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 42

post #1231 of 1550
09/13/09: KISS THE BLOOD OFF MY HANDS (Norman Foster, 1948)

Burt Lancaster’s seventh film (and sixth noir!) ‘relocates’ him to London where he is an ill-tempered Canadian seaman and former WWII P.O.W. who accidentally kills the bartender of a pub for curtailing his boozing at closing time; a fellow patron (played with customary hamminess by the one and only Robert Newton) witnesses the event and plagues Lancaster throughout the picture to act as ‘inside man’ in a pharmaceutical robbery.  This turn of events comes about through Lancaster’s improbable relationship with a besotted nurse (Joan Fontaine) in whose flat he first takes refuge. Despite an evocative title, appropriately moody camerawork and musical accompaniment (courtesy of Russell Metty and Miklos Rozsa) and even a couple of Wellesian directorial touches (read tilted camera angles) thrown in for good measure by Norman Foster – whose best-known credit remains JOURNEY INTO FEAR (1943) – the film faces an insurmountable hurdle in the unconvincing central romance that culminates in an exceedingly phony redemptive ending. More’s the pity, therefore, that this finale had just been preceded by the film’s best sequences which depict Newton’s double-death at the separate hands of first Fontaine and later Lancaster! 
  

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/14/09 at 2:23pm
post #1232 of 1550
Thread Starter 

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

Ok, Pete.  Basically I was 20 years ago and went on my first vacation alone.  It was a four day trip, which included three concerts at three colleges.  It started off in Bloomington where I was meeting some people who were also going to various shows on the tour (most of them doing all the shows).  Before the show I met a couple guys who had gotten to shake Dylan's hand the night before and they told me they were going to try again tonight.  We ended up having tickets by one another so during the final song we went ahead and left the place so that we could get behind the building and go to the bus.  Long story short, I chickened out and didn't go by the stage doors.

An extremely hot young lady stood beside me as we heard the song end on stage so we knew Dylan would be coming out.  An old woman then came up to us and called the girl a bitch and told her to stay away from the bus.  I didn't know what the hell was going on but the older woman started walking down to the bus.  The young girl stayed with me as the doors opened and out walked Dylan.  I will always remember it was an extremely cold night and Dylan walked out with a blanket wrapped around him.  The girl fell back into my arms and at first I thought she had passed out but she was moving too much for that.  She then started calling me Bob as she, in a rather sexual way, kept rubbing up against me.  She's pretty much giving me a lap dance and calling me Bob.  I was 20 and she was hot so I didn't care.  This continued to go on as we saw Dylan get on the bus and it eventually drove away.  By this time the girl had grabbed my hands and stuck them up her shirt.  Again, I'm 20 and just enjoying my vacation. 

Soon the old woman once again came up to us with the guy I had been with to shake Dylan's hand.  They were bragging because Dylan stopped and chatted with them for a few seconds.  My jealously and hatred of myself for not going down there starting to happened.  The young girl was still in my arms when the older one then introduced herself to me as her mom.  The mother asked if I was "touring" with Dylan, I said yes and she asked if I'd give her and the daughter a ride to the next show.  I agreed to do so and the plan was to stay at a motel there in town and then drive up to the next show the following morning.  Apparently the "travelers" had rented out a floor so I thought I might as well stay.  The girl and I started walking back to the front of the venue when she kept getting stranger. 

She kept telling me about all her fantasies of Dylan but again, I'm 20 so I'm just going along for the ride.  A lot more happened but I'll cut it short.  The road to Bloomington was one LONG road out in the middle of no where but they rode with me to the motel.  We're having a pretty good time talking about Dylan and I must admit that I started getting a crush on this girl.  Halfway through the ride I mentioned that I thought Dylan should quit playing one of the cover's he was doing at the time because I felt a stronger song was needed.  The ladies, like a flip of a switch, looked at me as if I had killed one of their family members and just kept looking at me with some evil eyes.  The young one then grabbed my hand, bite me and said I was a jerk.  The mother then told me how disrespectful I was and how they didn't think they wanted to ride with me the following day.  Being 20, I told them a few select words and said I'd drop them off in the road if they wanted.  They didn't want that so I let them off at the hotel and decided to drive to the next show and get a motel there.

The next day several of the guys I had met at the show asked me if I had gotten "lucky" with the "Crazy Twosome".  I said no, explained what happened and they all pretty much laughed at me.  Turns out this mother/daughter team had been following Dylan for years and the mother for over a decade.  Apparently they were pretty much crazy legends but I hadn't heard of them.  I didn't see them that night but two days later I ran into the daughter at Oxford where she asked for another ride but thankfully that was my final show because I probably would have taken her back with me. 

The three shows in three college towns (which I have several more great stories about, especially Oxford) is the greatest "vacation" I've ever taken and I had always planned to do that type of thing again but after this Dylan never did the full "college to college" tour. 

Is the Tempe incident something to do with him berating fans at a concert?

It was pretty brutal.  The tour was fine in CA but it got rather violent when it left there.  The Tempe show had his opening Christian group getting the boo birds but also items thrown at them.  It's also the only time Dylan refused to do an encore, which is saying something considering how violent the 1966 tour was.  However, I do believe this concert is one of the main reasons he pretty much gave up (with a couple exceptions) until 1997.

Here are a couple good articles:

 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-08-16/music/desolation-row/2

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4758.htm

Here's an audio clip via YouTube:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Ce_QqsH3A

post #1233 of 1550
Oh, man. Brilliant story, Michael, it had me laughing.  Thanks for the contextual stuff on 'born again' Dylan. I'm automatically inclined to like anything that would piss off your average Arizona State tool, so it all sounds pretty interesting.
post #1234 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

09/12/09: I WALK ALONE (Byron Haskin, 1948)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

09/13/09: KISS THE BLOOD OFF MY HANDS (Norman Foster, 1948)

Looks like Mario's been going through my stuff again.  To paraphrase a wise man; while I have recently acquired both of these, I have yet to watch them, either planning on a Lancaster series or saving the Haskin for a retrospective on him.  Was hoping I WALK ALONE would be better received.   
post #1235 of 1550
09/14/09: ROPE OF SAND (William Dieterle, 1949)  

This is the fourth merely adequate Burt Lancaster movie I am watching in a row (as part of my ongoing tribute to him to mark, albeit a month in advance, the fifteenth anniversary of his death) which comes more of a disappointment in this case given the fine director (William Dieterle) and cast (Lancaster, Paul Henried, Claude Rains, Peter Lorre, Sam Jaffe and Mike Mazurki) involved. While it is true that Dieterle's career had already peaked with PORTRAIT OF JENNIE (1948) and went slowly downhill from there, the film's main fault lies is in the surprisingly uninteresting (given the desert location and diamond mine setting) plot that fails to give rise to much excitement or memorable incident. Naturally, with a cast of that calibre, some good scenes or lines cannot be amiss and, in particular, Rains (as a Macchiavelian director of the company) and Henried (effectively cast against type as the brutish foreman) seem to be relishing their roles; conversely, Lorre and Jaffe seem wasted in their underwritten parts of, respectively, a philosophizing fence and an alcoholic doctor. Another liability is leading lady Corinne Calvet: while looking sensual enough as the femme fatale hired by Rains to seduce adventurer Lancaster and eventually falling for him, her thick French accent become decidedly grating after a while! Incidentally, the copy I acquired is taken from a German print - with the opening credits in that language but the film, luckily, in English! I suppose it would be interesting to compare Val Guest's film from another era that I also happen to have in my collection - KILLER FORCE aka THE DIAMOND MERCENARIES (1975) - which, apart from the similar theme, also makes use of a stellar cast (Peter Fonda, Telly Savalas, Christopher Lee, Hugh O'Brian and O.J. Simpson) but, unfortunately, I will not have time to do so at present. I do not know if the fact that I have been watching lightweight fare all Summer long has made me lose patience somewhat with more of the same but, clearly, I was expecting to enjoy ROPE OF SAND more than I eventually did. Or, perhaps I am just overly anxious to start the upcoming Halloween Challenge in October...


Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/18/09 at 10:23pm
post #1236 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Once again, thank God for remakes and screw sequels that are more unoriginal than any remake in the history of motion pictures.

Final Destination, The (in 3-D) (2009)
 

David R. Ellis
 

The fourth and (hopefully) final film in the series decided to change things up by giving fans 3D but as I walked out of the theater I couldn't help but hate the movie as well as this so called choice.  Once again a guy has a premonition that allows him, his three friends and a few others escape certain death.  Soon after that they start dying one by one so they must try and break the chain because they're all dead.  What was once a pretty neat little idea has been beaten to death, dragged to hell and brought back one time too many.  I expected this film to be stupid.  I expected it to feature some bad acting.  I also expected it to feature no story.  What I didn't expect was to walk into a 3D movie that might as well been shot flat because it's apparent the director seemed to forget to have stuff coming towards the screen.  Take the opening sequence at the race track.  We get a great segment where the cars are driving towards the camera and looking as if they are coming towards the viewer.  A great effect.  How many times does this effect happen?  Just once.  The rest of the time we see the cars going around and around yet the 3D is never used.  Throughout the movie there are moments where items are actually going away from the screen, which takes away any possibility for a 3D effect.  When they are used the effects look terrific but as to why they used them so few times is beyond me.  At least MY BLOODY VALENTINE wanted to deliver the goods all around.  The story itself, all 75-minutes of it, is pretty boring as we've been down this road one too many times.  The screenplay is downright awful as we get a Made-for-TV feel that has everything coming off rather fake and stupid.  How the deaths are "set up" are so obviously fake that I couldn't help but roll my eyes and eventually want to get up and walk out.  The performances are all rather bland to fair with only Mykelti Williamson turning in good work.  In the end, this is a pretty bad movie all around but there's no excuse for a 3D movie to be this bland.  

