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 45

post #1321 of 1550
9/28/09 at 10:38pm
Thread Starter 

Andy Hardy Meets Debutante (1940)
 

George B. Seitz

The ninth film in the series (if you don't count the two shorts) has the Hardy family going to New York so that the Judge (Lewis Stone) can help keep an orphanage open.  Andy (Mickey Rooney) has gotten into some trouble because he told people back home that he knows a famous model (Diana Lewis) and that she has the hots for him.  While he tries to track her down he's too stupid to realize that there's one young woman (Judy Garland) who really does care for him.  Outside the two shorts, this here was my first film from the series and it was pretty much what I expected even though I've read this wasn't nearly one of the best of the series.  There's enough charm and good will for two movies so it's hard to imagine someone not getting some entertainment out of the film.  I think it goes without saying that this film, and the series for that matter, was built around moral lessons for young people as Andy has a problem and then Judge is there to help him.  The problem here is Andy being poor and from a small town feeling as if he isn't good enough to be around those who might look down on him.  The importance of social standing and money is something Judge has to explain and this scene, while over-dramatic, does deliver a nice message.  Rooney is in top form and delivers another winning performance.  His comic timing is just right and his attitude perfectly mixes in with the stern Stone.  The two of them work well together but that's to be expected considering how long this series ran.  Garland is also pretty good here and manages to get off two songs.  Rutherford, Fay Holden and Cecilia Parker are also winning in their roles.  The scene stealer is the young Clyde Willson who plays one of the orphans and gets a big laugh each time he says a line given to him by Andy. 
 

Life Begins for Andy Hardy (1941)
 

George B. Seitz
 

Eleventh film in the series is a pure delight as Andy (Mickey Rooney) decides to put off going to college even though Judge (Lewis Stone) feels that would be his best bet.  Instead Andy travels to New York City to get a job and see what all life has to offer.  He meets up with his old friend (Judy Garland) but quickly falls for a woman (Patricia Dane) who might not have his best interest in mind.  I've read some critics who said this series handled dark subjects too lightly and perhaps that's true but that doesn't apply here.  This film really shocked me at how mature it was and it even hit some rather dark subjects including suicide and what really makes a man.  The movie has plenty of great laughs, some wonderful performances and an all around charm that makes this irresistible to fans of classic cinema.  I'm still rather new to the series but the chemistry between Rooney and Stone is just marvelous and the two really come off as a real father and son.  I'm not sure if it was just luck or if the two actors really did their homework but they are perfect together and really seem to know how to work off one another.  This is certainly true during a brief scene at a table after Judge has come to visit Andy at work.  The supporting cast is equally good and that includes Garland in her third and final appearance in the series.  I've read she had four songs cut from the film but she doesn't have too much to work with except playing shoulder to Andy.  Dane is the one who really surprised me because I thought she made for an excellent femme fatale years before that term would really take off.  I think even those who aren't fans of the series would get a kick out of this one because it really does bring those "coming of age" issues up front and looks at them in a pretty serious manor.  Even though there are laughs scattered throughout, for the most part the film is looked at in a serious way and this is a major plus. 
 

Man's Castle (1933)
 

Frank Borzage
 

A rather bizarre love story from Borzage set during the Depression-era as two different people are brought together through being poor.  Spencer Tracy plays a hot tempered man who has the charm to live a good life but instead plays it day to day just making what he has to.  He takes in a poor woman (Loretta Young) and they hit it off well even though he mistreats her and she might want something out of him that he'd never be able to give.  If the term love story makes you want to pass this film up then you might want to think again because this isn't the tear jerker that would have women lining up buying tickets.  Instead, this is a pretty mean spirited pre-code that has all sorts of stuff from premarital sex to abused women to suffering because of being poor and even a brief mention of an abortion.  Did I mention that Tracy and Young go skinny dipping early in the movie?  At the heart of the film is a love story but we've got so much other stuff going on that you might lose site of that.  For starters, Tracy's character is one of the biggest S.O.B's you'll likely see in a film from this era.  He's incredibly mean and often takes it out on Young who doesn't mind getting insulted or being left behind when he's out with other women.  I think a lot of people are going to be turned off because of how mean he is but I guess this is a part of the "moral" in the film.  Tracy delivers another fine performance and I think the reason I personally didn't hate his character more is because of how good the actor was.  He certainly pulls off the meanness without any trouble but at the same time you can just look at him and know there's something under that toughness.  Young, perhaps my favorite actress, also delivers another winning performance.  She's very believable in the abused woman role even though you want to ask her why she's with the jerk.  The film has a message about a lot of issues and this is another reason why it remains rather fresh today especially since we're going through another hard time with people without jobs and unable to eat.  The speech Tracy's character gives to a restaurant early on is something that would probably get a standing ovation today. 
 

Night to Remember, A (1942)
 

Richard Wallace

Pretty entertaining mystery/comedy has a wife (Loretta Young) renting a basement apartment so that her mystery writing husband (Brian Aherne) can get some inspirations.  They gets a lot more than that when they discover a dead body in their back yard and the husband is the main suspect.  This film has a lot of people ranking it as one of the best of the genre but I think that's a tad bit too much praise for it even though it's still a pretty good little movie.  The film starts off on a quick pace but I found the screenplay started to drag as it went along and one could also say the film is the tale of two halves as the first part tries to do comedy with the second focusing more on the actual mystery.  The two really don't mix well together because the comedy in the first half is so over the top that you really don't pay too much attention to solving the mystery and then when that becomes the main focus, you have to ask yourself what was up with the type of comedy they were going after.  Just take a look at the scenes following the body being discovered.  We get both Young and Aherne fainting because they think the other is the dead person.  Fine, it gets a laugh but it's also so over the top that you're really not building any mystery up nor do you care.  How many "old dark house" movies has someone laid a candle down only to have it move?  Well here we get that again but a pretty fun reason for it moving.  With that type of laugh it's hard to get the "drama" to work a split second later.  I personally think the two genres can mix quite well, just look at HOLD THAT GHOST, but it doesn't work well here.  Both Young and Aherne turn in good performance but I think you can look at them and see that they're trying to force several of the jokes.  The supporting players include the then Charlie Chan himself Sidney Toler, Lee Patrick and Gale Sondergaard.  Fans of the genre or the cast will certainly want to check this out but it's not nearly as good as some would have you believe.
 

Ann Carver's Profession (1933)
 

Edward Buzzell
 

Entertaining curio from Columbia has Fay Wray playing a wife turned brilliant lawyer who must defend her estranged husband (Gene Raymond) when he is accused of killing a nightclub singer (Claire Dodd).  This is an extremely interesting little gem that manages to be entertaining as a film but also because of the way it showed women and race of the time.  The husband ends up leaving the wife because she's making more money than him, which is something he's embarrassed about.  Seeing a woman work here way up without using sexuality is something else not all that common from films of this era.  The way the film views race is another interesting thing because Wray's first big trial is a black woman charged with dating a white man but not telling him she was black.  This entire courtroom scene is rather jaw dropping as even blackface doesn't seen as out of date as this sequence.  We see the attorney bring in "questionable" black women who might be white.  The entire sequence is surreal, strange and certainly something you probably won't see in too many movies.  The biggest problem with the film comes in the final ten minutes when the trial of the husband actually starts.  The actual ending is a downright disaster but even worse is how we get to that ending with a certain speech inside the court.  It was so bad I actually wanted to hit the mute button.  Wray turns in a decent performance, although I think she goes a tad bit over the top during some of the court scenes.  Raymond, Dodd and the rest of the supporting cast do fine work and the director keeps everything moving at a nice pace.  This is yet another forgotten film that popped up on Turner Classic Movies and it's one more should check out as it gives us a rather interesting insight to some rather strange topics.
 

Reply
post #1322 of 1550
9/29/09 at 4:57am
09/27/09: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA [Parts I & II] (Tony Richardson, 1990) (TV)

 

This was the eleventh film adaptation of Gaston LeRoux's classic to be made and the seventh I have watched myself (the others being the 1925, 1943, 1962, 1974, 1983 and 1998 versions); therefore, the two most significant ones left out there for me to catch up with, I suppose, are those made in 1989 and 2004. Coming so late in the game and so close to the Robert Englund remake – whilst also being accorded the lengthiest running time (185 minutes – although IMDb curiously gives it as 168!) of all – I guess it stands to reason that this was going to be a very different Phantom to the ones we were used to. For starters, it is an adaptation of Arthur Kopit's theatrical rendition of the original source and, in fact, the author himself wrote the teleplay here; the cast (Burt Lancaster, Charles Dance, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Andrea Ferreol and Ian Richardson) and crew (Kopit and Oscar-winning director Tony Richardson and composer John Addison) roped in for the production also lend the whole a classy distinction missing from previous or later versions. 77-year old Lancaster is in fine form in his Golden Globe-nominated portrayal of the former Opera manager with a secret (so much so that one can hardly believe that he would be dead in four years' time!); Dance is quite wonderful in the title role and I am surprised his performance did not earn him more plaudits (even if the fact that his facial features are always hidden behind a variety of masks may have been behind this oversight); Cassel seems somewhat wasted at first as the laid-back investigating Inspector but his role grows in stature in Part II; Richardson is enjoyably hammy as the initially skeptical but increasingly flustered Italian impresario replacing Lancaster and installing his own wife Ferreol (playing La Carlotta) as the primadonna of the Paris Opera. The all-important role of Christine Daae' is well-served by the lovely Teri Polo (who also portrays The Phantom's mother in a series of flashbacks!) but Adam Storke (as the subsequently reformed Count de Chagny) is blandly handsome at best. As usual, the problems with deviations from the familiar original source crop up here but, as I said earlier, these are to be expected in this case (more so than, say, in Hammer's first Dracula picture which was still a fairly fresh property for moviegoers in its day!): Lancaster is fully cognizant of the Phantom's lair underneath his theater because he is his biological father; in fact, Erik was even born there and, besides devoting himself to music, he also dabbled in painting and building a little woods for himself!!; the Phantom's obsessive love for Christine is not merely attributable to her unique voice but also because she is a dead ringer for his own late (and former opera star) mother; Carlotta does not lose her voice in mid-performance due to the Phantom's foul play but instead it's Christine who does so thanks to the machinations of the jealous Carlotta; the Phantom is not a mistreated composer but an accomplished opera singer who (wait for it) joins Christine in a duet from "Faust" from his proverbial Box 5 in full view of the audience and the gendarmes…even though he was virtually at death's door a few moments earlier!; the Phantom subsequently invites death himself on the Opera rooftop at the hands of his own father rather than from Christine's aristocratic lover, etc. The biggest departure, of course, would be that the film (and the play) 'fumbles' the very highlight every spectator is always waiting for in this story: the unmasking scene (which here occurs with the Phantom's back to the camera and we merely see Christine's fainting reaction to it)!! In the end, there may be more opera than horror here but the lavish production values, the fine performances and the evergreen fascination of the story itself win the day.

