Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2010)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2010) - Page 7

post #181 of 1166
"Mesrine" - Parts 1 & 2  -


Excellent biopic of real life French criminal Jacques Mesrine,  wonderfully essayed by the ever watchable (and nutty) Vincent Cassel.

Mesrine may indeed have been a murderous, unstable, egotist and thug (and the film never sugarcoats this fact) but you have to say he was an amazingly ballsy, driven and fearless individual who genuinely carried out some amazingly daring escapades (his numerous prison escapes are just stunning in their audaciousness)...but his gigantic ego and often delusional self-belief ultimately scupper him at every turn.

Despite the huge running time (about 3hrs 50 minutes combined) this has been expertly crafted to ensure we get plentiful incident and lots of well done (and surprisingly violent) action.
This means that a potentially plodding and overly talkative plot is in fact turned into a fast paced, exciting, engrossing gangster thriller as well as a serious, dramatic, 'worthy' drama.

It does perhaps get a bit jumpy and confused later on as Mesrine gains a (more ego driven than anything truly devout and honest) political slant to his crime spree and the film's fast paced thriller set-up, that makes the film the engaging watch it is, does mean some details we could have done with more information about are skipped over (like his book and his family), but the sacrifice is ultimately worth it because it gives us a rare thing indeed...a nearly 4 hour bio flick that plays like a slam bang action thriller.
Excellent music score too.

Highly recommended!
post #182 of 1166

Fury – Joe is a regular guy who is trying to scrape together enough money to marry his sweetheart. He’s also got a couple of brothers that he is trying to keep on the straight and narrow. Eventually, they open a garage together and are successful enough that Joe is able to go and fetch his sweetie. Unfortunately, on the way, he is mistaken for a kidnapper. He is thrown in jail and a mob of townspeople quickly decide to subject him to a bit of vigilante justice by burning down the jailhouse with him inside. I won’t say what happens next but believe me, there are consequences! This must have been one of Fritz Lang’s earlier American films, being that it was made in the 1930’s and it is very much one of those hard hitting morality plays that were so popular in that period. I’ve only seen a few of these films (Black Legion is another one) but I find them to be very striking dramatically. You can still see the influence of silent film and so they convey a lot of the emotion visually, without a lot of dialog. You could almost call it static or abrupt but I think it also has a lot of power. Spencer Tracy is great as good guy Joe who becomes bitter and twisted by the course of events. People like to poop on Fritz Lang’s American films, but I think he is one of the great story tellers and has a real flair for creating melodrama with an edge to it.  

post #183 of 1166
I've only seen one Vincent Cassel movie, but it was a doozy. It was based on the French Bluberry comic, but was called 'Renegade' in the US, since no one here knows about Bluberry. It's a western, but it's the kind of a western where the traditional final shoot-out consisted of Vincent and Michael Madsen laying down next to each other in a cave and ingesting a whole bunch of peyote, then confronting each other in their hallucinations. Great stuff!
post #184 of 1166
Thread Starter 

I'd be lying if I said I knew the name Cassel but I looked up both movies over at IMDB and they seem very interesting.  Dave's review made me run to Netflix only to see it's not available.  I'll keep an eye ope though.

Re: FURY

I've always thought this was a masterpiece and I agree that Tracy is brilliant in it.  I remember watching this when I was a kid and it was certainly very powerful to me.

A week long Euro-smut trip:

Sex at the Olympics (1972)
 

Walter Bos
 

German "report" film has very little story but plenty of beautiful women willing to get naked at the drop of a hat.  There are several stories being told here but a few of the highlights include the first one with a new girl arriving in town and driving all the fathers and their sons wild.  The second story deals with a boss who tries to get his way with his Secretary.  The third story deals with a care giver who finds herself being seduced by a kid's father and mother.  We then get to cult favorite Christina Lindberg playing a girl who doesn't have the money to rent a room so she finds herself having to work as an escort to make ends meet.  After this we get two more stories but neither one are as interesting as the earlier stuff.  Your level of interest in these German films will determine how much you enjoy this one.  There's no question that there aren't any real brains behind these type of films as their main goal is to show women naked and this film certainly does that.  I'm beginning to feel that Lindberg is the most beautiful women I've seen in any movie so the film is worth watching just for her segment that is pretty wild.  At least the director was smart enough to realize how hot she was and have her naked for the majority of the running time.  She gets some pretty weird scenes including being bossed around by a wannabe Nazi and another scene where an old pervert makes her ride him like a horse and "hop" for some money.  The other women in the film are also extremely good looking even if they're lesser known among Euro fans.  Ingrid Steeger is apparently the best known of the supporting cast and it's easy to see why.  I don't think the film is on the same level as the handful of SCHOOLGIRL REPORT movies I've seen but fans of the perverted will still want to check this one out.  As for the title, the Olympics were being held in Germany the year this was released and that's pretty much the only thing that the film has to do with the event.

Killing Car (1993)
 

Jean Rollin
 

Extremely bad revenge flick about an Asian woman going around in an American car and killing countless people to she comes across.  The woman doesn't speak a word and instead just goes up to her victims and shoots them.  The police are baffled as to who is doing the killings and why.  This French film is a really bad one and it's rather shocking to see something like this from someone like Rollin.  That's not to say the director hasn't made some really bad films because he has but even his worse films at least contain some sort of style and that is missing here.  The entire movie has a very cheap look and feel to it.  The movie's budget appears to be just a few hundred and there's really not much of anything to recommend here.  The reasons behind the murders is the main draw here as the director tries to keep the secret from start to finish and he does at least do this good.  There are two twists at the end of the movie I think they both worked fine.  It's getting to the twists that is the hard part.  The movie features some of the worse acting this side of a homemade porn movie as all the performances here are really, really bad.  Just check out the woman who is in her apartment building when the lights go out as she goes into a fit not knowing what's going on.  This scene here was so poorly acted that I couldn't even get a laugh out of it.  Tiki Tsang plays the killer and I'm not really sure what to think about her.  She has the "look" of a silent killer but I wouldn't say that's enough to consider it a good performance.  The movie contains some really ugly cinematography, a poor editing job and some really horrid death scenes that are so cheap you have to wonder what they were thinking.  Fans of Rollin should skip this sucker all together unless you watch the first five minutes and then skip to the final five for the secret. 

Night of Death! (1980)
 

Raphael Delpard
 

French horror film has a woman (Isabelle Goguey) getting a job at Deadlock House, a home for the elderly where she is given orders by the strict owner (Betty Beckers) to look after the clients, cook and other basic chores.  The day after her arrival the nurse who was on duty mysteriously leaves and as time goes on she is going to learn the truth and that's that the elderly here are extremely old and killing and eating the young to stay alive.  As far as horror films go, this one here really doesn't offer anything new or original but there are some very good moments scattered around that make it worth viewing if you're a fan of the genre.  The highlight of the film is without question its music score by Laurent Petitgirard who actually makes the film quite chilling in a few scenes.  The music score has a very eerie tone to it and it's one I could find myself listening to often and enjoying it every step of the way.  This mixes in well with the atmosphere created by the director, which is very thick at times and so much so that you can smell the death inside this old house.  Another major plus is the performance of Goguey who manages to be very believable in her role but she's also good enough to make us care about her, which isn't something that usually comes along in a Euro horror flick.  The supporting players are also quite good as they certainly deliver in their roles and give it their all.  The gore in the film is extremely cheap as we see a body get sliced down the middle and for the rest of the movie we see our elderly folks pull stuff out of it and eat.  The body is extremely fake looking but this doesn't hurt the film too much.  We also get a little bit of nudity throughout the film.  What really kills the movie is that the screenplay really doesn't offer too much because after we realize that the elderly people are cannibals, it takes way too long to reach the ending that we know is coming.  We know they're eventually going to want to eat the new nurse but it takes forever to get there.  With that said, fans of the genre will still want to check this forgotten film out as there's still enough here to make it worth watching.

Contamination .7 (1990)
 

Joe D'Amato, Fabrizio Laurenti

D'Amato was a director with many different genres attached to his name and here he once again steps into the horror field but the end results are less than stellar.  In the film, a woman (Mary Sellers) returns home to her small town and sees that nothing much has changed.  The only thing going on is a nuclear plant in town that is dumping toxic waste in the woods, which is making the tree roots come to life and start attacking people.  If you remember, in THE EVIL DEAD there was a pretty graphic and tense scene where a tree comes to life.  If you're expecting that same quality here then you're going to be disappointed because this is a pretty poor film from start to finish with very little to recommend.  Also released as THE CRAWLERS (its U.S. title) and TROLL III, this movie really seems lost as to what it's trying to do as it's clearly meant for horror fans but it delivers no scares, no violence, no gore and not even any nudity, at least for the first hour.  The movie features your typical bad performances but thankfully most are so bad that you're bound to get several laughs out of them including an old man who is constantly throwing out one or two words at bad times just to say he agrees or disagrees with someone.  The film contains just about every bad thing you'd expect from a movie like this and that includes (but is not limited to) the score, the cinematography, the editing and the special effects.  The one bit of blood is a scene where a man gets a root through the mouth and then eye.  The effect is incredibly bad but at least there was some blood.  The final thirty-minutes of this movie is where things finally pick up as the redneck town decides to fight back and try to destroy the roots.  There are so many logical issues with what happens but at least the entertainment value picks up as there's just one dumb scene after another.  I love the fact that they're dealing with toxic waste yet everyone is just rolling around in it and even letting their children mess around with it.  We get some incredibly silly stock footage as well as a helicopter crash using the worst toy I've seen in any movie.  The final ten-minutes also feature a lot more root attacks than the previous eighty so that is a good thing.  Fans of the genre would be best advised to skip this turkey but fans of bad cinema might want to check it out just for the end.  I'm really not sure how much D'Amato director or if Laurenti took most of the shots but TROLL 2 looks rather smart compared to this thing.  D'Amato's ex leading lady Laura Gemser did the Costume Design here (which is basically just jeans and t-shirts).
 

Tough to Kill (1978)
 

Joe D'Amato
 

Italian war flick has Luc Merenda playing our military hero who joins a bunch of cut-throats being led by the evil Major Hagerty (Donald O'Brien).  Soon the men head out through the jungles into enemy territory so that they can blow up a dam but along the way they learn that one of the men are wanted and have a million dollar price tag on their head.  While this film is certainly forgettable in the long run, there's no doubt that it's pretty entertaining to watch.  D'Amato does a pretty good job at keeping everything moving after a slow first twenty-minutes.  We don't really get much character development but the actors at least bring their characters to life and make them fun to watch.  The film has an ultra low budget so one shouldn't expect anything on a grand scale but I admire the film for doing so much for such a little price tag.  The movie manages to be entertaining thanks in large part to the actors who really dig deep in their roles and at least seem to be having fun.  Pretty much each character is some sort of stereotype but that's okay simply because of the fun factor.  O'Brien really stands out as the evil Major who likes proving his braveness by challenging men to stand on top of a grenade.  Merenda is also entertaining as the rebel fighting who stands up for whatever is right and doesn't care who he battles.  The actual story isn't the greatest in the world but it at least gives the characters something to do and gets us through the 90-minutes.  There's certainly nothing groundbreaking or special here but if you're looking for some Euro fun then this movie is certainly better than a lot of the stuff out there. 
 

