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 40

post #1171 of 1550
9/9/09 at 2:00am
 Ahhhh....This place don't change!

OOH!  I saw "The Klansman" get a mention.  I have an uncut NTSC VHS and after seeing the butchered DVD versions I was really surprised at how damn nasty and exploitative the uncensored rape scene was.
Burton sadly stunk, but Marvin was fine and the film is underrated imho (at least in its full strength version)


"The Shepherd"
As far as Van Damme's a hand to hand fighting/acrobatics go this was his best flick for a long time. His physique is looking good too...no Seagal style letting himself go to be seen here. Some of the plotting (or should that be post filming editing it seemed to me) was off and some scenes and minor characters were left stranded, but the action, fighting and Van Damme himself were all top flight, certainly for a latter day Van Damme movie.

5 fists.



"Gutterballs" This was a massive improvement on the Director's weak "LIve Feed" and completely delivered. If you hate gore drenched, nasty, sick, twisted, exploitative flicks then don't watch. But if you fancy the idea of a well made (technically dubious dialogue recording aside), truly BALLS-OUT exploitation flick done with a fan's enthusiasm and a 70's/80's retro sensibility, topped off with wonderfully inventive kills and superb gore FX then here it is.

The acting is not so much 'bad, as amateur, but that does not mean bad. The acting had a fun, go for it, heart in the right place amateur appeal for the most part. Even the expletive filled script works in the context of the film and it's characters.

A killer with a bowling bag on his head, splattertastic death by ball polisher, a messy castration and a great charnel house finale. Oh...and some hardcore sex.

Exploitation fans rejoice at this little gem.
Death by 69? Could be a first! Check it out.

7 Bowling pins
 
Reply
post #1172 of 1550
9/9/09 at 3:50am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post



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?

 


Would I be here talking to you people if I had?

Seriously, though: Gauci is a very common surname over here and, unfortunately for me, the name Mario is combined with the surname Gauci far too regularly as well! In fact, I have a colleague with the exact same name and we've been receiving eachother's work-related e-mails for years now. 

You seem to like good stories - well, here's another one for you: my twin brother Roderick and I were born on August 17 but, while he got named after Charlton Heston's character in EL CID (1961) i.e. Don Rodrigo de Bivar (on account that my father is also a film-buff), I got saddled with the name of the Virgin Mary(!) because her Feast comes two days before. My mother always tells the story that when I was born I didn't cry out like new-born babies are supposed to and that, consequently, I was thought of as being still-born; I was already on my way to the Morgue before I finally decided to wail out and join the living! Therefore, my birth was sort of a 'miracle' and I got named after the 'latest' Saint as thanksgiving!! More like saddled with a common name, if you ask me. A small consolation is that, at least, I share my name with a director I admire i.e. Mario Bava. Also, this could perhaps explain why I sometimes am too lazy to post over here.


P.S. My brother asked me to say on his behalf that despite his admiration for Anthony Mann, he too is prouder to share his name with 2 famous characters in horror films i.e. Roderick Usher and Roderick Femm (from THE OLD DARK HOUSE). 

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/9/09 at 6:40am
Reply
post #1173 of 1550
9/9/09 at 4:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

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. 
 

O.K., so let's start with the "stunner" first, then.

Consider the list below of my Top 20 movies. You will find in there also the total number of viewings that each film received from me over the years; whether I own it on DVD (and, in some cases, in what number of quantities - obviously, we're talking about different editions here i.e. regions or labels) or not; and, finally, the number of times I've seen that particular film on DVD (which, for all intents and prurposes, is the optimal home viewing medium so far): 
 
1.   BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) – Watched: 9; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 2
1.   THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 3
2.   THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 1
3.   NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
4.   HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
5.   CITIZEN KANE (1941) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 1
6.   M (1931) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
7.   THE THIRD MAN (1949) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
8.   DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
9.   THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
10. THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
11. A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH (1946) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
12. TO BE OR NOT TO BE (1942) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
13. DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
14. NOSFERATU (1922) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 0
15. SHERLOCK JR. (1924) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
16. NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 2 (i.e. both versions) 
17. EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1959) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
18. A MAN ESCAPED (1956) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 0, Seen: 0
19. SANSHO THE BAILIFF (1954) – Watched: 2; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 0
20. THE SCARLET EMPRESS (1934) – Watched: 2; DVD Own: 0, Seen: 0
  

Should I really be considering the majority of these as 'favorites' when I've seen some of them just twice and, in some cases, I haven't even deigned them of a single whirl in my DVD player? 

Technically, being favorites and all, I should even be considering an upgrade of a few of them - BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, NORTH BY NORTHWEST and NOSFERATU - to the more recent 'improved' edtions on the market (and I'm not even talking about BluRay here)! But how sensible would that be in view of the fact that I haven't given the 'older' DVD editions that much of a workout during these last 8 years?   

Therefore, I'm starting to see how, say, dedicating one day a week to revisiting famliar movies and another one to those films with which I'm not all that familiar, makes a whole lot of sense after all. For example, it burns me up that I haven't seen VERTIGO (1958) in about 15 years but, then, I only own the older SE DVD rather than the upgraded 2-Discer! Also, it burns me up that I've seen Wojciech J. Has' THE SARAGOSSA MANUSCRIPT (1964) - one of Luis Bunuel's favorite films - just once when I bought the Image DVD 7 years ago! But, then, I've just acquired two other films from the Polish director this very week - THE NOOSE (1957) and his 'masterpiece' THE DOLL (1968) - and, therefore, shouldn't I sensibly be watching these 'new' ones first before giving SARAGOSSA a second look? 

But, then, if we're talking about listing favorites, there's this other thing for me to consider: the following are my favorite 12 film-makers and, next to each, is listed the amount of unwatched (as in 'new') films of theirs that I have in my entire movie collection (not just DVDs): 

 
Robert Bresson: 1
Luis Bunuel: 0
Carl Theodor Dreyer: 3 features; 4 shorts
Howard Hawks: 6
Alfred Hitchcock: 6 features; 1 short
Fritz Lang: 10
Kenji Mizoguchi: 13
F. W. Murnau: 3
Jean Renoir: 3
Josef von Sternberg: 3
Orson Welles: 0
James Whale: 5
 

Should I really be entertaining the notion of revisiting VERTIGO again when I've got UNDER CAPRICORN (1949) lying here unwatched, too? Incidentally, just a few hours ago, I received Optimum's 8-Disc Set of "The Luis Bunuel Collection" which, in most cases, consists of improved DVD editions (i.e 30-minute documentaries and 1 Audio Commentary) of Bunuel films which I already own on DVD or VHS. When I ordered the set online, I told my brother that we really should watch the supplements immediately (if nothing else) - even though I do own 3 books on Bunuel already! But, if Bunuel is my favorite director, so has James Whale directed my 2 all-time favorite films...and I've got 5 of the man's movies sitting here collecting dust!!

So, when all is said and done, it's not such a clear-cut victory for the Karlosi camp as it first appeared, is it? But, admittedly, I certainly do feel now (more than ever before) that taking time out from searching for and making new discoveries - say, twice a week -- is a feasible and, indeed, desirable idea. After all, even Michael revists stuff far more regularly than I do myself. 


Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/9/09 at 11:06pm
Reply
post #1174 of 1550
9/9/09 at 2:01pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

P.S. My brother asked me to say on his behalf that despite his admiration for Anthony Mann, he too is prouder to share his name with 2 famous characters in horror films i.e. Roderick Usher and Roderick Femm (from THE OLD DARK HOUSE). 

Oh, so the favored son has deigned to tip his toes into the fray that is HTF? He should be glad that Signore Gauci wasn't more inclined to go with another Mann protagonist or he could have ended up being named Yancey or Lin or Link instead of Roderick.


Quote:
1.   BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) – Watched: 9; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 2
1.   THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 3
2.   THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 1
3.   NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
4.   HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
5.   CITIZEN KANE (1941) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 1
6.   M (1931) – Watched: 6; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
7.   THE THIRD MAN (1949) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
8.   DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
9.   THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
10. THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
11. A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH (1946) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
12. TO BE OR NOT TO BE (1942) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 0
13. DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
14. NOSFERATU (1922) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 0
15. SHERLOCK JR. (1924) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
16. NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957) – Watched: 4; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 2 (i.e. both versions) 
17. EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1959) – Watched: 5; DVD Own: 1, Seen: 1
18. A MAN ESCAPED (1956) – Watched: 3; DVD Own: 0, Seen: 0
19. SANSHO THE BAILIFF (1954) – Watched: 2; DVD Own: 2, Seen: 0
20. THE SCARLET EMPRESS (1934) – Watched: 2; DVD Own: 0, Seen: 0

Nicely done mix of indisputable classics and personal expression (like your pal Tarantino putting the Adolphe Menjou/Dennis O'Keefe vehicle, HI DIDDLE DIDDLE, in his top ten as well as apparently referencing it in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS).  And always gratifying to see someone else regard TO BE OR NOT TO BE as highly as I do. I mean I realize it's very well thought of, but I probably would put it in my top ten, whereas most are content to simply acknowledge it as 'one to see'.  