 
09/28/09: HELTER SKELTER (Tom Gries, 1976) (TV)
Although I was still a generation or two away, I have always thought that the Sixties must have been a great time to be alive – the “Nouvelle Vague” and the full blossoming of arthouse cinema, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, psychedelia, the birth of the all-star rock festivals, etc. – and, where I to have a time machine at my disposal, I would probably decide to be a 25-year old stranded in 1967 for the rest of my life (either that or during the Roman Empire)! However, when I eventually realize how painfully naïve and misguided that whole “Flower Power” generation was (the fantastic notion that somebody could change the world through music or achieve world peace through free love) soon makes me reconsider and come back crashing to reality – the same way that the Tate-LaBianca killings brought America back to its senses from its hippie dream-state in the Summer of 1969. Given that the death of imprisoned ex-Charles Manson acolyte Susan Atkins and the surprise arrest of Roman Polanski in a Switzerland airport occurred within days of each other, I thought it was high time that I watched this much-lauded dramatization of The Manson Family court hearings. Since the horrific events were a mere seven years old at the time this 3-hour TV-movie was made (becoming one of the most viewed of all time), it is not surprising that the murders themselves are not inordinately dwelt upon and, being based on the prosecuting District Attorney’s best-selling-book, its focus lies on the accumulation of the evidence and the lengthy trial itself. Although eventually a shorter cut of the film was prepared (probably for theatrical distribution in Europe), I cannot say that I found the considerable running time a burden so fascinating were the events unfolding on the screen. Sparked by a formidable performance by George DiCenzo (as the dogged D.A. Vincent Bugliosi) and an electrifying one by Steve Railsback (as the loathsomely hypnotic Charles Manson), the film also gives the opportunity for two supporting female performers to shine: Nancy Wolfe (as the boastful Susan Atkins) and Marilyn Burns (as the Prosecution’s key witness, former Manson follower Linda Kasabian). Tom Gries’ direction is admirably matter-of-fact and only lapses into flashiness during the re-enactment of the murders themselves (with Kasabian providing voiceover narration from the witness stand) – scenes which, I thought, were further marred by the overly loud playing of The Beatles’ all-important songs on the soundtrack…only, what we actually hear are cover versions by an obscure band called Silverspoon! The sequence in which another collaborative male witness explains to Bugliosi how much Manson’s mantra was ‘influenced’ by the music of The Beatles – especially “The White Album” (1968) and “Revolution 9” in particular – is a fascinating one but even a small fragment of said song underscoring it – or elsewhere in the movie – would not have been amiss (but, perhaps, the covering band did not quite know how to tackle that “mind-blowing” epic)! On a personal note, the same witness reveals that, in Manson’s mind, the song was referring to the Holy Bible (Revelations Chapter  9) and, for what it is worth, a quote from that book, Revelations 9:15, is also heard (by sheer coincidence, I might add!) in my own first “unpublished” screenplay (which I co-wrote with my twin brother)!! Besides, it seemed awkward to me that no reference whatsoever was made to the reason behind the fact that the fourth Manson Family member personally involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders (Charlie “Tex” Watson) was tried separately than the other four. Apart from the utterly chilling portrayal of the dominance Manson held over his drug-crazed followers and their animalistic lifestyles, I must say that HELTER SKELTER (which, of course, refers to another song off of “The White Album” – arguably The Beatles’ heaviest and one of my own personal favorites) also served to reveal a few new tidbits and dispel some myths that I had heard on the now-40-year old events: Charles Manson was not actually present on the premises of Sharon Tate’s rented house the night she and her four guests were brutally murdered; Susan Atkins did not cut out Tate’s unborn baby boy; Manson’s only actual participation in the LaBianca killings was to tie up the two victims; the words “Helter Skelter” – apparently misspelled as “Healter Skelter” – were written in blood on the LaBianca’s refrigerator and not Tate’s; Charles Manson, who was 34 at the time of the killings, actually admitted to 35 murders; Manson had, by then, already spent half his life locked up in jail and other similar institutions; Manson and his gang were originally only arrested by the L.A.P.D. for setting an ‘earth machine’ on fire, etc. Seeing how VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1967) is the only remaining film (from the six significant ones that Sharon Tate appeared in) left for me to watch, it might have been a good idea to give it a first look right now as well but, having just been made aware how one of the most beautiful actresses ever had her life callously ended at 25 years of age thanks to the megalomaniacal delusions of Charles Manson et al, I believe it would be better to leave that campy pleasure for another time.        

Edited by Mario Gauci - 9/29/09 at 1:37pm
Reply
post #1323 of 1550
9/29/09 at 2:24pm
 "Ils" ("Them") - 4 /10

A couple is terrorised at home by a gang of hoodies!

Hmm....got rave reviews when it came out, but quite frankly I've seen better French Horror films recently The main problem is the fact the director seemed reluctant to shout "cut". Scenes go on for too long, thus mutating the tension initially built up into something approaching tedium.

An effective opening for example loses steam when we spend a good minute with a girl calling out to her missing Mother. On and on she goes...
The same happens with an early driving sequence involving our main woman character. We know nothing is going to happen to her yet! We all know! The director knows we know as well, surely. And yet the car is filmed creeping along roads (with a sinister plinky plonky piano score for company) as we wait for her to actually get home and start the film!

The same extended into boredom, where initially we had suspense, problem happens in a sequence where the woman slowly creeps through a (rather bizarre) room hung with dirty plastic sheets. Again, it goes on and on and on.
The couple like to talk, walk and move in slow motion too, as they endlessly gaze into each other's eyes in that cloying and sickly way good looking French couples seem to manage so easily.

And would anyone else like to see a home invasion/avoiding the psychos plot where the house isn't a mansion!? The terrorised couple have so many rooms, crawl spaces and corridors to creep around in it seems they could live in the same house as the killers and not even meet them!
How about seeing if you can keep the tension and suspense up by setting the film in an average home, made up of a sitting room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom! That would really be clever (and actually far scarier!).

And it goes beyond stupid to think that the couple would do what they do during the final chase as well. Idiots!
And talking of the final chase...where the hell did that gigantic, lit by a few hundred electric lights, underground labyrinth come from!? It seems to be very close to their house and yet completely unknown to anyone, despite the obviously huge electric bill all those lighted corridors must chalk up.

But there are some effective moments here.
Some of the scare scenes are well done with a nice use of camera angles and sudden reveals.
And the thing that I noticed got the most criticism when the film came out (though the film did not get much and was certainly over-praised) I actually liked.
Many seem to dislike the eventual revealing of who the killers are, as if it makes it an anti-climax. To me though it gave the film its only real powerful and disturbing aspect.


"Camp Blood II" - 4 / 10

Blimey! A large improvement over the first film. Who would have thought?

Not only does the picture quality look much better, especially the colours (Yay! no more yellow people and orange/gold blood) but this time it seems the makers have also added some okay intentional humour (the scuzzy film guys are fun), more action, more nudity (a very nice pair of breasts during the opening of the first film I have to say...but a full frontal shower scene here tops it) and much better and more satisfying deaths and FX.

Though the film still stinks as far as plot and dialogue goes (though the lead actress is doing better here than in the first film, despite still looking shockingly ungainly when running) and you have to wonder how a suspected, judged insane, multiple murderess is allowed out alone, back to the place she supposedly killed, to help make a movie!
But the fact the film shoehorns in lots of verbal plot explanation and footage from the first film at least means you don't actually need to own the crappy first film to watch this. Hooray!

Whereas the deaths in "Camp Blood 1" were nothing but a bit of blood and a machete with a half moon cut out of the blade that was placed over arms and heads, in the sequel we actually have proper FX set-ups.
The deaths are all more violent and gory and even rather nasty. Sure the effects work is primitive, but it still works, still delivers and it's nice to see some good, on-set, CGI free, old school FX anyway.
Highlights are a messy machete through the mouth/back of the head, a pulpy burnt face, a hacked off hand with spurting stump, a machete through the chest and much general blood spraying.

