Track the Films You Watch (2009) - Page 6

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Comedy Day #2:


01/14/09: COME SEPTEMBER (Robert Mulligan, 1961)

I can’t tell you how many TV screenings of this one I’ve missed out on in the past – so I got to it now that its director has passed away (though the copy I acquired displayed the occasional glitch!); being a glossy romantic comedy, it seems Mulligan – who would come to specialize in meaningful dramas – had yet to find his niche by this time. On the other hand, ever since PILLOW TALK (1959), leading man Rock Hudson had flourished in the genre and would continue to do so for the next few years; however, this isn’t among his best-regarded efforts – and neither, incidentally, is his follow-up teaming with co-star Gina Lollobrigida, STRANGE BEDFELLOWS (1965), which I’ve yet to watch. Even so, COME SEPTEMBER proved surprisingly engaging (if distinctly overlong) and, if anything, the idea of having a couple rekindling their affair for one month every year and the complications which arise when the hero turns up unexpectedly at the rendez-vous is nice enough. Though the stars have to share screen-time with a bunch of teenagers – virtually a pre-requisite during this era – led by Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin (who would hitch up in real-life after this, and the latter gets to sing too!), they’re all given sufficient space…as is, for that matter, chief supporting player Walter Slezak (wonderful as Hudson’s amiably shrewd butler – and who knew he was so fluent in Italian?). Being set in Europe, the film-makers can’t resist making this, at least partly, a travelogue; that said, a number of the situations – especially the initial mix-up at the villa-cum-hotel, the resilience shown by middle-aged Hudson when he’s chaperoning the kids, and Slezak’s wiles at the end to get hero and heroine back together – provide more than enough felicities along the way…even if the only really laugh-out-loud moment is reserved to a drunken parrot keeling over while clutching to its stern (and obviously perplexed) mistress’ finger!


01/14/09: THE BIG BUS (James Frawley, 1976)

Preceding the far more popular AIRPLANE! (1980) in its spoof of blockbuster disaster movies by four years, this is a patchy but reasonably amusing ride in its own right The titular nuclear-powered vehicle was designed by Stockard Channing, constructed by her father Harold Gould (who, in his turn, is cared for by reluctant doctor Larry Hagman), driven by disgraced ‘cannibal’ Joseph Bologna, steered from the controls center by Ned Beatty and sought for destruction by “Ironman” Jose` Ferrer! As befits its pedigree, the passengers are an equally colorful, starry lot: an on-again/off-again couple (Richard Mulligan and Sally Kellerman), a dotty old lady (Ruth Gordon), a bitchy nymphomaniac of a celebrity (Lynn Redgrave), a doubting priest (Rene Auberjonois), etc. The film loses steam in the latter half because its biggest laughs occur before the actual journey starts, in particular during a bar-room brawl at a drivers’ hang-out where Bologna is picked on by everybody except for one called Shoulders (John Beck) who, after earning a co-driver’s seat on The Big Bus, soon reveals the meaning behind his nickname – he’s narcoleptic!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

020) 01/14/2009 Lawrence of Arabia (1962) (out of four)

My initial reaction to seeing Lawrence of Arabia for the first time was twofold: I was emotionally overwhelmed by the experience, and I wanted to immediately start the movie over and watch it again. Here is a complex epic that explores the many aspects of war – the physical, the political, the strategical, the psychological, concepts of loyalty - and its effects on the enigmatic T.E. Lawrence, a British soldier whose wartime exploits became world known thanks to an American war correspondent. What T.E. Lawrence experiences during his tenure makes for an all-consuming film experience.

During World War I, the British army recruits Lieutenant T.E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole), known to be well educated if a bit eccentric, to assess the prospects of a British alliance with Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) against the Turks. Lawrence meets Feisal and suggests an attack on Aqaba, a town near the ocean that could be used by Great Britain to ship wartime supplies. By traveling across the treacherous Nefud Desert, Aqaba could be taken by surprise. But Lawrence is not totally prepared emotionally for the atrocities he will witness and the measures he will have to take to persevere in this volatile part of the world.

The images in Lawrence of Arabia are frequently stunning, as director David Lean pans over picturesque desert landscapes or guides us through the architecturally rich housing for the army. There are several actions set pieces such as the attack on Aqaba and the assault of a Turkish caravan. And there is much scheming as the British leaders plan their double crosses (they never have the intention of letting the Arabs rule their own land) of which Lawrence is not aware. The cumulative impact on Lawrence of the events dramatized in Lawrence of Arabia is what gives the film its ultimate power.

When we first meet Lawrence he is a pleasant sort with a twinkle in his eye, although his attitude does not sit well with his superior officers. But when Lawrence witnesses his desert guide being shot and killed for drinking from another man’s well, he realizes he is amongst people he does not fully understand. Later he will be forced to kill people to avoid a tribal war and prevent an injured man from being captured. He will be attacked and (by implication) raped. And he will ultimately learn how impossible it is to remain loyal to both his commanders and the Arab people he hoped to help. While his rank continually increases as he achieves the military’s goals, Lawrence is actually on a downward spiral emotionally. He tries to leave several times but is lured back not just by flattering remarks from his superiors, but also by his own seemingly contradictory love of war. Lawrence is such a rich, intriguing character that the final shot of him in the film packs a wallop.

