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 44

post #1291 of 1550
9/24/09 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post

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.   
 

What happened was that EXORCIST II was a mess right from the start, just as Boorman made it and released it. The initial response was so bad that Boorman went back and tried in vain to add a new prologue, and shuffle a few scenes around, but to no avail.  Here is a section from a book called THE EXORCIST: OUT OF THE SHADOWS where they talk about EXORCIST II. It starts when original author Blatty went to see the sequel:

Blatty admits he was the first person to start laughing in the theatre, but was soon followed by the rest of the audience: "We roared from that point on - you'd think we were watching THE PRODUCERS". The author was not alone in his assessment. Admittedly expectation was enormously high, but by any standards the reception awarded EXORCIST II, by both the critics and the public alike, was unprecedented. Audiences were openly laughing at the movie during its Ne York premiere and sometimes the reaction was a little stronger.

"You know they rioted in the theater where E2 opened in Westwood, in Los Angeles," laughs Blatty. "And they called John Boorman over and I believe it was John Calley, the creative head at Warners, who personally took him to the theatre in the wee hours of the morning and showed him the destruction. They ripped the box office out of the ground; they tore the place apart. And Boorman, according to the reports, looked around and said 'Well, the film is obviously too good for them'. "

Boorman was quickly shipped back to the States. Within ten days of the film's release, he had prepared a new version. It was some fifteen minutes shorter, [spoilers followed, so I eliminated them...]. Also added was a previously discarded voice-over prologue, while several other scenes were either trimmed or restructured. The new version of the movie was given another premiere, eliciting a slightly better response, but by then there were 700 prints on release in the US and Warners had no desire to blow another million dollars on recalling them all and issuing new ones. The amended film was released in overseas markets but either way, the damage was already done.

Perhaps the final word on the film should come from the man who made the better, worthier original - Billy Friedkin: "I saw a half hour of it. I was at Technicolor and a guy said 'We just finished a print of EXORCIST II, do you wanna have a look at it?' And I looked at a half hour of it and I thought it was as bad as seeing a traffic accident in the street. It was horrible. It's just a stupid mess made by a dumb guy - John Boorman by name, somebody who should be nameless but in this case he should be named. It's a travesty. Scurrilous. A horrible picture".    


Reply
post #1292 of 1550
9/24/09 at 12:42pm
 HO HO!  Great quotes!

Isn't it a case as well of one version where Burton dies, one where he lives?  
Can't remember which one I saw, it was years ago, but I do remember it was a stinker.
Reply
post #1293 of 1550
9/24/09 at 12:51pm
If you read the quote from the book, I deleted a bit with a "spoiler" in it. But yeah, you're right.
Reply
post #1294 of 1550
9/24/09 at 2:31pm
Oy vey. Good work on the background, Joe.

In reference to something I previously alluded to, here are a few comments from Joseph McBride, who was a Variety reviewer at the time, that he made in a recent discussion on the Dave Kehr board.  Neither Boorman or Friedkin think much of each other, obviously, and it goes back to THE EXORCIST.

Quote:
Boorman told [McBride] he had to talk Max Von Sydow into being in the sequel because Von Sydow, like him, was upset at how the first film abused a child. Boorman convinced Von Sydow they would do the opposite and that their film would be a truly serious treatment of spirituality.

Quote:
Boorman was...making an expressionistic art film in Hollywood during the seventies while critiquing one of the biggest popular successes of that era.

Quote:
Some of the ridicule of THE HERETIC by audiences at the time was mockery of the film’s depictions of African culture, including the James Earl Jones character, who was shown as a man of great spiritual stature and dignity. That was a scream to many in the audience. I remember the biggest laughs were over the demon’s name, Pazuzu, as if that was supposed to be funny (as when Jones says, “I flew with Pazuzu”). There were also a lot of laughs over the thought-transference device, an important metaphor for the spiritual connections among the priest, Jones’s holy man, and Linda Blair’s tormented child, who were all united in trying to ward off the demonic influence. The point of the film was that great good attracts great evil. These elements are key to the film, and by laughing at them people were simply expressing rejection of the fact hat the film was daring to use the horror genre to treat serious themes. George Cukor, at an Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences screening of his lovely 1933 film LITTLE WOMEN, angrily denounced people who hooted at his film for indulging in what he called “bums’ laughs.” I felt the same when I had the unpleasant experience of watching THE HERETIC with different audiences. Boorman told me that while watching it on Hollywood Blvd. he felt he was sitting in “an audience of Martians.”


Quote:

[T]he audience I saw the original EXORCIST with in Westwood also came to laugh. Every time the girl was in torment, they thought it was hysterical. A very sadistic audience, it seemed to me. There was no feeling of empathy for her. This was partly the fault of the film, though you would have thought viewers might have some feeling for a girl suffering such torments. Boorman heightened the sense of empathy at every turn. I think the EXORCIST audience viewed that as an affront to their sensibilities. As for his misguided but understandable attempts to “fix” the film by reediting it, I couldn’t help being reminded of that line from the Vietnam War about how they had to destroy the village in order to save it.


Billy Wilder told students at the AFI, “I do respect a director such as William Friedkin, who suddenly is confronted with a scene in THE EXORCIST such as a party going on and the eight-year-old girl joins the party and pees on the carpet. That’s just a day’s work, right? Where do you put the camera? It is not easy. I can do a chase sequence; I can do any goddamned thing; but an eight-year-old girl peeing during a party, that’s a new one. It requires a different technique. But it is this kind of never-seen-before that makes for enormous box office. I think that once you make up your mind to do a picture like this, you’ve got to give it both knees, because it is not going to be in good taste and very subtle.”


I like McBride, but a few minutes research shows he's out on his own here, and I mean that literally.  The next best thing I could find was the film being interesting as an "audacious failure".
Reply
post #1295 of 1550
9/24/09 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete York View Post

The next best thing I could find was the film being interesting as an "audacious failure".

 

This is probably the reason I've chosen to own EXORCIST II in my personal collection. It's incredibly interesting as a failure. 
Reply
post #1296 of 1550
9/24/09 at 6:58pm
Thread Starter 

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.

Love has nothing to do with it.  If Guy A says:

Guy A: Gee, that Tarantino writes the greatest dialogue ever.  I mean, c'mon, how could someone come up with a classic line like "My name is Buck and I'm....". 

Now, am I hating on Tarantino by telling Guy A that the "master" behind that line should go to Tobe Hooper?  DePalma took a beating for his "borrowing" of Hitchcock but the beating was because people knew Hitchcock.  Not many know the films Tarantino is ripping off so they're not going to pick up on something unoriginal no matter how much greatness he brings to it.  I personally think it works great but he still doesn't need to be given the Griffith award of starting something "new" when others were doing it before.

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.  

It also makes for many goofs in the film.  It also shows the monster, who we're suppose to feel for, in a very ugly light with the murder of the little girl, which in the original version was suppose to have been the supporting character.  Never mind the ending, which Universal forced on Whale.  I think the alternate ending here wasn't bad but at the same time had Whale gotten his way with the original ending of FRANKENSTEIN then we'd be left with no BRIDE as we know it today.

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.

I don't agree with this at all.  Shit sequels can make an overall series look bad no matter how great the first one is.  EXORCIST II, to me, is an example and the future films didn't help any, although I'd say part 3 is a great one.  Just think of the masterful ending had HALLOWEEN never had a sequel.  I love a lot of the sequels but they take away from the impact of that original ending.  Part 2 even makes you look at part 1 differently because of the changes or additions made.  Looking back might be different on some levels but I'm sure in 1945-47, fans like you and I were rolling their eyes at the thought of HOUSE OF DRACULA running the monsters into the ground with yet another cash in on famous names to make a quick buck.

Of course, EXORCIST II falls into the "cut" department as well.  I can't remember if it was Video Watchdog or another mag but they had a scene by scene rundown of the "original" version.  I believe three versions have been released to theaters, VHS and DVD but apparently the REAL "original" version was a pretty good movie that Warner took away from the director and had him make it more "demonic".  Until they release this version we'll just have to guess but this talk of it makes me want to give it a spin next month.

Reply
post #1297 of 1550
9/24/09 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

HALLOWEEN... Part 2 even makes you look at part 1 differently because of the changes or additions made. 



Halloween II had so much impact on the original that Zombie's remake even used the "Lauire is The Shape's sister" aspect from the sequel like it was part of the original movie's story.
Reply
post #1298 of 1550
9/24/09 at 10:14pm
Thread Starter 

I think it's easy to forget that the original Shape has no reason for going after these girls.  It seems to be common knowledge now that they were related but of course this wasn't anywhere near the original movie.  Again, I love the sequels but I do wonder what it would have been like with just that original ending and the unknown aspects of Myers before the sequels started giving him all the backstory.