It's cheap, it's got some bad lines for even worse actors to say, it has a major plot holes, looks cheap (though better) and has many moments of badness that should never have seen the light of day.
And yet i still quite enjoyed it! Unlike the first film.

The sometimes nasty deaths, large body count (also helped by the kills from the first film appearing again), the fun gore FX and an incident packed screenplay were all the positives that the first film never had, and here they help to counteract the many negatives. Shucks! Give it at least one go, just avoid the first one.
Reply
post #1324 of 1550
9/29/09 at 7:46pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

How about seeing if you can keep the tension and suspense up by setting the film in an average home, made up of a sitting room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom! That would really be clever (and actually far scarier!).
 

Have you seen [B]If I Die Before I Wake[/B]?  It's an underrated low-budget horror effort that actually makes good use of a "regular" house to keep up the suspense.  The house is not quite as small as your specifications but is certainly no mansion.
Reply
post #1325 of 1550
9/29/09 at 10:13pm
Thread Starter 

Mario, I remember having my father record that version of PHANTOM when it originally aired and I'm pretty sure he probably still has that original tape.  I remember really enjoying the movie even though it wasn't what I expected.


Abandon Ship (1957)
 

Richard Sale
 

Extremely difficult to watch but masterfully made is the best way to sum up this drama that will have your on the edge of your seat from start to finish.  A luxury liner strikes a derailed land mine, explodes and sinks in seven seconds.  Twenty-seven people survive with Officer Holmes (Tyrone Power) given orders to take control of the lifeboat and see to it that as many people survive as possible.  The boat is 1500 miles from land with a major storm coming and the lifeboat is holding at least twelve people too many so Holmes must pick and choose which ones can stay on the top and which must go overboard.  This film, based on a true story, is rather hard to watch and I'm sure many people will find it too unpleasant and will eventually turn it off.  The film takes place in the water from start to finish and the shaky camerawork and constant throbbing in the water will get some sea sick but those who stick to the movie will find a lot of other things to be disgusted by.  I'd say I'm an expert at watching some ugly stuff but even my stomach was turning due to the subject matter here, which is handled in a very raw and realistic way.  Having one man play God and pick who gets to live and die is a soul searching cause and will really have you thinking.  The movie starts off as your typical disaster pic but instead of action we get thoughts of what we would do in that situation.  You'll ask yourself if you could throw a woman overboard to die and if everyone should die or if a select group should have the right to live.  A movie fan really has to ask themselves if a masterfully directed movie with great performances is worth watching when the subject matter itself is too ugly.  I'm sure many will stay away from the film and I'm really not sure if I'd want to sit through it again but there's no doubt at how well made the thing is.  I've always been hit and miss on Power but after seeing his performance here I've turned into an instant fan.  He's completely believable in the role and extremely strong in putting his character's thoughts right up there for us to see without having to say a single word.  Mai Zetterling, Stephen Boyd, Lloyd Nolan and the rest of the cast are great as well but there's no question as to whose film it is.  It's rather amazing that this film isn't better known as many disaster movies remain quite popular today.  I'm going to guess the reason this one here has been forgotten is simply because many watching it won't want to recommend it to anyone.  I can only imagine how a film like this hit people when it was first released because as movie viewers today we've become quite jaded to violence.  There's no real violence here but there's no question that the film and its subject matter are a lot more brutal to watch than any slasher or violence packed action film.
 

Bad Boy (1925)
 

Leo McCarey
 

Another winning short from Charley Chase has him playing the son of a tough steel mill owner who makes him go to work starting at the bottom.  The weak Chase gets picked on by the tough guys but he's forced to go into a tough bar to get his girlfriend out.  It's a real shame that Chase seems to have been forgotten today because in a lot of ways his humor stands up a lot better today than many of the other artists out there in his same era.  He's certainly not in the league of Chaplin or Keaton but then again, no one is.  Chase does a great job here in the role of the weak guy who must eventually get tough even if just for a second.  The best scene of the film has a large fight breaking out in the steel yard where Chase accidentally become involved.  The editing of the short is also very good and brings in some great timing in order to carry out some of the laughs.  The best example of this is when Chase's father tells him the work environment there is very friendly only to them cut to a large brawl.  The second half of the film contains just as many laughs as Chase ends up having to deal with all sorts of tough guys.  Those not overly familiar with Chase could start here and see why his popularity continues to grow.
 

Isn't Life Terrible? (1925)
 

Leo McCarey

Semi-spoof of D.W. Griffith's ISN'T LIFE WONDERFUL basically just pokes fun at the title but we have Charley Chase playing the lovely husband who wins a cruise with his wife (Katherine Grant), child and the lazy brother-in-law (Oliver Hardy) but of course nothing goes as planned.  This isn't Chase's best film but there are still enough laughs to get you to overlook a rather bizarre and long running joke.  The second half of the film takes place on the ship and at the start of this is when the Chase family lose their own daughter and end up with a small black child.  You'd think this would lead to the obvious jokes and it does but at the same time the rest of the film plays it straight as the family isn't worried about the missing child and just treat the new kid as their own.  It's a little uneasy watching this entire "joke" but perhaps those in 1925 got a bigger kick out of it.  A lot of the writing is rather lazy with the obvious jokes always being taken but there are still some funny moments.  A lot of this has to do with Charley and his reaction to the lazy Hardy who always "has a spell" whenever it's time to do some work.  The two men work well together and that alone makes this worth watching.

Uneasy Three, The (1925)
 

Leo McCarey
 

Often hysterical spoof of Lon Chaney's THE UNHOLY THREE has Charley Chase playing the mastermind of a dimwitted trio of thieves who plan on stealing a priceless jewel.  The writing here isn't the greatest nor is the actual spoof the smartest but I don't think there's any doubt that this two-reeler has some of the biggest laughs of the silent era.  Chase isn't overly known today, which is a real shame as he remains one of my favorites but it appears he has a cult following that gets bigger and bigger each passing year.  There are three downright hilarious sequences here with the first coming with a young child playing with an electric piano cord.  The next deals with the good guys being mistaken for the thieves and Chase having to help the detective (Fred Kelsey).  The third one happens when Chase goes to buy the kid a balloon to keep him quiet and must try and hide it in his hat when he sees a cop coming.  Each one of these scenes had tears flowing down my face from laughing and these scenes are what makes this a must see.  Chase is his gem self and Bull Montana is wonderful as the dumb brother-in-law who even manages to look like Chaney in several scenes.
 

Reply
post #1326 of 1550
9/30/09 at 1:11am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandro View Post



Have you seen [B]If I Die Before I Wake[/B]?  It's an underrated low-budget horror effort that actually makes good use of a "regular" house to keep up the suspense.  The house is not quite as small as your specifications but is certainly no mansion.

Ahhh...No.  I shall have a look around.  Thanks.
Reply
post #1327 of 1550
9/30/09 at 6:54am
"Nude for Satan"

Give me a break!
There are few things worse on God's green Earth than freeform Jazz. But freeform Jazz in an achingly tedious, pretentious, plodding Euro Trash flick is indeed the very pit of hell.

A barmy plot about a man and a woman who, after a bizarre road accident, go to a strange castle and bump into evil versions of themselves all under the watchful eye of some man in a frock coat who waves a cane about.

Hysterically bad dialogue (spouted by enjoyably bad dubbing artists) annoying electronic chirps and cheeps, Jazz practice soundtrack, slow motion slow motion that moves so slow there is barely any motion at all and seemingly endless scenes of running around corridors and gardens all compete to try the viewers patience.

Laughable (but managing to become so bad they are good) highlight is the woman suffering a sudden plummet into blackness that ends with her crash landing onto a huge spider web, with her breast hanging out, before a spider (that looks like a horse dropping with twigs stuck in it) waddles up her body.

Take notice of that uncovered breast as well, as it will remain on display for the rest of the film. In a gloriously awful bit of gratuitous Sexploitation goodness the actress now flees from haunting terrors, lies down and cries and sits around trying to work out what's going on with her wayward breast hanging out. The man with her is no Gentlemen either! No attempting to cover her up, not even a mention of the fact she's popped out. Nothing. He's not stupid!

We do have some very welcome full nudity of course (I should hope so with a title like this) and it's all very nice and hairy in that 70's Euro way. Lovely.
But sadly these odd moments of wonderment are nearly always played out via slow motion scenes that suck the life out of any erotic hopes the visuals may give us.

And of course inbetween this occasional nudity we have to put up with the worst kind of 'artistic' Euro stodge, non-sensical philosophical plot explanations, camp overload, deadening direction and pacing and sequences of such mind numbing tedium you slowly lose the will to live.
Want to see a man spend 5 minutes running in slow motion around a garden, trying to catch up with a top hat wearing figure who turns out to be himself, all backed by tweeting noises and that hateful freeform Jazz noodling?
Well you'll love this film then.

