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 13

post #361 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

It's available through Netflix's "Watch Instantly". I'm not sure if you ever use it but there are thousands of movies there to watch. I went there last night to move it to the top of my queue but noticed I could watch it there so that's what I did.
post #362 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Venomous

This is a low-budget (I believe) direct to video horror movie. It's main star is Treat Williams... who is well known in the area of B-Movies. Even though he has never really impressed me in anything I seen him in... he doesn't bother me either. Even with it being low budget it does have a decent quality. Also has a pretty good story. But it is not a movie that will find it's way into any of my favorites lists. It is just an average horror flick... I would say if you can find it cheap it may be worth adding to your collection. But you may want to rent it... or catch it on cable first.
post #363 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Alex & Emma

This is a movie I have never seen before. A very good friend gave me this DVD when she was cleaning out her collection. Unfortunately it is the Full-Screen edition... which of course I always prefer OAR releases. But I can't complain.... a free dvd is a free dvd!

I definitely do enjoy a good romantic comedy. Unfortunately I wouldn't call this one a good romantic comedy. I tried to enjoy it... but I just found it more or less boring... and found it difficult to even get through. I was actually laying down watching this movie and found myself fighting sleep in no time. I didn't care for the whole idea of flashing to acting out the book he is writing. I can see how some would like such a thing... but for me it took away from the story more then it added to it.
post #364 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The Front (1976)

It's not his movie, though Woody Allen agreed to appear in this story about a group of writers and performers who become blacklisted in the early 1950's for being communist sympathizers. As the lowly cashier of a small restaurant, Howard Prince (Allen) is approached by his good friend Alfred Miller (Michael Murphy), who is a talented TV writer but has found himself out of work, rejected due to his communist leanings. Miller wants to hand off his scripts to Prince, using Howard as a front to pass them off as his own, and letting him take a percentage of the profits. Since Howard is in debt up to his eyeballs he accepts, and business becomes even more lucrative as other blacklisted talents request his services too. But things come to a head when Howard becomes confronted by a committee for UnAmerican Activities.

I don't usually care about politics one way or the other, but this was a rather strange and effective film, as it begins with a touch of comedy but eventually delves into more serious territory. Woody Allen has never been a great actor, but I liked watching him in what was something of a more dramatic departure for him. This also features Zero Mostel as a tragic actor who faces the wrath of the Red Scare himself, and Andrea Marcovicci as Allen's girl who falls for him when she thinks he's an actual writer. At the end of the film it is revealed that many of the cast and crew themselves had been blacklisted in the '50s.
post #365 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

THE FRONT played a lot better for me on the second viewing. Love the film even though I haven't watched it in years. Several films tackle that subject but to me this is the best one.

Back to MOTHER'S DAY, I went ahead and put it at the top of my queue even with the "very long wait" and wouldn't you know it that they shipped it this morning.
post #366 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I screwed up and didn't put THE BURNING at the top of my queue, so I'm getting BLACK CHRISTMAS shipped first.
post #367 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Men in Black

This movie is just plan fun for me. It is a really good "Turn your brain off... Popcorn Movie"... it has a nice amount of laughs. I enjoyed the performances of both Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I especially enjoyed Will Smith firing off that little gun of his... the "Noisy Cricket". If you just want some mindless entertainment for about an hour and a half... this one I will recommend.
post #368 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Ten Commandments, The (1923) Cecil B. DeMille

DeMille's first attempt at this story tells two different stories. The opening prologue, running just under and hour, sees Moses (Theodore Roberts) freeing the slaves, parting the Red Sea and eventually correcting those who wish to worship the Golden Calf. The second half of the story centers on two brothers; one good (Richard Dix), the other bad (Rod La Rocque) and both in love with the same woman (Leatrice Joy). The bad brother ends up marrying the girl and becoming quite rich by breaking the law in his building contractor position but all of his sins are eventually going to catch up with him. This is certainly a strange mixture of a film because I was a little surprised to see DeMille spend most of its 136-minute running time with the two brothers. The beginning stuff with Moses is pretty much just a prologue but it's a rather interesting one needless to say. While the special effects can't hold a candle to the eventual remake what we have here is still a treat for the eyes. The parting of the Red Sea certainly sticks out and while it's somewhat obvious how it was done the effect still holds up and manages to impress. The chariot crashes, which were apparently real, also stand out as does the large number of extras to carry out the Pharaoh scenes. Roberts, a DeMille regular, is pretty good in the role of Moses even though he comes off a tad bit too passionate. The second half of the film is rather hit and miss but for the most part I enjoyed it as well. The real standout here is the performance by Richard Dix who would of course go on to have an impressive career in film. He steals the film as the more timid brother who puts God before everything and his passion, a deep one, comes across very well with Dix hitting all the right notes. La Rocque is also devilishly good in his role and very believable as well. Joy makes for a good "woman in the middle" as well. Edythe Chapman, another DeMille regular, plays the boys mother but doesn't fair as good. Her character is so poorly written and over the top in her religious beliefs and demands that you can't help but start to hate her when she's suppose to be the one holding the family together. I wasn't impressed with the performance either but I'm going to guess much of this is more to do with the screenplay than anything else. The biggest problem with the film is that the second half is pretty common for the type of melodrama of the day. While it's told very well by DeMille it still comes off rather predictable and straight forward. With that said, this 1923 silent still holds up quite well on all levels and folks should certainly check it out to see what DeMille would later remake. The director would fair better several years later with The King of Kings.