Now, my little Marion Davies experiment is over as I managed to get all the films watched.  I watched a couple last month and the rest over the past week or so.  I'll post more on her as everything sinks in but I think the image of her from CITIZEN KANE was quite false as Welles later admitted.  At the same time I think Hearst did keep her from being dragged around in the mud.  It's rather amazing what a prick this man was and I think KANE didn't go far enough in showing what a bastard this guy was.  THE CAT'S MEOW was wonderful but I'd really love to see a film really go after him.  Never mind the possible murder but how he ruined people's lives (Fatty Arbuckle) and kept others things hidden is rather sad but an interesting part of the history back then.


Marianne (1929)
 

Robert Z. Leonard

Three American GI's (Lawrence Gray, Benny Rubin, Cliff Edwards) at the end of WW1 fall in love with a French woman (Marion Davies) but she wants none of it and has to fight all of them off even though her heart might change.  Apparently this film was originally made as a silent but the studio went back and re-filmed the entire thing.  I'm sure they scrapped an entire movie because of Davies' famous lover but it would be interesting comparing both versions.  This one here has a lot of music sequences so it would be interesting seeing what they did in the silent version.  Considering this is an early sound film you have to expect some of the rather poor sound quality but Davies performance will have her fans wanting to check this out.  There's really not too much story here and certainly not enough to carry a 112-minute film.  The movie runs a tad bit too long because it's quite predictable so getting to the ending takes quite a while especially when you know who she's going to fall in love with.  The music sequences are all rather strange because they pop out of anywhere and the film doesn't try to hide the fact that many of those doing the singing really aren't that talented in the field.  The rather bland singing makes for an interesting experiment and in some ways it makes the film seem almost surreal but at the same time the bad singing works against the "musical" aspect of the film.  Davies gets to belt out a couple lines but they're hidden within some comedy.  Either way, she turns in a fine comic performance even though her French accent isn't the greatest.  The think accent is also hard to understand at times due to the sound quality but it's only a minor problem.  The three male leads are all fine in a strange sort of way and they're certainly over the top in a campy but entertaining way.
 

Going Hollywood (1933)
 

Raoul Walsh
 

Light but entertaining comedy, which is pretty much a film that glamorizes stalking.  Marion Davies plays Sylvia, a school teacher who quits her job after hearing Bill Williams (Bing Crosby) on the radio.  She instantly falls in love with him and decides to track him down.  He gives her the slip but she finds him in Hollywood where, as fate would have it, they end up being co-stars.  William Randolph Hearst was the backer of this film and wanted Davies to be surrounded by as much talent as possible so he paid an outrageous fortune to get Crosby away from Paramount as well as paying to get Walsh away from Fox.  The end result of all the time and trouble made for a good 80-minute comedy that has plenty of small laughs and some nice music.  Davies once again comes across very charming and one can't help but fall for her here.  She gets to play several parts here as she spoofs a French actress to great effect and also manages to be quite good playing a country good during a great music number set on a farm.  There's also a sequence where she goes blackface and ends up making this one of the funniest scenes in the film.  Crosby plays the "supporting" part but in many ways this is his film.  Not only does he have that great voice going through many nice songs but he also manages to be the perfect mix for Davies comedy.  The two stars have great chemistry together and really do make for a believable love story.  The supporting cast includes Patsy Kelly, Ned Sparks, Stuart Erwin and Fifi D'Orsay as the mean French woman.  The film is certainly a showcase for stalking but no one should take it too seriously as the film wears its heart right on its shoulder and delivers some nice entertainment.  Fans of the two stars will certainly want to check the film out but so will others just wanting a good time.  If you're not familiar with the stars then this would be a nice place to start out.
 

Hearts Divided (1936)
 

Frank Borzage

Claude Rains masterful performance as Napoleon is wasted in this rather bland mess that was clearly meant to be a showcase for star Marion Davies.  In the film, Napoleon sends his brother Bonaparte (Dick Powell) to America where he is to negotiate $20 million for the Louisiana Territory.  Once there, he ends up teaching French to the beautiful Elizabeth Patterson (Davies) and eventually falls in love with her, which doesn't sit too well with his brother.  It's well known that Davies felt at ease with a good comedy but the costume dramas made her nervous and that's obvious here in this film, which besides a few good things turns out to be a complete mess.  Based on true events, the movie changes history around to fit the story so those looking for the truth might want to settle with a book on the subject.  Hearst obviously thought Davies could handle the material but she can't and sadly she comes off looking pretty weak her.  There wasn't a single scene where I believed her as this character as she didn't look the part nor was she able to act it.  Powell, selected by Davies, isn't any better and often just appears to be modeling for the camera.  The two of them have absolutely no chemistry together and this really kills the love story trying to be pushed here.  The main reason to watch this film is for Rains performance, which is another great one by the character actor.  He does a great job at filling the part of Napoleon and one can't help but wish the entire movie be built around him.  Rains plays the character quite low but that power (or evilness) is easily viewable just by looking at his eyes.  The film isn't helped any by some really silly dialogue or rather lampoonish scenes including one where a group of men follow Davies character up a tree.  In the end, there might have been a good story somewhere here but one can't help that the producers didn't find it.
 

Operator 13 (1934)

Richard Boleslawski

Extremely bizarre and rather choppy Civil War drama about actress Gail Loveless (Marion Davies) who goes to work as a spy for the Union.  Once undercover, as a black maid, she begins to have feelings for a Confederate soldier (Gary Cooper).  Once again Davies lover William Randolph Hearst put the money up for this production and half way through the making he had director Raoul Walsh fired even though he had made GOING HOLLYWOOD with Davies a year earlier.  A new script was written and the rest is history but in the end this turned out to be one of the strangest dramas from this era.  I might go even further and call the film a complete and utter embarrassment and a horrid excuse for entertainment but the thing is just so strange that you can't help but be entertained by it.  The first thirty-minutes has Davies in some very bad blackface make up as she's undercover as a maid.  Davies wasn't a newbie to blackface but the make up job here is so light skinned that you can't help but laugh at the thought that this make up job would be able to fool anyone in discussion with her and that includes Cooper's character.  This is a drama yet Davies plays this maid role as some sort of comedy with the bad accent, which again doesn't sit well with what the film was going for.  Not to mention that whoever was doing the make up forgot to paint her palms so they're constantly white.  The second half of the film really doesn't get any better even though we do get a few battle scenes but none of them are all that interesting.  Even worse are various musical sequences which come out of no where and will have you wondering if the Civil War was an actual war or just one big concert.  Add in the bad direction and rather bland performances and you've got a movie that really needs to be rediscovered and held up as a cult classic.  Even Cooper can't save this mess but he does add some charm to an otherwise crazy movie. 
 

Bachelor Father, The (1931)
 

Robert Z. Leonard
 

A mix of drama and comedy in this pre-code from MGM.  An aging man, Sir Basil (C. Aubrey Smith) has been a bachelor from day one.  Throughout his rich life he traveled the world and ended up having three kids by three different women.  He hadn't had any contact with them but now he wants all three to come live with him with one (Marion Davies) who might not be who she thinks she is.  It's really amazing to see some early talkies that sound extremely bad and this here is one such example.  I'm really not sure what was going on in 1931 but we have a wide range of sound quality in various films but what's here is perhaps the worst I've heard.  There isn't much hiss in the soundtrack but at times it appears the dialogue and sound completely drop off.  Just take a look at an early scene where the three kids and their father are getting to know one another.  As one character moves away, while talking, the dialogue gets lower and lower until you can't hear what's being said.  I'm not sure if this was because of her walking away from the mic or what but it's very distracting.  Like many early talkies, this one here is based on a famous play and the film just contains way too much talk.  The pre-code nature of a man having kids all over the world is something mildly amusing and we get a couple naughty jokes out of it.  The drama in the "twist" isn't really anything special and adds very little to the film.  Davies turns in a pretty good performance even though the screenplay really doesn't give her too much to work with.  We have Ray Milland in a minor role as well as Ralph Forbes.  The main reason to watch this film is the performance by C. Aubrey Smith who really seems to be having a good time in the role.  He manages to be quite touching and funny.  In the end however, there's just not enough here to make the film work as well as it could have.  Fans of the actors are the only ones who will want to check this one out.
 