Case Against the 20% Federal Admissions Tax on Motion Picture Theatres, The (1953)
 

The Motion Picture Industry of America produced this document, which was originally meant to be shown to a Congressional committee who were debating on whether or not to lower the 20% tax on admissions.  The film tells us about the thousands of theaters being forced to close throughout the country and how this also effects other businesses around them.  We also learn that theater owners, due to the bad economy, are losing a lot of money because people just aren't coming to the movies anymore.  We even get to hear about how TV is keeping folks away.  I had heard some pretty negative things about this 23-minute short but I somewhat enjoyed what we got here.  There are several big problems including several people talking about their problems yet reading off of cue cards.  This might not be a problem but it's clear a few people are having to read them just to say their name and the name of the theater?  The film beats the subject into the ground but that's to be expected.  One good thing about this film is how we get to view some old theaters and how they looked back in the day.  Seeing the old posters and advertisement was fun and makes the film worth viewing at least once.
 

Bombshell (1933)
 

Victor Fleming

A great cast highlights this MGM comedy that shines the spotlight on 1930's Hollywood.  In the film, Jean Harlow plays the beautiful bombshell who just happens to the be the most miserable "A" list star around.  Not only does she have a seedy reporter (Lee Tracy) making her life hell but she also has a jealous director (Pat O'Brien) and a weak family who just want her cash.  Apparently the story here was partially based on Harlow's life as well as the life of Clara Bow and it would turn out that this comedy would be one of Harlow's most loved.  I wouldn't say I loved the film but it's still quite pleasant to watch due in large part to the wonderful cast.  Harlow is as good as always, delivering a fine comic performance that has her constantly moving, speaking faster, walking faster and getting into more trouble than anyone would care to count.  She does a very good job at playing her part and making it come to life and this is especially true during one great sequence where she tries to adopt a child only to have all her "group" finally push her over the edge and into a breakdown.  While Harlow gets all the credit, there's also no doubt that the supporting cast deserve a lot of attention.  Tracy nearly steals the film as the press agent always starting trouble and Tone is also good in his supporting role.  Frank Morgan gets a few nice laughs as the dimwitted father and O'Brien, as usual, delivers a nice comic performance.  Una Merkel, C. Aubrey Smith and Ted Healy round out the cast.  The film's reputation as one of the greatest screwball comedies is a bit overdone but this is still a film many will want to see and especially fans of the cast.
 

post #1237 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Final Destination, The (in 3-D) (2009)
 

David R. Ellis
 

The story itself, all 75-minutes of it, is pretty boring as we've been down this road one too many times.  The screenplay is downright awful as we get a Made-for-TV feel... 

 


 



Since it meant that I only had to watch the movie for 75 minutes, I thought its short running time was the best thing about it. I said it another thread but even being fully aware of what I was getting into, the script was so bad that I didn't think it could be used as a direct-to-video feature let alone a theatrical release. Obviously, the 3-D was the only thing that anyone cared about and it showed.
post #1238 of 1550
09/15/09: MISTER 880 (Edmund Goulding, 1950)

Based on a true case that happened in 1948, MISTER 880 is a beautifully-made, light-hearted comedy about an elderly, small-time counterfeiter (an Oscar-nominated and Golden Globe-winning turn from Edmund Gwenn) who baffled the U.S. Secret Service for ten whole years. His activities were terminated with the advent of newly-appointed Burt Lancaster - an injection of much-needed fresh blood after the Department had wasted so much time and effort (particularly agent Millard Mitchell) on a wild goose chase. The reason it took them so long to track him down is because Gwenn ingeniously counterfeited only $1 bills and, therefore, his 'victims' did not bother to check their genuineness because the amount was so minimal! When Lancaster takes on the case, he instigates a wide dragnet that hits the spots generally haunted by Mr. 880 (being the case number in the U.S. Secret Service files) including Coney Island; being assiged to this case enables Lancaster to meet a French interpreter at the United Nations (Dorothy McGuire) who happens to live in the same apartment block as Gwenn. Having spent almost nine years as a bank teller myself, I have often 'handled' (i.e. detected or been saddled with) counterfeit money and, obviously, the faked bills - in both local and foreign currencies - were of higher (as in, more worthwhile) denominations. Of course, this is the beauty of Mr. 880's plan which, motivated more out of need than greed, allowed him to go on undetected for as long as he did; another whimsical addition to the film's "stuff" (to use one of its official names in the trade) is its sheer amateurishness - the poverty of the paper used, the misspelling of words, a one and only Serial Number, etc. - which, had the bills been of a higher value, would have attracted attention much earlier. The film's latter stages, in which both Lancaster and McGuire come to realize (separately but virtually simultaneously) that the harmless, neighborly skipper is, in fact, Mr. 880 are handled with remarkable sensitivity that conclude in a, by turns, moving and droll courtroom sequence that bears out the signature of former Frank Capra screenwriter, Robert Riskin.


Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/17/09 at 10:41am
post #1239 of 1550
The Sheltering Sky - At first I didn't care at all about these smug, upper-class twats bumming around North Africa, but eventually the story worked its way under my skin a little bit. The combination of exotic cultures and themes of bourgeois alienation make it feel somewhat like an Antonioni remake of a Herzog film. God, that's a terrible analogy, I'm trying to be clever and failing miserably because I don't really have much to say. Bertolucci is pervy as ever... if its not Brando's buttered bum, or Deniro and Depardieu getting simultaneous handjobs, then it's Malkovich's schlong filling half of the frame. Storaro's photography is beautiful, but that's kind of a given by now. There still hasn't been another Bertolucci film that blew me away like The Conformist did. They've all been merely okay (except 1900 which is aesthetically pleasant but otherwise ridiculous). The casting may have been an issue here; I don't find Debra Winger very compelling, but then again maybe that suits the character. I dunno, it's a thoughtful movie but it just didn't have that magic spark to it. Rating: 7


Fletch (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I didn't really want to buy this movie on Blu-Ray, but since Netflix had it, it gave me an excuse for one more viewing. It's not a film that benefits greatly from hi-def, but the disc is transparent, something neato I've never seen before. The great one-liners still hold up, as does Chevy Chase's flippant performance, and even the plot is not a bad little mystery. The soundtrack, however, is an obnoxious abomination, and the action scenes feel perfunctory. "Are you using the whole fist, doc?" Rating: 7


Horror of Dracula - With so much of it done in static medium shots, it feels a bit stagey and lacks the gothic creepiness of some of the other Dracula/Nosferatu tellings. But what it does have is economy. This film moves like gangbusters, and the fangs are out within the first 15 minutes. Peter Cushing does a good job as Van Helsing, and Christopher Lee is naturally a terrific Dracula, although one wishes he had more lines. There are of course the sexual undertones, but those are so ubiquitous in vampire stories that they're hardly worth mentioning. A pretty good score rounds out this fun (if not especially impressive) movie. Rating: 7
post #1240 of 1550
Thread Starter 
The "wider" view actually helps this thread quite a bit.  Especially the look on page 1.


Travis, it's funny but there was a big gap in the film where I actually forgot I was watching a 3-D movie and only "noticed" it when I went to scratch my eye and hit the glasses.  Even though I'm a horror fan I usually don't go see all the new releases like I have this year.  I guess I'll see JENNIFER'S BODY in the new few weeks, although I must admit to not understanding the why around Fox. 


post #1241 of 1550
"Even though I'm a horror fan I usually don't go see all the new releases like I have this year.  I guess I'll see JENNIFER'S BODY in the new few weeks, although I must admit to not understanding the why around Fox."

Since late last year, I've been going to the movies a ton. I've seen almost 40 movies in the theaters this year (and that doesn't count what I saw two or three times and a few revivals). I probably haven't been to the theater that much in the previous three years total.

I liked Juno alot so I'll be checking out Jennifer's Body this weekend. As for Megan Fox, I think she did grow as an actor between the two Transformer movies (from laughably awful in the first to the barest minimum acting ability acceptable in the second) so she can only go up in Jennifer's Body... hopefully.
post #1242 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

Horror of Dracula - With so much of it done in static medium shots, it feels a bit stagey and lacks the gothic creepiness of some of the other Dracula/Nosferatu tellings. But what it does have is economy. This film moves like gangbusters, and the fangs are out within the first 15 minutes. Peter Cushing does a good job as Van Helsing, and Christopher Lee is naturally a terrific Dracula, although one wishes he had more lines. There are of course the sexual undertones, but those are so ubiquitous in vampire stories that they're hardly worth mentioning. A pretty good score rounds out this fun (if not especially impressive) movie. Rating: 7

Nice to see some rare criticism of this.  But still not nearly enough.  I think we've had this conversation before..but I don't care.

