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 33

post #961 of 1550
7/7/09 at 1:59pm
Well, Mario, I feel your pain. At least I know I'm not the only one having problems accessing the first page. You know, you can also go to the FEEDBACK section and voice your concerns in the "Observations About the New Software" thread. The techs are listening in and trying to come up with answers, so make your voice heard.  
Reply
post #962 of 1550
7/7/09 at 11:27pm
Thread Starter 

Petites causes grands effets (1912) 
 

Marius O'Galop

French animation from O'Galop is a pretty interesting little film.  The movie shows a father going into the bar for a drink and then we see what this can do to his children.  We see his children before he starts drinking and then we see the monsters they will grow up to be due to alcohol.  Okay, this film is incredibly over the top in the evils that it shows alcohol.  I know during this period it was rather rare for alcohol to be looked at as something other than being funny, although Griffith would show the evils of a drunk quite often.  I'm sure the director had good thoughts going into the movie but it plays more as camp.  In fact, I might put it on the levels of REEFER MADNESS in terms of content because of how wild and over the top it is.  I did love the animation however and that there is the main reason people should check this gem out.  The drawings are all quite nice and I loved how simple they were.    
 

Pour résister à la tuberculose (1918) 
 

Marius O'Galop

Warning film from the French animator tells how weak men will catch tuberculosis while those stronger will be able to fight it off.  In the film we see a weak man drinking alcohol who has a skeleton walk up behind him and spray him with tuberculosis.  The skeleton then tries to shoot it on a boxer but it doesn't work.  This is yet another strange film from O'Galop who certainly has a strange way of getting a point across.  Even though this is only my second film of his, I can tell he is set in his ways and will do whatever it takes to get his point across.  The point here is to exercise everyday or you will die.  The animation is what really stands out and I loved the way the skeleton tries to act with the humans.  The way the skeleton creeps up on people was quite nice as was all the background stuff.  The animation was quite good and it kept me entertained from start to finish.  The actual story is over the top but it does manage to bring a camp feel to the movie.
 

Le circuit de l'alcool (1912) 
 

Marius O'Galop

Extremely entertaining French film is another animated warning film by O'Galop.  This time out we see the evils of alcohol as a man goes into a bar to throw his money away only to end up in a mental asylum.  The film shows us how alcohol can only lead to death and anyone who would do it is crazy.  Yes, the message of the film is once again way over the top and this leads to many campy moments but the animation here is just downright brilliant and at times breathtaking. There's one masterful sequence where are drunk walks out into the streets, his head spinning and stumbles into the streets.  The way the director shows the streets spinning actually made me dizzy watching it and I must say that I really loved the animation and it remains one of the most memorable things I've seen from a film of this period.  The animation leading up to the prison sequence is also well done and the overall feel of the film really packs a nice little punch. 

 

Amarcord (1973) 
 

Federico Fellini
 

Oscar-winner for Best Foreign Film, this Fellini comedy is considered by many to be a masterpiece but I'm afraid I wasn't that impressed by it.  The film is basically the director looking back at his teen years in Italy where he learns various subjects ranging from sex to his crazy uncle to even more sex.  Martin called this the PORKY'S of art house movies and I must admit that I'd agree with him because there are several scene here where I couldn't help but think that perhaps Bob Clark borrowed some.  The way the two films look back on perversion are quite similar.  The one thing I didn't care too much about this film is how there's not a clear cut story being told.  Perhaps this is just Fellini doing his thing but it seems all the scenes really weren't in place to tell a story but instead just small, short subjects.  It really seemed like a conversation that someone would have where they just skip around telling different stories of someone's past.  What I did like best was the first hour and the rather raunchy comedy bits including a funny scene in a classroom where urine is the set up and pay off.  Another funny sequence was a scene around the dinner table where the father goes crazy and ends up chasing his son out of the house.  The middle of the film started to drag as it gets a tad bit more serious before picking up more steam with a hilarious bit involving a crazy uncle and an outrageous scene where he forgets to "open shop" and ends up peeing on himself.  One of the highlights of the film has to be the bizarre and rather awkward scene where a priest starts asking a young boy about masturbation.  The performances are all fine with Armando Brancia, Pupella Maggio, Bruno Zanin and Josiane Tanzilli, as a crazy prostitute, really sticking out.  In the end this is pretty much just a slice of life comedy that goes overboard on the sexual nature but that's not a bad thing.  I laughed a lot in the film but not enough to fill up the complete running time, which is why I was left bored in a few spots.  I'm still new when it comes to Fellini and while I haven't really "gotten" what he's about, I'm still interested in checking out more of his work.
 

Wild Child, The (1970) 
 

Francois Truffaut
 

Brilliantly made drama about a wild child (Jean-Pierre Cargol) who is found in the woods and taken into society.  Some see him as a dumb beast but Dr. Itard (Francois Truffaut) thinks he might be able to teach the kid something and turn him into something society would accept.  This was my first Truffaut feature and I must say that its beauty really took me by surprise and makes me embarrassed to not have sampled the director sooner but at the same time it makes me happy because I know I have so many more films to check out.  I think a lot of films would have fallen into a wild, more exciting story to tell.  By that I mean a lot film, especially those in America, would have centered the story on more than just teaching this child.  There would have been some sort of added drama about the doctor's personal life or some sort of drama about another doctor wanting to keep the kid locked up.  There are a few minor things that happen outside the teaching but for the most part we are simply focused on this young "animal" and the doctor trying to teach him to be more human.  We don't really learn what happened to him or why he turned into a wild child but it's really not important.  I'm sure there could have been a great film made about it but this isn't that movie.  It didn't really dawn on me until the final minutes of the movie but in a lot of ways this is a beautifully told love story.  The love the doctor shows this boy was quite touching and the message of not judging someone is certainly on full display.  What makes this work so incredibly well is how laid back the film is.  There's never one scene more important than another but instead the entire film stays at the same pace and one thing is never given more credit than something else.  A lot of movies want to build up drama for one climatic scene or payoff but that's never the case here.  I guess calling the movie brave for doing that wouldn't be an overstatement.  I was really amazed by the performance of Cargol who clearly steals the film.  He doesn't have a single line of dialogue but he says so much just with his actions and movements.  I would call it one of the greatest silent performances I've seen because that's pretty much what it is.  Truffaut and Francoise Seigner are also great in their roles.  This is certainly a very memorable adult movie that I think some kids could even enjoy.  I can't help but look at the kid in the same way that I'd see Frankenstein's monster in the 1931 film.  Kids certainly see themselves in the monster and I don't think they'd have any trouble seeing themselves in this wild child.  I think adults could also easily see themselves in the role of the doctor here, trying to teach and bring this child up.  The wonderful editing, terrific music score and extremely touching ending makes this a very enjoyable movie. 
 

Inferno Carnal (1977) 
 

Jose Mojica Marins
 

Brazilian horror film features director Marins playing the lead role of a doctor who has acid poured on his face by his cheating younger wife.  The wife eventually takes his money and runs off with her playboy lover but the doctor has his own ideas for revenge.  This is a rather bizarre and surreal film, as one would expect from the director, but it's not as bizarre as you might think.  There's a few gory sequences, mostly with the acid, but outside of this the film is more talk that anything else.  Some would say that's a bad thing but it actually works here for several reasons.  The first is that the entire subplot of the lover turning out to be a scumbag to the wife makes for some interesting twists.  The talk also helps build up the wife's character to where we slightly begin to feel for her.  This works perfectly because there are a couple twists at the end, which come out of no where and really work quite well.  The lack of gore might keep some people away or disappoint those who do watch the movie so people should prepare themselves going in.  Even at 82-minutes the movie begins to lose steam but I really respect Marins for trying something different and not just delivering your casual revenge plot.  The film also manages several surreal moments, which usually gets done with strange sound effects, weird edits and some strange color designs.  Even stranger is an actual eye operation, which we get to see in close detail, which will certainly have your eyes watering up.  The story is told in a straight forward fashion, which again, might upset die hard fans of the director but I think if people give the film a far shot then they should enjoy it.  The print shown on IFC is in good condition but the subtitles are disastrous as we get many misspelled words as well as several words that are incorrectly used.    