Blondie of the Follies (1932)
 

Edmund Goulding
 

Marion Davies plays slum girl Blondie McClune who finally gets out of her dump thanks in large part to he friend Lottie (Billie Dove) who has made it big on Broadway.  The two have a falling out when Larry (Robert Montgomery) falls for Blondie but she has more problems as her high life slowly starts to crumble down.  I was really shocked at how good this film was because, to be honest, this story isn't all that original and it's one we had seen countless time in the brief time that talkies had come into play.  What really makes this film worth watching are the downright marvelous performances and various pre-code elements.  The pre-code elements are pretty straight-forward in their sexual innuendo and the film doesn't shy away from Dove's rather large breasts and she's constantly dressed in skimpy little outfits that allows her to jiggle around if you catch what I mean.  Even Davies has a brief scene where she's wet and you can see through her top.  Even without these elements the film still works because both women are terrific in their roles.  Apparently the story here is very close to that of Davies real life and perhaps that's why she dug into the character so much.  She's not playing that Davies persona here but instead she really delivers a full character on all levels.  Dove is brilliant as well because her sexuality really jumps off the screen and she makes her character very memorable.  It was sad to read she retired from Hollywood after this movie apparently because Hearst cut most of her scenes here fearing she'd take the movie away from Davies.  Montgomery makes for a great leading mad her and James Gleason is also very good as the concerned father.  Even Zasu Pitts is very good here as the sister.  She handles the drama quite well and this is coming from someone who really doesn't care for his comedy side.  Then we have the fourth-billed Jimmy Durante who shows up for what's basically a cameo but it turns out to be one of the highlights of the film.  He shows up and does a little skit on why men shouldn't take women to see GRAND HOTEL because of John Barrymore's great looks.  This sly bit of publicity for MGM is a nice little tough as Durante plays Barrymore with Davies doing an impersonation of Greta Garbo.  Again, the story itself isn't all that original but that's the only problem with this gem that should be a lot better known than it actually is.
 

Patsy, The (1928)
 

King Vidor
 

Fun, if rather unoriginal, take on the Cinderella story has Marion Davies playing Patricia Harrington, the youngest of two sisters who also happens to be the weakest.  Her mother (Marie Dressler) prefers the sister (Jane Winton) while her dad (Dell Henderson) is just too weak to stand up to anyone.  Patricia has a little secret and that's that she's in love with her sister's boyfriend (Orville Caldwell) but he doesn't even know she exists but that's going to change.  I had heard a lot of great things about this film and while it isn't the masterpiece some make it out to be, there's still enough here to make this essential viewing for fans of silent comedies and especially fans of Davies.  She certainly makes the movie what it is with her wonderful performance here, which proved she belonged in comedies and not period pieces.  She's so cute in the role that you can't help but wonder why anyone would want the sister over her but that's nothing negative towards the film.  The highlight is a long sequence where the family thinks Davies' character and lost her mind and the actress owns every single second of this scene.  This is also the film where Davies gives spot-on impersonations of Pola Negri, Mae Murray and Lillian Gish from MGM's THE SCARLET LETTER.  The supporting cast is just as wonderful with Dressler really shining in her comeback performance.  Legend has it that Dressler was close to suicide when she was spotted and picked for this role.  If that's true then fate certain struck down as she delivers a character you can't help but love to hate.  Henderson is also very funny and charming as the father.  I think the film's biggest problem is the actual story, which is quite predictable and rather straight-forward but that's no reason not to watch all the good things going on here. 
 

Not So Dumb (1930)
 

King Vidor

The third film between director King Vidor and star Marion Davies isn't in the same league as SHOW PEOPLE or THE PATSY and really comes off as a major disappointment.  Based on the play Dulcy, Davis plays that character, a blond moron who tries to help her boyfriend get his foot in the door of a big business by inviting his boss and his wife over for the weekend.  Once there, Dulcy plays host to try and make herself appear smarter than she actually is.  I've said this about a lot of films from this era but here it goes again.  This is an early talkie that is so impressed by the fact that words can be heard that it never knows when to shut up.  You can tell Davies and Vidor aren't too comfortable with the new format because it's hard to look at this film and see any of the director's trademarks.  The film looks rather ugly and some of the editing will leave you scratching your head and wondering if only one take was done on certain scenes and they had to cut away from it quickly.  Davies, God bless her, gives it her all but it seems Vidor just let her go off in any direction and the end result is a bit of a mess.  Her character is a complete idiot and Davies gets this across just fine but after a while she starts to get very annoying because she's reduced to silly facial gestures and various facial "shock" moves.  Franklin Pangborn steals the show as Leach and George Davis is also good as the rather strange butler.  Fans of Davies will probably watch this no matter what but the only others that might be mildly interested are those interested in early talkies.  I'm sure they've had to sit through some pretty rough films so this here is yet another.  I've yet to see the original 1923 version or the remake in 1940. 

Page Miss Glory (1935)
 

Mervyn LeRoy
 

When William Randolph Hearst took his girlfriend Marion Davies and production company Cosmopolitan from MGM to Warner, he bought the best talent on the lot and ended up delivering one of the better films of his career.  In the film, wannabe money makers (Pat O'Brien, Frank McHugh) decide to get some quick cash by forging a picture to win a contest for the best looking woman in America.  They end up winning but to their horror the press starts to eat up the story of "Dawn Glory".  When a reporter (Lyle Talbot) begins to get close to their scheme, they discover that the motel chambermaid (Davies) actually looks like the girl in the photo.  This mistaken identity farce begins to lose a lot of steam during the final half hour but with this amazing cast there's really no going wrong here.  This certainly isn't a classic movie or one that needs to be studied in film schools but if you're a fan of Davies or the wonderful supporting cast then you're in for a treat.  Not only do we get Davies, O'Brien, McHugh and Talbot but we also have Dick Powell, Mary Astor, Allen Jenkins and Patsy Kelly.  Kelly and Jenkins are pretty much underwritten characters but the rest get to do all their tricks and end up turning over plenty of laughs for the viewer.  The most shocking thing is that Davies doesn't have the most to do in the film as she remains a supporting player throughout.  This is just fine because when she is on the screen she really tears it up and she's the best as the dimwitted chambermaid who never really catches on to what's going on.  O'Brien is his usual fast paced self and he works wonderfully well with McHugh, which shouldn't be too shocking since both men played perfectly well as the sidekicks to James Cagney in various Warner films.  Astor nearly steals the film with another strong performance and Talbot delivers the good as well.  People are always going to debate on whether Davies was a talented actress or just the mistress to the most powerful man in America but I think this film proves she could be good if given the right material and support around here.  Again, this isn't a masterpiece but there's enough here for film buffs to really eat up. 
 

Peg o' My Heart (1933)
 

Robert Z. Leonard
 

Based on the J. Hartley Manners play, this film becomes a showcase for star Marion Davies who gives it her all as the spunky Irish girl who moves to England so that she can collect a large inheritance.  First she has to become a lady but what she doesn't know is that in order to collect the money she can't see her father (J. Farrell MacDonald) again.  This story was previously filmed twice in the silent era but looking at the story one couldn't help but think it would be nice material for the star.  The film on the whole looks and smells good but once you bite into it you'll realize that there's really not as much here as you'd think.  That's not to say the film isn't worth watching but I'm going to go out on a limb and say only Davies fans will really want to spend their precious time with it.  Davies manages to be quite good here, although I don't think anyone could defend her Irish accent, which is all over the place.  At times she seems to slip in and out of it so much you can't help but get a little smile on your face.  Outside of that Davies is good in the film and gives it her all and this includes some very funny facial gestures including some funny eye winks.  The supporting cast is a bit of a letdown with Onslow Stevens looking completely bored throughout and Juliette Compton coming off too stiff.  MacDonald has some good moments but he isn't in the film too much.  The film isn't ever as funny as one might hope as the fish out of water routine never really gets pushed to its limits, which I think is the fault of the (uncredited) director.
 

Reply
post #1299 of 1550
9/25/09 at 3:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

If you read the quote from the book, I deleted a bit with a "spoiler" in it. But yeah, you're right.

Yeah but, 'he does die', 'he does not die' is a spoiler that neutralises itself. 

And I still can't remember which one I watched anyway.
Reply
post #1300 of 1550
9/25/09 at 3:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post


Guy A: Gee, that Tarantino writes the greatest dialogue ever.  I mean, c'mon, how could someone come up with a classic line like "My name is Buck and I'm....". 

Now, am I hating on Tarantino by telling Guy A that the "master" behind that line should go to Tobe Hooper?  DePalma took a beating for his "borrowing" of Hitchcock but the beating was because people knew Hitchcock.  Not many know the films Tarantino is ripping off so they're not going to pick up on something unoriginal no matter how much greatness he brings to it.  
 