Peter O’Toole delivers one the great screen performances. He shows us Lawrence tortured and exhilarated, confused and self confident, frustrated and determined. Several times these conflicting emotions can be occurring at the same time. We feel Lawrence’s desperation to return to a more normal way of life after being molested by a Turkish leader. And O’Toole perfectly plays the devastation when Lawrence realizes what his commanders’ intentions for Arabia really were.

O’Toole is supported by a first rate cast including Alec Guinness, Claude Rains, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle, and José Ferrer. It’s hard to imagine how the casting could have been improved upon. The scene between O’Toole and Quinn, as Lawrence tries to persuade Quinn’s tribal leader to join the revolt, is just one example of how these actors bring out the best in each other. Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson’s screenplay (based on T.E. Lawrence various publications) balances incident and exposition in such a way that the film never loses its grip on us during the three and half hour running time. And the technical aspects are so well handled there are times we feel like we’re in the desert right along with the cast.

The best films invite the audience to be participants, not mere observers. Lawrence of Arabia pulls us into its time and place and never lets us go.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Cowards Bend the Knee - Another twisted melodrama pieced together from semi-autobiographical fragments of Guy Maddin's life. It's sort of a surrealist version of The Hands of Orlac. I have to resist the urge to label Maddin's work as "random", because when you describe it, it sounds like gibberish. But it all makes perfect sense at the time. Okay, maybe not PERFECT sense, but some kind of sense. I didn't find this one quite as captivating as Brand Upon the Brain, but at least with Maddin you know you're gonna see stuff you've never seen before. Done in his trademark visual style, once again I was a bit put off by the rapid editing. Rating: 7


Ball of Fire - This movie has a terrific pedigree: directed by Howard Hawks, written by Billy Wilder, shot by Gregg Toland, and starring Barbara Stanwyck, Gary Cooper, and a horde of classic character actors. But it doesn't add up to much. A very predictable and formulaic comedy. The gags are mostly okay, but nothing here will make you fall off your chair with laughter. Surprisingly, the best parts are the boogie numbers with Gene Krupa's band, especially the "Match Boogie", where Krupa provides the percussion by scratching matches on a matchbox, while Stanwyck's singing face is reflected in the table. I've never cared much for Cooper, but Stanwyck sizzles. Other than that, there's just not much here that's noteworthy. Not a bad way to kill some time, but not a great one either. It's just not that funny, and it drags on for far too long. Rating: 5


How to Become Myself - The Japanese are terrific at teen films. They're not just about getting laid or LOL ADULTS R DUMB (in fact, they're never about those things) but instead explore the emotional challenges of coming of age. However, this is one of the weaker ones that I've seen. It's pleasant and the characters are fairly well fleshed-out, but too often it goes for easy sentimentality rather than a more complex examination of the issues of finding your own identity. The music is a big drawback, lots of tinkly, faux-poignant melodies that belong in an RPG cutscene. There is some interesting use of split-screen and inserts, but nothing you haven't done before and done better. Again, it's a pleasant film without any glaring flaws, but it's mostly of value to pre-teen/teenage girls. Rating: 6


There Was a Father - If you like Ozu, you'll probably like this. The only thing unusual about it is that it contains some pretty massive time jumps, but I wouldn't say that's anything special. A fine tale of a father-son relationship. It's odd to see Chishu Ryu looking so young. Welp, that's about all I have to say. Rating: 7

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Drama Day #2:


01/15/09: BOOM (Joseph Losey, 1968)

Joseph Losey would have turned 100 on 14 January 2009 had he lived and it seems appropriate that I should commemorate that anniversary a day late and with this very movie because: a) it deals with a much-married dying woman looking back on her life and b) it misses the mark of being a good movie. Actually, for most people, it does much more than the latter and is an unmitigated disaster, a serious blot on the careers of a handful of talented people: director Losey, playwright-screenwriter Tennessee Williams (who boldly claimed this was the best film ever to be made out of his own plays!) and lead actors Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. On the other hand, the ones who generally escaped the critical trashing with their dignity intact were cinematographer Douglas Slocombe (shooting in the lovely Mediterranean island of Sardinia), composer John Barry (who provides a terrific and playfully eclectic score) and supporting players Noel Coward (making a droll appearance as the Witch of Capri) and Joanna Shimkus (as Taylor’s long-suffering secretary). For one thing, the Burtons were both miscast, with her being far too young – she was just 36 at the time – and him too old for their roles (Tallulah Bankhead and Tab Hunter, respectively, had originally played those parts in the equally catastrophic stage version)! The fact that BOOM is one of eccentric film-maker John Waters’ all-time favorites is a clear sign that the movie’s reputation (bad or cult, depending which side of the fence one happens to be on) rests squarely on its high camp quotient: Taylor’s constantly shrill, foul-mouthed delivery (including the occasional line in massacred Italian) – which, again, can be downright annoying or mildly amusing – and her parading in an incredible Kabuki costume to the strains of live sitars; “Angel of Death” Burton’s walking around (hair blowing in the wind) in a samurai warrior’s attire and brandishing the proverbial sword on the ledge of Taylor’s clifftop villa; diminutive bodyguard Michael Dunn unleashing his pack of wild dogs on intruder Burton, etc. In the long run, however, what really saves the film for me – apart from those assets already mentioned at the top – is Losey’s mise-en-scene which, from the very first shot to the last, is remarkably cinematic and inventive – in spite of his allegedly hitting the bottle quite hard during production (which did not prevent either of the Burtons from working for him once more, albeit separately)!


