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 43

post #1261 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

Possessed (1931)   

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.

Watchin' more remakes, are ya?

In all seriousness, I'm glad you enjoyed this one.  As you said, it's nothing great but I thought it had enough nice touches to watch at least once.  As a kid/teen I really didn't get the appeal of Gable as I thought to myself that the main appeal must have been his looks and every woman in Hollywood wanting him (and apparently sleeping with him).  Over the past few years I've really come to understand his "legend" status and I love him in these early pre-code movies.  NIGHT NURSE is a naughty little film that you'd probably love.  I actually prefer some of these forgotten movies over more popular ones like his Oscar-winning Capra film.

Your DRACULA defense is still somewhat valid because I think there are more "ugly" movies like DRACULA than those with masterpiece touches.  Everyone remembers and discusses the pretty movies but they usually want to overlook everything that's ugly.  Even in 1939, everyone considers this the greatest year for films yet they don't talk about the other 1900+ movies from that year that were fair, bad or downright horrid. 

The 1929-31 section of films are very interesting in terms of their look and especially their sound.  I personally think that even FRANKENSTEIN is rather bland looking in terms of sound and some style but Whale, unlike Browning and so many others, knew how to work within the limitations of the time.  Even certain silent directors knew how to handle something being silent a lot better than others. 
post #1262 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

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

I never saw why this gets so much respect either.  It's a weak film in so many ways.

There is a smattering of a very good film, but it's broken up by some serious problems.

Far too much corny humour (some works, but this was also a fault to a far lesser extent with Ford's "The Searchers" too where in a very serious plot some 'Fordisms' would creep in as far as comedy was concerned), far too much soppy goings on with Shirley Temple's character and the young Officer, needlessly extended riding sequences (impressive scenery indeed, but we've had enough of it now), a dreadful, and dreadfully overbearing, score and a massive overdose of Irish blarney (includng a vomitous 'well now me darling' singing interlude from some Leprechaun/human hybrid).

There was some impressive action, stunts and cinematography (especially during the Injuns/wagon chase sequence) and the friction between John Wayne and Henry Fonda (two solid performances) is engaging.
And it's refreshing to see Ford take a more critical look at his normally Sainted U.S. Cavalry. If he does ensure us that all is well really at the end via The Duke's (you are right, very cloying) speech.

A very well staged and gripping finale helps boost things...but it's now certainly not the film it perhaps used to be and certainly not as good as it could have been even then.

post #1263 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Watchin' more remakes, are ya?


 

Can you point out to me the "original" version of this film (POSSESSED)?

We've been through this a thousand times. So here's one thousand and one..
The "Needless, Overdone Remake Epidemic" is something that's happening NOW, Today.  It doesn't matter that remakes have been around since the beginning of film to one extent or another, because there were valid cases for remaking silent movies into sound, or possibly even some black & whites into color. Back in 1931 they didn't have Home Video or Television, so the older versions could easily be forgotten and not seen much again by many people... while today there is no excuse not to watch 1974's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE on video instead of seeing the new one (which takes place in the 1970s again??!!) To remake movies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s is just completely unnecessary. It's entirely overdone now, and that's why today so many people and magazine articles easily notice it and are complaining about it, calling it "Remakeitis"..

I told you the only reason I watched POSSESSED was because someone gave me the DVD-R for free. And I knew he'd want to know what I thought of it when I saw him again. Now that I've seen it - yes, it was pretty good. But will I ever long to see it again? Unlikely.

Edited by Joe Karlosi - 9/22/09 at 4:49am
post #1264 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post




...because there were valid cases for remaking silent movies into sound, or possibly even some black & whites into color.
Back in 1931 they didn't have Home Video or Television, so the older versions could easily be forgotten and not seen much again by many people... while today there is no excuse not to watch 1974's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE on video instead of seeing the new one (which takes place in the 1970s again??!!) To remake movies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s is just completely unnecessary. 


Think I agree with all that.  Yes.  yes I do.


"King of Comedy"  9/10

 Easily the most unjust flop in Martin Scorsese's career and easily one of his finest works, as well as one of De Niro's most brilliant performances that hits every note perfectly.
Not a single member of the cast puts a foot wrong in fact.
Sandra Bernhard is utterly bonkers in all the right ways and Jerry Lewis is magnificent in what was a very brave role to take.
Black as pitch, sad, tragic... funny, clever, astute. A rare mix, mixed perfectly.

While 3rd rate efforts like "Cape Fear" become hits, and flops like the very overrated "Raging Bull" gain massive critical plaudits later...the superb "King of Comedy" hovers around in semi-obscurity. All hail Scorsese and De Niro! This joins "Taxi Driver" as the pinnacle of their collaborations, followed by "Goodfellas" and "Casino".
Simply magnificent cinema on every level.


"Crossroads" 6.5/10

A tale of the Blues and the Delta using the famous old legend that Bluesman Robert Johnson sold his soul to The Devil at a crossroads to become King of the Blues.

A nice slide guitar score by the always welcome Ry Cooder, some great location shooting in the Deep South and overall a good, solid, if slightly overlong, bit of 80's entertainment from good old Walter Hill.
Nice turn by Joe Seneca (nasty Government guy in "The Blob" remake) as the old Blues man, Blind Willy. Steve Vai is The Devil's guitar gladiator of choice for the wonderful 'guitar duel' finale. Smug Ralph Macchio?

Currently residing in the 'where are they now' file. One for Blues fans...and if you ain't no Blues fan? Kiss my pick!
Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 9/22/09 at 11:59am
post #1265 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Joe, save the long speeches.  I just wanted to point out that you watched one of those evil remakes yet you didn't even realize it was a remake.  Have no fear as we can give it as pass for being remade as the original (THE MIRAGE - 1924) is now lost.  As I've told you, until you can show me some actual numbers to back up your "now" theory then it's just a bunch of running of the mouth.  Just like your stupid expectations of a Dracula film, if something doesn't fit your expectations or wants then you just turn a blind eye to any type of facts.  You can talk about the subject as much as you want but it's a fact there were more remakes in the older days and the numbers show it.  I should know considering how many I actually watch and read about.
post #1266 of 1550
09/21/09: TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING (Robert Aldrich, 1977) 

Dismissed  upon  original  release  as a "pedestrian potboiler", TWILIGHT'S LAST  GLEAMING  (a phrase taken from "The Star Spangled Banner") has  subsequently  come  to  be regarded as a belated masterpiece in Robert Aldrich's career . Actually. Aldrich was merely a hired hand on the project and  only  managed  to  secure  the  services  of one of his long-time crew members  (editor  Michael  Luciano,  albeit  sharing  that  credit with two others);  even  so,  Jerry  Goldsmith  (standing  in  for the absent DeVol) delivers  a  typically  fine  musical  backing.  It  was  also  the  fourth collaboration  between  the  director  and leading man Burt Lancaster (as a disgraced  but vehemently patriotic former  U.S.A.F.  General)  who  heads a remarkable cast where a known  face  viritually  inhabits  every major role; in this regard, Melvyn Douglas  (as  the  Secretary  of  Defence),  Charles  Durning  (as  the  U.S. President),  Gerald  S.  O'Loughlin  (as  the  Presidential  aide) and Paul Winfield  (as  a  dishonorably  discharged  soldier) emerge as particularly outstanding.  In this day and age replete with bland, unecessary remakes of past  successes, it is refreshing to come across an older movie that stands no  chance  whatsoever  of  being deigned with that dubious honor; not only that:  I  sincerely  believe that,  as long as the war in Iraq rages on, it will also never be released on DVD...but I would love to be proven wrong by Warners.  Ironically  enough,  I watched this on the very day that Italy was  gloriously  burying  (via an all-day-long TV coverage) six of its sons who  lost their lives in a suicide attack while serving in Afghanistan! Set in the near future of 1981 (i.e. four years after production), technically, TWILIGHT'S  LAST GLEAMING can be considered a science-fiction movie and, in fact,  it is virtually as prophetic as John Frankeneheimer's THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE  (1962) vis-a-vis the eventual shooting of the U.S. President (lest we forget, an assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan was actually made in 1981)!  In  plot  terms, the film resides somewhere between Frankenheimer's SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (1964; in which Burt Lancaster is a renegade U.S. General who  sets a coup d'etat in motion) and THE BEDFORD INCIDENT (1965; in which tyrannical  naval  officer  Richard  Widmark  drives one particular officer serving  under  him  to  nuclear  holocaust)  and,  indeed,  Widmark  plays Lancaster's antagonistic former superior in GLEAMING as well! The highlight of the film is  the  central  discussion  sequence in which the real reasons behind the Vietnam  War are revealed to a disbelieving President by Secretary Of State Joseph Cotten; in this regard, it is refreshing to have the U.S. President - not to mention Burt Lancaster - lose it and let rip  with  four-letter  words  and other assorted profanities (perhaps most surprisingly  when  uttering  a  "Screw  Church!"  very  early  on). Another unexpected  but  most  welcome element were the occasional dollops of black comedy  which  serve  to  alleviate  the  ever-increasing  tension  of  the situation  - like when Durning and O'Loughlin exchange wisecracks  while discussing the possibility of the former losing
his  life  in  the  process  of his ransom exchange meeting with Lancaster, Winfield and  Burt Young (who have commandeered a military base capable of launching  nine  missiles) or when Winfield entertains the notion that the approaching President  may  be  a  double or that the security cameras are showing  the  surrounding  grounds  of  their  military base as uninhabited because  the  Army  has  employed  midget  snipers!!  Necessitated  by  the increasingly  intricate train of events, Aldrich makes admirable use of the split-screen  technique  to  keep  up  with  the  Presidential discussions, Widmark's   military manouvres and Lancaster's agonizing waiting; incidentally,  the  latter  would  soon  star in one of the first (and most effective)  films dealing  with  the Vietnam War, GO TELL THE SPARTANS (1978; with which I am familiar and have just acquired). Despite the film's considerable   length   of   144  minutes,  it  emerges  an   exciting  and thought-provoking  political  thriller,  a  genre  which, personally, never fails to engross me; having said that, there was a shorter version prepared for  European distribution which ran for 122 minutes and the film also sported the alternate title of NUCLEAR COUNTDOWN for some theatrical engagements. Thankfully, I came   across   a  good  VHS-sourced  copy  (albeit  panned-and-scanned)  of  the full-length  version from CBS/Fox Video which, as I said earlier, will most probably have to do for an indefinite period of time...