Yes it was a landmark and the sexuality, fangs and general violence were a big jump. 
Cushing is great (as is the new style Van Helsing), Lee has presence...And it's down hill from there.

As an adaptation it is a truly awful film.
It not only removes every single classic set-piece from Stoker's novel but it has none of the scope.
Lee may make a memorable VAMPIRE but he's a non-starter as The Count because "Hammer' made him almost mute! As such some very powerful Dracula dialogue is lost!

The support cast is not on good form, the famous sets look far too clean n shiny, the famed lighting is more like a spotlight than a candle light and the worst is yet to come...

The entire point of Harker was that he was US. The reader.
At the start of the novel we know nothing of what is to come or who (or what) Dracula is. We take the same journey into horror as Harker.
It is absolutely essential to the plotting and success of these early scenes that Harker is an innocent thrown into an unimaginable nightmare.
But what do silly old 'Hammer' do? They make Harker a fully up on the game, in the know, Vampire Hunter!
So much for the horror of discovery!

Which of course opens up a self-made plot-hole of gigantic proportions.
In the novel Harker is no damn Vampire Hunter, he is a terrified Clerk! 
As such his failure to kill Dracula is perfectly understandable.
The sight of a Vampire in the coffin and the opening of its eyes would of course be a terrible moment for a Solicitor's Clerk!

In Hammer's version though we have a Harker whose only reason for being there IS to kill Dracula! 
And yet he chooses to kill a simple minion first, thus giving himself no time at all to kill the defenceless Dracula (who was helpless right next to him!!) and thus fails in the one task he was there for and prepared for!
Not only is that silly it's quite simply the ONLY thing the writers can do to cover up their mistake. Because if Harker does not ignore Dracula their film ends just as it's starting as their Vampire Hunter Harker would otherwise have destroyed The Count!

Stoker gave them a perfectly crafted character and plot with no holes..Hammer decides they know better and make a complete farce of it!

post #1243 of 1550
 THE INVISIBLE MANIAC
Breasts.
More breasts.
Arses.
Forced sub sandwich eating.
Death by being jumped up.
Even more breasts.
Shotgun splatter.
Crappy/fun acting.
Dead jocks.
A few more breasts.
More arses.
Bad jokes.
Fying bras.
A fight between *two* invisible people and damn it...MORE breasts!
Not a good film though!

BLACK SUN: THE NANKING MASSACRE
Too episodic to truly grip you as far as the characters are concerned because the film re-creates one true event and/or atrocity after another with the very few characters we actually get to know leading us to each of these re-creations but doing little else.

But there are some really powerful, shocking moments and sights and the last 15 minutes piles on the kind of heartbreaking, horrifying, up close and personal tragedy the rest of the film was mostly lacking.
And the final scene is amazingly powerful and affecting.

Plus it can be taken far more seriously as a studious, dramatic condemnation of atrocity than the more widely seen, far more exploitative, "Men Behind the Sun".
 
post #1244 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post


Nice to see some rare criticism of this.  But still not nearly enough. 

You said it. And here are my notes:

***
As you can see by my rating, I like this film and think it's a good one. But the main thrust of my comments here will be to convey my personal opinion that, while I enjoy it for what it is, I do think it's also overpraised by many horror fans worldwide who seem to elevate it to iconic status, above and beyond all others of its ilk. "Horror of Dracula" is indeed a rousing vampire film, and a notable offering to feature the legendary character of Count Dracula. It is probably the first quintessential film I'd recommend to see if you're new to Hammer Horror; but when considered as the "definitive" be-all and end-all representation of Bram Stoker's immortal horror tale, it falls short.

In this obviously expedient version, the British Hammer studio tried to utilize a tight budget to full effect, and in the process attempted to present modern audiences with a completely different type of Dracula than they were accustomed to in Bela Lugosi's previous performance. So it is that "Horror of Dracula" tries to make up for having little money by spicing up the proceedings with a strong dose of fangs, hisses, blood, and a very speedy pacing, in what was probably an effort to distract from the cheapness as well as "improve" upon the more lethargic movement of the 1931 Tod Browning classic. And guess what? For many people, it worked! Audiences lapped up this approach, and the movie was a great hit both then and now. For many today, Christopher Lee has replaced Bela Lugosi as the true embodiment of Count Dracula for all time. Speaking for myself, I will always prefer Lugosi's rendering of the role, but Lee comes in at second place.

The story in "Horror of Dracula" is pretty basic, with Dracula staking a claim on victims, and then the great vampire hunter Van Helsing (expertly played by Peter Cushing) arriving to challenge his bloody rampage and hopefully save the day. As with just about any cinematic revision, some specific changes were made. And I've always felt they hampered the movie from becoming the truly "great" masterpiece which so many inexplicably believe it is:

1.) In this version, Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula (actually, with the meager budget it looks more like a cozy little cottage) fully aware of who and what Dracula is, but with the intention of posing as the vampire's librarian before actually destroying him. He also arrives on a bright and sunny afternoon (probably due to insufficient cash flow for night filming) which I feel ruins a good chance for chills and shudders.

2.)I also don't like that the voyage to England is gone.

3.) The character of Renfield has been completely written out. Now, in all fairness there were liberties taken in Browning's "Dracula" too, of course, but those worked for me (such as Renfield being the one to visit Drac and then being turned into his slave).

4.) Dracula's lack of any good dialogue. Bela Lugosi has more juicy dialogue in the 1931 film than Christopher Lee gets to speak in all of his many Hammer Dracula films combined! Aside from Lee's talk about there being "a great many volumes to be indexed" what else does he have to say? In the Lugosi film there are so many: "Listen to them - children of the night ... what music they make!" "I never drink --- wine..." "To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious!" "There are far worse things awaiting man -- than death..." "For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you are a wise man, Van Helsing.."

3.) Though I do like Chris Lee as Dracula, my preference for his look and style comes more in later films. He's just too young in "Horror of Dracula" (he was only 36 at the time) and he relies way too much on just showing his teeth and hissing, and springing over tables like some acrobat. I'll take the deliberately slow, creepy and otherworldly strange creature as played by Bela Lugosi easily.

4.) The loud and deafening score by James Bernard is sometimes way overblown for a picture like this. Some of it is deliciously ominous and works perfectly (like in an early scene where a vampire woman eyes Harker's throat with a compulsion to bite) but the over-blasting of horns and trumpets are enough to wake the dead.

5.) The lack of supernatural abilities by Dracula is a tragic mistake. He doesn't change into bats or wolves, for instance. And not only doesn't he do these things in this but the Jimmy Sangster script even has the nerve to go out of its way to claim those old tales are "common fallacy"!

The final result is a good, solid, entertaining vampire movie that is not really "Dracula". In closing, I can't and won't take anything away from Peter Cushing. He's marvelous. And the final sequence where he meets up with Dracula for the grand finale is admittedly one of the highlights in all of cinematic horror.

post #1245 of 1550
Thread Starter 

It seems everything you didn't like about the movie are items that were changed from what your preferences were.  Do you really think the film would have improved if they had given Lee better lines or even the lines from the 1931 version?  I think people, myself included, would have attacked the film for trying to be that 1931 film.  This film helped bring in eye candy and throwing out the brain candy. 

It's funny this whole discussion broke out because yesterday I was walking around Borders looking for a book to take to work and read.  While walking around I saw a copy of Dracula and carried it around for a while because I thought about reading it since so many fans get upset over all the movies not being faithful.  I don't hear so many complaints about this in regards to Jekyll and Hyde or Frankenstein so I thought I'd give Dracula another read to see what everyone was so unhappy about.  I've only read it once but I remember the book being rather boring and having many dry spots.


Souls for Sale (1923)
 

Rupert Hughes
 

A young woman, Remember Steddon (Eleanor Boardman) is on a train, hours after her wedding to an evil man (Lew Cody) when she decides to jump overboard.  She walks through the desert only to be rescued by a movie actor and his director (Richard Dix) who eventually falls for the woman and swears to make her a star.  This Goldwyn Pictures release has become quite famous over the years due to several famous cameos that pop up throughout the running time.  The most famous is a scene with Erich von Stroheim directing a scene from GREED and one of Chaplin directing A WOMAN IN PARIS.  We also gets scenes from THE ETERNAL THREE and THE FAMOUS MRS. FAIR, which is important as both of these films are now lost so seeing the footage here is the only thing we have left.  We also get cameos from various other famous faces but in the end, all this sidetrack really takes away from the actual story trying to be told.  That story itself really isn't all that interesting or entertaining as it's quite bland and straight-forward even for 1923 standards.  The entire subplot with the husband being a serial killer really seems out of place and leads to some rather silly drama.  What does work are the performances with Boardman coming off extremely good here.  She's very believable in the "ordinary" role and the young Dix is also quite good as the leading man.  Mae Busch, Barbara La Marr and Frank Mayo are also nice in their roles.  Cody is good as the serial killer even though his character wasn't needed.  Back in the 20's and 30's Hollywood was great at making movies about itself.  This one here isn't one of the best but there are enough curious aspect for film buffs to give it a shot.
 