01/15/09: SUMMER OF ’42 (Robert Mulligan, 1971)

The relaxation of Hollywood censorship from the mid-1960s onwards enabled film-makers to start treating taboo subjects like adolescent sexual awakening with increased frankness. 1971 brought to the silver screen two acclaimed studies of this theme – Peter Bogdanovich’s masterpiece THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and this more populist film from the late Robert Mulligan. Even if the latter was overshadowed by the former in both awards ceremonies and, more importantly, its explicit depiction of youthful sexual encounters, SUMMER OF ’42 is still a fondly-remembered look at the eternal issue that, badly handled, can create both controversy and embarrassment. That the film succeeds as well as it does is a tribute to its sensitive direction (Mulligan was both a DGA and Golden Globe nominee), Herman Rauch’s perceptive autobiographical screenplay, its appealing cast of relative newcomers, veteran Robert Surtees’ sunny cinematography and composer Michel Legrand’s lovely theme (which earned the film its only Oscar). 15-year old Gary Grimes falls hard for 23-year old war widow Jennifer O’Neill during his summer island vacation even if all she requires of him at first is to carry her heavy loads around but, overcoming his initial shyness and awkward woodenness, he eventually consummates his love at her moment of greatest need for consolation (after which she summarily leaves the island for good). As I said earlier, the film implies much more than it shows and its two sex scenes – the first raucous and funny (on the beach, between Grimes’ equally starved best friend and a seemingly insatiable teenage acquaintance) and the second tender and emotional – may seem much too tame for the jaded filmgoers of today but, for me, that does not detract from the amusement of the former and the power of the latter. Other humorous situations that have since became clichés (thanks to the surfeit of teenage sex comedies we have all suffered from in the interim) are the misplaced anatomical fondling at the cinema, the drooling over an illustrated biology textbook, the long-drawn out subterfuge required to order a pack of contraceptives from a suspicious pharmacist, the hero’s own potentially raunchy but ultimately uneventful beach rendezvous at night, etc. The “terrible” trio of teenagers (including the proverbial bespectacled nerd with no gleam of interest in the opposite sex) were reunited two years later to continue their adventures in college, CLASS OF ’44 (1973) – a local TV screening of which I missed out on in the mid-1980s.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Match Point (2005)

A young Irish tennis instructor marries a woman he's not very much in love with to gain prominence through her family, but begins to have a fling with an American girl (Scarlett Johansson) and then a real dilemma he has to contend with. This glorified Woody Allen film really lived up to its hype. All I figured going in was that it was going to be a love story with a boring tennis backdrop, but I got a lot more than I bargained for, especially with the wild direction things took later in the story ... I never expected it.

I loved the camera work here, a lot of really beautiful cinematic touches. It helped a lot that the story takes place in England, which is a much-welcome break from Allen's typical Manhattan scenarios and affords an opportunity for some very nice scenic touches. The sex scenes are hot and steamy, and it's a credit to Allen that he manages to make them so exciting even without resorting to showing blatant nudity.

Scarlett Johansson is physcially beautiful, but she leaves something to be desired for me in the acting department, at least during the first half (she got better later). The real star of the piece is Jonathan Rhys Meyers as the tennis pro whose life is in turmoil. He's just superb and runs the gamut with a varying degree of emotions in a multi-layered character.

And I'm glad there wasn't too much tennis in this! I had feared the worst on that score from the start. This is a great achievement for Woody Allen, one of the best films he's ever done, and a triumph he needed in recent years. It's so different from most of his other movies.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

24: Redemption

I wanted to watch this movie because I just finished watching season 6 before starting this marathon... and I wanted to watch this movie next so I could start on the season 7 episodes I have recorded. I really enjoyed watching this movie. It was a little weird to see 24 in a movie format but I think they did a good job doing it. I am glad this one had Tony Todd (Candyman) in it... as I have become a fan of his over the past several years. The storyline involving the child soldiers in Africa was heartbreaking to say the least. Now I am ready to start the new season!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Small Time Crooks (2000)

Here we have Woody Allen as a former thief who once botched up a robbery and did jail time for it, and now has a new scheme to make more money. He convinces his skeptical wife (Tracey Ullman) to let him have all their savings and go in with a bunch of other guys to buy out an old pizza parlor so they can dig a tunnel through the shop and come up inside the neighboring bank and take in millions, split between them. The wife will sell her homemade cookies in the front of the store as a distraction while the men drill in the back ... but what happens is a turn of events nobody was prepared for.

I think this particular title was important at the time of its release because it was the first in awhile where Woody Allen went from being deep and introspective to just being plain silly and fun once again. I've come to enjoy this one more now than I did upon its initial release, but it's really the first half that is stronger than the second. Still a pleasant time waster at any rate. I particularly enjoy the opening sequence where tough-talking Woody is trying to intimidate his even tougher wife into investing in his brainstorm, as it smacks of vintage Honeymooners trappings, which I'd bet was on Allen's mind when he made this.


Mighty Aphrodite (1995)

Woody Allen and his latest younger wife (this time played by Helena Bonham Carter) decide to adopt a newborn baby boy. As the child grows Woody becomes curious to find out who the real mother is and eventually tracks her down as a scatterbrained hooker and porn star (Mira Sorvino).

