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 41

post #1201 of 1550
9/11/09 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

  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.

 


Eventhough I didn't really dig it, I'm curious to hit up some horror movie message boards and see what others think of Sorority Row. I think if someone is a slasher movie fan, they may end up enjoying it.
Reply
post #1202 of 1550
9/11/09 at 8:39pm
Holy shit there's been a lot of posting going on since I was last here.  I'd like to read all that, but I've got stuff I wanna do.  Never enough hours in the day!  Maybe I'll read some of it from work next week.

On the subject of new movies vs. revisits, typically the only instances when I take the time to rewatch something is when there's a new DVD/Blu-Ray added to my collection (except for recently, where I've been going through all the Bergmans again).  However, just this week I made a list of all the movies in my collection and the last time I watched them.  Out of 420 titles, there are 60 I haven't watched in 5 years or longer.  So I'm going to try make an effort to sit down with those again at some point.  My philosophy is that I don't want to own anything that I'm never going to watch (with exceptions for movies in box sets, like Marnie or Woyzeck).  I do wonder if I'll ever get to a point in my life where I've quenched my thirst for new experiences and my tastes are so solidified that I can finally just relax and enjoy the films I have, over and over again.


L'Age d'Or (rewatch) - I've been using my vacation to finally play through "Grand Theft Auto IV" (although, ha ha, I spent the first hour of it watching the in-game TV... man, I love Ricky Gervais, but his stand-up SUCKS). But I took a little time-out to watch this short Bunuel in an effort to keep the DVD stack from getting too high. What prevents L'Age d'Or from having same impact as its predecessor is quite simply its length. Surrealism works best in small doses, 60 minutes of it gets a bit wearying. Although there are probably as many (if not more) great moments as Un Chien Andalou, they're spaced further apart and I tend to get a little restless during it. But maybe I'm just anxious to get back to running over innocent people with stolen cars. Rating: 8


Sawdust and Tinsel (rewatch) - Another break from GTA4 because the movies are definitely piling up, and I need to get to my weekly Bergman. I feel a little silly giving so many of Bergman films such high marks, but hey, he gave us so many awesome ones to choose from. There's a reason he's my favorite. Here he burrows deep in the human soul to explore one of his favorite topics: humiliation. The humiliations on display here are both minor and earth-shattering, and profoundly genuine. And no ones does arguments like Bergman: the give and take, the changing of the upper hand, the low blows and painful admittances. If I had to pick out a particular flaw, it would be Anders Ek. Although his expressionistic scene in the beginning is one of the film's finest moments, his facial acting is sometimes jarringly odd and exaggerated... even for a clown. And to nitpick a little more, some of the punches in the fist fight clearly don't connect. But these are obviously minor quibbles and the movie is harrowing and brilliant (with such fine photography... Nykvist's first collaboration with Bergman). Rating: 9
Reply
post #1203 of 1550
9/11/09 at 9:26pm
I'd like (and sometimes I indeed do) to revisit more films, but I have so many 'virginal' movies to watch I try to see them first.
Seems a waste of money otherwise.

I do still watch some faves again, but not as much or as many as I would like.  But I guess a choice has to be made.
Reply
post #1204 of 1550
9/11/09 at 11:33pm
Thread Starter 
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!  

As someone who tries to catch many new movies, I must say that I'll stack up 2008 compared to any of the "great" years in cinema.  I'm sure this type of thing won't be noticed until twenty or thirty years from now.  Everyone seems to forget that the 1930's were overlooked until the 60's started to bring the films back as being "the greatest ever made".  Most of the classic movie books up to that point overlooked them for the 1910's and 1920's.  It takes time for "current" movies to become classic.  Even just in the horror genre we can look at Carpenter and see how many of his films were disasters upon release only to get their classic status years later.  I guess in some ways the same is true for someone like Kubrick. 

I guess a film (or actor/director) must pay their dues before they can get respect, which I think is fair.  Heck, look at what even the Academy did to Newman, Chaplin and Douglas.

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.

One would argue that Ozzy was Black Sabbath so I won't touch that one.  I think most of these people are what we'd call fanboys.  Fanboys will praise shit to high heaven but they can also kill something no matter if they like it or not.  Kinda like people who trash remakes yet go to see them just so they can say how terrible they are.  Or, in Dylan's case, those who want to live in their limited universe and not expand.  In the case of Dylan, since I know more about him than perhaps anyone or thing, I'm glad he had the ball to tell them to go to Hell.  I could tell some great stories about him doing this but his defense of being young and dying as you get older is something everyone should read and really think about.  If someone refuses to listen to his three rock albums of the 60s, or his great trilogy of the 70s or his comeback of the past 12 years then it's their lose.  If someone selects to "die" in 1964 and avoid anything that follows, it's they're lose and I'm personally glad Dylan said and did what he did.  Is it mean?  Oh yeah but it was just so truthful.  Even when Dylan is wrong (Tempe 1979) it still pays off in a rather strange way.

Dylan was, by his own admission, once a used up has been.  The success of his comeback over the last two decades of his "NET" is because of those willing to see him express himself and change.  Having seen him twenty-times in concert, I've seen people run out screaming and cussing him.  I've seen people walk out in tears saying they were touched unlike ever before.  The reactions are quite remarkable to watch but you also have those who actually break down his performance word by word.  I could tell you a story about a young woman I met on 11/1/01 in Bloomington, IN that would either make you die from laughter or cry from how weird her and her mother were. 

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 

Porter is the one who never gets any credit.  The funny thing is, the more I read, the more Griffith doesn't get the credit he deserves for certain things while he gets too much credit for other items when he shouldn't get it at all.  The most fascinating thing on my current studies is how much he really build and made every inch of Hollywood because of how many big wigs bought the city rights to THE BIRTH OF A NATION.  It's very interesting seeing how movies were sold back then and it's a shame all the experts really don't give the movie the credit it deserve as being the biggest money maker in history. Not to mention the fact that Paramount and MGM pretty much opened their doors because of the film.

It's even sadder to hear about Griffith's funeral where these same bastards showed up to pay respect to him, gave him credit for them being rich yet none of them would give him a $50,000 a year job.

In regards to what filmmakers like, I love hearing Scorsese talk as I find myself being drawn to his style of teaching.  I remember seeing an interview with Robbie Robertson where he asked Scorsese to turn him into a film buff because he hadn't seen too many classic films.  Scorsese showed up at his appartment and Robertson thought he was finally going to get to see various classics but instead Scorsese brought various "C" horror films like ATTACK OF THE CRAB MONSTERS and other Corman junk.  Scorsese told him you have to understand what trash is to really understand what a masterpiece is.  Some might disagree but I think it's very true to a point.  There was a time when I'd only watch slashers or various other trash and I thought F13 4 was a "great" movie.  As my knowledge began to grow I could eventually understand the difference between Franco and Kurosawa.


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

A really horrid movie IMO.  The truth of the matter is that it's not really the first attempt to put sound and movies together so it's fame is a tad bit overblown IMO.  It might have been the silent killer but I wouldn't really call it the first. 

The problem as I see it is when you attempt to insist that "everyone should do the same".

It's like I said in the previous post.  I think there are a set number of films that everyone should see.  if "1001 Movies You Must See Before Death" is true then that's a good number I guess.  I haven't read the entire book, although I do pick it up each time I'm in a book store.  From the past four years of this thread I'm certainly I could write a book called "2001 Good Movies That You Shouldn't Waste Your Time With".  I'll never say everyone should watch a Franco movie or that everyone should watch every movie made in the 1890's.  I would, however, say that fans of sci-fi should check out A TRIP TO THE MOON.  Not because it's Melies best film because it isn't.  Just because of its history on the genre.  THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY isn't the best "story" structured movie but it's a very important one.  

Something like KIND LADY certainly isn't recommended for everyone to watch.  It would be more for Rathbone fans.  Something like THE APE MAN isn't something I'd say every film buff needs to watch.  It would be for Lugosi fans only.  If a newbie asks me what Bob Dylan album to start with I'm going to say HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED even though I think something like STREET LEGAL or even PLANET WAVES might have more of a hook to it.  I wouldn't tell everyone here they "must" watch 500 Griffith movies but I think certain items, as part of history, are very important.  Even the one which just happened to be the first movie ever reviewed.  The movie itself isn't that good but if someone is interested in seeing the first movie to get a review then it's there to see.

I'll be watching THE UNBORN next month as well as my girlfriend made me put it in my queue.  The BEACH movies are another series that I'll eventually get around to just to check out that "genre" if you will.  Hopefully they're all better than GHOST IN THE INVISIBLE BIKINI, which I might try to revisit this year.