P.S. As an aside to Mr. Karlosi regarding his "Theory of Individuality", I wanted to point out that the view of my personal film guides on the movie above is quite opposed to mine: Leonard Maltin gives it **1/2 (out of ****) and Leslie Halliwell a 0 (our of ****)!
Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/24/09 at 8:53am
post #1267 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Joe, save the long speeches.  I just wanted to point out that you watched one of those evil remakes yet you didn't even realize it was a remake. 


I'm sorry you refer to it as "long speeches" if I feel I have something to say. But I'll do it when I feel I want to. But just to correct you -- I never consider the earlier decades of remakes to be "evil or unnecessary remakes", so you're talking about something else entirely from what I mean when I (and today's critics) specifically slam today's "Unnecessary Remakes Epidemic".

  As I've told you, until you can show me some actual numbers to back up your "now" theory then it's just a bunch of running of the mouth. 
 


Mike, I don't think you consider what people write. To me it's not just about "numbers". What does it matter if there were in fact more remakes made in the 30s and 40s, if so many older originals were lost, or were silent films, or were forgotten through the years due to there not being any TV or home video? Those originals had much more of a validity in being re-made. But something in recent years like THE BAD NEWS BEARS has no business being re-done. I'm far from alone in this thinking; I read critics and film articles regularly by people who feel exactly the same. Even our own 42nd Street Freak just said he agreed. (Oh -- and as much as I feel unnecessary modern remakes are overblown today, there are those times, as you know, where I will see one depending on my own reasons. I may go to see the new version of THE STEPFATHER, even though the last one from 1987 is good; I just like the subject).  


  Just like your stupid expectations of a Dracula film, if something doesn't fit your expectations or wants then you just turn a blind eye to any type of facts. 
 


All these years of discussing "my expectations of a Dracula film" and yet you still get me wrong. I even just elaborated in the last day or so about how I give DRACULA (31) and HORROR OF DRACULA (58) the same *** rating. HORROR has elements I like, as does DRACULA; both have flaws as well. We all have our own ideas and wants in movies and tend to respond to them accordingly (Mario Gauci just agreed with that as well).  That's why everyone is unique and movies speak to us all differently. Once again, I believe even 42nd Street Freak had like feelings regarding HORROR OF DRACULA. 

Even you, Michael, have done this on occasion. You have me at a disadvantage presently because I can't think of exactly what thread it happened in, but I did point out you also "rating" a film because of "your expectations". We all do this to one degree or another ("oh, that was a good movie but the end just ruined it, and it would have been better if...").


You can talk about the subject as much as you want but it's a fact there were more remakes in the older days and the numbers show it.  I should know considering how many I actually watch and read about.
 

Well, now you're saying you "read about" them, but I definitely recall some other "friendly debate" we had where you insisted it was pointless to read about movies, and felt that instead we should just watch them to learn things. I was the one in favor of reading.

My, you certainly don't help to make it a very tasty proposition to want to participate in watching "first time films" .
post #1268 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

J Just like your stupid expectations of a Dracula film, if something doesn't fit your expectations or wants then you just turn a blind eye to any type of facts.  
Woh now.  Hold on.  Seeing as I share the same views (despite being ignored in the whole thing) I feel I must comment.

What the hell is wrong with having expectations about a film that's an adaptation of something you like that already exists?
Bet your arse I have expectations.

If the makers can fiddle with the original text to have it work as a film in it's own right but still keep the feeling and indeed heart of said text then that film has done its job and has indeed,  as a fan of the novel, pleased my wicked little expectations.
If it does not...certainly if it ignores or even mutates the text into something deeply inferior... then those expectations have not been met and I feel I can take umbrage with it!

If 'Hammer' had actually done a good job at adapting the novel while keeping it cinematic and fresh then I would say so and applaud there sterling work.  
As it was though they did indeed (title and a couple of character names aside) ignore the text (that is its very reason for existing) and worse...replaced it with things vastly inferior (Van Helsing aside).

And where is this mythical 'non-expectations' beast anyway?  YOU!?  Yeah, right.  
I guarantee you have as many expectations, for just as many differing reasons, for just as many films as the rest of us unworthy plebs.  And i guarantee if those expectations are not met...You bitch as loud as the rest of us.  
In fact...you're bitching just as loudly as you were when I was here about 2 years ago.  With the same people.

But i guess i had great expectations that this had changed by now....My expectations have sadly not been met.  Such is the risk with having expectations.
But I expect you know that.

I thank you.
post #1269 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

Woh now.  Hold on.  Seeing as I share the same views (despite being ignored in the whole thing) I feel I must comment.

And where is this mythical 'non-expectations' beast anyway?  YOU!?  Yeah, right.  
I guarantee you have as many expectations, for just as many differing reasons, for just as many films as the rest of us unworthy plebs.  And i guarantee if those expectations are not met...You bitch as loud as the rest of us.  
In fact...you're bitching just as loudly as you were when I was here about 2 years ago.  With the same people.
 

Hey, Dave -- I mentioned you in my side of the debate.  
post #1270 of 1550
Thread Starter 

But I'll do it when I feel I want to.

Oh come on.

To me it's not just about "numbers". What does it matter if there were in fact more remakes made in the 30s and 40s, if so many older originals were lost, or were silent films, or were forgotten through the years due to there not being any TV or home video?

I think you need to do some more homework.  Just because there wasn't video didn't mean these old films were "gone forever" once their theatrical run was over.  There were hundreds, if not thousands, of theaters at the time who kept showing older films.  Why the hell do you think MGM tried to destroy the 1931 JEKYLL AND HYDE when they started on their remake?  It was because people could still see it on various revivals.  Studios were doing the same thing with other remakes.  To hit something you know, remember FRANKENSTEIN, DRACULA and KING KONG for being the reason horror films made a comeback in the late 30's?  It was because of a throwaway theater bringing them back.  There wasn't a year that THE BIRTH OF A NATION wasn't playing in a theater until the mid-40's so if someone wanted to check these films out they'd have the chance.  

I don't mean to say it was easy for people to check these movies out but the theaters were out there.  I think the biggest issue was that there were fewer "film buffs" wanting to check out THE WIND in 1939 and instead would rather go see the latest Hollywood film.  Even the sound quality of early talkies would have killed people in 1941 so naturally they wouldn't want to sit through them.   

You have me at a disadvantage presently because I can't think of exactly what thread it happened in, but I did point out you also "rating" a film because of "your expectations".

There's a difference Joe.

If you want a Dracula film to be the novel then read the novel.
If you want the Joker to look like he did in the comic then stick with the comic.
If you want THE SHINING to end like the book then read the book.
If you want Frankenstein's monster not to talk then stay away from BRIDE.
If you want a werewolf to be in color then watch THE HOWLING and not THE WOLF MAN.
If you want Spider-Man to be like the comic character then don't watch the film.
If you walk into a PG-13 rating horror film and then get mad because there isn't any gore, nudity or long sex scenes.

Even though one of your favorite movies is a horror/comedy, you say you don't like comedies being disguised as horror films.  Your examples are THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and DEAD ALIVE.  Not to mention these are three of the most beloved horror films of their era but you hate them because of what they are.  You hate them because they aren't what you want them to be.  You want your zombie, werewolf and gore films to be without comedy.  Why you want this I'll never be clear on since you love James Whale films and stuff like A&C MEET.
 
To me, these are unfair expectations.  What would I consider a fair one?  If you and I walked into a theater to see FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE SECOND REMAKE and Jason was the good guy out there saving campers from catching the swine flu by passing out hand sanitizer and warm clothes.  I'm sure you're going into THE STEPFATHER expecting a nice slasher but if you're expecting it to be like the original then you're probably going to be setting yourself up for disappointed.  I think it's a pretty safe bet you're going to be upset with something they do here (even with early reviews already being rather negative).

My, you certainly don't help to make it a very tasty proposition to want to participate in watching "first time films" .

Let's not pull the "Michael is picking on me routine" that you like to pull out.  I didn't have a problem with you drilling me about what's the point in watching 20-second movies so if you're going to dish stuff out at people you need to learn to take it without crying foul.  If you re-read what I wrote, you're just centering on a one-line joke that was thrown because I was fairly certain you didn't know the film was a remake.  Neither would I had it not been for the intro before it.  You didn't comment on anything I said after that so you can't say my post was just to go against you.  At least, at the end of the day, we can say we learned something new.


Le million (1931)
 

Rene Clair
 

Extremely charming and inventive French comedy takes a simple idea and really expands it to something special.  A starving artist name Michel (Rene Lefevre) is being hounded by collectors when he realizes that he's won the lottery.  He rushes to get his coat where the ticket is but learns his girlfriend (Annabella) has given it away, which leads to a wild chase in hopes of getting it back.  I wasn't sure what to expect when entering this film because I had heard that it contained some pretty strange things but within minutes I was caught up in the story and the way it was being played out.  I don't think the movie is laugh out loud funny but it doesn't really need to be.  In fact, I think the story could have gone for more slapstick and gotten bigger laughs but, in a strange way, it's smarter than that and goes for something completely different.  Having the actors sing their dialogue makes this film come off very fresh today and I can't imagine and fresh and unique it must have been in 1931 when many sound films didn't sound all that great.  The delivery of the music is top-notch and many of the "songs" are better than what Americans were hearing in their musicals then.  Another major plus are the performances, which are all very charming but Lefevre really carries the thing as he floats around like a feather and really hits all the right moves.  The one thing that didn't work too well for me was the rather long sequence at the opera.  I thought some of it went on a tad bit too long, although the football scene here was greatly directed.
 

La perra (2002)
 

Hugo Maza

Fair short from Chile tells the story of a strange couple who are sexually turned on by the thought of their maids stealing from them.  The couple sets various traps trying to get "turned on" by leaving things around the house for the maid to steal but she doesn't go along as planned.  The title translated means "The Bitch", which is what the couple keeps calling the maid.  I'm sure the thought of this story was funny on paper but it really doesn't translate too well on the screen.  For starters, the couple come off more weird than anything else and I didn't find any of their sexual pleasures overly funny or even entertaining.  We see the husband kissing the wife in weird ways but it's not funny or erotic.  We then have the maid who is just there as a set piece without anything fun coming from her.  The performances are good but they're not enough to make anyone sit through the film.
 