Giovannona Long-Thigh (1973)
 

Sergio Martino
 

A new government minister closes down factory that is leading to all sorts of pollution so a plot is unhatch to try and get him to open it back up.  A couple dimwits hire a prostitute (Edwige Fenech) to seduce the man in order to make him change his mind.  As with most of these sex-comedies from Italy, this film is full of misses but there are a few hits that actually get a nice laugh.  The biggest problem is the problem of all of these types of films have and that's the fact that everyone in them, with the exception always being the lead woman, are complete idiots who are constantly doing dumb things.  Some might say this is where the comedy comes from, which would be fair to say but there comes a point where you at least need something serious or at least not so over the top where you feel as if you're watching something being aimed at a child.  This movie features all sorts of dumb characters doing dumb things but a few of them are funny.  There's a very long sequence on a train where the government guys try to get their plan working but Fenech keeps messing up because she wants someone else.  Earlier in the film we get a pretty funny scene of Fenech needing to pretend to be a proper lady but her foul mouth keeps that from happening.  These scenes, as well as a pimp duel towards the end, work but this is about it in terms of laughs.  The nudity/sex side of things is also pretty low with Fenech only getting naked a couple times but we all know this is better than nothing.  As usual, she delivers a charming performance as she could certainly act unlike many of the other sex actresses of her day.  In the end this certainly isn't the best the genre has to offer but both director Martino and star Fenech would continue to do these types of films and they quality would eventually go up.
 

post #185 of 1166
Miracle in the Rain (1956) 

We've all seen this type of movie. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, he gets sent to fight in a war overseas, and well you know the rest. This was quite a heart wretching story. I've seen other movies with a similar theme but this one really connected with me. I had an affection for the characters played most effectively by Jane Wyman and Van Johnson that it was very easy for me to overlook the cliched script. Though I was alittle puzzled by the ending this was a beautiful movie, a good movie. 

Zombieland (2009)

I know this is a popular movie, my daughter loves it, but somehow it left me rather cold. I don't mind the subject matter because I did enjoy Shaun of the Dead. Loved Woody Harrelson's performance but really not much else.
 
Hellboy (2004)

Though not my favourite comic book movie, this one is sure alot of fun. Ron Perlman brings that certain appeal to all his movies that I find myself seeking them out. This movie has a good plot, great make-up and special effects. I could have done without the romance between him and fire girl but other than that enjoyable. 

Last Holiday (2006)

This is an appealing romantic comedy about a woman played by Queen Latifah, who upon finding out that she has three weeks or so to live, cashes out her bonds and bank account to go on a dream vacation at a world famous hotel in Europe. Georgia Byrd is a shy woman a bit of a wall flower who has a secret passion for cooking. Every night after work she buy groceries and go home and cooks along with her favourite tv chef while watching him on tv. She photographs her dishes, but never eats the food because she trying to lose weight. She samples her recipes on a kid next door who is a willing victim. She has a book of Possibilities in which she has photos of her various dishes, articles on the famous hotel in Europe and above all pictures of a man she interested in at work. Quite sad really but this movie is anything but sad. Joyous would be a better word. It really picks up steam when she books a flight to Europe to her dream hotel and enjoys all the luxuries that one can enjoy with limited time left.
Sure there are some scenes that make you groan but despite that I really love this movie.
post #186 of 1166
Yikes...I picked up a cheap DVD of "Killing Car" a while back.  On the (seemingly undying) 'To Watch' list.
post #187 of 1166
Pat, if you haven't already done so, you should see the original Last Holiday
post #188 of 1166
I wasn't aware it was a re-make. I looked it up and Sir Alec Guiness no less. I'll look for it and watch. Thanks Martin.
post #189 of 1166
I haven't seen the Queen Latifah one but the original is very good.

The Blind Side - I won't get hyperbolic and say this is the worst movie ever or it made my stomach churn or anything like that. It's definitely not a GOOD movie, though. Cliché and formulaic doesn't begin to cover it. Every moment of this is predictable, every beat. And I don't mean it's predictable in the sense that you already know the story, because I didn't know it was a true story until the end (I suspected, but wasn't sure). There are standard plot arcs, and that's sometimes just how it goes and can still be enjoyable, but this goes beyond that. Everything you think is going to have a callback gets a callback. Everything is broadcast. If anything surprises you in this movie, you have seen enough movies. It even brings back a cliché that I hoped had died in the 80's: the precocious, wise-cracking little brother (think Can't Buy Me Love or Sixteen Candles). I don't want get TOO much into the politics of it, but it certainly struck me as a film designed to make white people feel good about themselves. Did it make me feel good? Only in the most basic sense... I'm not immune to emotional beats, no matter how manipulative or corny. I like seeing people do nice things for others. But I don't like cinema that's so bland and unimaginative. The best you can say about it, including Sandra Bullock's performance, is that it's competent. Rating: 5


Scenes from a Marriage (rewatch) - This week's Bergman involved a tough decision: theatrical cut or television version? I prefer the shorter, theatrical version and its focused intensity... but on the other hand I've only watched the TV version once. In the end, theatrical won out, largely because I have so much else on my plate at the moment. I'll have to make sure to watch the TV cut again next time. And oh, there will definitely be a next time. If forced at gunpoint to pick a favorite Bergman, as difficult as it would be to overlook Seventh Seal or Fanny and Alexander, I'd probably pick this one. And it's a funny pick, because cinematically it's so understated. Nykvist stays tight on faces, those revealing close-ups (Ullmann's searching eyes are a revelation), there's no "money shots", nothing flashy. But it's all about the performances and the script. Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson are at the absolute top of their game, neither one was ever better before or since. They go through the most incredible array of emotions, never once, not ONCE making it seem forced or phony. I can't even pick out particular moments because the seemingly small ones are just as important and impressive as the big ones. They're astonishing. And the script is so brutally honest, so achingly genuine, shorn of any pretention or showiness and just cutting right to the naked truth. It just blows me away. Rating: 10


The Hurt Locker - There seems to be an awful lot of internet backlash directed at this movie, largely based on claims that it's not realistic. And apparently Kathryn Bigelow admits to taking some liberties. Anything I know about being a soldier comes from the movies and other media, so I'm unqualified to comment on it. I'm a bit conflicted about it, to be honest. Part of my enjoyment of the film comes from its seeming authenticity and I admit it's a bit disheartening to learn that some of that might be cheated. However, it's not really the authenticity of the technical details of military operations that struck a chord with me, but rather the authenticity of the emotions involved. Even if the situations were exaggerated, it's a dangerous job no matter how you look at it. The film is superb at building tension and putting you in the middle of sketchy situations. I found the characters to be more than just "oo-rah" stereotypes, while not going too far in trying to make them well-rounded. The one scene that bothered me comes about 2/3rds of the way in, when Sgt. James embarks on a personal vendetta mission. Perhaps it helps set up the emotional context for the following scene, but it was a show of unnecessary theatrics in an otherwise pretty down-to-earth movie. While it may not be a hallmark of documentary realism, I was thoroughly engaged by these men and their uniquely difficult jobs. Rating: 8


Precious - I'm not typing out that ridiculously long title. It's fucking Precious, okay? No need to include the entire pedigree. It would be easy to dismiss this movie as "misery porn", sledgehammering the viewer with one awful scene after another. But it isn't quite that bad. The story manages to include a lot of levity for such a bleak situation. The flights of fantasy are a nice touch, if not terribly original. Manipulative Oscar bait? You could make the argument and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I enjoyed it nonetheless and easily became attached to Precious. Gabourey Sidibe is pretty good in the lead, but Mo'Nique steals the show as her monstrous mother (the other performances, including Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz, are adequate but not worth mentioning). I felt the tribute to De Sica's Two Women was kind of a cheap grasp at credibility, but perhaps I'm misjudging. Overall, I liked it, at least more than I expected to. Rating: 7


Bright Star - Being a huge fan of An Angel at My Table (whose star Kerry Fox is damn near unrecognizable as Fanny's mother here), I was hoping for another portrait-of-a-writer masterpiece from Jane Campion, especially considering the positive reviews. I was rather let down. It's a very rote period piece, adhering far too closely to the standard tragic romance template. There are some beautiful, lyrical moments but not all that many of them. Some of it is actually very dull. I didn't hate it, didn't even dislike it... but in most respects it was just so unremarkable. Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw both deliver above-average performances as Fanny and Keats, but not superlative in any way. The film is most impressive its in aesthetic aspects: gorgeous photography, a lovely score, and fine costuming. I just wish the story was more compelling or uniquely told. Rating: 7


Inglourious Basterds - As usual, I'm way behind everyone else on an immensely popular movie. I waited an unusally long time on this one, I even meant to catch it in the theater. I just never got around to it, I suppose in part because I was so disappointed with Death Proof. But I really liked this one. In fact, I'm on the fence between really liked it and loved it. It's perhaps his most "straightforward" movie, with more effort devoted to developing a plot than crafting individual scenes. While it's nice to see him stretch in a different direction, I both expected and wished for more scenes of the Basterds raising hell. They're the wittiest parts of the film, and the most conducive to Tarantino's style. Brad Pitt takes on the role with an oddball glee similar to Clooney in O Brother. But the lengthy parts without the Basterds are good, too, and I really have no complaints (except maybe for Chapter 3, which seems to drag on without much of interest, but perhaps only because this is when I realized that the movie wasn't what I thought it was going to be). It's a clever, entertaining script with a style that melds war thriller with spaghetti western, and as usual pays homage to several other films in overt and subtle ways. Gonna have to mull it over a while, but I just might purchase the Blu-Ray. Rating: 8
post #190 of 1166
The Insider (1999)

This is probably my favourite Russell Crowe performance and Michael Mann movie. I really think he deserved the best actor award for his performance here rather than the one he got the following year for Gladiator. Crowe plays Jeffrey Wigand the famous whistleblower who's information on the tobacco industry was featured on 60 minutes. I also think this is one of Al Pacino's greatest roles in his later years. I saw the 60 minutes interview and I think Russell Crowe was right on target. This is a long movie but I was captivated by every second of it. An intelligent and outstanding drama one I'm glad to have in my collection.


Whiteout (2009)

Not a bad movie because it certainly was entertaining. I don't know why but I guess I expected a horror movie. Yes it was predictable and the whiteout scene at the end was a waste. I know it was a blizzard but I hate it when you can't see what's going on. I also think Kate Beckinsale would do well to chose better films even though I didn't mind this movie. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again.