Godless Girl, The (1929) Cecil B. DeMille

This here turned out to be DeMille final silent as well as his first sound film. Apparently the movie was shot completely silent but after filming and sound films had become popular, they went back and added a dialogue sequence but the version I watched, from Photoplay, doesn't have that sequence in it. The film is about two teens: Judy (Lina Basquette) a hard boiled Atheist and Bob (Tom Keene) a boy who believes in nothing but the Bible. Judy has a crush on him but he doesn't know it, which leads him and a gang of Christian to break into her meeting. A riot breaks out and an Atheist girl is killed so Judy, Bob and another kid end up at a reform school where they are abused by the evil guard (Noah Beery). Soon both Judy and Bob are rethinking what they believed when they entered the reformatory. This is a rather strange and bizarre film that's main goal is to preach intolerance but along the way we get all sorts of strange stuff from campy anti-God speeches to brutal violence against kids and then transforming into a tender love story. The movie starts to wear out its welcome in the final act but this remains a strange little film that is so well-told that even though who don't like silents would probably enjoy it. The first part of the film, involving the Christian and Atheist gangs, is rather campy because of how much the two sides are going after one another. Even though it comes off campy it leads to one of the most dramatic and rather beautiful scenes I've seen from any silent and that's where the girl, an Atheist, is afraid to die because she doesn't know what's next. She mentions she's afraid to be alone and a policeman tells her something, that I won't ruin, which comes off so tender that you somewhat feel bad for laughing at some stuff that happened before it. When the prison drama sets in we get some pretty strong violence, which is pure DeMille pulp. Beery is downright evil in his role and is a lot of fun to watch. Basquette, who apparently received a letter from an unknown Hitler after making this film, is very good in her role and really carries this thing from start to finish. Keene, probably best known today for his role in Plan 9 From Outer Space is very good as well. While this film isn't a complete success it remains a very entertaining one that manages to get its point across mainly because it beats the viewer over the head with a Bible. I don't like that much preaching in movies but whoever said DeMille would hold back when wanting to get a message across?

Cleopatra (1934) Cecil B. DeMille

Claudette Colbert takes the lead as the Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra, who first sets her eyes on Julius Caesar (Warren William) but after he's murdered she goes for the next in line, Marc Antony (Henry Wilcoxon). Director DeMille has become known for big spectacles full of either silly dialogue or overblown messages and that rings true here. The production side of things are rather remarkable but some of the dialogue here is rather silly but in the end this is still a highly entertaining film that manages to deliver some fine performances as well as strong direction. The best aspect of this film are the wonderful sets, which are truly among some of the best of their era. I'm not sure how many extras DeMille managed to use but the epic scope of this film makes on marvel in its beauty. Even better are the battle sequences towards the end of the film, which have plenty of great action including huge fire bombs being tossed at some ships. The chariot battles are also well filmed by Victor Milner who won an Oscar for his work here. I wasn't sure what type of performances we'd get from the A-list cast but they all turned out to be great as well. Colbert steals the film with her man eating charms and sexuality, which just leaps off the screen so vividly that the viewer has no problem understanding why Caesar and Antony would fall for her. The seductive beauty of Colbert is a major plus as her performance doesn't have one negative note to it. Warren doesn't get too much screentime as Caesar is killed off rather early but he's good while he's there. He never strays away from that Warren personality but it makes for a fun version of the famous Caesar. Wilcoxon gives a very strong performance as Antony and has no trouble at playing a strong leader. As is usual with DeMille, the film offers up some rather strong sexuality for its time and even the violence, while mostly off camera, is a bit stronger than we're use to seeing. The death of Caesar is extremely well done in an unusual but effective point-of-view shot. The biggest problem with the movie is that it begins to get a tad bit silly in its third act and some of the dialogue could have been better written.
post #369 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Blackboard Jungle (1955)

Now-familiar but good scenario of the righteous type of well-meaning man trying to reach out to troubled kids. Or in this case, Glenn Ford as an English teacher attempting to tame a few dozen violent juvenile delinquents in his own classroom. These problematic teenagers are really wild though, and it's a wonder Ford and his fellow instructors don't get themselves killed or raped all in a day's work, and all for a measly $2.00 an hour salary.

Ford gives a dedicated performance, but to me the standout, which is perhaps no surprise, comes from Sidney Poitier as one of the few black pupils in the class who starts out tough but is willing to give Ford a chance. Also quite memorable is Vic Morrow, who plays the more uncompromising punk of the group. I didn't realize until after the movie was over, but a 19-year-old Jamie Farr (of M*A*SH fame) had the part of a slow-minded student (and it was only via the DVD audio commentary that I learned this; his name in the credits was Jameel Farah). I'm pretty sure this movie is noteworthy also because it is bookended with Bill Hailey's rock and roll classic "Rock Around the Clock," which plays with the titles, but I really thought it felt completely out of place in this type of movie; this wasn't just some kind of hip rock n roll flick!
post #370 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The song was out of place but they wanted a rock song to bring in teens of the time. Not to mention to put their name in the history books as being the first.