 

Port of Call (1948) 
 

Ingmar Bergman
 

Early Bergman film has a young woman, Berit (Nine-Christine Jonsson) throwing herself into the ocean in a suicide attempt but being pulled out by a man named Gosta (Bengt Eklund).  Sometime after the two meet up at a party when they go back to her house for sex, which soon leads up to a relationship.  The relationship starts off on a bad note as Berit is haunted by her past as well as secrets she doesn't want revealed.  This is a very dark and bleak love story from Bergman that hits on a few familiar themes of his later films but for the most part you really can't look at this and say this is one of his better movies.  There are certainly some very good touches here and there and the performances are great but I think the movie would have benefited from some editing and a better pacing.  A lot of the middle parts of the film seemed to have just been repeating itself and I didn't care for the flashback scenes at all.  When Berit starts telling her backstory to Gosta, I think strong dialogue would have been a lot better than actually watching the stuff play out.  Another thing I didn't care too much for was the ending, which really seemed to be taped on from another film.  It didn't really match up with anything that came before it and it played out too simply.  For a film from 1948 this really hits on some touchy subjects including all the sex, an aborition and there's even some brief nudity.  I'm sure this movie would have been very shocking when originally released but today it comes off rather tame and even the drama isn't as tight as one would expect from the director.  With that said, there's still a lot to enjoy here and that includes the terrific performances with Jonsson stealing the show as the troubled youth.  She's very believable in her role and her opening shot, the look of her eyes, is quite priceless and tells us all we need to know before she even says anything or we're told anything.  Eklund is also very strong in his role as is Mimi Nelson as the mother.  Bergman handles the material quite well even though, as I said, the pacing could have been a little better. 

 

Reply
post #963 of 1550
7/9/09 at 11:26pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Martin called this the PORKY'S of art house movies and I must admit that I'd agree with him because there are several scene here where I couldn't help but think that perhaps Bob Clark borrowed some. 

 


Ha!  Glad to have that get referenced!  Port of Call is next up in my Bergman spree, we'll see how I feel about it the second time around.  I didn't think it was that bad, but I'm an admitted Bergman whore (see: avatar).  And really, your first Truffaut?  I'm surprised, but glad you liked it.  I could recommend more, but it'd be a long list.  I'm interested to see what you'll tackle next.


There's Always Tomorrow - A steamy noir about murder and insurance fraud... oh, wait. Wrong Fred MacMurray/Barbara Stanwyck movie. This isn't one of Sirk's best, but it does reflect some of his best qualities. Although one misses his glorious sense of color, the compositions are strong and make good use of the widescreen frame (a scene involving a toy robot is particularly effective). The subversive element is there, and quite out in the open as Sirk exposes the tedium and lack of fulfillment in a suburban, nuclear family. One feels that our protagonist would be unhappy no matter which path he chooses in the end ... an ending dictated by the Hayes Code, but which Sirk cleverly makes deliberately hollow. Terrific use of "Blue Moon" throughout the picture. Rating: 8


The Tarnished Angels - Just a couple of years after Written on the Wind, Sirk again recruits Robert Stack, Rock Hudson and Dorothy Malone. Based on a Faulkner novel, it's the story of a newspaper reporter who gets involved with a stunt flyer, his wife and child, and mechanic. Photographically, this is some of Sirk's best work, even in black and white... especially in the stunning aviation sequences, but also the moody lighting. And some of the dialogue sparkles (which is likely more Faulkner's doing than Sirk's) and Hudson delivers a speech worthy of Chayefsky. But otherwise it's not that hot. Sirk does melodrama better than anyone, and the movie is certainly watchable, but there just isn't much to it. Still worth seeing, though. Rating: 7


The Testament of Orpheus - Six years ago, after being completely won over by La Belle et la Bete, I ran out and purchased the "Jean Cocteau's Orphic Trilogy" box set. I didn't care much for the first two films and didn't bother to check out this one before selling it. But since it's on the TSPDT list (although way down at the bottom) I'm finally giving it a go. My reaction to this one isn't much better. In some ways it's an inventive follow-up to Orpheé. But Cocteau, who also stars in this one, is egotistical, not as clever as he thinks he is (goddamn, how many lame "running the film backwards" tricks can you stuff into 80 minutes?) and takes himself too seriously. The film fares best when it takes a light-hearted surrealistic approach, as in the opening "time travel" scenes or the autograph-eating statue. When Cocteau starts going off about being an artist and a poet, you just want to smack him. His narcissism rivals Chaplin in Limelight. The most tolerable film of the trilogy, but that's not saying much. Look for appearances by Brigitte Bardot, Pablo Picasso, Yul Brenner and Jean-Pierre Leaud. Rating: 6


California Split - One of Altman's lesser-known films, about a pair of compulsive gamblers. Awash with his signature improvisational acting and people talking all over each other, it's also got kind of a Cassavetes fly-on-the-wall feel to it. But I didn't think it had much spark to it, only a few moments really stand out and the rest feels like treading water. However, the killer ending is unexpected and fulfulling. Elliot Gould exudes charisma as usual, George Segal is a bit stiff. Rating: 7


Music in Darkness (rewatch) - This week's Bergman pick is kind of a dud. Birger Malmsten is too bitter and self-pitying, Mai Zetterling too naive and earnest. The film is quite formulaic, and slow as molasses. Some of the scoring is awful, and scenes where Malmsten falls down are just laughable. Still, it has some good qualities. The photography is marvelous, Zetterling is radiant, and the character arcs are satisfying (if predictable). I've found that every Bergman film has improved on the second viewing so far, even the weaker ones. Rating: 6

Reply
post #964 of 1550
7/10/09 at 12:29am
I am still rather wary of posting my capsule reviews over here and, therefore, I have a huge backlog of these to cope with at present. Actually, I'm in the middle of a 2-week vacation leave stretch right now...so, with a little commitment on my part, I should be able to get them finished in a few days.  

Even so, I wanted to comment on some viewings Martin & Michael have been doing lately:


Re: EL VERDUGO (1963)

Coming across a review of this (giving its English title as NOT ON YOUR LIFE!) on the 1998 edition of the UK's TIme Out Film Guide where it said that it had just been named the all-time greatest Spanish film ever obviously pumped up my expectations and eagerness to see it because, being Bunuelian through and through, I had always thought that VIRIDIANA (1961) claimed that honor (and, indeed, it had been named so in an earlier poll in 1996). As it happened, the film did eventually turn up on late night Italian TV under the title of THE BALLAD OF THE EXECUTIONER and it was indeed an excellent black comedy about capital punishment. I don't usually keep Italian-dubbed versions of non-Italian movies in my VHS collection but, given that the lead actor was an Italian anyway - the late, great Nino Manfredi who provided his own unmistakable voice on the Italian sountrack - it kind of made sense to keep it in this particular case. At any rate, so far I haven't come across an English-friendly edition of the original Spanish version and my VHS copy will have to do for now. Hopefully, Criterion will be able to get their hands on it somehow. For the record, I have watched 2 other films of the director's (Luis Garcia Berlanga) also on Italian TV - CALABUCH (1956; with Edmund Gwenn, in his last role, as an atomic scientist hiding out in a small Spanish fishing community) and his segment of LES QUATRES VERITES (1962; with Hardy Kruger as a suicidal busker) that, ironically, was cut when the film was exported to the U.S.! Furthernore, when a Spanish Film Week was (incredibly enough) held over here a few years ago, 2 more of his intriguing, politically-tinged films were shown - WELCOME MR. MARSHALL (1953) and THE NATIONAL SHOTGUN (1978) - but, given that no English subtitles were provided(!), I had to reluctantly pass on them. I did get to see Juan Antonio Bardem's bittersweet CALLE MAYOR (1956), though, but that was a relatively easy film to follow even without the aid of subtitles.     