Quote:
Howard Hawks: 6

Really? You don't have CORVETTE K-225 sitting around do you?

Quote:
Fritz Lang: 8

Now THAT I'm shocked by.  Coincidentally, you're not going to believe this Mario, I happen to be something of a 'curator' of these two directors on another forum.

Reply
post #1175 of 1550
9/9/09 at 3:12pm
Hawks: FIG LEAVES (1926), A GIRL IN EVERY PORT (1928), THE DAWN PATROL (1930), THE PRIZEFIGHTER AND THE LADY (1933), VIVA VILLA! (1934) and THE ROAD TO GLORY (1936) 

Lang: THE SPIDERS PART 1: THE GOLDEN LAKE (1919), HARAKIRI (1919), THE SPIDERS PART 2: THE DIAMOND SHIP (1920), THE WANDERING IMAGE (1920), WOMAN IN THE MOON (1929), YOU AND ME (1938), MOONTIDE (1942), HOUSE BY THE RIVER (1950), HUMAN DESIRE (1954) and WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS (1956).  

Actually there are 10 Langs in there if you count THE SPIDERS as two movies and MOONTIDE on which he shot just a few scenes before being replaced by Archie Mayo.


P.S. I'd like to hear more about that 'curator' business (if you don't mind). 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post


Really? You don't have CORVETTE K-225 sitting around do you?

Now THAT I'm shocked by.  Coincidentally, you're not going to believe this Mario, I happen to be something of a 'curator' of these two directors on another forum.

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/9/09 at 3:23pm
Reply
post #1176 of 1550
9/9/09 at 4:37pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

my twin brother Roderick and I were born on August 17 but, while he got named after Charlton Heston's character in EL CID (1961)
 

You know, considering I've never seen EL CID, and I am a fan of Charlton Heston, and I have had a sealed copy of EL CID sitting on my shelf for a year or more, it would be a nice idea for me to watch it one day, don't you think?
Reply
post #1177 of 1550
9/9/09 at 6:52pm
Thread Starter 
Pete, the death threat was several years ago when CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was first released to DVD overseas.  The movie had never been "officially" released at that point and the site bragged about having an early copy to review.  Two guys warned me not to post the reviews.  After doing so I received a death threat via a "Hail PETA" bullshit e-mail.  Considering at the time I was known to post my phone number on message boards, I didn't hesitate in giving this guy my home address.  I invited him over to kill me but obviously he never showed up.


But how sensible would that be in view of the fact that I haven't given the 'older' DVD editions that much of a workout during these last 8 years?   

I personally don't see how anyone could watch the same thing over and over without it getting boring.  Many of my favorites are films I've seen over 20 times so after a while they become quite stale.  I might get a kick out of showing them to new people but some films I'm just so overly familiar with that I really don't need to see them again because the "magic" of them isn't there.  I said this a couple years ago about Universal's DRACULA and THE MUMMY.  I broke that promise this year because I got a chance to see them on the biggest 4x3 screen in the country.  Now, I never need to see them again. 

I currently have 48 movies on my DVR and have another 12 or so being planned to record this month.  I'm thinking about setting a goal of deleting whatever I don't get watched this month so that, after the horror challenge, I can spend November only watching films I haven't seen in ages.  I'll have to keep the stuff I have recorded that aren't available on VHS or DVD but the others will go as I can record them several times a year from TCM or just rent them via Netflix.  I'll see how far I can make it doing this but I suspect I might get bored after a while.  We'll see.

As for VIVA VILLA!, not the classic it was cracked up to be (the same with the Fuller titles).
Reply
post #1178 of 1550
9/9/09 at 9:24pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Pete, the death threat was several years ago when CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was first released to DVD overseas.  The movie had never been "officially" released at that point and the site bragged about having an early copy to review.  Two guys warned me not to post the reviews.  After doing so I received a death threat via a "Hail PETA" bullshit e-mail.  Considering at the time I was known to post my phone number on message boards, I didn't hesitate in giving this guy my home address.  I invited him over to kill me but obviously he never showed up.
 

Awesome.

Reply
post #1179 of 1550
9/9/09 at 11:46pm
Pete,


I too have a great story about CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) which Michael and Joe are probably already familiar with.
Although I had heard of the film for a long time, being an animal lover, I wasn't too keen on seeking it out. Eventually, I got to see both it and its predecessor JUNGLE HOLOCAUST (1977) back-to-back thanks to a local friend of mine who is a (long-time) cult and (more recently) Korean film aficionado.
Anyway, come the last day of that fateful 2004 Venice Film Festival and, although we weren't planning on gong to see it, we overheard QT tell Joe Dante that he was going to be skipping the awards ceremony and chill out by going to the midnight screening of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Guess what? We obviously followed suit and were even the first people to queue at the cinema doors because, rightly, we were anticipating a big crowd for this rare theatrical screening of such a notorious film. A few minutes after we parked our asses in front of the theatre, an ultra-eager, nerdy-looking Italian female came up to us and said, “You’re here for CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST?” and I told her “Purtroppo (Alas)”. Well, in a matter of minutes there were people coming out of everywhere and, eventually, in we went for the screening.
As usual, the director himself Ruggero Deodato was in attendance and he was invited for introduce his film before the screening. The first thing he did was to ask if anyone else had seen the film before and, wouldn’t you know it, my brother and I were the only ones to do so! I’m sure QT had seen it before but, perhaps he didn’t understand the question or whatever. Well, the director proceded to tell us how everybody on that production – except for him and the d.p. – was stoned out of their skull; how a native girl kept pestering him for a part and he eventually had her get the mother of all beatings by her jealous on-screen husband (plus a memorably gruesome death scene – those familiar with the film will know the one I mean); how, upon returning back hime, he had urged his Italian actors to get out into the streets and show themselves because people were convinced they had really been eaten up by cannibals; and that they resorted to turtle eating because they were sick of eating fish all the time and, since they were going to kill it anyway, why not shoot the scene and include it in the finished film? This sequence is the most notorious in the whole film and even there, at this point, it didn’t fail to raise controversy because, as Deodato was expounding on this matter to the audience, the guy sitting right next to me starts screaming at him, “Shame on you! Turtles are sacred! Shame on you!”. I don't know where he got that bit from but I'll let it pass.
Anyway, the film was screened and, perhaps because it was in Italian and in 35mm (as opposed to a hazy, English-dubbed VHS like I first saw it), I ‘admired’ (I refuse to say ‘liked’) the film a little better – raising my rating from a BOMB to a **. After the screening, then, at around 02:30, being the last day and all, we took our time leaving the theatre and, as we were going back to the hotel, we saw a small crowd gathered round Deodato and we joined in. He recognized us and asked us how we had first seen his film and how we had liked it this time. Before long, we realized that in that crowd there was also the guy who had sat next to me and caused all the commotion. And guess what: he turned out to be an unemployed actor who kept begging Deodato to use him in his future movies!! So much for the moral outrage he had projected over the needless killing of animals…
Reply
post #1180 of 1550
9/10/09 at 3:10am
 Nice story Mario.



But my steadfast LAW on "Cannibal Holocaust" is that you only watch it uncut as it should be seen (fuck Deodato and his sad old man feelings of guilt!!!!!!) and if you are so against animal snuff never go near it, even the farcical 'animal cruelty free' version.

Because whether you had the nasty little scenes removed for you or not the animals STILL DIED FOR THIS FILM so you are JUST as complicit if you watch the film and support it,  even if the animal scenes are gone, as someone who watches it with them intact.  Your little friends are still dead because of the film you just watched.

And if your distaste is nothing actually to do with moral outrage at really killing animals (by the way far more die for far less than a classic genre piece like "C H" everyday) then I have to ask...why is rape and butchery ok to you???  
True it's not real, but your distaste for the animal scenes has nothing to do with them being real anyway! 

Watch it as it should be watched...or simply don't watch it.  That is the price you have to pay to partake of this bludgeoning movie experience.

I don't approve of the killings, but they already happened and nothing will change that, they are part of the uncensored movie (a vital point right there) and whatever the, too late to matter,  moral dilemma we have with these sequences when watched in context they do add to the hammer blow power to disturb and unnerve this film has.  

It;s what Euro Exploitation, Jungle Cannibal films do and how they do it.  Feel free to ignore, or not.





Reply
post #1181 of 1550
9/10/09 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

 Nice story Mario.



But my steadfast LAW on "Cannibal Holocaust" is that you only watch it uncut as it should be seen (fuck Deodato and his sad old man feelings of guilt!!!!!!) and if you are so against animal snuff never go near it, even the farcical 'animal cruelty free' version.

