Track the Films You Watch (2009) - Page 14

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

You always say this as to hold yourself up high in that you're no phony and you'll always give an honest opinion on what you watch. You're tootin' your own horn here buddy. It's easy to see ones taste in film and since you really don't go out of your way to watch certain, high quality films, this is where my comments come from. I'm sure if you were really interested in Bergman you would have caught up with him somewhere in the 48-years of your life (sorry if I got the number wrong). From your post it seems like your friend brought a movie over, one you weren't expecting to watch, and you didn't like it.

You always want to think people are attacking you for your taste when that's not the case at all. You even waited for me to attack you on THE SEVENTH SEAL and you even asked me why I didn't comment on it. You ask, I tell and then you get upset about mean-old Michael saying you don't like this or that. You want the comments but then you don't want to accept what I say or you seem to think I'm being mean about it. You can't have it both ways. As you see, I wasn't even going to comment on your not liking it.

If you found THE SEVENTH SEAL to be hard to follow, then this is on you. I'd recommend you read some reviews out there that would fully explain the story to you. If you plan on seeing future Bergman movies then I'd recommend getting yourself familiar, going into them, on what to expect. Bergman isn't exactly easy to slip into so I would highly recommending getting your mood right before entering one. I love the man but there are certain times when he is a major no-no.

Are people going to roll their eyes when they see you enjoyed MOTHER'S DAY more than THE SEVENTH SEAL? Perhaps but so what? Why do you care if some guy on IMDB thinks you're an idiot?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

OK Joe, Bergman couldn't make any sense out of THE SEVENTH SEAL.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Since you won't be reading this it won't matter what I write here. This is a discussion thread and I'm sorry you've missed this the past few years that you've written in it. I'm sure next year I could create a "Track the Films You Watch as Long as You Agree With Everyone and Keep Your Comments to Yourself Thread Unless It's Picking on a Father for Showing His Son Classic Films". If you don't want discussion then it's best to ignore people and just keep notes for yourself.

You should really look into the mirror before coming down on others. I never stepped up with your countless jokes at George, which were uncalled for, although sometimes funny. If the only thing I do in this thread is argue then you certainly need to ignore it. By doing so you're missing the biggest point of this thread but since you're against discussing anything I doubt you ever fully understood it. There are millions of blogs, message boards, IMDB reviews and so on where people can post reviews. This thread is for discussion or as much as it can happen. I've yet to visit a single thread that doesn't sometimes break out into an argument.

If two people can argue about the cover art not being used for a disc or two people can argue over the aspect ratio to a Sirk film then by God they can argue about a movie. People can throw sly remarks about someone being too thick headed to comprehend something or they can have a chat about it. You like to throw the remarks while I'd rather debate something even if it gets heated. We might disagree on what to throw out here besides our notes but I'll keep reading yours.

I'm not sure why you needed to announce your actions unless it was to throw in that "thick headed" comment but hopefully you'll change your opinion one day.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Bloody Moon (1981) Jess Franco

Original title: Die Sage des Todes

Spanish director Jess Franco wasn't shy from jumping into a genre, which was proving popular at the time he did his jumping. This time out the director jumps into the slasher genre after films like Halloween and Friday the 13th had proven to be money-making gold. As the film starts a deformed man kills a woman after she turns down his sexual advances. He's sent to a mental hospital but five years later he is released and soon afterwards more bodies begin to pile up. This film doesn't really work and it's certainly not on the level of the best slashers out there. While it would fall somewhere down by the middle-ground American movies, I'd rank this a little higher since it doesn't limit itself to the certain rules that were in American slashers. As with a lot of Franco's work from this period, it's budget allowed for some nice stuff including the cinematography, which manages to be pretty good here. Another bonus are the special effects, which while some are obviously fake, they still come off looking good. We have a wide range of murders here ranging from simple stabbings to the most famous one where a woman has her head chopped off by a industrial saw. The saw effect is somewhat hit and miss but the gore that pumps out makes for an interesting moment to say the least. It's also interesting at how Franco plays with not only the victim but even the viewer during the scene. The performances are about average for what you'd see in a movie like this but the main reason to view this is simply for Franco's eyes on the genre. The director also doesn't shy away from lifting stuff from other films and that includes the opening sequence of Halloween and Mario Bava's structure to Twitch of the Death Nerve also seems to have been an influence here. Those expecting an American slasher are going to be disappointed but if you're a fan of Spanish cinema or Franco then you'll certainly want to check this out just to see how Uncle Jess handled it differently than what we'd normally see.

Hitler Lives (1945) No Director Credited

Stupid yet very strong propaganda film made by the War Department warning U.S. soldiers still in Germany not to trust their people even though the war is over. The documentary short tells us why German's are such evil people without holding back any punches. This type of thing certainly isn't going to sit well when viewed today but I suppose it did have a purpose in 1945 but even then this thing just goes way too far. The film preaches a lot of hatred while at the same time telling us that German people are wrong because they hate others. This film preaches that Americans are better yet it puts Germans down because they think they are better. This film preaches that German's hate other races and that American's "can love all races" yet I guess that didn't includes blacks considering how they were treated in our country in 1945. This film goes even further about shaking hands of German people because those same hands are the ones that killed women and children. We get some very graphic photos of various dead bodies being burned, buried or hung. There are some really ugly images here that many are going to turn their head away from but in the end it's all to throw fear at Americans. While this film is rather unpleasant to watch there's no doubt it's rather original as I can't recall too much preaching this much hatred.