If you have the Warner disc you should watch the short on there as it's pretty funny. Also, if you decide to jump into the "loving teacher" genre Poitier made TO SIR, WITH LOVE.
post #371 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I'm really beginning to like Poitier a lot as an actor, I'll tell you that. I actually did catch a good chunk of TO SIR, WITH LOVE on TCM, as well as a lot of his part as a doctor in NO WAY OUT. I don't count them as viewings or talk about them here, because I haven't seen them through, just parts. I don't like watching films that way, but sometimes while channel surfing I get caught in the middle and find myself glued for a bit.
post #372 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Hollow Man
This is a movie I have not watched in years. (Last viewing back in January 2001 when it was first released!) I forgot how much I enjoyed this movie. There was some very cool effects in this movie. As well as a good story. I think it did a good job of showing the psychological effects being invisible must have. I never been much of a Kevin Bacon fan... but this is one of the few that I do like him in. Mainly this one and Stir of Echoes (which is another one I haven't seen in a long time). I really enjoyed Elisabeth Shue in this movie as well.
post #373 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Stir of Echoes
After watching Hollow Man I decided to watch this one and make it a Kevin Bacon double bill... As I said before I am not really a fan of his... these two movies is about all I liked with him that I have seen. This is a good twist on a ghost story. I liked how he became "open" to the ghost and what happened by becoming hypnotized. There is this one part of the movie that makes me cringe every time I see it. And it is just a minor thing. But it is one of those things that can be bothersome to some people. Kinda like anything to do with an eyeball. In this case it is a fingernail being ripped off. OUCH! Anyway... this is a good movie. I enjoyed every second of it.
post #374 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The Innocents (1961)

This one was slow going for awhile, but in the end I just had to admire its creepiness and much of its sinister ambiance and attention to detail. It's a British film based on the 1898 American novella "The Turn of the Screw", about a young woman (Deborah Kerr) who accepts a job as governess for two small children somewhere off in the English countryside. Neglected by their distant uncle (Michael Redgrave), little orphans Miles and Flora are of special interest to Miss Giddens (Kerr), as she adores children and cares about their well being. But very soon she begins hearing voices and seeing vivid apparitions of the deceased former governess and her dead lover, an evil valet who used to work on the Estate. Are they ghosts? Have the two children become possessed and corrupted by the spirits of the dead?

Deborah Kerr's paranoid performance is very good here, and I appreciated the ambiguous nature of the proceedings; not everything is spelled out, and much is left to the viewer's imagination, including the ending -- which is not completely resolved, but is very powerful.
post #375 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Junior
Even though this is a (lets admit it) a stupid idea for a movie. It definitely has it's moments... and is really an entertaining movie. I think that is on the strengths of the stars. Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger make a great team. The way Arnold portrayed a man being feminine and going through the physical and emotional symptoms of pregnancy definitely had a few laughs.
post #376 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Western Day #3:


02/05/09: CIMARRON (Wesley Ruggles, 1931)

This famous early Western epic (from the Edna Ferber novel, remade – disappointingly – by Anthony Mann in 1960), whose impact has been severely diminished with the passage of time, is mainly noted nowadays for being the genre’s first and, for over sixty years, only Best Picture Oscar winner. Having watched the film for myself now, its flaws essentially boil down to three things: creakiness, cliché and casting. A good deal of the product that emerged during the first few years of the Talkie era are marked by a crippling stodginess (even though some of them, largely thanks to an imposing visual style, managed to overcome this pitfall) but, regrettably, CIMARRON is not one of them. Spanning 40 years, the episodic narrative (accentuated by the sprawling scenery and occasional action bout) generally commands attention throughout and, yet, it is undeniably hampered by a surfeit of melodramatic and barely plausible incident (notably the restless hero’s comings and goings, thus deserting his family for long stretches at a time ever in search of adventure, without batting an eyelid). Besides, characters are often so thinly-sketched that one is able to recognize the prototype the minute a particular face appears on screen: take Roscoe Ates as a stuttering printer, or Stanley Fields as the all-too-obvious heavy, to say nothing of Edna May Oliver as an eminent but presumptuous citizen of the new-born town of Osage. Even so, leads Richard Dix and Irene Dunne – in spite of the Oscar nomination they both landed – are not much better, with Dix’s florid portrayal (forever on the point of being upstaged by his over-the-top coiffure) faring worst in this regard…and wait till you see him yapping defiantly in the villain’s face! For all its shortcomings, the film clearly retains historical value for buffs even today – comparable, in fact, to two other archaic (but equally impressive-looking) contemporaneous genre efforts i.e. IN OLD ARIZONA (1928) and THE BIG TRAIL (1930), both of which I watched not that long ago.
post #377 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Animation Day #4:


02/06/09: RED-HEADED BABY (Rudolf Ising, 1931)

Included on Warners’ DVD of CIMARRON (1931), what I said about the latter – that it is marred by the primitive technique of the time – also applies to this “Merrie Melodies” cartoon when compared to the studio’s heyday in this art form. As was the custom back then, its sole raison d’etre is to promote a current hit tune (for which it is named); this is set against a backdrop of a toy-maker’s workshop, where his creations come to life at night, and he eventually joins the chorus at the end. Typical ingredients here are the fact that the titular belle is at once romanced by a toy soldier and coveted by a large spider (which the latter ultimately defeats, with the help of the other toys). In the long run, though certainly a harmless enough short in itself, both the style of animation and the overall approach is very dated and, frankly, too corny to be appealing.