Because whether you had the nasty little scenes removed for you or not the animals STILL DIED FOR THIS FILM so you are JUST as complicit if you watch the film and support it,  even if the animal scenes are gone, as someone who watches it with them intact.  Your little friends are still dead because of the film you just watched.

And if your distaste is nothing actually to do with moral outrage at really killing animals (by the way far more die for far less than a classic genre piece like "C H" everyday) then I have to ask...why is rape and butchery ok to you???  
True it's not real, but your distaste for the animal scenes has nothing to do with them being real anyway! 

Watch it as it should be watched...or simply don't watch it.  That is the price you have to pay to partake of this bludgeoning movie experience.

I don't approve of the killings, but they already happened and nothing will change that, they are part of the uncensored movie (a vital point right there) and whatever the, too late to matter,  moral dilemma we have with these sequences when watched in context they do add to the hammer blow power to disturb and unnerve this film has.  

It;s what Euro Exploitation, Jungle Cannibal films do and how they do it.  Feel free to ignore, or not.





 

Dave,


I don't really want this to turn into another diatribe pro-or-con CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) but I appreciate how certain films should, can and do instigate in the viewer feelings that he needs to express somehow. For the sake of clarity, I feel that I need to add the following: 

1. both viewings of the film - on VHS and 35mm - were uncut 

2. the main reason I went to watch the film (after having vowed to myself never to do so again!) at the Festival was to see what the audience's reaction would be and, staged or not, I got my money's worth (so to speak - since the Festival's retrospective screenings were free of charge)

3. the "Cannibal" subgenre is my least favorite in the horror genre but, having personally met in Venice directors like Umberto (CANNIBAL FEROX) Lenzi and Sergio (MOUNTAIN OF THE CANNIBAL GOD) Martino, I kind of feel it my duty now to catch the films of those four genre artisans (the other being "Enzo Gorlomi"...er...Enzo G. Castellari) if I happen to come across them

4. I am (and have always been) a big fan of Westerns and Epics but, frankly, nowadays I wince every time I see scenes of horses falling but...they go with the territory I suppose!
Reply
post #1182 of 1550
9/10/09 at 4:03am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Pete, the death threat was several years ago when CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was first released to DVD overseas.  The movie had never been "officially" released at that point and the site bragged about having an early copy to review.  Two guys warned me not to post the reviews.  After doing so I received a death threat via a "Hail PETA" bullshit e-mail.  Considering at the time I was known to post my phone number on message boards, I didn't hesitate in giving this guy my home address.  I invited him over to kill me but obviously he never showed up.


I always have to laugh at the diehard PETA people when they'll put animals ahead of humans. I don't see anything wrong with defending animals, but when push comes to shove, they value animal life more than human life. I was watching THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN with my "Movie Night" guests recently, and one girl kept freaking when they showed the scientist experimenting and "killing" animals to try and identify this deadly virus that was destroying humanity. I mean, she takes medicines for health problems, so how did she think these meds got tested so she could relieve her own pain? She actually said: "That's just wrong! Experiment on humans, not on animals! I like animals better than people!" --- I swear to God. And when we elaborated on it later and discussed this more, she wasn't just saying this as some sort of kneejerk reaction; she was quite serious.   
 


I personally don't see how anyone could watch the same thing over and over without it getting boring.  Many of my favorites are films I've seen over 20 times so after a while they become quite stale.  I might get a kick out of showing them to new people but some films I'm just so overly familiar with that I really don't need to see them again because the "magic" of them isn't there.  I said this a couple years ago about Universal's DRACULA and THE MUMMY.  I broke that promise this year because I got a chance to see them on the biggest 4x3 screen in the country.  Now, I never need to see them again. 


 

But you're talking about DRACULA and THE MUMMY, two films you never liked in the first place even though you've tried to make yourself enjoy them many times already (I think you once said you've seen DRACULA a hundred times, which may have been an exaggeration for a movie you've never liked much).

I feel the way you're describing about most FIRST-TIME movies I've seen. The overwhelming majority of them are not repeat-worthy, and even the ones that are rarely get revisited by me any time soon. Since I've discovered so many good first-timers in recent years, I've bought the DVDs or put them on  my Christmas list for others to get me, and they're still sealed. Some of these films are: A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ON THE WATERFRONT, SPARTACUS, HIGH NOON, THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE.... these are all films I saw for my first time and felt I wanted to own, and yet they're still unopened while I choose to watch THE MUMMY'S HAND, THE OMEGA MAN, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, JAWS,  AMERICAN GRAFFITI, and A HARD DAY'S NIGHT over and over and over. 

What can I say? It comes back to entertainment for me, not some kind of dedicted science project for historical purposes. I don't see the point of seeing hundreds of brand new first-time films and then always saying to myself "okay, so there's another notch on my belt and now I'll never see it again and move on, but at least I can say I saw it. What next?" -- Forget that.
Reply
post #1183 of 1550
9/10/09 at 4:23am
Joe,


For some reason, I can't get to repost your EL CID (1961) quote right but, anyway, here goes:

Although I have cut down on DVD purchasing for quite a while now, ironically, I have never acquired as many movies as I have this year and, what's worse, I've probably seen less movies this year than I ever have since I've been keeping 'track'!! The thing is that, contrary to how I used to feel before, I'm fine with taking time to stay loose and not cram as many movies in one day (or rather 6 hours during weekdays) as I possibly can. Of course, the (hopefully) upcoming "Halloween Challenge" will change all that once again but I did find, like never before, that the thrill of experiencing a new movie is decreasing for me - which, again, explains why I plan to include those revisit slots in the future.

First of all, I do miss my reviews and, watching a movie knowing that I wouldn't be posting my comments on it, kind of makes that viewing a half-hearted one from the start. Therefore, I purposefully left (mostly) undemanding stuff for the Summer months - not the mention the debilitating heatwave we've had this year! Of course, there have been exceptions like CRY OF THE CITY (1948), ALIAS NICK BEAL (1949) and SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL (1959) which were all new viewings for me and each received a high rating. Even so, now that we're in September and the weather is getting slightly chillier, I've embarked on yet another Euro-Cult marathon which, in just a few days, has yielded many fine "new" movies that got *** from me. It's true that none of the Spaghetti Westerns I've just seen were on the level of a Sergio Leone but I'm still glad I've watched (and own) them. I would have liked to write about them but, as I keep saying, I'm not in a writing mood right now. Hopefully, that'll change come October.

The thing is that I'm getting somewhat impatient with the ambitious tasks I keep setting for myself in terms of film watching: for example, I just had me a Victor Mature tribute and I watched 16 of his films! I wasn't content to watch just 4 or 5.But that's got to change. I have over a 100 unwatched Euro-Cult titles and there's no way I can fit them in September. Therefore, I've decided to concentrate on 4 facets of the term: Fumetti, Gialli, Spaghetti Westerns and War. Also, I should be watching a lot of Burt Lancaster and Errol Flynn stuff  but, although I had initially shortlisted some 15 titles apiece, I've already decided to downsize them before I even start the tributes.

Actually, it happens to me even during the Halloween Challenge; even if Horror is my favorite genre, I do get impatient in mid-October and can't wait to delve into other genres! For example, I have acquired so many desirable vinatge World Cinema titles of late that I keep telling myself that I really ought to dedicate a whole month to them. But wouldn't that rather be defeating the purpose for the reasons stated above (not to mention the fact that I will also have to be doing a lot of reading of subtitles)? 

My main trouble, unlike you it seems, is that I have far too many cinematic interests. I don't just like Horror movies or Comedies, Foreign movies or Film Noir, Westerns or War, Epics or Euro-Cult, Silents or Animation. I like all of this stuff and more. Hell, I've even started acquiring what Italian film historians refer to as Porno d'Autore - softcore flicks by 'distinguished' directors like Joe D'Amato, Nando Cicero and Piero Vivarelli (whom I also saw in Venice) with well-known stars like Lilli Carati, Lory Del Santo, Laura Gemser and Moana Pozzi!! All this, no doubt, because of a weekly TV show entitled "Stracult" which deals with the world of Italian genre film-making. For example: they showed clips from WEREWOLF WOMAN (1976) and YOUNG, ARMED AND DESPERATE (1976) and, sure enough, I found these two movies (and others of their ilk) practically in my lap within the next day or two!!   