This goes back to what I said before about everyone being individuals. People know what they know, and bring their own judgments to films based on their own personal extent of knowledge. My 18-year-old nephew loved Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS; now, should he suddenly dislike the movie if you start telling him how much Tarantino borrowed from other movies? Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But he's still entitled to his own feelings about the movie in the scope of what he knows or doesn't know.  You seem to think that everyone can know everything there is to know about every single movie of every single genre ever made, but even the most astute critic cannot know everything, nor should he be required to.  

It also makes for many goofs in the film.  It also shows the monster, who we're suppose to feel for, in a very ugly light with the murder of the little girl, which in the original version was suppose to have been the supporting character.  Never mind the ending, which Universal forced on Whale.  I think the alternate ending here wasn't bad but at the same time had Whale gotten his way with the original ending of FRANKENSTEIN then we'd be left with no BRIDE as we know it today.

But this is all moot, because BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN still stands as a four-star classic, and nobody except the most picky horror purist even knows its history with its cut scenes. There's nothing really evident in the film itself to betray it for those who aren't in the know.

Shit sequels can make an overall series look bad no matter how great the first one is.  EXORCIST II, to me, is an example and the future films didn't help any, although I'd say part 3 is a great one. 

 This may be true for certain series, but very few.  There are some sequels to great movies which are so idiotic and ridiculous that people don't even seriously take them into consideration when remembering the original. This certainly applies to THE EXORCIST; whatever happened later with EXORCIST II or EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING in no way negates or changes anything regarding the enjoyment and effectiveness of the original on its own. The same thing would apply to the original JAWS ... would you say JAWS 3-D or JAWS THE REVENGE really in any way changes or harms the effect of the first classic? In fact, I can't think of many series other than your example with the HALLOWEEN films that really ruined the original.

Just think of the masterful ending had HALLOWEEN never had a sequel.  I love a lot of the sequels but they take away from the impact of that original ending.  Part 2 even makes you look at part 1 differently because of the changes or additions made.  Looking back might be different on some levels but I'm sure in 1945-47, fans like you and I were rolling their eyes at the thought of HOUSE OF DRACULA running the monsters into the ground with yet another cash in on famous names to make a quick buck.

No, HOUSE OF DRACULA for me does not affect the greatness of FRANKENSTEIN or BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

But I'd agree that the HALLOWEEN sequels and remakes really altered the original 1978 film in a way. Unless you LIKE the idea of Jamie Lee being revealed to be Michael Myers' sister - which I think was a good idea. As a matter of fact, I even liked the direction they went in with the PRODUCER'S CUT of HALLOWEEN 666, where they tried to explain what made Myers do what he did, being part of a cult. I thought it was an interesting idea. But you're right in that it altered the feeling when we now view the 1978 original ... and more fans are upset about it than forgiving. But again, this is only ONE example. You may be able to come up with a handful more series examples, but I think they're in the minority.  

I know where you're going with your sequel theory, but I disagree. I think that if anything can dull the edge of an original sometimes its a remake that renders the original invalid or weaker. Thankfully this almost NEVER happens with modern remakes today because they're almost always inferior crap. But I would say that Carpenter's THING really dulled Howard Hawks' original. I'd also say that, while I like both versions of CAPE FEAR, the Scorsese remake went further and made the original a little more tame in comparison. I think that the 1978 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS put a dent in the effectiveness of the 1956 original.  Many people like the 1988 BLOB over the 1958 original. People have said they like the Crispin Glover remake of WILLARD over the 1971 original with Bruce Davison. 

Of course, EXORCIST II falls into the "cut" department as well.  I believe three versions have been released to theaters, VHS and DVD but apparently the REAL "original" version was a pretty good movie that Warner took away from the director and had him make it more "demonic".  Until they release this version we'll just have to guess

 I've never even heard of that and there is no such account in the history of THE EXORCIST books I've read. The actors in any version of EXORCIST II are always going to be the same actors, the story is still the same story, the dialogue is still the same dialogue.  All that Boorman did was re-arrange scenes and add a needless prologue, mainly. The film was always a dog right from the get-go.

 
Reply
post #1301 of 1550
9/25/09 at 9:49am
Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"This goes back to what I said before about everyone being individuals. People know what they know, and bring their own judgments to films based on their own personal extent of knowledge. My 18-year-old nephew loved Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS; now, should he suddenly dislike the movie if you start telling him how much Tarantino borrowed from other movies? Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But he's still entitled to his own feelings about the movie in the scope of what he knows or doesn't know.  You seem to think that everyone can know everything there is to know about every single movie of every single genre ever made, but even the most astute critic cannot know everything, nor should he be required to."

I disagree with this completely (as if you didn't know).

It's one thing to not have heard of (much less seen) the films (and people) QT referenced in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) - but to not be aware of his doing that throughout his (by now17-year-old) career and, for example, believe that the soundtrack of KILL BILL (2003-4) is completely original is inexcusable in this day and age of dozens of monthly movie magazines and worldwide internet connectibility! It's one thing to not have heard of or seen TWISTED NERVE (1968) and not even want to...but to believe that the "cool" whistling tune accompanying the appearance of Darryl Hannah at the hospital is an original piece of music created for a Tarantino film rather than just one of many memorable scores composed by Bernard Herrmann is foolish.

But that's talking about relatively obscure movies. You may not be aware of this but both A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) and THE EXORCIST (1973) were unavailable to view legitimately in Great Britain for a long time (virtually 25 years); I'm not sure of the reasons behind the latter but the former was withdrawn by Kubrick himself after a spate of muggings occurred following the film's original release over there. (Perhaps Dave can shed more light on these two cases). Anyway, these two cinematic milestones were eventually re-released theatrically in the UK in the late 1990s and, Malta receiving all the prints shown locally from England, our little island (where re-releases are simply nil) was deigned with the privilege of these two classics being released theatrically as well. Needless to say, I went to a screening of both films and here is what happened:

a) in March 1999 when I went to watch the original theatrical version of THE EXORCIST for the first time, I overheard the person sitting in front of me say, "This is a remake, right?" and, besides, there was a lot of grumbling during the film's quieter first half (especially the lengthy hospital tests segment).  

b) in June 2000, when I went to watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (it was my third time watching the film but my first in English), I overheard someone in the audience say during the opening credits, "This is a Steven Spielberg film, right?"


The worst such cases that I've personally come across, I'm sorry to say, were when I attended NYFA's 8-Week Film-making Program in Hollywood between November 2005-January 2006, where the majority of the students I came in contact with were, of course, Americans. Would you believe that these people (aged anywhere between 25 and 45) had never heard of THE WILD BUNCH (1969) or SUSPIRIA (1977)  - which were given by our Editing instructor as, respectively, examples of superb and bad editing?! And there was even one Italian guy in the room!! I mean if these wannabe directors ignored the existence - let alone the importance or greatness - of such obvious cinematic milestones (to use that phrase once again), how lower can you get on the ignorance scale? By the way, being a fan of SUSPIRIA - which I still consider the scariest film ever - I took my sweet revenge on the Editing instructor by trashing a film he was fond of...which, coincidentally, just happened to be John Boorman's ZARDOZ (1974). 

A Welsh guy I befriended over there once came over to our (mine and my twin) apartment in the middle of our nth viewing of THE THIRD MAN (1949) which was then being screened on TCM; "So this is good, then?" was all he had to say. Some time later we were eating at a Chinese diner in front of Grauman's Egyptian Theater and I told the same Welsh guy that we were spending our evenings watching movies over there (there was a Screwball Comedy season going on at the time) and he just couldn't believe it, "Who would want to watch a black-and-white movie aymore?" To his credit, the current release of Peter Jackson's KING KONG (2005) made him more inclined to give the 1933 original a look-see and, in fact, all three of us watched it on TCM at his flat the day prior to the Jackson remake's release and, would you believe it, he liked it...black-and-white'n'all!! 

Also, my brother and I befriended the Screenwriting instructor who was clearly a bona-fide movie buff and was name-dropping stuff all through his lectures (including Luis Bunuel). In fact, he even gave the task of telling the story of Hitchcock's LIFEBOAT (1944) to me once because, as he put it, "The twins have seen it, of course!" Even so, at one point he claimed that Peter Sellers won the part of Inspector Clouseau in THE PINK PANTHER (1964) as a result of his making THE PARTY (1968) with the same director, Blake Edwards! I corrected him diplomatically but he kept to his version and, rather than play the wiseguy in front of the whole class, I let it go at that.    