Re: AMARCORD (1973)

I've said it before and will say it again: Federico Fellini is a very overrated director. It's true that he was able to turn his own (dislikable, if you ask me) obsessions into a worldwide fashion (for a almost 2 decades at least) but, unfortunately, he almost completely overshadowed his contemporary compatriots (with the obvious exceptions of Antonioni and Visconti) in the eyes of the rest of the world. Why did Fellini win 5 Oscars but Monicelli, Risi, Rossellini (arguably the greatest Italian film-maker ever), Scola and Visconti have none to their names? One only needs to see Risi's THE EASY LIFE (1962) and IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE (1971) or Scola's WE ALL LOVED EACH OTHER SO MUCH (1974; which, ironically enough, recreates the famous "Trevi Fountain Sequence" of LA DOLCE VITA [1960]) and DOWN AND DIRTY (1976) to be made aware that these lesser-known film-makers were hardly inferior to the self-aggrandizing Fellini. I mentioned Nino Manfredi earlier on: again, he too was unjustly overshadowed by Fellini's alter ego, Marcello Mastroianni. It's true that Mastroianni was more prolific and versatile but Manfredi's performances in Scola's aforementioned DOWN AND DIRTY, Alberto Bevilacqua's EYE OF THE CAT (1976) and Giuliano Montaldo's IL GIOCATTOLO (1979; which translates to THE TOY but, apaprently, was never shown to English-speaking audiences) were equally fine.            

I don't have much affection for Fellini's work after 8 1/2 (1963) and, by extension, AMARCORD but, at the very least, the film did have one hilarious moment for me: an aged swimmer dives into the icy waters from the great cruiser and, when asked about his experience upon resurfacing, he blurts out: "Du' Palle!" - which literally means "2 testicles!" - and I've come to use that phrase quite often in real life whenever I mean to say, "What a drag"!


Re: THE WILD CHILD (1970)

I didn't realize that Michael was such a Francois Truffaut newbie and seeing him give such a high rating to a (relatively) lesser film of his, augurs well for the rest of his filmography. I've seen (and like) most of his films but, somehow, I don't count him among my favorite directors. Maybe it's their sheer glossiness or perhaps because he safely (albeit expertly) navigated between film genres throughout his career rather than, say, dig himself a thoroughly personal path like his archrival Godard did. In short, Truffaut's films are a lot more fun - but also a great deal less challenging - than Godard's.    
 
Reply
post #965 of 1550
7/10/09 at 3:59am
Wow! 4+ minute page load time to open the first page of this thread to update my list. And the icing on the cake is that all my HTF subscriptions are gone. I think I'm done here...

And to stay on topic, we saw Gone Baby Gone last evening -- really enjoyed it. I didn't know anything about it prior to viewing, and couldn't even remember sticking it my queue!
Reply
post #966 of 1550
7/10/09 at 6:48am
Hi-Yo Silver! - 4/5
I have been a fan of The Lone Ranger every since I was a kid and use to watch the old series with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels that reran every Saturday afternoon after the Saturday Morning Cartoons. Hi-Yo Silver! is a cut down version of the old movie serial called  The Lone Ranger that ran almost 4 and a half hours. Yet this cut down version lasted just over 1 hour. Even though I now know how it ended I would love to find and add the original serial to my collection... so I could see all the action that was cut out.

I liked this show a lot... though it did feel a bit odd to see The Lone Ranger is a full face mask instead of the mask we are familiar with from the TV Series. I also wish they didn't use an image from the TV Series for the DVD case. I liked how while watching this even you were not sure who The Lone Ranger was till the end of the movie. And not only that... but they gave you the possibility of five different people that it could have been... which made it fun to keep guessing at who he really was.

Being such an old show... and considering I have a cheap public domain version of the movie from GoodTime DVD I was expecting very bad quality... but I was actually pleasantly surprised. Sure... it was far from perfect... but it did not look bad at all. Very watchable in fact. There was only one or two very small parts where the video was bad... and the audio sounded very good through-out the entire movie. But of course there is unfortunately no extras on the DVD.
Reply
post #967 of 1550
7/10/09 at 6:59am
I was a little pressed for time when I wrote my earlier post and I left out a couple of points:
 
a) although in 1984 I was still several years away from watching any film of his, Francois Truffaut is the first film-maker of whose death I became aware and, given that he was still fully active in films, obviously a most untimely one. As I said before, I've seen most of his films but, apart from his solitary foray in sci-fi territory FAHRENHEIT 451 (1966), the 2 Truffaut films which I most often think about (despite havIng watched them just once many years ago) are THE SOFT SKIN (1964) and TWO ENGLISH GIRLS (1971).  For the record, the first actors of whose death I was aware also occurred in 1984: Johnny Weissmuller, James Mason and Richard Burton.

b) coincidentally, I've been stocking up on horror movies recently in time for the usual Halloween marathon and some of my acquisitions include: a 4th "Coffin Joe" film, STRANGE WORLD OF COFFIN JOE (1968), 5 films from his much more palatable contemporary Paul Naschy (among which is the intriguing Latino-Asian concoction THE BEAST AND THE MAGIC SWORD from 1983), a dozen giallos, some grindhouse trash and several more artistic genre stuff...around 230 in all!! And that's just counting movies I've never seen before. Unfortunately, there's not much vintage stuff in there but my very latest acquisition is something new to me called THE MYSTERIOUS DOCTOR (1943) which a certain Mr. Elliott called "a forgotten gem" and gave *** to...

c) by the way, it seems that the Summertime Blues does not get to Michael and Martin! I must applaud them for tackling arthouse stuff throughout the long, hot Summer. And here I was thinking I was being all hip and topical by renting the 7-Disc LEMON POPSICLE Collection?! But, hey, they're Israeli movies after all...
Reply
post #968 of 1550
7/10/09 at 9:06am
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure how to do the multi-quote thing but here goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post


And really, your first Truffaut?  I'm surprised, but glad you liked it.  I could recommend more, but it'd be a long list.  I'm interested to see what you'll tackle next.

 



I've got THE 400 BLOWS, JULES AND JIM, THE BRIDE WORE BLACK and SMALL CHANGE left on my DVR to watch this month.  I had previously watched one of his shorts but this was my first feature.  I had always known I needed to watch certain films of his but I got extremely interested last month during the Hitchcock festival when I read a few interviews with Truffaut.  I know 400 and J&J are suppose to be his masterpieces but I'm actually looking forward to BRIDE the most. 