It's 2:30 in the morning and I have a sleeping pill in my system but hopefully all this makes sense when I re-read it in the morning.
Reply
post #1205 of 1550
9/11/09 at 11:44pm
Thread Starter 

Dispatch from Reuter's, A (1940)
 

William Dieterle

Minor bio-pic from Warner features Edward G. Robinson as Paul Julius Reuter, the man who started off with pigeons and then building Europe's fastest news wire service.  The late 30's and early 40's were full of biography movies and this one here is somewhat entertaining but there's just not enough here to make it really worth seeing.  I know a few things about Reuter's life that wasn't included in this film and I can only guess that the subject wouldn't have interested folks in 1940.  With that said, I'm really not sure what Jack Warner himself would have found so interesting about the story actually filmed.  The main story has Reuter trying to stay ahead of other people and a big finale about his report on the Lincoln assassination and whether or not it's true.  There really never is any drama that builds from any of the situations, although I will admit the stuff with the pigeons was pretty good.  The film covers a wide range of years but the time itself never seems to move in the film.  Not for a second did I believe I was watching something taking place in the 1820's and this really takes away from the atmosphere that should have been created.  Robinson turns in a fairly good performance but I did expect more from him.  He fits the role quite well but not once did I feel too much passion coming from him.  Edna Best serves as the wife but doesn't really add too much.  Eddie Albert does the best work of the cast with Gene Lockhart, Otto Kruger, James Stephenson and Nigel Bruce rounding out the supporting players.  Child star Dickie Moore has a brief part in the film.  I'm sure a good movie might be made with this story but sadly it's not this one.

Off the Record (1939)
 

James Flood

A reporter (Joan Blondell) does a story about mobsters hiring kids to guard various gambling rackets, which sets off a fire storm that gets one kid's (Bobby Jordan) brother thrown into jail.  The kid, in return, gets sent to reform school, which causes the reporter to feel bad so she marries her editor (Pat O'Brien) so that they can adopt the kid.  This Warner "B" film tries to mix various genres but as you can tell, it's basically THE FRONT PAGE meets any gangster period from that era mixed in with an East Side Kids type drama.  Jordan, a veteran of the child group, does a pretty good job in his role, although his more emotional scenes don't come off too well.  It's the cast that makes this thing worth viewing as Blondell and O'Brien offer up great performances and really deliver the goods. The two have great chemistry together as their comic timing is perfect.  Both also share quite a few good scenes with the young Jordan.  The movie runs a fast paced 71-minutes, which flows by for the first hour but then loses a bit of steam as we get a silly and predictable side plot dealing with the kid's brother wanting help to break out of prison.  This all leads to a predictable conclusion but fans of the "B" genre will get a kick out of the film due to its cast.  Fans of them will want to check this out but others can stay clear.

On Borrowed Time (1939)
 

Harold S. Bucquet

This MGM film comes only second to their FREAKS as being the strangest movie Hollywood would deliver in the 1930's.  I had heard a lot about this thing but nothing you read can quite prepare you for what you actually see.  This fantasy tells the story of a loving grandfather (Lionel Barrymore) who wants to keep his grandson (Bobs Watson) away from his aunt (Eily Malyon) who simply wants his inheritance money from his parent's deaths.  After the death of the grandmother, Death himself, calling himself Mr. Bink (Cedric Hardwicke) shows up t take grandpa but he has a trick up his sleeve.  He asks Death to climb the apple tree out back where the old man is able to trap Death there so that no one can ever die again.  I love searching out and viewing rather strange movies and this here has to come close to being one of the strangest fantasy films ever made.  There's certainly a touching side to this film but there's also a rather dark side.  The strange thing is that this isn't really a comedy or a drama and the film never goes for that type of emotions.  Instead the film seems to pride itself on just being bizarre and unlike anything most people had seen.  I consider myself an expert at the bizarre yet my jaw was flying open several times through this thing.  There's so much great stuff but at the same time everything comes off rather campy just because of the story you're watching.  Barrymore is pitch perfect as the cranky but lovable old man who only wants to see his grandson grow up happy.  We have Hardwicke doing a very good job in his role as Death.  Beulah Bondi, Nat Pendleton and Henry Travers all add nice supporting performance to their minor characters.  Even the underused Una Merkel comes off very touching as the devoted maid.  Watson, who some might remember as Pee Wee in BOYS TOWN, is a whole 'nother story.  I'm really not sure what to think because on one hand he's terrific but on another level he gives one of the worst performances I've seen from a child actor.  What he's great at is acting the "loud mouth" when he tries to come off like Barrymore.  The two have a nice bond in their scenes together and this is especially true when they're battling the evil aunt.  What doesn't work so well are his emotional or crying scenes.  It seems the director simply wanted him to scream at the top of his lungs since he was obviously not able to produce any real tears.  This becomes quite annoying and happens throughout the film.  Then we have the ending, which is fairly touching but I'm sure no one is going to expect it coming.  I wouldn't add this title to the masterpieces of 1939 but there's something very unique and original about it that makes it a must see.

 

Reply
post #1206 of 1550
9/12/09 at 1:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Dispatch from Reuter's, A (1940)
 

William Dieterle

Minor bio-pic from Warner features Edward G. Robinson as Paul Julius Reuter, the man who started off with pigeons and then building Europe's fastest news wire service.  The late 30's and early 40's were full of biography movies and this one here is somewhat entertaining but there's just not enough here to make it really worth seeing.  I know a few things about Reuter's life that wasn't included in this film and I can only guess that the subject wouldn't have interested folks in 1940.  With that said, I'm really not sure what Jack Warner himself would have found so interesting about the story actually filmed.  The main story has Reuter trying to stay ahead of other people and a big finale about his report on the Lincoln assassination and whether or not it's true.  There really never is any drama that builds from any of the situations, although I will admit the stuff with the pigeons was pretty good.  The film covers a wide range of years but the time itself never seems to move in the film.  Not for a second did I believe I was watching something taking place in the 1820's and this really takes away from the atmosphere that should have been created.  Robinson turns in a fairly good performance but I did expect more from him.  He fits the role quite well but not once did I feel too much passion coming from him.  Edna Best serves as the wife but doesn't really add too much.  Eddie Albert does the best work of the cast with Gene Lockhart, Otto Kruger, James Stephenson and Nigel Bruce rounding out the supporting players.  Child star Dickie Moore has a brief part in the film.  I'm sure a good movie might be made with this story but sadly it's not this one.


On Borrowed Time (1939)
 

Harold S. Bucquet

This MGM film comes only second to their FREAKS as being the strangest movie Hollywood would deliver in the 1930's.  I had heard a lot about this thing but nothing you read can quite prepare you for what you actually see.  This fantasy tells the story of a loving grandfather (Lionel Barrymore) who wants to keep his grandson (Bobs Watson) away from his aunt (Eily Malyon) who simply wants his inheritance money from his parent's deaths.  After the death of the grandmother, Death himself, calling himself Mr. Bink (Cedric Hardwicke) shows up t take grandpa but he has a trick up his sleeve.  He asks Death to climb the apple tree out back where the old man is able to trap Death there so that no one can ever die again.  I love searching out and viewing rather strange movies and this here has to come close to being one of the strangest fantasy films ever made.  There's certainly a touching side to this film but there's also a rather dark side.  The strange thing is that this isn't really a comedy or a drama and the film never goes for that type of emotions.  Instead the film seems to pride itself on just being bizarre and unlike anything most people had seen.  I consider myself an expert at the bizarre yet my jaw was flying open several times through this thing.  There's so much great stuff but at the same time everything comes off rather campy just because of the story you're watching.  Barrymore is pitch perfect as the cranky but lovable old man who only wants to see his grandson grow up happy.  We have Hardwicke doing a very good job in his role as Death.  Beulah Bondi, Nat Pendleton and Henry Travers all add nice supporting performance to their minor characters.  Even the underused Una Merkel comes off very touching as the devoted maid.  Watson, who some might remember as Pee Wee in BOYS TOWN, is a whole 'nother story.  I'm really not sure what to think because on one hand he's terrific but on another level he gives one of the worst performances I've seen from a child actor.  What he's great at is acting the "loud mouth" when he tries to come off like Barrymore.  The two have a nice bond in their scenes together and this is especially true when they're battling the evil aunt.  What doesn't work so well are his emotional or crying scenes.  It seems the director simply wanted him to scream at the top of his lungs since he was obviously not able to produce any real tears.  This becomes quite annoying and happens throughout the film.  Then we have the ending, which is fairly touching but I'm sure no one is going to expect it coming.  I wouldn't add this title to the masterpieces of 1939 but there's something very unique and original about it that makes it a must see.