Main Street Follies (1935)
 

Joseph Henabery
 

Decent musical from Warner has Hal Le Roy singing and dancing his way through various skits all set around Main Street.  A rival show producer sends a spy out to see what skits Le Roy will be doing in his upcoming act and these are the items we get to see.  If I had never seen a musical before then I'd probably give this a higher rating but seeing as how Turner Classic Movies plays a new one each week, there's very little here for someone who has seen more from the genre.  The short manages to move by pretty quickly as Le Roy is certainly charming enough to carry the film.  His dancing is also very good and this is the main reason to watch the movie but in the end there's just nothing overly special here to make one track it down.  The sets are decent but nothing great.  The acts are decent but not great.  Even the direction is, you guessed it, decent but not great.  Outside of Le Roy's dancing, nothing here really sticks out too much and in the end this is a short you can miss.
 

post #1271 of 1550
 You did Joe.  I meant Michael..who seems to have me mentally blocked.

Quote:
 
If you want a Dracula film to be the novel then read the novel.

Who even said that!?  No one.
But why is it an evil deed to want perfectly doable aspects of a novel recreated in its movie adaptation?  It is after all a friggin ADAPTATION!

Joe or I have never said we wanted 'Hammer's "Dracula" to BE the novel.  We just wanted it to use as much of the strong content the novel had as possible, to add whatever they needed to make it work as a movie (hardly wanted a novel then did we??) and not to add things that needlessly diminish the plot.

You're just being bull-headed to aggravate. 
post #1272 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post


I think you need to do some more homework.  Just because there wasn't video didn't mean these old films were "gone forever" once their theatrical run was over.  There were hundreds, if not thousands, of theaters at the time who kept showing older films. 
 


I'm well aware of that. Still in all, I don't think their exposure was anywhere near the amount as with free TV at home, and Home Video later on. But whatever the case, myself and all those critics and article writers who feel there's a current Remake Epidemic will all have to agree to disagree with you on this.

If you want a Dracula film to be the novel then read the novel.
If you want the Joker to look like he did in the comic then stick with the comic.
If you want THE SHINING to end like the book then read the book.
If you want Frankenstein's monster not to talk then stay away from BRIDE.
If you want a werewolf to be in color then watch THE HOWLING and not THE WOLF MAN.
If you want Spider-Man to be like the comic character then don't watch the film.

You just don't understand that I'm nowhere near as "all-inconclusive" as you think I should be when it comes to enjoying films. Different movies work or do not work for any number of reasons, depending on the individual. You seem to think there should be a consistent "one rule for all movies", but I'm sorry; it doesn't work like that. 

Even though one of your favorite movies is a horror/comedy, you say you don't like comedies being disguised as horror films.  Your examples are THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and DEAD ALIVE.  Not to mention these are three of the most beloved horror films of their era but you hate them because of what they are.  You hate them because they aren't what you want them to be.  You want your zombie, werewolf and gore films to be without comedy.  Why you want this I'll never be clear on since you love James Whale films and stuff like A&C MEET.
 
A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN is a comedy spoof, and it's got the classic monsters and actors I love, along with the nostalgia, and I like Abbott & Costello. Maybe if Abbott & Costello or Lon Chaney or Bela Lugosi were in DEAD ALIVE I'd be able to gain more appreciation for the latter film. We all bring our own feelings, likes, preferences & dislikes into movie critiquing. It's what makes each of us who we are, and what should make each of our individual movie reviews personalized commentaries. Why this is so hard to understand, I have no idea.
  
As I've explained a hundred times since 2002 when we first met online, I don't feel BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a comedy. It's more of a storybook kind of fairytale quality to me, and with macabre touches by James Whale. And even if we were to say it IS a comedy, so then it's one that clicked with me. Yes, I do like all of Whale's early horror films; maybe it's due to the director's style, the black and white atmosphere, the great monster characterizations within them ... I approach each film on its own. I don't just say "hey, since I liked BRIDE, I'll also have to like AMERICAN WEREWOLF" --- well, I do not.  

What would I consider a fair one?  If you and I walked into a theater to see FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE SECOND REMAKE and Jason was the good guy out there saving campers from catching the swine flu by passing out hand sanitizer and warm clothes.

 Maybe someone would like that approach. Maybe not. Since I've written this several times already, did you catch what I said yet about HORROR OF DRACULA being different as DRACULA is from the novel, yet I cared for some of the changes in both and not others? You're still laboring under this idea that I expect certain adaptations to be 100%, and it's not always the case at all. JAWS is not like the book exactly, and neither is the original PLANET OF THE APES ... yet I give both movies **** . They rise above, and their changes are for the better.

I'm sure you're going into THE STEPFATHER expecting a nice slasher but if you're expecting it to be like the original then you're probably going to be setting yourself up for disappointed.  I think it's a pretty safe bet you're going to be upset with something they do here (even with early reviews already being rather negative).

I am going to see the new STEPFATHER hoping it's not like the 1987 film. I don't think we need another carbon copy of that one. The idea of a nutty stepdad is a good recipe for a thriller, which is the reason I'll see this other thing. But I have every right as a moviegoer to come out of the theater thinking it was "too tame for me" or "too explicit for me", or feeling "the director would have achieved a better result had he done (blank) with the material instead". 
If you'd like, I can point out all the times you yourself comment about things in movies that "should have been this or that way" or "didn't fulfill your expectations". There's nothing wrong with this, and we all do it to one degree or another.  

Let's not pull the "Michael is picking on me routine" that you like to pull out.  I didn't have a problem with you drilling me about what's the point in watching 20-second movies so if you're going to dish stuff out at people you need to learn to take it without crying foul

I'm not "pulling" anything; and when it comes to teasing it's hard to tell who's the chicken and who's the egg. When I commented on you watching 20 second films recently and wondered what the point was, I was sincerely stumped about that; it wasn't tweaking you.

If you re-read what I wrote, you're just centering on a one-line joke that was thrown because I was fairly certain you didn't know the film was a remake. 

I still don't know that it's a remake; you tend to loosely consider similarly themes films direct "remakes", like you think HARDCORE is a remake of THE SEARCHERS. But if you're saying that POSSESSION was shown on Turner and the host said before the film that it was a remake of THE MIRAGE (1924), then I stand corrected. OK. Now what? What does it matter anyway? MIRAGE isn't even listed on IMDB (you said it was a lost film), and as I already said -- I'm all for remaking silent films into talkies, so I'm in no way inconsistent in my feelings that there are too many Unnecessary Modern Remakes Today.

You didn't comment on anything I said after that so you can't say my post was just to go against you. 

I read it though. Not much to add.
post #1273 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

 
Who even said that!?  No one.

Joe or I have never said we wanted 'Hammer's "Dracula" to BE the novel.  We just wanted it to use as much of the strong content the novel had as possible, to add whatever they needed to make it work as a movie (hardly wanted a novel then did we??) and not to add things that needlessly diminish the plot.

 



You see, that's why I wonder why I go to such lengths to explain myself over and over. You said the same thing here, and in much less the time than it took me. There are some things in the Hammer film which were better than the novel -- the ending, for one. Overall I gave the friggin' thing a rating of "Good"!

In the Hammer movie I didn't like the idea of Harker as a vampire hunter --- that was not in the novel, and it was a change which didn't work for me. However, in the 1931 film there was also a change of having it be Renfield, not Harker, who visits Dracula and is subsequently turned into a madman -- and that DID work for me! Bram Stoker should have thought of it!   
post #1274 of 1550
Thread Starter 
 then I stand corrected. OK. Now what? What does it matter anyway? MIRAGE isn't even listed on IMDB 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015142/

Joe or I have never said we wanted 'Hammer's "Dracula" to BE the novel.  We just wanted it to use as much of the strong content the novel had as possible, to add whatever they needed to make it work as a movie (hardly wanted a novel then did we??) and not to add things that needlessly diminish the plot.

The three of us might not have hard on for HORROR OF DRACULA but it's still considered by most to be one of the greatest Dracula films out there.  That says something and there's really no defending that the film needs no matter if we aren't crazy about it.  Apparently what Hammer did do was enough to make the film a hit, put their studio on the map and keep them there for two decades.  Not to mention make legends out of the two stars. 

For the most part I think Hammer holds up as well as a kick in the face but the exception would be this film and their first few Frankenstein movies.  If people want Stoker's Dracula then it's best to read the novel.  Hammer is giving us Hammer's version and vision of Dracula so I don't see the point of complaining if they take something and go off into a different direction.  Heck, you like exploitation so I'm sure you don't expect someone like Franco to stay close to material.

We could even discuss Holmes from those early films of the 1910's to Barrymore's version and then everything else that came afterwards before their real boom with Rathbone.  Each one offers their own thing so getting upset that Rathbone isn't playing the character the same way as Barrymore isn't serving any real purpose.  Not that I'm saying you did this but it's an example. 

I'm not sure if you're a fan of THE SHINING but I've been saying it for years that I think King supporters just need to stick with the book because no matter how many times they watch Kubrick's version, things aren't going to change. 
post #1275 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 then I stand corrected. OK. Now what? What does it matter anyway? MIRAGE isn't even listed on IMDB 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015142/


My mistake is easily explained. I was looking up the title as MIRAGE instead of THE MIRAGE . Now that it exists (well, it doesn't really exist since it's a lost film apparently) what does it matter anyway? Good for them for making a silent movie into sound with POSSESSED (1931), and it's especially valuable today for us to view since there is no silent version existing anymore. Somehow I don't equate that with remaking FAME (1980) in 2009! 

The three of us might not have hard on for HORROR OF DRACULA but it's still considered by most to be one of the greatest Dracula films out there.  That says something and there's really no defending that the film needs no matter if we aren't crazy about it.  Apparently what Hammer did do was enough to make the film a hit, put their studio on the map and keep them there for two decades.  Not to mention make legends out of the two stars. 

And who's denying any of that? How many times do I have to re-tell you that I think it's a good horror film (***), just that I find certain deviations or eliminations from the original story to be disagreeable?

Also,  if you want to talk about a film needing no defending, then Browning's DRACULA, for all its weaknesses, still is considered "The First HorrorTalkie Classic", and it put Universal's Monster Movies on the map, and also made a legend of its iconic star Bela Lugosi. And yet you don't enjoy the movie, so maybe you should point your own finger at yourself? At least I give both movies here a solid "good" rating, so which of us is not appreciating something?

