in-law to-be. The title song is an agreeable one although it’s only played during the opening and closing credits sequences.

I have missed out on this one several times on Italian TV over the years but I did catch the free-for-all finale once; since the quality of the DVD I watched was quite terrible – not just pan-and-scanned but extremely washed out as to lapse into practically black and white at various points!; although it was nice to hear Palance and Rabal’s own voices in English, I’ll make it a point to tape this one when it’s shown again on one of the major Italian TV channels.


02/10/08: CUT-THROATS NINE (Jose` Luis Romero Marchent, 1972)

I knew this Spanish-made Spaghetti Western had some kind of notoriety in Euro-Cult circles but, since I was totally unfamiliar with its director, I didn’t really expect a lot from it; as it turned out, it’s one of the nastiest films of its kind – surpassing even DJANGO, KILL! (1967) in its bleakness, nihilism and graphic depiction of extreme violence!

The plot itself is highly unusual: a cart-load of slimy, murdering convicts is being transported through dangerous terrain in the mountains by a cavalry officer and his daughter; the catch is that one of them was responsible for the brutal killing of the soldier’s wife – and, ingeniously, their gold cargo (coveted by bandits) has been disguised as the length of chain shackling the prisoners together! Soon, they lose their transport, provisions and one of their number – and they’re forced to continue the journey on foot; the already tenuous relationship within the party continues to deteriorate – as the sex-crazed men turn on the girl, leading the soldier to himself commit cold-blooded murder; then, half-way through the picture, the convicts get the upper hand and the soldier (ostensibly, the hero figure) is killed in gory fashion! Still, the girl has a surprising ally in one of the remaining prisoners…except that his tenderness is belied by the final revelation concerning the nature of his crimes (most of the characters’ back-story is effectively retold in intermittent flashbacks heralded by freeze-framing)!

The effective choral score (reminiscent of gothic horror movies, no less) admirably evokes the danger and the savagery of the narrative; while most of the cast members were also unknown to me even when their faces looked vaguely familiar, I especially appreciated the contribution of a couple of Jess Franco alumni – namely Emma Cohen (from the startling if still little-known THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR [1973]) as the only female presence in the film of any stature and Alberto Dalbes (star of all three of the Spaniard’s Universal horror pastiches) as the gambler leader of the chain gang.

To get to the brutality, it comes in all varieties (including a shot to the back of a woman’s head at point-blank range) – though, especially disturbing, is its propensity for severed limbs, charred corpses and, worst of all, gut-spilling!! I should mention here that the script (courtesy of renowned Euro-Cult scribe Santiago Moncada) also includes a sequence where one of the prisoners suffers a hallucination of the murdered soldier’s corpse coming back to life to haunt him. The finale, then, sees no survivors – as the long-suffering girl decides to take the matter into her own fragile little hands with a single, definite explosive act.


02/10/08: THE FIGHTING FIST OF SHANGAI JOE (Mario Caiano, 1973)

Minor, enjoyable and surprisingly violent Spaghetti Western, one of a clutch of such efforts embellished with an Oriental touch in the form of a martial-arts exponent hero (as can be gathered from the title). The film was enough of a success to boast a sequel – THE RETURN OF SHANGAI JOE (1975).

Chen Lee is the typical meek Oriental who becomes deadly when provoked; we’re given plenty of opportunity to see him at work here, particularly after he falls foul of a slave trader. The latter despatches four ruthless assassins to exterminate the Chinaman – three of whom are played by well-known actors and popular Euro-Cult figures of the era: Gordon Mitchell, Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and Klaus Kinski, the other by Robert Hundar (ill-fated hero of CUT-THROATS NINE [1972], which actually preceded this viewing!). Kinski receives second-billing but his contribution lasts all of 7 minutes (and he only turns up 68 minutes into the film!).

Eventually, we learn that the title character is one of only two masters of a specific martial arts technique – so, naturally, the boss eventually calls on his equal to fight the hero! The most violent moments occur when Joe gouges the eye of one of the hired killers – a scene which surely must have inspired Quentin Tarantino for his KILL BILL (2003/4) saga – and the confrontation between the two Orientals, which involves dismembered limbs and busted torsos! As usual for films of this genre, the music score is a notable asset which is here provided by Bruno Nicolai.


02/10/08: JONATHAN OF THE BEARS (Enzo G. Castellari, 1993)

Director Castellari reteams with star/co-producer Franco Nero in this Italo-Russian production which is a belated follow-up of sorts to their earlier, acclaimed collaboration KEOMA (1976). This newer venture shares with that earlier one not only its Western setting and a similarly grizzled, long-haired hero but also a touch of pretentiousness and a painful song score (composed by the unsympathetic minstrel figure who appears intermittently throughout)!