Fire Over England (1937)

One of the better historical dramas that I've seen concerning this era in history. The year is 1587 and Spain's King Philip has a burning desire to conquer that little island full of heretics.

I think Flora Robson was magnificant as Queen Elizabeth, my favourite protrayal of that character as well as Raymond Massey as the King of Spain. I suppose though this film belongs to Laurence Olivier in one of his earlier roles. Though I thought he was better suited in Wuthering Heights, with his dark brooding handsome face, he was quite splendid here. Vivian Leigh also was fine as one of the Queen's ladies in waiting. I do wonder abit at the way her character was written. I can't imagine that sauciness going over well at Queen Elizabeth's court. Robert Osborne stated that James Mason was in this movie. I never spotted him and didn't realize he played the traitor Mr. Vane that Olivier impersonates in the film. So much for my ability to spot people.

post #191 of 1166
Thread Starter 

I remember when THE INSIDER came out there was all sorts of controversy in Louisville since a lot of the story took place there.  The cigarette folks were out in full force at each theater in the city wanting people to make sure what they were watching was just a lie.  I found it funny that they were so worried about the film and after the screening people coming out of the theater were being hounded by these folks and various stories they were telling about "truths".  I loved the movie and the performances but I'll never forget how worked up these people were.


Me and My Gal (1932)
 

Raoul Walsh
 

A New York cop (Spencer Tracy) fights with and then falls in love with a waitress (Joan Bennett) but things take a bad turn when her father and sister get involved with a gangster (George Walsh).  This is a sometimes interesting pre-code that starts off as a (bad) comedy but then turns into a romance before once again changing into a drama.  I do have to question the screenplay for trying so many things as the film seems extremely uneven and in the end I had to see it as a major disappointment considering the talent involved.  The biggest problem is the screenplay that is all over the place and this includes a pretty bad start where we have to follow a drunk around for a non-stop gag that just keeps going and going and going.  I'm going to take stab and say that this scene with the drunk runs at least ten minutes and then he keeps coming up for the next ten minutes.  The joke pretty much has him not paying for meals, asking the cops to arrest a fish for stealing his worm or just being plain annoying.  I'm really not sure if Walsh was having a kick with this stuff or what but it should have ended up on the cutting room floor.  The stuff dealing with the gangsters is pretty uninteresting as well because they're brought into the story due to Bennett's sister, someone we really don't care about and since it isn't actually happening to Tracy's girl, there's no added drama thrown in.  For the life of me I couldn't figure out why the movie was jumping around so much and a lot of the ending just feels tacked on for no good reason other than to have some action.  What makes the film worth viewing are the performances by the two leads.  The two work very well together as they both come off quite charming and entertaining.  The snappy dialogue they get to throw at one another is a plus as is a nice sequence where they talk to one another while their "thoughts" also get told.  George Chandler and Henry B. Walthall have small roles as well.
 

Dante's Inferno (1935)
 

Harry Lachman
 

Impressive drama about a con man (Spencer Tracy) who gets a job at a carnival when an elderly man (Henry B. Walthall) hires him as a barker.  The two men create the "Dante's Inferno" show, which Walthall uses to warn people but Tracy sees it as a way to get rich.  Soon he will stop at nothing for the all mighty dollar but this will soon backfire when his wife (Claire Trevor) has to betray her own morals for him.  There are a few faults in the film but overall this is a pretty strong little gem that contains three great sequences that make it a must see.  The first one is the carnival attraction that has some rather amazing sets and terrific visuals.  Another brilliant scene is the ending with a large ship catching fire.  The third masterful touch is a famous sequence of Hell where we get to see thousands of people burning for eternity.  All three of these scenes contain some thrilling entertainment and especially the sequence in Hell.  I was really surprised to see how graphic some of these scenes where considering the Hayes Office was coming down on this type of thing.  I also could have sworn there were a couple nude shots during this sequence but it was somewhat hard to tell.  Another reason to watch this film are for the performances with Tracy delivering once again.  The most impressive thing is that Tracy is so good at playing cold that you can't help but fall for everything he does in the film.  He gets to show off a nicer side as well and he perfectly blends the two depending on the scene in question.  Trevor is also in fine form as his wife and she gets some pretty good moments early on as her good ways must be thrown out the window in order to save her husband.  Walthall turns in one of the best performances I've seen from him in the sound era and he actually steals the film from everyone.  He's tour of Dante's Inferno is very good as is another sequence where he first meets Tracy's character.  Rita Hayworth shows up at the end as a dancer so keep your eyes open for her.  The film's major fault is that it gets too preachy at times and I think it goes a tad bit over the top in regards to some of the deeds that Tracy does.  I think the film could have done without Hayworth's dance sequence as well as it really feels out of place with the rest of the film.  And if you're keeping track with how many A-list Hollywood stars who appeared in blackface at some point in their career then you can add Tracy.
 

Disraeli (1929)
 

Alfred E. Green
 

Creaky, early talkie won George Arliss the Best Actor Oscar but outside of his performance there's very little to recommend here.  In the film he plays British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli who not only tries playing match maker (to Anthony Bushell and Joan Bennett) but also trying to cool the political climate in the country.  Disraeli's main challenge comes when he tries to buy the Suez Canal as he's not prepared for the battle that will come.  This film comes as a major disappointment to me especially after reading so many positive reviews.  It seems the majority of people who viewed this film did enjoy it but I'm certainly not one of them.  I did love the performance of Arliss who is the main reason to watch this.  Apparently Arliss played this role several times on stage and even did a 1921 movie version, which is sadly now lost except for one reel.  He certainly knows this role and feels very comfortable playing it and this comes across on the screen as he appears to just float from one scene to the next.  Arliss is clearly very comfortable here and that easy-going nature really comes across well and he manages to make the character very well-rounded.  Both Bushell and Bennett are charming in their roles and they look great together but I must admit that I found their relationship to be rather lacking and not at all interesting.  Even worse, for me, was all the political stuff because of all talky everything was.  I was growing real tired of the constant dialogue as it wasn't written very well and the only all blandness of the non-stop words.  Even worse is that the film has a very stagy look that just brings the film to a complete stop. 
 

Broadway Bill (1934)
 

Frank Capra
 

Wonderfully charming film about Dan Brooks (Warner Baxter), a man who walks away from his wife's family business so that he can enter his horse, Broadway Bill, in the Derby where the hopes to become a winner.  The only one who believes in Dan is his wife's sister (Myrna Loy) and the not-all-there Colonel Pettigrew (Raymond Walburn).  This film followed IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT so that's probably the main reason this here isn't as well remembered but apparently not even the director himself liked it as he would never speak about it an only discussed it in his book when talking about its remake RIDING HIGH.  With that said, I personally found the film to be quite charming due in large part to the wonderful cast with Baxter and Loy leading the way with some very strong supporting performances.  Baxter gets to play the fast-talking, go getter and he's wonderful in the part.  He brings to so much energy and good charm to the role that you can't help but want to see him succeed.  Loy is at her very best as she has no problems getting smiles and making for a good love interest even though the film keeps their relationship rather watered-down considering you really couldn't have a married man wrapped up with his sister in law.  The supporting cast features Walburn getting plenty of laughs playing a loveable moron, Walter Connolly, Douglas Dumbrille, Margaret Hamilton and Raymond Walburn.  Clarence Muse plays the servant in the film but he nearly steals the film as he's given plenty of a very good scenes and works extremely well with the entire cast.  I was a little surprised to see how the movie ends but it's quite touching as only Capra could do.  This isn't one of the director's greatest films but it's a pleasant little "B" movie that has a terrific cast, some nice laughs and a winning story so recommending it is easy. 

It's a Gift (1934)
 

Norman Z. McLeod
 

Classic comedy has a grocery store owner (W.C. Fields) wanting to grow oranges and he gets his shot when a family member dies and leaves him some money.  Disregarding his nagging wife (Kathleen Howard), he packs his family up to move then to California where things don't go as planned.  This is an often time hilarious little picture that doesn't really follow any type of story structure as instead of getting a straight story we're pretty much offered several small sequences but all of them funny.  The best is without question Mr. Muckle, the blind man who makes a mess inside of Fields' store.  This certainly isn't politically correct but that's part of the reason it's so charming.  Seeing Muckle ruin the store while another customer is going off about why he's getting special attention is priceless as is the follow up scene where Mucke tries to cross the road with countless cars flying by.  Another very funny sequence is at the home of Fields where he's trying to shave but the mirror keeps moving on him.  Every scene in the film builds up like these, just small bits but for the most part they all get plenty of laughs.  Fields is at his very best here as is comebacks are priceless and he's got a nice supporting cast to work with.  Fields is (obviously) at ease with the material as he goes from one situation to the next without any problems.  Howard nearly steals the film each time she's on screen as the evil wife who can't shut up long enough to catch her own breathe.  The supporting cast is fine as well, although I must admit that I'm not sure why Baby LeRoy got to be so popular.
 

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941)
 

Edward F. Cline
 

W.C. Fields plays himself, The Great Man, trying to sell a screenplay to a studio but they don't seem to be too impressed with it.  We then see several short parts of this screenplay acted out with Gloria Jean playing his niece and Leon Errol as the rival.  I know this film has the reputation of being one of the greatest comedies out there but it really left me disappointed.  The film certainly moves at a nice pace and it has a lot going for it but in the end I found it to be more charming than anything else and I think it failed in terms of getting any real laughs.  There was a joke in the movie where the studio guy tells Fields that his screenplay just isn't good enough and he sure wasn't lying.  There's a long running joke on an airplane, which Fields jumps out of and lands in a place with a beautiful female virgin who has never seen a man before.  Fields of course gets her to play a game but none of this was ever funny.  The reaction of the ugly mother is funny but this comes at the very end of the sequence.  A lot of Fields films appeared to have been patchy as they would feature one comic bit and then the next and so on but this film here seems stitched together and not in a good way.  The movie has some funny moments but for the most part I found myself not laugh a bit.  The highlight of the film is the famous chase sequence at the end, which Abbott and Costello would pretty much steal for their film IN SOCIETY.  This chase sequence is full of great action and some nice stunts so it's worth watching the movie just to get to this.   
 

post #192 of 1166
Michael that's interesting to hear about the cigarette people and quite pathetic really. That 60 mins. seqment really upset alot of people. What I can't get over, is the number of people that still smoke nowadays. I had that nasty habit at one time but I quit years ago, thank god.
post #193 of 1166
Speed (1994): 3.5/5

I watched this for the first time in about 15 years. Speed delivers the goods, building and releasing the tension as obstacle after obstacle is presented to the heroes. That first shotgun blast really made me jump this time. Reaves and Bullock have some nice moments together in the last part of the movie, and the other bus riders all make the most of their screen time.