If people want Stoker's Dracula then it's best to read the novel.  Hammer is giving us Hammer's version and vision of Dracula so I don't see the point of complaining if they take something and go off into a different direction.  Heck, you like exploitation so I'm sure you don't expect someone like Franco to stay close to material.

Interesting you bring up Franco at this point, since he also attempted to make DRACULA. Isn't it ironic that Jess Franco has made one of the versions closest to Bram Stoker's novel? Even more than Hammer or Universal's? His EL CONDE DRACULA (1970) has some marvelous touches early in the film as Stoker described them, and the look of Count Dracula himself as an older man who gets steadily younger as he drinks blood is retained.  I would say that Christopher Lee's appearance as the Count early in the movie is the closest ever to what Stoker wrote. What went wrong, unfortunately, is that - according to Franco - he grew tired of the idea of using the novel and then began to stray from it. This would be okay if his changes were good ones, but they weren't IMO.  It's very interesting to note here that even though Franco's version is closer to Stoker than either Hammer's or Universal's, it remains that his film isn't as entertaining. Even Coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA is semi-close to its source, yet for me remains one of the least of all Dracula movies. Because he made one unforgivable error and turned Dracula into a Romeo.
So the bottom line is, it is not just enough to me to simply make a film close to its original novel; it must be enjoyable.

We could even discuss Holmes from those early films of the 1910's to Barrymore's version and then everything else that came afterwards before their real boom with Rathbone.  Each one offers their own thing so getting upset that Rathbone isn't playing the character the same way as Barrymore isn't serving any real purpose.  Not that I'm saying you did this but it's an example. 

But people are free to say "Basil Rathbone's Holmes didn't work for me because it strays too far from the original material". That's where film criticism comes in, and that's where we have one guy who's a Roger Ebert and another who is a Gene Siskel. You're supposed to bring your own personality and observances into your writing.

I'm not sure if you're a fan of THE SHINING but I've been saying it for years that I think King supporters just need to stick with the book because no matter how many times they watch Kubrick's version, things aren't going to change. 

Same thing here. A person has every right to say he didn't like Kubrick's SHINING for whatever their personal reasons and observations. Maybe if the changes were superior to King's, then detractors could embrace them. I think the film version of PLANET OF THE APES is much superior to the concept in Pierre Bouelle's original novel.  I think that Spielberg weeded out a lot of the extraneous crap from Peter Benchley's novel, JAWS.

post #1276 of 1550
 Ahhh...Now this is more like it. Conversations.

But Michael, we are individuals.  
If for me the fact that 'Hammer' ignored so much excellent material (you are already given superb moments from the book you are meant to be adapting...but you ignore them???  Indefensible) and added too much of their own lesser material,  and the film IS called and adapted from Stoker's "Dracula",  it is a perfectly valid argument to crtiticise and dislike it for doing that.

Plus...I care not how successful it was.  Are we saying bums on seats is a scale of quality?
And even then the fact is people went to the film not because it was a remotely successful adaptation of Stoker's novel...but because it had blood, fangs, eroticism, a sexually tinged Count and lots of colour.  
Both "Dracula" and "frankenstein" were not successful BECAUSE they were Dracula and Frankenstein, but because they were 'Hammer'.  
Because what got the people into the cinema was the added visual content that 'Hammer' gave this modern audience,  that was a far cry from the content of the last really successful "Dracula" they knew, the Lugosi one.  

The Franco film is a good example too.  
When it stays much closer to the book it is in fact more successful as a horror film.  
It only really goes off the rails when Franco's plot becomes chaotic and hole filled and when he adds his own touches like the God awful stuffed animal scene!
Is it as flashy, colourful or even as well acted (Lee aside) as 'Hammer's?  No...but then again this film was years later and probably (in real terms) cost less and had a lesser crew.
And most importantly, blood, fangs, breasts,  colour photography and Chris Lee as Dracula were no longer a big new thrill.
I will even say that if Hammer's "Dracula" had first appeared in the same decade as Franco's THAT would not have been as successful as it was earlier.  Because again none of what it offered (nothing at all to do with being a good adaptation) would have been remotely novel nor as exciting anymore.

Peace 'n' fangs.
post #1277 of 1550
Change and modification are inherent in adaptations.  A screenplay can keep as little or as much as it wishes from the source, right?  I'm speaking generally here, ymmv, but is WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939) a bad film because it covers half the book?  Is Ernest Hemingway's THE KILLERS (1946) disingenuous because Ernie walks out of the theater about 5 minutes into the movie?  In a lot of cases, the credit is given just to avoid a lawsuit or to just snatch a single idea.  I think DRACULA '58 is an example of trying to tell your own story using existing characters, rather than tell the 'Dracula' story.  They were obviously intent on dropping a lot of the source, keep what they liked, and make their own movie for those times.  I don't see it as being that much different than the endless amount of movies since that have used 'Dracula' in ridiculous situations, like the George Hamilton movie, in that I don't feel it was their intention, obviously, to film the book.

I have to agree with Michael's point; you're only going to be inflamed by a film diverging from the source if you're familiar with the source, and in fact you're probably going to like other films that take a dump on their source (Hitchcock, Welles, Hawks, etc.).  But it's not about being consistently against all films that aren't loyal to their source, as opposed to the a la carte approach espoused above in which you can both like a film that trashes its source and hate a film for trashing its source; it's about being fair to the film and the best way to do that is to consider the film and the book in their own separate universes.  Consider them like different pieces of art depicting the same event.  Is 'The Lord of the Rings' a bad film because it dropped Tom Bombadil or is it bad because of what's actually on the screen?  Which is the fairer tact to take in criticizing it?  Naturally everyone is going to have expectations going in to see a film adapted from a book they've read, but to take the film on its own terms you have to temper those expectations, if not bury them.            
post #1278 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post

I have to agree with Michael's point; you're only going to be inflamed by a film diverging from the source if you're familiar with the source, and in fact you're probably going to like other films that take a dump on their source (Hitchcock, Welles, Hawks, etc.). 


I would agree with this, Pete... "how can you be disappointed that a film has deviated from its source if you are not familiar with that source?" Very true. But I'd say that this also figures into the individual person's critique; anyone's own take on a film is based on a whole number of personal baggage, circumstances, biases, knowledge, etc.  There are probably plenty of films I love that aren't anywhere near faithful to their source, so in those cases ignorance is bliss, as they say. Then again there are examples like the two I keep using with JAWS and PLANET OF THE APES where I'm familiar with the sources and I'm glad the films changed things up. My whole feeling on this is that I take it on a 'film-by-film' basis; what matters in the end is if a movie entertains me, WHATEVER the circumstances. 

 

 
Is 'The Lord of the Rings' a bad film because it dropped Tom Bombadil or is it bad because of what's actually on the screen?  Which is the fairer tact to take in criticizing it?  Naturally everyone is going to have expectations going in to see a film adapted from a book they've read, but to take the film on its own terms you have to temper those expectations, if not bury them.            
 

LORD OF THE RINGS is a perfect example for me because I've never read anything to do with it, nor have I seen any of the movies. So if I were to see the film I would have to take the movie at sheer face value with no pre-conceived notions.  I just think that not "all" filmgoing experiences are necessarily created equal. Let's take something like the newest STAR TREK rebooting, or the JAMES BOND rebooting. If you're a brand new young fan to these subjects, you might be less influenced by the older ST and JB franchises; if you're older and have loved the past incarnations, you're probably much more likely to be a tough nut to crack in giving them a better chance. In my case here, the 2006 reboot of CASINO ROYALE worked wonders for me; I had strong expectations from the older Bond movies, yet the new film's direction was able to entertain me

Along those lines ... I was never a big STAR TREK fan, so in 1989 when I went to see STAR TREK V, it was my first real experience with the subject, and I enjoyed the film. I couldn't understand why so many diehard TREK fans bashed the movie.. but in the years that followed, I caught a lot of the original superior TV shows and earlier films, and THEN I was able to see where so many felt the film of PART 5 went wrong!

As a big fan of THE INCREDIBLE HULK comic book, I was sorely disappointed by the recent new film of the same name; but had I never been an oldtime HULK reader, I may have enjoyed the new movie a lot more.  Not that I didn't give this film a chance; I did ..... but it didn't wow me, and could not break through or offer me something positive, that would supercede my strong expectations.   
post #1279 of 1550
Damn right it's better for ditching Tom Bombadil in "LOTR"!  Everyone does in fact, because he's an annoying hippie drip who holds up the plot.  Tosser he be, diddle diddle diddle dee.

I agree with Joe...The 'if you have not read the novel' argument is mute.  Because I have.  And I critique the film with that knowledge I can't wipe away. So that is the mind that mulls over the film.
Is my knowledge of the novel somehow less important to my view?  Is the view of someone not in the know somehow more valid?

I agree if a film works as a film in its own right (another defense being used) then that is very important...But if a change (a change from what they already had there to use no less!) hurts the film AS a film (like why a Vampire Hunter ignores the vampire he has come to kill) then the criticism stands erect and proud.

Also...I may well like Hammer's "Dracula" as a stand-alone film (I don't though really...except in bits it) but still dislike it as an adaptation.  These views can go hand in hand.
Take "Wolfen"...I like the movie a lot.  But as an adaptation of the novel it's fucking awful!  A sham in fact. 
It bares almost no relation to the novel, in any way shape or form, at all.
It's a disgraceful adaptation that simply steals the book's name.  I like the film for itself though at the same time as thinking all that and the changes made (Wow!  what changes) don't hurt the movie itself as a movie.
post #1280 of 1550
Any old how....


"DEAD SNOW" -   7.5 / 10


Ahhhhh….The Nazi zombie film. An utterly wonderful basic idea that’s surely bulletproof?
Sadly not, as not a single Nazi zombie film produced so far can actually be called good.
Some people laud the cheap and tedious “Shock Waves” but that even forced Peter Cushing to do the unthinkable…give a bad performance (with a comedy German accent no less).
Zombie Lake at least gave us a little bit of blood and lots of pubic hair…but had nothing else to offer of any worth at all and featured God-awful looking green-painted zombies.
“Oasis of the Zombies” bored the brain so much it gave up having a reason to exist and proceeded to leak out of the ears of the unfortunate (though thankfully tiny) audience it had managed to attract.
All of these flicks also failed to have any remotely groovy and authentic looking Nazis, or even regular German soldiers, as they were always dressed in dull, cheaply dyed, non-descript uniforms that often made them look more like plumbers with silly hats on.