Everyone else should avoid it, or at worse simply wind through 70 minutes of arse water to get to the nude scenes. But quite frankly I wouldn't bother.
Who says the Devil has all the best tunes.
Reply
post #1328 of 1550
9/30/09 at 8:06pm
Thread Starter 

Wild Oranges (1924)
 

King Vidor
 

Highly entertaining thriller about a man (Frank Mayo) who leaves society after his new bride is killed in a freak carriage accident.  The man takes off on his ship with his second hand (Ford Sterling) and they eventually run into a small island where a young woman (Virginia Valli) lives with her grandfather.  The man and young woman quickly fall in love but a crazed convict (Charles A. Post) isn't going to let them live in peace.  This isn't a masterpiece but it is a highly entertaining little gem that features some great direction by Vidor.  His direction is really what makes the film because it's so laid back that you can't help but feel like you're actually on this peaceful island.  There's an isolated atmosphere running throughout the movie that really puts her right there in the action and it's this laid back feeling that works so well once the psychopath starts to take his revenge on the woman who rejected him.  There are many suspenceful scenes with one of the best coming early one when the convict threatens to feed the girl to some alligators if she doesn't kiss him.  The scene involves real and fake alligators but it's very well done.  The final ten minutes is one long fight sequence, which is directed wonderfully well.  The scene goes on and on but it's exciting and extremely well drawn out as it starts in one room, hits several others and then goes to a few new locations outside the house.  The performances aren't as strong as one would hope but they're good enough to carry the film.  


Billy the Kid (1930)
 

King Vidor

Extremely disappointing film from Vidor features Johnny Mack Brown as Billy the Kid and Wallace Beery as Pat Garrett.  After his boss and friend is murdered, Billy swears vengeance on any man who helped kill him.  Along with his friends, Billy sets out for revenge only to find himself trapped inside a building in a long stand off.  It's funny that this film starts off with a message from the then governor of New Mexico talking about how great Billy the Kid was and how this film was "mostly" truthful.  This film was famous for being shot 1.20:1 but also in the 70mm Realife widescreen format but sadly all known prints of this are now lost.  The film was also shot with two endings and the one I viewed was beyond silly and goes against what the governor said.  With that out of the way, I found this film pretty hard to get through so I'm somewhat shocked at how many great reviews this one has out there.  Being an early talkie I was surprised at how good the film sounded and that included all the dialogue plus the various sound effects.  What shocked me was how old fashioned the film looked because just seeing the "style" of this picture made me wonder how much Vidor really directed and if this full screen version was second thought to everyone on the set.  The movie is incredibly ugly with mostly medium shots that really don't do anything for the film.  The ugly and still fashion of the film really takes it toll on the action in the film because it makes it just as boring.  Even worse are some of the performance that suffer because of this.  I though Brown and Beery were both decent in their roles but certainly nothing to write home about.  Kay Johnson was rather bland as the love interest but future FREAKS cast member Roscoe Ates steals the film as the comedy relief. 
 

Reply
post #1329 of 1550
9/30/09 at 8:13pm
September Recap

37 films seen, 20 for the first time

Best films seen for the first time (out of )

Triad Election (Election 2) 1/2
Window 1/2
London to Brighton 1/2
Frightmare (1975)
Beatrice Cenci (1969)
Virtuosity

Reply
post #1330 of 1550
10/1/09 at 4:00am
September Re-cap

Total # films seen this month - 24

# of new movies seen this month - 15

Favourite movie this month - Bank Job

Notable new movies seen The Window; Cast a Dark Shadow; The Soloist


9/2 Alien vs Predator (2004) 
9/2 State of Play (2009) 
9/2 The Code (2008) 
9/3 The Mummy (1999) 
9/4 The Elizabeth Smart Story (2003)
9/5 Twister (1996)
9/5 Cast a Dark Shadow (1955) 
9/6 The Express (2008)
9/6 The Mummy Returns (2001) 
9/7 Flawless (1999) 
9/9 The Soloist (2009)
9/9 Duplicity (2009) 
9/13 Hamlet (1990) 
9/16 Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
9/19 Cassandra's Dream (2007) 
9/19 Out of Africa (1985)
9/19 Shrek (2001)

9/20 P.S. I Love You (2007)
9/25 Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)  
9/26 Wolverine (2009)
9/26 The Window (1949)
9/26 Die Hard 2 (1990)
9/28 Bank Job (2008) 
9/28 Eagle Eye (2008) 

Reply
post #1331 of 1550
10/1/09 at 8:17am
September Recap

New viewings: 27 (plus 1 short)
Revisits: 13 (plus 4 shorts)

Best new discovery: Quadrophenia
Worst new discovery: The Bellboy

Coincidentally, "Bellboy" is a song on the Quadrophenia album.  I got a fair bit of watching done this month, but I was hoping for more.  Not many really good new discoveries for me.
Reply
post #1332 of 1550
10/1/09 at 12:04pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

September Recap

New viewings: 27 (plus 1 short)
Revisits: 13 (plus 4 shorts)

Best new discovery: Quadrophenia
Worst new discovery: The Bellboy

Coincidentally, "Bellboy" is a song on the Quadrophenia album.  

And perhaps, the most famous quote from "Quadrophenia" as well.  "BELLBOOOYYYY"!!!! 
Reply
post #1333 of 1550
10/1/09 at 6:10pm
September Recap: 
23 films
21 new films
2 revisits
3 in theatres (my low for the year. :( )
3 bluray
1 2009 (also low for the year)

Best new film: The Russians are Coming
Best revisit: Manhattan
biggest disappointment: that West Side Story isn't a very good movie even in 70mm.

The Nun's Story - 5 of 10 - 09/01/09
The Alamo - 6 of 10 - 09/02/09
Sayonara - 7 of 10 - 09/03/09
The Russians are Coming… The Russians are Coming - 10 of 10 - 09/04/09
Black Hawk Down - 10 of 10 - 09/06/09
Meredith Wilson's The Music Man - 9 of 10 - 09/07/09
The Sundowners  - 6 of 10 - 09/08/09
Zorba The Greek  - 8 of 10 - 09/08/09
A Touch of Class - 7 of 10 - 09/09/09
Manhattan - 10 of 10 - 09/10/09
Hannah and Her Sisters - 8 of 10 - 09/11/09
Lenny - 9 of 10 - 09/11/09
Alfie - 6 of 10 - 09/12/09
Darling - 8 of 10 - 09/13/09
West Side Story - 6 of 10 - 09/13/09
Walt and El Grupo - 6 of 10 - 09/15/09
Mutiny on the Bounty (1963) - 7 of 10 - 09/16/09
The Towering Inferno - 7 of 10 - 09/17/09
Monterey Pop - 9 of 10 - 09/24/09
Anne of the Thousand Days - 8 of 10 - 09/27/09
Jimi Plays Monterey - 8 of 10 - 09/28/09
Otis Redding: Shake - 7 of 10 - 09/29/09
Heaven Can Wait (1978) - 7 of 10 - 09/30/09

Reply
post #1334 of 1550
10/3/09 at 5:09am
 "Dying Breed"  7.5 / 10

There be inbred cannibals in them thar hills!


Before we start, a little preamble is needed methinks.
Once again the 21st century shows why it’s become on of the most vital and exciting times (ever growing and utterly pointless re-make trend aside) for Horror/Exploitation film production. 

In the late 60’s and 70’s, when the perfect storm of more liberal censorship, with an exploding independent film production/distribution market to enjoy it, met the upheaval of Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination and the threat of nuclear destruction, it buffeted not only America but most of the World and this extreme climate ensured that we were offered up some of the most groundbreaking, radical, pessimistic, cruel, extreme and just plain brutal Horror (and Exploitation) cinema we had ever seen.

Psychologists often state that at times of great upheaval Horror cinema goes through a resurgence, and just as in the 60's/70's this is being proved correct once more.
Now that upheaval is in the form of an unprecedented terrorism threat from within and without, of brutal conflict worldwide, of Global political mistrust at an all time high, of religious dogma at its most unrelenting and extreme since The Crusades.

And once again censorship is at its most forgiving (The UK for example now routinely passes films uncut it would have once banned outright) and although the great indy Drive-In/Grindhouse circuits for film distribution have long since gone we now have the even more widespread and powerful distribution tools called DVD, Blu-ray and even the internet as home theatre systems becoming bigger and more sophisticated.

From around the globe we are being treated to some of the bleakest, nastiest, most exciting genre cinema. They may not all be masterworks, though some are, but all are deeply effective and make most of what came in the last decade (more underground/indy fare like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" aside) look like the drab, weak, safe efforts they were.
Flawed some of these may be, but the likes of , "The Devil's Rejects", "Hostel", "The Descent", "Inside", "House of 1000 Corpses", "Cannibal", "Martyrs", "Mum and Dad", "Shuttle", "Frontiers", "Dead Girl", "Gutterballs", "August Underground" and "Saw" have all, from the multi-plex, to the DVD player, to the PC monitor given us something as close to those halcyon days of 70's extremity and grime as we will ever get again. 

And with bigger budgets (even for indy productions), easier to use equipment and more sophisticated effects possibilities, than the rough 'n' tumble 60's/70's film makers could have imagined, Horror and Exploitation cinema has been able to achieve much more in terms of what we see and yet (thankfully) has often remained as gritty, uncompromising and unforgiving (as these dark times display their inescapable influence) as those rough, tough products of that other harsh era.

And "Dying Breed" is very much a creation of all these elements. Nothing particularly original here, but it's packed with the well loved elements we actually want from such a film and delivers them with razor sharp, sadistic, unforgiving precision.


Like its distant cousin "Wolf Creek" this excellent example of Australian terror cinema utilises the country's huge, mysterious, ancient wilderness to great effect.
This may be internationally exportable, but it retains its Australian roots.
The scenery here may not be the arid dead lands of the sweltering, colossal, outback so well used in "Wolf Creek", but the huge lakes dotted with drowned skeletal trees, overhung rivers, mighty peaks and ancient misty woodlands are just as otherworldly, lonely, treacherous and forbidding.
The excellent Cinematography not only captures the overwhelming scale of the landscape to wonderful effect but also captures the stifling intimacy of the deep forest with equal effectiveness.
The movie is a genuinely startling visual treat.

