Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2009) - Page 39

post #1141 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post



Kind of off topic: I'm assuming you spend a fair amount of time on horror message boards but have you ever seen people say that Freddy isn't a child molestor? A few years back, I remember an ugly message board argument where people swore that Freddy didn't do that. I don't think it's ever stated in the movie and maybe I've just a dirty mind but it seems like he's got more nefarious reasons to kidnap children other than just killing them.

I can't speak for the original film, but at least in FREDDY VS. JASON the implication was that he was a child molestor.
 
By the way, there's no way in hell I'd ever see a remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. There is no replacing Robert Englund, and the original movie is fine as it stands. I'm sure many people know that I'm against "The Present Modernized Remake Epidemic" in general, but I take it on a case by case basis. I'm surprised I even went to see FRIDAY THE 13TH and the two HALLOWEEN redo's .... but in the case of F13 I figured it's just going to be Jason slaughtering teens again, so what the heck? And for the HALLOWEEN films, I thought I was a fan of Rob Zombie because I appreciated his  DEVIL'S REJECTS so much that I was interested in seeing what he could do with a tired old formula.  Well, as things mostly turn out with newer remakes, the original F13 and HALLOWEEN films still remain superior to their recent reboots.

As it turns out, I'm pretty much done with Rob Zombie. I have no interest in ever seeing another of his HALLOWEEN attempts if he ever does another, and I refuse to see his BLOB if it comes to be. Utterly unnecessary and ridiculous -- we had a 1958 classic original, and a "modernized" 1988 remake. Enough's enough.

post #1142 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I'd much rather hang out with Laurie 2009 than Laurie 1978.

I want EVERY film to be remade



I wouldn't want to hang out with either version of Laurie, but the 1978 one would be a hair closer. Also, the 2009 one made me feel like I could catch a variety of diseases off her, if we're talking about sex.   

I'm going to pretend I didn't read the last line above though. I have seldom disagreed more!
post #1143 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

By the way, there's no way in hell I'd ever see a remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. There is no replacing Robert Englund, and the original movie is fine as it stands.
 

I'd rather see something new but remakes don't really bother me. However, A Nightmare On Elm Street is the rare case where I think it's a nearly impossible task due to the inevitable comparisons between the new Freddy and Robert Englund. I'm willing to at least give it a chance but they've got a tough road ahead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

I can't agree with you that Laurie was "a normal teen" in this new film. For God's sake, I hope most teenagers aren't simply foul-mouthed disgusting trailer park trash freakizoids  who pop pills like candy, regardless of what their personal problems may be.
 


I meant the first RZ Halloween movie. When we meet her, she seems like a relatively normal (albeit potty mouthed) teen to me. But yeah, she's all messed up in the sequel.
post #1144 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post


I'm sure many people know that I'm against "The Present Modernized Remake Epidemic" in general
 


Heck, looking at the first pages of these threads over the years would make people feel otherwise.

Again, it might depend on where you grew up but I knew plenty of girl groups that would have a handful of bad ones and that one goody-good virgin so that relationship in the original doesn't bother me.  I've seen it the other way around where you have eight preps and that one bad girl.

I think it has more to do with weak stereotypes of women than anything else. 

BTW, I found out last night that a drive-in around 40 miles away is playing the original JAWS tonight (followed by H2, of course) but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to drive that far since I'm working during the evening.  I wish I had known this earlier where I could have went on one of my days off.
post #1145 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

...

I want EVERY film to be remade but there have been a few problems...

Could you expound on why you want **every** film to be remade, Michael? I can see some films, but all of them??? I know this is a tradition as old as film but these days the results are almost universally sad and degrading.  And aren't you one of these guys whose theoretical goal is to see every movie ever? So wouldn't you rather see something 'new'?   
post #1146 of 1550
Hmm, I don't seem to be able to break up quotes anymore via the Normal/Normal (DIV) trick, so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post
 

Private Screenings: Tony Curtis (1999)
 

Tony Barbon
 

Marvelous episode of the series has Robert Osborne sitting down with the legendary, if controversial Tony Curtis.  Curtis, as energetic as ever, talks the entire time telling one great story after another and he isn't scared to dish a little dirt.  Included on the dirt is him saying Kurt Douglas wasn't very friendly when it came to sharing courtesy with other actors.  Curtis also speaks openly about Monroe on SOME LIKE IT HOT and he even goes further by pointing fingers at people close to her who could have saved her.  We also get talk of his early days in New York where we hear about the first movie he remember seeing (a Rin Tin Tin serial) as well as his favorites at the time, which just happened to be the Universal horror movies.  Discussions of THE DEFIANT ONES, HOUDINI, TRAPEZE, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and THE BOSTON STRANGLER, which he considers his favorite.  The entire fifty-minutes here are pure delight as Curtis never goes silent and is brutally honest in answering questions about his personal life including his troubled marriage to Janet Leigh.  Fans of the actor or this era of Hollywood will certainly want to check this interview out as it's certainly a gem.
 


The timing of this was serendipitous, as it was just a few weeks ago Curtis claimed he got Monroe pregnant while they were working on SOME LIKE IT HOT.  So he was quite open in this interview but apparently he was still holding something in reserve (if he can be believed).  And when he was calling out Monroe's friends, I thought, 'good for you, Tony'.  Definitely one of the better ones if not the best, because you get some honesty, which is also why the Dick Cavett episodes they show from time to time are mostly much better.       
post #1147 of 1550
Thread Starter 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post




Could you expound on why you want **every** film to be remade, Michael? I can see some films, but all of them??? I know this is a tradition as old as film but these days the results are almost universally sad and degrading.  And aren't you one of these guys whose theoretical goal is to see every movie ever? So wouldn't you rather see something 'new'?   
 

I'd rather see every movie get remade because remakes are a lot more original than sequels and any cash in's, which Hollywood is all about.  Let's put Sandra Bullock in another romantic comedy.  Let's have another masked maniac killing teens.  Let's get the latest Superhero to take up 2 1/2 hours with bad CGI effects.  Hollywood became aware that the smart money was to keep making whatever is popular.  This happened back in the 1920s.  This could be the teen sex comedies of the 80s, the slashers of the past thirty years or the romantic comedies that started hitting after WHEN HARRY MET SALLY or PRETTY WOMAN.  Cash in's to me are much worse than remakes because of all the remakes I've watched over the years, they at least try something different with an already familiar formula.   

As for seeing everything, that's certainly impossible but if I'm going to watch 400 movies in a year plus another 600 shorts, then it's certainly likely I can watch quite a bit.  I believe there are certain movies that every "film buff" should see at one time in their life.  I don't mean to get another endless debate going but to me a film fan is going to be interested in Bergman or Scorsese.  That doesn't mean they have to watch every Bergman film but it does mean they should watch the essential ones.  I had a plan of watching 400+ Edison shorts this year.  I haven't even gone through 75 yet.  Are they important to watch?  Not at all but seeing something fresh makes more sense than watching WEREWOLF OF LONDON twice a year for my whole life.  The same is true for the TravelTalks shorts.  I might be wasting my time watching two or three of them a week when I could be watching more important items.
 

Re: Tony Curtis

I haven't read any of his books but there seems to be a lot of people who really, really hate him.  Apparently his first book featured a lot of dirt on people and its "sequel" was even worse in terms of him "kissing and telling".  I visited a few boards about him and some die-hard fans have now started hated him, which has gotten me somewhat interested in reading the most current book.  As for Monroe, I remember Brando once hinting that she was pregnant by a certain president and that he had her killed. 

Back to Curtis, I've always thought he was a great actor but it seems, like Heston, Hollywood has forgotten him.  I guess you have to watch what you say but I thought it was pretty revealing when he said he just can't be that certain way anymore.  Keeping quiet probably would have given him a lot more work but as you said, I respect his honesty. 

Monroe is someone else who I'd like to see more from.  I've only seen a couple of her movies so I might take a month next year and try to go through some more.
post #1148 of 1550

The ability to break up the quote is now magically back for me, so off I go...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post




I'd rather see every movie get remade because remakes are a lot more original than sequels and any cash in's, which Hollywood is all about.  Let's put Sandra Bullock in another romantic comedy.  Let's have another masked maniac killing teens.  Let's get the latest Superhero to take up 2 1/2 hours with bad CGI effects.  Hollywood became aware that the smart money was to keep making whatever is popular.  This happened back in the 1920s.  This could be the teen sex comedies of the 80s, the slashers of the past thirty years or the romantic comedies that started hitting after WHEN HARRY MET SALLY or PRETTY WOMAN.  Cash in's to me are much worse than remakes because of all the remakes I've watched over the years, they at least try something different with an already familiar formula.   
 


I see what you're getting at. Okay, that makes sense.
 