I've tried watching this several times now and its got some laughs and charm, but it's still not amongst Allen's better comedies for me. I think Sorvino's prostitute character is initially ingratiating when she appears on the scene, but her schtick wears thin quickly. This obviously put-on performance was unworthy of the Oscar she received. And once Woody discovers her there's not much else of interest that can be done with the story. But the biggest turn-off of all is that damn greek chorus which pops up every so often to chant the details of what's transpiring in the movie, with F. Murray Abraham as the painted leader who visits Allen from time to time to counsel him, a la Bogart in PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Epic Day #2:


01/16/09: MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (Charles Jarrott, 1971)

A follow-up to the prestigious historical epic ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS (1969) which reunites several crew members (producer Hal Wallis, director Jarrott, screenwriter John Hale, costume designer Margaret Furse, etc.) and resumes the bloody Tudor saga. The same events had been previously filmed in Hollywood by John Ford as MARY OF Scotland (1936) with Katharine Hepburn (as Mary Stuart), Fredric March (as Bothwell) and his real-life actress wife Florence Eldridge (as Queen Elizabeth I); here these same roles are played by Vanessa Redgrave – who had already appeared (as Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn) in the magnificent A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966), Nigel Davenport (ditto) and Glenda Jackson (who was currently starring as the same English monarch on British TV) and, like its above-mentioned predecessor (albeit to a lesser extent), the film found favor at awards ceremonies of the day with both Redgrave and Jackson being up for Oscar (the former) and Golden Globes (both). Also singled out was composer John Barry for his beautiful score, the somewhat disjointed script and, inevitably, the lavish costumes and sets. Still, where the film impresses most is in the performances of the ensemble cast: apart from those already pointed out, we also have Patrick McGoohan (who just died at 80 as Mary's devious half-brother James), Trevor Howard (as the English Queen's wily chief adviser), Timothy Dalton (as Mary's second and tyrannical husband), Daniel Massey (as Elizabeth's ambitious lover), Ian Holm (as Mary's link to the Vatican) and Andrew Keir (as a Scottish lord). As befits the time in which it was made, I suppose, side by side with the classiness on display, we have to contend with tastelessly 'accurate' portrayals of everybody's bed-hopping and histrionic antics – from a red-headed Dalton's seduction of minstrel man-spy Holm to Redgrave's elopement with newly-married lord Davenport to Jackson's long-term and tempestuous relationship with the equally married Massey. For the record, I have a handful of other films dealing with the Tudors on my "To Watch" list but I decided to get to this sooner rather than later in view of McGoohan's passing.


01/16/09: THE PRODIGAL (Richard Thorpe, 1955)

When I attended religious doctrine classes as a kid, the parable of The Prodigal Son was always my favorite; however, I never visualized it quite like it is depicted in this film – but that's Hollywood for you! Actually, I hadn't intended to watch it just now (being ideal Good Friday fare) but it was the only handy vehicle I owned featuring star Edmund Purdom, who passed away on New Year's Day. Anyway, considering the maligned reputation of THE SILVER CHALICE (1954) – which I caught recently, coincidentally in tribute to its own leading man, Paul Newman – I must admit that I found this an even lesser (and duller) Biblical outing! True, Christ's parable does not provide much detail of the hero's experiences after he leaves his Hebrew hometown for another (Pagan) city…but what we have here is among the lamest and most stodgily presented trips along the wayward path this side of Cecil B. De Mille (being closest in theme to his SAMSON AND DELILAH [1949])! Though the supporting cast looks mighty impressive on paper (including two from THE SILVER CHALICE itself, namely Joseph Wiseman and Walter Hampden) – Neville Brand, Louis Calhern, Paul Cavanaugh, Henry Daniell, John Dehner, Cecil Kellaway and Francis L. Sullivan – the participants are either given little to do or embarrassed by their unwieldy costumes and unflattering make-up (especially Brand's, making him look like a 20th century wrestler!). Of course, while the film purports to tell Purdom's tale, MGM saw fit to give top billing to their resident alluring star Lana Turner but, needless to say, this type of role did nothing to her career and she was probably happy to throw herself into "women's pictures" thereafter. However, perhaps the film's biggest fault is the fact that the film-makers thought it imperative to include such incongruous scenes as Purdom hilariously grappling with a fake voracious buzzard and the spectacular action-packed finale which totally subverts Christ's message, in that the hero is seen returning home humbled (so as to conform with the original text) when truly he should have flaunted the victory of his God over the rampant Paganism in Damascus!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The Crow

This is a movie I have not seen in years. Not since I first bought the DVD a good a good 4 or 5 years ago. To be honest I went into this one not remembering much about the movie itself. Sure I remembered the basics of the story... but not the movie. I must admit... I forgot just how much I enjoyed this movie. This movie could very well be the ultimate supernatural revenge movie. After watching this movie... it makes me wish I had some of the sequels to check out (which I have never seen any of).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Jeepers Creepers

I know this movie is not for everyone. And I can see why. It is far from the best horror movie I have in my collection. But I am able to enjoy it. I just need to turn my mind off before watching it. I did like Gina Philips in this movie. I will have to look into what else she has done... I only have a couple other titles with her in it (Ring Around the Rosie & An ep of Sliders).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

01/14/09

Woody Allen: A Life in Film (2002) Dir: Richard Schickel
Production: Lorac Productions/Turner Classic Movies

The best format for a documentary about a person is still a filmed interview of that person. Ask the questions off camera and the let the subject go. It creates a faux intimacy between the subject and the audience, and they come away feeling they know him better. Intersperse a few film clips (in this case) and you’re all set. Schickel understands this. It’s why 35 years later his Men Who Made the Movies television specials are still being broadcast. And by the same principle, it’s why HitchcockTruffaut and the work of Peter Bogdanovich is so important decades after it was done. The particular advantage here is we have Woody Allen in his own words, something I don’t believe he does all that often. So he tells us about his influences and motivations, and reveals things like the fact he thinks he was doing a bad Bob Hope impersonation in his “earlier, funnier films”. Good stuff.

out of 4

01/15/09

Nightmare (1956) Dir: Maxwell Shane
Production: Pine-Thomas Productions/United Artists

This is director Maxwell Shane’s second filmed version of the Cornell Woolrich story of the same name, the first being 1947’s DeForest Kelly vehicle, Fear in the Night.