Uncle Tom's Cabin (1927)
 

Harry A. Pollard
 

Universal dropped $2 million on this adaptation of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, which had been one of the best selling books other than the Bible.  The film tells the story of slaves Eliza (Margarita Fischer) and George (Arthur Edmund Carewe) who, after being married, get sold off and spend the rest of the film trying to locate their kid.  Also sold off and taken away from his family is Uncle Tom (James B. Lowe) whose prayers don't sit too well with his new master.  One has to consider when this film was made and what people then actually thought about black people.  This movie has its heart in the right place but I'm sure many would watch this film and find it nearly as racist as something like THE BIRTH OF A NATION.  With this film, the blacks are shown to be human but we get the same stupid stereotypes that had hampered countless films before this one.  We get blacks standing around with their eyes bugged out with large smiles on their face.  We get the "so happy to be a slave" routine, which includes fun dancing and singing.  It's always rather strange to see the slaves being shown as happy as their rich owners.  The roles of Eliza and George were light-skinned characters in the book and they're played by white people here.  That's somewhat to be expected as most black characters were played by whites in blackface but thankfully the director didn't do that here with Uncle Tom and many of the supporting characters.  This film was groundbreaking in the use of black actors and on a historic level, this keeps the movie entertaining throughout.  Lowe also gives the best performance in the film and delivers a character who will certainly touch the viewer in his strength.  The actor does the role justice, which is all you can ask for.  Virginia Grey made her film debut here and is quite charming.  The rest of the cast members act as if they're doing a stage play but they're fairly good.  The film does have a few interesting technical achievements with two coming during a death scene where we get a beautiful camera shot and then a nice special effect of a spirit going to Heaven.  The ending is also quite powerful as Uncle Tom's master goes crazy and begins abusing various people. 

Shack Out on 101 (1955)
 

Edward Dein
 

Insane cult movie starts off as some sort of bizarre comedy before turning into an over-dramatic, Red Scare film.  Terry Moore plays a waitress at a rundown shack that seems to get the same customers night after night.  Her boss and restaurant owner (Keenan Wynn) has a crush on her but she belongs to a Professor (Frank Lovejoy).  The cook, Slob (Lee Marvin) has his own plans for the waitress and might be hiding a few more secrets.  Okay, I had heard a lot of good things about this movie but you never know what you're going to get we you check into a cult film.  I found there to be some rather funny stuff early on but I thought the second half really fell apart as we get into more drama.  The drama never worked for me because it was rather confusing trying to figure out what the movie was trying to do.  For the life of me I couldn't understand why the first half had so much trashy humor only for it to disappear and turn into a warning picture.  I still can't figure out what the bad guys were trying to do to begin with.  What works the best is all the insult humor and some of it is downright hilarious.  The insults thrown at Marvin's Slob character gets the most laughs because he fits the part so well.  Marvin clearly steals the film and his great performance is enough of a reason to watch the movie.  Lovejoy is pretty bland in his role but Wynn is great and matches wits with Marvin quite well.  Moore is easy on the eyes but delivers little else.  Whit Bissell turns in a nice supporting performance.  In the end, this remains a must see due to Marvin's performance but I wish they'd kept the entire film like the first half. 
 

Royal Rodeo, The (1939)
 

George Amy
 

Silly and rather predictable Western/Musical from Warner has a young King (Scotty Beckett) looking up to cowboy star Bill Stevens (John Payne).  The King eventually gets to meet his hero when the traveling rodeo comes to town and sure enough, the King is going to need to be saved from a bad assistant.  This film has a few nice things going for it but not the items you might expect.  Payne, before becoming a star, manages to be pretty good here even if his line reading is a tad bit hollow.  The rodeo stuff is rather bland as we've seen the stunts done various times before and there's really nothing new added to them here.  Where the film does succeed is with the music, which includes tracks such as 'Yankee Doodle', 'Oh! Susanna', 'The Good Old American Way' and a couple others.  Another plus is the Technicolor, which really looks nice even if the print on Turner Classic Movies is somewhat faded in certain scenes.  

America, Preferred (1941)
 

The U.S. Department of the Treaury, along with MGM, produced this 7-minute short, which asks Americans to buy U.S. Defense bonds and Saving bonds.  We get a soldier addressing movie crowds and telling them how they can help the country win the war by not even leaving their homes.  We then get the story of how bonds are going to save the country.  History buffs will more than likely find this thing a lot more entertaining that just a film fan wanting entertainment.  There's really nothing overly special here in terms of filmmaking but one can't deny the interesting aspect of the film because of the history behind it. 
 

Speed Week (1957)
 

Howard Winner

Yet another entry in the hardly-ever interesting RKO/Sportscope series, which has been showing up on Turner Classic Movies the past several months.  This time out we travel to Nassau, Bahamas where we see the famous "Speed Week" where various automobile races are held.  Andre Baruch once again does the narration and once again nearly put me to sleep.  The more I see from this series the more I'm starting to think its main goal was trying to have the same magic as MGM's Passing Parade or TravelTalks series.  This series from RKO rarely comes close to either of those and this here is another example of a film that doesn't work.  The narration always hits me as being a tad bit off from what we're actually seeing.  When there's comedy on the screen the narration seems to be dry and dark.  When there's something more dramatic on the screen then we get a light hearted narration of the events.  The visuals here aren't too bad but in the end this short comes off pretty lifeless.
 

Striper Time (1956) **
 

Van Campen Heilner

RKO/Sportscope entry has Andre Baruch once again providing the narration.  This time we're in Gayhead, MA as we see a couple fishermen getting ready to go after striped bass who are also known as striper.  We see the two fishermen getting ready, preparing to go out and eventually catching the film.  Pretty much every negative thing I've said about previous entries in this series still hold true here.  We get the bland and boring narration and we also get told a bunch of stuff and none of it is very interesting.  For starters, do we really need to hear about the "big wimpy pole"?  I personally don't think so but it seems this series tells more worthless information and I'm not sure why.  The actual fishing scenes are quite nice as is some other footage at the start of the film shot on the docks but this is pretty much it.

They're Always Caught (1938)
 

Harold S. Bucquet
 

Another nice entry in MGM's Crime Does Not Pay series.  This time out a tough Mayor is trying to get all the corruption out of the city.  He learns that the D.A. is working with a crime lord so he asks for his resignation.  Later that night the D.A. plants a bomb in the Mayor's car, killing him and throwing blame on an innocent man.  It seems like an easy case but the latest technologies make it far from being over.  This short seemed to be made just to show criminals that there are new ways for them to get caught.  The use of hair, fingernails and dust was something new back then and it was nice seeing the way the equipment was used to gather all the evidence.  This film does a nice job at breaking everything down where people back then would be able to understand what was going on even though by doing this the actual story of the film takes a few hits.  This film would later be remade as KID GLOVE KILLER but I've yet to see it to compare how close they are.  Received an Oscar-nomination.

Glimpses of Florida (1941)
 

James A. FitzPatrick
 

One of the better entries in MGM's TravelTalks series takes a short trip to Florida where we get to see and learn a few interesting things.  The short starts off telling us how palm trees came to be a staple in the state and then we get to see some of the extremely nice tourist locations.  Swanee River is shown as are some Seminole Indians living along its shore.  The most interesting sites are those of a reptile institute where we see turtles and alligators being caught by some workers as well as rattlesnakes being milked for their venom.  The underwater photography looks incredibly well here and this is one reason why this short works so well.  The stuff with the gators and turtle was a lot of fun and looks extremely well in the wonderful Technicolor.  Fans of the series will certainly want to check this one out but so will those who usually turn the station when TCM airs on of these shorts.

Amalfi Way (1955)
 

A rather bland short from MGM takes us on a tour of the Amalfi coast in South Italy.  We take a look at the coastline, which as the documentary tell us, has several Juliet's for the various Romeo's out there.  We also see various famous churches and get an idea of what it would be like to visit them.  This is a pretty boring short from start to finish and it doesn't help that narrator John Costello appears to be falling asleep while working.  The camerawork isn't all that interesting and one has to wonder why MGM was trying to copy their own TravelTalks series, which ended a year earlier.  It's clear they were going for the same effect but this thing here just comes off as a lazy copycat.
 

Optical Poem, An (1937)
 

Oskar Fischinger

This 6-minute animated short is considered by many to have been the inspiration for Disney's FANTASIA.  This film contains various animated images being played to Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 and makes for quite a ride.  In his day, director Fischinger was pretty much overlooked and after during down a job offer from Disney, he would eventually be fired by both MGM and Paramount.  His animation career never took off in the movies but years later his work began to be reevaluated and today's he's considered one of the best.  This, considered his best film, is pretty strong in terms of its visual style even though it's rather simple.  A blue background with various circles, squares and other images.  The film moves along quite well, although the six-minutes do start to get a bit long towards the end.




 

post #1246 of 1550
 So much to say;

JOE - Wise words of much wiseness.  The complete mutation of Harker is utterly lousy.  
Plus it actually made no difference to how the plot plays out later.  He still could have been an innocent (OH, how fucking vital that word is to the character) and simply a friend of Van Helsing's.

To have a Vampire Hunter simply ignore the very vampire he has come to kill is madness, and if you are going to have him 'mess up' the eventual attempt ANYWAY, why on earth make him a Vampire Hunter (which makes his dithering simply annoying) and not a terrified innocent?

Of course 'Hammer' could not film all the novel's events.  Or perhaps even do the trip to the New World (again..a vital symbolic journey for Dracula), but why remove such gems (superbly written in the novel with some SUPERB verbal interaction and dialogue from Dracula) as the Brides/baby sequence?  Censorship avoidance?  Perhaps....But the BBC managed to film it for their TV version of the story.