As for seeing everything, that's certainly impossible but if I'm going to watch 400 movies in a year plus another 600 shorts, then it's certainly likely I can watch quite a bit.  I believe there are certain movies that every "film buff" should see at one time in their life.  I don't mean to get another endless debate going but to me a film fan is going to be interested in Bergman or Scorsese.  That doesn't mean they have to watch every Bergman film but it does mean they should watch the essential ones.  
 


I thought there was a discussion in one of the old threads about why people watch what they watch and you were sort of in this school of thought that says "I know I can't watch everything, but I'm going to try, even if the idea or the actor or the director is off-putting based on experience"; in other words always something new, no revisits, that kind of thing.  I'm certainly not denigrating that approach, it's as valid as anything else.
 


I had a plan of watching 400+ Edison shorts this year.  I haven't even gone through 75 yet.  Are they important to watch?  Not at all but seeing something fresh makes more sense than watching WEREWOLF OF LONDON twice a year for my whole life.
 


I do have to say this is a little surprising, but then I don't see a lot of revisits from you. Now, your example is clearly overkill, but aren't there films you can't possibly go without seeing again?  Not to mention it is not unreasonable that a second viewing might change your outlook on a film and the average viewer will almost definitely pick up things they hadn't noticed before.  If anything, I see the first viewing as almost a try-out for whether you want to watch it again, and then you can make a definitive conclusion about how you feel about it.  The best I can do after first watching a film is sort of rating it by a superficial feeling I have about it, gut reactions really, to the acting, story, etc.   
 


  The same is true for the TravelTalks shorts.  I might be wasting my time watching two or three of them a week when I could be watching more important items.
 


But you don't actually feel that way, right? That you're wasting your time? If you do you should probably stop.  Or are you just using it as an example other people might say that you should be watching Ousmane Sembene instead of James FitzPatrick? While I agree there is a large degree of complacency in what folks watch, this is not an example of it.  The shorts have an important place in your routine as long as you enjoy them ( I certainly do), although I can't understand why you didn't like MIGHTY MANHATTAN, NEW YORK'S WONDER CITY more. 
 

 
Re: Tony Curtis

I haven't read any of his books but there seems to be a lot of people who really, really hate him.  Apparently his first book featured a lot of dirt on people and its "sequel" was even worse in terms of him "kissing and telling".  I visited a few boards about him and some die-hard fans have now started hated him, which has gotten me somewhat interested in reading the most current book. 
 


Never heard that.  Bizarre that he would be hated over...outspokenness? Well, no actually it makes perfect sense.  However, I thought he was fair in his shortcomings as a husband when talking about Janet Leigh and as for the other stuff, Susan Strasberg and Shelly Winters...maybe the truth hurts.
 


As for Monroe, I remember Brando once hinting that she was pregnant by a certain president and that he had her killed. 
 


Ha! Well, that's an oldie but goodie. 
 

Back to Curtis, I've always thought he was a great actor but it seems, like Heston, Hollywood has forgotten him.  I guess you have to watch what you say but I thought it was pretty revealing when he said he just can't be that certain way anymore.  Keeping quiet probably would have given him a lot more work but as you said, I respect his honesty. 
 


So, Tony Curtis is not likely to receive an award at next year's Oscars? Right, that would have been too interesting.  As for Heston, yeah, he was just somebody they sneered at until he went away.  Regarding the Private Screenings, think of some of the better episodes, Curtis, Betty Hutton, the child stars, Ann Miller, Borgnine, it's from the subject being blunt as well as the matter of fact storytelling.  This is why the Robert Mitchum/Jane Russell episode was so disappointing.      
 


Monroe is someone else who I'd like to see more from.  I've only seen a couple of her movies so I might take a month next year and try to go through some more.
 


She's definitely more than a ditzy bombshell. I think you'll find some reward going through her filmography.




Edited by Pete York - 9/6/09 at 6:27pm
post #1149 of 1550
Thread Starter 

I still don't know how to work the multi-quote so I'll just put some of your post in italics.

"I know I can't watch everything, but I'm going to try, even if the idea or the actor or the director is off-putting based on experience"; in other words always something new, no revisits, that kind of thing.  I'm certainly not denigrating that approach, it's as valid as anything else.

I probably did say something to that effect.  I'd like to revisit films more than I do but my DVR is often quite full with new titles and I've constantly got films being sent to me to "view" for various people.  I also like boards like this where I can read about films I haven't seen or heard of and this usually causes me to search these films out in order to see them.  As I said in earlier threads, I have a list of things to catch and it gets bigger day by day so trying to knock this list down makes it hard to revisit things.  I'm not much of a completest as some might think.  I will watch any actor/actress that I like but there are few directors who I'll watch anything from.  Before my DVR got too full this month I was going to watch all of Al Adamson's films I haven't seen.  Certainly one of the worst directors ever but I was going to catch his films that I haven't already seen.  Stuff like DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN would have been skipped in favor of something new, which might turn out to be a favorite.

Now, your example is clearly overkill, but aren't there films you can't possibly go without seeing again?  Not to mention it is not unreasonable that a second viewing might change your outlook on a film and the average viewer will almost definitely pick up things they hadn't noticed before. 

The 400 Edison films was actually under-kill believe it or not.  The Library of Congress has 400+ online that I'm working through and I still have about 600 others sitting here to watch.  I actually did make a goal to watch all of them but I'm certainly not going to get there. 

 

The "second chance will have you seeing things you didn't notice" is always something interesting.  It certainly happened this year as I watched those Universal titles again but there isn't any element of surprise, wonder or shock.  I'm sure everyone remembers that "shock" at the ending of PSYCHO but as much as I love the movie, that same level of surprise will never happen again.  Seeing the monster talk in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN will always be magical but it will never have that first time effect.  I guess we could also talk about first times in terms of love, sex or various other subjects.  Things can always be repeated and entertaining but they never come close to that first viewing.  That's why I don't repeat movies as often as I use to.  I want to but watching something new makes it possible for one to see something for that first time and hopefully be bowled over with some sort of positive spin.  Quite often the movies don't do that but you never know until you try them. 

The best I can do after first watching a film is sort of rating it by a superficial feeling I have about it, gut reactions really, to the acting, story, etc. 

This here is certainly true and would be my reason for revisits.  I have special movies to me and I could probably go a full year watching them but the majority of them are one and done.  Of all those Davis films I watched there would probably be two that I would watch again within the next five years.  The rest I'd rather catch new ones.  I loved FAT CITY, which I just got done watching but I'm not sure I'd revisit it again.  I'm sure a second and third viewing would give me a deeper appreciation for it but that's the negative side of watching so many new movies. 

But you don't actually feel that way, right? That you're wasting your time? If you do you should probably stop.  Or are you just using it as an example other people might say that you should be watching Ousmane Sembene instead of James FitzPatrick? While I agree there is a large degree of complacency in what folks watch, this is not an example of it.  The shorts have an important place in your routine as long as you enjoy them ( I certainly do),

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply I was bored by the titles or felt they were being watched for no reason.  I think I have the fifth most amount of reviews over at IMDB and I sometimes get up to ten PMs a week.  Quite often people are asking questions about where to find a film, cussing me out for not liking their favorite movie but most of the time they are asking about the shorts.  People ask when I have time to watch all of this stuff and the shorts are rather easy.  Just an example but when I get home from work around 9:30, I check in on the family and then start to oven to cook my dinner.  Heating the oven up takes me about ten minutes so in that time I will watch a TravelTalks short.  Once the food is in leaves me about thirty-minutes so that's when I will watch a two-reeler.  This is the routine every night.  If my girlfriend and I are going out and she's getting ready, this is time for a short.  If I have to drive the kids somewhere and I'm waiting on them to get ready, time for a short. 

The Edison shorts get a lot of PMs as well.  People are constantly asking me where to find them but the strange thing is that I'm a lover of silent cinema yet I've never seen THE CROWD, THE BIG PARADE or GREED.  Some might ask why I'd try watching 400 Edison shorts before seeing these big three.  My comment was aimed more at this and they do have a good point, I think.

This is why the Robert Mitchum/Jane Russell episode was so disappointing.     

I haven't been able to find this one yet but I think it's up at YouTube or one of the other sites.  I remember Osborne saying it was the worst day of his life because of how Mitchum was acting.  It's funny but I was reading about Mitchum before watching that Curtis episode.  I came across a post calling Mitchum a pig, read it and discovered he turned down THE DEFIANT ONES because he didn't want to be chained to a black guy.  I had never heard this and then Curtis says this in the interview.  I'm not sure if Curtis started this or if it was actually true but it was fairly disheartening considering how much I love Mitchum but it's just another reason why I don't let stars personal lives/thoughts/politics bother me when watching their films.  

Back to the movie watching...