Recent tries have given us better uniforms (though you hardly ever got to see them due to ‘artistically’ dark cinematography) but nothing else.
We’ve had the plotting chaos, plodding pace and generally wasted undead Nazis of “The Outpost”.
“The Bunker”
gave us head scratching pretentiousness and only a few ghostly Nazis to sustain interest.
Only "Hellboy" gave us a groovy looking Nazi zombie type thingy, but he was only a lone support figure.

Dear me…How could an idea so great turn out so much disappointment?
So should we have given up hope? NO!
Because in the end patience will be rewarded to some extent, and sure enough in 2009 we were finally given a damn good Nazi Zombie flick! From Norway of all places!


Director and co-writer (along with Stig Frode Henriksen) Tommy Wirkola has crafted a well played, well scripted movie with a Horror fan’s love for the genre and with an astute knowledge of what his fellow fans want from a movie with such a premise.
We want blood, gore, lots of zombies, solid characters, varied and exciting set-pieces and groovy looking uniforms that we can actually see for once!
And amazingly we get it all.

The cast are all good in their roles and despite the fact that we have to follow seven characters in the chaos they all manage to stay sharply defined.
Vegar Hoel as the initially prickish Martin does a fantastic job during the extended blood drenched finale, as does Stig Frode Henriksen himself as his companion in splatter Roy.
Lasse Valdal as, the most heroic of the bunch, Vegard, handles the action well and is very likeable and even the (so easy to make hateful) film geek Erlend (Jeppe Laursen) succeeds as a genuine character in the time we have to spend with them all.
In fact there are no bad performances to be seen here. And the female characters are thankfully pretty strong and independent too.

The witty screenplay (not an actual comedy, but very comedic in places while still retaining some serious drama) may snow shovel a few cliché verbal genre nods into place (the horror film title dropping, tubby, film geek with “Evil Dead“ and "Braindead" t-shirts) and dump a couple of ‘film lore’ visual/plot jokes upon us, but thanks to the way it’s handled by the cast and the disgustingly great black humour it drapes it self in “Dead Snow” manages to avoid the boredom that’s often a symptom of such fan homage content when it impedes the progress of the actual film it’s in.

Wirkola and Henrikson in fact manage to take some of these ‘but it happens that way in the movies’ moments and turn them into wonderfully sick and entertaining sequences of their own. The highlight being the ‘do we turn into zombies if we get bitten’ question that is used to deliver a wickedly grotesque, cruelly comic ‘he’s surely not going to do that’ gore scene that Sam Raimi would be proud of .
Of the non-filmic humour a joke about Martin being half Jewish is a little gem and who can resist the line “**** Nokia!” when a mobile phone fails in their time of need.

Talking of the gore, I can safely say no one will be disappointed with the outrageously bloody, stringy, chunky, sloppy grue on display here as zombies bite and tear and as would be victims crush, hack and chainsaw their way through the undead ranks.
Highlights are many, including a gloriously messy torn in half head, death by multiple ripped off limbs, flying zombie heads and a lovely scene of twisted comedic mayhem of a zombie’s intestines being used as a rope as their, impaled on a tree, undead owner spurts blood into our faces from a ruptured eye socket.
It’s all good stuff and mostly real, onset, FX with only a few needless (there is enough actual red stuff around anyway) CGI blood spray moments. And all that crimson stuff sure does look good on that huge blanket of bright, white snow!
And of course the scenery is stunning and beautifully photographed.

Zombie Uniforms are nicely presented, generally authentic looking and thankfully emblazoned with decorative details. Details which we can actually see as the last half of the film takes place in bright, crisp sunlight.
Of course the highlights are the full on Nazi ’SS’ uniforms which is an ingredient I for one have waited a long to see in a Nazi Zombie film.
Herzog (who also sports the best make-up job…more later) looks great in his black leather coat with crimson Swastika armband (you have to admit, The Nazis knew a thing about fashion) and he even has a few elite SS guards for company.

The less successful part of the FX work though is sadly a rather prominent one as the actual zombie face make-up (or is it the people they cast?) gives too many of the undead a rather fat and goofy look. All pudgy cheeks and big wide noses.
That aside though (and even saying that, some of the zombies do look very effective) the FX work is excellent.

Not too sure about the film's fast moving zombies though. Their speed is used to good effect in a couple of jump-scare slayings early on and they make for a more formidable foe, but it’s hard enough to run in deep snow anyway, no one looks good trying to do it (let alone frightening), and you can’t help but wonder if, from a purely aesthetic point of view, that dragging, crawling, shambling zombies would have looked for more creepy and unsettling (damn, we miss you Fulci) than the sometimes unintentionally comedic looking stumbling and snow stampeding, we see here.

And don’t let the briefly glimpsed zombies, taking it’s time to build up the threat, night time portion of the movie (though a couple of deaths keep things moving) fool you, because when that sun comes up “Dead Snow” kicks into full gear and then some for the rest of its running time.
Wirkola packs in gore scene after gore scene, fresh set-up after fresh set-up and utilises his small budget to deliver some wonderful mass rising up scenes and generally large scale undead mayhem and zombie smashdowns with everything from hammers, knives, chainsaws to machine guns.

So it’s not perfect and as you can see the film has a few issues as far as I’m concerned. But damn it, this is the best Nazi Zombie film so far, by a long way, and that’s made me pleasantly surprised and very happy. Can't really ask for more than that.
Next up? How about an actually good completely serious Nazi Zombie film?
That would really make my millennium.
Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 9/23/09 at 5:34pm
post #1281 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

 Ahhh...Now this is more like it. Conversations.

 

Definitely. I think it would even be a good idea to start up new movie-related discussions regularly. Maybe a "Topic of the Week" or something. 
post #1282 of 1550
Thread Starter 
Guys, Pete got my feelings across pretty strongly and I think the only thing I'd add is that it would be impossible for any film based on anything other than an original idea to come off perfectly.  Early Hollywood adapted stage plays but it would be impossible for them to fit an entire play into a running time.  It would be impossible for a Shakespeare play to be 100% faithful and carry over 100% of a scene, dialogue or character development.  If us in this thread decided to make a new SPIDER-MAN movie, how in the hell are we going to go through every comic and bring everything to the screen?  In the case of THE SHINING, King got his chance at going straight for the book and from everything I've read, he failed.  His version is already forgotten while Kubrick's vision of King's idea will live on for as long as there are people.  It also seems Kubrick's film has continued to gain fans while even the book isn't as popular as it once was.  Nevermind that new film.

I'm not putting Dave or Joe "down" by their views on HORROR OF DRACULA or even this very subject but I do think that a person, myself included, and set themselves up for certain and guaranteed failure by going into something with these expectations.  It's impossible for all the good or bad moments of a novel to make a film version.  Even if Hammer did put all the "great" moments of the novel into the film, those great moments might not be the same great moments for ever viewing.  It would be stupid for Hammer to say they've made a film version with "the greatest moments of the novel" because each viewer is going to have their own opinion on what those great moments really are.  In the end, Hammer would be best to just take the novel and give their own twist on the story.  Raimi's SPIDER-MAN isn't the comic book.  It's his idea.  No Joe's idea of what Spider-Man should be or what Spider-Man is in the eye of Dunst.  The movie we're watching is that director's vision.

You could open an entire can of worms with the subject of what gets on the screen.  Should GREED not be considered a masterpiece because six hours of footage is missing?  Should Tarantino be considered a pure hack because 90% of his films (dialogue, set ups, camera shots, music scores, scenes, actors) are borrowed from other films?  Or should he be considered a master because he can borrow other items and get his "vision" of them on the screen?  BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN isn't what it's suppose to be and neither is KING KONG, FREAKS or DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE yet are we going to judge them for what's there or put them down because they aren't complete?  Hell, Griffith adapted one story after another yet you'd never know it because the film is his own "vision".  People upset over the images in THE BIRTH OF A NATION could have bigger issues.

1. The film has NOTHING to do with the popular novel that it adapted.
2. Had Griffith actually filmed the novel then people would REALLY have something to be offended by.

We could take this conversation into another direction of director's not being allowed to put their vision onto the screen.  Hitchcock, Welles, Ford, Griffith and various others, if not ALL, have had their visions cut down in early stages of the screenplay, early preview versions or even by the MPAA or the need for a PG-13 rating.  I know people who refuse to watch a film if the "director's vision" has been tampered with.  I never refused to watch a film but I use to get pissed off when I'd hear about a director not getting his way but let's be honest here.  There are many classic examples of a film being hurt by it.  Take Welles and AMBERSONS.   A great film but the changes hurt.  However, let's look at legends Ford and Hawks.  I don't think anyone would disagree that we should thank the money men that these director's were allowed to keep the original versions of MY DARLING CLEM or THE BIG SLEEP.  Here are two examples were we should be happy because the preview versions of these really aren't all that great or memorable.  I'm sure some prefer the preview versions but I think history on both films might be different if the changes weren't made.  Watching that FORD AT FOX doc, it's clear that Ford was a great mind but it wasn't just his mind that made many of these films great.  It was a producer and studio head as well.

This conversation can also lead down the remake route.  There are very few true "remakes" if we go by the term of the definition.  KIND LADY and PSYCHO could be considered "scene for scene".  The majority of the rest are pretty much different films that take basic ideas and do something new with them.  TCM carried over Leatherface but it's its own film.  I probably watch a remake a week and for the most part they have their own original ideas.  Usually more original than any sequel.  I mean serious, could a remake of THE EXORCIST be any worse than a rip off like THE HOUSE OF EXORCISM or a sequel like THE EXORCIST II?

The past few days I've been on a Marion Davies marathon, which somewhat started last month when I viewed a couple of her films as well as a documentary.  The stuff we've been discussing with a vision on screen, tampering with original material and expectations are on full display with this little knowledge trip of mine for Mrs. Davies.  I'll go into further details when I post my reviews but more to come on her and Mr. Hearst (which could lead us to the famous images and opinions of Welles and CITIZEN KANE).
post #1283 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

...My whole feeling on this is that I take it on a 'film-by-film' basis; what matters in the end is if a movie entertains me, WHATEVER the circumstances.
 


Ultimately this boils down to (without being too pretentious) a philosophical difference.  But this is certainly the bottom line.