02/06/09: THE MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN (Frank Oz, 1984)

The third Muppet movie is perhaps the most relaxed and pleasing, with the gang taking their modest college musical to the bright (yet volatile) lights of Broadway filled with typically naïve optimism. Of course, their first attempt fails and Kermit (leader of the group and author of the show) blows his top; so, the others all go their separate ways so that he won’t have to feel responsible for them. Kermit himself befriends a young wannabe fashion designer making ends meet by serving food at her father’s diner (the old man, then, has a line in particularly tortuous non-sequiturs!). We get the usual cameo appearances by a variety of stars: Art Carney (as a producer), James Coco (as an overzealous dog owner), Dabney Coleman (as a confidence trickster), Elliott Gould (who was also in THE MUPPET MOVIE [1979]), Gregory Hines, Liza Minnelli (as herself – having her portrait at a classy restaurant replaced by Kermit’s, sporting fake moustache, as an ostensibly celebrated entrepreneur in a ruse to attract publicity to the Muppets’ show), Brooke Shields, and even director John Landis (in possibly the film’s funniest scene as a Broadway producer before whom Kermit appears acting streetwise and chummy and hilariously donning shades and an Afro wig!). The other Muppets more or less go through their typical paces, with (regrettably) less space given to Gonzo this time around; while Miss Piggy is something of an acquired taste with me, the scenes in which the latter spies on what she takes to be Kermit’s romance with the waitress – and especially her violent reaction to this – are undeniably funny. What disappoints, however, is the climactic show itself (after a fairly redundant midsection wherein Kermit gets amnesia and eventually picks up advertising on Madison Avenue) which, rather than the expected splashy routines, procures nothing more original than the wedding ceremony of Kermit and his eternal flame Miss Piggy!


02/06/09: RATATOUILLE (Brad Bird and Jan Pinkava, 2007)

Surprising exploring rodents in the kitchen is every restauranteur’s (or housewife’s) nightmare but the makers of this amiable animated movie turn that situation nicely on its head by making their protagonist a first-class gourmet that conveniently guides his artless master to fame and fortune in the culinary arts. Despite being the secret son of a famous (but subsequently) disgraced chef, he is engaged as a caretaker in his late father’s bistro and mistreated by just everybody, especially the ambitious Head Chef who has his own designs on the place. However, his biggest nemesis is the fearsome food critic (splendidly voiced by Peter O’Toole) whose scathing review had sent his own father to an early grave and is intent on finding out just what the fuss of the revamped restaurant is all about. Aiding him in ditching his persecutors (including the belated appearance of a sanitary official) are a tough but conventional female cook, the friendly and constantly inventive mouse and, at the climax – just when everything seems lost after his employees quit him en masse upon discovering who the true gastronomical genius really is – the rat’s entire family who find themselves engaged as impromptu cooks! RATATOUILLE won the Best Animated Feature Oscar and received a handful of other nominations including Best Screenplay and Best Music Score.
post #378 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

It's funny you did an animation day as Netflix just delivered PETER PAN, THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE and THE LITTLE MERMAID. I also plan on watching BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and DUMBO since I need to catch up on many of them.

As for CIMARRON, easily the worst Best Picture winner I've ever seen. I found it to be downright bad from start to finish.
post #379 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Hey Mario and Mike -- I didn't see any reviews from you two for THE INNOCENTS over at IMDB...
post #380 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Hey Mario and Mike -- I didn't see any reviews from you two for THE INNOCENTS over at IMDB...

I received my first copy of THE INNOCENTS (1961) - the barebones R1 Fox DVD - while I was on that 3-month stay in Hollywood and I watched it right then and there (sometime during November 2005).

Although I wouldn't have had time to write a review of it anyway since I was abroad, the fact remains that I only started doing the review thing as soon as I came back home on February 2006 and, although I have since sold my disc of THE INNOCENTS and replaced it with the R2 SE DVD from the BFI, I haven't revisited the film since that first viewing. In case you're wondering the bulk of my pre-2006 reviews reviews were mostly confined to Horror and Euro-Cult stuff.
post #381 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
As for CIMARRON, easily the worst Best Picture winner I've ever seen. I found it to be downright bad from start to finish.

I've just re-read your IMDb comments on this one and, although I might end up agreeing with you on CIMARRON (1931) being the worst Best Picture Oscar-winner of all time, I'll hold my verdict until I see the 3 remaining victors left for me to catch up with - WINGS (1927), CAVALCADE (1933) and OUT OF AFRICA (1985) - which I plan to do before this February is out.