I sometimes wish I didn't like all movies so that I could just sit back and enjoy one genre but it's just not me.  I also wish I wasn't so curious in so many things to where I could just settle back and enjoy a small portion instead of always wanting to learn or view something new.  I've recently gotten into the habit of watching a movie from 1934 (or whatever year) and then doing a google search to read about something that was happening in world events during the time that certain movie was originally released.  I've often thought about posting the "in the news at that time" but figured everyone would really think I'm nuts then.  
 

post #1150 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 I had a plan of watching 400+ Edison shorts this year.  I haven't even gone through 75 yet.  Are they important to watch?  Not at all but seeing something fresh makes more sense than watching WEREWOLF OF LONDON twice a year for my whole life. 

 

Hey Mike - I've actually been waiting for the most opportune time to talk about this basic idea but didn't know when or how to bring it up. But with your quote you've now afforded me a perfect time to respond and work in my thoughts. Of course I know you won't agree and probably just about everyone else in this thread won't either, but here goes...

I'll be 50 in a few years, and as I get older you may be surprised to hear that I am thinking the exact OPPOSITE of what you've written above. You know I have cycles where I become interested in seeing as many new movies as I can, and I'll infrequently watch all sorts of genres at different times. As I've always said, this experience has generally been very rewarding for me, and it's been a pleasure to find gems that I never saw before, and gradually it helps one gain more insight to filmmaking and to learn more about movies in general.  I have to thank you and Mario Gauci (among others) for inspiring me to "expand my horizons" in the several years we've known each other on the Internet.

But I've faced the reality that, after all is said and done, I like what I like --- or should I more correctly say ... I watch what I'm interested in watching. When I see that you're watching tons and tons of offbeat early short films -- things like the Edison experiments and so on -- I just don't really see the appeal in doing so over the long term. Okay, so those are more things under your belt and you can say "I watched them and added these films to my brain's wealth of knowledge", but how many of these are worth revisitng or what do they really add to your aesthetic sense of enjoyment?  

I have respect for diehard movie fanatics who'll watch nearly anything and everything, but that's just not me. Truthfully, I think even those completists MUST have areas they're just not as interested in (be it Musicals, Foreign Films, Westerns, Silents, Documentaries, Horror, Slashers...) and it's not very realistic to expect one can watch everything, or even WANT to. More specifically --- I often here diehards saying things like "There are so many movies to see, yet there's so little time!"  - but that brings me back to your above quote. What I'm getting at is, I think at the end of your life it all comes down to the question: "Did I enjoy myself in my life?"  - And so, that means that if I enjoy watching something like 1935's WEREWOLF OF LONDON twice a year (using your own example) then that's what matters to me. Sure, it may make others frown upon me, but that's their problem and not mine. Why should I force myself to watch, say, a love story or musical just to consider myself "one of the elite", or to gain more "knowledge", but without much pure aesthetic enjoyment? (Not that I haven't tried and enjoyed many of either; I liked THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY and I also liked SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CHICAGO).

Just yesterday I was getting ready to go out for a barbecue and I was getting washed and dressed, and I had TCM on in the background just to see what was on. Well, it was the first half hour of AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER... and all I could think to myself was: "You know something? This film may have an excellent reputation, but from what I'm seeing here I just have NO DESIRE to watch this any further, and it's not clicking with me."  --- So if you really think about it, why would I waste my short time in life where I could just as easily watch THE STING or SUNSET BLVD. again (and I've used "SUNSET BLVD" as an example because that was a film I discovered when I was experimenting with other first-time films). I guess my own obvious answer to this question is: "because how do you know you won't like something new if you don't try it out?"  That is very true -- but it won't bother me anymore if I miss something great because I didn't get around to it, or because I just didn't have any interest in putting forth the required time to find out. It's my loss.

So the question arises to ask oneself: "Am I a 'Movie Fan' or a 'Movie Completist'?"  In my case, I'm a Movie Fan. But that need not necessarily include any movie just for its own sake. I love Movies... just not seeing every movie, 'or else'!  Life is too short. So with me, the saying would go: "So many movies I own that I love, but so little time to enjoy them over and over". There's just no way to see EVERYTHING, and there can be no genuine desire to see each and every type equally. When I go to the theater I see 6 movie trailers before the feature -- maybe 1 or 2 of them will interest me, if that. I loved the original FAME (1980) and I REFUSE to see the upcoming needless remake, just to say "I'll watch anything". Some of the coming attractions I see are so unappealing that I can't imagine why anyone would make themselves see all those movies, just to see everything. 

As you may know, I have found people with whom I've been having regular "Movie Nights" on Saturdays, at my place. Even my wife joins us every weekend.  If you look at my list you'll see double features listed since around March. Just recently I've shown these people "Karlosi's same old movies" like THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, THE OLD DARK HOUSE, NIGHT SHIFT, LOVE FROM A STRANGER, ONLY THE LONELY, DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE '31, THE SCARLET CLAW, WESTWORLD, KILL BILL, PULP FICTION, and on and on ...  and I have also come to a conclusion that I've reached the point where I am gaining pleasure by watching a lot of my favorite movies with new people, showing them the films for their first time. Hey, it's all supposed to be about fun and enjoyment, right?  

  
post #1151 of 1550
Thread Starter 
I can even use the quote now so I'll just stick to the old way.

I'll be 50 in a few years, and as I get older you may be surprised to hear that I am thinking the exact OPPOSITE

Which is why I always say it's easier for the young to except the past be it in movies, tv, books or music.  Without the new the old just die.  Dylan's quote, not mine.  Even as I get older I start to question things like this. 

but how many of these are worth revisiting or what do they really add to your aesthetic sense of enjoyment?  

As I said, if they weren't entertaining they wouldn't be at the top of my to see list.  The biggest question to ask is what one is missing by not watching something.  I mean, if you watch several mediocre Abbott and Costello films a year, whose to say you're not missing something by not giving THE SEVEN SAMURAI a chance?  I wouldn't recommend anyone to watch 400 Edison shorts but there are a handful (GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY being one) that is a must for anyone interested in cinema. 

I have respect for diehard movie fanatics who'll watch nearly anything and everything, but that's just not me. Truthfully, I think even those completists MUST have areas they're just not as interested in (be it Musicals, Foreign Films, Westerns, Silents, Documentaries, Horror, Slashers...) and it's not very realistic to expect one can watch everything, or even WANT to.   

I'm going to spit on my favorite genre again but if a "film buff" doesn't want to watch FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER or THE THING WITH TWO HEADS, they really aren't missing anything important and neither would fall into the category of must sees.  It would be something different if they didn't want to watch BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.  If they don't want to watch "B" westerns that's understandable.  No one can watch "everything" but if a film buff doesn't want to see THE SEARCHERS, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE SEVENTH SEAL then there's something not there.  Again, there's no point in debating it but I don't see how someone could say they love cinema yet aren't interested in anything except a small number of films.  If that book "1001 Movie to See Before You Die" says there are certain movies one must see then I'd agree.  I could write a book called "2001 Good Movies You Don't Have to See".  I think I could also come up with a "200 Bad Movies You Must See". 

In my case, I'm a Movie Fan. But that need not necessarily include any movie just for its own sake. I love Movies... just not seeing every movie, 'or else'!  Life is too short.

Again, I don't recall anyone in this thread or the one at CHFB watching everything.  If someone doesn't see the point in someone wanting to see out a Kurosawa or a Bergman then there's really not much else to say.  Again, I also don't know a single person alive who doesn't like movies.  Everyone is a movie fan to one point or another.
post #1152 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Virgin Suicides, The (1999)

 

Sofia Coppola
 

Bizarre black comedy about several young boy's obsession with the Lisbon sisters and their lifelong attempt to figure out their lives.  The five sisters become four after the youngest ones suicide, which is the start of the end of the family.  This film has a lot going for it and Coppola, in her debut, does an impressive job juggling the various themes running throughout the movie.  We have teenage suicide, obsession, sexual awakening and all of it is look at with a very skeptical eye and in the end the film comes off rather haunting if not a complete work of art.  What Coppola does well is the entire mystery built around the suicides in the film.  A lot of information is given out yet no answers are even attempted.  Even when the boys are trying to come to terms with what happened, nothing.  We get no answers and not many ideas as to what was going on with these girls that would push them so far over the edge.  Their parents, perfectly played by James Woods and Kathleen Turner, are faceless monsters but not in a bad way but in a way that any kid would see their parents as villains.  We have Kirsten Dunst giving one of her finest performances as the sexually advanced 14-year-old who ruins a fun night out for her sisters when she runs off with the town hunk (Josh Hartnett) instead of returning home on time.  Even the parents are surrounded in mystery as is the Hartnett character who walks away from the girl he loved the most after having sex with her for the first time.  While the film asks a lot of questions, at the same time I think it bites off more than it could chew because at times the film itself doesn't really know what it's trying to say.  Perhaps that's a point and another reason for not answering any of the questions in that suicide itself is just a mysterious item that one can't get answers from the victim.  It happens and no one really knows why except for the person it happens to and they aren't talking.  The fine performances, great cinematography and overall great tone makes this a must see, although I'm not sure if one viewing will capture everything that's here.
 