I think if you were able to talk to the guys behind the Hammer DRACULA, they would sound probably much like Rob Zombie talking about HALLOWEEN (well, in meaning if not words).  'We're taking Dracula and repositioning him for a new generation, making him more aggro, more dangerous, more psychological with the sexuality angle, etc. blah, blah, blah'.  I think they'd be surprised to have their film judged vis a vis the book.  And this goes back to the original point on 'expectations'.  I know when you read something you like, really connect to, you take an almost proprietary interest in its translation to the screen.  The POTENTIAL is there to give the film short shrift based on your own vision because no film can match what a great book puts in your head, and this is where I see a small, let's say, injustice can occur.     
 



LORD OF THE RINGS is a perfect example for me because I've never read anything to do with it, nor have I seen any of the movies. So if I were to see the film I would have to take the movie at sheer face value with no pre-conceived notions.  I just think that not "all" filmgoing experiences are necessarily created equal.


This is certainly true, a myriad of things can affect your perception of a film like genre, era, subject, actors, etc.  If I was a director though, I'd want someone to give my film the best chance they can without having the ultimate verdict on it prejudged, as when it failed to meet a certain vision. 
 


Let's take something like the newest STAR TREK rebooting, or the JAMES BOND rebooting. If you're a brand new young fan to these subjects, you might be less influenced by the older ST and JB franchises; if you're older and have loved the past incarnations, you're probably much more likely to be a tough nut to crack in giving them a better chance. In my case here, the 2006 reboot of CASINO ROYALE worked wonders for me; I had strong expectations from the older Bond movies, yet the new film's direction was able to entertain me
 


It's funny you mention JAMES BOND as I've heard it said that the films, outside of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE I think(?), bare little resemblance to the books.
 


Along those lines ... I was never a big STAR TREK fan, so in 1989 when I went to see STAR TREK V, it was my first real experience with the subject, and I enjoyed the film. I couldn't understand why so many diehard TREK fans bashed the movie.. but in the years that followed, I caught a lot of the original superior TV shows and earlier films, and THEN I was able to see where so many felt the film of PART 5 went wrong!

As a big fan of THE INCREDIBLE HULK comic book, I was sorely disappointed by the recent new film of the same name; but had I never been an oldtime HULK reader, I may have enjoyed the new movie a lot more.  Not that I didn't give this film a chance; I did ..... but it didn't wow me, and could not break through or offer me something positive,
that would supercede my strong expectations.   

 


Things like the HULK and SPIDER-MAN are much harder to pin down because they go through so many variations in their history. They've been in print for 50 years, so if you're making a film with these characters, you need to get only a few broad strokes down to 'get' the character.  I wonder where HULK went wrong for you, although I haven't seen the film myself.  But this: "Not that I didn't give this film a chance" is all anyone could ask for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

Damn right it's better for ditching Tom Bombadil in "LOTR"!  Everyone does in fact, because he's an annoying hippie drip who holds up the plot.  Tosser he be, diddle diddle diddle dee.
 


Well, yes, I walked right into that one, mate...
 


I agree with Joe...The 'if you have not read the novel' argument is mute.  Because I have.  And I critique the film with that knowledge I can't wipe away. So that is the mind that mulls over the film.
Is my knowledge of the novel somehow less important to my view?  Is the view of someone not in the know somehow more valid?

I agree if a film works as a film in its own right (another defense being used) then that is very important...But if a change (a change from what they already had there to use no less!) hurts the film AS a film (like why a Vampire Hunter ignores the vampire he has come to kill) then the criticism stands erect and proud.
 


I don't know this to be fact, but would you, I guess not, but would you cut Hammer some slack if what they were facing is this: 'here's a miniscule budget, you can make an 80 min. film, you have to use these characters'.  In other words if the change was based on not having the time to explore this character or not having the money to build sets, etc.
 


Also...I may well like Hammer's "Dracula" as a stand-alone film (I don't though really...except in bits it) but still dislike it as an adaptation.  These views can go hand in hand.
Take "Wolfen"...I like the movie a lot.  But as an adaptation of the novel it's fucking awful!  A sham in fact. 
It bares almost no relation to the novel, in any way shape or form, at all.
It's a disgraceful adaptation that simply steals the book's name.  I like the film for itself though at the same time as thinking all that and the changes made (Wow!  what changes) don't hurt the movie itself as a movie.
 

Again, this is all anyone can ask.  If you can make the distinction you have laid out above, then we're really almost in agreement, because it shows you ARE considering the film, to some extent, on its own basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Guys, Pete got my feelings across pretty strongly and I think the only thing I'd add is that it would be impossible for any film based on anything other than an original idea to come off perfectly.  Early Hollywood adapted stage plays but it would be impossible for them to fit an entire play into a running time.  It would be impossible for a Shakespeare play to be 100% faithful and carry over 100% of a scene, dialogue or character development. 
 


It's interesting you mention Shakespeare, because I believe Brannagh's HAMLET is an attempt to do exactly this, pull off the complete text in a film.  It's about 4 hours long, I think.  I'm not sure how successful it is.

 


If us in this thread decided to make a new SPIDER-MAN movie, how in the hell are we going to go through every comic and bring everything to the screen?  In the case of THE SHINING, King got his chance at going straight for the book and from everything I've read, he failed.  His version is already forgotten while Kubrick's vision of King's idea will live on for as long as there are people.  It also seems Kubrick's film has continued to gain fans while even the book isn't as popular as it once was.  Nevermind that new film.

I'm not putting Dave or Joe "down" by their views on HORROR OF DRACULA or even this very subject but I do think that a person, myself included, and set themselves up for certain and guaranteed failure by going into something with these expectations.  It's impossible for all the good or bad moments of a novel to make a film version.  Even if Hammer did put all the "great" moments of the novel into the film, those great moments might not be the same great moments for ever viewing.  It would be stupid for Hammer to say they've made a film version with "the greatest moments of the novel" because each viewer is going to have their own opinion on what those great moments really are.  In the end, Hammer would be best to just take the novel and give their own twist on the story.  Raimi's SPIDER-MAN isn't the comic book.  It's his idea.  No Joe's idea of what Spider-Man should be or what Spider-Man is in the eye of Dunst.  The movie we're watching is that director's vision.
 


And when I see the criticism that this isn't Spider-Man because he doesn't do this or that, I think well no, that Spider-Man is in the comics.  This is naturally going to be a different take, compromises have to be made, and tell me what you think about the film.
 


You could open an entire can of worms with the subject of what gets on the screen.  Should GREED not be considered a masterpiece because six hours of footage is missing?  Should Tarantino be considered a pure hack because 90% of his films (dialogue, set ups, camera shots, music scores, scenes, actors) are borrowed from other films?  Or should he be considered a master because he can borrow other items and get his "vision" of them on the screen?  BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN isn't what it's suppose to be and neither is KING KONG, FREAKS or DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE yet are we going to judge them for what's there or put them down because they aren't complete?  Hell, Griffith adapted one story after another yet you'd never know it because the film is his own "vision".  People upset over the images in THE BIRTH OF A NATION could have bigger issues.

1. The film has NOTHING to do with the popular novel that it adapted.
2. Had Griffith actually filmed the novel then people would REALLY have something to be offended by.

We could take this conversation into another direction of director's not being allowed to put their vision onto the screen.  Hitchcock, Welles, Ford, Griffith and various others, if not ALL, have had their visions cut down in early stages of the screenplay, early preview versions or even by the MPAA or the need for a PG-13 rating.  I know people who refuse to watch a film if the "director's vision" has been tampered with.  I never refused to watch a film but I use to get pissed off when I'd hear about a director not getting his way but let's be honest here.  There are many classic examples of a film being hurt by it.  Take Welles and AMBERSONS.   A great film but the changes hurt.  However, let's look at legends Ford and Hawks.  I don't think anyone would disagree that we should thank the money men that these director's were allowed to keep the original versions of MY DARLING CLEM or THE BIG SLEEP.  Here are two examples were we should be happy because the preview versions of these really aren't all that great or memorable.  I'm sure some prefer the preview versions but I think history on both films might be different if the changes weren't made.  Watching that FORD AT FOX doc, it's clear that Ford was a great mind but it wasn't just his mind that made many of these films great.  It was a producer and studio head as well.
 


This stood out for me as well.  As soon as shooting stopped, Ford moved on to the next thing. He just trusted Zanuck to cut the film effectively, which is pretty remarkable when you think about it.
 


This conversation can also lead down the remake route.  There are very few true "remakes" if we go by the term of the definition.  KIND LADY and PSYCHO could be considered "scene for scene".  The majority of the rest are pretty much different films that take basic ideas and do something new with them.  TCM carried over Leatherface but it's its own film.  I probably watch a remake a week and for the most part they have their own original ideas.  Usually more original than any sequel.  I mean serious, could a remake of THE EXORCIST be any worse than a rip off like THE HOUSE OF EXORCISM or a sequel like THE EXORCIST II?
 


I don't know if you're aware of this, but there is a critical movement, of which I've just seen proof of recently, to salvage THE EXORCIST II, not necessarily as a masterpiece, but as a work of very much interest.  Haven't seen it myself, but I know many consider it laughably bad, which seems difficult to believe coming from Boorman but whatever.
 


The past few days I've been on a Marion Davies marathon, which somewhat started last month when I viewed a couple of her films as well as a documentary.  The stuff we've been discussing with a vision on screen, tampering with original material and expectations are on full display with this little knowledge trip of mine for Mrs. Davies.  I'll go into further details when I post my reviews but more to come on her and Mr. Hearst (which could lead us to the famous images and opinions of Welles and CITIZEN KANE).

Hmmm, intriguing.
post #1284 of 1550
Shorts dump...