 



Two more titles from my own unwatched pile right there! I've always been interested in watching ON BORROWED TIME (1939) but your terrific review just made it levitate from the pile! By the way, I've been thinking of doing this for a while now but, do you think this film would fit the bill in the Halloween Challenge? I'm acquiring so much 'junk' for that very purpose as we speak that, I guess, there's nothing like adding a touch of class to the mix.

Actually, I'm compling a list of possible contenders right now but, as usual, there are far too many than I can possibly fit in 31 days. Also, having previously gone through the HALLOWEEN franchise (as you well know), I've been toying with the idea of renting the "NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET" and the "CHILDREN OF THE CORN" serieses for this year. But I wouldn't want to overdo with the 'repetition' in place of something 'original'.

To get back to Griffith for a while: I don't want to sound too hard on him but, to put it very simply, I prefer Feuillade's Gallic anarchy over Griffith's Victorian sentimentality and, in the long run, the former's thematic influence (on the evolution of the thriller genre) is more important to me than the latter's technical one (on the language of film).

As for L'AGE D'OR (1930), it may seem hard to believe coming from me but I too used to find its trim 63-minute running time a mite overstretched on first viewings.  Despite acknowledging its undisputed importance in Bunuel's career and in cinematic Surrealism as a whole, I didn't really warm up to it until my third viewing or so. Now, the last time I've seen it (my fifth - in January 2007 at London's National Film Theatre) was, probably, also the most enjoyable one for me - not because of the film's merits per se but because of the astonishing reaction it - and UN CHIEN ANDALOU (1928) before it - had on the audience.  

I've told this story before over here but it's been impossible for me to locate it in the "Track" threads for 2007, 2008 and 2009.  Anyway, out of all the spectators (the theater was quite large and quite packed) only five people seemed to be enjoying these two clearly still shocking movies: myself, my twin brother and three youngsters (one female and two males) who were clearly film students and had seen them before. Being so familiar with the film, we all started laughing just as the funny bits were coming on and we even got to exchange complicit looks with eachother (it helped that they happened to be seated in the row in front of us). As for the people sitting next to us, they started to look at us in a strange way whenever we broke into laughter as if to say, "What's wrong with you, guys?" or "What's so funny about a dog being kicked or a kid being shot repeatedly by his father?" or whatever the incident that had provoked our loud reaction happened to be. 

But the really weird thing happened after the end of L'AGE D'OR: I'm sure you're familiar with the way people leave their seats immediately as the credits for any movie start rolling but not in this case! In fact, the only people to get up from our seats were us five 'old hands' because all the rest just stood there stationary in their seats as if they didn't know what had just hit them! I kid you not: it was unbelievable (and intensely gratifying for me) that two 70-year old movies could still have such a remarkable effect on an audience in this day and age. As it happened, Bunuel's WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1954) was up next at the same theater in half-an-hour's time and, I swear to you, people were still staggering out of there a few minutes before we went in again for the Emily Bronte` adaptation!!      

 

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/12/09 at 2:16am
Reply
post #1207 of 1550
9/12/09 at 3:42am
As a trial run for the upcoming Halloween Challenge, I'll be reviewing one film a day (being mostly Burt Lancaster and Errol Flynn movies) till the end of the month...so as to get back in the reviewing groove so to speak.


09/11/09: DESERT FURY (Lewis Allen, 1947)
Sporting a title that is better suited to an exotic Western or an Arabian Nights romp, it is small wonder perhaps that this noir-ish melodrama turns out to be more of a glossy soaper. This combination – and, indeed, the plot itself – seems to indicate an attempt at another MILDRED PIERCE (1945) but the end result is certainly less rewarding. In fact, all-poweful businesswoman/mother Mary Astor gets to experience her student/daughter Lizabeth Scott’s hard-headed ungratefulness with the appearance of ex-flame John Hodiak.  Local cop Burt Lancaster (third-billed in his third movie) is enamoured with Scott himself and does not take Hodiak’s unwarranted attentions sitting down.  Unfortunately, for most of the time, the film resolves itself into a series of clashes between these four characters but, thankfully, Paramount’s unusual decision to film ‘in glorious Technicolor’ (to use the famous advertising term) makes the rather dreary proceedings more easy on the eye than they would otherwise have been. This is not to say that the film is without interest: Lancaster is always worth watching, Mary Astor is fine in a character role not too far removed from her trademark role of the scheming Brigid O’Shaugnessy in John Huston’s THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) and Miklos Rozsa’s musical accompaniment is typically brooding.  Besides, to counter the (no pun intended) somewhat colorless central relationship between Scott and Hodiak, we are treated to the highly ambiguous one between Hodiak and his long-suffering sidekick (an impressive turn from a debuting Wendell Corey): not only is Corey relegated to doing the house chores while Hodiak sunbathes topless but, in the admittedly strong climax, we see the reality of their interchangable personalites two decades before Ingmar Bergman’s PERSONA (1966) and Cammell-Roeg’s PERFORMANCE (1970)!        

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/13/09 at 11:04am
Reply
post #1208 of 1550
9/12/09 at 4:05am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post



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.

 

I saw it in the theater when it was new, but I'll be damned if I can remember anything about it now. If we had the IMDB back then I could have listed my review there and conveniently searched back today to find my thoughts.
Reply
post #1209 of 1550
9/12/09 at 4:49am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 Kinda like people who trash remakes yet go to see them just so they can say how terrible they are. 


I realize you haven't mentioned my name here, but since I'm always trashing the idea of way too many new modernized remakes, I figure I'll put my two cents in on this. In my case I'll pick and choose the modern remakes I'm willing to try out, but it depends. I love the 1974 TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE and think it was ridiculous to remake it as a TV movie in the '90s and even more stupid to do it again in 2009, so I refused to see it on principal. I've seen a movie poster for the upcoming remake of FAME, and since I love the 1980 FAME (and have nostalgic closeness to it because it's the first proper date I ever went on) I will refuse to see this on principal. There are some remakes I've seen that I thought weren't bad (FRIDAY THE 13th '09) and others which I thought were either good (MIGHTY JOE YOUNG '98) or very good (WAR OF THE WORLDS '05). But most of them sucked plain and simple and were a waste of my time, and I've said so. But though I know you did not mention me here, I personally do NOT go to see remakes "just so I can say how terrible they are". In my case if I think they'll be bad I'd rather not even bother.
 

Or, in Dylan's case, those who want to live in their limited universe and not expand.  In the case of Dylan, since I know more about him than perhaps anyone or thing, I'm glad he had the ball to tell them to go to Hell.  I could tell some great stories about him doing this but his defense of being young and dying as you get older is something everyone should read and really think about.  If someone refuses to listen to his three rock albums of the 60s, or his great trilogy of the 70s or his comeback of the past 12 years then it's their lose.  If someone selects to "die" in 1964 and avoid anything that follows, it's they're lose
 


I agree, in a case like this it would be their loss. So why not let them have their loss and not worry about it? They're not the ones who are bothered by missing what they don't know, but it sure bugs others like yourself, Mike.  
 

Scorsese told him you have to understand what trash is to really understand what a masterpiece is.  Some might disagree but I think it's very true to a point.  There was a time when I'd only watch slashers or various other trash and I thought F13 4 was a "great" movie.  As my knowledge began to grow I could eventually understand the difference between Franco and Kurosawa.


I certainly can differentiate between a "great piece of cinema" and a "trash movie", but I'd still rather watch DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN ("trash") over THE SEVENTH SEAL ("Great Cinema") any friggin' day of the year. So what? The bottom line should first and foremost always be about what entertains you. I think that's where the snobbery and elitism comes into play from others and takes all the fun right out of having a good time at the movies. It's always terrific whenever a "Great Film" is also entertaining (take JAWS for instance), but I didn't much enjoy GONE WITH THE WIND  excpet for its style, and I don't give a hoot how "great it is supposed to be". Then again, there are other "Great Films" that worked for me, like CITIZEN KANE.

 


The problem as I see it is when you attempt to insist that "everyone should do the same".

It's like I said in the previous post.  I think there are a set number of films that everyone should see.  if "1001 Movies You Must See Before Death" is true then that's a good number I guess.  


But why should "Everyone" or "Anyone"  be required to see all those films? I could understand if you clarified it a bit and wrote "All Diehard Movie Buffs Should See All These Movies", but why should my 74-year-old father-in-law --- a man who is a big fan of older movies and watches TCM a lot but does not like horror movies or foreign subtitled films ---  see TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, THE SHINING or BELLE DU JOUR? He's not running to be a Movie Critic or anything. Why should the 16-year-old boy down the block who's only interested in playing baseball watch ANY movies at ALL, much less SINGIN' IN THE RAIN?
 