Re: AMARCORD

 

This was my fourth Fellini and I really haven't been blown away yet.  I'm not ready to give up and call him overrated but I haven't seen anything too special yet.  I can see greatness but at the same time it somewhat feels like his ego or need for weirdness gets in the way of the story.  I really enjoyed AMARCORD but a lot of it was due to the, as Martin said, the PORKY'S nature of it.  Having seen several of Italy's sex comedies (like THE SCHOOL TEACHER series), it's easy to see them copying this film.  A couple years ago I asked people on this board which Fellini I should watch first and everyone agreed to leave 8 1/2 until I got use to him.  I've got JULIET OF THE SPIRITS, AND THE SHIP SAILS ON and SATYRICON on my DVR.  I was going to watch them to get more under my belt but I might just go ahead with 8 1/2 next.

Re: THE WILD CHILD

Roger Ebert's review really got me interested in watching this one first.  I thought after the first hour it started to lose some of its power but the final three minutes really, really hit me so I bumped it up half a star. 

Re: Horror

Good luck with the Naschy, Mario.  I find him incredibly overrated with a few exceptions.  THE BEAST AND THE MAGIC SWORD was a rather interesting mix but a shorter running time would have helped.  I've got a couple Coffin Joe films for this month as well as a documentary on its star and director.  I'm going to try and go through them since IFC has been showing them quite often here lately.  I also wanted to get to a few Fulci films as well as Argento's two films in the DOOR INTO DARKNESS series. 


I had originally planned several other Bergman, Kurosawa and Bunuel titles this month as well as a string of MGM titles but more than likely it isn't going to happen as well as I had hoped.  I had that Dylan, Mellencamp and Nelson concert on Wednesday and I've got another one tonight.  Then each of the next Saturday's will require me to drive to Louisville to see the Universal horror films.  Just found out on Tuesday that we were having a boy so we've got to get the baby room done as well. 


 

Reply
post #969 of 1550
7/10/09 at 9:25am
Thread Starter 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gorman View Post

Wow! 4+ minute page load time to open the first page of this thread to update my list. And the icing on the cake is that all my HTF subscriptions are gone. I think I'm done here...

And to stay on topic, we saw Gone Baby Gone last evening -- really enjoyed it. I didn't know anything about it prior to viewing, and couldn't even remember sticking it my queue!
 

I hate to see so many people leaving or cutting back but the software is being a pain for many.  It's finally working pretty good on my end but hopefully it will be working well for everyone in the coming months.  It seems this hardware is really hitting threads like this well as well the the director threads.


For those struggling with the stars, here's wha Dan, one of the tech guys, wrote in the software thread:

Pete - one quick suggestion is that if you add the star once,

Then you can click on it, click ctrl-c, then click ctrl-v to post as many as you need:


The trick does work.
Reply
post #970 of 1550
7/10/09 at 1:14pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I'm not sure how to do the multi-quote thing but here goes:

 



I've got THE 400 BLOWS, JULES AND JIM, THE BRIDE WORE BLACK and SMALL CHANGE left on my DVR to watch this month.  I had previously watched one of his shorts but this was my first feature.  I had always known I needed to watch certain films of his but I got extremely interested last month during the Hitchcock festival when I read a few interviews with Truffaut.  I know 400 and J&J are suppose to be his masterpieces but I'm actually looking forward to BRIDE the most. 

Re: AMARCORD

 

This was my fourth Fellini and I really haven't been blown away yet.  I'm not ready to give up and call him overrated but I haven't seen anything too special yet.  I can see greatness but at the same time it somewhat feels like his ego or need for weirdness gets in the way of the story.  I really enjoyed AMARCORD but a lot of it was due to the, as Martin said, the PORKY'S nature of it.  Having seen several of Italy's sex comedies (like THE SCHOOL TEACHER series), it's easy to see them copying this film.  A couple years ago I asked people on this board which Fellini I should watch first and everyone agreed to leave 8 1/2 until I got use to him.  I've got JULIET OF THE SPIRITS, AND THE SHIP SAILS ON and SATYRICON on my DVR.  I was going to watch them to get more under my belt but I might just go ahead with 8 1/2 next.
 


 


Small Change is a minor work but a lot of fun.  The other three Truffaut you've picked out are all sublime.  I consider Bride to be way, way up there.  If you like 400 Blows, I strongly recommend the entire Antoine Doinel series (and yes, even Love on the Run, although it is definitely the weakest of them).  Also Shoot the Piano Player and The Soft Skin.  That covers his best work, IMO.

I can't speak about the other two Fellinis you've got lined up, but I would say skip Satyricon.  Nights of Cabiria is my personal favorites, and 8 1/2 is wonderful too.  No other Fellini has really impressed me yet, though I find some of his earlier work enjoyable.

Reply
post #971 of 1550
7/10/09 at 2:32pm
Wyatt Earp
This is one of the MANY Western movies I never seen. But it is also one I have been wanting to see for a while now. I found this to be a very strong (not to mention long) movie. It is a very well made movie that looks stunning. The story is very well told. Of course this is coming from someone not familiar with the story... just going by my enjoyment of the story. And lots of familiar faces. Including one I was surprised to see. That is Mark Harmon (Johnny Behan) who stars in one of my favorite current TV series... NCIS.

As long as this movie is... it never failed to hold my attention. Even though the picture on this movie for the most part looked fantastic on my cheap 20in standard TV... it is not without it's problems. most the night scenes (and there were plenty) was a bit too dark... making hard for me to follow everything that was going on. But over all I enjoyed every minute of this movie... and thrilled I now have it in my collection.
Reply
post #972 of 1550
7/10/09 at 5:18pm
Pete, I thought Wyatt Earp was a great movie as well. It had that epic feel to it and was truer to Wyatt's life than Tombstone. I thought Tombstone was too hollywoodized (if that's a word). Tombstone came out the same time Wyatt Earp did but was better received than Earp. I thought Dennis Quaid was spot on as Doc Holliday and I thought Costner was more believable as Wyatt than Kurt Russell. I also own the soundtrack, great music.
Reply
post #973 of 1550
7/10/09 at 5:25pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I hate to see so many people leaving or cutting back but the software is being a pain for many.  It's finally working pretty good on my end but hopefully it will be working well for everyone in the coming months.  It seems this hardware is really hitting threads like this well as well the the director threads.


For those struggling with the stars, here's wha Dan, one of the tech guys, wrote in the software thread:

Pete - one quick suggestion is that if you add the star once,

Then you can click on it, click ctrl-c, then click ctrl-v to post as many as you need:


The trick does work.
 


If I do more reviews, I'll probably just use regular stars (****). This is supposed to be better and easier, not harder.

I had to go and save my list at the Classic Horror Film Board's version of "TRACK THE FILMS YOU WATCH" (yeah, I know - Horror's mostly all I watch anyway; especially this year!) , which does not have movies at all discussed over there like they are in this thread. I think only one person over there even bothers to keep notes on the movies; the rest just have their title lists. 

If I wind up watching anything new or different, I'll come back here at HTF to post the capsule reviews. Maybe I'll update what I've watched at the end of every month here as well. I know the moderators are wanting to have a better forum here, but I really think it's a shame how this particular thread, at the very least, has been affected by the change in software.

Reply
post #974 of 1550
7/10/09 at 11:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I'm not sure how to do the multi-quote thing but here goes:

 



I've got THE 400 BLOWS, JULES AND JIM, THE BRIDE WORE BLACK and SMALL CHANGE left on my DVR to watch this month.  I had previously watched one of his shorts but this was my first feature.  I had always known I needed to watch certain films of his but I got extremely interested last month during the Hitchcock festival when I read a few interviews with Truffaut.  I know 400 and J&J are suppose to be his masterpieces but I'm actually looking forward to BRIDE the most. 