Incidentally, I've just started procedures (if you get my drift) of acquiring another famous archaic Western, Victor Fleming's THE VIRIGINIAN (1929) starring Gary Cooper and Walter Huston.
post #382 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Saw V
This is a movie I never seen before. I went into it a bit hesitantly as I heard that the movie series starts to go downhill from this point. Maybe that helped me to enjoy it more then some people do as I still loved every minute of this movie. Of course it could also be because (As I have said many times before) I am more forgiving of horror movies then most people are. The movie is filled with all sorts of torturous devices, blood and gore. It even had a familiar face in it this time. This one has Julie Benz (Angel, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer & Dexter). Though it did take me a few minutes to recognize her since I am not used to seeing her as a brunette. I will admit that I was a little more confused while watching this one (until the end reveal) then I have been with the past movies... but that could be because I was already tired when I decided to watch this movie.
post #383 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Boy and His Dog, A (1946) LeRoy Prinz

Oscar winning short about a young boy (Billy Sheffield) who rescues an abused dog only to have its evil owner (Harry Davenport) take him to court to try and get it back. If you're a diabetic then you might fall into a coma due to all the sugar sprinkled on this thing but the film succeeds at doing what it tries. The film certainly just wants to be sweet and on that level it works as director Prinz does a very good job at telling the story and doing so in a loving nature. He also manges to make a great villain with Davenport, a well-known character actor, doing a great job at just being plain mean. The story doesn't really offer us anything new or original but it's all handled in a good fashion. The biggest problem with the movie is the performance by Sheffield who comes off very weak especially in any scene where he's suppose to show emotion.

Assault! Jack the Ripper (1976) Yasuharu Hasebe

Original Title: Bôkô Kirisaki Jakku

Perversely sexual and violent, this Japanese film has a reputation as being one of the stronger "pinku" movies out there. The story centers on a cook and a waitress who one night accidentally run over a crazed hitchhiker. The two find themselves being turned on by death and blood so they keep killing women and borrow the trademark of Jack the Ripper by cutting them from their private areas on up. I just recently became aware of these pinku Japanese movies so I' doing research on which ones to start with and this here seemed to have pretty good reviews but in the end I was somewhat let down. The one part of its reputation that it lives up to is the rather bizarre sexual nature of the film. There are quite a few sex scenes here, which come off very perverted and sleazy even though nothing hardcore, or really softcore for that matter, happens. The lead actress, who's name I can't find anywhere, has a rather amazing body so seeing her strip off certainly wasn't a negative thing. Her round face also comes in quite handy because she looks so innocent yet is as deadly as they come. Her performance is quite good as is her co-star but yet again I couldn't find his name among various reviews I read. I think the most disappointing aspect is that the film really isn't all that violent. Yes, the aftermath of a woman being sliced up and down is pretty grim but very little of it is actually shown. Usually we see a minor stab wound and then the rest happens off camera and then we go back for the aftermath. I've read reviews saying the film was ultra violent and downright raw and nasty but I didn't find that to be the case. The biggest problem however is that the film runs 71-minutes and really doesn't have enough of a story to fill that short time. The movie starts to feel rather long because we keep going through the same thing of a murder, sex, a murder, more sex and so on.

Blob, The (1958) Irvin S. Yeaworth, Jr.

Cheesy but classic sci-fi tale has two teenagers (Steve McQueen, Aneta Corsaut) trying to convince the police and their parents that the meteor that fell to eat was carrying the title creature, a monster that absorbs people. Being a decade for teen movies there were quite a few that had them seeing a monster yet not having anyone believe them so on that level this film isn't too original but on an entertainment level I think this is one of the best out there. The film has an ultra low-budget but that doesn't hamper the film at all as it looks very good and professional. The special effects of the blob are pretty good for their time even though some of the longer shots are obviously fake. What makes the film so much fun is that "no one will believe us" mentality that the kids must battle along with the parents not believing them and the fact that they have to figure out a way to kill the monster. Added fun comes from seeing McQueen doing a movie like this. I've read he wasn't too thrilled with doing a movie like this but he certainly gives it his all and manages to turn in a good, if somewhat over the top, performance. He was 28 at the time of filming so having him play a teenager is a bit of a stretch but again, it doesn't take away from any of the fun. Another plus is that the film is in color, which was a rather rare thing for this type of movie, which were usually in B&W. Yet another strong aspect is the ending, which is just downright classic as the blob goes after people in a movie theater, which just happens to be showing a horror double feature.