I'm not as thrilled with Dennis Hopper's character. The actor succeeded in making us want to hate him, but the character motivations were not very sympathetic, and he was missing that extra spark that would have elevated him to memorable villain status. I don't know how else they could have done it, but it really stretches belief that both the freeway and subway they were on had gaps.
post #194 of 1166
A Slave of Love - Russian melodrama about a silent film star who gets involved with her cameraman, an underground revolutionary. As a Day for Night-style farce about the filmmaking industry, it's not so hot. The humor is a bit too slapsticky, or perhaps just doesn't translate well. As a political film, it fares better... a bit one-sided by necessity, but with some nuance and not too propagandistic. As a period romance, it's pretty good. The scenes of Olga and Victor courting are exceptionally lovely, the highlights of a film which has fine cinematography throughout. I'd say I liked this one about as much as Mikhalkov's Burnt by the Sun, but for entirely different reasons. Rating: 7


Up in the Air - Not bad, sort of a modernized version of The Accidental Tourist. It's not brilliant, but it's not stupid either. The film traffics in somewhat trite Cameron Crowe-isms, but is significantly buoyed by George Clooney's endless buckets of charm. I think he's probably the most enjoyable "movie star" we've got these days. As for the two nominated supporting actresses... Vera Farmiga is pretty good. Maybe not that noteworthy, but decent. However, I really didn't care for Anna Kendrick that much. She struck me as a poor man's Amy Adams, and I don't like Amy Adams. And by the way, who declared 2009 to be the Year of Young MC? They performed "Bust a Move" on an episode of "Glee", sang along to it in The Blind Side, and the man himself showed up to perform it in this movie. Rating: 7


Fantastic Mr. Fox - I love Wes Anderson, I love Roald Dahl (even though I never read this particular book) and I love George Clooney. Why the cuss did I wait so cussing long to see this? I swear I'm going to more first-run movies in 2010. I was a little concerned about Anderson working in a different medium, but I needn't have been concerned. The idiosyncratic use of stop-motion animation suits him perfectly. It is in every respect a Wes Anderson film. The undercurrent of resigned melancholy, the wry humor, the attention to design detail, the perfect soundtrack choices. It's a hugely entertaining movie bursting with charm, and even a couple of touching moments. Clooney fits into Anderson's universe quite well, I'd like to see them work together again. My only complaint would be that there is something of a... disconnect between the voices and the onscreen characters. I always was aware that I was watching "George Clooney as Mr. Fox" and "Meryl Streep as Mrs. Fox" rather than just "Mr. and Mrs. Fox". I'm not sure how this could be improved, but it's not really a big deal. It's a shame, a real shame, that this movie will probably lose to Up in the animation category. Can't wait to see what Wes comes up with next, he has yet to disappoint me. Rating: 9
post #195 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

Up in the Air - And by the way, who declared 2009 to be the Year of Young MC? They performed "Bust a Move" on an episode of "Glee", sang along to it in The Blind Side, and the man himself showed up to perform it in this movie.



Also, there's a Young MC song over the photo credits at the end of Whip It. I don't know what it's called but it uses a sample of the theme from Shaft.
post #196 of 1166
Universal Soldier - Regeneration (2009) 3.5/5 - Van Damme and Lundgren both come back to the franchise they started, and the end result is pretty good.  Don't get me wrong, the plot is wonk and the budget small, but the action is top notch with some great fight and stunt work.  Well worth a watch.

The Manxman
(1929) 3.5/5 - The last silent film that Hitch made is a straight up melodrama.  No action set pieces, not fantastic locals, it's a very simple story of very human people trying to get through life.  Which doesn't mean this is boring.  This is Hitchcock before he became HITCHCOCK, and already he is a master at framing and telling a tight story.  What most impressed me though is the subtlety he gets from the actors, something which isn't always apparent in silent films.  Great stuff.
post #197 of 1166
Flying Saucer - When the US Government discovers that there is a flying saucer hidden away in the Alaskan Wilderness, they decide it would be perfect for delivering Atom bomb payloads and that they better get their hands on it before the Russkies do, so they ask international playboy and 'renowned two-fisted drinker', Mike Conrad, to investigate. Mike is from Juno and knows the terrain better than anyone, so he and a pretty female agent disguised as his nurse, head to his hunting lodge in the Great White North. Before they start battling Bolshevics though, they take time out to marvel at the wonderous sites all around them; so much time, in fact that one begins to suspect that the Alaskan Board of Tourism was a major producer of this film. After this, Mike decides it's time to get drunk, and so we see him tear Juno a new one and end up absolutely shitfaced in a bar. Mike is obviously not your average hero. Fortunately for Mike (and us), the bar happens to be a meeting place for the dastardly Red Menace, who have conned Denver Pyle into selling them the hidden flying saucer. After that, it's pretty much a race against time. Will Mike sober up long enough to discover the Russian's plan? Will he be able to beat them to the punch so that America can rain bombs upon it's enemies? Hmmm. Mike Conrad also wrote and directed this glacier-slow vehicle and it's clear that he is a man of singular vision. Apparently it's the first 'Commie Flying Saucer' film, which gives it some distinction. That plus the fact that Mike is drunker than Ed Wood through most of the picture, and that this provides most of the suspense also gives it a unique dramatic edge.

Flight to Mars - A team of scientists and a hot shot reporter conduct man's first space flight to Mars. When they get there, they discover an advanced underground race of Martians who dress in spandex and capes like super heroes and all the women look like showgirls and wear incredibly short dresses that barely cover their special purposes. At first the Martians seem benevolent and offer to help build a new rocket to take the scientists home, but it soon becomes clear that they have an alterior motive to save their dying planet and conquer Earth in the bargain! This was one of those 'Golden Age' rocketship movies, when people hurtled through space in just their street clothes and it was okay to smoke inside the ship. Anytime you see people buckling themselves into office chairs and army cots in preparation for blast-off, you know you're in for adventure; oh, and a lot of talking about the wonders of science! Cameron Mitchell is the reporter, all greasy curly hair and testosterone, determined to woo the one lady scientist, and his dialog is pretty priceless throughout. The first color film depicting a flight to Mars, apparently, so it has that going for it also.
post #198 of 1166
"Boy Eats Girl" -

Short and very slight horror comedy from Ireland that does perhaps skip along too fast as far as any real, even obvious, dramatic scenes go as they simply don't exist.
For example...in a 75 minute film the main character (a teenager who is brought back to life by his Mum) is a zombie 18 minutes in...BUT the scene that contains his mother finding him dead, grieving, deciding what to do and then doing it is a 5 second quick cut montage!

I kid you not. Imagine that huge part of the plot of "Pet Semetary" with Gage dying, the grieving and the choice of reanimating him happening in just 5 seconds flat with no dialogue!
As such there is a perhaps unintentionally funny aspect to this part of the film simply because such massive events are brushed so outstandingly skipped over.
There's also a 'hold on..what about all the rest of the zombies around the town who were not in that finale' plot hole at the end.

Now this sounds like a negative write-up...but it's not!
As despite these faults (or quirks) the film is actually very enjoyable, well made, often very funny (with two very likeable and well played dweeb friends of the lead character) and has one of the most undervalued (indeed totally forgotten) gore sequences in horrordom! When the cute Samantha Mumba (one time pop singer and her of "The Time Machine" remake) climbs into a tractor equipped with a huge grass cutter we can only hope good things happen as she trundles towards the zombie horde (or as horde-ish as the budget allows)...and we are not disappointed.

Forget the weak CGI-combine harvester sequence that was much touted around the web in the awful "Evil Aliens"...This (though smaller scale) sequence with the tractor is the zombie slaughter splatterfest we should be familiar with!
With gleeful abandon buckets of blood and loads of body parts fly around and get stuck, flopping, everywhere. Which is fun enough.
But a couple of moments showing some very well made full zombie bodies (with NO CGI rubbish anywhere) being literally mulched and exploded in full view of the audience as the blades hit them (as well as some great legless/ headless, aftermath corpses stumbling around), as well as a top notch squashed head, mean this sequence truly delivers the gorehound funstuffs.
It lifts the entire, already enjoyable, film to another level.

"Boy eats Girl" may be simple, slight with some less than successful screenplay choices (and the strangest 'zombie cure' ever seen), but it's also funny, fast paced, gory, well acted, well crafted and extremely enjoyable.
A sadly forgotten Irish pot o' gold.
post #199 of 1166
Beverly Hills Chihuahua (2008)

Yeah, I know, I know. If there's one thing I hate it's talking animals in movies. It was okay the first time I saw it in a movie but like anything else it gets overused. I'm not the target audience for this movie and it helped to watch it with a 7 year old. I think in this case her delight in what she was seeing was contagious and though overly cute, it turned out being a pretty good movie even with dogs in dresses and booties. 
 
Surrogates (2009)

I never thought the day would come when I would rate a cute dog movie higher than a Sci-fi film. This is a futuristic movie in which humans can live their lives through a robotic surrogate. The surrogates are on the outside carrying on daily living in a variety of jobs while their human operators are back home, safe. When a surrogate and it's human user is killed the FBI is called in to investigate. Similar in a way to I Robot but not nearly as good, this lacks the glitz of that movie. Though the premise is good I would have preferred a more thoughtful story than the action movie we got.

post #200 of 1166
01/23/09: THE LOVELY BONES (Peter Jackson, 2009)
 
Director Jackson followed his hugely-successful “Lord Of The Rings” franchise with this adaptation of another highly-regarded but more recent novel; though, on the surface, it seemed a more realistic and intimate project, the premise still managed to take in a considerable dose of fancy (and, by extension, elaborate visual effects). The film, in fact, revolves around the murder of a teenage girl, the effect this has on her family and the eventual come-uppance of the seemingly mild-mannered man responsible; so far so simple, but then we are shown the heroine’s passage towards Heaven – and, apparently, these scenes constitute the piece’s raison d’etre (since it would otherwise be fairly ordinary). Anyway, apart from obvious technical proficiency (even if the CGI – as ever – is painfully evident), it demonstrates reasonable insight into a child’s view of the afterlife; still, the whole reportedly emerges a bowdlerized version of the source material – with, ultimately, its most lauded element Stanley Tucci’s rather overrated and clichéd portrayal of the villain: introverted, meticulous and with an annoying fixed smirk, his ironic demise comes as no real surprise (ditto for the identity of the other ‘lost souls’ the girl encounters). Despite a starry supporting cast (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as the girl’s parents and Susan Sarandon as her spirited grandmother), the film’s true core resides in Saiorsie Ronan’s affecting central role – recounting events in first-person narration, she evinces all the various unspoken aspects of an untimely passing: anger at the circumstances themselves, the witnessing of a family’s disintegration and the initial escape from justice of the perpetrator, remorse over one’s own unfulfilled aspirations and feelings, etc. That said, all the various moods – psychological study, social conscience, ethereal vision – do not really coalesce into a satisfying experience which, at 135 minutes, is also way too long; mind you, as a modern film, it is well up to par, hence the rating…but, typical of most of today’s output, it is not one I am likely to ever return to! 
 