Viva Villa! (1934)
 

Jack Conway, Howard Hawks
 

Wallace Beery's tremendous and rousing performance as Pancho Villa is the main reason to view this troubled production, which sadly can be seen in the movie itself.  The movie tells the story of Pancho Villa, who as a boy sees his father killed by the Mexican government.  Later in life Villa wages war against the greedy bad guys of Mexico first as a bandit and then as a general.  It's not often a bio starts off with a warning that the thing is strictly fiction but that's the case with this MGM picture.  I'm really not sure what to make with the final film but I found it clear to see that there was a lot of tampering with it.  After viewing the movie I read some of its history, which includes director Howard Hawks being fired and original reporter Lee Tracy getting kicked out of the country after getting drunk and urinating off his hotel balcony onto some military men.  There was also a plane crash that destroyed a lot of footage, which had to be re-shot and all of this caused the film's release to be pushed back, which then had the thing being cut by the Hayes Office.  The entire film is quite choppy and a lot of what's going on has to be explained with title cards that come up every few scenes.  The film's running time of 110-minutes seems double that and it doesn't help that the majority of the supporting cast are rather weak.  Fay Wray, Donald Cook and George E. Stone walk through their roles.  Leo Carrillo and Stuart Erwin are pretty bland in theirs.  Henry B. Walthall gives a very good performance but he's role is quite minor.  What keeps the film moving is the great performance by Beery who clearly becomes this character and when one thinks of Villa you can't help but picture Beery.  
 

Fat City (1972)
 

John Huston
 

Huston's grim drama about a washed up boxer (Stacy Keach) trying to make a comeback and the up and comer (Jeff Bridges) who doesn't have much to look forward to.  There's not too much plot here but what Huston delivers is one of the most interesting films of his career.  This is a very strong, extremely well acted character drama that has a lot of nice touches throughout and one can't help but feel the directors passion in the story.  It seems Huston liked making film about losers who dream big only to fall short and that's a basic plot device to this film.  We're introduced to a lot of different people, both young and old, who set themselves up for greatness only to lack what it takes.  Huston does a great job with the pacing, taking his time yet never letting things get too dull.  The story shifts focus to both boxers where we look at their lives as they continue to make one mistake after another.  Huston builds a wonderful atmosphere that really captures the sadness of the characters and their lives.  Keach delivers a wonderful performance and I really couldn't see any other actor in the role.  I had read that Huston originally wanted Brando and while he's the greatest actor ever in my opinion, I still wouldn't have taken the role away from Keach.  The sadness and worn out feel Keach brings the character really packs a nice punch as you want to see him win yet you know he's just going to keep messing up.  Bridges also does a terrific job as do Susan Tyrrell and Candy Clark as the women in the boxer's lives.  This is another gem from the 1970's, a decade where a filmmaker didn't have to be scared into delivering happy endings or rousing finishes.  The movie is pretty dark and grim but that's what makes it so special because it comes off very realistic and makes for great drama.

 

Piranha (1995)
 

Scott P. Levy
 

Remake of the 1978 cult classic by Joe Dante features pretty much the same story as we hit "nature strikes back" mode again.  This time out a bad girl and her dorky boyfriend go missing so a detective (Alexandra Paul) goes looking for them.  With the help of a mountain man (William Katt) they learn that the government has made some man-eating piranhas and sure enough they've let them loose in a popular lake.  Whereas the original film was tongue in cheek in terms of its black humor and violence, this one here plays it rather straight, which is a minor problem.  I'm not sure if the production team here, which included Roger Corman, just decided to not try touching the original but a little humor here would have helped things.  Without the humor we're left with a pretty standard, made-for-TV horror movie that ups the violence and gore.  Outside some stock footage from the original movie, the attacks here are pretty good especially one scene towards the end when our hero is trying to save the day when a group of fish attack him.  The rather violent bites will certainly make your squirm and this is preceded by some other nice attacks including one poor soul who leaves his feet in the water a tad bit too long.  Katt and Paul deliver fine performances and are strong enough to carry the film.  The supporting cast doesn't get much done, although the James Karen (THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD) was nice.  Fans of the original really aren't going to find this film topping it in any way but fans of the nature attacks genre will want to check it out as harmless fun.
 

Don Juan (1926)
 

Alan Crosland

John Barrymore shines in this highly impressive costume drama, which is also historically important as being the first film released with the Vitaphone soundtrack with a synchronized score and sound effects.  In the film Barrymore plays the title character, lover to many woman, but he falls in love with Adriana della Varnese (Mary Astor) but the evil Lucrezia (Estelle Taylor) and Donati (Montagu Love) have plans to keep them apart.  I really wasn't sure what to expect out of this film and I ended up being pleasantly shocked at how well made and entertaining it was.  Barrymore does a wonderful job in the role even though he was way too old to be playing it.  The make up work is very effective as the actor really does appear to be twenty years younger.  You can tell he's having a blast in the role as he's constantly playing that "lover" type who always has a smile or serious look in his eyes.  Barrymore also made news for doing all of his own stunts, which included some impressive horse riding and an even more impressive fencing scene.  The fencing scene here was marvelously done and makes for some great drama.  Pay close attention to the point of view shots during this sequence because they're quite ahead of their time and very effective.  Astor, Taylor and Love also turn in fine performances as does Warner Oland as Cesare.  Fans of Myrna Loy will also be happy to see her here.  It seems today that this movie is best remembered by film buff's due to the soundtrack but it's certainly a lot more than just that.  The wonderful costumes and sets are another major plus. 

 

Hurricane, The (1937)
 

John Ford
 

Excellent John Ford film has the director pretty much making three movies in one but his wonderful direction keeps everything in line and in the end delivers a nice little gem.  Tarangi (John Hall), recently married to his one love (Dorothy Lamour), sets sail for Tahiti where he ends up getting into a fight after a man slaps him and uses a racial slur.  The politics of hitting a white man gets him thrown into prison where a sadistic guard (John Carradine) is constantly abusing him.  Tarangi finally is able to escape but once home he has no time to rest as a large hurricane is about to wreck his island.  As I said earlier, this is about three different movies as we get the typical love story, a great prison drama and then the disaster film, which was clearly on a high as movie crowds had just gotten SAN FRANCISCO.  This time out the special effects are certainly the highlight but there's still a lot of other great stuff here.  Hall does a wonderful job in the lead role even if it was a tad bit hard believing him as a native.  He is incredibly strong in his role as is Lamour who looks downright beautiful here.  The two have wonderful chemistry together and one can't help but hope they can survive their ordeal.  Carradine has a minor role but he once again shines in it.  Mary Astor, C. Aubrey Smith, the Oscar nominated Thomas Mitchell and Raymond Massey all deliver fine supporting performances.  The final fifteen-minutes feature the $250,000 special effects, which are downright haunting, tense and jaw dropping.  The way this small island is torn apart by the wind and water makes for one of the most memorable scenes in film history and one can't help but feel as if they are going through a real storm.  There are a lot of underline beliefs thrown out, most dealing with religion, and they are perfectly brought to life by the director.  Just take a look at the scene where everyone takes shelter in the church, which slowly starts to break apart.  This is certainly another classic film, which proves you don't need CGI and I doubt anything made today could look half as good as this.  Those impressed with the storm here might also want to seek out Griffith's ONE EXCITING NIGHT.  A pretty bad movie but there's a storm at the end, which is just as impressive as the one here.
 

post #1153 of 1550
Catching up on 4 day's worth of viewing....