Sure, Musicals are my least favorite genre in the whole world but that didn't stop me from acquiring just last Saturday from a local retailer the 2-Disc Set of SOUTH PACIFIC (1958; containing both the 157-minute Theatrical and the 172-minute Roadshow versions!) because:

a) I had €120 worth of vouchers to spend (after my team emerged victorious, for the fifth consecutive time, at the Quiz Night organized for its employees by the bank where I work)

b) I was in a "war movie" frame of mind (in view of that ongoing Euro-Cult marathon I spoke of earlier)

c) I recalled the pretentious use of color filters throughout the film from my sole childhood viewing of it (making its initially unlikely purchase more justifiable than that of other more conventional musicals that were available)     

If you recall I said earlier that, having loved THE SARAGOSSA MANUSCRIPT (1964), I have since acquired more films of its director. This is something I often do: for example, everyone knows that Ernst Lubitsch is one of the greats but I wasn't so familiar with his German Silents and, sure enough, I recently acquired a dozen of them. When will I get to them? God only knows...but, to me, that's no reason to discard them if I happen to come across them.  This an important distinction because, believe it or not, I don't really go out of my way all that much to acquire all these movies I'm mentioning (Mr. York will know exactly what I mean). And, I'm not even talking of favorite directors here. The same goes with actors: I've acquired a boatload of Ronald Colman, Clark Gable & William Powell films recently and I don't know when I'll get the inclination to see most of them but I take confort in the knowledge that they're there for me to delve into when, say, an anniversary or something comes along.     

However, as far as I can recall, Charlton Heston is your favorite actor and yet you don't seem willing (not even now that he is dead) to watch one of his finest achievements as an actor and as a film! Perhaps, in your view, EL CID - or, for that matter, THE WAR LORD (1965) - is not as well-known as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) and BEN-HUR (1959); you may think that they are not as highly-regarded; more importantly, they may not hold the same revisitability value for you...but should you be discarding them because of that and not even deign them of one single solitary viewing? Especially since, as you say, you've had EL CID lying unopened around the house for a year?  

 
Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/10/09 at 5:11am
Reply
post #1184 of 1550
9/10/09 at 2:08pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

 

My main trouble, unlike you it seems, is that I have far too many cinematic interests. I don't just like Horror movies or Comedies, Foreign movies or Film Noir, Westerns or War, Epics or Euro-Cult, Silents or Animation. I like all of this stuff and more.   

 

I watch, like, and own all genres myself, to one degree or another (depending on the movie). Horror is my favorite though, and that's the one I'm most likely to go for "new views" with.

As for EL CID -- one of these years!
Reply
post #1185 of 1550
9/10/09 at 7:25pm
Thread Starter 

It's the controversy that keeps certain Euro Trash alive, which is why the cannibal films have remained so popular over the years.  A big deal was made when they were first released and they'll continue to draw controversy in the years to come.  It's true, if you don't want to see the animal violence then don't watch them.  There are many cannibal films out there WITHOUT the animal violence but no one talks about them because there's nothing controversial with them.

HOLOCAUST's biggest problem is that the director is a piece of shit.  Having reviewed various discs of this movie as well as reading other interviews with the director, he changes his story so much that you can't help but hate him.  One time he'll say he wasn't there.  Another time he'll say he was forced.  Another time he'll say the producer shot the footage.  The funny thing is that he often denies shooting it YET the dumbass seemed to forget that he killed animals for earlier films!!!  Why people don't attack him for the "other" films is beyond me but that's why all the myth's around HOLOCAUST keep it alive over better films from the genre.

Now, to me, the real interest is with the girl on the pole.  I find it funny that many F/X experts don't know how this scene was done.  If I was going to get worked up about something it would be this scene and not so much the animals.  


Buster's Dog to the Rescue (1904) 
Buster and Tige Put a Baloon Vendor Out of Business (1904)  
Buster and the Dude (1904)  
Buster Makes Room for His Mama at the Bargain Center (1904)  
Buster's Revenge on the Tramp (1904)  
 

Edwin S. Porter
 

Edison's Buster Brown series was a group of films made to quickly cash in on the success of Richard Felton Outcault's comic strip.  The films were quickly produced but Edison did send their best director to do them.
 

In BUSTER'S DOG TO THE RESCUE, the cook puts some cookies high up in a closet when Buster gets caught with the ladder trying to get them.  He gets a spanking but thankfully his dog is able to climb up the ladder and bring the cookies down.  BUSTER AND TIGE PUT A BALOON VENDOR OUT OF BUSINESS [sic] has Buster wanting a balloon but the dog Tige jumps on the seller, which causes all the balloons to fly off.  BUSTER AND THE DUDE has the young Buster out with his mom and her friend.  A man, with a dog, starts paying the women a lot of attention, which doesn't sit well with Buster who has Tige attack the man's dog.  BUSTER MAKES ROOM FOR MAMA AT THE BARGAIN COUNTER has the boy shopping with mommy but there are too many women in their way.  Tige is then made to do tricks so that the women will look at him and mommy can look at clothes.  BUSTER'S REVENGE ON THE TRAMP finds the young boy wanting a snack but he can't reach it so he invites a tramp in to get it for him.  The boy then tells his mom so that the tramp will get a beating. 
 

I'm sure the comic strip was very popular back in the day and I'm sure these films made a lot of money for the Edison company but quality wasn't the final result.  BUSTER'S DOG TO THE RESCUE is the best of the bunch due in large part to the dog who does a rather impressive trick of climbing up the ladder.  The other four films pretty much show the kid Buster getting into one bad situation after another but none of them overly funny.  Porter shot all five films during one take so that might make the film's interesting to some but for the most part there's nothing too special here. 
 

Capsize of Lifeboat (1897)
 

Edison short was part of their "Pacific Coast Life Saving Services" series, which were produced to teach people how to survive something going wrong in the water.  This film, running a whopping 25-seconds, shows a group of men in the way with an upside down lifeboat.  The men must work together to get it flipped back over.  There's certainly nothing groundbreaking or record setting in this short but it's mildly entertaining but then again, it's only 25-seconds.  Fans of these early films will enjoy watching this as we have some rather nice camera work even though I'm not sure how many people watching would be able to actually turn the boat back over.
 

Capture of Boer Battery (1900)
Capture of Boer Battery by British (1900)
 

James H. White

A famous battle scene from the Boer War is the subject of these two Edison shorts.  In both films the camera is set up right behind the Boer men when we then see the Gordon Highlanders charging them.  Both films are pretty much the same in terms of story and action but it appears the second was filmed slightly to the left of the first film.  You can tell this because of the houses in the background and how they move between the two films.  Overall both films are a pretty good re-enactment and both manage to keep the action moving through their short running time.  There are a couple mild goofs in the film but they're minor and to be expected for such early films.
 

Capture of Trenches at Candaba (1899)
 

This Edison short once again takes advantage of the Spanish-American War and delivers a fairly nice film.  The camera is set inside the Filipinos trench where they are firing upon American soldiers.  Soon the Americans make a charge and the bad guys take off the other way.  Once again the Edison company delivers a pretty good little film that only lasts fifty-one seconds but each of those are full of action.  The camera is set up at the perfect spot and everything going on remains entertaining throughout.  You really can't expect too much out of a film like this but I'm sure it had crowds back in 1899 going crazy with excitement.
 

Catching an Early Train (1901)
 

Extremely light Edison short has a man oversleeping so when he jumps out of head, his clothing begins to jump at him so he can get dressed quicker.  It's rather clear that this "magic" film was trying to be in the same genre as those movies being released by Georges Melies but it falls quite short.  The special effects are fairly good for their time but one can't help but think that the "magic of Melies" is missing here.  Also missing is the charm and grace that a Melies film carries. 
 

Cattle Driven to Slaughter (1897)
 

Edison short shows us various long-horn cattle as they are sent through some gates and on their way to the slaughter house.  This 25-second clip really doesn't offer anything special but it's a curio from the "film everything you can and sell it to the public".  This type of "film" was all there was in 1897 so I'm sure people back then got a kick out of it even though today people would scratch their head as to why this is entertainment. 
 

Champs Elysees (1900)
 

This Edison short shows off one of the most famous streets in Paris, as it looked back in the day of course.  The movie runs just over a minute but it's not got some visuals and a very funny, almost accident.  Seeing the old-fashioned carriages as they go up and down the street is the main reason to watch this film.  It certainly captures a part of history that we can't re-create.  The funniest moment of the film happens when one of the carriages doesn't know which way to turn to avoid the camera and there's almost a collision. 
 

Charge of Boer Calvary [No. 1] (1900)
Charge of Boer Calvary [No. 2] (1900) 
 
These two Edison shorts run just over a minute total but they offer some interesting, early looks at early filmmaking.  Both films feature the same thing as the camera is set in a field when a calvary charges towards them.  The "[No. 2]" appears to have been the first film shot for one main reason and that's the big edit in the action, which is obviously there because one of the horses crashed into the camera.  We see the accident, then an edit and then back to the action.  God only knows what happen to the poor soul holding the camera.  The [No. 1] film has the camera back further but pretty much the same action.  [No. 2] was also released as CHARGE OF THE BOER CALVARY with the only change being "the" put into the title. 
 