Service with the Colors (1940) B. Reeves Eason

Oscar-nominated, Technicolor short has four men joining the Army at the same time and we see their struggles as they try to make it. The film mainly centers on one who joined just to fight in a war but he isn't getting his way because there's no war to fight. He ends up battling with one of his sergeants (Robert Armstong) who though it all still sees something in him. This is a pretty good little film that manages to get a good message off even though Pearl Harbor would happen not too long after this was released. The film features some very strong performances by King Kong famed Armstrong as well as William Lundigan, Henry O'Neill, William T. Orr and Herbert Anderson. The direction by Eason isn't over the top and he has no trouble at telling the story and even packing a lot of stuff into the 20-minute running time. I think Armstong's character comes off a lot nicer than he probably would have in real life but that's a minor issue.

Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The (2008) David Fincher

David Fincher's latest tells the story of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who ages backwards with various consequences throughout his life. If Forrest Gump was about a simple man doing extraordinary things then Button is a extraordinary man doing simple things. This was the last of the five Best Picture nominees for me to watch and I must admit that going into the movie the entire storyline left me rather skeptical to say the least. I really wasn't sure what to expect since the film sounded like Forrest Gump 2 and while the two films share a lot in common this one here is remarkable enough on its own to really pack a terrific punch. Button doesn't do anything overly special in his life except live and fall in love and these simple things are what makes the film so memorable. Clocking in at close to three-hours I must say that I hoped the movie would keep going as not once did it feel overlong or as if the story was running out of things to say. I think the most interesting thing is that director Fincher really paces the film in a way to where the viewer can see Button's life unfold but at the same time have the viewer wonder what they would have done under the same circumstances. The way Button learns to live and love makes for plenty of great drama as well as plenty of laughs but that the same time it's quite remarkable at how touching and uplifting all of it is. The special effects in the film are also quite remarkable because there never take away from the story that's going on. The are various effects being used with the CGI looking great in recapturing the look of the 1920's and 1930's. The real special effects come in how they get Pitt to look like a child, an old man and back to a kid. The visual effects used here, and I'd be lying if I said I understood them, are quite remarkable to look at but again, what's most remarkable is that they don't take you out of the story. A lot of credit also has to go to Pitt who turns in another great performances. One can only imagine what was going through his head as he tried to come up with the various emotions that would go into a role like this. I mean seriously, how does one prepare to have the body of a 80-year-old man but the mind of a baby? Is there some special class to take about having the brain of an 80-year-old yet the body of an infant? Pitt nails everything his character goes through and that includes the terrific vocal work that he must tackle throughout the film. The supporting players, Julia Ormond, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton and Taraji P. Henson all deliver excellent supporting work but there's no question that the film belongs to Pitt. Some might balk at the film saying life doesn't work this way and perhaps that's true but a lot of the film is a fantasy but one written so close to human nature that it's not hard to imagine what you see is set in a reality. If I could have changed anything about the film it would have been how the story is told as Blanchett's character is on her death bed going back through a diary of Button's. I think the story could have been told straight but this is just a minor issue. When the credits finally started I couldn't help but feel incredibly moved by what I had just seen and this is certainly one of the year's best.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

The whole FORREST GUMP thing is rather interesting because Eric Roth wrote both screenplays. I really can't say BUTTON was a "rip" or anything else since both films were based on novels and I haven't read either one. I think the "Gump is a simple man doing extraordinary things and Button is an extraordinary man doing simple things" is the best way to put it. I had watched all the Best Picture noms when they were released except for this one, which had me nervous because of the GUMP-like storyline and the running time but I'm glad I watched it and honestly can't wait to see it again. I've also held off watching Fincher's ZODIAC because of the running time and feeling a bit strange about its take on the subject but I'll probably be rushing to see this one now.

If one can buy the gimmick of someone being born old then I think the film will work for them.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

If it's just because it inspired the most horror rips then I'd be wary. I'm not sure how fond you are of the rips (LAST HOUSE, NIGHT TRAIN MURDERS) or the rape/revenge genre to begin with. THE VIRGIN SPRING plays off more like a religious picture than anything else and to me it's just as dark as THE SEVENTH SEAL and it doesn't lay everything out either.


Thanks, I actually got it out of my movie pile last night and put it towards the front so hopefully I'll get to it soon. I've seen four different movies about the Zodiac yet I haven't seen the most popular by fans and critics.


I meant to reply to this minutes after you wrote it but since that time I've been searching for an article about the subject of stars but couldn't find it. I did find this from Ebert's blog:

"You give out too many stars" - Roger Ebert's Journal

That starts a little talk about personal ratings from not only Ebert but the writers who post their opinions ranging from Maltin to Netflix. It's always been a personal thing on which system you use but here are a few of my opinions:

1. Four star films are not like someone's virginity. To me there's no use in pretending to save them for that special movie. Not every four-star film has to be one of the greatest of all time.