Re: AMARCORD

 

This was my fourth Fellini and I really haven't been blown away yet.  I'm not ready to give up and call him overrated but I haven't seen anything too special yet.  I can see greatness but at the same time it somewhat feels like his ego or need for weirdness gets in the way of the story.  I really enjoyed AMARCORD but a lot of it was due to the, as Martin said, the PORKY'S nature of it.  Having seen several of Italy's sex comedies (like THE SCHOOL TEACHER series), it's easy to see them copying this film.  A couple years ago I asked people on this board which Fellini I should watch first and everyone agreed to leave 8 1/2 until I got use to him.  I've got JULIET OF THE SPIRITS, AND THE SHIP SAILS ON and SATYRICON on my DVR.  I was going to watch them to get more under my belt but I might just go ahead with 8 1/2 next.

Re: THE WILD CHILD

Roger Ebert's review really got me interested in watching this one first.  I thought after the first hour it started to lose some of its power but the final three minutes really, really hit me so I bumped it up half a star. 

Re: Horror

Good luck with the Naschy, Mario.  I find him incredibly overrated with a few exceptions.  THE BEAST AND THE MAGIC SWORD was a rather interesting mix but a shorter running time would have helped.  I've got a couple Coffin Joe films for this month as well as a documentary on its star and director.  I'm going to try and go through them since IFC has been showing them quite often here lately.  I also wanted to get to a few Fulci films as well as Argento's two films in the DOOR INTO DARKNESS series. 


I had originally planned several other Bergman, Kurosawa and Bunuel titles this month as well as a string of MGM titles but more than likely it isn't going to happen as well as I had hoped.  I had that Dylan, Mellencamp and Nelson concert on Wednesday and I've got another one tonight.  Then each of the next Saturday's will require me to drive to Louisville to see the Universal horror films.  Just found out on Tuesday that we were having a boy so we've got to get the baby room done as well. 


 



For some reason, I'm amused by seeing both Fellini and Naschy being called "overrated" practically in the same post - albeit in wildly different contexts.

I've never had any delusions about Naschy - so I can't say that I've been underwhelmed so far. I'm just glad that I'm able to catch these movies at all after reading about (and poring over stills from) them in my father's horror film books as a kid!  

What I've been letdown by, actually, is Coffin Joe: I bought the Fantoma Box Set sight unseen off their own website (at a discount) when they were going through distribution overhaul some years ago and, while I was lukewarm on the first 2, I hated the 3rd entry. Still, coming across STRANGE WORLD OF COFFIN JOE (1968) later on, I didn't pass it by...even if, getting the English subtitles to work properly while just sampling the movie, was a bitch! Anyway, I managed to make myself a workable copy of it just the other day and, coincidentally, it shares disc space with Naschy's giallo, THE BLUE EYES OF THE BROKEN DOLL (1973)!

As for Fellini, I agree with Martin that his earlier films are preferable, particularly I VITELLONI (1953), LA STRADA (1954), IL BIDONE (1955; unfortunately, the Image DVD only offers the shorter U.S. version of the film but, myself, I've purchased the R2 SE DVD from the BFI while in London in January 2007 which features a longer cut and some interview material) and NIGHTS OF CABIRIA (1957). I always think of JULIET OF THE SPIRITS (1965) as the female version of 8 1/2 (1963) so you might want to bundle them together. A few years ago, I started revisiting SATYRICON (1969) and it's just as well that the rented DVD started freezing like mad because the film had started to get on my nerves! Interestingly enough, in Bunuel's autobiography, he mentions his admiration for ROMA (1972) - a film I disliked except for a hilarious running gag in which kids torment a very fat man in a cinema - and admits to leaving CASANOVA (1976) in mid-projection - while I sat all the way through a midnight TV screening of it on IFC on Boxing Day 2005! Needless to say perhaps, despite my reservations, all 3 films now form part of my collection for eventual future re-evaluation.

By the way, I had intended to dedicate this month to getting through all the unwatched films I have that are rated **** and ***1/2 on Leonard Maltin's Film Guide (and the corresponding **** and *** entries on Leslie Halliwell's Film Guide) and, naturally, both SAWDUST AND TINSEL (1953) and SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973) would have been included. However, I only got as far as the first 3 titles before coming down with the mother of all colds and, subsequently, the most lethargy-inducing Summer in memory! So, for now, it's definitely bye-bye Bergman and hello Laurence Olivier, James Cagney and James Mason (again) all of whom have an anniversary of some sort falling in the coming days... 
Reply
post #975 of 1550
7/11/09 at 12:23am
Edward, My Son (1949)  

I had a hard time getting through this one and had to fight with myself from deleting it. I think the main problem being I had a hard time believing Spencer Tracy as a calculating, sociopathetic-like character. The story seems simple, yet the characters are complicated. Spencer Tracy plays Arnold Boult a businessman determined to help his son and advance his own interests no matter who he has to step on or destroy along the way. His long suffering wife, played brilliantly by Deborah Kerr, starts out loving and caring but ends up as a bitter alcoholic, resentful of the loveless marriage she was forced to stay in. We never see the son but he is an important presence thoughout the movie and drives the plot along. There was some good material here but it wasn't enough to sustain my interest. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood.

Now, I'll have to go and try to add this on to pg. 1. I'll see how long it loads this time.
Reply
post #976 of 1550
7/11/09 at 10:03am
Continuing my Westerns Weekend with...

Winds of the Wasteland
John Blair and his partner Larry purchase a run-down stagecoach line and enter a race with competing stage operator Cal Drake for the rights to a government mail-delivery contract. But Drake is dishonest and uses his villainous flunky Smoky to attempt John's and Larry's defeat, by any means necessary.

My Thoughts:
This is one of the movies I got in the 20 Greatest Westerns: Heroes & Bandits boxset that I found in the Walmart Bargain Bin recently. When I bought the set I knew not to expect very good movies despite the name of the boxset... and I also knew not to expect much quality wise. But I figured 20 movies for $5... what the hell... why not. So needless to say I was a little worried when I popped this one into the player.  Now I can't say it will be so with all the movies in this set... but in the case of Winds of the Wasteland the quality, while not good, really wasn't too bad. Sure it could have been a hell of a lot better... but it is definitely watchable. And OMG... John Wayne was young in this movie! This has to be the earliest of his movies I have ever seen. This movie was released in 1936.

I really enjoyed this story. It was interesting.... everything moved along quickly... and they also had some comedic relief in the form of an older guy played by Lew Kelly. Between some of the things he said and done... he had me literally laughing out loud a few times. I especially liked how while riding in the back of the stage coach that was being shot at he took the cushion off the seat and hide behind it as if it would stop a bullet. Then I also liked at the end of the movie where he had himself a pet skunk on a leash. This movie had a lot of Western action and comedic situations all rolled up in a movie that only lasted 56 minutes! This movie alone made it worth it to me to get this cheap low-budget boxset.  Only thing that would have made it better is if the quality was even a little better. I would give the movie itself 4 stars... but the lower then desired quality will knock it down to to 3 and a half.

Reply
post #977 of 1550
7/11/09 at 3:32pm
Open Range
Packed with epic action, Open Range is a powerfully gripping story that's never been told until now, and stars Academy Award® winners Robert Duvall (John Q) and Kevin Costner (Tin Cup), and Academy Award® nominee Annette Bening (American Beauty). A group of free grazers, four men trying to escape their pasts, are driving cattle and living off the land on the open range — a place where nature makes the only laws. when a ruthless, evil rancher tries to run them out of town, the men's peaceful existence takes a tumultuous turn and ends in the grittiest, most explosive gunfight on film as two men battle a town for honor, justice and a way of life that's quickly disappearing.