Ching Ling Foo Outdone (1900)
 

Ching Ling Foo was a real magician back in the day who would eventually being killed performing one of his most famous stunts.  This Edison short features a white magician using a cloth to make a bucket appear on the floor.  A swipe of the cloth then puts ducks in the bucket and then a small girl.  This short is yet another by the studio who was trying to capture the same magic of those Georges Melies films.  The magician here looks like Melies so you have to wonder if this was originally passed off as one of his films since piracy was high back in the early days of film.  The magic tricks here are actually pretty good so fans of this early genre will find this entertaining. 
 

Circular Panorama of Electric Tower (1901)
 

Edwin S. Porter operated the camera for this (at the time) popular look at the Pan-American Exposition.  As the title says, we get a circular look at the events as various people are walking around and enjoying the sites.  This 76-second clip is pretty much just that but once again this historical little film shows us enough to remain quite entertaining.  Seeing the various clothing people were wearing back then is the main reason to watch this thing.  If you want to see that then you'd be advised to check this out.
 

Close View of the 'Brooklyn,' Naval Parade (1898)
 

Edison short was filmed on the morning of August 20, 1898 as Admiral Sampson's Squadron sails into New York Harbor.  Once again the main draw to a film like this is seeing "history" as it was taking place back in the day.  I'm sure the entertainment level of this film was different back when it was originally released but today it's mainly history buffs that are going to be drawn to this.  The site of the men standing on the edge of the battleship to get a look at those looking at them makes one wonder who we're actually looking at. 
 

Clown and the Alchemist, The (1900)
 

Edison short has an "alchemist" trying to settle down but a strange clown keeps coming up from various items (mainly a bucket).  The clown continues to torment the alchemist but he hopes to find a way to keep the strange creature under control.  There's no question this is yet another attempt by the Edison Company to rip off Georges Melies but this time out it actually works fairly well.  The magic tricks here aren't nearly as good or as well staged as a Melies film but the final "trick" here works quite well.  I won't ruin what this trick is but it involves a simple piece of clothing.  That trick makes the film worth viewing but one should also still check out the work of Melies. 
 

Coaches Arriving at Mammoth Hot Springs (1899)  
 

Edison released this as part of their "Northern Pacific Rainway" and "Alaska and Yellowstone National Park" series.  Why they made it for two series is beyond me but so is the entire film as well.  Even though this thing only runs 25-seconds, that's usually enough time for the film to do something or show something off but that's not the case here.  Considering the title promises something, it really doesn't deliver.  The film starts off as the coach is already letting people off and that's all we see.  Pretty bland but I'm sure it got people to pay nickles to see it.
 

Reply
post #1186 of 1550
9/10/09 at 10:06pm

Quote: Mario Gauci
...as Deodato was expounding on this matter to the audience, the guy sitting right next to me starts screaming at him, “Shame on you! Turtles are sacred! Shame on you!”. I don't know where he got that bit from but I'll let it pass...

"Turtles are sacred!" I love it. Maybe he's talking about younger turtles, mutated ones, you know, with ninja skills. Or maybe he was doing a monologue as a tryout for the director - 'The Earnest Outrage of the Cinema-goer'.  Either way he certainly sounds like he probably enjoys the smell of his own flatulence.  That 2004 Venice Film Festival sure was some eventful fortnight, Mario!

 
Quote:
If you recall I said earlier that, having loved THE SARAGOSSA MANUSCRIPT (1964), I have since acquired more films of its director. This is something I often do: for example, everyone knows that Ernst Lubitsch is one of the greats but I wasn't so familiar with his German Silents and, sure enough, I recently acquired a dozen of them. When will I get to them? God only knows...but, to me, that's no reason to discard them if I happen to come across them.  This an important distinction because, believe it or not, I don't really go out of my way all that much to acquire all these movies I'm mentioning (Mr. York will know exactly what I mean). And, I'm not even talking of favorite directors here. The same goes with actors: I've acquired a boatload of Ronald Colman, Clark Gable & William Powell films recently and I don't know when I'll get the inclination to see most of them but I take confort in the knowledge that they're there for me to delve into when, say, an anniversary or something comes along. 

Bingo.  After all, you don't know you want to see that Wojciech Has film until a friend offers to show you his copy, and in some cases you don't know when you will ever again get that chance, so jump on it and let it play out at your own leisure.


Quote: Michael Elliott
I'm sure the comic strip was very popular back in the day and I'm sure these films made a lot of money for the Edison company but quality wasn't the final result.

You don't remember Buster Brown, Michael? I'm pretty sure he was an advertising icon and brand well into the 80's.

Reply
post #1187 of 1550
9/11/09 at 3:45am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 

Edison short....

Even though this thing only runs 25-seconds...
 
 


Mike, since you've watched and listed a ton of Edison shorts, I wanted to go back to what we were talking about earlier. You see, for me I just don't get the point. I mean, it IS interesting to see how old dress styles and cars and things looked in 1900 or earlier (you once sent me a disc about early New York that was admittedly interesting to see, being from NY myself), but is there really any replay value in any of these short snippets of film, or any real purpose? I suppose it's interesting to see early movie making techniques, but again for me it would seem more like studying some sort of science project rather than laying back and enjoying a good time being entertained with a proper movie.  

As for me, I'm up to SEINFELD Season 5 .
Reply
post #1188 of 1550
9/11/09 at 4:01am
 Are there better examples of the genre than "Cannibal Holocaust"?   
"Jungle Holocaust" is also a gem, but even that is no "CH".

And everything else is just enjoyably gross trash (Lenzi I shout at thee!).

Anyway...

"Breakheart Pass" - 

A fine mystery western that has that welcoming and warm feel like one of those 70's mystery TV series, only with Cowboys 'n' Injuns, a bit more violence (nasty shot in the head, a bit of blood here and there and damn fun falling 'n' smashing dummies) and a big budget.

Mysteries set on trains (always a fave) live and die on the twists, turns, characters and actors.
This had the very welcome Charles Bronson doing his cool thing, and top notch veteran support players like Ben Johnson, Richard Crenna, Ed Lauter and Charles Durning doing what they do best.
The ever present in a 70's/80's Bronson film Jill Ireland is not as wooden here as she can sometimes be ("Death Wish 2" anyone) either.
Most characters were colourful and the film has some solid set-pieces and action.

But the plotting is rather ropey.
How on earth was a supposed murder suspect (Bronson's character, obviously not real from the start) allowed total freedom of the train? 
He might not have had anywhere to go in the wilderness, but he would still have been locked up on the train!
But then you would have no film...So another way should have been found for his character to get on the train, rather than being a prisoner.

That aside it was overall an enjoyable flick with an unusual mystery/western set-up and a great cast.

6  saddle bags.
Reply
post #1189 of 1550
9/11/09 at 6:54am
Thread Starter 

Kind Lady (1935)
 

George B. Seitz

Decent drama has a kind, rich recluse (Aline MacMahon) inviting a stranger (Basil Rathbone) into her home.  Everything starts off fine but soon the stranger takes the woman hostage and invites his strange "friends" into the house.  This is an extremely bizarre little film that has been outlived by the 1951 remake but this film here manages to be quite effective even though the directing is highly lacking.  The biggest problem with the film is its rather timid direction, which really doesn't deliver a very good pace or enough tension.  The tension is one thing that's really lacking and it's a shame because the story itself is so good as are the performances.  Rathbone clearly steals the film as the maniac who has to come off so charming to get into the house and then slowly lose it as the more psychotic side comes out.  Rathbone never gets enough credit for being such a good character actor, which is a real shame because most people just remember him as Sherlock Holmes.  While he was masterful in that role, he did just as impressive work outside of it.  The snake like charm makes this a must see for fans of his.  MacMahan also delivers a great performance as she perfectly fits the role and the kindness she does display is quite touching yet she also brings a naive touch that makes it easy to understand why someone could take advantage of her.  Mary Carlisle, Frank Albertson and Nola Luxford add nice support.  Donald Meeks has a brief role as well.  In the end, due to the great performances, you can't help but feel a bit letdown that the final film isn't as great as the cast but there's still enough here to make this one worth seeing at least once.
 