Stan Grayson (Kevin McCarthy) has a vivid dream in which he commits murder. Only he wakes up to find what he thinks is damning physical evidence that indicates it wasn’t a dream. Now Stan must conduct an investigation that may end up with him proving himself guilty of murder. His brother-in-law, Rene Bressard (Edward G. Robinson), a New Orleans detective, will either help him or convict him along the way.

What a great confluence of events for a small film and B-director to be able to get Edward G. Robinson to act in your film. He’s great. McCarthy, however, is a little goofy. He overdoes all the drama. Plot? Credulity isn’t really strained as much as it’s atomized—it is Woolrich after all. There is some nice location work of New Orleans. Ultimately though, I appreciate Fear in the Night’s unapologetic seediness (an extreme close-up of DeForest Kelly’s sweaty face is surely the nadir of studio era glamour) over this attempt at making ludicrous material somewhat respectable.

out of 4

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Is this available on DVD?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Stigmata

I was looking up at my shelving yesterday when this movie sort of popped out at me. I decided to put it off and go with something else. Then this morning while looking through my shelf for something to watch I spotted this one again. Realizing I have not watched this movie in a very long time (Not since I first bought it). I been putting off watching it again because I am not a very big fan of Religious Horror movies. But I can watch one now and then. But when I pulled it out I noticed this one starred Patricia Arquette (Medium)... who I have become a big fan of over the years. So I just had to watch it. After watching this... I am not sure Religious Horror really fits this movie. It definitely has it's share of blood... that is for sure. But it is more of a suspense thriller then it is horror. I found I really enjoyed the movie. Patricia Arquette was wonderful in it as usual. And the story and imagery was rather fascinating. But at the same time with the style of movie it is... it is not something that I will watch often. But I am sure I will watch again. It is one of those rarely watched treasures in my collection... if that makes any sense.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Is there another movie called SMALL TIME CROOKS? I searched the IMDB and couldn't find it, so maybe there's some other earlier movie with a different title that Woody Allen took it from?

Then there's this matter of TERROR FIRMER. I've never seen this film, but it's a 1999 release by Troma. Whatever the case, I'm highly skeptical that Woody Allen saw it and ripped it off for his HOLLYWOOD ENDING! Here's what TERROR FIRMER is about (this borrowed from one of many IMDB reviews):

Terror Firmer starts with a guy (Ariel Wizman) having his leg ripped off & being beaten with it, someone is killed using breakfast cereal to which a dumb cop notes 'we have a cereal killer on our hands' & a scene where a pregnant woman (Oakley Stevenson) has her baby ripped out of her stomach... The latest instalment of the Toxic Avenger is currently being filmed by Troma on location in New York. Blind director (art imitating life for Troma studio's?) Larry Benjamin (Lloyd Kaufman, also co-writer, producer & director) is at the helm, Christine (Debbie Rochon) is staring alongside Toxie (Roy David) & Nicolai (Darko Malesh). The crew are a patchwork collection of insane dysfunctional weirdo idiots who were the cheapest available (art imitating life again?), Jennifer (Alyce LaTourelle) is the new sexy P.A. while both the boom mike man Casey (Will Keenan, also associate producer) & the special effects guy Jerry (Trent Haaga) have crushes on her. One day on set the 'Toddster' (Gary Hrbek), a sound-man, quits in a fit of rage. That night, while at a party, the mysterious killer shoves a funnel up his bum, stuffs a load of cocaine in it, breaks a bottle, repeatedly stabs him & removes some of his brains. Shorty after the films main investor Jacob Gelman (Joe Fleishaker) is brutally murdered with the aid of an escalator, it seems New York's latest sicko serial killer has a vendetta against Troma's latest production...

Other than the idea that the director is blind, I'm not sure I get the connection with HOLLYWOOD ENDING. I don't believe that when there's some loose similarity in two movies, that it's always a "steal", or something scandalous. So Woody decided "hey, wouldn't it be funny if a paranoid director goes temporarily blind with psychosomatic stress, and then he has to finish his movie blind, ha ha!" and it's a ripoff because there happens to be a horror movie somewhere where a director was blind? And even if Allen saw the movie and thought to himself "hey, a blind director - that's an idea I could use in my next comedy", it wouldn't mean it's a remake. I have an idea to make a movie about a one-armed piano player... how do I know this wasn't done somewhere, somehow, already?