My Thoughts:
This is another one I have never seen before. Not hard to believe since I just recently gotten into Western movies. I was told before watching this movie that this one had some beautiful photography. And I agree with that. It makes me wish I got to see this one at the theater. It is a good movie. I enjoyed it quite a bit... though I would say that parts of it moved a little on the slow side. But over-all it is definitely worth checking out if you are in the mood for a Western.
Reply
post #978 of 1550
7/11/09 at 7:44pm
Out of   

Miracle Mile   1/2
I have not seen this movie for about 15 years but remember being impressed with it as a harrowing and (ultimately) moving portrayal of the lead-up to a nuclear bomb being dropped in LA.  How times change.  This time it seemed less harrowing and more quirky although the ending is still moving.  So I ended up being disappointed but I may be underrating it.

Clare's Knee 1/2

Resurrection (1999) 
Weak imitation of Seven with another superhuman serial killer, lots of plot holes, unlikely events, and a weak lead performance (Christopher Lambert).

Asphalt Jungle 1/2
Classic film noir/heist movie with that downbeat atmosphere I love.  Sterling Hayden had a great face for noir.

Dead Calm
Could not get into this movie.  My wife and I entertained ourselves by figuring out all the body differences between Nicole Kidman then and now.

Witchcraft 1/2
Standard horror film fare enlivened by beautiful bw photography.  Reminded me of the superior City of the Dead and Black Sunday.

Where Have All the People Gone?
I was not aware of this 1970s TV movie before it appeared on Fox Movie Channel today.  It is a slightly unusual end of the world sci-fi effort where a father and his two children try to get back to LA after they realize some kind of cataclysmic event has occurred.  The budget is low of course (there are very few special effects) and modern audiences would be bored silly but the story is handled intelligently and logically with enough incident to keep it moving.  I'm not sure whether the ultimate explanation is feasible or not but is certainly different.  It is also notable how the movie is not afraid to have an unhappy ending to their quest. 

Man Push Cart 1/2
Documentary-like study of a food and drink vendor in New York is spoilt by some overdramatic plot points towards the end.
Reply
post #979 of 1550
7/11/09 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 
OPEN RANGE is one I've wanted to see for quite a while but never got around to it.

I went to the first week of the Summer Movie Festival where we had some big crowds showing up.  THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA had over 100 people, mostly young, which was shocking considering it's a silent.  Everyone really ate the film up especially this 7-year-old girl who was sitting behind us.  She was jumping at all the right moments and seemed to be having a great time.  DRACULA had probably 5x as many people with plenty of young kids having fun.  There were two young boys in front of us who were eating popcorn and didnt take their eyes off the screen at anytime.  There were only a few spots where people were laughing at the movie, which was a lot less than some of the Hitchcock films I saw a few years ago.  Most of Lugosi's "looks" at people got the laughs.  Out in the lobby three young kids were debating whether Lugosi or Karloff was better, which was pretty funny to see.  As is the case, the majority of the crowd seemed to be under 35. 

I was never a huge fan of PHANTOM but it was really, really effective on the big screen.  So much so that I might take a trip to Columbus where they are showing the 1925 version as well as the Rains and 2005 versions as a triple feature.  The sets were really excellent on a large screen as was the menace factor of Chaney.  The same was true with DRACULA, which once again didn't really bowl me over.  Still nice to see on the big screen though.  If only they showed the silent version....
Reply
post #980 of 1550
7/12/09 at 3:52am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Still nice to see on the big screen though.  If only they showed the silent version....


This still makes absolutely no sense to me, which is something you always mention. You have seen DRACULA dozens of times, and you still aren't bowled over by it and consider it dull -- but yet if it was "silent" you would find it more entertaining and less dull? How in the world does that work?  

Edited by Joe Karlosi - 7/12/2009 at 12:37 pm GMT
Reply
post #981 of 1550
7/12/09 at 5:41am
Thread Starter 
1. Because Lugosi sucks in the role and got the majority of the laughs.
2. The Hitchcock fest drew in over 2000 people so 500 isn't a large number for this festival. 
3. You could hear the kid jumping.

You could always ask the other person who was there or I would be happy to take a picture for you next week. 
Reply
post #982 of 1550
7/12/09 at 7:29am
The Hanged Man
An ex-gunslinger who survives his own hanging turns into a mystical avenger fighting for justice in the Old West, coming first to the help of a young widow who is trying to keep her silver mine from the clutches of an unscrupulous land baron.

My Thoughts:
This is the second movie I have now watched out of that 20 Great Westerns boxset I found in the Walmart Bargain Bin. This is actually a TV Movie from 1974. When I found that out I was quick to pop this one in... as it has been my experience that I really enjoy the TV movies from the '70s. In this case I would say it is a decent movie... but nothing really great. While it was a good story... I just didn't care about any of the characters in this movie.

Once again the quality of this movie is better then I expected. Even though the image was a little on the dull side... for the most part the image was clear and more then watchable... with only a little dust noticeable on the film. And no problems with the sound either. At least not on the cheap standard TV and extremely old Surround Sound that I have. One of these days I need to get me some new equipment where I can really judge the quality of the DVDs I watch.
Reply
post #983 of 1550
7/12/09 at 9:25am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

1. Because Lugosi sucks in the role and got the majority of the laughs.
2. The Hitchcock fest drew in over 2000 people so 500 isn't a large number for this festival. 
3. You could hear the kid jumping.

You could always ask the other person who was there or I would be happy to take a picture for you next week. 


As I feared, Mike - you read and responded to my original post before I thought better of it and edited it down to only one question (which you didn't tackle, but which I'd still be curious to hear your answer to: You have seen DRACULA dozens of times, and you still aren't bowled over by it and consider it dull -- but yet if it was "silent" you would find it more entertaining and less dull? How in the world does that work?  ).

I guess modern audiences find Lugosi humorous in the movie, but I'll just say that Bela Lugosi is the iconic Dracula for all time in the '31 film. I can't believe they didn't frind Dwight Frye's Renfield more humorous. If you continue to feel Bela "sucks in the role" then I also don't see why you'd watch the movie a hundred times, or however many you've said it's been over the years.  
Edited by Joe Karlosi - 7/12/2009 at 04:54 pm GMT
Reply
post #984 of 1550
7/12/09 at 10:07am
Blue Steel
When Sheriff Jake sees a man at the safe and then finds the payroll gone, he trails him. Just as he is about to arrest him, the man saves his life. Still suspicious, he joins up with the man and later they learn that Melgrove, the towns leading citizen, is trying to take over the area's ranches by having his gang stop all incoming supply wagons. With the ranchers about to sell to Melgrove, the two newcomers say they will bring in provisions.