Kind Lady (1951)
 

John Sturges

Remake of the 1935 thriller has Ethel Barrymore taking the role of Mary Herries, the kind woman who takes in a stranger (Maurice Evans) who turns out to be a psycho.  Soon he and his cronies have Herries trapped inside her own home as they plan on taking everything she has.  It should be noted that I watched this film less than 24-hours after watching the original one and I must say that both versions are fairly close in quality but I'd probably join a minority in prefering the original one.  Both have the same high points as well as some of the same lows but in the end I think the first film did a tad bit more with the material.  The one thing that really bothered me here is that the "plot" to show Herries as being crazy struck me as a tad bit unbelievable as I never once believed that many of the supporting players would be so stupid as to believe the story being thrown at them by the Evans character.  Both films handle this in the same fashion but here it just struck me as a bit sloppy.  With that said, this film does offer up some very good performances with Barrymore clearly stealing the film as the kind woman who begins to suffer for being too trusting.  She's quite believable in the role and makes for an entertaining character.  Evans, a famous Shakespearean actor who was lured to Hollywood for this film, also manages to be quite good but I'd give this edge to Basil Rathbone in the original.  Angela Lansbury, Keenan Wynn and MARTY's Betsy Blair round out the supporting cast.  Sturges does a better job in the directing category but he's certainly far off from his greatest work.  With that said, both versions of the film are decent thrillers and I'm sure it will be a toss up on which one people prefer.  For me, both were worth watching but if I had to sit through one again it would be the original.
 

Reply
post #1190 of 1550
9/11/09 at 8:55am
 Never heard of either version of "Kind Lady".  But Rathbone as a manic sounds essential viewing!  May have to track it down.
Reply
post #1191 of 1550
9/11/09 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

 Never heard of either version of "Kind Lady".  But Rathbone as a manic sounds essential viewing!  May have to track it down.
 
So on KIND LADY, for the moment, it's:

Michael 2; Mario 1; Dave 0

I'm only familiar with the 1951 remake and I agree that it's a decent thriller if hardly essential viewing. Actually, it has recently turned up at the 'spot' where I've been getting most movies but didn't acquire it; hopefully, the 1935 original will eventually turn up in similar fashion.
Reply
post #1192 of 1550
9/11/09 at 11:37am
Goddamned Quotes...I can't seem to get Mr. Karlosi's to 'appear' where they're supposed to! Could it be a reflection on the worthiness (or otherwise) of his input?

All joking aside: I have to side with Joe on the shorts. I don't know if he recalls my claim of some years ago that I'd watch anything made between 1913 (the year in which I deem that cinema started 'maturing' with films like FANTOMAS and THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE) and 1983 (the year in which Luis Bunuel died and Robert Bresson made his last film) and can live without the rest . But, hyberbolic as it may sound, it's also somewhat true. Historically valuable or not, I have little interest in catching films dating from 1895 to 1912. It goes without saying that I have watched (and also own) A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902) and THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1903) and I did get to see several other Georges Melies shorts which, unaccountably, were shown on local TV one afternoon...but that's about all.  I'd be lying if I said there aren't films made before 1913 that I wouldn't mind catching up with - like L' INFERNO (1911) and QUO VADIS (1912) - but these are the exception to the rule.

Strange as it may sound, a film I'd love to see is Germaine Dulac's famous Surrealist short THE SEASHELL AND THE CLERGYMAN (1928) but - like Joe with EL CID (1961) I suppose  - I've had it on DVD for a couple of years but have yet to watch it! My reasons for this, however, are that it is included on Kino's first "Avant-Garde Collection" which includes a score of other shorts and, firstly, it doesn't seem sensible to me to insert the disc into my DVD player just to watch a 30-minute movie and, secondly, I can't say I've been in the mood to watch a bunch of acclaimed and important (but also highbrow and heavy-going) stuff back-to-back!

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/11/09 at 11:49am
Reply
post #1193 of 1550
9/11/09 at 11:53am
Dirty Harry
In a signature role, Clint Eastwood plays a streetwise San Francisco police detective who gets the job done. A rooftop sniper (Andy Robinson) named Scorpio has killed twice. Harry Callahan will nail the perp...one way or the other...no matter what "the system" prescribes. Filming on location, director Don Siegel made the City by the Bay a vital part of one of the best police thrillers ever made.

My Thoughts:
This is one of the movies I have seen before... but it has been many years since. I enjoyed it a lot. Has a good story... as well as some good action. I will say that for me... the movie didn't age well. Well at least I remember it being slightly better then I feel it is today. Clint Eastwood was the man... and is still the man. I do think he has improved as an actor since this movie though. Not that he was bad in this... as I thought he was very good. But I do believe he has grown as an actor and has improved in his movies since this one.

Reply
post #1194 of 1550
9/11/09 at 12:49pm
I'm slightly embarassed to even admit that I saw it but, since I like to support R rated horror movies, I checked out Sorority Row this afternoon. As a slasher movie fan, I liked parts of it because they did capture the slasher vibe to some degree but it's not a very good movie.

The main girl is as likable as characters get in slasher movies but the rest of the characters are some of the most obnoxious and unlikable characters ever put on screen. One girl is an unbelievably over-the-top bitch, a couple characters are near hysterical or whine for the length of the movie and one girl is such a slut that I think I caught Hepatitis from watching her on screen. I'm not using the term 'slut' in some angry sexist way, most of this character's dialogue is about all the guys that she's had sex with, she's willing to

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
bang her therapist for pills and she tells a random stranger that she makes out with how she's not wearing underwear and that he "should warm [her] up".
There's funny slutty (like, say, the Kim Cattrall character on Sex And The City) and then there's just gross slutty and that's definitely the category that this character falls into.

Ironically, I think if this movie had been released in 1981, it would heralded as a classic by slasher fans but since it's 2009, I think it's going to hated by horror fans.
Reply
post #1195 of 1550
9/11/09 at 12:53pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

 
So on KIND LADY, for the moment, it's:

Michael 2; Mario 1; Dave 0

 
Yep, I'm afraid so.  I rely on you guys to point me in the right groovy direction Mario. 
Sadly it seems to not be available.  Nothing on Amazon anyway.

Reply
post #1196 of 1550
9/11/09 at 12:57pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

 one girl is such a slut that I think I caught Hepatitis from watching her on screen.
 

  I love it!

I like the original "House of Sorority Row", and I've been surprised by how good some recent horror movies have been.  Not sure about this though for some reason.  And hateful characters we are meant to give a damn about do not bode well.

Reply
post #1197 of 1550
9/11/09 at 4:25pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Kind Lady (1935)
 

Decent drama has a kind, rich recluse (Aline MacMahon) inviting a stranger (Basil Rathbone) into her home. 
 

Kind Lady (1951)
 

Remake of the 1935 thriller has Ethel Barrymore taking the role of Mary Herries, the kind woman who takes in a stranger (Maurice Evans) who turns out to be a psycho. 


Wow. Now y'see, THESE movies I may want to catch one day - especially the Basil Rathbone verison (I just watched 1937's LOVE FROM A STRANGER again, with Rathbone as a nutjob). I had no idea he was in another film of this type. I'd like to keep a lookout for this too --- I hope you'll let me know when they're on again (was it TCM?).

So here's an example where a new first-time film would arouse my interest. I like the subject matter, plus Rathbone in the cast - and also Maurice Evans in the second version.

    
Reply
post #1198 of 1550
9/11/09 at 4:43pm
Thread Starter 
Netflix shipped me the original SORORITY ROW today so I hope to catch it this weekend then the remake next week. 


You see, for me I just don't get the point. I mean, it IS interesting to see how old dress styles and cars and things looked in 1900 or earlier (you once sent me a disc about early New York that was admittedly interesting to see, being from NY myself), but is there really any replay value in any of these short snippets of film, or any real purpose?

But to answer your question, how much replay value is in these titles:

001) 01-01 Ski Party (1965)
002) 01-01 Muscle Beach Party (1964)
003) 01-01 Bikini Beach (1964)
022) 01-18 The Curious Dr. Humpp (1971)
023) 01-18 Please Don't Eat My Mother (1973)
024) 01-19 Private House of the SS (1977)
079) 04-11 The Haunting of Molly Hartly (2008)
089) 05-02 The Uninvited (2009)

These are just the titles I've picked from this year.  I've often said I don't understand how you didn't want to watch Kurosawa or various other "legends" of the cinema yet you would watch trash like the above.  I love this trash as much as you do so I understand the factor that would draw titles like this to you and I.  However, what real repeat value do any of these titles have?  Are we going to be watching them yearly, bi-yearly or perhaps once every five years?  We both had low opinions on Zombie's HALLOWEEN yet that didn't stop either one of us from wasting our time and money on its sequel even though reviews were horrid and I'm sure we both walked in not expecting too much.   

Perhaps it does have more to do with history.  You've said countless times that you really don't care about the history or it at least wasn't enough to make you "watch" a film.  You know THE JAZZ SINGER is a historic movie but the history isn't enough to make you watch it.  I guess you might feel the same way if I tried to get you to watch A TRIP TO THE MOON or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY.  You might not be interested in the history Lillian Gish going to Biograph.  Might not be interested in the first movie ever made.  Might not be interested in the first "porn" movie from the 1890s.  You might not be interested in seeing the first nude scene in film history because it's only a 1 second clip from a 23 second movie. 