The film's opening third plays very much like that of "Deliverance" and although it may not have anything as iconic as the 'dueling banjos', "Dying Breed" perfectly captures that essential uneasiness of strangers entering a world they can have no understanding of or can truly realise, despite shows of bravado, how dangerous their situation is.

When the film moves into its middle section the pacing does start to sadly flag though. And although we are now deep inside the heart of this fascinating wilderness the film does offer us more scenes of the antagonism that exists between Jack and Nina than we really need, as this friction has already been introduced and exploited during the drive to Tasmania.
If the otherwise stunning "Wolf Creek" could have moved 10 minutes from it's first half to its second, "Dying Breed" could at least exchange 5 minutes of the time spent in the forest now to the betterment of the movie's last third.
But even then, what a last third it is! Chilling, exciting, brutal, grotesque and filled with tension and surprise set-ups you dearly wish that those extra 5 minutes were available to play with.

Director Jody Dwyer delivers all we could have hoped for during the generally effective build-up as the movie now crushes the audience's face into a bloody mire of hacked limbs, ripped open flesh, animal fury and the most chilling and twisted gene pool seen in the genre for a long time. 
You can keep the weak, bland, mutants of that unnecessary "The Hills have Eyes" remake...this rather more realistic and, dare one say it, human psycho set-up delivers so much more and is able to utilise these strengths to deliver some unsettling twists and grim reveals as to the influence and power of this backwoods, inbred, community existence.
That is not to say that the essential 'mutated cannibal' character is not here though. With a generally excellent mix of make-up and CGI tweaking the main, hulking, deadly patriarch of this 17th century throwback existence makes for a wonderful visual treat with his grotesque face being the crowning achievement of perhaps all inbred cannibal killer movies.

Mention of the effects brings up the stunning corpse reveal in the film. Strung up, cruelly naked and exposed, half eaten and mutilated this shock scene moment would be at home in any of Deodato's classic Cannibal films and is uncompromising in how it visually wallows in the explicitness of the sight. There is a pure Exploitation sensibility being indulged here and we should welcome it.
Other effects are far more low key, short and sharp and pack a more violent punch rather than a gloating gore experience. Sadly the side is let down by an awful (why it was even allowed into the final film is a mystery, perhaps time was short to deliver something) CGI heavy death that sticks out like a sore thumb and takes you out of the grim, down and dirty feel the movie has carefully built up. Luckily the FX set-ups that follow this help us forget (though not totally) this folly. 
Certainly, as the superbly twisted finale vomits out its putrid contents over the audience, any such simplistic shortcomings seem moot.

Performances are all good, with newcomer Mirrah Foulke doing a good job essaying the rather strung out and compulsive Nina, Leigh Whannell brings his likable personality and deliver that worked so well in "Saw" and truly gives it his all during the brilliant finale. 
Nathan Phillips is far broader and initially plays the kind of arrogant, irritating Jock yahoo character seen in many American Horror films, but he certainly brings an energy to the film and handles the later action very well.
No one puts a foot wrong here.

Overall then "Dying Breed" may be a creature stitched together from many other Horror and Exploitation parts, but in the right hands, and in the right environment, such homage to past glories can be equally as effective and just as unforgiving as what gave it life. And, some pacing and one FX fault aside, "Dying Breed is thankfully part of a breed of movie that is far from dying out at the moment. 
In fact such harsh, uncompromising, extreme and cruel Horror films are alive and well in these dangerous and uncertain times and "Dying Breed" can run with the best of the pack.
Reply
post #1335 of 1550
10/4/09 at 1:37am
09/30/09: LOCAL HERO (Bill Forsyth, 1983)
 
Although I had intended to watch at least three more Burt Lancaster movies as part of my ongoing tribute to the late, evergreen Hollywood legend, I eventually rounded up an even dozen with this acclaimed Scottish comedy. In fact, writer-director Forsyth, best-known for his previous film GREGORY’S GIRL (1980), won three international awards for his screenplay and direction and both Lancaster (in the Best Supporting Actor category) and the film were nominated for BAFTAs. The main theme of the clash between American globalization and the simple, lethargic way of life of the Scottish islanders instantly brings to mind the classic Ealing comedies of yesteryear, particularly my own personal favorite example of the series: Alexander Mackendrick’s WHISKEY GALORE! (1949). To that age-old template, Forsyth adds his own disarming brand of quirky, low-key humor that elicits more smiles than it does belly-laughs but, admittedly, I did laugh out loud on a couple of occasions: eccentric stargazing American tycoon Lancaster undergoes with his shrink Norman Chancer a masochistic therapy (akin to the relationship between Inspector Clouseau and Cato in Blake Edwards’ PINK PANTHER series!) in which the latter keeps calling the former foul names and, in one instance, Lancaster is on the phone in his office as an unheralded Chancer, in full window cleaner outfit, is on a scaffolding on the outside of the edifice pasting a banner stating that “Happer is a Motherf…”!! Lancaster sends his “Scottish” negotiator MacKintyre (Peter Riegert) to buy off the properties of some twenty islanders with the intention of building an oil refinery plant on that stretch of land; helping him in the deal is local representative Oldsen (Peter Capaldi) who immediately falls for a web-footed(!) marine biologist aptly named Marina (Jenny Seagrove). Under the shrewd guidance of the town’s restauranteur-notary-mayor Urquhart (Dennis Lawson – who even feeds Riegert his own ‘accidental’ pet rabbit at one point!), most of the islanders are all too happy to sell off their miserable abodes and soak in the millions promised by the American buyers (another big laugh is generated when Riegert asks a crowd of villagers to whom the toddler in their midst belongs and they just exchange baffled looks!); the only exception is hermetic old codger Ben (Fulton McKay) who wants nothing more than to look after the beach his family had owned for successive generations. This unexpected hurdle elicits the helicopter visit to the island of Lancaster himself but, eventually, the love of astrology (Riegert is also instructed to provide long-distance reports of comet sightings directly to Lancaster!) that both Ben and Tapper share unites them in a new venture of the construction of an observatory and, thanks to Capaldi’s new-found recognition in Lancaster’s eyes, a marine laboratory!! The whole slyly satisfying package (marred for me somewhat by recurring freezing issues during a five minute segment in mid-screening of the copy I acquired) is underscored by Dire Straits’ Mark Knofler equally relaxed (and BAFTA-nominated) rock score.

Edited by Mario Gauci - 10/4/09 at 1:51am
Reply
post #1336 of 1550
10/5/09 at 7:36am

Stranger from Venus (1954)

 

As I sat down to watch this, I couldn't help but feel that I'd seen this before. Not only is it a blatant rip-off of the Day the Earth Stood Still but it's not a very good one. The only difference is this takes place in England. Not to knock England but if I was a visitor from another planet with an important message for world leaders I wouldn't be landing in England. There is no action or really much of a story. We see the space ship but only at the very end. The acting was fine but really there's nothing much to recommend here. I had originally watched this for the Scary movie challenge but realized right away no scares, no nothing.

Reply
post #1337 of 1550
10/5/09 at 8:14am
Thread Starter 
I'd go on and include it.  I've watched 20+ movies and not a single one was 'scary' so that's not really a reason not to include it.  I do agree that the movie is horrid and without question the worst rip off of DAY that I've seen. 
Reply
post #1338 of 1550
10/5/09 at 10:49am
 "Insanitarium" - 6.5 / 10

Okay, we have a plot hole filled script that at times annoys with how silly it all is, but also some finely crafted chaos.

Guy wants to see suicidal Sister in Psychiatric Hospital.
Guy pretend to go nuts in the local park, gets sent to Psychiatric Hospital.
While there he finds out the the loony head of it, Peter Stormare, is experimenting on the patients by removing the higher brain functions (!) so he can get to the lower brain functions (those pesky primordial suckers like to hide) and cure madness.
On top of this he's also been injecting himself with the experimental serum for some reason never really made clear.

Despite the fact a load of the patients now have seriously weird eyes, act like wild animals around blood and rip the heads of cats, no one thinks anything is wrong until it's too late.
Too late means lots of primordial nutters escaping their very chic glass cells and eating everyone...or themselves!

Extremely bloody, well made, violent, gory with a splash of exploitative goodies (2nd best blood covered bared breasts in cinema after the mighty "Alucarda") this moves at a good pace as it builds the (very silly and unlikely) 'lunatics running the asylum' plot towards its manic, blood caked conclusion.
Some moist deaths and munching scenes are here for our delight (plus a groovy cleaver to the face demise that is something we see too little of in Horror cinema these days) but very little actual flesh biting is seen. Thus showing just how cutting edge, and stunningly extreme, Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" was and still is in this department.

The film's problems though are the aforementioned plot silliness and glaring stupidity (for example a Nurse gets bitten, in a hospital no less, but simply wraps an increasingly blood dripping bandage around the wound and carries on without a care), some very bad dialogue and needless, 90's style Horror, one-liners.
But the real drop in quality comes from a truly annoying turn by the ever barking Peter Stormare.
Hell fire and cobble stones! This makes his turn in "Armageddon" look like the height of subtlety.
He's an eye-rolling, word slurring pain in the ass!
And that's before his character really starts to turn psychotic!