Summer With Monika (rewatch) - I've been working from home all goddamn night. So I watched my weekly Bergman in less than ideal conditions, catching 5-15 minutes at a time when I could, over the span of 9 hours. I'm utterly exhausted right now, so what follows is a series of random mental notes. Pregnancy again. Contrast shots of leaving Stockholm vs. shots of returning to Stockholm. Harriet Andersson is really sexy in this movie. More poetic shots than seen previously in Bergman's work. Film is all about the third act, first and second acts a bit underwhelming. Two kids against the world: kinda blah. Two kids against each other and their own selves: now we're talking. Rating: 8


Scared Stiff - After the week I've had, I'm ready to sit down and let myself be engulfed by something completely mindless. Thank goodness for Netflix and Jerry Lewis. I was sure I hadn't seen this one before, but I might have a long time ago. I know the "you can get a blackjack" bit was something my buddy and I used to do a lot. And the bongo scene (with Carmen Miranda's final screen performance) is definitely familiar. Jerry's really funny in this one, and the plot is kinda formulaic but still pretty fun. Bonus surprise Hope & Crosby cameo at the end. Rating: 7


The Caddy (rewatch) - Dean and Jerry were hitting their stride at this point. Dean's even developed his comedic chops, joining in the laughs rather just being a straight man. This one's got the famous "That's Amore" number, plus "The Gay Continental", a breezy, easy-going plot, and Donna Reed looking radiant. The ending is awfully hammy and schticky, though. Also, I once had a record called "Famous Flubs" or something like that. On it was a recording of Dean and Jerry trying to do some promos for this movie, but they kept blowing their lines. At one point Jerry says, "The Caddy... it'll make ya shit". Rating: 7


The Bellboy - Jerry Lewis, in his directorial debut, tries to emulate Tati. And fails miserably. An announcement at the start of the movie tells us there will be no plot, just gags, as if it's the most radical, groundbreaking thing in the world (M. Hulot's Holiday came out 7 years earlier). While his performance as the bellboy is wordless, he's so enamored with himself that he couldn't resist giving himself a speaking role... as Jerry Lewis, being mobbed by his adoring entourage and admirers (he LOVES doing scenes with himself, something he did in both Scared Stiff and The Caddy). The timing is way off. While a few of the bits are good, he drags them out far too long and seems to milk each of them just one time too many. Either that, or it's a whole lot of buildup for very little payoff. Rating: 4


Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (rewatch) - Gotta admit that this latest batch of Satyajit Ray DVDs I bought aren't exactly my favorites. Most of them will probably get cleared out next time I prune my collection. Goopy is fun and the music is great, and Tapen Chatterjee and Robi Ghosh make a very charismatic team. But it does drag a bit, especially for a children's movie. Rating: 7


The Marriage of Maria Braun - This is my third time trying to watch this movie. I found it dull the first two times, but tonight I didn't have a problem with it at all. In fact, almost every scene had something interesting going on. Just had to be in the right mood for it, I guess. The film begins with a picture of Hitler followed by an explosion, and ends with an explosion followed by pictures of the chancellors since Hitler, suggesting that Germany hasn't changed that much. Beyond being an allegory for Germany (and I'm not sure if the allegory is very effective), Maria is a fascinating character in her own right. Brutally honest and forthright, completely in control of her own destiny and yet entirely unfulfilled, and cold and calculating almost to the point of cruelty. And yet she does what she does out of passion and devotion. The cinematography by Michael Ballhaus is excellent, whose work with Fassbinder always has such a striking sense of color and lighting. I still feel like I don't really "get" Fassbinder, at least not to the extent that some of his fanatical followers do, but I found this film to be pretty engaging. Rating: 7


Ornamental Hairpin - I'm really enjoying these Shimizu films... maybe not quite enough to buy the set, but I'm glad the library has them. Like The Masseurs and a Woman, this one takes place at a resort spa (maybe even the same location) and is something of a romantic comedy, despite being not especially romantic and only slightly comic. It's another piece that feels light and leisurely but has an underlying sadness. What was most striking to me was how everyone is constantly frustrated in their personal desires by social obligations. The professor wants to read his books, but "grandfather" keep insisting they play Go. The young husband has a tendency to defer to his wife, but stifles it and apologizes because the professor disapproves. No one can sleep because the professor and the old man snore. The professor constantly and unfairly complains about the service, yet no one calls him on it out of politeness. Emi has to ask her friend for permission to cry. And of course, Emi and Mr. Nammura are unable to express their desires for each other. There's a distinct divide between the way things people wish they were and the harsh realities of getting by in the world. It's also a very lovely film with beautiful nature scenes, and I can't help thinking about what Shimizu would have done in the era of color photography. Rating: 8


Ashani Sanket (rewatch) - I think what keeps this movie out of Ray's top tier for me, despite its technical excellence (probably the best-looking of his color films, beautiful lush greenery to contrast with the tragedy of the story) is its single-mindedness. It's a simplification to say it's just about people becoming increasingly desperate for food, but not too much of one. Ray's finest work is always multi-faceted, touching on many themes and in some way commenting on the breadth of humanity. This is so specific in its focus that it doesn't have that universal connection. But it's still very well done and rather moving. Rating: 8


Sonar Kella (rewatch) - Of the handful of Ray's films that could be classified as light entertainment, this is easily the best. The action, the suspense, and the comedy come together beautifully. The performances by Soumtira Chatterjee, Siddharta Chatterjee and Santosh Dutta feel like characters they've been playing for years. It just works, as long as you buy into the idea that a child can perceive his past lives (and when you think about it, the Indiana Jones movies ask you to swallow a lot more than that). I'm pleased to discover that the public library has some of Ray's Feluda stories, I'd definitely like to read those. Rating: 9
post #1154 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

The biggest question to ask is what one is missing by not watching something.  I mean, if you watch several mediocre Abbott and Costello films a year, whose to say you're not missing something by not giving THE SEVEN SAMURAI a chance? 


But I enjoy watching/re-watching the Abbott & Costello films. If I didn't, I wouldn't watch them. I wouldn't call them "mediocre", however ... that's a rather strong word, as far as my feeling is concerned. **1/2 films are still pretty good to me.

Maybe I am missing something by not seeing SEVEN SAMURAI, but if I never see it I'll never know, and what I don't know won't hurt me. I'm just saying that for me I don't have this pressing urge to plow through a dozen films just to hit on one or two which are "keepers"; meanwhile I'm not taking advantage of the HUGE collection of films in my own library that I'm supposed to be enjoying over and over.

Which reminds me of something else you wrote that I meant to comment on. I definitely see your point that often times certain films get to the point where they've become "stale" due to repetition.. and I'd definitely agree with you that there are some cases where a second viewing of something will NEVER repeat the strong impact it had on you the first time. But on the other hand, a lot of times you pick up on more and more things in repeat views, and the movie can actualy become stronger for you. Of course, it depends on the film in question.  

 

I'm going to spit on my favorite genre again but if a "film buff" doesn't want to watch FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER or THE THING WITH TWO HEADS, they really aren't missing anything important and neither would fall into the category of must sees.  It would be something different if they didn't want to watch BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.  If they don't want to watch "B" westerns that's understandable.  No one can watch "everything" but if a film buff doesn't want to see THE
 SEARCHERS, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE SEVENTH SEAL then there's something not there. 
 


I disliked THE SEARCHERS, and I disliked THE SEVENTH SEAL. However, seeing THE SEVENTH SEAL did get me interested in trying out Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING, which I did enjoy -- and I'll be picking it up on DVD for my collection. All the same, had I missed out on TVS, I wouldn't have known.

I very much enjoy FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER and THE THING WITH TWO HEADS, though of course we're talking in a sense of "cheesey movies". But if they're much more entertaining to me than THE SEVENTH SEAL, so be it. I could just as well say that diehard "movie buffs" are missing out on "fun junk" because they cannot appreciate these types of bizarre films.
 

Again, there's no point in debating it but I don't see how someone could say they love cinema yet aren't interested in anything except a small number of films.  If that book "1001 Movie to See Before You Die" says there are certain movies one must see then I'd agree.  I could write a book called "2001 Good Movies You Don't Have to See".  I think I could also come up with a "200 Bad Movies You Must See". 

 

My mother bought me the "1001 MOVIES TO SEE BEFORE YOU DIE" book, and I've seen a lot of the films listed in there. Having seen a lot of them, some movies I'd agree with, and some I would not. So someone's arbitrary book doesn't really mean much.

P.S. -- It's easy to "break up quotes"... First, hit the "quotes" function below when you want to quote someone's post. Once you get their entire quoted box on your screen, put your cursor into that box like you're ready to type something --- this presents the "Normal  (DIV)" command up top. Then, just go to that command and hit the "down" arrow to remove the "(DIV)",   so that the command now just reads "Normal". At this point you can indent the paragraphs into separate quotes. 
post #1155 of 1550

I don't suppose anyone cares - judging by the 'no show' following the posting of my INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) review in its respective thread - but I've updated my viewing master list on Page 1 (sort of). I still can't grasp why I have to spend 30 minutes doing something which used to take me 2 but, whatever, nevermind...

I see that Joe & Michael (and Pete) have resurrected an archaic topic of conversation and, in the old days, I'd have been onto this like flies on shit but I think I'll just sit on the fence a little while longer...
 

post #1156 of 1550
 Vintage in time, if not quality, British Sexploitation garbage in the less than subtle 1981 form of "Mary Millington's World Striptease Extravaganza".
http://www.beardyfreak.com/rvstriptease.php

A crass and parasitic name-leech of the late and much loved English sex kitten Mary Millington that gives us a ludicrously false striptease contest set in a sleazy 80's London club, with crap jokes from the crap compare Bernie Winters, clumsy strippers with fake nationalities but lots of pubic hair all bound up in god-awful production values and re-used footage from other films.