So ignorance or stupidity? Maybe just plain laziness or, worse still, carelessness.
Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/25/09 at 1:19pm
Reply
post #1302 of 1550
9/25/09 at 11:55am
In Britian, The Exorcist was passed uncut by the censors, but later James Ferman joined the BBFC and, it seems, applied his own prejudice to refuse it a video release.
Reply
post #1303 of 1550
9/25/09 at 12:11pm
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)  

I was entertained by the first movie. The second movie just seemed more of the same. This third movie in the series is more enjoyable than the second but one I probably wouldn't revisit again. I hear there is a fourth movie in the works. I wonder what that one will bring and if there's anything original left in the franchise. Each vampire movie, especially the more modern films have a different take on the vampire mythos. In this franchise they can still be killed by sunlight but they can also have babies. Who knew!  I thought the action scenes were quite good, as well as the special effects. You got to hand it to Michael Sheen. He sure looks like one badass.
Reply
post #1304 of 1550
9/25/09 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee View Post

In Britian, The Exorcist was passed uncut by the censors, but later James Ferman joined the BBFC and, it seems, applied his own prejudice to refuse it a video release.
 

Thanks, Tiger, for the prompt reply.
Reply
post #1305 of 1550
9/25/09 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

It's one thing to not have heard of (much less seen) the films (and people) QT referenced in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) - but to not be aware of his doing that throughout his (by now17-year-old) career and, for example, believe that the soundtrack of KILL BILL (2003-4) is completely original is inexcusable in this day and age of dozens of monthly movie magazines and worldwide internet connectibility! It's one thing to not have heard of or seen TWISTED NERVE (1968) and not even want to...but to believe that the "cool" whistling tune accompanying the appearance of Darryl Hannah at the hospital is an original piece of music created for a Tarantino film rather than just one of many memorable scores composed by Bernard Herrmann is foolish.


Well, not for my 18-year-old nephew, it's not. He's still young, isn't exactly a diehard movie buff, and just enjoys what he enjoys. I don't see how a person his age can be expected to know about the origins of the many "cues" used by Tarantino, or even be required to. Or to be well-versed in Bergman, Ford, or Hitchcock. Now, if we're talking about older and experienced longtime professional movie critics becoming more learned, I can see your side.
 



So ignorance or stupidity? Maybe just plain laziness or, worse still, carelessness.

 


How about disinterest, or just 'having a life' for most average people? Meaning simply that not EVERYONE is as into films as we are here. Surely we can all step away from our personal hobby to acknowledge that fact? Sure, most anybody likes to catch a movie now and then, but isn't there a difference between a casual movie watcher and a more persistent film lover? It's a relatively "private" group, real film fans. Expecting everyone and anyone to be interested in the history of all movies would be about as unlikely as expecting me to be into Football --- it just ain't gonna happen! 

When I'm referring to people having their own knowledge and individual histories and preferences when they decide what they thought of a film, I'm pretty much talking about many types of people from all walks of life. From the casual fan who watches one movie a year and hasn't gone to the theater in a decade to the diehard who watches at least one movie a day and frequents the theatres regularly.  
Reply
post #1306 of 1550
9/25/09 at 3:04pm
Well, not for my 18-year-old nephew, it's not. He's still young, isn't exactly a diehard movie buff, and just enjoys what he enjoys. I don't see how a person his age can be expected to know about the origins of the many "cues" used by Tarantino, or even be required to. Or to be well-versed in Bergman, Ford, or Hitchcock. Now, if we're talking about older and experienced longtime professional movie critics becoming more learned, I can see your side.

My beef is mainly with those NYFA students I mentioned: I cannot fathom how they were willing to part with the thousands of  dollars required for the program and the extended lodgings and, all the while, clearly not being into movies all that much to begin with!

As for age being a factor as to how much knowledge one is supposed to have accumulated, it's all down to the individual. Having a film buff father, I was lucky, I guess, to always having been surrounded by movie reference books. I remember for example that when I was 10 (in 1986) and on my way to hospital to undergo surgery, my dad gave me a book entitled "The Great Movie Stars: The Golden Years" which covered from the Silent era up till 1970. Around the same time, he also introduced me to Leslie Halliwell's Film Guide and, for the next few years, I made it my mission to catch as many movies he rated ** (good), *** (very good) and **** (excellent) as I could on both local and Italian TV. That's the reason why my first encounter with Universal Horrors or Laurel & Hardy or GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) came dubbed in Italian. A little while later, VHS rentals came on the scene and it was more of the same: I remember being giddy with delight upon holding an original VHS of NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) in my hands and wondering how I could somehow make it mine! 

The same goes for World Cinema: I became aware of the importance of THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925) and BICYCLE THIEVES (1948) - being the two films most likely to be named "All Time Greatest Film" prior to CITIZEN KANE (1941) acquiring that mantle in 1962 - at a young age and I was lucky enough to catch both of them before I was even a teenager! Actually, even my first viewing of KANE happened around that time.

I've said it before that I had always been fascinated by Luis Bunuel - from the memorable images I found in one particular essay - via a British magazine published up till 1981 entitled "The Movie" (which my father collected in its entirety, 158 issues, that he owns to this day). Although, it wasn't until the Summer of 1992 (when I was 15 going on 16) that I first saw most of THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974), I guess I was still pretty young to be meddling in such stuff. I'm not saying this merely to blow my own horn or boast what a precocious kid I was: it is just a factual reporting of my childhood viewing habits (hence all the dates and statistics). The following year (1993) brought with it more Bunuel (a mini-retrospective on Italian TV to mark the 10th anniversary of his death), Ingmar Bergman (a lengthy retrospective on Italian TV every Saturday afternoon!) and Akira Kurosawa (ditto on weekdays). In fact, I distinctly remember how on the occasion of my lucky 17th birthday (i.e. Wednesday 17 August 1993), my parents threw a lavish party for us...but, all through the preparations for it, my brother and I were thoroughly engrossed in Kurosawa's THE BAD SLEEP WELL (1960)!


"How about disinterest, or just 'having a life' for most average people? Meaning simply that not EVERYONE is as into films as we are here. Surely we can all step away from our personal hobby to acknowledge that fact? Sure, most anybody likes to catch a movie now and then, but isn't there a difference between a casual movie watcher and a more persistent film lover? It's a relatively "private" group, real film fans. Expecting everyone and anyone to be interested in the history of all movies would be about as unlikely as expecting me to be into Football --- it just ain't gonna happen! 

When I'm referring to people having their own knowledge and individual histories and preferences when they decide what they thought of a film, I'm pretty much talking about many types of people from all walks of life. From the casual fan who watches one movie a year and hasn't gone to the theater in a decade to the diehard who watches at least one movie a day and frequents the theatres regularly."  

Conclusion: did I have a life back then? Probably not, but I was enjoying myself and found all that catching up rewarding and simulating. Fast forward to 2009: do I have a life? Probably not but, everytime I go out with my family, friends or colleagues, I am mostly bored out of my wits and wish I was back in my TV room among all those DVDs and VHSs! Actually, tomorrow I will have just such a worthless, time-consuming family event. Oh, well...at least there'll be free beer to spare!   
Reply
post #1307 of 1550
9/25/09 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Gauci View Post

everytime I go out with my family, friends or colleagues, I am mostly bored out of my wits and wish I was back in my TV room among all those DVDs and VHSs!

You and me both! 
Reply
post #1308 of 1550
9/25/09 at 4:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post




How about disinterest, or just 'having a life' for most average people? Meaning simply that not EVERYONE is as into films as we are here.  


Then why do you bring "normal" people into a film buff conversation?  You give this theory yet you still "wonder" why films as early as 1986 are being remade.   Average people don't care.  Average people want crap movies.  Average people don't want to read movies.  Average people don't want B&W.  Average people want sound.  Average people don't like many movies considered great.

If you're nephew or cousin isn't into films then I'm really not going to give or take any credit from him if he doesn't know Tarantino ripped off an unknown EATEN ALIVE.  However, if someone is going to give credit to someone who doesn't deserve it, fan or not, they should know the truth.  It doesn't have to take anything away from what he or she feels about the film.  Hell, the line works better in KILL BILL.
Reply
post #1309 of 1550
9/25/09 at 4:56pm
I sense the love fading again.


"7 Men from Now"   - 5.5 / 10

It starts off with a truly awful song (in fact it seems both screenwriter Burt Kennedy and Director Budd Boetticher also hated it) but this moves into a very good opening sequence as Randolph Scott kills the first of the seven men who shot his Wife.
In fact the sequence is so good it should have been a PRE-credit sequence as it would have led into the film very well.  Just as that wonderful opening scene of "Cahill".