John Nesbitt’s Passing Parade No. 53: The Great American Mug (1945) (short) Dir: Cyril Endfield

Production: MGM

 

A fanciful look at a trip to a barber shop, which back in the day was really something more along the lines of a men’s club.  The short is supposed to take contemporary viewers back to an earlier time, but of course, to today’s viewer the 1940’s barbershop is hardly any more recognizable than the 1900’s barber shop; men in suits and ties, looking over the latest Police Gazette, an endless variety of hair tonics, tobaccos and cuspidors, shoe shines, manicures, baths (!), and other sundry tonsorial arts are all on display.  One of the routines was for each regular customer to have his own personalized mug, which was held in a large rack on a wall.  The mug was filled with soap and a brush.  And when you changed barbers, the new barber would go into the old barber’s shop and triumphantly retrieve the customer’s mug.  The last time I went to get a haircut, a rather flamboyant gentleman tried to sell me a $30 bottle of shampoo and while waiting I had the choice to read either US or PEOPLE magazine.


out of 4

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Seeing Ceylon (1953) (short)

Production: MGM

 

This early Traveltalk (looks like the second one) starts out in Columbo, the capital of Ceylon (or Sri Lanka to modern viewers), whose role as a main port is highlighted by its lone landmark, a lighthouse at the end of its main street.  Then off to Mount Lavinia, a popular resort town, where we are introduced to Miss Ceylon as Tchaikovsky’s ‘Waltz of the Flowers’ from the Nutcracker plays on the soundtrack.  Other sights include Buddhist temples, the perils of Ceylon traffic (getting stuck behind elephants hauling trees), the “world famous” Peradenyia Gardens, the city of Kandy (and the celebrated bathing elephants of that city), and a glimpse at the rubber industry.  Ceylon is noted for having a comparatively enlightened view of women, who enjoy rare freedoms (like, they can show their faces).

out of 4

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Ancient India (1952) (short)

Production: MGM

 

We open in the city and state of Bundi, of which could be said there are fewer inhabited places on the face of the Earth who have changed so little from its past.  Fitz states a common Traveltalk sentiment; the people who live in such humble surroundings, like Bundi, are content with their lives, without the trouble or confusion that bedevils us suckers.  A visit with the Maharajah of Bundi, as he celebrates his birthday, and a tour of his palace follows.  Then, a look at a religious shrine, which a gang of monkeys has made their home.  A different member of the animal kingdom reigns in Jaipur--the sacred cow, who comes and goes as she wishes.  Finally, we get a quick glimpse of the palace of the Maharajah of Jaipur, which is stunning in scope and extravagance.

out of 4       

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Old Natchez on the Mississippi (1939) (short)

Production: MGM

 

A little ‘Old South’ porn for the diehards.  Not surprisingly there is a lot of nostalgia for the pre-war years (that’s the Civil War), when Natchez was the ‘Queen of the South’.  Natchez is the kind of places where the Garden Club ladies restore old frame houses, get kitted out in period dresses and raise and salute an old fifteen star flag.  Natchez holds an elaborate annual celebration of the antebellum era, where ladies dress up in petticoats and sing songs and children hold tea parties. Oh, and colored folk also recreate their, uh, ‘roles’.  As Fitz relays that one ‘Aunt Jenny’, now in her late 80’s, tells us, “no merrier people ever lived than the colored folks of the deep south.”  A shot of some young men rolling bones proves the point.  Some sort of outdoor cotillion ensues as we get swept up in the romance of Old Dixie.  One of the better prints, which at least shows off the Southern architecture, but this kind of play-acting holds no interest for me.

out of 4

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Along the Cactus Trail (1944) (short)

Production: MGM

 

On this Traveltalk, we follow the Cactus Trail, a motor trip that takes you from Riverside, CA to Phoenix, AZ.  First we explore Riverside’s spectacular Mission Inn, a sort of art museum/hotel, where we run into famous composer Carrie Jacobs-Bond (yeah, I don’t know who she is either).  Along the Cactus Trail we note a grove of Joshua trees, said to “represent the oldest form of plant life” (‘Waltz of the Flowers’ makes another appearance).  What follows is an extended look at the plant life along the way (featuring Fitz’s attempt to prune a dead ‘pipe’ from an Organ Pipe cactus).  Arriving in Phoenix we stop at the Camelback Inn, which sits appropriately enough at the foot of the Camelback Mountain.  The Inn features a garden in which is grown just about every species of cacti found in the U.S. and Mexico.  Add two stars if you’re a horticulturalist.


out of 4


 

A Crime Does Not Pay Subject No. 17: A Criminal is Born (1938) (short) Dir: Leslie Fenton

Production: MGM

 

Crisis time in Crime Does Not Pay land, as ‘Judge Charles Edwin Marshall’ informs us that the criminal population in the country has now reached over 4 million.  You might guess that the average criminal is born out of poverty, well you’d be wrong. Get your head out of the sand! Most criminals come from a home just like yours or mine, except they are the product of parental neglect.  And we are shown the experience of four such hoodlums in training; the son of the well-to-do parents who are always going out for dinner or a party and leaving junior home alone to fend for himself; the boy from the dysfunctional family with the abusive husband/father; the son who can’t get the attention of his self-absorbed big shot dad; and the fourth member of the gang, the kid whose fallen in with this bad crowd, but his attentive father may be the lifeline he needs to straighten himself out.  The point, ironically, is that criminals aren’t born, they’re made, by awful parenting.  Fairly effective and well done.


out of 4

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Over the Seas to Belfast (1946) (short)

Production: MGM

 

We start in Halifax harbor, Nova Scotia, and to celebrate the opening of the seas to civilian travel after the war, we’re crossing the Atlantic.  The trip has added poignancy, as on board are about 150 evacueed children returning home to Britain.  Most have been gone for so long that they’re going back with Canadian and American accents.  We disembark at the “world’s leading linen center”, Belfast.  Sights include the City Hall building, the noted botanical gardens, and the Parliament building, where we spend some time on a visit by the King, Queen and Princess Elizabeth. 


out of 4

 

 

 

A Pete Smith Specialty: Marine Circus (1939) (short) Dir: James A. FitzPatrick

Production: MGM

 

Or when Pete Smith met Traveltalks.  Our visit is to Marineland, a newly opened aquarium located somewhere along the A1A on the Florida coast between St. Augustine and Daytona.  The main attraction is something that no self-respecting aquarium nowadays would be caught without--a giant tank filled with all types of fish, turtles, dolphins, sharks, stingrays, etc., in order to replicate the true underwater environment.  What made this kind of a novelty for its time is that the tank is equipped with movie cameras, which produced ‘underwater’ footage not seen at that point (and would go on to be the sight where many movies, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON for one, and TV shows were filmed).  We take a brief excursion to see how “new actors for the studio”, in this case a shark, are procured and brought back for Marineland.  The big event is feeding time in the tank--the fish apparently respond to an underwater bell being rung.  Good footage, including a diver having a little trouble with a hungry turtle.  Pete Smith does his thing (“this ray’s name is Martha, get it?”).  So I like aquariums, sue me.

out of 4

 

 

 

James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Glimpses of Florida (1941) (short)

Production: MGM             

 

Opens with the story of how palm trees came to Florida (cocoanuts salvaged from a wrecked Spanish ship in 1878).  Then a look at the relaxing Miami beaches and swanky clubs.  No trip to Miami would be complete without a visit to a place known by degenerates the world over--Hialeah race track, looking a touch more glamorous than it did before it closed in 2001.  With ‘Swanee River’ on the soundtrack we travel down the Suwannee and off through the Everglades.  Other attractions include Bok Tower, the spectacular Cypress Gardens, and Silver Springs, where we see an alligator wrestler teach some gator a lesson and milk a diamondback rattler.  Finally a look at the present-day Seminole Indians, who descended from about 150 ancestors that were left over following an extended war with the U.S. government in the 1830s-40s, a war which begin when the Seminole rejected a gracious offer to move west to a reservation.

out of 4      

 

 

 

A Miniature: Let’s Dance (1936) (short) Dir: David Miller

Production: MGM

 

A brief summary of some tap and ballroom dances, with an explanation of their steps, as narrated by Pete Smith.  We meet Dave Gould, the creator of the Carioca and The Continental, who shows us his new dance, the ‘Tap-Along’.  A somewhat impractical dance called the Adagio (it’s more of an acrobat routine) is shown in super-slow-mo, and you get a sense of the physical danger the dancers are in if they’re off by even an inch.  Then a look at a knife throwing act/dance troupe, including a slow-mo shot of a botched knife throw.  We finish with a brutal look at some, uh, plus-sized women who dance to lose weight.  A couple of familiar Arthur Freed/Herb Brown songs are on the soundtrack, Broadway Rhythm and You Are My Lucky Star (as heinously sung by Smith).

out of 4



 

A Pete Smith Specialty: The Domineering Male (1940) (short) Dir: John Hines
Production: MGM

 

An alternative take on the once prevailing thought that in a relationship, it’s the man that should call the shots.  As we see, it’s the woman who, through subtle machinations and manipulations, pulls the strings.  We meet Gertie, a smoking, drinking, gum-chewer who makes herself over into a chaste, refined teetotaler for the benefit of landing a top prospect husband.  Gertie’s phoniness is played for biting but gentle laughs, until the short takes a cynical turn and it becomes bitter Pete Smith trying to work out his real-life issues with gold digging women (at least according to my flawless armchair psychiatry).  Funny in an antiquated way.       

out of 4

 

 

 

John Nesbitt’s Passing Parade No. 50: A Lady Fights Back (1944) (short)

Production: MGM

 

The ‘lady’ of the title is the French luxury liner Normandie, and this short, exclusively through archival footage, tells the story of the ship’s remarkable existence.  We see the Normandie’s first arrival in New York in 1935 and the first class reception the city gave it.  Then a tour through the ship, its opulent dining hall and lounge, the indoor pool, the artwork, the kitchen with its 56-foot long stoves, even the fixtures were extravagant.  The dogs’ menu offered chicken liver and lamp chops for f***’s sake.  But as France’s fortunes waned, so did the Normandie’s.  With the ship in New York while WWII raged, the U.S. claimed the Normandie to use in the war effort.  As it was being worked on to be converted for use, the ship caught fire, eventually capsizing in the harbor.  At incredible cost, the ship was improbably righted, an engineering feat said to have taught lessons used in the salvage operation at Pearl Harbor.  With the last shots of the Normandie that cameras were allowed to take, we see her going out to sea to be used by the Navy against submarines and as a minesweeper.  Good story, fascinating footage.


out of 4

 

 

 

A Pete Smith Specialty: Heroes at Leisure (1939) (short) Dir: Charles T. Trego

Production: MGM

 

Here we follow a group of lifeguards on their down time as they take out their longboards and go undersea diving.  There we see them snatch up abalone (a kind of oyster), some crazy looking lobster, and take out a moray eel before it can take them out.  All this is done without any breathing aid and the divers can be underwater for up to 3 minutes.  There’s an unconvincing encounter with a shark (who looks anesthetized or worse) and an octopus.  One of the better shots is during the paddle home in rough waters--an imperturbable dog rides the whole trip on the front of one of the boards.

out of 4       

 

 

 

A Pete Smith Specialty: I Love My Wife But! (1947) (short) Dir: Dave O’Brien (as David Barclay)

Production: MGM

 

Now I know Pete has issues with women.  This short is about how annoying wives can be, from the nagging slave driver type to the relentless yapper that talks from morning to night.  So we see all the types, like the wife who takes forever to get ready before going out.  Then there’s the wife who’s constantly trying to correct behavior, or in one of the better sequences, the wife who brings the husband along shopping and takes forever to buy something.  In this bit, the husband is stuck waiting around in the woman’s department and inadvertently keeps meeting the eyes of an old lady buying a girdle.  And finally, for the sexist coup de grace, there’s the wife who can’t drive without hitting something (actually that one is true, everyone knows women can’t drive).

out of 4


Edited by Pete York - 10/15/09 at 10:12pm
post #1285 of 1550
 I think we have polite and peaceful agreement on much there everyone.   Pete...loving the thoughts.
post #1286 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Guys, Pete got my feelings across pretty strongly and I think the only thing I'd add is that it would be impossible for any film based on anything other than an original idea to come off perfectly. 