Blob, The (1988) Chuck Russell

Remake of the 1958 film has the town rebel (Kevin Dillon) and cheerleader (Shawnee Smith) being the only ones who know that a blob-like creature is slowly eating everyone in their small town. A group of scientists show up but they may just being doing more harm than good. Along with John Carpenter's The Thing you could make a strong argument that these remakes were among the greatest horror films of the decade. This one here manages to have a very good screenplay by director Russell and Frank Darabont who not only know what to borrow from the original film but what to add it to make it better for the times. Both men are also smart enough to keep the action going at a rapid pace but also to throw some nice humor in as well. One of the funniest sequences in the film deals with the buying of condoms but I won't ruin the pay off to this joke. The movie also manages to use the movie theater, a set piece from the original, to good charm with the man constantly talking and giving away important notes to a horror movie being shown. This works good as a homage to the original as well as a note on the trend of slashers that were out during this period. The screenplay manages to throw in all sorts of great stuff from the rebel kid to the jerk cop but it also manages to be a fairly good device at letting the rebel and cheerleader's characters actually grow throughout the film. Some of the scientist things get a bit overblown but this doesn't take away any of the film's charm. Dillon makes for a great leading man and really delivers a wonderful performance just because of how fun he is to watch. He brings the perfect attitude to this punk and his smartass one-liners are priceless. Smith, one who many had a crush on when this was originally released, makes for a strong female character, although you can't help but think many of her actions were influenced by Aliens. The special effects were among some of the greatest for their era and they still hold up very well and have the ability to impress those who are just familiar with CGI. The creature looks incredibly good and the way it kills is very memorable as are many of the death scenes including an infamous one dealing with a sink. In the end this is an incredibly fun popcorn movies that has plenty of great action, some nice suspense, great characters and a smart screenplay to bring everything home. Well worth viewing.

Roy Orbison: Black and White Nights (1988) Tony Mitchell

Roy Orbison is joined on stage by Bruce Springsteen, Jackson Browne, Elvis Costello, k.d. Lang, Bonnie Raitt, Tom Waits and many others but this concert belongs to the legendary Roy from start to finish. Kicking off with "Only the Lonely" and finishing with "Oh, Pretty Woman", this concert features one great performance after another with numerous songs bringing the house down including great versions of "Dream Baby", "Ooby Dooby", "In Dreams" and "Crying". Seventeen songs are packed into a fast paced 65-minutes making this one of the greatest concert/documents ever recorded. From the opening lyrics of "Only the Lonely" it's clear Orbison has control of the stage and that remarkable voice of his. I've read reviews stating his voice was hit and miss during this portion of his career but there's no doubt he's on fire here. All one really has to do is look at the face's on his supporting cast to know how special a night this was and especially Springsteen who had always admired Orbison. What really amazes me about the show is how it's able to take you back to the 1950's. Perhaps this is due to the B&W cinematography but I think it's something more than that. It's somewhat as if we were transported back to when Orbison first hit the stage because you'd never know this concert was coming towards the end of the singer's life. The film has some incredible cinematography with beautiful shades and the contrast is just remarkable. The sound, be it on the DVD or Blu, is downright incredible and really brings this thing to life. The entire show is rather remarkable but I'd say the highlight for me was the breathtaking "In Dreams".

Mother's Day (1980) BOMB Charles Kaufman

A mother is raising her two retarded, redneck sons deep in the woods where she teaches them how to rape and murder women. Just by chance three women go to the woods to spend the weekend when they are kidnapped and taken back to the house of torture. Although this came out in the Halloween and Friday the 13th era it's basically just another rip of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, which of course was turned into Craven's notorious shocker The Last House on the Left. I must admit that I hated this movie with a very strong passion because this is without a doubt one of the worst movies to come out of the decade and I might be kind by just keeping it to this one decade. This is from the team who would eventually form Troma but this thing isn't even up to their standards. This movie is so incredibly bad with the acting, directing and screenplay that I must admit to being speechless when I read reviews about how depraved and deranged this movie is. It is. It's just downright stupid with one dumb scene right after another. I honestly couldn't tell if the film was trying to be a spoof of horror movies because of the humor or if it was actually trying to be scary but failed. Either way the thing doesn't work but I have to wonder what was up with some of the comedy including a sequence where two of the women, with bags on their heads, walk into a grocery store and make a mess. Was this suppose to make us laugh? Does anyone really think adults would do such a dumb thing? The acting by the three women are downright bad but the worst has to be Beatrice Pons (working under Rose Ross) as mother. She is so incredibly bad in the opening sequence that the twist that follows is ruined before it can even get started. The guys playing her sons aren't any better and come off rather embarrassing. Again, how anyone could find this thing disturbing is beyond me but perhaps I've just seen too many crazy moves in my lifetime. I'm really not sure how anyone could take anything here serious but perhaps some might enjoy laughing at the movie. I couldn't find anything to laugh at either so needless to say the movie was very useless to me. If you want some better rape/review films then there are plenty out there better than this thing.
post #384 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
[
Mother's Day (1980) BOMB Charles Kaufman

A mother is raising her two retarded, redneck sons deep in the woods where she teaches them how to rape and murder women. Just by chance three women go to the woods to spend the weekend when they are kidnapped and taken back to the house of torture. Although this came out in the Halloween and Friday the 13th era it's basically just another rip of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, which of course was turned into Craven's notorious shocker The Last House on the Left. I must admit that I hated this movie with a very strong passion because this is without a doubt one of the worst movies to come out of the decade and I might be kind by just keeping it to this one decade. This is from the team who would eventually form Troma but this thing isn't even up to their standards. This movie is so incredibly bad with the acting, directing and screenplay that I must admit to being speechless when I read reviews about how depraved and deranged this movie is. It is. It's just downright stupid with one dumb scene right after another. I honestly couldn't tell if the film was trying to be a spoof of horror movies because of the humor or if it was actually trying to be scary but failed. Either way the thing doesn't work but I have to wonder what was up with some of the comedy including a sequence where two of the women, with bags on their heads, walk into a grocery store and make a mess. Was this suppose to make us laugh? Does anyone really think adults would do such a dumb thing? The acting by the three women are downright bad but the worst has to be Beatrice Pons (working under Rose Ross) as mother. She is so incredibly bad in the opening sequence that the twist that follows is ruined before it can even get started. The guys playing her sons aren't any better and come off rather embarrassing. Again, how anyone could find this thing disturbing is beyond me but perhaps I've just seen too many crazy moves in my lifetime. I'm really not sure how anyone could take anything here serious but perhaps some might enjoy laughing at the movie. I couldn't find anything to laugh at either so needless to say the movie was very useless to me. If you want some better rape/review films then there are plenty out there better than this thing.