And with the loss of Dracula's journey we do indeed lose the astonishing tale of Dracula's doomed ship and crew.  
Plus we lose those iconic English Gothic set-pieces and atmosphere.
We also lose the sheer animal, sexual brutality of The Count in scenes like the one where Mina is having her face forcibly shoved down onto Dracula's lacerated chest and made to drink (and so many idiot adaptions try to make the Mina/Dracula 'relationship' a love story!).  Perhaps censorship again?

It would at least be better if Hammer had replaced the events in Stoker's novel with something else equally as good.  But they don't (finale aside).  Face it...remove Cushing's classy action man Van Helsing and the (then) novelty of seeing blood and fangs and there is very little left in the film, Lee's general presence aside.


And I agree on the much loved set design and look.  It IS rather lovely and has the novelty of being full colour.  But it's got fuck all atmosphere!  
And yes, Harker's night time arrival and all the creeping uneasiness it brings is sorely missed.
And as for the Castle...Where is the aged decay?  The Gothic tomb of immortal stagnation?  The faded glory?  The damn HORROR atmosphere?
Franco's (otherwise barmy) adaptation due to it's real world locations and dank underground chambers captured the chilling atmosphere of Castle Dracula far better than anything here.  As bold as it all is.


As for Drac's dialogue....MICHAEL;

Well I agree that there is no way we welcome any of the Lugosi dialogue (some is great, some cheesy as hell and some far to familiar to work in anything but a parody), but you don't need to!
Use some of the superb dialogue in the novel you are meant to be adapting!  Lots of choice passages with The Count's speech to his hungry Brides being simply marvellous and character building.

Lee is a good VAMPIRE, but a rather non-event Count.  The Count is just as important a character as his Vampire side.
And this is a real shame because in Lee 'Hammer' had a top notch actor with superb vocal delivery!
Check out his magnificent line readings in "The Wicker Man" (especially in the essential longer cut with its 'snail' speech) and imagine THAT Count performance in-between his Vampire performance.

The novel IS rather sluggish and overlong.  It can indeed be quite heavily edited and still work very well...because there would still be SO MUCH greatness left.  
But 'Hammer' it seems threw out the great scenes with the padding and found out they had nothing left but (at the time) novelty visuals.




post #1247 of 1550

"Bronson"

Well what can one say?
A demented surrealist pantomime salted with brutal violence, tragedy, madness and the foulest and funniest of language. All of which is used to tell the fascinating tale of a small time thug who got a 7 year sentence for armed robbery but ended up spending 34 (and counting) years in prison...30 in solitary(!!)...for his constant assaults and kidnappings on Prison Service staff. 34 years where he gave birth to his alta-ego 'Charles Bronson' and became the most violent, costly, dangerous and ultimately famous prisoner in British penal history.

And an accomplished artist and writer to boot. As the mad, smart, sad, whimsical, tragic, charismatic, farcical and super scary Human art installation Bronson, Tom Hardy is simply outstanding.
Channeling the utterly unique personage and unforgettable physicality that is the real 'Charles Bronson' (whatever indeed THAT means!) Hardy still manages to deliver a tour de force of serious acting that kills stone dead any criticism he's just doing an impersonation.
And physically it's a truly unforgettable performance as well. The hard as nails Bronson physique, mad moustache, wonderful vocal weirdness, the facial gymnastics and almost primordial brutality and razor sharp wit and artistic vitality of the man are all present and correct. As is a gloriously unfettered attitude to full male nudity, the two sequences of which are truly brilliant and memorable, as Hardy even puts Harvey Keitel to shame in the swinging artistic penis stakes.

The film is part bio, part art show, part acid trip, part parody and part shockingly realistic drama. With faux stage act scenes, camera tricks, delightfully eclectic soundtrack, hyperrealism, surrealist fantasy, intentional camp and astute psychological study give us a very personal, utterly abstract, painfully grim and wildly entertaining portrait of a man who has become a bizarre British icon.

But the film never glamourises or makes excuses for a man of extreme, unpredictable (though never actually lethal) violence, demented thoughts, inexcusable actions and sociopathic danger.
Yet it also shows the unique mind at work, the raw artistic skill, the sharp brain, the social awareness and fascinating personality of a man who literally re-invented himself through art and writing. It has been accused of lauding the man and glamorising the violence in him.
But it is telling that the film does not end on the 'mime' make-up covered, wildly grinning Bronson commanding his fantasy audience on the psychological stage of fame and infamy he loves so much...But instead ends on the shocking image of a blood covered, wild eyed, lacerated Bronson painfully trying to stand up in a metal cage not much bigger than himself. And aurally , it does not end on the sound of celebrity Bronson laughing on stage...but end on the very real, physical plain bound Bronson screaming, rasping and moaning as he tries to push aside the cage walls that hem in him as he stands clothed in nothing but his own blood.

He would never have been the man, yes even the infamous celebrity and lauded artiste, he is without that 35 odd years of extreme incarceration...and yet would any of us really want to pay such a gigantic price? Stunning!
post #1248 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

It seems everything you didn't like about the movie are items that were changed from what your preferences were.  Do you really think the film would have improved if they had given Lee better lines or even the lines from the 1931 version?  I think people, myself included, would have attacked the film for trying to be that 1931 film.  This film helped bring in eye candy and throwing out the brain candy. 
 


I don't say it should be the 1931 film. I actually give both movies the same rating of *** each, so I think there's room for both interpretations. I just think the Hammer film could have been more like Stoker. No films have nailed the book perfectly, and that also goes for the Lugosi version. But I prefer the liberties taken in the 1931 film better than the ones taken in the Hammer film (I like the idea of Renfield being the one who falls victim to Dracula in the Lugosi movie; I do not like Harker being a Vampire Hunter in the Lee movie). I also think there are less changes in the '31 than the '58. 
post #1249 of 1550
09/16/09: JIM THORPE ~ ALL–AMERICAN (Michael Curtiz, 1951)

Not being much of an athlete myself, it follows that I am no sports fan but, sometimes, movies dealing with that topic have managed to be engrossing for me nonetheless and, to some degree, the film under review is another such example. At 38, Burt Lancaster is absurdly overage playing renowned Native American athlete Jim Thorpe as a student but, overall, he is ideally cast as the man who became known as “America's greatest athlete of the first half of the twentieth century.” I would not really know but Thorpe’s feat of excelling in just about every sport he tried his hand (or feet) at – from racing to long jump, from javelin to high jump, from baseball to football, etc. – is probably unparalleled in the history of sports. As a biopic, it follows the standard pattern of similar Hollywood fare: from rebellious childhood to uneasy student to formidable athlete to Olympic champion, followed by first professional and later personal tragedy and the subsequent, gradual fall from grace (including divorce and public humiliation). Equally typical of the genre, however, is the heavy streamlining of the subject’s life that, in this case, jettisons Thorpe’s other two wives and his Hollywood career as an extra in several notable films like KING KONG (1933) and WHITE HEAT (1949).  Prolific director Curtiz adds another biopic to his repertoire (even if it fails to scale the heights of the best of them) and the cast is rounded up by Charles Bickford (as Thorpe’s coach and conscience), Phyllis Taxter (as his first wife), Steve Cochran (as his rival in love and football team-mate!), Dick Wesson (as his best friend) and Nestor Paiva (as his resigned but sensible Indian father). By sheer coincidence, just yesterday I came across Kon Ichikawa's acclaimed documentary of the 1964 Olympics, TOKYO OLYMPIAD (1965) and, under the circumstances, I could not pass up a chance to acquire it! 

 
09/17/09: SOUTH SEA WOMAN (Arthur Lubin, 1953)  

The least significant entry in Warners’ 5-Disc “Burt Lancaster Signature Collection” is this obscure but harmless WWII action comedy that is sufficiently enjoyable without being remotely memorable. The film starts out with Lancaster refusing to defend himself in the court-martial he is facing and the events unfold in flashback as the various witnesses give their testimony: Lancaster is a U.S. marine who (together with his pal Chuck Connors and the latter’s fiancee Virginia Mayo) ‘deserts’ to a tropical island on the eve of the Pearl Harbor sneak attack where they proceed to live it up over there for a while, in the company of local madame (Veola Vonn), her three nieces and assorted beachcombers (including Arthur Shields). However, when a Dutch captain visits the island on his yacht, Lancaster and Co. steal it to go “have a crack at those Japs” – to borrow Errol Flynn’s famous last words in Raoul Walsh’s DESPERATE JOURNEY (1942); this leads to a rousing action climax in which the renegade band of islanders take on the Japanese fleet and manage to sink one of their ships – with Connors sacrifing his life in the process and leaving the way open for the budding romance between Lancaster and Mayo (reunited here three years after their joint partipation in Jacques Tourneur’s colorful adventure, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW) to bloom. In any case, Lancaster would experience Pearl Harbor first hand in his next picture, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953), but two final things worthy of note about SOUTH SEA WOMAN are: a young Strother Martin is clearly recognizable sitting next to Mayo in the courtroom and the eventual fate of the seaside dive might well have inspired a similar incident in, of all things, PORKY’S (1982)!!    