Dear Mary must have been tossing (hoo hoo) in her grave when this turd was dropped into the unsuspecting laps of the great British public!

rating: 2 (for the pubes)
post #1157 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post


 So someone's arbitrary book doesn't really mean much.
 


I think this is the mindset of most of the young people today.  We've been though this debate before and not much is really changing so there's no point in beating it too much.  I still have hard time understanding why a grade Z, bottom of the barrel Elvis movie would be something you'd search out yet you could give four-star reviews to all five of those Warner Gangster films you watched yet not have any desire to check out more of them.  I know you loved those Cagney, Bogart and Robinson films so I must admit that I'm sometimes shocked to see your updated posts and they don't include one of these films as they're constantly on TV.


I don't suppose anyone cares - judging by the 'no show' following the posting of my INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) review in its respective thread - but I've updated my viewing master list on Page 1 (sort of). I still can't grasp why I have to spend 30 minutes doing something which used to take me 2 but, whatever, nevermind...

I was rather curious as to why you're not posting anymore.  I understand the reviews but you've been quiet all around lately.  As for the review, I read the uncut version and I'd say to make sure you put a copyright on everything you wrote.  Even the reviews you post here or at other boards.  If you remember that big debate about the (I think) British mag that was stealing reviews and then posting them in their magazines as originals.  The writers kept throwing a fit and crying left and right yet they didn't seem to realize that posting something on a public forum makes it easy ripping unless you get it protected.  It doesn't cost too much but it's something I do and have been doing so for years.  The same with a screenplay, I'd get it protected before handing it off to anyone. 

I see you watched THE KLANSMAN, MOUNTAIN OF THE CANNIBAL GODS and a few other exploitation "classics". 
post #1158 of 1550
FYI, here is a quick video on breaking up quotes courtesy of forum member DaveF with the idea from Man-Fai Wong.

http://www.screencast.com/users/DaveF/folders/Jing/media/428afeba-5af0-4e99-8f69-6136504344be

The problem I've encountered is that not every reply comes up in the format 'Normal (DIV)', some come up just as 'Normal', which can't be broken up with this method. (it'll make sense if you watch the clip).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

...I think I have the fifth most amount of reviews over at IMDB and I sometimes get up to ten PMs a week.  Quite often people are asking questions about where to find a film, cussing me out for not liking their favorite movie but most of the time they are asking about the shorts.  People ask when I have time to watch all of this stuff and the shorts are rather easy.


Seriously? That's funny. I remember looking at one of Mario's reviews, and it was typically well done, a lot of thought was put into it, and I noticed in a little font right at the top it said '1 out of 5 people found this useful' and I just thought, 'why bother?' On top of that, to have people PM'ing you with their displeasure, give me a break.  And for someone to ask where do you find the time to watch all this...mind your f'ing business, you know?.

Quote:
It's funny but I was reading about Mitchum before watching that Curtis episode.  I came across a post calling Mitchum a pig, read it and discovered he turned down THE DEFIANT ONES because he didn't want to be chained to a black guy.  I had never heard this and then Curtis says this in the interview.  I'm not sure if Curtis started this or if it was actually true but it was fairly disheartening considering how much I love Mitchum but it's just another reason why I don't let stars personal lives/thoughts/politics bother me when watching their films.

You can't; because a) you run the chance of probably being hypocritical and b) hey, previous generations were not lucky enough to be as 'incredibly enlightened' as we are, certainly not a depression-era roustabout like Mitchum (or for that matter, Griffith), and judging them by a 21st century context is just as myopic in its way.  Like in baseball, when people complain about starting pitchers not throwing complete games the way 'Three Finger' Brown and 'Old Hoss' Radbourn used to.  And another alternative is c) you could be wrong.  I've seen Jimmy Stewart called racist based on the "Uncle Remus-y" story he tells about Woody Strode in the Ford doc.  Come on.          

Quote:
I've recently gotten into the habit of watching a movie from 1934 (or whatever year) and then doing a google search to read about something that was happening in world events during the time that certain movie was originally released.  I've often thought about posting the "in the news at that time" but figured everyone would really think I'm nuts then. 

Well, this is actually what a serious critic should do, right? No film is made in a vacuum. I mean, one should know that GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 was being made in the teeth of a crippling financial depression if they were attempting to critically think or write about it.  You may be nuts for other reasons, however.

As for first viewings, it's true you can't quite recapture that 'first time feeling' and I always envy somebody that hasn't seen VERTIGO or SEVEN SAMURAI (or THE CROWD or GREED) yet for what they have ahead of them.  But in a repeat viewing, not only are there new things to pick up on (rewarding in its own way), there is a 'sense memory', you can relive the time you first saw the film.  You see this in many thirty-somethings with 80's movies.  For me, it's BACK TO THE FUTURE as a 10-yr-old, or CITIZEN KANE on 16mm or ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD during a rain out on tv.  I myself have FAT CITY and THE HURRICANE waiting, so I will look forward to them based on your review.

Quote: Mario
   I don't suppose anyone cares - judging by the 'no show' following the posting of my INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) review in its respective thread - but I've updated my viewing master list on Page 1 (sort of).     

Well, Mario, you now know both of these are not strictly the truth as I've enjoyed your amazing BASTERDS tale and took the brave step of going to page 1 to peruse your list! I have ALIAS NICK BEAL waiting for me to get to, and your rating just made me bump it up a few spots in the queue.
post #1159 of 1550
Nothing like a little bit of more bitchin' to get your attention, guys!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post

Well, Mario, you now know both of these are not strictly the truth as I've enjoyed your amazing BASTERDS tale and took the brave step of going to page 1 to peruse your list! I have ALIAS NICK BEAL waiting for me to get to, and your rating just made me bump it up a few spots in the queue.
 

Pete,

You know I wasn't referring to you with that "no show" remark but to a couple of the other "old-timers" in here. In fact, I see that the 'other' missing party - who possibly believes that (my words) 'Quentin Tarantino is God's Personal Gift to the Art of Film-making' - has yet to put his 2c worth on the matter...

By the way, thanks for having a look-see at my long overdue update on Page 1. The odd thing is that, even though I'm now typing every title directly onto the "Reply" - as opposed to pasting them from a Word document as I used to do with the old software - I'm still taking an inordinate length of time to do so. Is it the same with you, folks...or do you have other time-saving techniques you'd like to share (unless, they're copyrighted, of course)?
 
Anyway, would you believe that my reaction to ALIAS NICK BEAL (1949) was so positive that I even wrote a review for it, albeit in point form, but I've yet to complete it? Maybe, now that you're keen, I should get up off my ass and 'join the dots' so to speak.I knew it was going to be a good one, sure, but the *** ratings on the two film guides I own seemed to shortchange it a little. Actually, I also had in mind to write a review of TIMBUKTU (1959) and dedicate it especially for you (for the reason you're aware of)...but that Tarantino imbroglio kind of took the wind right out of my sails! Basterd!!

One last thing about my IMDb reviews: frankly, I've never paid any mind to how many IMDb commuters find them useful. I've no doubt that they're getting read because, like Michael, I too received dozens of e-mails about them over the years. Only once did I get one which opined that I didn't know what I was talking about but, for the life of me, I can't recall which film it was that I, supposedly, didn't "get"! Also, it's no secret that I frequent 'specialized' sites and, wouldn't you know it, I've found two of my IMDb comments - for THE ROMANTIC ENGLISHWOMAN (1975) and ROMANCE OF A HORSETHIEF (1971) just the other day - being offered as 'descriptions' of the films concerned! No wonder they sounded awfully familiar as I was reading them!!
 
I don't mind such "borrowings" all that much...but a script is clearly something else entirely. To "borrow" ideas from existing movies can constitute a 'tribute' but to lift ideas from an unpublished script is outright theft. Amusingly, a local friend of mine told me that I should feel honored that my script was good enough to steal from but that's no consolation, is it?  
         
Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/8/09 at 1:50pm
post #1160 of 1550
The reasons for my absence are several:


a) I keep up an almost daily correspondence with a local friend of mine so, after those lengthy e-mails, I don't have much inclination to indulge again with you people. But I do read the comments (posted by the HTF regulars) on a regular basis  

b) I'm wary of writing lengthy posts directly onto the HTF "Reply" because I was used to writing my posts, reviews, etc. on a Word document and keep tinkering with it over there until I feel it's fit to print.
 
c) You and Pete and Martin have been watching lots of movies lately that I've only just acquired but, having yet to see most of these myself, I didn't think that I had much to contribute in their regard other than stating that trivial fact alone. 

d) I was all set to write a couple of reviews for HAMMERSMITH IS OUT (1972) and THE KLANSMAN (1974; to counter your own) but, for reasons stated above, these didn't materialize, alas.