A pretty good twist ending caps off what is a very retro feeling Horror movie (has that 80's Euro trash/gore film feel) which delivers a no-nonsense, if rather silly, viewing experience but utilises lots of modern and well executed gore FX to really drive the crimson covered carnage forward during the balls-out last half.
We needed more mayhem though, and less Peter Stormare, who needs to see The Cohen's again for a lesson in the difference between an annoying, hammy, silliness packed performance and an effective, off the wall, exciting and scary performance.
Otherwise though..We have another good, graphic, 21st century Horror flick. Check this out for cannibal carnage galore.
 
Reply
post #1339 of 1550
10/6/09 at 10:38am
"Reckoning Day" - 5 /10

The first feature film from Julian Gilbey who would go on to make the equally violent and bloody, but far better made in every other way, "Rollin' with the Nine's" and the more famous "Rise of the Footsoldier". Shot over 3 half years from 1998-2001, it's basically a souped up, micro-budget (not much over £7000), student action film.
The budget, the inexperience and the technical limitations do sadly hit the film hard, especially in the dialogue scenes and general plot mechanics, but there is still much to enjoy here.

The various action scenes are spectacularly visceral and violent (these are superbly created, bloody as hell, squibs that would look at home in a Hollywood blockbuster) and generally very well directed, shot and edited with some wonderful stunt work. And unlike every other zero budget film I have seen with gunfights (where the scenes are truly awful and never work) the gun battles are brilliantly handled in every way, from how they look, sound and feel.
Add some full on car violence, a chainsaw fight and a brutal axe/electric saw execution to the splattertastic gunfights and you have a film that delivers as far as brutal thrills go.
But sadly we have all the bits in-between.

It was a huge mistake to have a guy spend the last half of the film, parts of which were shot a year apart, in a blood soaked white t-shirt. Continuity problems anyone?? See the shirt switch from total crimson, to simply blood spattered but still very white, and then back again in the space of one scene.

Sadly the lack of live sound recording also means that, a near crippling blow as far as the non-action scenes go, all dialogue is dubbed on after. This would be bad and distracting enough anyway even with good actors, but here we have some very bad actors, reading often bad dialogue.
It's extremely hard going, not helped by a very messy, overly complicated plot (that needs some deadeningly long exposition scenes).
Anyone who knows the UK comedy/homage show to badly made TV called "Garth Marenghi's Dark Place" will cringe whenever these cheesy/bad actors read cliche hard man and/or melodramatic dialogue, that does not quite fit the lip movements and sounds like it was all recorded in the same studio.

So "Reckoning Day" is too long, has too many dialogue heavy plot exposition scenes, features bad acting, bad sound recording, technical black holes and a dodgy script.
And yet...The numerous well crafted action scenes, the full on gore and violence, the ambitious ideas and the sheer enthusiasm that runs through the entire thing do make for an ultimately rewarding viewing experience. And with the better budgets, better actors, more experienced writing, professional crews and technical improvements that would thankfully arrive for his next two films (cliche though they may often be) Gilbey certainly came good with the promise he showed here.

To know just how hard these guys worked and the hurdles they overcame to make some of these brilliant action scenes, just look at this; A single fight sequence on a cliff top utilises the following; Footage shot in two completely different locations, featuring shots filmed a year apart and with a total of three actors/stunt guys playing one character. That takes commitment. We salute you.
 
Reply
post #1340 of 1550
10/6/09 at 2:51pm
Smiles of a Summer Night (rewatch) - The nice thing about going through all these Bergmans in chronological order is picking up on certain trends. This is the culmination of the brilliant verbal sparring between Gunnar Bjornstrand and Eva Dahlbeck, first established in Secrets of Women and later expanded upon in A Lesson of Love. I think I actually prefer their interactions in Secrets, but mainly because it's just concentrated Bjornstrand-Dahlbeck goodness. Here, they're more spread out among the ensemble cast. But overall, this is a better picture and my choice for Bergman's best comedy. One thing that really makes it unique is that it's a romantic comedy that manages to be sexy without being either too crass or too highbrow. Compare it to Woody Allen's lackluster tribute A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, which tends to stray too far in either direction. Bergman's is far more charming. Rating: 9


Stranded: I've Come from a Plane That Crashed in the Mountains - Everyone loves a good survival tale. This is a documentary (with a few tastefully done dramatic re-enanctments) about a Uruguayan soccer team whose plane crashed in the Andes in 1972, and the 16 who emerged from a 10-week ordeal. All of the survivors appear to share their insights, several of them returning to the scene. Their stories are moving and inspiring and Arijon does a terrific job piecing the material together in a way that relates the events in a cohesive and meaningful manner. I was particularly interested in the photos that were shot while they were there, haunting but fascinating documents. Apparently the same story is the basis for Alive, which I have not seen. Rating: 8


Starship Troopers - I've never read the novel, but I have some other Heinlein and always been put off by his more conservative, militaristic side. When I heard that this movie took those values and blew them up to the point of parody, I was curious but skeptical. Maybe these people were reading something into it that wasn't there. But for anyone with a brain watching this film, the satire is loud and clear, and frequently hilarious. As a mega-budget Hollywood movie, however, it also has to appeal to those without brains. So it's also an action blockbuster, with a lot of amusingly over-the-top dismemberments and explosions. I think Verhoeven is more successful when he aims for satire than when he goes for visceral thrills, but it's entertaining enough. I've always had a problem with the look of Verhoeven's films, though (I should add that I've only seen his sci-fi material). Everything is so clean and oddly overlit, as the action takes place in a universe without shadows. Rating: 7


The New World (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - Triple-dipping on a movie I only saw for the first time 18 months ago... first the original DVD, then the extended cut, now the extended cut on Blu-Ray. Oh well, I don't mind for what is easily one of the finest American films of the 21st century. Everything about it is perfect. Well, except one thing. The voice-overs by Colin Farrell and Q'Orianka Kilcher are done with moderately thick accents, and also tend to be mumbly and/or whispery. I wish they'd speak up a little, especially since you don't want subtitles to distract you from all the visual splendor. Also, for those who care about such things, there are historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications, but that doesn't bother me at all. Rating: 10
Reply
post #1341 of 1550
10/9/09 at 4:43am
"Hand of Death"

Early John Woo flick is an interesting look into the future.
A pre-eye widening operation Jackie Chan is the highlight and the action choreography by Sammo Hung gives him plenty of moments to shine.
Sammo himself also delivers the film's most horrendously grotesque aspect of the film....his comedy teeth! Huge, shining white, goofy slabs that make him look like a psychotic rabbit who's eaten all the carrots!

Away from those mighty gnashers though, Sammo has a few good fight personal moments, but really delivers for the other actors. Talking of the others, a young Yuen Biao is the other star of the show...though you won't really see him.
Biao not only has a tiny acting role but does many of the stunts and doubles for various actors whenever acrobatics are required.

Aside from Sammo, Yuen and Jackie doing their early stuff (that would of course lead to some classic later pairings) there is little really outstanding about the film, but it delivers enough fight scenes to entertain and Jackie Chan really does shine.
Reply
post #1342 of 1550
10/9/09 at 11:21am
 "Triumph of the Will"

Leni Riefenstahl’s highly controversial documentary of the Nazi’s pre-war show of power and pomp is a rare beast indeed. 
It is a film that is at once lauded by the great and the mighty in the film world, has been of untold influence in the way later movies (be they documentary of fiction) have been filmed and regularly rates up there as a triumph of it’s own. 

And yet at the same time it is often vilified, loathed, seen as a threat (it is still banned in Germany itself outside of scholarly study), seen as a glorification of evil and even dismissed as not even being a documentary at all.

Leni Riefenstahl was asked by Hitler to record his 1934, four day conference/rally in Nuremberg and she was offered assistance and help above and beyond anything seen in a documentary before or since. Even the Luftwaffe had to lose a few searchlights to illuminate Hitler’s ranks.
Whatever your view the technical and artistic mastery seen (often for the first time) in “Triumph of the Will” is something to be admired.

The use of stage managed multiple takes, multiple cameras, shooting from trenches to make the below eye-level close-ups of Hitler look more heroic, exact framing, employment of a telephoto lens, arial tracking shots and clever editing in of specific close-ups to enhance and personalise the grand spectacle are all techniques new to most movies of that time let alone documentaries. 
And when put together these techniques help make “Triumph” a far more potent experience, despite its subject matter having a certain powerful fascination and grandeur in itself.
As it is Richard Wagner provides much of the soundtrack.

“Triumph” opens with Hitler arriving by plane.
And even this early on we see the influence the film would have decades later as we are reminded of a similar sweeping through the clouds reveal that Ridley Scott used to introduce the splendour of Rome in “Gladiator”, a full 65 years later.

This opening is blatant in it’s sensory and even spiritual manipulation as Riefenstahl offers up a sort of reversed trip to Heaven. 
Instead of going up through the clouds to paradise, we go down through the clouds to paradise; The paradise of a new Nazi Germany. 
Here the clouds part to reveal not the kingdom of a celestial God, but the kingdom of a far more Earthly God, eve if it is in the shape of an Austrian megalomaniac.

Adoring crowds cheer as Hitler alights from his plane. And as his staff car rides the meticulously planned route Riefenstahl shoots from the car to capture the adoring hordes that line the road (all re-staged carefully later). Women bring flowers to Hitler and even their cherubic Daughters are carried forward to meet their Fuhrer, to touch his hand and drink-in his power and strength. 
Much of course cynically stage managed. 