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/19/09 at 12:56am
post #1250 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post



 


Joe,

If you deemed my *** rating of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009), THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), etc. "overrated" (based on the relative trashing they received in my review), I hope you don't mind if I feel the same about you and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)!

Ashamedly, I've never read the Bram Stoker book even though I've had it for years in my personal library (but my twin brother has, though); anyway, my point is that you're taking the film to task for not being what it's expected to be (or should be). Is this the way we should be judging every film adaptation?

Your objections as to the inconsistencies in the plot which have arisen from the liberties taken with the original text (like making Harker a vampirer hunter but then proceed to have him leave Dracula's staking for last!) are all valid, of course, but surely the same can be said about the inconsistencies between, say, FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935). If the changes in BRIDE don't bother you enough so as to tamper with its "all-time greatest horror film" reputation, why should it be different in the case of Terence Fisher's DRACULA and its claim for "the best vampire film" or whatever? Or are there two weights and two measures depending on the film at hand?  

For the record, I hold F. W. Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) to be the greatest vampire film but should I criticize it for making its vampire of such ratty ugliness as to be instantly repellent - rather than attractive as Lugosi and Lee would be (and, frankly, as all vampires should be in order to lure its victims)? 

Actually, all this talk of the film and the previous one about revisits has made Hammer's first DRACULA film a prime candidate for re-valuation during next month's Halloween Challenge...but, then, I've seen BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960) just once! Decisions, Decisions!

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/19/09 at 1:32am
post #1251 of 1550


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

Joe,

If you deemed my *** rating of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009), THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), etc. "overrated" (based on the relative trashing they received in my review), I hope you don't mind if I feel the same about you and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)!


I don't mind. It's called opinion.
 

anyway, my point is that you're taking the film to task for not being what it's expected to be (or should be). Is this the way we should be judging every film adaptation?


No, not necessarily. I like some changes in certain adaptations because they're different. Some of those changes I like, others I don't. Read on ...
 


Your objections as to the inconsistencies in the plot which have arisen from the liberties taken with the original text (like making Harker a vampirer hunter but then proceed to have him leave Dracula's staking for last!) are all valid, of course, but surely the same can be said about the inconsistencies between, say, FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935). If the changes in BRIDE don't bother you enough so as to tamper with its "all-time greatest horror film" reputation, why should it be different in the case of Terence Fisher's DRACULA and its claim for "the best vampire film" or whatever? Or are there two weights and two measures depending on the film at hand?  


Bingo. As I often say, there is not a "one size fits all" way of viewing movies, at least not with me. Sometimes a horror movie can be downright silly and actually charm me (BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN) and other times I can despise it (AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON). Why this is exactly, I don't know - but I guess there are other elements to the first film in this case which still greatly appeal to me, like James Whale's direction, the character of the Frankenstein  Monster, the flamboyance of Ernest Thesiger, the music soundtrack, the fairytale quality, the story itself, the moody black and white photography, etc.. 

I don't always subscribe to the idea of "you should not judge a movie for what YOU wanted it to be"... people do this all the time. Someone may be turned off completely to "slasher films" and so those types of films never appeal or work to that person.  In that case, if you're a fan of the slasher genre and you want to gauge someone's valued opinion, I wouldn't read someone who instinctively trashes them and doesn't care for them. That's what it means to be an individual critic, giving one's own personal take on a movie. And I guess we'll tend to appreciate a critic's style that seems more in tune with our own.  If there is only "one correct way to review a movie" - and if everyone should be approaching it exactly the same way like an exact science  - then why do we need various points of view from all people on movies at all? Why would the world ever need more than one critic?
 


For the record, I hold F. W. Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) to be the greatest vampire film but should I criticize it for making its vampire of such ratty ugliness as to be instantly repellent - rather than attractive as Lugosi and Lee would be (and, frankly, as all vampires should be in order to lure its victims)? 


That's all up to you - how it sits with you. It's supposed to be Mario Gauci's opinion and point of view; it's Mario's Review.
 

Actually, all this talk of the film and the previous one about revisits has made Hammer's first DRACULA film a prime candidate for re-valuation during next month's Halloween Challenge...but, then, I've seen BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960) just once! Decisions, Decisions!
 

I think BRIDES OF DRACULA is a superior film.
post #1252 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

I think BRIDES OF DRACULA is a superior film.
 

Hey, Joe...I don't know if you should talk to a moderator about your Quotes' stubborn "invisibility"!

There's not much that I can add to your reply except to acknowledge your valid points.I still don't agree with you on the inappropriateness of the humor in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) but, that's O.K...it's what's called an "opinion".   
post #1253 of 1550
Yeah, I don't know what's up with the quote thing. You can always just itemize the sections and put them in "Bold", I guess... 
post #1254 of 1550
Forty Guns - Hey, a Fuller film I actually like. I guess I just need to stick to the early stuff. For me the highlight was the fantastic widescreen photography, making excellent use of low-angle shots. Particularly stunning were the opening sequence (Barbara Stanwyck and her massive posse riding towards the camera, from the vantage point of underneath a stagecoach) and the exciting tornado scene. The plot is a little standard, but still keeps you interested. I'm a bit tired of "death of the old West" motifs (sometimes it seems like there aren't any Westerns that are NOT about the death of the old West) but it's not overbearing and the way the characters lament their roles is interesting. Probably the biggest flaw is acting. Stanwyck's terrific and Barry Sullivan is okay, but the supporting cast is pretty weak. Rating: 8


Bay of Angels - Another excellent movie by Demy. I've enjoyed so much of his stuff, I really need to go back and re-evaluate his signature work, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, which I wasn't too hot on the first time. This one is about a young man who develops a taste for the roulette wheel, which leads him into a doomed relationship with a doomed woman (radiantly played by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau). It's not an especially substantial film, and the ending is questionable, but it just carries you along. Demy seems to capture the allure and pitfalls of gambling quite well, and its interesting to watch how the dynamic shifts between Jean and Jackie as their luck changes. Michel Legrand provides another charming, airy score. Rating: 8


A Lesson in Love (rewatch) - This really isn't that bad, on a second viewing. The best parts are the give-and-take quarrels between Bjornstrand and Dahlbeck (recalling their roles in Secrets of Women). That's where most of the humor lies. The other attempts at comedy aren't very successful, but they have a certain charm to them. At its low points (the goofy music cues, the "okay it's all over now" bit at the end of the wedding fight) it's a little bit stupid, but for the most part the worst you can say is it just isn't all that funny. But it's decent. Rating: 6


Man of Aran - Another semi-documentary ethnographic study from Robert Flaherty. This one examines the lives of people barely scratching out an existence on tiny, barren islands off the coast of Ireland. When you see them scrounging through craggy crevices for a basketful of soil, you just want to yell at the screen "MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE", but one still admires their resourcefulness and determination. The film basically focuses on three episodes: bringing in the fishing net, catching a shark, and a rough struggle against the elements ("the sea was angry that day, my friends... like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli"). If you've got a thing against watching guys in boats, you should probably skip this movie. Flaherty overestimates how long these events can be interesting. The shark part in particular seems to go on forever. But the photography and editing is first-rate, and it mostly manages to be engaging. Flaherty's work isn't really my bag (I only watched this one because it's #311 on the TSPDT list), I usually get something out of them. Rating: 7


Living It Up - A typical Martin & Lewis scenario, with the boys living under a big lie that constantly threatens to undermine their shenanigans. This one's got a pre-Psycho Janet Leigh as the love interest. It's all very standard and workmanlike, nothing special about it all, but nothing too horrible about it either (except the usual ethnic humor). Meh. Rating: 6


You're Never Too Young - Apparently this is a remake/reworking of The Major and the Minor, but I've never seen that one. The premise is, well, preposterous. Jerry Lewis hides out from a dangerous criminal (Raymond Burr) by posing as a 12 year-old child... and everyone believes it. It's definitely a strain on one's willful suspension of disbelief, but then again, this is a world where a number of the students at an all-girls school appear to be in their 20's and 30's. Even if you overlook the ridiculous implausibility of the story, there's not much here. Most of it isn't very amusing, although the madcap waterski ending is kinda fun. Rating: 5


Artists and Models (rewatch) - I was going to put an end to my Jerry Lewis spree, but I decided to revisit this as the last one, if only because I adore Shirley Maclaine (Dorothy Malone and Anita Ekberg ain't bad, either). And this is the perfect one to go out on. Definitely my favorite of the Martin & Lewis pictures, and could even be considered a legitimately great movie. Frank Tashlin spend most of his early career directing Looney Tunes, and it shows. The film has a carefree, stream-of-consciousness, anything can happen vibe to it, in a candy-colored world where comic book artists get involved in international intrigue. It's often teetering on the edge of insanity. Sexy, sassy and a load of fun. Maclaine easily holds her own with the boys, and Malone does well, too. I really need to see some more Tashlin (cited as a major influence on the delightful Down With Love), especially his signature films Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? and The Girl Can't Help It. Rating: 9