Again, I don't say they should (or could) come off perfectly. But I can point to changes I think worked or did not work. Or certain crucial things which should not have been eliminated (imo).
 

 If us in this thread decided to make a new SPIDER-MAN movie, how in the hell are we going to go through every comic and bring everything to the screen? 


Another good example. I liked the first two SPIDER-MAN movies because even though they changed some details from the comics (like giving Spidey organic web shooters), the movies worked and for the most part Sam Raimi managed to retain the general vibe of the original comics (again, only IMO -- another critic may feel differently for his review).

 


I'm not putting Dave or Joe "down" by their views on HORROR OF DRACULA or even this very subject but I do think that a person, myself included, and set themselves up for certain and guaranteed failure by going into something with these expectations.  It's impossible for all the good or bad moments of a novel to make a film version.  Even if Hammer did put all the "great" moments of the novel into the film, those great moments might not be the same great moments for ever viewing.  It would be stupid for Hammer to say they've made a film version with "the greatest moments of the novel" because each viewer is going to have their own opinion on what those great moments really are.  In the end, Hammer would be best to just take the novel and give their own twist on the story. 


And in the end, I thought Hammer's DRACULA was still a good and vibrant vampire film - ( *** out of **** from me). There were just some things about it that I think missed the mark, and I feel fans generally overrate the film.

 


Raimi's SPIDER-MAN isn't the comic book.  It's his idea.  No Joe's idea of what Spider-Man should be or what Spider-Man is in the eye of Dunst.  The movie we're watching is that director's vision.
 


IMO, as I wrote above, on the contrary I think Raimi actually got much of it right and in the spirit of the comic book. But what you say about "a director's vision" is true -- but who says I have to like that particular vision for any given film?
 

Should Tarantino be considered a pure hack because 90% of his films (dialogue, set ups, camera shots, music scores, scenes, actors) are borrowed from other films? 
 


Mike, don't you agree that this is up to the individual to decide? I love Tarantino's work and how he crafts his own movies from so many other films and influences; but that's me... obviously, many others DO think the guy's just a pure hack.  And that's them. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and ways of approaching films, and this is why we have different reviewers and critiques out there.
 

 BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN isn't what it's suppose to be and neither is KING KONG, FREAKS or DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE yet are we going to judge them for what's there or put them down because they aren't complete? 


Some may, and they're entitled. But I don't know that anyone has actually ever reviewed any of these films here and "taken off points" because of missing footage (if that's what you mean; I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here). Personally, from what I have heard of the missing scenes from BRIDE, the edits were a wise choice and I think the movie would have been dragged down if the other extraneous scenes had been included.  
 


This conversation can also lead down the remake route.  There are very few true "remakes" if we go by the term of the definition.  KIND LADY and PSYCHO could be considered "scene for scene".  The majority of the rest are pretty much different films that take basic ideas and do something new with them.  TCM carried over Leatherface but it's its own film.  I probably watch a remake a week and for the most part they have their own original ideas.  Usually more original than any sequel.  I mean serious, could a remake of THE EXORCIST be any worse than a rip off like THE HOUSE OF EXORCISM or a sequel like THE EXORCIST II?


I just feel that the "remake" thing has gone way out of control today. There have been interviews with writers and filmmakers, including one recently (the guy's name escapes me) who admitted that he is required these days to specifically search the IMDB for older films that have not yet been remade, rather than come up with a fresh idea. To me, this approach is just an abomination.

As you know, I take Today's remakes on a case-by-case basis; I don't claim to be consistent in avoiding ALL of them when I know they're remakes. I refused to see the new PELHAM ONE TWO THREE because I love the 1974 film and it's THAT film that I wish to think of and remember when I hear the title.  I went to see Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN just because I liked Zombie's DEVIL'S REJECTS and was curious to see what he'd do. I went to see FRIDAY THE 13th 2009 because at this stage of the game it's just another Jason in a hockey mask killing people, and the old series ran its course. I'd be willing to see the new LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT because the old one was lousy and I have no allegiance to it. But there are certain films I'd never see the remakes to: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE OMEN. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, FAME, JAWS, BUTCH CASSIDY, THE STING or THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY....

I'd rather have sequels more than remakes, if I had to choose. I don't see sequels as being the same as remakes. Yes, I think that a remake of THE EXORCIST would be a sin -- and I'd rather have EXORCIST II  (as bad as it is) because its' just a sequel; it doesn't defame the original by using its title. And that's another thing about too many remakes -- I'm getting tired of always having to specify WHICH VERSION WE'RE DISCUSSING. I'm sick of having to add the year (F13 '09... HALLOWEEN II '09..). At least change the damn title to make things easier to identify and to allow other films to have their own identity from the remakes (like THE MIRAGE becoming POSSESSED). Yeah, they're still remakes; but it makes things easier and doesn't hurt the individuality of the originals. 
 

post #1287 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post


It's funny you mention JAMES BOND as I've heard it said that the films, outside of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE I think(?), bare little resemblance to the books.


 


 

Great observation! I get into this topic every so often with fans, and for me I came to the film series first and it's what I like. Some of the things I've heard about the books don't sound appealing to me because I've been so conditioned to the films. This is the perfect REVERSE of what I've talked about with regard to DRACULA. However, my same idea applies -- it's all up to the individual's baggage and experiences as to how certain movies will work for him, or not. I may also very well enjoy the Bond books if I ever gave them a chance; doesn't mean I'm completely shut off to the idea.   

I don't know if you're aware of this, but there is a critical movement, of which I've just seen proof of recently, to salvage THE EXORCIST II, not necessarily as a masterpiece, but as a work of very much interest.  Haven't seen it myself, but I know many consider it laughably bad, which seems difficult to believe coming from Boorman but whatever.
 

Oh, you owe it to yourself to see how laughingly awful this thing is. I'd love to hear your take on it, or if perhaps you found some value in it. Yes, believe it or not, Boorman made this piece of junk. Which is why I don't always go for that "Auteur Theory", at least not with regard to EVERY director. 

Boorman had his own "vision" for EXORCIST II, and I considered that but I didn't like where he went with it and I thought he failed miserably. On the other hand, I liked the "vision" William Blatty had with EXORCIST III, and thought he succeeded. 
post #1288 of 1550
Give or take a few changes, the first Bond films are fairly close to the novels. You Only Live Twice is the first one to more or less completely throw out the original text.
post #1289 of 1550
"In this day and age replete with bland, unnecessary remakes of past successes, it is refreshing to come across an older movie that stands no chance whatsoever of being deigned with that dubious honor; not only that: I sincerely believe that, as long as the war in Iraq rages on, it will also never be released on DVD...but I would love to be proved wrong by Warners."

The sentence above is taken from my review of Robert Aldrich's TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING (1977) of a few posts back which, at once, condemns and condones the contemporary cinematic state of "remakitis" i.e. the very fact that the film stands minimal chances of seeing the light of day on a legitimate home video format should (in theory) make it ideal material for a new 21st Century revamp...after all, the film is 32 years old already! But, given the current situation in Iraq,  that just won't happen! Catch-22 Q.E.D.  

By the way, congrats for a lively and interesting discussion. Kudos to Joe for 'picking up' POSSESSED (1931) and enjoying it for what it is; I have acquired a load of Gable and Crawford movies lately but, so far, I had given that one a pass.

I'm also surprised that Mr. York has yet to experience EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977) for the first time. If I had more time with Mr. Boorman in Venice, I would have loved to dwell on his two terrible (and terribly fascinating) turkeys of the 1970s - the other one being, of course, that "Sean Connery-in-a-nappy" head-scratcher, ZARDOZ (1974). 

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/24/09 at 10:56am
post #1290 of 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

Oh, you owe it to yourself to see how laughingly awful this thing is. I'd love to hear your take on it, or if perhaps you found some value in it. Yes, believe it or not, Boorman made this piece of junk. Which is why I don't always go for that "Auteur Theory", at least not with regard to EVERY director. 

Boorman had his own "vision" for EXORCIST II, and I considered that but I didn't like where he went with it and I thought he failed miserably. On the other hand, I liked the "vision" William Blatty had with EXORCIST III, and thought he succeeded. 
 

EXORCIST II seems to bring with it a whole 'nother bunch of issues.  I don't particularly know the production history, but aren't there different cuts and things like that? Things that would signify studio interference? Maybe we never saw Boorman's true vision, but some kind of hacked up version (which would account for the apparent incoherence) unfairly applied to him.  Either way, yeah, now I'm going to have to watch this.   


Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee View Post

Give or take a few changes, the first Bond films are fairly close to the novels. You Only Live Twice is the first one to more or less completely throw out the original text.

Thanks for the clarification, James.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

I'm also surprised that Mr. York has yet to experience EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977) for the first time. If I had more time with Mr. Boorman in Venice, I would have loved to dwell on his two terrible (and terribly fascinating) turkeys of the 1970s - the other one being, of course, that "Sean Connery-in-a-nappy" head-scratcher, ZARDOZ (1974). 

See, now I feel like we missed out on another classic Venice Film Fest story; Mario badgering the gentlemanly Mr. Boorman into eventually upsetting a cuppa tea over his head.
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)