 
01/24/10: VINCERE (Marco Bellocchio, 2009)
 
Bellocchio’s latest is yet another look at a controversial Italian political figure, Benito Mussolini; however, it deals with a phase of his life which was kept ‘in the shadows’ for a great many years – the dictator’s first marriage, which even yielded him a son! As was the case with GOOD MORNING, NIGHT (2003) – in which the film-maker had treated the abduction and execution of ex-Prime Minister Aldo Moro – the politician emerges not to be the central figure after all (remaining, similarly, little more than a cipher); here, in fact, the protagonist is Mussolini’s secreted – or, more precisely, rejected – wife, who even winds up in a mental institution (a fate which also befalls their offspring, where both would die eventually)! The meticulous period reconstruction (and emphatic score) was to be expected, yet the human drama – and, by extension, the fine leading performances of Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Fabrizio Timi – is ultimately what renders the movie compelling; interestingly, while Mussolini as an older man is shown only via authentic newsreel footage, Timi plays both father and son as a young adult! Needless to say, the director distances himself from the Fascist fervor which had gripped his nation in those pivotal war years – choosing to depict Mussolini as godless (the film begins with him defying the Almighty to strike him down) and inhuman (both in the treatment of his first family and in his animalistic sexual prowess: the latter scenes, of which there a few, would otherwise have no discernible point) and even goes so far as to ridicule him by having son repeatedly caricature father’s famously arrogant mannerisms while speechifying (with this in mind, the title – which translates to “Winning” – is clearly ironic, since what it presents is anything but the correct fighting spirit)!
 
 
 
02/01/10: CODENAME: WILDGEESE (Antonio Margheriti, 1984)
 
This was the first of a German-produced war trilogy by leading Italian “Euro-Cult” exponent Margheriti; I actually watched the follow-ups (COMMANDO LEOPARD [1985] and THE COMMANDER [1988]) prior to it but, as often happens, the original is still the best (if still not saying very much in this case). To begin with, it has the best cast: Lewis Collins (star of all three films), Lee Van Cleef and Klaus Kinski (who also turn up in the third and second entry respectively, the latter in a different role since he dies here), Ernest Borgnine, Mimsy Farmer and even that “Euro-Cult” stalwart noted for his resemblance to Peter Lorre i.e. Luciano Pigozzi aka Alan Collins, albeit uncredited (he did similar duties, again playing someone else, in one of the sequels). The title would seem to aspire towards a cut-rate version of THE WILD GEESE (1978), itself followed by an inferior (and entirely unrelated) second helping a year after this one; anyway, the war we are dealing with here is not strategic but moral – since the mission involves annihilating an opium compound deep into the jungles of the Far East (thankfully, we are spared the sight of slithering reptiles which is usually obligatory with this type of setting, and one of the sequels did in fact have such a scene). Collins is the tough leader of a crack squad who typically rubs his men the wrong way but eventually earns their respect; the ageing Cleef is a helicopter pilot(!) who took the job in exchange for a prison sentence hanging over his head (besides, he can handle himself on a battlefield); Kinski and Borgnine are, ostensibly, the men who oversee the plan and put it in motion respectively…but the former, along with Collins’ own superior, are revealed to have ulterior motives (incidentally, the hero’s own son had lost his life to drugs); Farmer and Pigozzi, then, are people the team meets on the way – she is a journalist captured and rendered a junkie by the native militia later freed by Collins, and he a priest who also administers medicine to the wounded but winds up literally crucified for his beliefs. The film emerges to be undeniably proficient in the action sequences (especially the scene in which Kinski perishes via flame thrower in a large fuel depository – a set which would actually be re-used in its immediate follow-up!) but is otherwise fairly routine, indeed cliched; mind you, it offers mild entertainment while it is on (particularly the verbal sparring between Kinski and Borgnine) but is in no way memorable and certainly far below the work Margheriti could turn out in his heyday (though he had always been somewhat erratic).           
 
 
02/01/10: FANTABULOUS (Sergio Spina, 1967)
 
I had never heard of this one (or director Spina, for that matter) before its screening on late-night Italian TV last year; in view of a favourable write-up on the indispensable “Stracult” book, I decided to record the film but only now did I manage to fit it in my schedule (since I am currently going through a “Euro-Cult” marathon). Anyway, while certainly interesting – both visually (being laden with pop-art references) and thematically (a sci-fi tale about the creation of supermen) – the whole proved somewhat tiresome, especially after a hard day’s work, given a decidedly cerebral approach (albeit not unexpected considering its year of release)! Incidentally, the original Italian title translates to WOMAN, SEX AND SUPERMAN – indicating that the sexual revolution, again typical of the era, was as much at its core as the science (not that it was particularly explicit). The cast is led by Richard Harrison (usually seen in peplums or Spaghetti Westerns, he seems a bit overwhelmed by the material and not a bit silly when taking to the skies – though his woodenness is, ironically, ideal for projecting the character’s eventual robotic nature!) and Adolfo Celi as the megalomaniac villain (tapping into his earlier stint as a larger-than-life James Bond nemesis) who, as one more sign of the times, is an industrialist owning the titular company; leading lady Dorothy West, while also unknown to me, makes an appealing doe-eyed heroine – and just as much involved is Celi’s obligatory mad scientist assistant who adopts a unique terminology throughout. The anything-goes mood suggests the film was conceived as a satire (anticipaing in this regard William Klein's similarly spotty MR. FREEDOM [1969]) but, alas, this very ostentation is what dates it above all; mind you, FANTABULOUS is undeniably colorful and entertaining on the surface, and yet not exactly memorable…
 
 
02/02/10: HELL’S BRIGADE (Leon Klimovsky, 1969)
 
Among the numerous low-brow WWII adventures to emerge from Europe around this time, the film under review also proved one of Jack Palance’s not infrequent across-the-water excursions; typically, the film comes with several titles – the misleading Spanish original translates to ZERO HOUR: OPERATION ROMMEL (even if the Field Marshall does figure prominently in the narrative, his role in the failed July plot to assassinate the Fuehrer and his eventual suicide, thus bringing to mind the similar but inferior UCCIDETE ROMMEL from the same year), the Italian one (its co-producing country) to the generic THE CRY OF GIANTS and, for English-speaking consumption, it ended up with the imitative moniker given above! Anyway, the movie presents a typical ‘impossible mission’ scenario with the lock-jawed star as the cynical leader of a specialized outfit parachuted behind enemy lines; the group even includes a German officer(!) and, when they purposefully crash the plane, are also joined by the pilot. What is unusual – but also rather silly in the long run, given its pointlessness – is that each member of the squad has a specific function to perform which, however, is known only to himself…so that each of them is constantly, albeit unnecessarily, looking over one another’s back!; for obvious reasons, the former Nazi is especially suspected in this regard, even more so when his instructions dictate for him to return to the fold (to further complicate matters, he meets his sweetheart – played by Rosanna Yanni – just then, and she takes him for a traitor to their cause of fighting the Hitler dictatorship)! Eventually, it turns out that Palance and his men were intended to divert enemy attention from a strategic point to another location – so that the German forces are deployed to this other section of the battle zone, thus facilitating the Allies’ entry; the military-minded Colonel in command initially objects to the move given their opposition only involves five men – but another officer embroiled with the Nazi hierarchy imposes his will, once the ruse is discovered, to his ultimate chagrin. The combination of expected ingredients – plenty of action (where the expertise at baseball of one of them comes in handy when throwing hand-grenades during the final enemy onslaught!) and hard-boiled dialogue (most amusingly, when Palance complains about the terrible quality of the cigarette he is smoking while a bullet is being removed from his arm sans anaesthetic) – and novelty aspects (the obstacles, eventually surmounted, to camaraderie already mentioned and the suspense inherent in the jigsaw-puzzle structure) make it a mildly enjoyable offering as these things go.
 
 
02/03/10: THE HOWL (Tinto Brass, 1970)
 
To begin with, I do not consider myself a fan of Italian sexploitationer Brass; however, having enjoyed a couple of his atypical earlier work – the Spaghetti Western YANKEE (1966) and the pop-art giallo DEADLY SWEET (1967) – I expected more of the same to be of comparable quality (for the record, I have three others still to check out from this vintage). Anyway, I was deeply disappointed by the film under review – especially after reading it was deemed surreal (in retrospect, it is much closer to the style of fellow Italian Federico Fellini or Alejandro Jodorowsky, whose brand of weird I particularly deplore, rather than that of my all-time favorite Luis Bunuel). Well, bizarre (and virtually plotless) it certainly is but, as to engaging, quite the opposite – making for an annoying and downright repellent experience! Just about its sole saving grace, in fact, is the hauntingly beautiful presence of leading lady Tina Aumont: she, a bolting bride, and popular Italian comic Gigi Proietti are the ‘heroes’ who go from one wild encounter to another – notably an orgy, a cannibal family and a city under siege (from what I can recall, since the film has already started to fade from my memory, within the space of just one week!); an inspired self-referential moment even has the central couple literally running into Jean-Louis Trintignant, protagonist of DEADLY SWEET!
 
 
02/04/10: QUEENS OF EVIL (Tonino Cervi, 1970)
 
Another “Euro-Cult” offering I was unaware of (prior to the week-end before last, in fact) but, proving intriguing upon reading its synopsis, I decided to get hold of immediately; this fact, however, did not really have anything to do with my watching it so quickly – just that the disc the film was recorded on was handy at the time. Anyway, QUEENS OF EVIL was quite good, if not exactly a ‘lost’ gem; thematically, it anticipated THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK (1987) – though I have never watched the latter myself – since the plot revolves around a bearded young man travelling on a motorcycle (Ray Lovelock) ensnared by three lovely women (Haydee` Politoff, Silvia Monti and Evelyn Stewart) he encounters and who are ultimately revealed to be witches; incidentally, while the girls live in seclusion in the woods, their abode is decked-out with all the modern trimmings one associates with the fashion world (including blow-ups of each of them hanging above their respective beds)! Lovelock and Stewart were both “Euro-Cult” stalwarts (he even supplies the rather thin vocals to the soundtrack’s two numbers!); I first noticed Politoff in the equally obscure giallo INTERRABANG (1969) – where she had emerged the best of another sensuous trio – but, here, it is Monti (the one I was least familiar with) who particularly shined as the hero’s most fiery seductress. Though the film’s languid pace was to be expected, it also proves somewhat uneventful until the violent twist ending – organizing a party to which they invite their devilish friends, the girls reveal their true nature and turn on the mystified ‘hippie’…egged on by their leader, an ageing aristocratic type Lovelock had actually met (and apparently saw killed in a car crash!) at the very start of the picture!! For the record, I had previously watched the good Spaghetti Western TODAY IT’S ME…TOMORROW YOU (1968) from the same director, with two more (and still different) titles I will hopefully manage to check out during my ongoing “Euro-Cult” marathon. 
post #201 of 1166
Thread Starter 

Since we were pretty much snowed in today I decided to finish off the Universal/Holmes movies.  I'll posting my ranking a bit later after I've put some thought behind them.