Something like KIND LADY certainly isn't recommended for everyone to watch.  It would be more for Rathbone fans. 


I would agree. That's the only reason I want to see it now that you've given your review. If Rathbone wasn't in it, I would have practically no interest (except that the plot sounds interesting too).
 


Something like THE APE MAN isn't something I'd say every film buff needs to watch.  It would be for Lugosi fans only.


I would agree with you here as well. But it's also for "cheezy movie fans" whether they're tuning in for Lugosi or not. But you see, at least here you made sure to specify: "not every film buff needs to see this".
 



Reply
post #1210 of 1550
9/12/09 at 11:03am
Twister (1996)

My son picked this up in the cheap bin, bluray no less and brought it over for us to watch. Though I've seen it a couple of times, it's always fun to watch despite some eye-rolling moments. I must say the video on this bluray is vastly superior to our dvd copy of the movie.
The special effects look great even after 13 years. This is a fun popcorn movie that I disliked upon first seeing but learned to gain an appreciation for over the years. 

Cast a Dark Shadow (1955) 

An interesting film-noir with Dirk Bogarde cast in the role of a handsome charming cad/murderer who meets and weds older women for their money and murders them before going on to the next rich one. I've never been much of a fan of Bogarde but I've changed my mind after this performance. He protrayed his part quite well, with his soft-spoken voice, smarmy attitude and deadly eyes. Also excellent was Margaret Lockwood as the second wife, a actress who's work, I'm not to familiar with. This is an excellent British classic, one I wouldn't mind owning.

I had to wait to watch this until I was alone. My family on the whole, chooses about 2/3 of the movies that we watch and I'll usually sit down to watch whatever they've chosen with them. A really good classic or most of the movies on TCM will chase them from the room, so Thank God for DVR's.
 
The Express (2008)

Interesting movie about the short life of football star Ernie Davis the first black man to win the Heisman Trophy. This movie focuses on Davis's relationships, especially with his coach played by Dennis Quaid who gives an outstanding performance here. The other relationship's, that with his grandfather and girlfriend were just touched upon and could have been expanded more. Also I would have liked to have know more about his battle with leukemia. Still it was an interesting enjoyable movie about a man I hadn't heard about and glad I did.
Reply
post #1211 of 1550
9/12/09 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post





 

Hey Joe - just so you know, this is what I meant when I said that I was having trouble with quoting your comments. I've purposefully left it in as is to illustrate my earlier claim. 

Anyway, the point you raised about your 74-year old father-in-law is one I was going to make myself but didn't because I didn't want to sound 'ageist'...but, since you've brought it up yourself, I'll put my thoughts on the matter on paper as it were. 

My father is 63 years old and, although he has always been a film buff, he never really interested himself eccessively in building up a home video collection because his other interests in life (not to mention the long hours of work required to raise four sons) left him with little time to view more than a couple of movies every week. Therefore, he always left the task of increasing our movie collection in the hands of his youngest sons (naturally, me and my twin) and was content to merely relive occasionally the memories of a film from his past or catch up with the latest blockbuster. However, ever since his retirement, he has taken to acquiring several movies a week, mostly of actors that interested him (Robert DeNiro, Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington, etc.). Although he does watch several of them at all hours of the day (although my mum normally hijacks the TV set for the best part of the day), he also sleeps a lot throughout the day! Although it was he who kickstarted our interest in film in the early 1980s, obviously our tastes have grown worlds apart over the years and, not being much impressed with contemporary fare, I never miss an opportunity to needle him on his bland, mainstream tastes! Having said that, should I stop him from his reckless acquisition of such movies since, for better or worse, it's what gives him pleasure these days? Still, I do wonder sometimes who's gonna watch all this stuff once he's gone...!

In February 2007, just after we returned from that Bunuel retrospective, my brother and I made friends with an old schoolmate of my dad's who discovered our interest in film when he stumbled upon our IMDb comments! Anyway, this guy (who used to be one of Malta's leading songwriters and represented our island in overseas competitions several times over the years) is the one I was referring to when I said that I was spending a lot of time corresponding via e-mail. Besides, we make it a point to meet in person, say, every fortnight and we exchange a dozen or so movies every time. Being reared on Hollywood movies like most of his local generation, he was still green when it came to World Cinema and, therefore, he has used this exchange program of ours to acquire the usual foreign milestones that are always getting mentioned in film history books; actually, his son just bought him the lastest edition of "1001 Movies You Should See Before You Die", too. It goes without saying that I've given him a handful of Bunuel titles but, as far as I know, he has yet to watch any of them - although he did already own ROBINSON CRUSOE (1952) himself because he remembers seeing it in is childhood days...as did my dad, naturally! Now, you might be asking yorself, what's  the point of his getting so much of this "essential" stuff when, if it was up to him, all he'd watch would be Randolph Scott and Audie Murphy oaters? Well, as he often says himself, he takes comfort in the knowledge that he has them in his collection and can watch them  when the mood strikes him. He has already said that his own son is a lost cause in terms of continuing his film-going tradition but, for what it's worth, he's doing his utmost in getting his grandchildren hooked by acquiring for them (through us) everything from Laurel & Hardy to the Looney Tunes to BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA (1986)!           
Reply
post #1212 of 1550
9/12/09 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
By the way, I've been thinking of doing this for a while now but, do you think this film would fit the bill in the Halloween Challenge?

I'd say yes.  It's certainly not a "horror" film but it has enough surreal elements that I'm sure it would fit.  I was thinking about including it next month but finally threw it in last night because I really couldn't pick anything else to watch.  I was going to make it a double feature with ANGEL ON MY SHOULDER since I'm on a Rains kick but ended up watching some 9/11 documentaries instead.

Actually, I'm compling a list of possible contenders right now but, as usual, there are far too many than I can possibly fit in 31 days.

I'm going for the Price/Corman and CORN films for certain.  Of course, I might end up with the son that month so I can't plan too much out. 

But why should "Everyone" or "Anyone"  be required to see all those films?

You're obviously never going to get it so why keep asking everytime one of these topics come up?  If you actually watched the films then you'd understand why some might not understand a "movie lover" not being interested in anything other than a small group of films.  You'd think I was nuts if I said I loved The Beatles but have only listened to their first album and wasn't interested in the others no matter what their reputations were.  Heck, it would also be like someone who loves movies from the 30's-50's yet not wanting to have TCM.
Reply
post #1213 of 1550
9/12/09 at 12:53pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post


As someone who tries to catch many new movies, I must say that I'll stack up 2008 compared to any of the "great" years in cinema.  I'm sure this type of thing won't be noticed until twenty or thirty years from now.  Everyone seems to forget that the 1930's were overlooked until the 60's started to bring the films back as being "the greatest ever made".  Most of the classic movie books up to that point overlooked them for the 1910's and 1920's.  It takes time for "current" movies to become classic. 
 


The only problem with this theory is that the films of 2008 will never have the advantage of being re-discovered.  They are in print, so to speak, and available from the time they're released into theaters and exposed to a wide audience.  Whereas in the 60's there were thousands of movies that hadn't been show in decades and were ripe for critical evaluation (really for the first time), and as we know, everyone, including influential critics, likes to hype up their own discovery, something now less likely to be possible.  Of course, there are STILL many films from major stars and directors of the studio era that remain little seen.  

Further, the kinds of films that these days become 'classics' are more likely to be the sleepers or bombs, those that slipped through their theatrical runs with nobody seeing them, rather than the Oscar winners.  Look back to the 90's. The popular canon is made up of films like SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, FIGHT CLUB, GROUNDHOG DAY, OFFICE SPACE (!), etc. while prestige films have either dropped off the face of the earth or taken brutal beatings to their reputations (FOREST GUMP, DANCES WITH WOLVES, THE ENGLISH PATIENT).  Now, if I asked you to name 20 enduring classics from 2008, what would you list?        
 

...Even when Dylan is wrong (Tempe 1979) it still pays off in a rather strange way...
 


Let's be honest, everything Dylan does is strange.  A few weeks ago he was wandering around NJ dressed as a hobo and the cops thought he was an escaped mental patient.  Now he's talking about becoming the voice of in-car GPS systems.  I do love how he tells these hippies to get lost whenever they try to make him the poet-leader of their movement.
 

I could tell you a story about a young woman I met on 11/1/01 in Bloomington, IN that would either make you die from laughter or cry from how weird her and her mother were. 
 