Of course I could also be wrong. But it just seems to me, Mike, that you have this desire to show that you know things about film (and indeed you do know much). You know I'm very unlikely to check out TERROR FIRMER or this earlier version of SMALL TIME CROOKS you've alluded to, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned it unless you just wanted to try and "catch me" 'cause I'm usually so down on many needless modern remakes. But in general I think you figure too many things are "remakes" when they're not. Remember when you insisted that HARDCORE (1979) was a remake of THE SEARCHERS?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I believe that the 'earlier version' of SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000) that Michael is referring to is BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET (1958) - which is how the classic Italian comedy I SOLITI IGNOTI is known in the US and how it was released by Criterion on DVD. By the way, I wasn't aware that Michael had seen this one and, in fact, I didn't find his IMDb comments on that film's page...maybe he has it on TiVo and has still to get to it?

Not that it matters much (given your evident reluctance to compare new with old or vice versa) but, having already tackled this film last year as a riposte to George Kaplan's comments, I have taken the liberty to repost that reply here:


"...Mario Monicelli’s I SOLITI IGNOTI (1958) – which literally translates to PERSONS UNKNOWN and is, in fact, how the film is known in the UK – is arguably my all-time favorite foreign-language comedy; I’ve watched it countless times on Italian TV and picked up the R2 SE DVD while I was at the 2004 Venice Film Festival (where I even glimpsed its nonagenarian director taking a nightly stroll a couple of times but, being aware of his cantankerous character, I balked at personally meeting him!) but I haven’t watched the disc itself yet. Now, while Kaplan’s review isn’t as disrespectful and clueless as usual, I’ve said time and again that Italian comedies cannot be fully enjoyed unless one is fluent in the language; no word-perfect English translation is going to make the uniquely Italian pronounciation (which is hilarious in and of itself) real justice. Imagine watching The Marx Brothers’ movies dubbed in French and you get the general idea of what I mean.

Of course, I’m not blaming Kaplan for being an American and thus ignorant of the Italian language or characteristics (besides, he isn’t the only foreigner I know of who didn’t ‘get it’ all the way or not at all) but I take exception to the fact that he calls I SOLITI IGNOTI “not nearly as funny as it should have been, or as others have been” when much of the humor which seems to have eluded him is ingrained in the characters’ manner of speech. The characters portrayed by Marcello Mastroianni and Renato Salvatori are relatively straight but the rest are memorably comic creations: Vittorio Gassman’s stuttering ‘scientific’ crook, Toto’s ‘professional’ old-timer, Tiberio Murgia’s ‘honorable’ Sicilian, Memmo Carotenuto’s ousted gang boss (to the other prsioners, he snaps: “Whoever has a cigarette and doesn’t give me one, may his mother and father die!”) and especially Carlo Pisacane’s always hungry Capannelle (the amiable old actor remained forever associated with his character here).

And what other ‘funnier’ caper spoofs is Kaplan talking about? Sure, there’s been other notable ones – TWO WAY STRETCH (1960) and THE HOT ROCK (1972) – but, to my mind, even those two aren’t as perennially enjoyable as the Monicelli classic. And make no mistake about it: I SOLITI IGNOTI (I hate its American title BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET and, actually the film was first shown over there as THE USUAL UNIDENTIFIED THIEVES and later shortend to just BIG DEAL!) is a classic on its home ground (albeit not from the outset) and, not only was it nominated for an Academy Award as Best Foreign Film but has had two sequels (1959 and 1985), one official Hollywood remake (Louis Malle’s CRACKERS in 1984!) and a spate of imitators all the way down to the 1990s!"

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Got a lot of watching done yesterday:


Design for Living and Peter Ibbetson - Two more Gary Cooper movies arrive from Netflix, after I just said I don't like him that much. But they're both on the "They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?" top 1000 list, so why not. Design for Living is a Lubitsch comedy about a love triangle. I actually liked Cooper here, who has a lightness I haven't seen in him elsewhere. Fredric March has a Jack Lemmon-ish quality to him, and Miriam Hopkins is quite funny and alluring. If you've paid any attention to my previous reviews, you're probably aware that classic comedy doesn't usually get me that excited, but I still enjoyed it. Not enough to want to see it again, but at least nothing irritated me about it. There's a pre-Code frankness that's bawdy without being crude, and I wonder if the storyline (either from the film or the original Noel Coward play) was an inspiration for Jules and Jim. Rating: 7

Cooper isn't especially light in Peter Ibbetson, but I didn't mind him much in that, either (maybe he's growing on me). This film was more my speed... a Dickensian romance with a bit of magic to it, kind of like Portrait of Jennie. Lots of foreshadowing and callbacks. It's also beautifully shot by Charles Lang, thoughtful compositions and camera movement, and wonderful lighting. I thought the music was a little too much at times, especially coming after Design for Living, which I believe didn't have any music at all. But as an over-the-top romance, perhaps a heavy score suits it well. Rating: 8


Gospel According to Harry - According Majewski film that worked its way into my Netflix queue. Part religious allegory, part domestic drama, part cultural satire. It doesn't really succeed at any of those, but somehow I found it appealing anyway. It smacks of pretention, the acting isn't that great (and for some of the supporting cast, downright poor) and the humor isn't that incisive. But I really liked the aesthetics of it... all those desert visuals, the haunting score, the moody pacing. And I wanted to see how it would pan out, what would happen to these people. Probably most people would write this film off as so much wankery, on a different day I probably would too. But today it was a nice, interesting diversion. Rating: 7