We then see hundreds upon hundreds of strapping, lean, German men and boys sharing a communal wash, larking about with water hoses, holding playful wrestling matches and games of stamina and one-upmanship.
The message is a clear one; A strong, healthy, loyal, band of comrades that will not only be the bedrock of the new Germany but its way of ensuring that this new Germany will not be humiliated by anyone ever again.

From the lauding of the massed German youth, her pretty girls, her playful young boys on her green fields and her pseudo-army of workers we are given a brief glimpse of the actual army itself (a rare glimpse much to the annoyance of the Generals at the time, as cunningly Hitler knows how to keep the spotlight on himself, his cause and to keep the threats veiled) on their well groomed steeds of flesh and blood and their newly minted steeds of iron. 
A potent mixture of past glory and modern power.

During the night-time rally, as the dying fire in the sky is bolstered by the flickering of Nazi torches and spotlights, the camera takes in the mass upon mass of gleaming standards and swastika flags as it winds its way around the multitude of uniformed ranks as they “Sieg Heil” their leader, who himself stands proudly upon a glowing, tiered edifice with it’s gigantic Nazi eagle in the background, spreading its wings around this seeming saviour of the German people.

As the morning dawns we can see the true scale of the massed ranks. 
Thousands upon thousands of regimented troops, and party members standing in strictly defined squares, each holding a swastika flag. 

Away from the actual rally the next biggest sequence is the marching of the soldiers through the town as block upon block of armed troops, black clad SS brigades, military bands and standard bearers parade along streets thronged with saluting, waving, cheering crowds and where every house has people hanging out of its windows. 
A perfect visual mixture of the ordinary citizen, the soldier and the political elite coming together in a unified shout of pride and togetherness as Germans.

The film ends with the famous end of rally conference where Hitler is surrounded by his entire group of infamy, including the newly empowered Himmler who would see his beloved SS dominate not only the horrific tales of the battlefield but also, along with the Gestapo, the everyday lives of German themselves as well as the lives (or lack thereof) of those in the soon to be conquered lands. 
Around 150,000 SS and SA members fill this massive building, itself a sort of cathedral to National Socialism, to listen to Hitler’s speech about German power, Nazi solidarity and strength and the iron will of the German people.

It’s certainly sobering to know that this self-confidence, exaltation, arrogance and unbridled hope and joy would, in less than 10 years, be on the brink of ruin and desolation. 

As the film ends, with the faithful singing out that damn catchy standard of Nazi power "Horst-Wessel-Lied" (“Raise High the Flag”, itself to become a fixture in many movies featuring the Nazis in power) we can openly think of what was to come. 
Even more so that what has just passed before us.

Much like we can only imagine what it must have been like coming to Hitchcock’s “Psycho” knowing absolutely nothing about what will happen, we can only imagine what it must have been like for people, before any war had happened, watching “Triumph of the Will”. 

As such we can’t truly judge the film in that way, with it’s original place in history untainted by its future to be. A future that will become one of the darkest parts of our history.
Riefenstahl claimed that she was naïve about the Nazis, Hitler and what National Socialism really meant for Germany when she made “Triumph” and swore she had no knowledge of Hitler's genocidal policies. 
Whatever the truth, her film will forever be seen as the biggest, proudest, grandest and most skilful glorification of one of mankind’s greatest evils. 

And moreover, perhaps the best damn Nazisploitation film ever made come to that.
Reply
post #1343 of 1550
10/9/09 at 2:50pm
Thread Starter 

I find TRIUMPH to be quite horrible as it's one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.  At the same time, it's a true masterpiece of the format due to the technical quality.  I've seen it once and that's enough for me as I find her OLYMPIA movies to be entertaining from the technical point of view as well as the story.

This week at work I've been reading Melvyn Stokes' D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation: The Making of the Most Controversial Motion Picture of All Time.  It's rather amazing at reading some of the original reviews of that film and how many people were involved in trying to get it banned or how many NAACP groups split apart because they couldn't agree on how to treat the film.  There are so many crazy stories that I had never heard about and I'd be curious to know if there's a book like this in regards to TRIUMPH.  It would be interesting to know what people felt about it, the censorship issues and the effect of it decades after its release.  I'm not sure if there is such a book or one that knows one but I'd like to read it.

 

The term censorship is another major issue of this book and reading about various early films and the trouble they got into is rather amazing in itself.  Watching those 1890-1910 movies by the dozens, I had seen several of the ones dealing with boxing matches.  I was amazed to read that these movies were eventually banned because women were the ones buying the tickets to these.  What's wrong with that?  Well, people felt that women should be virgins and not see a man naked until her wedding night.  Several states decided to ban these boxing movies because they thought women were buying the tickets to see a "half naked man" getting a "workout". 


There were even debates pre-WW1 about what a "true White" would be and how to put their image on the screen.  This happened because of various foreign films being shown in America around 1910-1912 where many of them would have to earn special permits in regards to the races of various actors and directors. 

 

Reading and hearing about various court cases involving these types of films made for an incredible read but I thought about how lucky we are today that these groups can't get movies kicked out of states like they did back then.  I know certain groups got SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT out of theaters after a few weeks but other protests failed in regards to films like BASIC INSTINCT and even THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.  It's funny but throughout history whenever someone steps in to get something removed that usually means a box office hit. 

 

I would certainly like to know more about TRIUMPH without having to sit through it again.

Reply
post #1344 of 1550
10/9/09 at 5:10pm
The only thing that stuck in my mind about TRIUMPH OF THE WILL was the comical shot where Riefenstahl cuts to a cat sitting in a window while "Der Fuhrer's" motorcade passes. The cat just happens to look out, giving the Riefenstahl the opportunity to suggest that, "even German animals pay attention when "Der Fuhrer" passes by. After that, I knew exactly what Riefenstahl's intentions were which makes her protestations of "ignorance" empty as far as I am concerned.  
Reply
post #1345 of 1550
10/10/09 at 9:13am
 Michael:  I have the groovy  'Kino' release of "Birth of a Nation" and I'm looking froward to checking it out for the first time (again, although I of course knew about the film, another pick up, along with "Intolerance",  thanks to the Scorsese cinema documentary) when I can find the time to properly sit down with it.
Reply
post #1346 of 1550
10/10/09 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
Remind me after you watch it and I'll pass along a few stories about the various battles over the film back in the day.  I'm having a love/hate relationship with that book I mentioned but it does have some great stories in it.  For my money INTOLERANCE is perhaps the greatest film ever made.  I think I currently have it at #4 "overall" on my list of greatest movies but I just threw it there because I didn't want to jump it right to #1 before a second viewing. 

I have a couple more of Riefenstahl's "mountain" films here that I'd like to get to eventually.  I also have that 3+ hour documentary sitting here that I need to get on at some point.
Reply
post #1347 of 1550
10/11/09 at 8:57pm
Homicide - Like most Mamet films, this one is intricately plotted in a way that keeps you hungry for the next piece of the puzzle, and it contains his fantastic stylized dialogue and another compelling performance by Joe Mantegna. But there's a lot of loose ends and things that don't quite add up in a sensible way. And the way the film deals with anti-Semitism is odd. While I agree it's a problem, it's usually something people keep to themselves, or as part of shady organizations. It's rarely displayed so widely and so openly, especially not in an urban neighborhood (south side Chicago, by the looks of it, where I grew up). I don't want to say the film is paranoid, or tackling a non-existent issue, or even inflating the seriousness of it. It just doesn't seem very accurate, and reminded me a lot of Focus (also with William H. Macy, coincidentally) in that way. Rating: 7


Wild Strawberries (rewatch) - When you look at the five films that make up the foundation of Bergman's reputation, Wild Strawberries is the hardest to find superlatives for. Seventh Seal is the most iconic and masterful, Persona is the most daring and unusual, Scenes from a Marriage the most honest and intense, Fanny and Alexander the most lavish and beautiful. Strawberries is a bit all over the place, and except for the first dream sequence it doesn't really have any big "moments". But everything about it just works. The travels and reflections of Isak Borg are endlessly fascinating, often quite moving, and profoundly insightful coming from a man who still had 50 years left to live. It had been nearly 5 years since the last time I'd seen it, and in my memory some of the sheen had worn off. But I fell in love with it all over again, and I look forward to future viewings. Rating: 9


Johnny Got His Gun - One of the TSPDT top 1000 movies that I knew nothing about. From the title, I presumed it was a Western, but I was quite wrong. It's about a young GI in World War I who loses his arms, legs, and... face. He can't see, hear, speak, smell or taste. The doctors pronounce him essentially brain-dead but he is capable of thought and still maintains his sense of touch, from which he is able to glean small bits of information. In this state, he ponders his situations and has numerous flashbacks, fantasies and nightmares. It's an intriguing and horrifying premise, but is greatly marred by one significant flaw: terrible acting. Granted, this is a tough role to play, especially the heaps of voice-over, but Timothy Bottoms does a particularly lousy job with it (and he's not too hot in the flashback/fantasy scenes either). The woman who plays his sweetheart is pretty bad, too. This was the only directing attempt by Dalton Trumbo, a noted screenwriter (Roman Holiday, Spartacus, Papillon), one of the blacklisted "Hollywood 10". It just goes to show that writing and directing are entirely different talents, and not everyone is blessed with both. Although to be honest, the writing was occasionally spotty, as well, but again, it's a tough role. Still, it is an unusual and engaging work. Rating: 7