I think once you bring this up you have to follow through on it.  Consider me sufficiently intrigued.
 


In regards to what filmmakers like, I love hearing Scorsese talk as I find myself being drawn to his style of teaching.
 


I agree, he's the best. I hope you've seen A PERSONAL JOURNEY WITH MARTIN SCORSESE THROUGH AMERICAN FILM. If not, it's highly recommended.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post


On Borrowed Time (1939)
 

Harold S. Bucquet


...Watson, who some might remember as Pee Wee in BOYS TOWN, is a whole 'nother story.  I'm really not sure what to think because on one hand he's terrific but on another level he gives one of the worst performances I've seen from a child actor.  What he's great at is acting the "loud mouth" when he tries to come off like Barrymore.  The two have a nice bond in their scenes together and this is especially true when they're battling the evil aunt.  What doesn't work so well are his emotional or crying scenes.  It seems the director simply wanted him to scream at the top of his lungs since he was obviously not able to produce any real tears.  This becomes quite annoying and happens throughout the film....
 


You're being too kind here (and you're not being particularly kind!).  I went into this film damn sure ready to like it; a 1930's Hollywood fantasy that had Lionel Barrymore matching wits with Death as played by Cedric Hardwicke.  But Bobs Watson was a malignancy.  The rest of it is rather sweet, though, I agree. 
Reply
post #1214 of 1550
9/12/09 at 1:11pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

But why should "Everyone" or "Anyone"  be required to see all those films?

You're obviously never going to get it so why keep asking everytime one of these topics come up?  If you actually watched the films then you'd understand why some might not understand a "movie lover" not being interested in anything other than a small group of films.  You'd think I was nuts if I said I loved The Beatles but have only listened to their first album and wasn't interested in the others no matter what their reputations were. 

 

Mike, I spent a lot of time addressing your other points, yet you only copy this ONE quote from me? That's unfortunate.

You say *I* don't get it, but on the contrary I don't think you read what I wrote, and so you still don't know what I'm questioning here. When you say "anyone" or "everyone", are you referring to Film Buffs? Because if that's what you mean, then I certainly understand your side of this more clearly. I think you need to express yourself more clearly or specifically,  but you clarified it above with "movie lovers", so I guess that's where you were coming from. All the same, I think one may "love movies" and still not want to see everything, or perhaps not even all of the greats. So we have a difference of opinion there.
Reply
post #1215 of 1550
9/12/09 at 1:13pm

Quote:
 
I hope you've seen A PERSONAL JOURNEY WITH MARTIN SCORSESE THROUGH AMERICAN FILM. If not, it's highly recommended.


I adore that!  Watched it numerous times and picked up a good few films because of it.  Scorsese is just a master at putting across scholarly information with a true movie fan's enthusiasm.
Reply
post #1216 of 1550
9/12/09 at 1:29pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

I adore that!  Watched it numerous times and picked up a good few films because of it.  Scorsese is just a master at putting across scholarly information with a true movie fan's enthusiasm.

I had the same experience. I found myself tracking down some of these obscure films because he made them sound so integral.  The brilliant thing about the documentary is how it holds up. The first time I watched it, I had seen, I don't know, 20% of the films mentioned.  Then I watched it after I had seen, say, half of them. I could watch it today, having seen even more of the films since, and it would still offer new insights because of that. 
Reply
post #1217 of 1550
9/12/09 at 2:13pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post




I had the same experience. I found myself tracking down some of these obscure films because he made them sound so integral.  The brilliant thing about the documentary is how it holds up. The first time I watched it, I had seen, I don't know, 20% of the films mentioned.  Then I watched it after I had seen, say, half of them. I could watch it today, having seen even more of the films since, and it would still offer new insights because of that. 
 

All this talk of this epic documentary instigated my acquiring it just now, dammit! Actually, I did see it several years ago on Italian TV and one film he dealt with that stuck with me was Allan Dwan's SILVER LODE (1954); having just seen it for myself at the start of this year (where I rated it ***1/2) , I can only agree with Scorsese's high regard for it.  Now, if only I could lay my hands on his equally epic documentary on Italian cinema, MY VOYAGE TO ITALY (1999)... 

Reply
post #1218 of 1550
9/12/09 at 2:51pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

All this talk of this epic documentary instigated my acquiring it just now, dammit! Actually, I did see it several years ago on Italian TV and one film he dealt with that stuck with me was Allan Dwan's SILVER LODE (1954); having just seen it for myself at the start of this year (where I rated it ***1/2) , I can only agree with Scorsese's high regard for it.  Now, if only I could lay my hands on his equally epic documentary on Italian cinema, MY VOYAGE TO ITALY (1999)... 
 

By all means, Mario. My impression is that MY VOYAGE is a touch more conventional (as your note about SILVER LODE shows), but more in depth.  Although ever since I viewed it, I've been unsuccessfully trying to see L'ORO DI NAPOLI, if only for a segment with Vittorio De Sica as a gambler who is repeatedly flummoxed by a young boy in a card game, which practically had me on the floor laughing.    
Reply
post #1219 of 1550
9/12/09 at 3:21pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post




By all means, Mario. My impression is that MY VOYAGE is a touch more conventional (as your note about SILVER LODE shows), but more in depth.  Although ever since I viewed it, I've been unsuccessfully trying to see L'ORO DI NAPOLI, if only for a segment with Vittorio De Sica as a gambler who is repeatedly flummoxed by a young boy in a card game, which practically had me on the floor laughing.    
 

L'ORO DI NAPOLI (1954) is shown quite regularly on Italian TV and, in fact I've recorded it twice (on VHS and DVDR) but, here it comes again, I have yet to watch the film for the first time! Actually, being a Rialto theatrical re-release, it should be up for a Criterion DVD release in the future...so, you might still get a chance to catch it eventually.

Reply
post #1220 of 1550
9/12/09 at 4:00pm
 "Hardware"
http://www.beardyfreak.com/rvhardware.php

This delightfully strange, off beat, surreal and pretty damn unique take on the killer robot plot and the post apocalypse flick (from the UK, with a smattering of American input) divides viewers into true love or hate it camps.

The screenplay is full of dark humour, surreal ideas, crumbling state control satire, unexpected subplots all woven together with a Horror fan’s sensibilities.
On a low budget Stanley and his design crew have worked wonders in creating this ruined world, and if the Cinematography has an overuse of red filters it still manages to deliver some truly post apocalyptic visuals.

The robot FX (utilising a large team of artists) are hit and miss sadly, and as a battle droid this thing is rather wobbly to say the least, as it goes from a mechanised ‘Muppet’ style puppet to a guy in a suit. But at least it has some meaty weaponry, including a very nasty drill and chainsaw and even poisonous needles.

The gore FX (again by a large team) are sparse but very well done. And Stanley adds a violent energy to the scenes of up close carnage. The red filter on many of the sequences does obscure the blood somewhat (perhaps on purpose to avoid the censorship problems it sadly had anyway), but it sprays all over the place very nicely anyway.

An eye gouging, a chainsaw dismemberment, general slicing and dicing and the infamous cut in half torso (a great bit of FX reminiscent of the lift scene from “Damian: Omen 2”, only with far more spraying blood) deliver the meaty violence and should please any gorehound.  

The excellent score is also a major plus. With a marvellous and largely experimental original score by Simon Boswell (“Demons 2”) mixed with off the wall songs from the likes of ‘Ministry’, ‘Public Image Limited’ and Iggy Pop. The soundtrack becomes a nightmarish ferryman, carrying the often surreal imagery and messy brutality along with it.
Many memorable set-pieces are powered by this eclectic mix of music just as much as they are powered by the expert and complex editing and direction.

Acting is variable but generally effective with the most memorable performance (and indeed the most surreal and generally weird aspect of the movie away from the visuals) is by William Hootkins’ as a creepy as hell stalker. His later appearance at Jill’s door is an unforgettably weird nightmare of a sequence as the increasingly unhinged stalker. sings widely to himself and rolls his eyeliner enhanced eyes with an almost masturbatory lust.
The entire sequence is topped off by a deranged outcome that delivers on all fronts.
An enjoyable audio only cameo comes from the aforementioned Iggy Pop as doom-laden radio DJ Angry Bob, who is given some choice and amusing dialogue.

Although “Hardware” is sometimes a difficult watch that does not play by the conventional rules you may expect from a futuristic killer robot flick and that moves at its own eccentric pace it’s also a film full of memorable visuals, off the wall set-pieces, unusual characters, chaotic action, pleasant nudity, dark satire, great music and good old fashioned gore and violence.
For those looking for something different, and willing to embrace the weirdness, from their Sci-Fi you can’t go wrong with “Hardware”.

rating: 8 strobe lights.