My Thoughts:
Another from the 20 Great Westerns boxset I got from the Walmart Bargain Bin. This movie stars John Wayne in one of his earlier roles. Also in this one is George Hayes and Eleanor Hunt. Though I am not familiar with them. While I enjoyed the other John Wayne movie I watched (Winds of the Wasteland) quite a bit... this one not so much. It just wasn't nearly as entertaining for me. The quality wasn't up there either. Some scenes the audio and video was very good... but in other scenes there was a lot of dust and scratches... and there as a low hissing in the audio.
Reply
post #985 of 1550
7/12/09 at 9:25pm
My Kid Could Paint That - A riveting documentary about a 4 year-old girl whose abstract paintings took the art world by storm. The film succeeds on many levels: the artwork is genuinely beautiful and intriguing, she's an adorable character, and issues about art and family and exploitation are raised. It got me thinking a lot about my own conceptions of art: the value of abstract art, the relative importance of authorial intent, and so forth. There is also a controversy, and Bar-Lev questions his own role in it, and there are questions that are left for the viewer to answer himself. A thought-provoking and entertaining movie. There's an exceptional interview with Michael Kellerman on the DVD, who expresses many of my ideas about art more eloquently than I could. In it, he addresses and rebuts a lot of the criticisms that people have about art... I wish I could show it to my father-in-law, who thinks all art is a sham. Rating: 8


The Ballad of Cable Hogue - Oh boy, more Peckinpah. But while his other films have been merely underwhelming, this one is downright painful. Painfully stupid. Dumb, dumb, dumb gags. There are moments when it's just a "Yakety Sax" away from being a Benny Hill skit. When the movie isn't obnoxious, it's not too bad, but something obnoxious happens about every 3 minutes. The songs are awful, and I've never really cared much for Jason Robards, either. I did kind of like the ending (except for the knowing "golly gee horseless carriages!" shit) but it was far too little, and far too late. Rating: 3


The Right Stuff - Gulpilil alert! I'm telling you, when a movie calls for an Aborigine, 9 times out of 10 it's gonna be David Gulpilil. He's the hardest-working Abo in show business. I don't have any superlatives for this film, but it gets the job done without any major screwups. For a 193-minute movie, it moves pretty swiftly, although there is certainly some stuff that could have been cut (like, um, the Aborigine nonsense). In fact, all of the Chuck Yeager business arguably could have been a separate film, especially as he's one of the most charismatic characters, but his story does lend something to the overall picture. Rating: 7


Sanxia haoren (Still Life) - I liked this far better than Zhang-Ke Jia's previous film, The World (although, in hindsight, I was probably too harsh on that one). It's about a man and a woman from the same rural area, but otherwise unconnected, each looking for an estranged spouse, in a city that's been largely flooded and is experiencing further demolishment to make way for the massive Three Gorges Dam project. The title refers to the way Jia divides the film into four sections named after an object often used to bridge gaps between people (Cigarette, Tea, Liquor, Sweets). But the lives in this story are anything but still, they seem to be in perpetual upheaval. Jia populates the film with a variety of interesting or modernist touches: the man ordering a bridge to be lit up for his party guests, a fusebox suddenly sparking, juxtapositions of modern and traditional, the guy who wants to be Chow-Yun Fat, the constant motif of stifling decay and destruction, and... well, an oddly-shaped building blasting off into space. My interest wavered a bit from time to time (again, I think it might be simple movie fatigue... I need to start slowing down) but in the end I really liked a lot. I strongly recommend the Jia interview on the DVD, in which he explains a number of cultural relevant facets of the movie that wouldn't be apparent to an outsider (like that building being launched) and also comes off as a very thoughtful director. Rating: 9


Arvottomat (The Worthless) - Written by Aki Kaurismaki and directed by his brother Mika, one of the earliest features for either of them. Some of Aki's later films are done in the noir style, but it's always tongue-in-cheek. This is more of a straight neo-noir (with a touch of Wenders-style road movie and a dash of cheesy 80's action flick). It stars Kaurismaki regular Matti Pellonpää, who delivers Aki's witty dialogue with a less deadpan inflection than usual. It's the writing that stands out most, some funny lines reminiscent of the noir classics. The rest of it isn't very noteworthy, but it's entertaining enough. I'm getting movie fatigue, need to slow down for a while. Rating: 7


Visits: Hungry Ghost Anthology - Four short ghost stories from Malaysia. The first, "1413", by Low Ngai Yuen, is okay, but nothing really new and marred by some poor acting. "Waiting for Them", the segment directed by James Lee and written by Tan Chui Mui, is the main reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place, since I've loved Lee's stuff and enjoyed Mui's as well. It features some actors from Lee's other films (who are all excellent) and is the best of the lot. It's barely horror at all, but instead a quiet, meditative, melancholy drama. "Nodding Scoop", by Ng Tian Hann, is the worst: pointless, loaded with clichés (someone's been watching a lot of J-horror) and shot terribly on digital video. The final story, "Anybody Home?" by Yuhang Ho, is pretty good. The majority of it is told with closed-circuit and hidden cameras, and the slow buildup has an interesting payoff. Overall, worthwhile for the Lee and Ho pieces, but the other two are a drag. Rating: 6
Reply
post #986 of 1550
7/13/09 at 7:23am
Martin, I agree with you about the Right Stuff. I think the Yeager character and the actor is what pushed this movie over the top and made it a must buy. I wasn't that familiar with the Mercury astronauts and I wonder just how true to life some of these character protrayals are.
Reply
post #987 of 1550
7/13/09 at 9:26am
Thread Starter 

Drunken Angel (1948)

 

Akira Kurosawa
 

Straight-forward and simple drama about the troubled relationship between a low level gangster (Toshiro Mifune) dying of tuberculosis and the drunken doctor (Takashi Shimura) trying to save him during post-war Japan.  There are a lot of different genres on display in this early Kurosawa film including noir, gangster and an odd couple drama.  The three don't always mix too well together but Kurosawa's great direction mixed with the great lead performances make this a must see even if the gang would go onto much better films.  What works the best here are the performances by Shimura and Mifune.  The two men work extremely well together because they make their characters so well rounded to the point where you feel as if you know everything about the men.  Mifune really digs deep into the gangster and this leads to many well acted scenes including the drunken one where the gangster must finally realize how serious his disease is.  Shimura clearly steals the film as the angry and often times bitter, if still caring, drunken doctor.  The amount of anger he displays with his character while still making us understand why he cares so much is perfectly done by the actor.  Cheiko Nakakita and Reizaburo Yamamoto are also very good in their supporting roles of the nurse and gang boss.  The cinematography is also top-notch especially a dream like sequence where the dying gangster invisions himself as a zombie-like creature.  This scene is very effective as is another where spitting blood is involved.  I think at times the film is way too over dramatic and this includes many scenes dealing with the "swampness" of Japan.  Even with that said, this is still a very impressive drama that fans of Kurosawa will want to check out. 
 

Judy Garland: By Myself (2004)
 

Susan Lacy
 

American Masters entry tells the story of Judy Garland and pretty much fills up the entire 114-minute running time.  We get all sorts of clips from her films but we also get a lot of footage from her Gumm Sisters days as well as concert clips and footage from her television series.  The documentary pretty much bounces around and I wish it would have focused a tad bit more on Garland's many personal issues but that's the only problem I have here.  For the rest of the time this is a very solid documentary that shows how Garland was selected by MGM and how they pretty much threw her away like trash at the age of 28.  We get to see her several comebacks including A STAR IS BORN, which some believe she should have won an Oscar for had it not been for theater owners demanding the studio cut the film to pieces.  The documentary has some audio clips from Garland who was planning on writing a biography when she died.  We get to hear her discuss all sorts of issues including her self doubt due to MGM thinking her nose didn't look right and how they were constantly telling her she was fat even though she was only 105-pounds.  This is what I found so shocking.  MGM was extremely mean and hateful to her yet she was there number one star.  I really wonder if they dared treat Gable or Tracy this way.  I guess this says more on how a studio was willing to treat a female star compared to her male stars.  Various other audio clips are done with stars such as June Allyson, Jackie Cooper and George Cukor.  The clips from her television series were a lot of fun especially the one teaming her with Mickey Rooney.  All in all, this is a very entertaining and packed documentary that fans will certainly want to check out.