Forrest Gump - I distinctly remember sitting in Rocco's Pizza when this movie came out, and a friend was telling me what it was about and how it was basically a celebration of Reaganesque conservative ideals. I've avoided it ever since then, even though it won all those shiny Oscars and just about everyone else on the planet saw it. At last I've bit the bullet (again for the sake of completing the TSPDT top 1000 list), although I freely admit I went into it with a "I dare you to make me like you" attitude. And I didn't like it... but I didn't hate it, either. It's pretty much like someone took Being There and made it sincere rather than satirical. I don't really think it's conservative propoganda. You could make the argument, of course. Just about the entire Jenny arc is a right-wing wet dream. But on the whole, it seems to me more conservative by happenstance than by design. The central idea of an idiot having an impact and making something of himself doesn't strike as particularly left or right (and neither offensive nor inspiring). I didn't find anything too awful about the movie, except for the soundtrack, which is a terribly predictable selection of period classics. At times it felt like I was watching a "Freedom Rock" commercial. Mostly it's just a lot of sentimental nonsense, not too cloying but not very sophisticated, either. Very bland, easy-to-digest crowd-pleaser stuff. Rating: 5


The Heiress - Superb melodrama based on a Henry James novel. Olivia de Havilland is a wealthy but socially awkward young girl, Montgomery Clift is the man whose interest in her raises the suspicions of Ralph Richardson, her protective but disdainful father. The casting is perfect, with a terrific supporting performance by Miriam Hopkins (who had aged quite gracefully since her delightful work with Lubitsch). Wyler's direction is a bit workmanlike and unremarkable, but he gets the job done and has such fine source material to work with. This is a really compelling story with nuanced characters and complex interpersonal drama. Very satisfying. Rating: 9


George Washington - Quite a remarkable little film. It seems trite and reductive to label it as a "character study" or a "coming of age movie". It is these things, but it's also a portrait of a community, a poetic rendition of a certain time and place that are specific but also universal. It's told in an episodic manner that puts both seemingly minor character interactions and large dramatic events on the same level. Every moment has equal weight, tied together by the understated but very expressive cinematography and musical score. I got a distinct Killer of Sheep vibe while watching it, as well as a touch of Malick, and was not surprised to learn afterwards that these were big influences on director David Gordon Green. The cast is uniformly excellent, especially the five youths (all non-professionals) at the heart of the story. There is a little bit of the Profound Child Syndrome going on, with the kids being a bit more insightful and introspective than one would expect, but it isn't done cheaply and rarely becomes a problem. Rating: 9


Fahrenheit 451 - Truffaut is not exactly faithful to the book (among other things, he completely eliminates a major character) but I think he captures the spirit of it well enough. The built-in suspense of the story, in addition to the Herrmann score, makes this feel quite a bit like a Hitchcock film. I thought it was a clever idea to have the credit read aloud rather than printed on-screen. On the other hand, Julie Christie's double role is a pointless novelty. Is Truffaut trying to suggest that Linda and Clarisse are two sides of the same coin? Because they're not. It adds nothing to the film. Besides this, and some poor rear projection and one hilarious bad special effect, the film is well done. I'm not sure Oscar Werner is the right person to play Montag, but I do enjoy watching him. And I must say there's something slightly perverse about watching a movie adaptation of a book all about how important it is to read. But I guess if it doesn't bother Bradbury it shouldn't bother me. Rating: 7


The Wizard of Oz (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - For the 10th? 15th? 30th? time, and it only gets more and more charming. Even the Munchkinland stuff gets more appealing... although I still think "King of the Forest" grinds everything to a halt. I didn't think there'd be anything left for me to discover about this film, but for some reason I never noticed before that Scarecrow is armed with a pistol in the Haunted Forest. Not that it's especially more noticeable in hi-def (though the transfer does look exquisite), I guess I'm just not that observant. Anyway, it'll probably be a while before I watch something non-Oz, it ought to take me all week to get through the supplements. Rating: 10
Reply
post #1348 of 1550
10/14/09 at 5:35am
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - It would rather unfair to compare the beloved classic to this 13-minute film produced nearly 30 years earlier. Suffice it to say this isn't as impressive (and doesn't make a whole lot of sense), but it's pretty nifty for its time, and the cast looks like they're having a barrel of fun. Rating: 7


His Majesty, The Scarecrow of Oz - One of several Oz films directed by J. Farrell MacDonald and produced by Baum himself. It's no surprise then that it feels so close to the madcap spirit of the books. I haven't read any Baum stories in ages, but I recalled many of the elements here. But the film suffers from odd pacing and lengthy diversions (perhaps the results of a too-literal translation from page to screen). Some imaginative and clever effects, though. Rating: 6


The Magic Cloak of Oz - This one is so scattershot and so simplistic that it feels like it was written by children instead of for them. Something this goofy and surreal ought to be more fun, but it's hard to get into. Violet MacMillan, who was a rather homely Dorothy in His Majesty, seems more appropriately cast as a boy in this one. All the people in animal costumes made me think of The Wicker Man. Rating: 6


The Patchwork Girl of Oz - The last of the Baum/MacDonald productions on the disc, thank goodness (although I still have hours upon hours of other Oz stuff to get through). I would say this is the most successful of the three, although it's still rather slipshod (or "patchwork" if you will). The story goes all over the place, but manages to hold together pretty well. Maybe not quite as clever/fantastic as the other two, but an improvement in the storytelling department. Rating: 7


The Wizard of Oz (1925) - A fucking tragedy. Dumb slapstick, awful jokes, racism, and a rather tarty Dorothy. But that's just the beginning. This movie has absolutely fuck-all to do with "The Wizard of Oz" Hell, there's hardly any Dorothy in it. Director Larry Semon (great name, huh?) piles all the attention on himself as he tries to position himself as another Buster Keaton. He plays one of the farmhands, and dominates the entire picture. The farmhands and Uncle Henry get whisked off in the cyclone with Dorothy (about halfway through the movie, after an interminable setup that bears no resemblance to the source material). Once in Oz, the good farmhand (Semon, of course) dresses up as the Scarecrow, the evil farmhand as the Tin Man, and the black farmhand as the Cowardly Lion. Yes, Semon takes these fantasy characters and transforms them into a game of humans playing dress-up, effectively SUCKING ALL THE MAGIC out of the story. Basically the story is all about Semon rescuing Dorothy from an evil dictator (no witches at all here). It's all just so very, very wrong. I will begrudgingly admit that some of the stunt work is impressive, but that's the only thing this version has going for it. Tedious and offensive and stupid. Rating: 2


The Wizard of Oz (1933) - At a mere 8 minutes, this animated short is obviously a severely truncated version of the story. Dorothy and Toto get swept off to Oz, meet the Scarecrow and Tin Man, hook up with the Wizard who performs some wacky tricks, The End. But it's cute and charming, and has some good Carl Stalling music. Also, it introduces the notion of black & white Kansas vs. colorized Oz. Rating: 7
Reply
post #1349 of 1550
10/14/09 at 8:18am
Thread Starter 
Ha ha.  I haven't watched the 1925 version yet but I'll get it on soon thanks to your review.  I've had a lot of silent fans tell me that Semon was a master who got overlooked by all the other comedians of that era.  One of these people sent me a compilation of his work but I've yet to look at any of them. 
Reply
post #1350 of 1550
10/14/09 at 4:44pm
"Broken Oath"  - 7 / 10


The glorious Angela Mao blazes a trail of vengeance against the men that killed her parents.

Perhaps the ultimate Angela Mao movie, this is packed with wonderful old school fights as Angela (the 2nd best thing in "Enter the Dragon" damn it) expertly uses her fists, feet, poles, swords and handy scorpion filled lace scarf (!)  on anyone in her way.  To dazzling effect.

The odd acrobatic doubling aside the fighting is all the work of Mao as well whose blistering spin kicks are a sight to behold.  We have a slight bit of under-cranking to speed things up occasionally (though only one bad moment, during the finale swordfight, that seems out of place) but basically this is majestic martial arts skill at its old school best.
We also have a bit of 'Fire Breathing Fu', which is a total riot, and wacky Chinese healing tricks that are totally la la land but fun.

But there is more! 
Not only is Mao herself in top flight fight form but she is joined by a wealth of martial arts film greats, all working under the action choreography guidance of the legendary Juen Woo-ping.

The Demi-God that is Sammo Hung makes an appearance, sporting funny big black beard and wielding a great 'double fan of knives on a chain' weapon.
The much missed Lam Ching-ying ("Magic Cop", "Mr Vampire") has great fun as nasty Kung-Fu assassin who looks like Rob Zombie's lost Chinese uncle.
'Bruce' Leung ("Kung Fu Hustle", "The Dragon Lives Again") has a reunion with Sammo and Angela following their stunning "Hapkido", and has a great one-on one battle with Lam Ching-ying.
Billy Chan(Award winning action choreographer on Sammo's classic "The Prodical Son") pops up.
And both Corey Yuen (future director of "Ninja in a Dragon's Den" and "The Transporter") and the superb Yuen Biao ("Prodical Son", "Project A", "Above the Law") make early appearances...Biao more than likely doing much of the stunt and acrobatics work.
Even Dean Shek (who almost ruined "A Better Tomorrow 2" with his overacting, but does better here) pops up as a brothel janitor.

Some overly complicated plot twists (most definitely not helped by some badly translated English subtitles) and a couple of pointless comedy scenes early on are the only bad things here, as Mao cuts a gorgeously ruthless swathe though this classic bit of Old School 70's mayhem from 'Golden Harvest'.
 
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)