The film starts well enough with the black and white flashback to the hero’s traumatic witnessing as a young boy of his parents’ slaying by a trio of greedy badmen after their gold, while the segments featuring the boy’s interaction with a playful bear cub are also quite amiable. However, we have seen the “white man among the Redskins” scenario – albeit incongruously played here by Mongols – which follows soon after (complete with their seemingly interminable quasi-mystical passages) far too often for those scenes to propose anything new. Equally predictable are David Hess’ villainous overtaking of a town, Nero falling foul of Hess and his henchmen and their various confrontations; interestingly, Hess had to complete his part in a short space of time because he couldn’t get along with Nero – with whom he had previously acted in HITCH-HIKE (1977).

Things are enlivened by the late entrance of powerful entrepreneur John Saxon who, with his aged group of gunslingers, wipes the town clean of Hess and their unaccountably campy rivals – a group of stud-sporting, leather-wearing, bare-chested musclemen!! Like Keoma before him, Franco Nero’s character here occasionally steps outside of himself and is witness to his own past experiences as a child; also, he suffers greatly at the hands of the current villain including crucifixion. The climactic confrontation (staged, again as was KEOMA’s, in a barnyard) is appropriately rousing and ends the film on a positive note which redeems some of its earlier flaws.


02/10/08: THE FIVE MAN ARMY (Don Taylor and Italo Zingarelli, 1969)

To begin with, this is one of the first films I ever recall watching – my father having acquired a copy on 16mm when I was still a kid!; needless to say, I’ve been wanting to re-acquaint myself with it for several years – particularly to see how it stacked up against other Spaghetti Westerns which, naturally, I came across much later…and, this, in spite of Leonard Maltin’s unflattering rating!

As it turned out, the film lived up to my expectations in being a middle-of-the-road genre effort – not one of the best, perhaps, but reasonably entertaining all the same. Incidentally, it forms part of a handful of Spaghetti Westerns with the Mexican Revolution as backdrop; an added attraction to the film, then, is its main plot involving a caper aboard a moving (and heavily-guarded) train – it has, in fact, been referred to as a cross between THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960; in view of the select group called upon to aid in a cause) and THE WILD BUNCH (1969; which had a similar robbery as a subplot)!

While the central train sequence involves some notable tension (the elderly dynamite expert loses part of his equipment, the samurai falls off and has to run across a lengthy stretch of fields in order to rejoin his associates), the gang is never shown to be in any serious danger throughout; the final confrontation with the Army, for instance, is nothing at all like the notorious massacre seen in THE WILD BUNCH itself – in fact, none of them gets wounded or killed…and even the tension within the outfit over whether they should hand over the gold to the revolutionaries or else keep it for themselves is resolved without so much as a punch (rather it’s shrugged off with a laugh!).

The multi-national group is played by Americans Peter Graves (well cast in a basic extension of his signature role in the classic MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE TV series) and James Daly (his presence here isn’t displeasing yet quite baffling, as he can’t have been at all a familiar name to Italians – personally, I only knew him from his brief role in PLANET OF THE APES [1968]!), Japanese Tetsuro Tamba (who’s just as anonymous as Daly – perhaps the film’s budget could afford only one foreign ‘star’) and, of course, Italians Bud Spencer (a staple of the genre and, thankfully, resorting only very briefly to his trademark comic brawling) and the youthful Nino Castelnuovo (who, naturally, sides with the Revolution all along). The supporting cast includes another genre contribution from Italian starlet Daniela Giordano (as a Mexican peasant girl who shows interest in samurai Tamba): her lovely presence is always welcome – and I still recalled the scene here in which the Army General tears off her clothes from all those years ago! – but it’s not quite as captivating as in the two other films of hers that I’ve watched; there’s also Giacomo Rossi-Stuart – who, for an actor of his stature, is given very little screen-time as a lieutenant to the Mexican General.

Having mentioned the surprise casting, one also has to question the decision behind offering the directorial reins to a minor-league American, former actor Taylor; incidentally, years later, when Giordano was asked by a magazine to comment about the film, she couldn’t even recall him being on the set and that co-director Zingarelli handled most of the proceedings! Dario Argento was also behind this film as a scriptwriter – which makes the film’s tameness all the more curious and, given its derivative nature, perhaps shows his ultimate disenchantment with the Spaghetti Western genre…or else he was already thinking of branching out into direction (his debut film, the seminal giallo THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE [1970], was released not long after). THE FIVE MAN ARMY is marked by yet another rousing Ennio Morricone score – which is cited by fans as being among his best from this era but, to me, it felt somewhat too similar to his work on Sergio Leone’s “Dollars” trilogy!

Finally, I couldn’t really determine the running-time of the film – since it was interrupted by numerous publicity spots (I watched a VHS recording of a TV broadcast); however, curiously enough, the Italian version is listed as being only 91 minutes long on “Stracult”…whereas the edition prepared for U.S. consumption is 107 minutes!
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)