Reply
post #1221 of 1550
9/12/09 at 11:08pm
Thread Starter 
The only problem with this theory is that the films of 2008 will never have the advantage of being re-discovered.

It's probably true that they'll never be re-discovered the same way something like FREAKS was back in the day but I think a lot of movies of today are made for today with very little plans for them to be around for future generations.  A lot of this is directed at summer blockbusters but it seems they make their $200 million dollars, break their DVD records but are then forgotten the following year when the latest superhero, drunken comedy or hot teen hits the screen.  Perhaps the masses just like to be spoon fed but I think "film lovers" will eventually come across lesser seen movies like THE WRESTLER, THE READER, THE PLEDGE and various other small films that might have won over critics but were buried behind SPIDER-MAN or T4.  GONE BABY GONE was the best film I saw in 2007 yet it didn't get the greatest business. 

It's funny this talk of revisits came up because last night I was going through some boxes from my childhood (or teen years) and came across my original movie books with many reviews that I wrote on index cards when I first started going to the movies by myself.  I had forgotten how many movies I use to watch at the movies and was even more shocked to see how many films I had given 3 or 3 1/2 stars to yet I had forgotten their very titles.  This minor trip down memory lane and the various memories seeing the titles brought back has me mildly interested in seeing them again.  I think if I did rewatch some of this stuff my opinion of them would be a lot lower than my original thoughts. 

(FOREST GUMP, DANCES WITH WOLVES, THE ENGLISH PATIENT).

It's funny you mention these titles as I noticed them in my little records last night.  I think I saw GUMP four times at the theater.  I remember WOLVES because it was the first epic I ever got to see in the theater.  I also remember ENGLISH because of my father downright hating it.  I've always felt WOLVES is a masterpiece and I'd probably go even further and say Costner is underrated in terms of what he was doing at this point in his career.  Looking back I'd say THE UNTOUCHABLES is a pretty strong gangster film that holds up.  BULL DURHAM still holds up as a nice little comedy even though I don't buy into all the love.  JFK is still one of the all-time greats in my book.  FIELD OF DREAMS, to me, is the greatest fantasy ever made and I think I might even put it right up there with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.  WOLVES is a title I'm really wanting to revisit again but I think it's greatest sin is that it beat GOODFELLAS and Scorsese.  I think times improves films better and from my memory, WOLVES was the best film released that year.  It took critics and people by storm and really showed people something they hadn't seen before.  Everyone got caught up in the hype and I think this overshadowed Scorsese's masterpiece.  I think the same thing happened to ORDINARY PEOPLE, which seems to be hated today because it beat RAGING BULL.  In 1980, OP hit the right notes and impressed enough people.  Over time, RB turned out to be the masterpiece but I think OP is still a great one.  The same is true with GUMP, which since winning Best Picture has been dumped on because of PULP FICTION, SHAWSHANK and in a way ED WOOD. 

TITANIC is another one I ended up seeing around six times when it was in theaters.  I fell asleep three of the times but I still think it's a great movie and is another that I'm wanting to revisit.  People seem to dump on this movie now not because of the movie but because of how much money it made.  I could tell six sold-out screenings worth of stories on this one including one where I was trying to comfort a girl who was upset that Leo died yet had no idea that the movie was based on true events!!! 

Now, if I asked you to name 20 enduring classics from 2008, what would you list?

I'll post the titles tomorrow as I'm going to have to track down last years "Best Of..." thread.  THE WRESTLER did end up making my #1 spot though.

Let's be honest, everything Dylan does is strange.

I've always seen "Dylan" as a movie character more than an actual person.  I think this "alternate side" is easy to see in his movies but I'll post that girl story tomorrow as well.  The Tempe 1979 thing is beyond crazy as is a show in N.J. back in 1986 when Tom Petty was playing with him.  Some news reporters were down in the first few rows and Dylan pretty much stopped the concert and kicked them out so that "real fans" sitting at the back of the arena could have their seats. 

I agree, he's the best. I hope you've seen A PERSONAL JOURNEY WITH MARTIN SCORSESE THROUGH AMERICAN FILM. If not, it's highly recommended.

Loved every second of it, which is why I was so disappointed with the Val Lewton doc even though Scorsese wasn't the true director.  I haven't watched VOYAGE yet because I wanted to become more familiar with some of the films in it.  It seems Scorsese is doing a Herzog and getting into more and more documentaries so perhaps we'll see some more of this stuff in the future. 

When you say "anyone" or "everyone", are you referring to Film Buffs?

I would say someone who could sit down and watch a Cagney movie and then follow it up with an Argento witch tale with a Laurel and Hardy remake thrown in for good measures only to then get interested in the original film as well as the two sequels that Argento followed up with even though most fans didn't find them as entertaining as the first film in the trilogy.

The term film buff could be debated endlessly.  The term movie lover could be 99% of humans living.  Again, it's more to do with knowledge and history.
Reply
post #1222 of 1550
9/13/09 at 11:01am
09/12/09: I WALK ALONE (Byron Haskin, 1948)

Three of the stars from DESERT FURY (1947) – Burt Lancaster, Lizabeth Scott and Wendell Corey – were reunited in another, marginally superior noir that is most notable today for marking the first of seven screen pairings between Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. Although it was still very early in their careers, they had already become typecast as, respectively, the jilted, ex-con hero and the suave,   slimy villain and this film has them reprising those characterizations – albeit less effectively than their prototype seen earlier in THE KILLERS (1946) and OUT OF THE PAST (1947); the same goes for Scott and Corey who both share a divided loyalty towards the two male leads. I WALK ALONE can also be said to have kick-started the directorial career of former technician Byron Haskin which lasted for twenty versatile years; unfortunately, that fact is borne out by the surprising lack of pace (which makes the film seem longer than its 98-minute running-time) and a rather weak climactic confrontation. Even so, the film is most interesting in the way it depicts the change in crime syndication (from streetwise toughness in the bootlegging Depression days to business acumen in the capitalist post-WWII era) that occurred during the fourteen years Lancaster spent behind bars: this is highlighted in a sharply amusing sequence when accountant Corey wrecks Lancaster’s dream of owning half of Douglas’ business empire (as they had verbally agreed on all those years before) by disclosing in “double-talk” the complex legal relationship that exists between the various companies owned by Douglas!

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/13/09 at 12:04pm
Reply
post #1223 of 1550
9/13/09 at 1:44pm

The Mummy Returns (2001) 

Though I enjoyed the first Mummy movie, this was was just more of the same with basically the same villians and a scorpion and a kid thrown into the mix. I'm not a fan of the Rock and his performance here didn't change my mind. The kid was just plain annoying and not a welcome addition to the cast. The special effects weren't bad though I thought the scorpion king was poorly rendered. Storyline was pretty bad and all in all this was a bad movie.
 

 Flawless (1999) 

Philip Seymour Hoffman has become quite a brilliant actor and he stole the movie here for me.

Robert DeNiro is Walter Koontz a former cop and a bigot who lives next door to a drag queen played by Hoffman. They frequently trade insults in the hallway until DeNiro suffers a stroke and asks Hoffman for singing lessons to help with his speech. From there a friendship of sorts develops much to the amusement of his buddies. As stated I thought Hoffman was brilliant in his part but DeNiro less so. Lately some of his performances can be broken down to a series of tics or camera mugging, which becomes tiresome after awhile. But the story is quite good and the protrayal of a stroke patient and dealing with obstacles of daily living afterwards, quite good. Though the movie is predicable, it is an enjoyable ride.
 

Reply
post #1224 of 1550
9/13/09 at 4:11pm
 "Shuttle"

The recent splurge of extreme Horror and Exploitation movies from America ("Hostel 1 & 2", "Devil's Rejects", "House 1000 Corpses", "Saw") has been a mixed bag but has also been a generally effective and very welcome shot in the arm of a genre pretty much on it's tired, in-joke filled, moronic franchise aimed, oh so bland and extremely vapid and irritating knees in the previous decade.  
So far this new Millennium has been as close to the Exploitation/Horror Heaven of the years between 1968 (or so) and 1983 (or so) we could have hoped for.

Even the rather more popcorn munching, multi-plex friendly American Horror film (the re-birth of the Slasher film for example back to its no messing, here for the fun, hack 'n' dice roots, "Wrong Turn 2", "See no Evil", "Laid to Rest", "All the Boys Love Many Lane", "Boogeyman 2") has given us some surprisingly gory, devilishly sick and violent efforts that have been generally very well made and funded.