Well, your friend Roger Ebert would be very proud of you!

I have a feeling this is going to be an interesting time here at HTF for awhile, Mike -- because of many reasons , and not just related to your disastrous viewing of MOTHER'S DAY. For one thing, I give MOTHER'S DAY a solid , and I do so with no shame -- that is, because to me it IS a very ugly and disturbing film, and achieves that goal as a twisted and deranged film about sick and twisted people... but also because, as I have said previously, the female victims of this story are well-drawn, so each has a personality and you can sympathize with them (especially the one poor gal who was always treated like shit by men and boyfriends her whole life, and then gets the most sexual and physical abuse from the sick family .... truly upsetting). Then we have the girl whose own mother has dominated her life, and she ultimately has to cross paths with the "sick mother" of this crazy movie. I can't recall a "slasher film" of this period that sets up such elaborate backgrounds early on (we spend the earlier parts of this thing actually getting to know all the characters first, which is a rarity).

Quote:
I have to wonder what was up with some of the comedy including a sequence where two of the women, with bags on their heads, walk into a grocery store and make a mess. Was this suppose to make us laugh? Does anyone really think adults would do such a dumb thing?

All this means is that the women are having their reunion, since they're now grown up and they were friends through college... and they're trying to recapture some of that crazy carefree prank stuff they used to do when they were school kids. It's like if you used to make crank phone calls with your friends when you were kids, and later as grown-ups you try to recapture some of that old fun. It's part of the development of the bonds they share as friends, which will payoff later - big time.

This made me think of a personal similar experience. I used to go to a certain high school with a friend, and a couple of years after we graduated (I'd say we were 19 or 20) we decided to have some nostalgic fun ... we walked into the old school one day and saw one of our old teachers, who didn't recognize us. I forget what we said said to the teacher exactly, but we were having one of our own "inside jokes" and tweaked him, and the teacher threatened to have us ejected from the building. My friend and I looked at one another, and as Three Stooges fans, we let out a frightened pretend wail of fear: "NNYYAAHHHH!!!!", and we ran out the building, like we were watching something out of a Stooges short. Yes, this was completely silly and immature, .... but it was "our thing", the kind of gags we used to do when we were younger, and we were recapturing our school days.

As far as "adults would never do such a dumb thing," that's the exact same thing I feel about that overpraised sequence in WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, where Meg Ryan screams loudly and has a fake orgasm in the middle of a diner -- does anyone really think adults would do such a dumb thing? Not in a thousand years. I didn't think that was "funny", either - just embarrassing, stupid, and completely NOT in the realm of possibility. Just saying.

Quote:
it's basically just another rip of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, which of course was turned into Craven's notorious shocker The Last House on the Left.

Ah, yes, of course -- the old "ripoff" thing. But be that as it may, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a movie I think is overrated, and which doesn't seem as "shocking" as people say it is. (But I have now added THE VIRGIN SPRING to the top of my Netflix Queue, thank you very much.)

As for THE VIRGIN SPRING .... well, here's the next part of why I think this is going to be an "interesting" time here -- just last night, by sheer coincidence, a friend of mine came to the house with THE SEVENTH SEAL, which is my first Ingmar Bergman film -- and I thought it was a real bore (sorry, Woody Allen!). I will talk about this one in my next post, which will be separate from this one .... but it's going to be interesting, considering so many of the "Elite" critics out there love to praise this movie and I cannot understand why. (I'm not the only one who is baffled, of course; the first thing I did was search IMDB and it didn't take long before other viewers echoed exactly the problems I had with it.) But I anticipate this is also going to be interesting because it just so happens to come along at the same time we're discussing a trash exploitation flick like MOTHER'S DAY! ("Gee, Joe Karlosi disliked Bergman's classic film, yet thinks MOTHER'S DAY is "good"! What kind of taste does he have?"). Bad timing, these two film discussions!

And lastly, how many stars do you award MANIAC (1980) again...?
post #385 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The Seventh Seal (1957)

Let me make this pretty quick -- a friend brought this Ingmar Bergman "classic" to the house last night (on Blu-ray), and it was my first experience with this acclaimed filmmaker. All I can say is, I was immediately struck by the cinematography, and I started getting interested in the idea of a knight (Max von Sydow) playing chess with "Death" himself, as a means of deciding the fate of his own soul.... but that's as far as it went.