Randolph Scott is rigid, uptight, driven and pretty emotionless as the revenge seeking ex-Sheriff.  It kind of works for the role, but i still say he's a rather unexciting and non-descript actor.

Luckily though the mighty Lee Marvin is in support and he does a superb job.
His character is ruthless, scheming and dangerous...but thanks to Kennedy's script and Marvin's ever watchable style his character is also a likeble, charming rogue.

Kennedy's, otherwise sharp, script messes up in one place for me though...Exactly why did a character not wait a paltry 60 seconds to let the bad guys ride out of town before walking over to the Sheriff's Office!?  It was utterly non-sensical.

The rest of the score is also non-event, being filled with cookie cutter strings and horns. It is at it's worse during the 'romance' angle of the film, supplied by Gail Russell,  as it drones out sickly sweet swelling violins.
The romance has an edge to it (as Russell is married) and is never actually sealed and the tragic Russell does a good job. 
But I just don't like 'classic' Western love stories as they bog the stroy down, are generally cloying and saccharine and (as here) are visually crafted like a Hallmark Valentine's Day card.

But there is much to enjoy here, the action is pretty good, Marvin is a gem, Scott is rugged enough, there's a good plot twist later on (that is beautifully ironic as far as Marvin's character goes) and some of the dialogue exchanges are wonderful.

It's not going to ever knock off any of my Top 10 Westerns, or make me love 'clean and classic' Westerns and their (it seems even here, inescapeble) dated style over later American Westerns from the late 60's-70's and many Spaghetti Westerns...
But it was a good, lean, solid film with many plus points and worth a watch for the great Lee Marvin alone.
Reply
post #1310 of 1550
9/25/09 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

 yet you still "wonder" why films as early as 1986 are being remade.  

My objection to the 1986 FLY being remade yet again is not the year, per se; it's  because the thing is already "modern" enough in its feel. I could sort of see updating the 1958 one for 1986, but the '86 one for 2010?
Reply
post #1311 of 1550
9/25/09 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

I sense the love fading again.
 

Well, that shouldn't happen. No reason for anyone to get overly upset here!
Reply
post #1312 of 1550
9/25/09 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

I sense the love fading again.
 


Not to speak for Joe or Michael but I think they have a relationship that's built on strong debate so what may look like a real ugly argument isn't as serious as it may appear.
Reply
post #1313 of 1550
9/25/09 at 8:18pm
Thread Starter 
Joe and I have been friends for six or seven years now so hopefully no one takes our debates overly serious.  We like to rib one another ever so often.  It usually doesn't get too heated unless a jerk like myself throws a cheap shot like saying 13-5. 

That's the season series with the Braves kicking the Mets asses once again.
Reply
post #1314 of 1550
9/26/09 at 2:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

That's the season series with the Braves kicking the Mets asses once again.

No big accomplishment, considering 75% of the Mets' main players were injured all season. I guess the Braves have to settle for whatever they can get in the past few years... Lord knows they've been done winning the Division for a long time now, thanks to the Phillies!
Reply
post #1315 of 1550
9/26/09 at 3:26pm

The Window (1949)

 

It's sad but I have to wait till I'm alone before I watch any classic movies or most anything shown on TCM. I've only been able to entice my family to watch the odd classic but that's rare.
They don't know what the're missing and this movie is one of them.

A young 9 year old boy ( Bobby Driscoll) with a vivid imagination and known to tell 'stories' witnesses a murder in the apartment above his. Unfortunately because of his past reputation for telling tall tales, no one believes him. He even goes to the police but to no avail. When the couple in the apartment above realizes that the boy has knowledge of the murder, they set out to silence him forever.

This was a very good movie that kept me on the edge of my seat. Young Bobby Driscoll gave a superb performance as the young boy. I could really feel his fear. It's only been recently that I became aware of his sad short life. What a shame for he was a talented young boy.  This movie was short and fast paced. Not much time was wasted on exposition. The story was penned by Cornell Wollrich which was similar to his more famous work, Rear Window. Both Barbara Hale and Arthur Kennedy gave good performances as the boy's parents. This was one of those little known gems and I'm grateful that I decided to DVR it.

Reply
post #1316 of 1550
9/26/09 at 8:36pm
Thread Starter 

I'm glad you enjoyed THE WINDOW.  I was really loving this film when watching it last year only to have my recording go out around the 55-minute mark.  I meant to record it when it played last but it slipped past me.  Hopefully the third showing will be the charm.


Two-Faced Woman (1941)
 

George Cukor
 

At the age of 36 screen legend Greta Garbo made this MGM comedy, which tried to take her out of the costume drama and place her into a present time comedy.  The results were a disaster when the film was first released and depending on which myth you believe, the bad reaction caused Garbo to retire.  I've heard a lot of bad things about this film but in the end it isn't nearly as bad as its reputation.  In the film Garbo plays a ski instructor who ends up marrying a man (Melvyn Douglas) after a few hours.  Later that night he demands she follow him to NYC but she refuses.  As time goes on the husband stays away but Garbo decides to go after him only pretending to be her vamp twin sister.  This certainly isn't the greatest comedy ever made but it's not nearly as bad as some would make you believe.  Yes, Garbo certainly isn't herself here but I really don't see that as a bad thing because seeing her like this is at least interesting.  Seeing her smile, act drunk, playing love able and this type of thing isn't exactly what she's known for but I found her act to be quite charming even if that thick accent came off not working too well here.  She also struggles during a few scenes but you can't deny that she's giving it her all as she works her way through the material.  Douglas manages to be quite pleasant and ends up delivering a fine comic performance.  Supporting players Constance Bennett, Roland Young and Robert Sterling turn in some fine work as well.  Another plus was some of the subject matter, which certainly wasn't seen in too many films after the Hayes Office went into effect seven years earlier.  The stuff is hidden behind  the "marriage" but it's still fairly risque for its time.  Apparently the version currently being shown is the "cut" version missing four minutes and alternating one of the subplots.  Either way, this film is a minor entertainment but those expecting something great should probably stick to Garbo's earlier films.
 

Our Dancing Daughters (1928)
 

Harry Beaumont

This here is without question one of the most popular silent film and one that new fans seem to discover each passing year.  The film isn't known for being great but for turning Joan Crawford into a movie star.  In the film she plays Diana, a good natured girl with the reputation of being a party animal.  Her best friend Ann (Anita Page) is a real gold digger who doesn't have a good bone in her body.  Diana eventually falls for a guy named Ben (Johnny Mack Brown) and while he eventually falls for her, the reputation keeps him at distance but he makes a mistake when he falls for Ann who is only after one thing no matter what act she puts on for him.  This certainly isn't the greatest movie ever made but there's enough entertainment here for fans of Crawford to want to check it out.  Silent film fans will also want to check it out as it's another early attempt at putting sound onto a film.  The synchronized soundtrack consists of various crowd noises in the background as well as a few lines of dialogue being spoken by people in the background.  I'm sure this was very exciting back in 1928 but today it sounds incredibly fake and rather funny.  Outside of that the movie delivers a lot of great performances, which is the real reason to check this out.  Crawford is wonderful as the bright eyed, soft hearted girl and she really delivers a very memorable character.  I loved the way she pulls off being goofy one second but at the snap of a finger she could switch gears and make it believable.  Page never seems to get the credit she deserves but she too is good here and makes for a great villain.  The ending where she and Crawford really go at it was wonderfully pulled off.  Johnny Mack Brown, Mils Asther and Dorothy Sebastian, as the third friend, also do nice work.  The actual ending and how this triangle gets worked out is really forced and rather stupid but it's only a mild error.  This jazz age love story does a nice job at capturing the youth of this era and that's enough to make the film worth checking out.  Throw in the performances and you've got a nice little gem that should keep most entertained. 
 