Brutal and often bold and risk taking Horror, with a sometimes arthouse sensibility, has been at its most uncompromising in some of the chilling and powerfully grotesque movies from Europe in general ("Cannibal" from Germany, "Cold Prey", "Manhunt" from Norway for example) and France in particular ("Martyrs", "Inside", "Frontiers").
Even Australia did the brutal Horror business ("Wolf Creek", "Storm Warning") as did a regenerated (though often multinationally funded) British Horror film industry ("Mum and Dad", "The Children", "Severance", "Creep", "Dog Soldiers", "The Descent", "Shaun of the Dead", "28 Days Later").

All in all, at least in film, the 21st century has been very kind to Horror fans, with only the, still going strong, need to re-make many wonderful 70's/80's films (not even all Horror) for no good or welcome reasons whatsoever being the unwelcome stain on the crisp bedsheets.

And into this still young and exciting revitalised century comes "Shuttle".
A bloody, nasty, bleak little film about 5 people being driven to their various fates (or not) by a sinister airport shuttle driver.
 
An unusually long running time for such a film and a very quick to get going plot ensures that the film has plenty of time to offer up many twists, events, set-pieces and locale changes to ensure that something new and surprising is always going on, even if it sometimes sacrifices energy for event.
 
Strong performances are essential to keep an audience interested in what is often just a horror coated road movie and thankfully there are no bad turns here, with some solid work in particular from the lead actress Peyton List and the driver himself Tony Curran (with a pretty good American accent).
 
The film also delivers some nicely messy violence, all done with deadly seriousness, and lots of well honed terror and threat. It's good, solid, technically sharp horror movie making that we have come to now expect.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
All this dark mayhem finally ends in a conclusion that is up there with "Wolf Creek" for being so truly horrible. The eventual grotesque fate for the last character, that will also have a long and terrifying build up for the victim, is utterly audience unfriendly and stupendously bleak and ice cold. Not a fun time can be said to have been had!
It's not nice, but it's 
this uncompromising hardness and extremity that has been such a welcome breathe of fetid air to recent genre films for those craving a darker treat from some of their horror.

The problems with the film come from general troubles with the movies' basic setting and set-up and that old chestnut...some dumb choices by the characters and a shit load of unnaturally bad luck!
The film switches the power and advantage from bad guy to victim more often than any psycho film I can think of. As such, although this adds surprise and freshness to the proceedings, it does start to grate when the would be victims don;t do what you want them to do and what you hope you would do in such a situation.
Too often the victims utterly foul up their chances to our extreme frustration. It is a sadly large problem the film is stuck with, and seeing as the rest of the film is so good and well made it's a shame some more time and effort was not spent by writer/director Edward Anderson brainstorming the consequences of certain actions and how to realistically deal with them without simply having something foolish happen to get him out of the corner he foolishly wrote himself into.
 
And it also ignores what would be the biggest problems to any of this happening today, namely the fact that no modern city is ever this empty. Ever. And this place is damn empty believe me!
And in a world full of CCTV and speed/roadside cameras the Police would have been screeching around the corners in hot pursuit before half the running time has elapsed.
 
But in the end the film's strengths win out over its weaknesses and the film is (as so many Horror films are nowadays) ultimately saved by it's brutally uncompromising attitude and extremity that gives the right kind of viewer for such a film the kind of satisfaction (if not exactly fun-time enjoyment) they crave and have come to expect from this kind of Horror film today.

Rating: 6.5 missing fingers.
Reply
post #1225 of 1550
9/13/09 at 9:15pm
Thread Starter 

House on Sorority Row, The (1981)

Mark Rosman
 

Another "been there, done that" type of slasher has seven sorority sisters playing a prank on their mean house mother but the jokes ends in her accidental death.  The girls decide to go ahead with their plans of having a party but soon each one of them starts to be murdered off.  If you've seen at least one of the FRIDAY THE 13TH clones then you've pretty much seen this one here.  We've got the typical set up, the typical characters and the typical twist, which anyone should be able to catch within the first ten minutes.  What surprised me about this film is that it follows all the slasher guidelines yet there's very little gore here.  I know the film was working on a small budget but one can't help but wonder why they didn't throw in more of the red stuff.  The murder weapon here is a cane with a very pointing edge, which finds its way through hands, stomachs and throats of course.  The effects of the weapon entering the body is there but more often than not we don't see any of the red stuff so I'm not quite sure how slasher fans will take this.  There's also no question that a lot of the film has elements of MADMAN, THE BURNING and BLACK CHRISTMAS.  Director Rosman should be given credit as he certainly adds some style to the movie and makes the first half of it pretty interesting.  The problem is his screenplay that offers nothing new and the second half simply runs out of steam.  The performances are better than you'd expect but that's not enough to save the film.  Slasher fans who must see everything the genre has to offer might want to check this out but others should go for one of the titles mentioned earlier.
 

Sorority Row (2009)
 

Stewart Hendler
 

Remake of the 1983 slasher offers up very little in terms of originality but that didn't stop anything two decades ago.  This time out some sorority sisters play a prank, which goes wrong and one of their friends end up dead.  Eight months later, before leaving school, they decide to have a party and someone shows up and starts killing everyone off.  Even though this is a remake of THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW, it comes off more like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER.  The original movie featured a twist that anyone could see coming and while the mystery here is hidden a lot better there's still no way to recommend this film outside die-hard fans of the genre.  I must admit that I hated every single character in this movie and that's not good because even the most brutal horror films usually have at least one person for you to care for.  I thought the females here were all incredibly mean spirited and I personally think it's a bad thing when you want to see the victims get murdered because of how much you hate them.  Even Rumer Willis' character, the good girl who only wants to do what's right, came off rather bland and bad to me.  I could almost overlook the characters but the screenplay, as poorly written as it was, has one dumb moment after another and by the time the ending came I was rolling my eyes and really starting to lose my patience.  There wasn't one character that came off as a real human because of how badly written they were.  The stupid things they did just made them look even worse.  Some might be saying all horror films depend on characters doing stupid things, which is true but the ones here don't do a single thing right.  Willis, looking and sounding eerily 100% like her mom, doesn't come off too bad here but no one in the cast really stands out.  The violence doesn't contain too much blood but the kills themselves are rather brutal and mean.  The film at least tries to be a throw back to the real years of exploitation and we're even graced with a shower sequence, which certainly needs to make a comeback in the genre.  The direction is pretty much all over the place but there's one very effective scene where a character finds herself down a mine shaft.  More scenes like this one were needed and a lot less was needed of drunks playing it cool.  

Parson's Widow, The (1920)
 

Carl Theodor Dreyer

When one thinks of Carl Theodor Dreyer they probably don't think of comedy but that's exactly what we have here in this film better known as PRASTANKAN.  In the film, a man named Sofren (Einar Rod) wants to become the newest parson and he gets the job but then learns that he has to marry the previous parson's widow (Hildur Carlberg) who just happens to be eighty-years-old.  Sofren must keep the job because he's in love with a woman (Greta Almroth) whose father will only let him marry her if he has the job so he decides to hang in there and just wait for the old one to die.  If you're looking for laughs then I'd recommend going elsewhere because I'll be honest and say I didn't laugh a single time.  Not once did I even get a smile so one might wonder how I could enjoy a comedy without laughing and the answer is just take a look at what we got here.  For starters, the story itself is a pretty good one even if the director doesn't try to milk any laughs.  The film contains three wonderful performances and these performances are so great that one can overlook that you're not laughing at anything.  I thought Rod was downright brilliant in the role of the new parson who is aware of his situation and you will never look at his character and see anything other than someone constantly thinking on how to get out of the mess.  Carlberg also fits the role of the old woman quite well and it easily believable as the tough as steel hag.  Dreyer's direction is also top-notch as the film flows very smoothly and has an incredible look to it.  While not as impressive as say THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, the look here is still very, very beautiful.  The highlight of the movie is also one of the most memorable drunk scenes I've witness in any movie.  The new parson gets so drunk that he can barely pick up his next shot.  How the trick of him reaching for the next shot is obviously fake but it's so charming that it'll certainly stay in your mind.  This is followed by another great sequence where the drunken parson sees a "younger" woman he's suppose to marry.

Reply
post #1226 of 1550
9/13/09 at 9:57pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

...but I think a lot of movies of today are made for today with very little plans for them to be around for future generations.  A lot of this is directed at summer blockbusters but it seems they make their $200 million dollars, break their DVD records but are then forgotten the following year when the latest superhero, drunken comedy or hot teen hits the screen. 