That's perfectly understandable and something that not even I would argue.  What you don't get, I think, about me is that I am interested in all of these events.  I am interested in watching the first movie ever made.  I'm interested in "pre-code" movies that were released forty-years before the so called "pre-code" era that features films like SCARFACE and KING KONG.  The controversy of the "sex and drugs" of the 1930's and the controversy of the 1980's slasher movie is nothing new or original.  It was going on in the 1890's and that's a part of history that keeps it interesting.  If someone objects to the animal slaughters in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and are interested in history, there are countless films from the 1890's and 1900's that deal with the subject.  ELECTROCUTION OF AN ELEPHANT is as close to trash as we'll ever get.  Even something like THE KISS was kicked off the screen, which in terms of controversy makes it interesting.  In terms of bootlegs, the early days of cinema were more bootlegged than some alcohol in the 30's.  There's another interesting part of the history.  

History is certainly bullshit because the actual truth never gets reported.  People say Griffith invented the close up but that's a lie.  People say Chaplin's THE GOLD RUSH and the dancing rolls was original but it wasn't.  People say THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY was the first film to tell a "story" but it wasn't.  One can read the history books about these famous films but I've often found them (the books) to be full of lies or just too many opinions.  If I read how Griffith invented the close up again I'm going to poke my eyes out.  The point is, I'm interested in the history but it's best to see the stuff with my very eyes.  

I won't be watching many of the shorts over and over again but this goes back to my "new viewing" things.  You see to be watching THE THREE STOOGES again since Columbia released them.  In the future, are you going to watch them in order from start to finish or are you going to go through them and then repeat on the ones you like?  The same with Chan.  Do you watch the series from start to finish or are you going to watch them and then, on repeats, go back and watch the ones you actually liked?  The point being, I've seen 120 or so Griffith movies and plan on watching the other 400.  Once I see all 500 am I going to re-watch all of them?  Of course not.  I will, however, watch the ones that I really liked.   

This upcoming Horror Challenge will have me (trying) going through all the HALLOWEEN movies.  I'm also going to try and go through CHILDREN OF THE CORN and all of its sequels even though I'm not a fan of the series.  Why watch parts 3-7 if I didn't like the first two?  Because I'm a fan of the genre and you never know, I might end up liking one.  I might even try to push through all the HELLRAISER films even though I'm not a fans of the first three.  Why?  In a way, it will have a freshness that wouldn't be there by watching all the F13 films for the 20x time.  The same is true when I go through the MANIAC COP series for the first time.  I might not end up liking them but I might as well as give them a try instead of watching Lustig's MANIAC for the 20+ time even though I love the movie. 

Heck, even the TravelTalks shorts are "entertaining" to me even though I'm running out of things to say about them. 


I don't know if he recalls my claim of some years ago that I'd watch anything made between 1913 (the year in which I deem that cinema started 'maturing' with films like FANTOMAS and THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE) and 1983 (the year in which Luis Bunuel died and Robert Bresson made his last film) and can live without the rest .

 This is the first time I've heard you say this, although you've made it clear you don't have much use for early movies or current ones.  However, are you serious that you made the cut off point because of Bunuel and Bresson's deaths (in cinema)?  If so, I had never heard you say that and it's certainly interesting.  I've never heard anyone give a death as the reason they cut something off.
Reply
post #1199 of 1550
9/11/09 at 5:29pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post


But to answer your question, how much replay value is in these titles:

001) 01-01 Ski Party (1965)
002) 01-01 Muscle Beach Party (1964)
003) 01-01 Bikini Beach (1964)
022) 01-18 The Curious Dr. Humpp (1971)
023) 01-18 Please Don't Eat My Mother (1973)
024) 01-19 Private House of the SS (1977)
079) 04-11 The Haunting of Molly Hartly (2008)
089) 05-02 The Uninvited (2009)

These are just the titles I've picked from this year.  I've often said I don't understand how you didn't want to watch Kurosawa or various other "legends" of the cinema yet you would watch trash like the above.  I love this trash as much as you do so I understand the factor that would draw titles like this to you and I.  However, what real repeat value do any of these titles have?  Are we going to be watching them yearly, bi-yearly or perhaps once every five years?  We both had low opinions on Zombie's HALLOWEEN yet that didn't stop either one of us from wasting our time and money on its sequel even though reviews were horrid and I'm sure we both walked in not expecting too much.   


  Please excuse me for laughing - I mean, you brought up some good titles here to make a point - but the reason I'm laughing is because you just happened to list movies that I have seen with other people, or that someone else picked! Honest! EVERY movie here was watched either as a party atmosphere or picked by others:

001) 01-01 Ski Party (1965)
002) 01-01 Muscle Beach Party (1964)
003) 01-01 Bikini Beach (1964)

These three, as you can see, were all watched in one session on New Year's Day. This was because a friend of mine came to my house and he brought them over. We were looking to watch some kind of "fun, festive" films, and these were his suggestions! I thought they'd be better than they turned out to be though.

022) 01-18 The Curious Dr. Humpp (1971)
023) 01-18 Please Don't Eat My Mother (1973)
024) 01-19 Private House of the SS (1977)

These are three MORE movies from another evening with the same friend! The reason the third film is a different date is because we got it on after midnight. I was willing to try out DR. HUMPP because I like to try new offbeat horror films (no surprise there), PLEASE DON'T EAT MY MOTHER is just a crazy "Something Weird Video" farce for us guys, and PRIVATE HOUSE OF THE SS was seen because we wanted some babes and sex (plus I like these types of SS movies). What's the shock here? These were three more "party type" movies for two wild and cuh-ray-zee guys!

079) 04-11 The Haunting of Molly Hartly (2008)
089) 05-02 The Uninvited (2009)

These two nights were my regular Saturday Night "Movie Nights" with this girl Alyce, who my wife and I hang out with. You'll notice a lot of double features almost every weekend on my list... and most of the time they're movies from MY collection. However, these here are two new films on DVD that Alyce brought over - if it had been up to me, I NEVER would have picked these two! However, every once in awhile it's only fair to let her pick something, and sometimes there are new horror films she wants to see. She's also fanatical about seeing ANY new horror movie in the theater! She nearly dragged me into seeing the remake of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (maybe I should have; I don't like the original, but I snuck in to see 20 minutes of the remake after her offer and it looked better!).  When I saw the new HALLOWEEN II recently, it was another night at the movies with Alyce and my wife! 
 

Perhaps it does have more to do with history.  You've said countless times that you really don't care about the history or it at least wasn't enough to make you "watch" a film.  You know THE JAZZ SINGER is a historic movie but the history isn't enough to make you watch it.  I guess you might feel the same way if I tried to get you to watch A TRIP TO THE MOON or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY.  You might not be interested in the history Lillian Gish going to Biograph.  Might not be interested in the first movie ever made.  Might not be interested in the first "porn" movie from the 1890s.  You might not be interested in seeing the first nude scene in film history because it's only a 1 second clip from a 23 second movie. 


Well, it depends on the movie. I might be interested in seeing THE JAZZ SINGER. The rest, I don't know.
 

That's perfectly understandable and something that not even I would argue.  What you don't get, I think, about me is that I am interested in all of these events.  I am interested in watching the first movie ever made.  I'm interested in "pre-code" movies that were released forty-years before the so called "pre-code" era that features films like SCARFACE and KING KONG. 


Well, the pre-codes are something I'm somewhat interested in. I enjoyed THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, which was another pleasant surprise in that it was rather risque for the times.

Michael, one thing I want to repeat here again is that it's fine if you want to watch all sorts of things for whatever your historic reasons.The problem as I see it is when you attempt to insist that "everyone should do the same".

 

 You seem to be watching THE THREE STOOGES again since Columbia released them.  In the future, are you going to watch them in order from start to finish or are you going to go through them and then repeat on the ones you like?  The same with Chan.  Do you watch the series from start to finish or are you going to watch them and then, on repeats, go back and watch the ones you actually liked? 


In the case of the Three Stooges, yes I'm watching them in chronological order since the new sets came out (and are in the best quality I've ever seen them in). This is why I bought the sets ... because they have rewatchability value for me, and I do intend to go through them again and again. And I like them ALL - even the lesser ones, enough to the point where I'd go through the whole series again, every short. But it's also a fact that during my "Movie Nights" I have sometimes singled out one specific short from any era just to run it for my guests before the main feature (as I also do with OUR GANG).
 

This upcoming Horror Challenge will have me (trying) going through all the HALLOWEEN movies.  I'm also going to try and go through CHILDREN OF THE CORN and all of its sequels even though I'm not a fan of the series.  Why watch parts 3-7 if I didn't like the first two?  Because I'm a fan of the genre and you never know, I might end up liking one. 


I certainly understand things like that - watching a whole series, maybe you'll like one or two, sure. I may even do this with the types of genre horror films you mention here, because I'm a fan. I didn't like SAW 4, but I liked SAW 5 - and I'm even going to see SAW 6. 