P.S. Were you serious about copywriting HTF reviews/IMDb comments?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I was rather curious as to why you're not posting anymore.  I understand the reviews but you've been quiet all around lately.  As for the review, I read the uncut version and I'd say to make sure you put a copyright on everything you wrote.  Even the reviews you post here or at other boards.  If you remember that big debate about the (I think) British mag that was stealing reviews and then posting them in their magazines as originals.  The writers kept throwing a fit and crying left and right yet they didn't seem to realize that posting something on a public forum makes it easy ripping unless you get it protected.  It doesn't cost too much but it's something I do and have been doing so for years.  The same with a screenplay, I'd get it protected before handing it off to anyone. 

I see you watched THE KLANSMAN, MOUNTAIN OF THE CANNIBAL GODS and a few other exploitation "classics".  

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/8/09 at 1:37pm
post #1161 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

By the way, thanks for having a look-see at my long overdue update on Page 1. The odd thing is that, even though I'm now typing every title directly onto the "Reply" - as opposed to pasting them from a Word document as I used to do with the old software - I'm still taking an inordinate length of time to do so. Is it the same with you, folks...or do you have other time-saving techniques you'd like to share (unless, they're copyrighted, of course)?
 


Since the new software came on, I am working the way you used too.  I create the post in a Word document, do all the editing in there, and just straight paste it in the reply field and all the editing and formatting does carry over.  The master list of films on page 1, however, I have all but abandoned to just keeping locally on my laptop.
 

 
Anyway, would you believe that my reaction to ALIAS NICK BEAL (1949) was so positive that I even wrote a review for it, albeit in point form, but I've yet to complete it? Maybe, now that you're keen, I should get up off my ass and 'join the dots' so to speak.I knew it was going to be a good one, sure, but the *** ratings on the two film guides I own seemed to shortchange it a little. Actually, I also had in mind to write a review of TIMBUKTU (1959) and dedicate it especially for you (for the reason you're aware of)...but that Tarantino imbroglio kind of took the wind right out of my sails! Basterd!!


Well I think it goes almost without saying that I'm going to need to see both of these, QT be damned. Farrow has been on my radar for a while since I read an article on him in one of the Silver & Ursini books, whose partial gist was that he was inexplicably anonymous (not even listed by Sarris), and in the case of this film, obviously underrated.
 

I don't mind such "borrowings" all that much...but a script is clearly something else entirely. To "borrow" ideas from existing movies can constitute a 'tribute' but to lift ideas from an unpublished script is outright theft. Amusingly, a local friend of mine told me that I should feel honored that my script was good enough to steal from but that's no consolation, is it?  


When I was doing a small bit of research on this 'case', I kept seeing this sentiment over and over again--be flattered!--and I thought about throwing it out there for you, but it is a bit like putting salt in the wounds.

Quote:

I don't have much inclination to indulge again with you people.


Hey, thanks a lot!


post #1162 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

I don't suppose anyone cares - judging by the 'no show' following the posting of my INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) review in its respective thread - but I've updated my viewing master list on Page 1 (sort of). I still can't grasp why I have to spend 30 minutes doing something which used to take me 2 but, whatever, nevermind... 


Yeah, I'm grateful that at least now I am able to GET to Page 1 at all, but man oh man it certainly takes a looonng time to not only access it, but edit it.

Mario, just so you know, I did read your INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS review, but didn't feel inclined to say much. I kind of already knew how you felt about Tarantino based on your experience with him, and I thought you over-rated the film (IMO, of course). Not much else to say. I also gave my thoughts on the movie, which mostly agree with Mike's take on it (by the way, Brad Pitt's voice sort of reminded me of Michael Elliott's!).  
post #1163 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 We've been though this debate before and not much is really changing so there's no point in beating it too much.  I still have hard time understanding why a grade Z, bottom of the barrel Elvis movie would be something you'd search out yet you could give four-star reviews to all five of those Warner Gangster films you watched yet not have any desire to check out more of them.  I know you loved those Cagney, Bogart and Robinson films so I must admit that I'm sometimes shocked to see your updated posts and they don't include one of these films as they're constantly on TV.

Yeah, life's a funny thing sometimes, ain't it?

And I didn't give four star reviews to "all five" of the Warner Gangster films.
post #1164 of 1550
uote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post




Yeah, I'm grateful that at least now I am able to GET to Page 1 at all, but man oh man it certainly takes a looonng time to not only access it, but edit it.

Mario, just so you know, I did read your INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS review, but didn't feel inclined to say much. I kind of already knew how you felt about Tarantino based on your experience with him, and I thought you over-rated the film (IMO, of course). Not much else to say. I also gave my thoughts on the movie, which mostly agree with Mike's take on it (by the way, Brad Pitt's voice sort of reminded me of Michael Elliott's!).  

Thanks for pitching in, Joe! I thought I might have rubbed you the wrong way with that overblown God/QT comment but, happily, I didn't.
 
It goes without saying that I have something to say about this ongoing debate you're having with Michael and, believe it or not, in a way I'm starting to feel like you do. In the sense that I am really starting to feel the need to make room for revisits much more often in the future. I have to go right now but I promise I'll gather my thoughts together and post them here tomorrow.


P.S. Maybe it's a good thing, then, that I don't have the privilige of having phone conversations with Mr. Elliott!    


post #1165 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the video Pete.  It helped but it's still not curing my issue.  Whenever I hit the quote button, the "Quote by Joe Karlosi" will be there but none of the text. 

That's funny. I remember looking at one of Mario's reviews, and it was typically well done, a lot of thought was put into it, and I noticed in a little font right at the top it said '1 out of 5 people found this useful' and I just thought, 'why bother?' On top of that, to have people PM'ing you with their displeasure, give me a break.  And for someone to ask where do you find the time to watch all this...mind your f'ing business, you know?.

As Mario later said, I never pay any attention to the "useful" feature.  I find all of my reviews horrible so I'm always curious as to how anyone could find them useful.  I think it's mainly if that person agrees or disagrees with what you wrote.  I've told Joe this story before but I'll repeat it.  I reviewed AMERICAN PSYCHO when it first came to DVD.  LionsGate made sure I got the first copy to review before any other site and my review got posted first.  I didn't like the movie for various reasons and my e-mail box went crazy with people telling how stupid I was.  Then, one woman sent me a very polite e-mail and we exchanged several discussing the film.  I'd give my opinion, she'd give hers and so on.  I ended up telling my friend about this amazing woman and this amazing conversation I had with her.  My friend asked me what her name was and I told him.  I didn't realize it but it was the actual director of the film!!!  This moment has always stood out at me because of how mean fans (myself included) can get when someone doesn't like a film they like yet the actual director of the film didn't take offense to it. 

I hate that site but Mario and Joe talked me into keeping the reviews there and I'm glad I did.  It helps keep me in contact with other collectors so putting up with the feedback isn't too bad.  Even the death threats make me laugh but I guess I should take them more serious. 

You can't; because a) you run the chance of probably being hypocritical and b) hey, previous generations were not lucky enough to be as 'incredibly enlightened' as we are, certainly not a depression-era roustabout like Mitchum (or for that matter, Griffith), and judging them by a 21st century context is just as myopic in its way.

I think I have more of an issue with false information going around and ruining someone.  I've taken a lot of abuse over my love for Griffith but I'm pretty sure I can sit here and say I've done enough research to know there are more myths out there than anything else.  Hell, even all the "history" books seem to tell different versions of the same story.  That's why I never pay it too much attention but I do try to believe those who actually lived something instead of those born two decades after an event happened.  I remember several years ago talking to a child and grandchild of the actors who plays Amos 'n Andy.  It was rather heartbreaking hearing how their father's ended their lives so upset (and to a point broke) because of the stupid myths that were out there keeping their work in the vaults.  If any current idiots want to keep these things in the vaults or tell how evil they are without seeing them, I only wish they could have the same conversation I had with those children who saw their parents suffer crap they never should have.

Re: FAT CITY and THE HURRICANE

Osborne had introductions on both films and he thought they were among the director's greatest work.  I wouldn't go that far but both were highly impressive.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.

P.S. Were you serious about copywriting HTF reviews/IMDb comments?

Having lost a lot of money over the years due to lazy bums who want to make a living off of someone else busting their ass doing "work", I would certainly protect yourself.  Be it a small one-line review or a screenplay. 

(by the way, Brad Pitt's voice sort of reminded me of Michael Elliott's!).  

Hey!!!  Whoever thought Brad Pitt's redneck and that "man outside the theater talking to Woody Allen in ANNIE HALL" could have discussions about movies.
post #1166 of 1550
Michael,


Your reviews are definitely not "horrible" to me - let's just say "a little rough around the edges in a stream-of-consciousness sort of way"!