You're coming dangerously close to implying that today's Hollywood product does not match up on the whole with studio era product. Mario, I think we've broken him!
 


Perhaps the masses just like to be spoon fed but I think "film lovers" will eventually come across lesser seen movies like THE WRESTLER, THE READER, THE PLEDGE and various other small films that might have won over critics but were buried behind SPIDER-MAN or T4.  GONE BABY GONE was the best film I saw in 2007 yet it didn't get the greatest business. 
 


I wonder if there isn't, in this day and age when virtually all theatrical product can be seen by everybody in some form if they want to, a small window to grab attention that when it closes, it closes for good.  But I suppose if any film is to be excavated and elevated in the future, it will be something like GONE BABY GONE.  
 


It's funny this talk of revisits came up because last night I was going through some boxes from my childhood (or teen years) and came across my original movie books with many reviews that I wrote on index cards when I first started going to the movies by myself.  I had forgotten how many movies I use to watch at the movies and was even more shocked to see how many films I had given 3 or 3 1/2 stars to yet I had forgotten their very titles.  This minor trip down memory lane and the various memories seeing the titles brought back has me mildly interested in seeing them again.  I think if I did rewatch some of this stuff my opinion of them would be a lot lower than my original thoughts. 


This made me think of Bogdanovich, who always mentions in his books that he started out as a kid doing reviews for himself on index cards.  Of course, if you were the same age today, you'd probably be on this thread or something similar.  And running this thread is the logical extension of a kid who wrote reviews on index cards.
 


It's funny you mention these titles as I noticed them in my little records last night.  I think I saw GUMP four times at the theater.  I remember WOLVES because it was the first epic I ever got to see in the theater.  I also remember ENGLISH because of my father downright hating it.  I've always felt WOLVES is a masterpiece and I'd probably go even further and say Costner is underrated in terms of what he was doing at this point in his career.  Looking back I'd say THE UNTOUCHABLES is a pretty strong gangster film that holds up.  BULL DURHAM still holds up as a nice little comedy even though I don't buy into all the love.  JFK is still one of the all-time greats in my book.  FIELD OF DREAMS, to me, is the greatest fantasy ever made and I think I might even put it right up there with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.  WOLVES is a title I'm really wanting to revisit again but I think it's greatest sin is that it beat GOODFELLAS and Scorsese.  I think times improves films better and from my memory, WOLVES was the best film released that year.  It took critics and people by storm and really showed people something they hadn't seen before.  Everyone got caught up in the hype and I think this overshadowed Scorsese's masterpiece.  I think the same thing happened to ORDINARY PEOPLE, which seems to be hated today because it beat RAGING BULL.  In 1980, OP hit the right notes and impressed enough people.  Over time, RB turned out to be the masterpiece but I think OP is still a great one.  The same is true with GUMP, which since winning Best Picture has been dumped on because of PULP FICTION, SHAWSHANK and in a way ED WOOD. 
 


I still think these types of films have an impossible task in getting back into favor with film lovers.  If you start out high, then get taken down, it's harder to get back up again, as opposed to the little film that goes from unknown or not seen to critical darling or cult hit after the fact. 

I definitely see FIELD OF DREAMS as much more than just sentiment, but I don't think it quite plunges into darkness like IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, which makes the Capra film for me more of a dangerous, crazier, enjoyable ride.  ORDINARY PEOPLE, now 30 years on, I think is destined for a shelf life of relative anonymity.  One could do this as an exercise, but you can pick out the Oscar contenders in every year that are just not going to ever be heard from much again, like ORDINARY PEOPLE, for whatever reason, deserving or not. 
 


TITANIC is another one I ended up seeing around six times when it was in theaters.  I fell asleep three of the times but I still think it's a great movie and is another that I'm wanting to revisit.  People seem to dump on this movie now not because of the movie but because of how much money it made.  I could tell six sold-out screenings worth of stories on this one including one where I was trying to comfort a girl who was upset that Leo died yet had no idea that the movie was based on true events!!! 


Sounds like a keeper!
 

I've always seen "Dylan" as a movie character more than an actual person.  I think this "alternate side" is easy to see in his movies but I'll post that girl story tomorrow as well.  The Tempe 1979 thing is beyond crazy as is a show in N.J. back in 1986 when Tom Petty was playing with him.  Some news reporters were down in the first few rows and Dylan pretty much stopped the concert and kicked them out so that "real fans" sitting at the back of the arena could have their seats. 
 


See, now this view of him makes much more sense to someone like me who observes Dylan from the periphery (if I told you what my favorite song was, you'd think I was cracked--it's 'Sign Language', a duet with Eric Clapton).  He's always given me the suspicion that he's putting people on, which I dig, so if you say he's really playing a 'role', that makes sense.  Is the Tempe incident something to do with him berating fans at a concert?
 


Loved every second of it, which is why I was so disappointed with the Val Lewton doc even though Scorsese wasn't the true director.


Same here. My problem with that one is that it seemed to tread the exact same ground as the doc included in the Lewton box, which if I remember only came out a year before.  It ended up seeming like a waste.



Reply
post #1227 of 1550
9/14/09 at 6:41am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Sorority Row (2009)
 

...Even Rumer Willis' character, the good girl who only wants to do what's right, came off rather bland and bad to me... Willis, looking and sounding eerily 100% like her mom...



I can't tell excatly from your posts but did you think that the female lead is Rumer Willis? Oddly enough, it's not. Rumer Willis plays the panicy pre-med nerd girl.
Reply
post #1228 of 1550
9/14/09 at 7:37am
Thread Starter 
I'm on my way out the door to work but Travis you've just blown my mind.  I had no idea Rumer Willis was in the movie until I went to see it and a "critic" on the radio was talking about her.  I had never seen her before and his review made me think she had the lead.  Now that you tell me she was playing the "med" girl, I'm in shock.  The real female lead, to me, looked and sounded like Demi Moore.  I had enjoyed the movie more I was going to go on a spell of how eerily familiar the performance here was to some of Moore's earlier, pre-fame, pre-fake body roles.  At first I was even a tad bit "out of the movie" just because when I heard that voice it sounded just like Moore.  Even that mole was pretty much the same.

As much as I hated the movie, I'm going to now have to rent it on DVD and go back through a few parts of the film.  I really, really had no idea.  I certainly got them mixed up then as I didn't even bother looking at the end credits, other reviews or even the cast listing on IMDB.   
Reply
post #1229 of 1550
9/14/09 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

House on Sorority Row, The (1981)
 

Sorority Row (2009)
 

Parson's Widow, The (1920)
 


Ha!...No sooner has Mr. Michael Elliott defined the term "film buff" for the benefit of us all that he also goes on to give us a practical demonstration of it. Bravo! By the way, before I forget, congrats for the new arrival and, hopefully, its coming won't disrupt your Halloween schedule too much.

Incidentally, it's also quite a coincidence that, just as I have found (only yesterday) another outlet through which I can track down more (13 to be exact) of the missing works from the oeuvres of my 12 favorite directors, Michael has also just caught up with one of them himself. Although THE PARSON'S WIDOW is generally considered to be Dreyer's first major achievement, I can't say I was bowled over by it but, as Michael said, it's still a satisfactory viewing experience that, laugh-out loud or not, shows an unheralded lighter facet to Dreyer's usually austeure world-view. For another example of this, I can also recommend MASTER OF THE HOUSE (1925) that, like PARSON, I own an original DVD of - released by, respectively, Image and the British Film Institute.

As for his coming round to my way of thinking regardng contemporary fare...I've always known it was only a matter of time!
Reply
post #1230 of 1550
9/14/09 at 9:29am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I'm on my way out the door to work but Travis you've just blown my mind.  I had no idea Rumer Willis was in the movie until I went to see it and a "critic" on the radio was talking about her.  I had never seen her before and his review made me think she had the lead.  Now that you tell me she was playing the "med" girl, I'm in shock.  The real female lead, to me, looked and sounded like Demi Moore.  I had enjoyed the movie more I was going to go on a spell of how eerily familiar the performance here was to some of Moore's earlier, pre-fame, pre-fake body roles.  At first I was even a tad bit "out of the movie" just because when I heard that voice it sounded just like Moore.  Even that mole was pretty much the same.

 


I'm with you. I was watching the movie and thinking "Man, Rumer Willis looks and sounds exactly like her mom". I came home and read an article on the movie in Fangoria and one of the photo captions referred to the main girl as Briana Evigan (or whatever her name is) and I thought that they had screwed up the caption. I read the article and they're saying that Rumer Willis plays the med school girl and even then I went on IMDB to confirm it.
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)