The Postman Always Rings Twice - The original, not the Jack Nicholson remake. I've watched a lot of noir by now, but somehow kept skipping this one for a long time. I've seen it compared to Double Indemnity (also written by James M. Cain) a lot. There are some similarities, but there are plenty of differences too. For instance, the quality of the script. It's a reasonably engaging story, but the dialogue lacks pizzazz. The direction also seems flat, especially in comparison to Wilder's work. And the leads aren't that great, either. John Garfield isn't a guy you root for like Fred Macmurray, and Lana Turner isn't a gal you secretly root for like Barbara Stanwyck. But it's a solid noir picture, with a particularly notable supporting performance from Hume Cronyn as the sleazy attorney. Rating: 7


Casablanca (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I honestly believe I could watch Casablanca once a week for the rest of my life. I wouldn't change one thing about it. I'm not saying it's flawless... I just wouldn't change anything. Rating: 10
post #1255 of 1550
Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

Forty Guns - Hey, a Fuller film I actually like. I guess I just need to stick to the early stuff. For me the highlight was the fantastic widescreen photography, making excellent use of low-angle shots. Particularly stunning were the opening sequence (Barbara Stanwyck and her massive posse riding towards the camera, from the vantage point of underneath a stagecoach) and the exciting tornado scene. The plot is a little standard, but still keeps you interested. I'm a bit tired of "death of the old West" motifs (sometimes it seems like there aren't any Westerns that are NOT about the death of the old West) but it's not overbearing and the way the characters lament their roles is interesting. Probably the biggest flaw is acting. Stanwyck's terrific and Barry Sullivan is okay, but the supporting cast is pretty weak. Rating: 8


Bay of Angels - Another excellent movie by Demy. I've enjoyed so much of his stuff, I really need to go back and re-evaluate his signature work, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, which I wasn't too hot on the first time. This one is about a young man who develops a taste for the roulette wheel, which leads him into a doomed relationship with a doomed woman (radiantly played by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau). It's not an especially substantial film, and the ending is questionable, but it just carries you along. Demy seems to capture the allure and pitfalls of gambling quite well, and its interesting to watch how the dynamic shifts between Jean and Jackie as their luck changes. Michel Legrand provides another charming, airy score. Rating: 8


A Lesson in Love (rewatch) - This really isn't that bad, on a second viewing. The best parts are the give-and-take quarrels between Bjornstrand and Dahlbeck (recalling their roles in Secrets of Women). That's where most of the humor lies. The other attempts at comedy aren't very successful, but they have a certain charm to them. At its low points (the goofy music cues, the "okay it's all over now" bit at the end of the wedding fight) it's a little bit stupid, but for the most part the worst you can say is it just isn't all that funny. But it's decent. Rating: 6


Man of Aran - Another semi-documentary ethnographic study from Robert Flaherty. This one examines the lives of people barely scratching out an existence on tiny, barren islands off the coast of Ireland. When you see them scrounging through craggy crevices for a basketful of soil, you just want to yell at the screen "MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE", but one still admires their resourcefulness and determination. The film basically focuses on three episodes: bringing in the fishing net, catching a shark, and a rough struggle against the elements ("the sea was angry that day, my friends... like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli"). If you've got a thing against watching guys in boats, you should probably skip this movie. Flaherty overestimates how long these events can be interesting. The shark part in particular seems to go on forever. But the photography and editing is first-rate, and it mostly manages to be engaging. Flaherty's work isn't really my bag (I only watched this one because it's #311 on the TSPDT list), I usually get something out of them. Rating: 7


Living It Up - A typical Martin & Lewis scenario, with the boys living under a big lie that constantly threatens to undermine their shenanigans. This one's got a pre-Psycho Janet Leigh as the love interest. It's all very standard and workmanlike, nothing special about it all, but nothing too horrible about it either (except the usual ethnic humor). Meh. Rating: 6


You're Never Too Young - Apparently this is a remake/reworking of The Major and the Minor, but I've never seen that one. The premise is, well, preposterous. Jerry Lewis hides out from a dangerous criminal (Raymond Burr) by posing as a 12 year-old child... and everyone believes it. It's definitely a strain on one's willful suspension of disbelief, but then again, this is a world where a number of the students at an all-girls school appear to be in their 20's and 30's. Even if you overlook the ridiculous implausibility of the story, there's not much here. Most of it isn't very amusing, although the madcap waterski ending is kinda fun. Rating: 5


Artists and Models (rewatch) - I was going to put an end to my Jerry Lewis spree, but I decided to revisit this as the last one, if only because I adore Shirley Maclaine (Dorothy Malone and Anita Ekberg ain't bad, either). And this is the perfect one to go out on. Definitely my favorite of the Martin & Lewis pictures, and could even be considered a legitimately great movie. Frank Tashlin spend most of his early career directing Looney Tunes, and it shows. The film has a carefree, stream-of-consciousness, anything can happen vibe to it, in a candy-colored world where comic book artists get involved in international intrigue. It's often teetering on the edge of insanity. Sexy, sassy and a load of fun. Maclaine easily holds her own with the boys, and Malone does well, too. I really need to see some more Tashlin (cited as a major influence on the delightful Down With Love), especially his signature films Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? and The Girl Can't Help It. Rating: 9


The Postman Always Rings Twice - The original, not the Jack Nicholson remake. I've watched a lot of noir by now, but somehow kept skipping this one for a long time. I've seen it compared to Double Indemnity (also written by James M. Cain) a lot. There are some similarities, but there are plenty of differences too. For instance, the quality of the script. It's a reasonably engaging story, but the dialogue lacks pizzazz. The direction also seems flat, especially in comparison to Wilder's work. And the leads aren't that great, either. John Garfield isn't a guy you root for like Fred Macmurray, and Lana Turner isn't a gal you secretly root for like Barbara Stanwyck. But it's a solid noir picture, with a particularly notable supporting performance from Hume Cronyn as the sleazy attorney. Rating: 7


Casablanca (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I honestly believe I could watch Casablanca once a week for the rest of my life. I wouldn't change one thing about it. I'm not saying it's flawless... I just wouldn't change anything. Rating: 10


Martin,


A lot of interesting and eclectic stuff there. I've seen all but one of the above - BAY OF ANGELS (1963) - but I do have it in my unwatched pile. Curiously enough, I've had THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (1964) for an even longer period of time and it's still unwatched as well...but, then, I did manage to catch up with (and enjoy) minor Demy flicks like DONKEY SKIN (1970), THE PIED PIPER (1972) and LADY OSCAR (1979)!

By the way, just as YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG (1955) is a remake of Wilder's THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR (1942), so is LIVING IT UP (1954) a remake of William A. Wellman's NOTHING SACRED (1937). Incidentally, while I only caught up with LIVING IT UP in 2005, I have fond memories of my sole Italian TV viewing of YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG in the late 1980s and, actually, I just acquired it on DVD a few months ago. As for ARTISTS AND MODELS (1955), I used to love it as a kid and, though I didn't enjoy it nearly as much on my last viewing of it on local TV some 10 years ago, it's still clearly the finest and most significant of the Martin-Lewis films. By the way, I'm surprised by your lowly opinion of THE BELLBOY (1960) which I consider to be one of Jerry's best solo efforts; perhaps the mercifully short 72-minute running time has something to do with that!

I first caught up with CASABLANCA (1942) in 1985 and have seen it several times since. The last time was in January 2007 at London's National Film Theatre and I was having such a great time wth it that I laughed out loud several times during it...so much so that my twin brother was driven to say, "What's the matter with you? It's not like you're watching it for the first time, is it?" However, it was the first time I was watching it on the big screen and with an appreciative audience and, clearly, that made all the difference. Frankly, I should have put CASABLANCA in my "All-Time Top 20" list I mentioned earlier but, being homogeneously auteur-centric, it had to be left out.

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/20/09 at 2:36pm
post #1256 of 1550

Sharkwater (2006)

Interesting documentary covering the depletion of the earth's oceans of this fascinating predator. Rob Stewart is the young man responsible for this documentary, an underwater photographer and biologist who had an immense interest in sharks since his youth. Some interesting facts come to the forefront here such as that this particular animal is being hunted to the point of extinction for their fins which is a highly prized item in some Asian countries. Also of interest was his adventure with Paul Watson captain of the Sea Serpent and one of the founding members of the Greenpeace organization. We spend time on the boat as they try to stop poaching and consequently run afoul of the Costa Rican authorities and their eventually escape. The underwater photography is quite beautiful here but this is more of a ecological film especially about a young man's quest to save a species that he loves. Are sharks more docile and fearing of man than dangerous as this film contends? Well, I won't go swimming in shark infested waters anytime soon.