Woman in Green, The (1945)
 

Roy William Neill
 

Eleventh film in the Basil Rathbone series has him once again playing Holmes and this time trying to crack the mysterious case of women being murdered and having their right forefingers cut off.  With the help of Watson (Nigel Bruce) the two put the pieces together and they of course lead to Moriarty (Henry Daniell).  This here is certainly one of the better entries in the series as we get a pretty dark and morbid story to mix in with the great performances.  Neill does a terrific job directing the picture and I love the visual look that he gives the film.  There are a lot of dark shadows that give the film an unmistakable atmosphere that really helps the storyline.  Having a serial killer used in the film isn't all too shocking but the fact that he's cutting off the victim's fingers just gives the film a darker edge that many other mysterious from this era don't have.  As to be expected, Rathbone is terrific as Holmes and it certainly hadn't ran out of gas with the character.  As always what makes Rathbone so great in the role is that we actually believe he's this intelligent man who could solve anything thrown his way.  Bruce is also up to his usual high standards and Hillary Brooke makes for a great femme fetale as she has an extremely dark and sexy look to her that perfectly fits her character.  Daniell also makes for a very good Moriarty as he's strong enough of an actor where we can believe him to be this wise villain. 
 

Pursuit to Algiers (1945)
 

Roy William Neill

Lesser entry in the series has Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Watson (Nigel Bruce) on vacation when they learn of a King's assassination.  They're asked to protect the next in line (Leslie Vincent) as well as get back some stolen jewels that might be in the possession of a woman (Marjorie Riordan) Watson has fallen for.  This twelfth entry in the long-running series is so far the least entertaining but there are still a few good moments scattered throughout the 65-minute running time.  The biggest problem is the fact that the screenplay is pretty weak and the actual story isn't really strong enough especially when you compare it to previous films in the series.  Another problem I had with the movie was the supporting players, none of which were very entertaining or exciting.  I really didn't care too much for Riordan as she seemed to a little too bland for my tastes.  I also didn't care for Vincent and I must admit that I didn't really care if the bad guys took him out or not.  Rosalind Ivan and Morton Lowry aren't that entertaining either.  What does work is, as usual, the performances of Rathbone and Watson, although it seemed that both realized that they were working with lesser quality material and that both were forcing a few scenes more than they normally would have.  A lot of the film has Bruce handling everything himself with Holmes not on screen and it actually does a pretty good job carrying everything.  He even gets to sing a song that doesn't turn out too bad.  In the end, this is a mildly entertaining entry but it's also the weakest of the lot.   
 

Terror by Night (1946)
 

Roy William Neill
 

Unlucky number thirteen doesn't turn out too bad for Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Watson (Nigel Bruce) as the duo find themselves on a train from London to Edinburgh where they must protect a priceless diamond.  The diamond's owner is murdered and the stone stolen and a whole train are suspects but with the help of Inspector Lestrade (Dennis Hoey) there shouldn't be any trouble tracking the culprit down.  This here isn't your typical Holmes film as the movie does stay away from his "brilliant reasoning" method and instead goes for a little more action as well as a lot of help from supporting players.  This certainly isn't one of the better entries in the series but it is a step up from the previous film.  The main thing going for this movie are of course the performances as both Rathbone and Bruce are at the top of their game and both appear to be having fun playing the characters again.  Bruce appears to be getting a lot of the scenes here and this includes a rather silly sequence where he interrogates a man only to have the tables turned.  It seems fans are split on the inclusion of Lestrade but I thought Hoey did an excellent job in the role and I thought he also stole the film each time he was on the screen.  He's extremely funny and its this humor that helped keep the film moving.  The 60-minute running time doesn't leave too much room for a well drawn out story but what's here isn't too bad even though it seems more like something you'd see from the early career of Hitchcock rather than an actual Holmes story. 
 

Dressed to Kill (1946)
 

Roy William Neill
 

Fourteenth and final film in the Rathbone/Holmes series finds he and Watson (Nigel Bruce) trying to find out why three apparently useless music boxes are being stolen from their owners with one of the owners turning up dead.  The plot thickens as Holmes believes there's some sort of hidden message in the boxes, which might lead to the whereabouts of some stolen printing plates from the Bank of England.  This might have been the last film in the series but that didn't keep them for going out with a bang and turning in one of the best entries.  I really thought this was one of the better entries because Holmes and Watson have an actual nice mystery to solve unlike a few of the previous entries in the series.  Another major plus is that we're given a terrific villain in the form of Hilda Courtney, perfectly played by the ice-cold Patricia Morison.  The screenplay pretty much keeps us and Holmes in the dark as to what's going on and we learn the secrets just as our hero does, which is a nice touch.  I liked the fact that Holmes wasn't spot on in coming up with all the clues as even he at times seemed to be stumped as to what was going on.  The screenplay offers up quite a bit of twists and turns, all of which are believable and most importantly entertaining.  Rathbone certainly shows off a lot more energy this time around as does Watson and the two of them have that banter that makes them the best at playing their characters.  As great as the two men are they are equaled by Morison who is pitch-perfect as the silent killer.  Edmund Breon and Frederick Worlock add nice support as well.  Some could argue that the series should have gone on further but since it did have to end at least it went out on a high note.
 

post #202 of 1166
First Spaceship on Venus – It’s 1986 (aka ‘The Future’) and a ‘spool’ is found while irrigating the Gobi desert. When an international team of scientists plays the spool on their giant super computer player piano, it emits a Moog synthesizer solo with disembodied voices that sounds like an early Cabaret Voltaire song. The international team of scientists takes this as a sure sign that they must launch a rocket ship to Venus and before you can say Albert Einstein, they are blasting off into adventure. What they find when they get there is that the Venusians have destroyed themselves somehow and they must unravel the mystery before whatever it is destroys them and their little rocket ship too. This is an Eastern Bloc sci-fi film, similar to the one Roger Corman edited into like 10 other pictures. This one starts off pretty slow and talky, but when you have that many scientists in a room together, there’s bound to be a lot of windage. Things get rolling once they hit the planet though. Venus is depicted in a very Dali-esque fashion that reminded me a lot of ‘Porky in Wackyland’; very surreal and eerie. Environmental dangers abound, chief among them a bubbling lake of what looks like liquid poop that appears to have a mind of its own. It’s all about the horrors of atomic weaponry in the end and in case we miss the point, a beautiful Japanese scientist lady is there to constantly remind us that she is constantly thinking of war’s ultimate cost. Sigh. Nobody listens.
First Men in the Moon – HG Wells classic tale of a crackpot inventor who discovers a substance that defies gravity and uses it to build a spaceship to take himself, his boozy wastrel neighbor and his neighbors beautiful young fiancé to the moon. Once there, they discover that it isn’t what’s on the moon that counts, but what’s in it and are soon made the prisoners of an advanced race of bug people. What follows is a classic struggle between the scientist, who wants to understand and communicate with the aliens, and the young wastrel, who just wants to squash every bug he sees and figure out a way to get himself and his hot, but headstrong, little girlfriend home. This is a typically fine 60’s Ray Harryhausen workout, very similar in spirit to ‘The Time Machine’, and just bursting at the seams with imagination and ideas. The 1960’s were a great time for full throttle fantasy films like this. If only today’s movies, with their zillion dollar effects, were half as thoughtful when it comes to telling a ripping adventure yarn. Starring the great Lionel Jeffries as the eccentric scientist, determined to bring peace, love and understanding to outer space and filmed in astounding DYNAVISION!

Edited by Holer - 2/10/10 at 5:32am
post #203 of 1166
Top Gun (1986): 2.5/5

There are some wonderful things in this movie, but it will never reach icon status for me like it did for those who saw it when it came out. Cruise is suitably charming and arrogant for the part of Maverick, and I loved Val Kilmer and Tom Skeritt as Iceman and Viper, respectively. Kelly McGillis looks great and has some nice flirtations with Cruise, but she is not given that much to work with in the script.

The movie absolutely fails in the area of realistic character motivations. Bruckheimer and Simpson would improve in this area in the future, thankfully. Also, the aerial maneuvers, which I'm sure were difficult to perform and film, did not engage me on a visceral and emotional level.
post #204 of 1166
Thread Starter 

Merry Widow, The (1925)
 

Erich von Stroheim
 

Big-budget version of the classic stage production marked the final time MGM would work with director von Stroheim who was hired on for what was suppose to be a short film but he would take it and mold it into a 137-minute epic of sorts.  The story is pretty well known but it centers on an American dancer (Mae Murray) who gets stranded in a small town where she meets a Prince (John Gilbert) who quickly falls for her.  The two have many troubles throughout their relationship including the King (George Fawcett) objecting.  According to legend, MGM offered von Stroheim a $10,000 bonus if he could shoot this movie in a three week period.  Each week he was over that the bonus would be sliced by $2,000.  Needless to say, it ended up taking four months to shoot and MGM pocketed any bonus money that was to be given out.  Apparently this film nearly brought the studio down but it turned out being a hit and the rest is history.  von Stroheim certainly has a very sinister look and atmosphere running throughout the film and this is something I'm not sure would be in future versions.  Since this is the first version I've seen I really can't compare it to anything but I'm sure fans of the director or silent film buffs will really eat this film up even if it isn't the masterpiece one would hope for considering the talent involved.  The highlight is clearly the visual look of the film, which is quite stunning from the opening shot to the final one.  There are all sorts of strange camera set ups including my favorite that happens around the fifty-minute mark as Murray and Gilbert are having dinner and the director keeps the camera in a long shot with the two actors sitting at the very right of the screen, nearly off camera.  This is such a strange shot that it can't help but grab your attention and make you take notice.  There are countless other great trick shots throughout the film and von Stroheim certainly builds a wonderful atmosphere that is quite thick and at times haunting.  The performances by the two leads are very good as well with both playing off one another wonderfully.  I thought the romantic aspect of the story was fully believable as both actors perfectly nail the more dramatic parts and Gilbert getting a special notice for some nice comic timing.  If I had any problem with the film its the running time as I felt there could have been some trims here and there and nothing would have been lost on the story.  Apparently Clark Gable and Joan Crawford are extras in the mammoth ballroom sequence but I was unable to spot them.
 