Gran Casino - After a long hiatus following his early surrealist works, Bunuel returns to the scene with... a Hollywood-esque musical? To be fair, it's not such a bad movie. It seems to be primarily a showcase for star Jorge Negrete, a sort of hispanic Dean Martin with rakish charm, macho (but not too macho) swagger, and a good set of pipes. It's utterly predictable, and the sets are kind of cheap, but it's passable as light entertainment. It's just so out of place in the Bunuel ouevre, but then again so are a lot of his other Mexican director-for-hire films. This is probably the least interesting of them, however, with only one or two brief glimpses of the Bunuel we know and love. Rating: 5


And the 2nd volume of Kenneth Anger films:

Scorpio Rising - I have to say I've got rather mixed feelings about this. At first I thought it was quite genius, evoking an unfamiliar mood of sensuality and danger and death and innocence. But around halfway through, here comes the Nazi stuff and the clips from the Jesus movie and I got annoyed. I know this kind of thing was pretty daring for 1964, but now it just seems silly. Still, I was mostly engaged and the use of pop songs was clever (and obviously influential). I was surprised to learn how little of this was staged, it's mostly things exactly as they were. Rating: 7

Kustom Kar Kommandos - Like Puce Moment, this is a small portion of what was meant to be a much longer film but was never completed. A brief glimpse of fetishism with great use of color, camerawork, and song. I would have liked to see more of this, although I'm not sure how much more. Rating: 7

Invocation of My Demon Brother - I admire the imagery very much, but the content is so stupid (like the earlier Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome) that I can't take it seriously at all. I mean... fuck, Anton LaVey is in it, and that guy is a retard. Mick Jagger's "score" is an interesting touch, although it sure doesn't make it any easier to sit through this. Rating: 5

Rabbit's Moon (1979) - The 1950 version was my favorite thing on the first Kenneth Anger set, so I was curious to see what this version would be like. It sucks. Sped up, terrible song, and he took out one of my favorite things, the repeated triple jump cut of the moon. Lame. Rating: 5

Lucifer Rising - Well alright. It's about time something by Anger lived up to the hype. There's quite a bit of Crowley-esque mystical silliness in this film, but the expert craftsmanship and delirious artistry overcomes it. A cornucopia of arresting and memorable images, done with inventive editing techniques (such as the repeated vertical wipe cutting from night to day) and Bobby Beausoleil's excellent score. Really bizarre and fascinating work. Rating: 9

The Man We Want To Hang - A bunch of Crowley's artwork. The art is pretty adolescent, in some cases even infantile, in most cases horrendously bad but a couple of portraits showed promise. There's really no reason for this to exist, though. All Anger did was shoot the pictures and add some music. Just put together a coffee table book or something. Jeez, some of it is even out of focus. Rating: 2

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I have no problem "comparing new with old or vice versa" and noting common themes or similarities, but there's a big difference in doing precisely that and calling a film a strict "REMAKE".

Besides, the funny thing is, in Michael's next post he didn't mention BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET --- he said he was referring to LARCENY, INC. ...! So is SMALL TIME CROOKS a "remake" of one, both, or what?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The Langoliers

This is a 3 hour Stephen King miniseries. It has a rather bleak look at time travel. Bronson Pincho's character Mr. Toomy is really off. And what is with that tearing of paper? It was almost like he was enjoying that a little too much... if you know what I mean. This is not one of my favorite King miniseries... though it has it's moments. Juast average... maybe slightly above average.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "naturally" part.


But Mario seemed to think you were referring to BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET.... maybe SMALL TIME CROOKS was a ripoff of BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET, which was a steal of LARCENY, INC.. ? Or maybe there was a film in between both of those that none of us has heard about, which was .... oh, forget it!


I think I am fairly adept at knowing when a film is a TRUE bonafide "remake", for the most part. And hell, even when I'm not sure, all I have to do is read about a movie and learn. But there is no reference to any of these other films (TERROR FIRMER, GRAND LARCENY, INC., BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET) in anything I've read about for either SMALL TIME CROOKS or HOLLYWOOD ENDING.

In my review for SMALL TIME CROOKS I even mentioned that the beginning reminded me of "The Honeymooners", even adding I'd bet Allen had the show inmind when he was writing it. But you see, I'm not going out and saying "SMALL TIME CROOKS is a remake of The Honeymooners".


Oh, I would have watched it, had I known.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Michael may not have mentioned BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET (1958) but Roger Ebert did in his contemporary review here:

Small Time Crooks :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews


Personally, I haven't watched either LARCENY, INC. (1942) or SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000) so, your guess as to who's being inspired by whom is as good as mine! One can't deny, however, that Woody is a huge European film fan (especially Bergman and Fellini) so it does make one wonder...

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

So it's a tribute, or contains some elements of a homage. But it's no straight "remake". I think you have a different definition of remake than I do, that's all.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Problem is, Roger Ebert is not the be all and end all.
Maybe it was familiar to him -- I mentioned the Honeymooners flavor of the early scenes in the movie, which struck a familiar chord with me. But again, inspirations/tributes/homages/similarities versus "an actual remake" are two different things, wouldn't you say?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Euro-Cult Day #2:


01/17/09: WOMEN OF THE WORLD (Gualtiero Jacopetti, Franco Prosperi and Paolo Cavara, 1963)