Our Modern Maidens (1929)
 

Jack Conway
 

After the success of OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, MGM cashed in and come up with a similarly titled film that doesn't have anything to do with the original.  To make sure headlines were grabbed, co-stars Joan Crawford and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. were married.  In the film the two play a happy couple who are engaged with their whole lives in front of them.  Crawford decides to gave a fling with an important government man (Rod La Rocque) so that her fiance can get his career off the ground.  This morality play isn't overly strong in terms of drama but all the pre-code elements make up for that.  The first thirty-minutes of the movie are quite naughty as our young ladies do nothing but want sex, men, drinks and gambling.  These jazz-age images are certainly rather fresh considering how many classic movies didn't feature any of this stuff.  I would have loved to have been in the leg casting room as there are countless shots of beautiful legs that I'm sure had men smiling back in 1929.  We even get Crawford in a rather revealing, bikini-like outfit showing off her curves.  The story itself really isn't anything overly great as it's rather predictable and I'm sure you'll see the ending coming from a mile away.  Crawford is very good in the role making for a nice little character that she can play without any trouble.  Fairbanks is also pretty good but his highlight is the sequence where he mocks John Barrymore's Jekyll and Hyde and spoofs his own father's image.  Anita Page has a brief part of bad girl Kentucky and La Rocque is good in his scenes as well.  As with the previous film, this one here has a synced music score, which features the typical cheering, brief dialogue and even a radio broadcast.  I feel this early "silent to sound" stuff doesn't work too well but again, we must remember this was 1929. 
 

Our Blushing Brides (1930)
 

Harry Beaumont

Third film in the (name only) trilogy has Joan Crawford, Anita Page and Dorothy Sebastian playing girlfriends working together in a department store and sharing the same apartment.  The three women discuss the hopes of one day finding rich men to marry.  Page and Sebastian will stop at nothing to find a rich one whereas Crawford has more morals and tries to do things the correct way.  While this film doesn't work as good as the previous two, it's still a fairly entertaining movie that manages to have some great actors doing nice work to bring a rather predictable story to life.  The biggest problem with the film is its rather weak story that isn't strong enough to carry a 101-minute film and there's also the horrid ending, which really kills the film but I won't ruin it for anybody.  What works best are the performances with Crawford once again shining as the good girl who must keep her moral high ground even when those around her are taking an easier path.  Crawford makes the character her own and does a nice job with it.  Page steals the film as one of the bad girls who gets herself in a bad situation with the expected outcome.  Sebastian is also very good in her small role as is Robert Montgomery, Raymond Hackett and John Miljan as the men in the women's lives.  Other good things including the sound, which is actually the best I've heard in an early talkie.  Listening the the crisp dialogue will have you forgetting how young this movie was in the sound game.  Another plus are some nice pre-code moments, which includes plenty of legs and scantly clad women including Crawford.  Some nice dialogue rounds things off but one still wishes the screenplay was better. 
 

Land of Alaska Nellie (1936)
 

I've seen dozens and dozens of entries in MGM's TravelTalks series but to date this here is without a doubt the best of the bunch.  James A. FitzPatrick, and his Technicolor camera, heads to Alaska where we see one beautiful image after another.  We see the streams flowing down from the snow covered mountain and we learn about all the great fishing there.  These wonderful visions start the film off but we quickly move to Nellie Lawing, better known as Alaska Nellie.  This woman was famous for living off the Alaska land all her life and she had pretty much done everything from a gold rush to dog sledding and even lived as a hunter, trapper and sheriff.  We get to hear a few of her stories including one where she was chased by a bear, which led to her three middle fingers being crippled.  We then see how big the bear was that attacked her.  We see his skin because she shot the thing to death.  We hear a couple other great stories including the fact that Presidents had even stayed the night at her resort.  The one strange scene in the film is when we're shown some baby foxes and are then shown fox furs as the "future of the babies". 

Minnelli on Minnelli: Liza Remembers Vincente (1987)
 

Richard Schickel
 

This is one of those documentaries that was probably wonderfully accepted back when it was first released but it doesn't hold up too well today.  What we get is Liza Minnelli doing the narration on the career of her father.  Instead of learning too much, we get clips from various films including MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE PIRATE and many, many more.  Back when these films weren't easily available, I'm sure seeing all these clips made for some great fun down memory lane but seeing clips only today doesn't really do much.  Thanks to DVD there are much better learning tools out there so in the end this well-meaning doc just doesn't cut it as much as I'm sure it did years ago.  We hear a few minor bits that anyone should know (about the marriage to Judy Garland) but that's about it.  We really don't learn too much about the man.
 

Reply
post #1317 of 1550
9/26/09 at 11:25pm
Une histoire d'eau - A short co-directed by Truffaut and Godard, in which a young girl cavorts around with a companion during a flood, while delivering a monologue. It's a very playful, speedy and free-wheeling piece that seems to perfectly meld the styles of its two creators. Rating: 7


Gilda - A blistering love/hate triangle drama about a casino owner in Argentina, his new bride, and his right-hand man. George Macready and Glenn Ford are both fine in the first two roles, respectively, but this one is all about Rita Hayworth. Her performance sizzles with playful contempt and powerful sexuality. She's a force to be reckoned with... and the more subdued version of her character in the final act kind of drags things down a bit. But otherwise the film is quite enjoyable; not quite a noir, but with a number of noirish elements. There's an unpredictability to the script that I found refreshing. You can kind of figure out the basics of where things are going, but the details are usually surprising. Rating: 8


I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (rewatch) - Revisiting Tsai's previous underrated film while waiting for a chance to see the new underrated film (to me, they're all underrated). This is one of his warmest and most optimistic works. Yes, there is the trademark isolation, but the characters manage to overcome it, in their own small way (well, most of them). Actually, this happens in a lot of Tsai films, and they're not always as bleak as they seem, but here it's especially notable how tenderly he handles his characters. I do wish there was a little more of his usual deadpan humor in this one, but there is some... such as the passionate kiss constantly being interrupted by coughing fits brought on by the toxic haze over the city. Rating: 9


Gervaise - Based on a Zola novel, this is the tale of a crippled woman, coping with her drunken lout husband, her philandering cad ex-husband and her back-stabbing friend, while pining for the man she really loves but who is always just out of reach. It's an extremely downbeat story, with one miserable episode after another, but always with a glimmer of hope for Gervaise. She's a Cabiria-like character, independent yet achingly vulnerable, and played expertly by Maria Schell (the rest of the cast is quite fine as well). It's also the best-looking Clement film I've seen yet, with the dingy Paris streets coming to life with naturalistic lighting and a roving camera. A powerful and engaging film. Rating: 8


Dreams (rewatch) - Much better the second time around! Earlier I thought the Harriet Andersson character was weak and her half of the film was the less interesting one, but now I prefer it. Her interactions with Gunnar Bjornstrand are pure gold, and the story has more nuance. The Eva Dahlbeck thread is good, too, but seems a bit stuffy next to the vivacity of Andersson's. Some great camera stuff, too, like the carnival rides. Rating: 8


Wallace and Gromit in "A Grand Day Out" (rewatch, Blu-Ray)
Wallace and Gromit in "The Wrong Trousers" (rewatch, Blu-Ray)
Wallace and Gromit in "A Close Shave" (rewatch, Blu-Ray)
Wallace and Gromit in "A Matter of Loaf and Death" (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I've written about these before, and there's really not a whole lot to say about them. My ratings for the first three are staying the same, with "The Wrong Trousers" as the masterpiece, and "A Grand Day Out" being a little too rough around the edges. I'm dropping the score for "Loaf and Death" because, despite its numerous charms, it really does feel like a retread of "A Close Shave". It seems like Park is getting stuck in a formula and hopefully the next one will go a little more out on a limb ("Grand Day Out" may be crude, but it has a lunatic surrealism that I'd like to see more of). Watching these in hi-def is an absolute delight, bringing all that meticulous detail to light... the level of craftsmanship that goes into these is insane. Rating: 8/10/9/8


Japanese Girls at the Harbor - Having now seen all the films in the Hiroshi Shimizu set, I wouldn't classify any as an outright masterpiece, but they're all very good and I'd probably buy the box if I had more shelf space. This one is least like the others, not only because it's silent but also it doesn't have that same gentle humor. Instead, it's more like a Mizoguchi film, about a young woman whose jealousy drives her towards geishadom. It's not particularly compelling subject matter, but the characters are quite well-drawn and the film has a lovely lyrical quality. The use of fades and axial cuts is intriguing. A few of the scene changes feel a bit abrupt, though, as if there should be a little more connecting tissue. Rating: 8


Quadrophenia - I've been a fan of The Who for roughly 25 years, and Quadrophenia is my favorite album by them. So why did I wait so long to watch the movie? I don't have a good answer for that. Maybe I was put off by Tommy, or maybe I just never thought the material would make a good film. I dunno. But at last I've gotten around to it, and I would say it's one of the better rebellious youth pictures I've seen. My complaints are minor. Jimmy has the character trait of wanting to be a big fish in a small pond but being too insecure to really pull it off, and that's a trait I find unappealing. I just don't like watching that type of person. Fortunately it doesn't dominate his character and only becomes manifest in a few scenes. The other thing is that the Quadrophenia music feels incongruous with the period and the other songs, especially the synthesizer bits. I love the music, but it doesn't fit. It's also rather self-indulgent to make a movie about a guy who's a fan of your music, but I guess that's pretty much what Rock n' Roll High School is, too. Other than these small issues, the film is very dynamic and engaging. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it and understand its cult appeal. It reminds me a bit (especially with the ending) of Harold & Maude, but without all the hippie life lessons. Although sometimes it's somewhat hard to comprehend: the DVD is loaded with special features but doesn't include subtitles (also non-anamorphic boooooo). Rating: 9