Bardelys the Magnificent (1926)
 

King Vidor
 

Adapted from a Rafael Sabatini novel, this lavish MGM production features John Gilbert as Bardelys, a wife stealing rebel who defies the wishes of the King and just does things his own way.  He eventually meets and begins to fall in love with the beautiful Roxalanne de Lavedan (Eleanor Boardman) but the evil Chatellerault (Roy D'Arcy) has his own plans for the lady.  This swashbuckling saga was lost for many decades until a print turned up in 2006 and in pretty good shape.  There's a small section that is still missing but the restorers just used some scenes from a trailer and a photo recreation to help fill these segments in.  This is certainly well worthy of being discovered because this is a rare case where a lost movie turns up to be a major find and a good movie at that.  The flick is what I'd call a spoof because I think both Vidor and Gilbert are having fun and making fun of folks like Fairbanks and all their swashbuckling action pictures.  Just take a look at a hilarious scene early on where Gilbert is kissing a man's wife when the husband comes in the room screaming at him.  Gilbert, calmly, tells him that it's rude to be speaking so loudly and then goes back to kissing his wife.  The love story between Gilbert and Boardman is actually pretty good and believable as is the hatred between he and D'Arcy.  The ending goes out with a major bang that I won't ruin but some of the stunts here are extremely impressive and especially one where Gilbert must walk up the side of a castle.  Gilbert, as expected, is perfect for the role here as I've never seen him so dashing or charming.  I'm not sure what type of make up was used by he seems to have a glow around him as he dashing from one scene to the next.  Both Boardman and D'Arcy are good as well even though they can never match Gilbert.  Vidor does a fine job at keeping the film moving as the pacing is very good as are the action scenes. 

Glass Menagerie, The (1950)
 

Irving Rapper
 

Excellent performances make up for a slow pace in this adaptation of the Tennessee Williams play.  An aging Southern Belle (Gertrude Lawrence) makes life horrible for her ambitious son (Arthur Kennedy) and crippled daughter (Jane Wyman) because of her dreams of what life should be.  She hopes to get her daughter married off, unable to see her faults and she thinks she has a shot when her son bring home a man (Kirk Douglas) he works with.  I really wasn't sure what to expect from this film after reading a few negative reviews but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was worth watching due in large part to the terrific performances by the entire cast.  I was really shocked to see how well the entire cast handled the dialogue and how easy it came off for everyone.  Lawrence really stands out as the overbearing mother who you just want to hate yet she's so annoying that she becomes charming after a while.  I thought Lawrence did a terrific job at playing both sides of the coin because you do hate her for the way she treats her children but when the stranger shows up, she changes to someone completely different.  Just check her performance when this stranger tells her something she didn't know.  Wyman is also excellent as the shy and cripple daughter.  She too got into the role quite well and made us believe everything about the character.  Both Kennedy and Douglas also turn in fine performance and most importantly is how well all four act together.  I think director Rapper could have pushed the film a little faster as the pace gets very slow after a while but this is just a small complaint.  As with many of Williams' stories, this one here had quite a bit cut out to get pass the censors but in the end this is still worth viewing thanks to the cast.
 

L'argent (1983)
 

Robert Bresson
 

Interesting and stripped down of any sort of emotion, this French film from director Bresson makes for an entertaining 85-minutes even if you can't connect to any of it.  The film starts off by following around a counterfeit 500-franc note as it passes from one person to the next until it ends up in the hands of a man who has no idea it's fake.  He then gets sent to prison where shortly after wards his wife leaves him and then his life really spins out of control.  I found this film to work more on a technical level than anything else but I really did admire the movie and its director for at least trying something different and telling the story in a way we're not custom to.  In most films like this we would get to know our innocent hero and hope for him to seek justice but that's not what this film is about.  Instead, Bresson gives us no one to cheer for as the film is quite distant from our main character and even all of the supporting ones.  We've never given a reason to like this guy even though we know he's innocent and has lost everything he loves due to nothing he has done.  Bresson keeps the camera away from him and for the most part we're never given any sort of emotion and this includes the dark twist that comes at the end of the film.  While this is interesting to watch, I'm not sure leaving out the emotions made for a better movie.  There aren't any laughs, no drama, no tears, pretty much nothing is here.  What keeps the film moving and entertaining is the great direction and some wonderful, laid back camerawork.  I also thought Christian Patey was terrific as Yvon, the man who finds himself wrongfully convicted.  This would turn out to be Bresson's final film and apparently he had a very hard time finding anyone to finance it, which is understandable after you see the film.  With that said, it's not a complete masterpiece or even a great movie but it is a fascinating one that I'm sure fans of the director will enjoy.
 

post #205 of 1166
Surrogates (2009)

In a futuristic society, it seems 99% of human beings have become so lazy and dependent on technology that all they want to do all day is sit or lie around at home and allow their brains to be plugged into robotic "surrogates", which they can send out into the world to do all their living and working for them. These surrogates can be altered to look any way you want; for example, in the case of aging cop Bruce Willis, it means a yonger-looking dapper version of his real self with a full head of hair. Supposedly the widespread use of robots instead of real people has lessened crime statistics (ridiculous; more on this later) so when the first heinous murders in many years start occurring, Willis decides to unplug himself from his duplicate and set out in his true form to investigate. It seems there is a small group of human resistance (lead by Ving Rhames) who are out to destroy all the surrogates, and promote "Human Power!". I was actually rather sympathetic to their stance. Willis in human form is okay, yet by-the-numbers here, as he tries to regain control of his real self and unravel the mystery.  

I'm a big science fiction fan and I have a very long threshold for suspension of disbelief in such fantastic stories.  But even for me there are so many plotholes in this premise that it really diminished what might have been a really good movie. First and foremost, if such a technology WAS possible to such an extent, would virtually ALL humans be willing to engage in practicing this style of "faux living"? I'd highly doubt it. How can poor people afford these robots? And getting back to the "low crime thing"... how could that be? If a person was able to lie back and engage his brain in whatever fantasy he wished through means of a mechanical surrogate, wouldn't he go out of his way to do anything and everything he dreamt about, without concern? What's to stop a human from thinking his surrogate into all sorts of random acts of violence and rape, if that's what his secret desires were? 

I've heard that this story has already been at least partially done before in films like I, ROBOT and THE MATRIX (I haven't seen either). But I did like the concept that we as human beings are getting way too dependent on technology. For years now I have often thought to myself that everything's getting so stupefyingly easy that one day all people are going to have to do is place a simple chip into their brains and they'll be able to conduct their day to day business while they sleep. Well, I want no part of that type of "living" myself, and this was one aspect of SURROGATES I did appreciate. I liked the ending too, which I won't reveal. 
post #206 of 1166
My backlog hasn't been this bad in a long, long time. At the moment I have 28 movies waiting to be watched, including Bondarchuk's 7-hour War and Peace, with 14 of the Fox Film Noir titles on the way from Amazon. I am fucked.


A Serious Man - Although the movie is quite funny, it's a very black sort of humor. I don't have much to say about it, I guess... I'd kind of like to see it again, but then I also don't care that much. I was significantly amused and intrigued, but I didn't feel all that jazzed about it. I know a lot of people adored No Country for Old Men, but in my opinion the Coens haven't made a GREAT movie since O Brother. Rating: 8


The White Ribbon - Haneke once again explores the darkest sides of humanity. In a scenario not unlike the background story in The Passion of Anna, a small village is beset by mysterious acts of maliciousness. Some of the villagers are unspeakably nasty people, and the film is a bleak meditation on cruelty and innocence. Powerful, unsettling stuff. The black and white cinematography is not only striking (somewhat reminiscent of Bela Tarr, I thought) but suits the period, just at the dawn of World War I... which adds a whole other dimension to the proceedings. I found it to be one of Haneke's most compelling films, maybe his best since Funny Games. Very good performances all around, too. I'm contemplating giving this a higher score, but I need to mull it over a while. Feeling a bit wishy-washy today, I'm afraid. Rating: 8


In the Loop - Absofuckinglutely hilarious. I haven't laughed this much at a movie in a long time. Something like a hybrid of "The Office" and Dr. Strangelove, following around assorted British and American state officials on the brink of a war. It's hard to say that a movie with phrases like "lubricated horse cock" is understated, but it is. It stays away from manic situations, slapstick humor and over-the-top caricatures and instead goes with a smart, incisive and incredibly witty script. Pretty much everyone in it is great, too. A very enjoyable satire, I'll be purchasing this one. Rating: 9


The Cove - Interesting but occasionally hyperbolic documentary about a tiny lagoon where the Japanese slaughter dolphins. It is undoubtedly one-sided (as docs tend to be), in fact one of the major participants among the activists is the director himself. There probably isn't much of a defense for these actions, especially when you factor in the mercury poisoning, but the filmmakers don't give us much chance to hear it. There's some reliance on shock value as well, most notably the way the story builds to its "money shot" at the grisly climax. Still, it's compelling (and sometimes heartbreaking) material and one can't help but admire Ric O'Barry and his associates for their heroic efforts to expose the problem. Rating: 7
post #207 of 1166
A Serious Man - A mid-western Physics teacher exists in a kind of cogitators fog and begins to notice how his life is passing before him just as it seems to be coming apart. This leads him to an existential crisis and he starts looking for answers and explanations only to find that none seem to exist. For me, this is a true return to form for the Coen brothers - all of the elements of their quirky storytelling style are at play here - the love of language, the breakneck interplay of multiple dramatic elements at the same time, and more macguffins that you can shake a stick at. It's tight, rhythmic, ambiguous, funny and strange all at the same time and, like the best of their films, should only get better with repeated viewings. With the exception of 'No Country', I haven't been much of a fan of Coen movies since the brilliant 'Man who Wasn't There'. 'Burn After Reading' seemed like a crass, empty Hollywood version of a Coen film (and I actually wonder if that was the intent), but now with this and the promise of a 'True Grit' remake with The Dude as Rooster Cogburn, the Coens might finally be back on track for good.
post #208 of 1166
01/27/10: MOON (Duncan Jones, 2009)
 
The first thing that needs to be said (and which might not be readily apparent to the uninformed) is that director Duncan Jones is David Bowie’s son i.e. he who was formerly known as Zowie Bowie. MOON is a quietly impressive directorial debut that was deservedly much acclaimed and most of its success hinges on a tour-de-force central performance from Sam Rockwell – playing triple roles in what is virtually a one-man-show. The plot-line would initially seem to be reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) – the interaction between astronaut and the human-voiced computer (dispassionately provided here by Kevin Spacey) – and Douglas Trumbull’s SILENT RUNNING (1972) – the isolation of the astronaut on an ecological mission; however, the twist revelation in the middle swerves it admirably into the realm of Andrei Tarkovsky’s SOLARIS (1972)...not to mention any number of clones/replicants/surrogates scenarios we have seen in the last 30 years! This is certainly not to say that MOON is simply a rehash of past sci-fi fare but merely to highlight the fact that the film-makers know their stuff and, consequently, have managed to make something equally worthwhile despite the thematic echoes. Two further assets to the production that bear mentioning are Clint Mansell’s evocative score (with, I might add, no use of Bowie Snr.'s epochal "Space Oddity" anywhere) and the predominant whites in the production design.
 