2. In terms of Maltin's guide, I think he's a tad bit "up in the air". A poster at the blog said it better but it seems Maltin gives a movie or There have been very few four-star films in the past thirty years.

3. Something I've always agreed with Ebert on is that one shouldn't compare films and instead, just overlook the stars and READ the actual review. I think this is right because if someone sees a four-star review of MANIAC and says, "Gee, this must mean it's up there with CITIZEN KANE", then they're going to be disappointed. You can't compare Welles to Lustig. You can't compare a "let's win as many Oscars as possible" film like THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON to a "fuck the critics and lets have fun blowing shit up" movie like RAMBO. Both are four star films to be but they aren't the same film nor are they trying to be.

4. I have thought about awarding a fifth star to movies that I feel are an all-time great. I haven't yet done this but I have thought about doing it. No 4 1/2 stars but a 5 star for stuff like WATERFRONT, KANE, INTOLERANCE, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE and so on.


As far as expectations going in, to me if someone has a low expectation that "all silent movies are bad" then it's going to be hard to break that thought. They certainly can do it, just look at my Franco films, but it's very hard and I doubt many people are going to put up with their own thoughts in order to stick with something.

As far as modern cinema goes, at one time 1939 was "modern" and people were eating up those films. I will say this and you've known me for many, many years. We've talked countless times via e-mail and on message boards. I hhhhaaattteeee when people start praising movies as being "some of the greatest of all time" before the dust has settled and time has taken its place. However, I will say this: the movies released this year are some of the most amazing, heartfelt and at times brilliant that I've seen. I can't possibly imagine not watching THE WRESTLER, THE READER, BUTTON, SLUMDOG or various others again. This has been a brilliant year for movies and I hope one day people will go out and watch these movies. The box office are making these films bombs, just like THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION or ED WOOD were but hopefully they will find their place among buffs at some point in time.



Battle of Gettysburg, The (1955) Herman Hoffman

Oscar-nominated short was filmed at the Gettysburg National Military Park with Leslie Nielsen narrating the story of the famous battle. This is a rather interesting short because it runs a full 30-minutes, which wasn't too normal for the day. Another interesting aspect is that MGM decided to film this in a 2.35:1 ratio, which makes for some beautiful scenes. The final interesting thing is that they decided to make the movie without the use of a single actor. Instead we just get various shots of the actual battlefield mixed in with paintings of the battle and other photos. This was a strange way to present the documentary but for the most part it works just fine even though it does start to feel a bit long towards the end. What I enjoyed the best were the helicopter shots, which give us a grand view of the entire field where the battle was fought.

Now You See It (1947) Richard L. Cassell

Oscar-nominated, Pete Smith short takes a look at microphotography as well as macrophotography. The earliest definition of this camera format was describe as centering the entire 35mm frame on one small part of an object, which in return would allow you to see that small object up close and unlike previous photography. In this short we see a wide range of objects ranging from a baby hummingbird to insects and even a huge item, which turns out to be a small wristwatch. There's nothing overly special about this short but it does make for a good way to kill 9-minutes as Smith does a good job with his narration and the subject itself is fairly interesting. I think the highlight of the film was seeing perhaps the ugliest thing ever created only to then learn it was a close up view of a cat's tongue!! The film closes with us getting to view a mosquito sucking the blood out of a human and filling it's stomach up.

Great Heart, The (1938) David Miller

Carey Wilson short received an Oscar-nomination for Best Short and takes a look at the life of Father Damien, a Belgian priest who began work as a missionary in Hawaii. On his first day there he got involved with a man with leprosy and soon the villagers were frightened of him. The only exception were the people he was helping but soon the priest found himself with the disease. This short really plays out as a tribute to the man as his story is giving loving detail and every scene jumps off the screen like the director begging you to see the importance of this man. I had never heard of him before watching this but it certainly seemed like he lived a rather amazing, if somewhat short, life. The direction by Miller is pretty good as is the screenplay even though it gets a tad bit overdramatic at times. Tom Neal does a fine job in the role of the priest.

Calgary Stampede (1948) Saul Elkins

Technicolor short from Warner received an Oscar-nomination for its studio. The film takes a look at a celebration in Calgary where for a week the city pretty much pays respect to its past where indians and outlaws roamed the streets. The documentary centers on the celebrations, which include various games, food, country music, rodeos and even acted out plays. Warner shooting this in Technicolor was a major plus because the life of the city really jumps off the screen and this is especially true during a parade where we get to see all sorts of rather nice visuals. The rest of the stuff is rather hit and miss but there are plenty of nice moments making this a worthy viewing. One of the highlights is a scene where a young cowboy, perhaps two years old, is shaking hands with an Indian chief. It's also worth noting that narrator Art Gilmore states that the food was free at this event, which is certainly interesting to say the least. It's also worth noting that this was Saul Elkins only credit as a director even though he did write several other projects for the studio.