 

Phantom of the Opera, The (1925)
 

Classic Universal horror film is a prime showcase for the make up work of star Lon Chaney.  In the film, he plays the deformed Erik who is best know as the Phantom.  He falls in love with a new singer and plans on turning her into a star but she must first give her life over to him.  I've always been hit and miss on this film but my most recent viewing in the cinema gave me a new appreciation for the film.  I certainly don't think this is Chaney's best performance and no where close to it.  I don't think this is anywhere near his best film but it does have a strong following that I can't deny.  What works so well in the film is the performance by Chaney, which is very good, although this factor usually gets overlooked due to the masterful make up.  Chaney is very calm in the role and manages to be quite evil but at times also very sympathetic.  Mary Philbin on the other hand isn't as good and I think a stronger actress would have done the film a lot of good.  Norman Kerry and Arthur Edmund Carewe on the other hand are both fine in the film and add nice support when they're on the screen.  The sets are all incredibly and special note really goes towards the Phantom's underground lair, which is a true beauty to see.  Another major plus is the build up to what the Phantom actually looks out and, as we all know, the eventual payoff is priceless.  The movie also features a rather tense ending, which undoubtedly started the angry mob routine, which would be in countless horror films to follow.
 

Dracula (1931)
 

Tod Browning
 

Tod Browning's classic horror film is one I've been pretty hard on over the years because I find quite a few flaws here but there's no denying its classic status.  I'm sure everyone knows the story, which is pretty much the same as any version as Dracula (Bela Lugosi) sets his eyes on a woman who must be rescued by Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan).  Ok, there's a lot that I don't like about this film and I've often said that I don't believe Tod Browning directed this movie.  David Manners said in an interview that he didn't recall Browning directing the film and I believe it.  Being a veteran of countless Browning silents, this film doesn't look like any of them in terms of style and the director's future sound films don't contain anything that looks remotely familiar here.  The style and look of the film does look like the following year's THE MUMMY, which was directed by the cinematographer of this film, which tells me all I need to know.  There are reports that this film originally went out silent in some areas and I'd love to see this version.  I think it would improve some of the rather bland acting, which can be seen by Helen Chandler and Manners.  Van Sloan is very good in his role as is Dwight Frye as the doomed Renfield.  As for Lugosi, I prefer him in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN but there's no denying this is the role he'll always be remembered for.  On the visual level he's perfect here but the line delivery is a bit mixed for me.  Some are great while others are questionable.  I think overall the film has a very sluggish pace, which really hurts it but there's still enough here to make it a must see for fans of classic horror.

 

Law of the Badlands (1945)
 

Jack Scholl
 

Warner two-reeler has a Calvary man (Robert Shayne) framed for murder.  Years later he's released and sets out for revenge about the man who framed it but he gets caught up Custer and the Little Big Horn battle.  This is a pretty straight-forward and standard Western but at the same time it's very fast paced and entertaining from start to finish.  A lot of the action sequences were lifted from THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON but they're edited quite well into the story here and in the end this is certainly an entertaining short as long as you don't take it too serious or try to pass it off as true history.  The subplot of the man framed was an interesting story, if not that original.  The way the revenge is carried out leads to some nice fist fights and I couldn't help but get caught up in all of them.  The action was great even though most of it was lifted. 
 

Land of the Mayas (1946)
 

TravelTalks entry takes a look at the Maya Indians and how they go about their lives each and everyday while holding on to the past but also looking to the future.  We see how most of the men carry heavy packs on their backs and whenever they get light items they fill up with heavy rocks just so they can stay in shape.  We also see how a Catholic priest showed up to teach them a new form of religion, which can also hold close to their own beliefs.  This is a pretty nice entry in the long-running series and we get to learn a lot of interesting facts here.  As usual, it was great fun seeing how life was back then and the Technicolor really helps and brings everything to life. 
 

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
 

Stanley Donen
 

Extremely joyous musical has woodsman Adam Pontipee (Howard Keel) going into town to find a wife and he gets on in Milly Pontipee (Jane Powell).  They return back to his house where she's shocked to meet his six brothers, all slobs and what appears to be a case where she was brought back there to just feed and baby them.  Soon the brothers decide they too want brides but first they need to get their act together.  This here is without question one of the greatest musicals out there because the story itself is just so darn good that you can't help but smile from start to finish.  What works so well is that the seven brothers and seven brides are so fun to watch and they actually all give very good performances.  Not only that but the screenplay also allows some pretty good character development and you can't help but feel all fourteen characters are really drawn out and given their own space to grow.  There are countless great scenes including the first time Powell meets all the brothers, the famous barn rising scene and of course the famous dances.  I really wasn't overly impressed with any of the songs but that really didn't take anything away from the film because it was so fast paced and entertaining that the story itself was enough to carry everything.  I did love the dance sequences including the one where Powell tries to teach the brothers how to act towards a lady.  The film is certainly politically incorrect for today's times but that too adds to its charm.  The thought of kidnapping brides and holding them hostage shouldn't be taken overly serious here because it too is just more charm.  The Cinemascope is downright beautiful to look at even though the painted backgrounds are very noticeable.  Even with the few flaws, this is an extremely entertaining movie from start to finish and there really aren't too many out there that contains so much joy and smiles.
 

Jimmy Dorsey and His Orchestra (1938)
 

Lloyd French

Warner short has (as the title says) Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra playing five songs, which are Beebe, Parade of the Milk Bottle Caps, It's the Dreamer in Me, I Like You in Technicolor and Dusk in Upper Sandusky.  If you've seen any of the Dorsey shorts then you should know what to expect and for one thing that's great music.  The music style is certainly something we don't see too much today but that's one of the reasons this type of short and Turner Classic Movies are so important.  Not only is it a short but it's also a look at a part of history.  Dorsey is at the top of his game and really delivers on the music with It's the Dreamer in Me really stealing the show.  Bob Eberly does the vocals on it and packs a nice little punch.

 

Fellini - Satyricon (1969)
 

Federico Fellini
 

Set during the first century Rome, Encolpio (Martin Potter) and Ascilto (Hiram Keller) fight over which one will get to be with a young slave boy (Max Born).  After that we travel through various parts of Rome seeing its history through the eyes of Fellini who is certainly more interested in visuals than an actual story.  This is an extremely bizarre film that will probably drive a lot of people crazy but to me the movie was so crazy and so over the top that it kept me interested from start to finish.  I think you could show this movie with every scene out of order and it really wouldn't make a difference because the actual story really isn't there because we just have various settings for the director to do his magic.  One scene that place on a huge, pyramid like set where we get a great visual of people coming out of various doors and that's pretty much it.  I can only imagine a lot of work being done for such a short scene.  The eventual destruction is very well done as were various other segments thrown around here.  There's a cannibal orgy, beheadings and other forms of violence, which are more corny than shocking but they're all done in a nice visual style and that includes a great scene where a decapitated head is floating in the water.  The performances were decent enough for what the film required but none of them are going to really stick out.  In the end this movie isn't really a movie but instead just a group of weird images thrown together to make the viewer scratch their heads.  On that level the movie works but I can see plenty of people turning this one off early.
 

Reply
post #988 of 1550
7/13/09 at 4:37pm
Bruno (2009)

I enjoyed BORAT so I figured this was worth a watch. Sacha Baron Cohen plays a gay Austrian fashion designer who, after being a flop in his own country, decides to hit America to try and become big and famous. This leads him into a lot of half-humorous and politically incorrect encounters in Los Angeles, which are supposedly candid and not faked, but it seemed to me that at least some of these situations were staged, and that the participants were sometimes actors in on the gags. Either way, I found this less outrageous than BORAT, and not as funny.
Reply
post #989 of 1550
7/14/09 at 12:09am
Deleted.  
Edited by Mario Gauci - 7/14/2009 at 09:37 am GMT
Reply
post #990 of 1550
7/14/09 at 12:15am
Deleted.


Edited by Mario Gauci - 7/14/2009 at 09:36 am GMT
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)