From then on, nothing made much sense and the noble core idea of the film (presumably about questioning death, and the existence of God) seemed to go out the window, as we spend our time with secondary characters I just could not become interested in. I wanted to focus more on Max von Sydow's troubled crusader and his crisis of faith, especially since I myself am presently going through some personal bouts of despair in my personal life with my own crosses to bear... but he was only sparingly used, and I just could not follow any type of coherent storyline to this thing, for all its pretty picture style. There was no story, just images... and it's not that this approach never works for me in other films, but it didn't connect for me this time. I can't say that this is going to be my last visitation with Bergman, but this is not a promising start, considering this is allegedly one of his greatest works, if not THE greatest. Apologies to Woody Allen. Okay, let the slings and arrows fly.
post #386 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Teen Wolf

OK... lets face it... Teen Wolf is far from award winning entertainment. But what it is... is good cheesy fun. Something to watch when you just want to sit back and enjoy. It is a real twist on the coming of age story. I think the whole werewolf idea is why I enjoy it so much... I definitely enjoy the monster movies... whether you can classify them as horror or not.
post #387 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
And lastly, how many stars do you award MANIAC (1980) again...?

Why do you always ask how many stars someone has given something? Are you trying to prove something? You always mention Ebert giving three and a half to LIGHT OF DAY or whatever the title is. You always bring up MANIAC or PLAN 9 with me. What's the point you're trying to make? Is the point that you're trying to say we're the only ones to rank them so highly? So what. You're the only one to say THE HAPPENING was frightening because it made everyone else laugh.

As for MOTHER'S DAY, I really have nothing else to say on the subject because after reading you're review and after seven years of knowing you, I've never been more shocked in my life. You have never shocked me more in liking a movie more. I am glad you found bad acting, a bad story and bad special effects frightening. I wish it had happened to me but watching this thing so close after DELIERANCE wasn't a good idea. However, for someone who said they hate comedy mixed in with horror, I'm not exactly sure why you was so hard up on this thing.
post #388 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Why do you always ask how many stars someone has given something? Are you trying to prove something? You always mention Ebert giving three and a half to LIGHT OF DAY or whatever the title is. You always bring up MANIAC or PLAN 9 with me. What's the point you're trying to make?

First, keep in mind you're not beyond doing this type of thing yourself (you always mention BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA for me and why, I'll never know, since I don't particularly like it) But here, in your case - I brought up your MANIAC review to remind you that MANIAC is considered just as much of a "pile of exploitive garbage" as MOTHER'S DAY is --- yet somehow you awarded MANIAC a full four stars. Because of Joe Spinell's characterization? I'm just saying there was much characterization of the lead women in MOTHER'S DAY, as well. You don't have to agree, but at least acknowledge what I've written in my other post and address it. You asked why the women were being goofy in the store, and I explained it to you. They were going back to having their fraternity-type kicks for their reunion. This and other such things were utilized to make the audience connect with them more when they meet their horror.

Quote:
I am glad you found bad acting, a bad story and bad special effects frightening.

And yet you give "badly acted" films and "bad effects" films like PLAN 9 a full four stars, so there I go again (yeah, I know -- you give it 4 stars because of how incompetently funny it is, or whatever). And note that I don't give MD "four". Anyway ---- I was never really "frightened" by MOTHER'S DAY, but it was effectively disturbing and unsettlingly demented and warped, as a film about an old lady commanding her sons to rape and mutilate women ought to be. It's not supposed to be a pleasant experience, and it is not. Oh, and the "trick" sequence at the opening with the car was sheer brilliance.

Quote:
However, for someone who said they hate comedy mixed in with horror, I'm not exactly sure why you was so hard up on this thing.

For one thing, I don't mind "comedy relief" in horror, or "black comedy" touches - such as is the case with MOTHER'S DAY. This is not a "funny movie", and anyone who thinks this stuff is funny has some screws loose and needs professional help. However, the comical and indifferent ways in which the two misfit sons and their crazy mom carry out their horrifying actions -- well, that only serves to make the whole experience even more disturbing that they have so much fun with it.

I don't think you "got" the twisted nature of the movie, just like I "didn't get" the overrated SEVENTH SEAL (I'm awaiting your comments on that one).

And give me a break with Roger Ebert. I'm sure he didn't like your MANIAC either. At least the users on his site rated MOTHER'S DAY . For its type, don't forget.
post #389 of 1550

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Teen Wolf Too
Well... I would say this is more of the same as the last one.... and it it... but it just isn't as good. I mean it has it's entertainment value... but as no more then an average movie. I can understand why they released this one as a double feature along with part 1. As I know I for one probably wouldn't have paid extra money to have it in my collection. But considering I got this years ago for $7.50 at Walmart for both movies... who am I to complain? I have never really been a huge fan of Jason Bateman... I mean he is ok I guess... but not someone who I would seek out the work of.
post #390 of 1550
Thread Starter 

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I don't think you "got" the twisted nature of the movie, just like I "didn't get" the overrated SEVENTH SEAL (I'm awaiting your comments on that one).


Are you forgetting who you're talking to? I believe I have a fair share of twisted films under my belt.

As for THE SEVENTH SEAL, can't say I'm shocked you didn't like it. Bergman's pacing just doesn't seem like it would go over too well with you.
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)