 I guess for me it's a matter of individual cases, not "one rule for everything". For example, after just seeing Zombie's HALLOWEEN and HALLOWEEN 2 and disliking them both, I have no desire to see a HALLOWEEN 3 if he does one. Maybe I would like H3? Perhaps -- but for that particular series, I'm done. I mean, unless he does something radically different with it. But my main point is, I go with the flow as I feel it regarding what I want to see and why. If you noticed, I wrote above that you've made me interested in watching those two KIND LADY movies.  

Seriously - you make very good points and explanations, and I see a lot of what you're saying and would even be influenced by your eager attitude.


 

 
Reply
post #1200 of 1550
9/11/09 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Netflix shipped me the original SORORITY ROW today so I hope to catch it this weekend then the remake next week. 


These are just the titles I've picked from this year.  I've often said I don't understand how you didn't want to watch Kurosawa or various other "legends" of the cinema yet you would watch trash like the above.  I love this trash as much as you do so I understand the factor that would draw titles like this to you and I.  However, what real repeat value do any of these titles have?  Are we going to be watching them yearly, bi-yearly or perhaps once every five years?  We both had low opinions on Zombie's HALLOWEEN yet that didn't stop either one of us from wasting our time and money on its sequel even though reviews were horrid and I'm sure we both walked in not expecting too much.   

Perhaps it does have more to do with history.  You've said countless times that you really don't care about the history or it at least wasn't enough to make you "watch" a film.  You know THE JAZZ SINGER is a historic movie but the history isn't enough to make you watch it.  I guess you might feel the same way if I tried to get you to watch A TRIP TO THE MOON or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY.  You might not be interested in the history Lillian Gish going to Biograph.  Might not be interested in the first movie ever made.  Might not be interested in the first "porn" movie from the 1890s.  You might not be interested in seeing the first nude scene in film history because it's only a 1 second clip from a 23 second movie. 

That's perfectly understandable and something that not even I would argue.  What you don't get, I think, about me is that I am interested in all of these events.  I am interested in watching the first movie ever made.  I'm interested in "pre-code" movies that were released forty-years before the so called "pre-code" era that features films like SCARFACE and KING KONG.  The controversy of the "sex and drugs" of the 1930's and the controversy of the 1980's slasher movie is nothing new or original.  It was going on in the 1890's and that's a part of history that keeps it interesting.  If someone objects to the animal slaughters in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and are interested in history, there are countless films from the 1890's and 1900's that deal with the subject.  ELECTROCUTION OF AN ELEPHANT is as close to trash as we'll ever get.  Even something like THE KISS was kicked off the screen, which in terms of controversy makes it interesting.  In terms of bootlegs, the early days of cinema were more bootlegged than some alcohol in the 30's.  There's another interesting part of the history.  

History is certainly bullshit because the actual truth never gets reported.  People say Griffith invented the close up but that's a lie.  People say Chaplin's THE GOLD RUSH and the dancing rolls was original but it wasn't.  People say THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY was the first film to tell a "story" but it wasn't.  One can read the history books about these famous films but I've often found them (the books) to be full of lies or just too many opinions.  If I read how Griffith invented the close up again I'm going to poke my eyes out.  The point is, I'm interested in the history but it's best to see the stuff with my very eyes.  

I won't be watching many of the shorts over and over again but this goes back to my "new viewing" things.  You see to be watching THE THREE STOOGES again since Columbia released them.  In the future, are you going to watch them in order from start to finish or are you going to go through them and then repeat on the ones you like?  The same with Chan.  Do you watch the series from start to finish or are you going to watch them and then, on repeats, go back and watch the ones you actually liked?  The point being, I've seen 120 or so Griffith movies and plan on watching the other 400.  Once I see all 500 am I going to re-watch all of them?  Of course not.  I will, however, watch the ones that I really liked.   

This upcoming Horror Challenge will have me (trying) going through all the HALLOWEEN movies.  I'm also going to try and go through CHILDREN OF THE CORN and all of its sequels even though I'm not a fan of the series.  Why watch parts 3-7 if I didn't like the first two?  Because I'm a fan of the genre and you never know, I might end up liking one.  I might even try to push through all the HELLRAISER films even though I'm not a fans of the first three.  Why?  In a way, it will have a freshness that wouldn't be there by watching all the F13 films for the 20x time.  The same is true when I go through the MANIAC COP series for the first time.  I might not end up liking them but I might as well as give them a try instead of watching Lustig's MANIAC for the 20+ time even though I love the movie. 


Heck, even the TravelTalks shorts are "entertaining" to me even though I'm running out of things to say about them. 


This is the first time I've heard you say this, although you've made it clear you don't have much use for early movies or current ones.  However, are you serious that you made the cut off point because of Bunuel and Bresson's deaths (in cinema)?  If so, I had never heard you say that and it's certainly interesting.  I've never heard anyone give a death as the reason they cut something off.


Wow! I can't believe I've seen THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW (1983) before Michael Elliott! I don't remember much of it at all but, as far as I can recall, it was O.K.

As for that "cut-off date", I guess I should count myself lucky then that my all-time favorite director isn't Louis Feuillade (who died in 1925) - although I do admire him a great deal - or F. W. Murnau (who died in 1931) - although he does form part of my "Inner Sanctum" of 12 favorite film-makers? It might seem unusual to set oneself a date in which, to put it bluntly, he stops 'caring' (for lack of a better word) about the cinema (or any other form of "artistic" hobby, for that matter) but I don't think it's coincidental that 1983 happens to be the year in which my favorite director died and also the most recent year during which one of those 12 directors was last active! For the record, 1983 was also the year in which we bought our first color TV set...so, there you go!  

But, I'm sure you're personally aware of Bob Dylan fans who stopped listening to him back in 1965 when he went electric, or to The Beatles once they went psychedelic, or to Pink Floyd once either Syd Barrett or Roger Waters left the band, or to Black Sabbath after Ozzy Osbourne left. I'm certain many die-hard Elvis Presley fans consider 1977 as being their "cut-off" year as far as pop music is concerned. Well, this is kind of the same thing with me and 1983.  I'd be lying if I said I haven't enjoyed  or, indeed, admired post-1983 films or film-makers but, again, those would be the excepton to the rule. 

Also, you hit a lot of targets in your reply to Joe regarding the feasibility of watching something (my words) 'obscure but new'  as opposed to revisiting something 'favorite but stale' or about deconstructing the mythology of film history. Like most people and for many years, I used to believe that D. W. Griffith was Cinema's first great director but then, some 10 years ago, I read Richard Roud's piece on Louis Feuillade where he made the same claim about him. Now, this could have remained just another film historian's conjecture but, thankfully, some of Feuillade's most revered work - FANTOMAS (1913-14), LES VAMPIRES (1915-16) and JUDEX (1916) - is still avaliable and, having now experienced it for myself on DVD, I concur with Roud's assertion. His is no longer some opinion expressed in a book written almost 30 years ago - for me, it's a fact. For the record, I've recently also acquired Feuillade's TIH-MINH (1918) - his equally revered sequel to LES VAMPIRES - but, again, I have yet to watch it. I keep saying 'revered' because I'm positive nobody has every seen (or ever will) the entirety of Feuillade's close-to-700 film output so using the word "best" in his case would be tenuous at best. 

Feuillade's films also reveal that Fritz Lang's famous criminal mastermind Dr. Mabuse was not the first evil genius in Cinema and that those films (and the thriller genre in general) owed a great deal to Feuillade. Amusingly, the fact that Feuillade had criminals as his heroes endeared him to the anarchic Surrealist movement of the 1920s (among whom, of course, was Luis Bunuel) but, ironically, even they could not recall the name of the man who had made those movies when they wrote about them in their manifestos! Because, remember, there were no notions of film history in the 1920s and Feuillade himself died in 1925!! Another interesting precursor in  Feuillade's career is that, much like Warner Brothers in the 1930s - who were forced by outraged public opinion to counter their glorification of gangsters in LITTLE CAESAR (1930), THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931), etc. by showing the other side of the coin in G-MEN (1935), BULLETS OR BALLOTS (1936), etc. - so was Feuillade forced to atone for the nefarious protagonists of FANTOMAS and LES VAMPIRES by concentrating next on the exploits of a crusader of justice appropriately named JUDEX (which, obviously enough, is Latin for "Justice"). Another big fan of Feuillade was Georges Franju - the director of another one of my favorite films, EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1959) - and, in fact, he later made his own exquisite version of JUDEX in 1963.

So...we have Feuillade, Bunuel, Franju, Gauci. I don't know - but, personally, I find it fascinating that I like what the directors I like themselves used to like as viewers! But, I wouldn't have known it had I not be interested in learning where they were coming from or what made them tick.

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/11/09 at 6:34pm
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)