After a little over 5 years from its release, Blue Underground’s “The Mondo Cane Collection” is still, for my money, the biggest scam in the history of DVD. It’s not because the films themselves were not as “shocking” as they had been played up to be (I had watched most of them on Italian TV already) or because the discs were shoddily presented but for the reason that, after hyping their “10,000 Limited Edition” status – which doubtlessly duped many a serious film collector (myself included) into springing for the $120 set – these same films (indeed discs) have subsequently, in 2005 and 2008, been variously reissued by the same company under different combinations for half the price they were originally being offered for! This deceit perhaps explains why it has taken me all this time to pop any of the 8 discs included in the original set into my DVD player for the first time – although, as I said before, only 2 of them (the title under review and the feature-length documentary on the duo of controversial film-makers) had been completely unfamiliar to me. As it turned out, WOMEN OF THE WORLD was pretty blah as well…which kind of increased my despondency about the whole bloody affair! Anyway, what we have here is a disparate depiction of the plight of women around the world circa 1962: from Israeli freedom fighters to Japanese pearl divers, from mature Hamburg whores to Swiss pain-free birth clinics, etc. Actually, watching the women from the exotic regions going about their strenuous daily work routine (carrying heavy loads and so on) while their lethargic husbands look impassively on, laze about or, worse still, put on make up and act queer, did provoke the occasional heckle from the undersigned but, I regret to say, it was mostly a rather dull ride. At least, the music (by Riz Ortolani and Nino Oliveiro) is, typically for like product, quite good. While on the Italian version, the occasionally witty narration is provided by one of the film-makers himself (Jacopetti), the English translation (which is also present on the disc and, inexplicably, it reverted to while I was watching) is read by Peter Ustinov!


01/17/09: HEROD THE GREAT (Viktor Tourjansky and Arnaldo Genoino, 1959)

No sooner did I state in my review of THE PRODIGAL (1955) above that it was going to be my only tribute to the late Edmund Purdom, that a visit to the local DVD rental shop also provided me with the opportunity to watch this Italian biblical flick. Unfortunately, the end results were even less satisfactory than that earlier Hollywood epic! For one thing, Purdom makes for a decidedly wooden ruler of Judea who, at the film’s start, is seen returning from a lost battle against Octavius Caesar(!) to find all of his elderly subjects (who, naturally, had stayed home) seemingly out for his blood! Even his son and mother-in-law openly hate and scorn him! Eventually, Herod regains his composure with the appearance of his wife – and how could it have been otherwise when she is portrayed by the red-headed, curvaceous beauty Sylvia Lopez? Tragically, in real life she would be dead of leukemia before the year was out but not before making Steve Reeves’ head spin in her most significant role in HERCULES UNCHAINED (1959)! Out of the blue, then, the film’s second half takes the form of a retread of Shakespeare’s “Othello” with Purdom the jilted monarch, Lopez the compromised queen, Alberto Lupo as Herod’s innocent right-hand man and Corrado Pani (as young Herod Antipas) as his Iago-ish brand new confidant! The strain is too much for Herod-Purdom to bear and, a little while after ordering the proverbial slaughtering of Judea’s first born, he just keels over and dies at the foot of his throne! Ugh…which is a pity since a few months ago I had rather enjoyed Purdom’s next collaboration with director Tourjansky, THE COSSACKS (1960) – which also shares at least three other distinguished participants (actor Massimo Girotti, screenwriter Damiano Damiani and cinematographer Massimo Dallamano) with this one.


01/17/09: CUT AND RUN (Ruggero Deodato, 1985)

Originally intended for American horror-meister Wes Craven – which probably explains the presence of Michael Berryman from his THE HILLS HAVE EYES movies – this was eventually made by controversial Italian exploitation film-maker Deodato (with whom I have had the pleasure of a long chat around 03:00a.m. at the 2004 Venice Film Festival) as an unofficial last entry in his “Cannibal” trilogy! While I’m no fan of the previous two (in fact, I similarly awarded them apiece), it’s easy to concede that this is the least of the bunch despite (or perhaps because of) the bigger budget and relatively decent cast accorded it. Apparently, the presence of so many English-speaking actors – Berryman, Richard Lynch, Karen Black, Lisa Blount, Willie Aames, Richard Bright, Eriq La Salle, Penny Brown – required the film to be shot in English in direct sound (a rarity for Italian productions) but I’m a stickler for seeing movies in their native language and thus I opted to watch the film in Italian (despite the presence of a cobbled-together English-language soundtrack on the Anchor Bay DVD which reportedly reverts to the Italian one for certain ‘lost’ sections)! Anyhow, it’s virtually impossible not to think of Lynch’s character – an American Colonel ‘finding’ himself in the Amazonian jungles at the head of a tribe of cut-throats – as having been modeled on Marlon Brando’s incoherent turn in APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) but Deodato is much too interested in filming extreme gore (copious decapitations, one disembowelment and Steiner’s character literally being split in two!) and his current girlfriend (Valentina Forte) in the nude to let such comparisons or pretensions bother him in the slightest. As usual with Euro-Cult fare, the music is a standout and ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti’s disco-tinged score here is no exception.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I haven't seen LARCENY, INC. But I've just done a lot of reading about it. The core idea is indeed undeniably similar to SMALL TIME CROOKS, and I'll concede that Woody Allen as a fan may well have borrowed it as an inspiration for his film. But after all is said and done, the rest of these two movies are not identical, and go in different paths. To say there are similarities and inspirations, I think, can be very probable, and accurate. But to then label SMALL TIME CROOKS a complete and bonafide "remake" is not accurate, IMO.

Did you at least abandon your theory that HOLLYWOOD ENDING was a ripoff of TERROR FIRMER, and that Allen could have been sued? How about HARDCORE being a remake of THE SEARCHERS?