Le jour se lève - Although I wouldn't say this was a bad film by any measure, I don't see what the fuss is about. The cinematography is quite nice, but the story is mundane, and the characters are uninteresting. When they're not being uninteresting, they're acting in ways that make little sense to me. I usually enjoy Jean Gabin, but I found his performance here to be subpar (especially during his little tirade at the window). I never cared much for Carne anyway, but at least Drole de drame is funny. This one just didn't do a damn thing for me. Rating: 5


Trinity and Beyond - A doc (narrated by William Shatner) about atomic weapon testing and development from 1945 to about 1965. There's a few fascinating things to be learned, and the footage is impressively horrifying (I wonder if my 80's nuclear nightmares will come back tonight). But it quickly becomes mighty repetitive. Too much of it is simply the cataloging of locations and dates for different tests. The film really needs more of a human perspective. Rating: 6


That Hamilton Woman - Wartime propoganda piece disguised as historical romance. The portrayal of Lord Horatio Nelson battling the tyranny of Napoleon is clearly meant to stir British audiences against the Nazi threat. No wonder it was Churchill's favorite. And that's the only point of distinction. The romance in this movie is awfully tepid, even more surprising (or perhaps less so) when you considered that Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were married at the time. There's no spark, they really don't seem all that interested in each other. The movie is generally well-done but it just has no oomph to it. Rating: 6
Reply
post #1318 of 1550
9/26/09 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

That Hamilton Woman - Wartime propoganda piece disguised as historical romance. The portrayal of Lord Horatio Nelson battling the tyranny of Napoleon is clearly meant to stir British audiences against the Nazi threat. No wonder it was Churchill's favorite. And that's the only point of distinction. The romance in this movie is awfully tepid, even more surprising (or perhaps less so) when you considered that Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were married at the time. There's no spark, they really don't seem all that interested in each other. The movie is generally well-done but it just has no oomph to it. Rating: 6
 Bang on with your assessment of this film, imo, I think its gotten over generous reviews just because it's been given the criterion treatment.

I also agree on Japanese Girls at the Harbor but I think Arigatosan and possibly the Masseurs and the Women are masterpieces.  Shimizu has been my favorite discovery this year, overall, I think.
Reply
post #1319 of 1550
9/28/09 at 11:04am
 Can't beat a bit of "Quadrophenia"!



"Camp Blood" -  1.5 / 10

Oh dear. 
Something went wrong with the mix Grandma, this ain't chocolate...it's shit.

Barely watchable amateur Slasher fare with a crap killer and lots of tedium.
Has a couple of okay deaths, but mainly it's just good old Tom Savini's 'machete with a half moon cut out of it' type FX as annoying people get hacked in the arm or head.

Acting varies from bad to okay, with top marks going to a spot on 'loony old fart who forewarns doom' performance from a guy who seems to have trouble standing up straight.

The film's real failing though is the Christ awful picture quality.
The video camera images are generally crisp and clear but the colour is shot to hell!
Red blood becomes either dull orange or a dirty gold colour resulting in seriously compromised FX and murders. 
Skin-tones vary from green to yellow to yellowy-green and the rest of the colour spectrum seems to be missing.

So a weak home made Slasher flick (with a naff ending) slips even further down into the toilet and becomes almost unwatchable thanks to the dire colour quality.


"Man of the West"   - 8 /10   (mild event spoilers)

A big surprise! 
The often excellent Director Anthony Mann's penultimate Western starts off like any old 'classic' Western, with an annoyingly cloying and jaunty score playing over shots of a town and it's population that all look like they fell off a 'pastel shades' colour chart.

Legend of the Western Gary Cooper appears at first to be doing a lightly comic turn as the initially dull, if likeable, Link Jones. Added to how the film opened, I was fearing the worst.
But it seems Mann was playing a naughty game with us.

Suddenly (after an enjoyably farcical train ride..those were the days) Mann lets rip with his twisted gang of robbers led by Dock Tobin (a brilliantly mad and scary Lee J. Cobb).
From here on in this goes from a jaunty pastel paradise to a bleak, unforgiving plummet into pitch blackness.

Cobb has played tough, strict, rock hard characters before, but i've never seen him essay a character so deranged and twisted as here. Plastered in a grey old beard and ragged clothes Tobin lurches through the film dishing out spittle sprayed venom and ruthless violence.

Cooper also has a chance now to reveal another side of Link Jones, and suddenly the comic air about him has vanished and been replaced by shame, desperation and unleashed violence.
He bounces off Cobb just fine, but really gets his teeth into his scenes with a young Jack Lord as Coaley, the most unstable member of the gang.
Some good verbal sparring leads into a devil of a fistfight as Cooper, Lord and their stunt doubles go through an unusually extended and bloody duel.
But it's not the fight itself that really shocks here, it's the sudden madness that overcomes Cooper's Link (we're a long way from "High Noon" here!) as he starts to literally (and very violently) rip the clothes off the bloodied, screaming Coaley until the man is reduced to a sobbing, blood caked wreck dressed now only in his long-johns!

Even today this brutal scene of frenzied retribution is strong stuff, especially coming from the likes of the normally clean cut and heroic Cooper.

This outstanding sequence's retribution happens because of an earlier sequence where Lord's leering gunman makes a terrified Julie London strip down to her corset, as he holds a knife to the helpless Link's throat.
So even before this clothes ripping fistfight shocker, Mann had started to walk us into a very dark place indeed. And not a place you would expect to be in during a 1950's Gary Cooper Western!
The entire sequence is an uncomfortable pre-cursor to the same sort of scenes (of a brutal, leering gang of psychopaths normally invading someone's home) that would make up many a Grindhouse Exploitation film of the 70's/80's. Though she would have been stripped naked by then.
In "Man of the West" the striking (and excellent) Ms London only gets down to her corset, but this scene is amazingly close to the infamous 'strip the blonde girl' sequence in Ruggero Deodato's "House on the Edge of the Park", a full 22 years later.

When we add the generally dark plot of inescapable pasts and destinies, deceit, multiple deaths (one involving a wailing gut shot man really sticks out) and much twisted sadism (the reveal of an off-screen event during the finale...rather thrown away during the very end though sadly...is stunningly bleak, nasty and unexpected) you have one of the darkest, tough and (for the time especially) uncompromising Westerns you will ever see from Hollywood.

Some of the 'Classic Western' styling is still rather dated for my tastes and the very end scene (though any romance is explicitly ruled out, which is unusual) lacks the punch of what came before, something not helped by that annoyingly cheesy and jaunty score appearing again.

Overall though this is excellent, surprising and hard as nails film making done with a master's touch.

In fact "Man of the West" was heavily cut upon it's initial UK cinema release, and certainly earns it's uncut '12' DVD certificate today, and then some.
Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 9/28/09 at 1:08pm
Reply
post #1320 of 1550
9/28/09 at 9:06pm
The Human Condition trilogy (non-rewatch) - I knew that buying this was a mistake. Not because it's too depressing, I can handle that. It's just too damn long, and not quite good enough to sit through again. It's definitely worth seeing once, but very few movies are worth 9 hours of your time TWICE. After 15 minutes I knew my heart wasn't in it. Life's just too short. So I'm just going to watch the special features, put it on eBay, and move on. Rating: none


Empire of the Sun - This isn't so horrible, but it's not that great either. Spielberg does have a terrific eye for grandiose imagery and although the film is a bit repetitive, it never gets dull. But Spielberg's usual oversentimentality puts a damper on everything. The schmaltzy Williams score, the tug-at-the-heartstrings moments (the "I can save everyone!" scene is nearly as awful as the "This watch!" scene from Schindler), "stirring" moments of awe, innocence and innocence lost. And of course, there's nothing on Earth that Spielberg loves more than putting children in danger. OH THE CHILDREN! Young Batman is not bad in the lead role... a little obnoxious at times, but not terrible. I just couldn't help thinking that Nikolay Burlyaev was so much better in Ivan's Childhood. In fact, pretty much everything about Ivan's Childhood is better than this. But you know, it's decent for Spielberg. Rating: 6
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)