 

post #1257 of 1550
09/19/09: TEN TALL MEN (Willis Goldbeck, 1951)

The phrase “they don’t make them like this anymore” is often used in this CGI-infested age to describe extra-laden and ‘authentic’ Hollywood spectaculars of yesteryear but, frankly, watching this more modest, tongue-in-cheek Foreign Legion adventure, I was equally struck by just how old-fashioned (and refreshingly so) it all was – not that the sand storm sequence included here would pass muster with today’s audiences! Anyhow, from the very start of the film, we have Burt Lancaster, Gilbert Roland and Kieron Moore disguised as, respectively, an Arab merchant and his two daughters!; legionnaires who are punished for daring to look twice at their Lieutenant’s fiancee; an Arab chieftain who marries off his daugher to a rival Sheik to bring peace between their warring tribes and in a bid to rid their country of the ‘French’ infidels; the kidnapping of that same feisty daughter who, not only turns the heads of all her ten titular captors but, after several escape attempts, eventually steals the heart of tough guy Lancaster; etc. However, shot in lovely Technicolor and moving at a rapid pace, the film is an enjoyable ride through familiar territory; what was somewhat surprising, plot-wise, is that while much was made initially of the unloved Lieutenant (Stephen Bekassy) and his blonde girlfriend (Mari Blanchard), their characters virtually disappear once Lancaster’s jailbird unit sets out on its mission! Despite its baffling ultra-rarity, the film is peopled by an interesting pool of talent both in front and behind the camera: Lancaster is in his third adventure flick; Gilbert Roland is his usual laid-back, womanizing Latino self; John Dehner the proverbial rotten apple in the group; George Tobias (perhaps thankfully) sacrifices himself early on; Nick Dennis and Mike Mazurki are among the rowdiest of the ‘Ten’; Gerald Mohr adequately provides the required villiany; this was the second product from Norma Productions (which first partnered Lancaster with producer Harold Hecht); writer Roland Kibbee would much later go on to share directorial credit with Lancaster on THE MIDNIGHT MAN (1974; which I will be revisiting presently); associate producer Robert Aldrich would later direct Lancaster in four movies – including TWILIGHT’S LAST GLEAMING (1977; which I’ll be viewing for the first time during this ongoing Burt Lancaster tribute); and, most interestingly perhaps, this was multi-talented Willis Goldbeck’s most notable directorial effort but, at least two of  his screenwriting credits are highly impressive indeed: Tod Browning’s FREAKS (1932) and John Ford’s THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962; Goldbeck’s last film work)! One final note: after searching high and low for this film on account of a friend of mine who is a big Burt Lancaster fan (and recalls the star’s brief sojourn in Malta in the 1970s), ironically, it was he who eventually provided me with a means to catch up with it via a surprisingly well-preserved VHS-sourced copy he acquired!     
 
09/20/09: THE RAINMAKER (Joseph Anthony, 1956)

To prove that he was not merely an athletic actor in the Errol Flynn mould, Burt Lancaster would occasionally dabble in film adaptations of serious stage plays from the likes of William Inge and Tennessee Williams; this is his third such attempt – albeit taken from a lesser-known author (N. Richard Nash) and with a more optimistic outcome (in fact, it was later musicalized on Broadway as “110 In The Shade”)! That 1964 revamp shared with this straight film version its director Joseph Anthony, here making his first of just six efforts in that capacity. For a self-proclaimed atheist, Lancaster did his fair share of hammy, arm-waving ‘preaching’ on the screen and this is his first instance as such – portraying travelling con man Bill Starbuck whose “rainmaking” capabilities are just what this film’s drought-ridden Southern town needs; on the other side of the coin is “plain” old- maid-in-the-making Lizzie Curry played by an overage Katharine Hepburn. I have to admit to a curious antipathy towards this most decorated of screen actresses and, indeed, her (by turns) moving and embarassing performance here garnered nominations at the Oscars (her seventh), BAFTAs (third) and Golden Globe (second); the film itself earned a handful of other awards (Earl Holliman was named Best Supporting Actor at the Globes) and nominations (a second Oscar nod for Alex North’s typically fine score; Golden Globe nods to Lancaster and the film; and another one for Nash at the Writers Guild Awards). Unsurprisingly embracing (as opposed to eschewing) its theatrical origins given the “performance” subtext that permeates the entire plot, the film has its fair share of good scenes which (apart from the opening sequence) revolve around the eight characters that seemingly inhabit this town:  Wendell Corey (as the ‘widowed’ deputy), Lloyd Bridges (as Hepburn’s equally cynical brother), Cameron Prud’Homme (as her well-meaning father), the aforementioned Holliman (as her spunky younger brother), Wallace Ford (as the elderly Sheriff) and Yvonne Fedderson (as Holliman’s red-cap wearing girlfriend); the whole makes for a pleasant if not especially outstanding romantic drama about the interior beauty of lonely people.  For the record, the play was later also brought to the small screen in 1982 by a past master of the medium (John Frankenheimer) with Tommy Lee Jones and Tuesday Weld in the leading roles.  

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/22/09 at 11:15am
post #1258 of 1550
"The Trollenberg Terror" (6/10)
A right weird little film. One of my many childhood initiations into the movie world (thus will always have a soft spot in my heart) this has some memorable and grizzly moments (heads torn off that end up in all the wrong places) and a solid atmosphere and cast. The plot takes in everything from mind reading, murderous chilly zombie sorts and of course huge wobbly brains with tentacles and one big eye! The non-eye creatures first 2/3rds is the better and more effective film, but the creatures are at least fun and look great...even if the film now goes off into silly land.


"Crank" - (8/10)
Still as good as the first time.  Violent, twisted, exciting, funny, comic strip un-pc funstuffs,  with the ever welcome Jason Statham in top form backed by a lovely and astute turn by Amy Smart who knows how things are going down and plays what could have been the one weak link in the film to perfection.
Mad, bad and surely one of a kind?.....

"Crank 2"  (7/10...or 10/10, I don't know!) 
Holy Hell!
"Crank" was so far off the map and damn bonkers that surely the human mind could not take a parody of it?  
By definition something that would have to be an even more absurdist take on what was the most enjoyably absurd action flick ever anyway.
Well...they did it anyway!  

Absolutely psychotic and surrealist to the max, wickedly offensive as possibly to absolutely everyone it should be offensive to, just as violent and( astonishingly) sexually even more crazy than the first film.
How anyone let these guys go mad in a sandpit with millions of dollars is anyone's guess.  

Mind shredding things happen just because it's fun for them to do so with no real world logic (or even plot progression),  characters have completely way out and wild physical and mental afflictions just so a couple of groovy joke scenes can be harvested from them (and why not!?), absolutely everyone is fantastically racist, sexist and generally vile to everyone else in a very loud way, grotesque physical trauma, death and mutilation is dished out with relish, and just as we think our brain can't surely take any more of this screaming insanity.....Gigantic human Godzilla's are suddenly thrown into the mix along with a completely bonkers return of a character form the first film done  in such a way that the entire shrieking mass of the movie is catapulted  into  a whole other dimension of freakiness.
And quite frankly we should all wallow in this gloriously putrid pit of anti-movie insanity,  as the makers won't get away with creating such a monster again!


Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 9/21/09 at 3:31am
post #1259 of 1550
Possessed (1931)   

I came by this movie when someone I know at work gave me a still-sealed copy from the Warner Archive Collection; they'd sent him two of the same title by mistake. Since it was Clark Gable and Joan Crawford I decided I'd give it a chance. Joan plays a factory worker who gets tired of the hum-drum life she leads and isn't interested in the man who's longed to marry her since they were kids (Wallace Ford) so she leaves it all and travels to New York City where she plays mistress to a wealthy lawyer (Gable) to get the kind of high living she wants. Three years later, Ford still wants to marry her, and Gable intends to run for Governor but his chances may be jeopardized by living with a woman. 

This pre-code film was nothing earth shattering, but had good performances from Crawford and Gable, and for me an added surprise bonus with a strong turn by Wallace Ford. I think through this movie it's easy to see Crawford's talents and how Gable was destined to become a big star. Director Clarence Brown has a nice touch, and some shots are very impressive. The one which stood out most for me is early on where Joan longingly observes well-to-do people interacting on a slow-moving train, as we see them through the windows of each passing car. When I see artistic flourishes like this in so many early '30s pictures (and many silents), my one-time defense of Tod Browning's DRACULA for being dull due to its nature as an early talkie certainly falls flat.
post #1260 of 1550
Kaos - Directed by the brothers Taviani, this film tells five stories (presented as four, plus an epilogue) by Pirandello. All of the stories are pretty good, except the fourth which involves some villagers making a whole lot of fuss over where they can bury their dead. This one wasn't as interesting as the others, but maybe that's because I think sticking corpses in the ground is a really silly thing to do. My favorite was the third, about a potter who gets himself stuck in a wealthy landowner's jumbo-sized olive oil jar. I also thought the epilogue was incredibly beautiful. It's all very well done, and the music by Nicola Piovani (augmented by a little Mozart) is majestic and sublime. A little on the slow side, perhaps, but an improvement of the self-conscious Night of the Shooting Stars. Rating: 8


Deadly Is the Female (a.k.a. Gun Crazy) - An intense noir that tells a Bonnie and Clyde-style story, with one hell of a Bonnie. Peggy Cummins is great as the femme fatale, you're never quite sure how sincere her character is being. It's interesting that John Dall is playing pretty much the opposite of the character in his previous film, Alfred Hitchcock's Rope. In this one, he's the more unwilling partner in crime whereas before he was the dominant one. The film is stylish and steamy and a little bit sleazy, and definitely holds your interest. Rating: 8


Fort Apache - John Ford and John Wayne, whoop-de-fuckin-doo. I actually didn't hate this as much as I expected to. Wayne is a far more likeable character than usual, a just and reasonable man without all the macho dick-swinging. And the story is mostly engaging and touches on compelling themes of honor. But the film is still buried in those Ford-isms that bug me so much, and my stomach clenched when Wayne gives his little speech at the end, with "Battle Hymn of the Republic" swelling in the background. So while I enjoyed it more than most Ford/Wayne movies, I didn't enjoy it enough to want to see it ever again. Rating: 6
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)