By the way, the most amusing feedback I received from my IMDb comments was to my review of Freddie Fracis' SON OF DRACULA (1974). An actor from the film (who played Dracula's manservant) asked me for a copy of it because:

a) he hadn't seen it yet himself
b) he thought it was so bad (while making it) that he was amazed that it had been released at all and was still 'available' 35 years later

Naturally, I took the opportunity to ask him about how he got along with his co-stars (Ringo Starr, Harry Nilsson & Dennis Price) and his director. He also proceeded to tell that he had been twice to Malta to work on CUT-THROAT ISLAND (1995) and GLADIATOR (2000).
post #1167 of 1550
Ah, conversation! This is what I enjoy!

As far as IMDB is concerned, I think it's a great way to keep all your reviews sorted and organized in alphabetical order and you can always go back to them and re-edit them in the future, which I may do occasionally. I feel like at least our reviews get SEEN over there and read, whatever the outcome. It's just a great way to keep and save your stuff, and have it read, too. Any time you want to re-discover what you thought of a film you once watched but may have forgotten about, it's easy to just pull it up over at IMDB. And it helps when you want to copy/paste your thoughts on a certain movie, like I recently did with the 1999 MUMMY.

Michael - are you aware that once you list a review at IMDB, it becomes "their property"? That never bugs me, as I don't intend to write a book or anything myself!

I have gotten a few sporadic "private messages" over there from readers over the years, but nothing near what it sounds like Mario and Michael have received.

Mario wrote:
It goes without saying that I have something to say about this ongoing debate you're having with Michael and, believe it or not, in a way I'm starting to feel like you do. In the sense that I am really starting to feel the need to make room for revisits much more often in the future. I have to go right now but I promise I'll gather my thoughts together and post them here tomorrow.

I'll be looking forward to it. I am kind of stunned that you feel somewhat like I do about revisits. But who knows, if we all start chatting more again it could influence me to see more first-timers. Without you I never would have enjoyed the Luis Bunuel films I have. 
post #1168 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Joe, I knew about their "rule" before posting but my concerns over it were put to rest by my rights.  I haven't heard of IMDB selling anything so I'm not worried about that of course.  Just making sure people reading it aren't taking advantage and putting them places where they shouldn't be.  Plus, one little push of a button can get rid of all of them.


I Shot Jesse James (1949)
 

Samuel Fuller
 

Fuller's directorial debut takes a look at the life of Bob Ford (John Ireland) after his cowardly killing of Jesse James.  Ford is in love with a woman (Barbara Britton) but goes out West to try and make some money but what he doesn't know is that she's in love with another man (Preston Foster).  The story of Jesse James in Hollywood has always been an interesting one because a lot of movies look at him as some sort of good guy when in truth he was pure scum who killed women and children.  How this guy ever got to be looked at as a hero is beyond me but it's probably the same way Ford became a coward.  People have debated on what Ford was but there's no question this Fuller film shows him as a weak coward and it even changes the ending of history to make him go out in a different way.  This is technically a very well made film but at the same time there are quite a few problems with the screenplay.  For starters, the movie seems to be hit and miss in regards to what it's trying to say.  I didn't care too much for the way James was shown because they made him look and sound like one would expect Abraham Lincoln to come off.  I'm not sure why they built Jesse up so highly just to change things around on Ford.  The film seems to want to show Ford for a coward yet the screenplay goes off in different directions as to center on other aspects of his life and it's the later stuff that makes the film swing off track for me.  With that said, the amount of talent on display here by Fuller can't be questioned.  The visual style of the film is wonderful and he handles the action quite well.  The psychological stuff comes off pretty well especially the scene right after the murder when Ford enters a bar only to have people looking at him differently than he expected.  Ireland is very good in his role as is Foster.  The two men work extremely well together and make the film worth seeing.  There are many, many film dealing with this subject and while this one here isn't the best, there's still enough here making it worth checking out.
 

Baron of Arizona, The (1950)
 

Samuel Fuller
 

Fact-based drama of James Reavis (Vincent Price), the man who tried to gain control of Arizona and taking the U.S. government to court in order to prove it was his.  In reality, Reavis set out on a life-long scheme full of lies and forgery to try and pull it off.  As with Fuller's first movie, this second feature has a lot going for it but at the same time there are some major problems that keep it from being a lot better than it actually is.  The biggest problem for me was the screenplay, which I felt spent way too much time with the build up and not enough of a pay off.  The first fifty-two minutes are so drawn out that I began to lose interest in the film, story and characters.  The opening of showing how Reavis set everything into motion is so drawn out that I was becoming quite bored and losing interest in the entire film.  To me this entire segment could have been done in a twenty-minute sequence and it would have paid off more in the end.  The film really starts to pick up once we're back in Arizona and Reavis tries to fulfill his evil plan.  The reaction to the poor land owners, the government and the effect this plan has on Reavis makes for some good drama, which is lacking in the first half of the film.  Price gives a wonderful performance and is the main reason to watch the movie.  He's so calm and collective in how evil he is at one point you really can't help but wish he'd get away with the crime.  The supporting players are fine even though no one really stands out.  Fuller's direction is nice throughout and the cinematography is good as well.  In the end this is a rather nice look at history but one can't help but wish it was better.

 

Steel Helmet, The (1951)
 

Samuel Fuller
 

Fuller's grim Korean War drama follows Sgt. Zack (Gene Evans) and other rugged men as they take shelter in an abandoned Buddhist temple where they have time to reflect on what they're going in the war.  Filmed in a reported ten days, this is one of those rare films that takes place during the war which it is showing.  The movie doesn't really take a stance on either side of the line, although there's no question that Fuller wants to get his own ideas across.  One of the best scenes involves a black man who is asked how he feels about having to fix these men up yet in the real world he wouldn't be able to sit at the same table with them.  There's a lot of racial slurs thrown around at various people but this comes off very realistic as does the rest of the dialogue.  You can listen to these men and actually feel like you're in the trenches with them as you'd be hearing this type of conversations.  Another big plus is that the movie never paints a pretty picture, which was the type of thing we were use to seeing in war pictures from Hollywood.  It's clear Fuller is doing things his way and he didn't care about criticism, which eventually came to the film.  Evans delivers a fine and realistic performance as does the rest of the cast.  The one negative thing was all the stock footage used at the end but the low budget probably required it.  This isn't your typical war film but you can watch it and feel as if you're seeing an original.  The influence on movies like FULL METAL JACKET, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and Tarantino's recent are pretty obvious. 

 

post #1169 of 1550

Quote: Michael Elliott
Whenever I hit the quote button, the "Quote by Joe Karlosi" will be there but none of the text.

Jeez, you're right. You found yet another wrinkle (weirdly, it was only happening on Joe's posts).  So, basically it's a grab bag; the quote button can either work, not work, or half work. Super.

Quote:
I reviewed AMERICAN PSYCHO when it first came to DVD.  LionsGate made sure I got the first copy to review before any other site and my review got posted first.  I didn't like the movie for various reasons and my e-mail box went crazy with people telling how stupid I was.  Then, one woman sent me a very polite e-mail and we exchanged several discussing the film.  I'd give my opinion, she'd give hers and so on.  I ended up telling my friend about this amazing woman and this amazing conversation I had with her.  My friend asked me what her name was and I told him.  I didn't realize it but it was the actual director of the film!!!  This moment has always stood out at me because of how mean fans (myself included) can get when someone doesn't like a film they like yet the actual director of the film didn't take offense to it.

Great story. Now I like Mary Harron even more than I did before for putting Gretchen Mol in THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE.  

Quote:
Even the death threats make me laugh but I guess I should take them more serious.

Death threats? Over what?!?!?!

Quote:
I remember several years ago talking to a child and grandchild of the actors who plays Amos 'n Andy.  It was rather heartbreaking hearing how their father's ended their lives so upset (and to a point broke) because of the stupid myths that were out there keeping their work in the vaults.  If any current idiots want to keep these things in the vaults or tell how evil they are without seeing them, I only wish they could have the same conversation I had with those children who saw their parents suffer crap they never should have.

Another great story.

post #1170 of 1550

Quote: Mario Gauci
By the way, the most amusing feedback I received from my IMDb comments was to my review of Freddie Fracis' SON OF DRACULA (1974). An actor from the film (who played Dracula's manservant) asked me for a copy of it because:

a) he hadn't seen it yet himself
b) he thought it was so bad (while making it) that he was amazed that it had been released at all and was still 'available' 35 years later

Naturally, I took the opportunity to ask him about how he got along with his co-stars (Ringo Starr, Harry Nilsson & Dennis Price) and his director. He also proceeded to tell that he had been twice to Malta to work on CUT-THROAT ISLAND (1995) and GLADIATOR (2000).

Another nice story.  You know, Mario, I always forget to ask you this, is anybody in your family in the film business? I recall seeing a 'Gauci' in the credits of the Joe Don Baker/Rossano Brazzi Malta-set classic FINAL JUSTICE. Or is that a fairly common surname?

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 (2009)