 
01/28/10: WHISTLE (Duncan Jones, 2002)
 
A short 30-minute film from the director of MOON (2009) found among the bonus material on the latter’s Special Edition DVD from Sony; a bit slow to start as it depicts the dreary off-hours of an ultra-technological hitman but the viewer’s interest is elevated once he becomes ‘involved’ in the life of one of his victims. Again, hardly an original concept in itself, but what is interesting here is the fact that the hitman’s wife is not only fully cognizant of her hubby’s day job but she is also the cold-blooded contact with his bosses when the conscience crisis sets in! I do not know if it was intentional or not but I found the preposterous nature of the killings – the hitman uses a bulky contraption in his balcony to shoot his intended victims over great distances! – to be quite amusing (while also turning the film into borderline sci-fi territory).
 
 
02/04/10: SYNDICATE SADISTS (Umberto Lenzi, 1975)
 
One of the myriad “poliziotteschi” to emerge from Italy during the 1970s, to which both director Lenzi and star Tomas Milian contributed a good deal; in fact, their previous collaboration – ALMOST HUMAN (1974) – is considered among the genre highpoints. This, however, is fairly indistinguishable – apart from the fact that the surname of Milian’s character is Rambo!; it does include plenty of typical action, not to mention a funky score by Franco Micalizzi. Rambo is a reformed gangster who now supplies iconoclastic help to the Police; predictably, his best pal in the force (actually a special vigilante squad) ends up murdered before long – which sets Rambo on exacting private revenge. This sees him coming face to face once again with his former boss, a now-blind Joseph Cotten (who, like Milian, followed a certain code of ethics in spite of the nature of the work involved) whose ‘empire’ is being unscrupulously run by the old man’s son, Alfredo Lastretti. A smaller rival band of criminals – among whose members is the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi – also gets into our disheveled hero’s hair by kidnapping an eminent citizen (Silvano Tranquilli)’s son. Incidentally, this incongruous sentimental emphasis on kids – since MIlian also dotes on his cop friend’s idolizing offspring – does the film the biggest harm; at the same time, while keeping an affectionate (but platonic) eye on the latter boy’s mum, he is romantically involved with a prostitute (Femi Benussi) – who, unsurprisingly, is eventually victimized by the baddies for it. Though consistently offering reasonable gratification of various sorts, most examples of the poliziottesco genre suffered from a shallowness that made them instantly forgettable – and this one, alas, proved no exception despite the involvement of two of its major exponents.
 
 
02/06/10: GRANDI CACCIATORI (Augusto Caminito, 1988)
 
Until a few months ago, this belated Italian adventure film was (incredibly enough) so rare that not even the IMDb listed it...this despite the fact that the cast includes two powerhouse international stars in Klaus Kinski and Harvey Keitel!!; for the record, director Caminito would soon be directing KInski again in VAMPIRE IN VENICE (1988) – the troubled but not entirely worthless sequel to Herzog’s 1979 version of NOSFERATU. The film’s first half deals with boozing big game hunter Kinski’s deranged quest for an ‘immortal’ panther that had killed his young bride (Kinksi’s real-life spouse Deborah Caprioglio) which leads to his being jailed and the animal dying by other hands in the interim! Having no other compulsion to keep him alive, Kinski quits the hot climate of the Savannah to go after ruthless seal hunters in the Arctic but, perhaps inevtably, Kinski is soon lost in a blizzard and is later discovered floating – dead but with eyes wide open – under the ice by Keitel. Unfortunately, this very short scene is the only one to be ‘shared’ between the two actors and, admittedly, I was initially disappointed on finding that Keitel would not be portraying Kinski’s Arctic nemesis but merely his replacement. Besides, the latter segment is bogged down by too many scenes of Eskimese hospitality but, in the long run, the snowy landscapes, the shots of animal life and the blood-thirsty climactic confrontation save the day. Thankfully, the director does not dwell inordinately on graphic sequences depicting the extermination of the seals and the whole concoction is permeated by a haunting, part choral-part electronic score courtesy of composer Luigi Ceccarelli.           
 
 
02/07/10: SOMETHING CREEPING IN THE DARK (Mario Colucci, 1971) 
 
I first became aware of this (and its equally obscure director) via the *** star rating on the “Giallo” section of the “Cult Filmz” website; incidentally, I also did not know that Farley Granger had worked so extensively in Italy – in that Luchino Visconti’s SENSO (1954) was no fluke (I recently watched him in a hybrid poliziottesco/giallo, and another good one it was, Massimo Dallamano’s WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO YOUR DAUGHTERS? [1974])! Having mentioned the latter, this too is as much a horror piece as a giallo since it involves a manifestation brought about by a séance conducted at dead-of-night. The cast is quite interesting – not only mixing familiar/international names (including, apart from the afore-mentioned American actor, Italians Lucia Bose` and Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) with unknown faces, but there are even a couple of behind-the-camera personnel (producer Dino Fazio and renowned composer Angelo Francesco Lavagnino, who also supplies a fine moody score) in the significant roles of Police Inspector and Professor/Occultist respectively! The plot is the typical ‘old dark house’ routine throwing myriad characters together, stranded by bad weather in a remote and forbidding environment (adding plenty of atmosphere to the already dour brew); harking back to Agatha Christie’s much-filmed “And Then There Were None” prototype rather than the traditional stalk‘n’slash formula, it is something of a quintessential offering (thus undeservedly overlooked) in this regard. By the way, the notion of having the spirit at large possessing members of the household in turn to commit mayhem would be adopted by Hollywood much later for the not-too-bad IDENTITY (2003)! The still attractive (and former Miss Italy) Bose` was on something of a latter-day roll during this period – since, among others, she made two similarly notable (and likewise strange) efforts i.e. Romolo Guerrieri’s THE DOUBLE (1971) and Giulio Questi’s extremely-rare ARCANA (1972); unfortunately, her character is made to expire halfway through, but the actress nonetheless makes a lasting impression. Ditto Granger, uncharacteristically cast here as a hardened criminal, pretty much retains the youthful looks that had served the Hollywood veteran so well in his heyday; the film’s marvelous – if somewhat abrupt – finale has him as the ghost’s latest ‘fall guy’, to adopt a noir phrase (a genre which tended to elicit the best from the actor).
 
 
02/07/10: DEATH STEPS IN THE DARK (Maurizio Pradeaux, 1977) 
 
This is another little-known but well-above-average giallo, in its case a latter-day entry; again, we have here an American actor – Robert Webber as an Inspector having to contend not just with a series of murders but a constantly upset stomach! – sparring with the protagonist, Leonard Mann (Italian despite the English-sounding name). Atypically, the film intercuts the genre’s trademark intensity with a good deal of humor (including the hero fleeing detection in drag!); while it may feel uneasy at the start, the mix soon becomes acceptable and, in fact, proves considerably entertaining. In this respect, Mann’s dumb girlfriend proves a bit much – having said that, there is one other kooky female character, a young safecracker who aids them in unmasking the villain of the piece! As usual, the film concludes with a rushed, muddled and rather banal explanation of the killer’s motives (incidentally, the original murder cleverly occurs in a train compartment just as the vehicle enters a tunnel!) – which, however, is atoned for by one last delightful joke involving the inexperienced petty criminal. Like I said, its light mood notwithstanding, DEATH STEPS IN THE DARK (nicely shot in Greece, by the way) certainly does not hold back on blood-letting – since this had become pretty much the norm following Dario Argento’s vicious face-lifting of the genre with DEEP RED (1975); still, there is one additional incongruous (and, in hindsight, unnecessary) element in the few – albeit surprisingly explicit – sex scenes (notably a lesbian coupling seen in extreme close-up!)…
 
 
02/08/10: THE SWEET BODY OF DEBORAH (Romolo Guerrieri, 1968)
 
Carroll Baker made several excursions to Italy throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, notably a series of erotic gialli; this was the first of them and, though a rather inauspicious beginning, several that followed (even those made by other hands, such as Sergio Martino – actually serving on the film under review as Production Manager!) can be seen to have adhered pretty closely to the formula unveiled here. Though contributing to the low rating was the atrocious sound quality – which not only seemed to have inherent hiccups (whereby lines get repeated every so often) but the English dialogue track featured a few unaccountable ‘intrusions’ of Italian and French! – the movie itself is a mainly listless affair which contrives to wake up only during the last 20 minutes (with the expected bevy of improbable twists and turns)!! To be fair, I was drawn to this principally by the notable cast – which also includes Jean Sorel (who followed his career highpoint, Luis Bunuel’s BELLE DE JOUR [1967], with a number of gialli: for the record, he and director Guerrieri would subsequently collaborate on the infinitely more rewarding THE DOUBLE [1971]) and, likewise all genre stalwarts, George Hilton (who eventually rose to protagonist status under Martino’s guidance), Luigi Pistilli and Evelyn Stewart. To go back to the erotic theme at the core of these type of films (perhaps to make up for the frankly tedious plots), this first entry may have seemed pretty risqué at the time but certainly feels tame when compared to later examples (not necessarily those made by the group of people already mentioned).
post #209 of 1166
Thread Starter 

Bad Lieutenant, The: Port of Call: New Orleans (2009)

Werner Herzog
 

When it was announced that Werner Herzog would be remaking Abel Ferrara's 1992 film there was all sort of outrage with fans asking how anyone could remake a film as far "out there" as that.  I think most of these complaints were from people who didn't know Herzog because if you did know his work you'd know he wouldn't just simply remake something.  As was expected, this version has very little to nothing to do with the 1992 film so people can walk into this expecting something original.  The film follows a simple storyline of a Lieutenant (Nicolas Cage) who is investigating the execution deaths of five people, including kids.  He begins cracking down on known drug dealers in the area but he's also doing battle with his prostitute girlfriend (Eva Mendes) as well as his drug addiction to cocaine and heroine that is getting bigger by the hour.  It's funny but the screenplay to this film probably would have fallen through the cracks had someone like Herzog not been behind the camera.  That's not to say this is a bad screenplay but the entire investigation and all the side plots are pretty basic but it's thanks to Herzog's vision and Cage's performance that this film will go down as the wacky, over the top ride that it is.  I didn't find the film flawless like some as a good ten minutes could have been cut out of the second act but the film is still very impressive.  The important thing to remember going into the film is that you're about to see a very dark comedy so I guess one could call this the greatest comedy ever made about a drug-addict cop.  Cage is what makes the movie because his performance here will rank as one of the greatest of his career.  I think it has become easy to make fun of Cage and throw cheap insults at him but it's important to remember that when he's on fire he usually can't be touched by anyone and that's certainly the case here.  Is he over the top?  Sure but he's suppose to be.  His performance is so dead on that you can help but look at him and feel that you're really seeing someone going through a major addiction.  Cage's entire body seems to change shape throughout the movie as he grows more and more sick.  The way Cage laughs at someone being called "G" is just priceless as is a terrific scene between he and an iguana.  The supporting cast is very impressive as well with Mendes turning in a fine performance as the drugged out hooker, Val Kilmer as a psycho cop, Fairuza Balk as another cop and the always reliable Brad Dourif as a bookie.  Herzog's vision is all over this thing and I really loved the overall look of the movie.  I loved how the start of the film has the camera constantly moving, which to me was to imply the state that Cage's character was in with all the drugs.  The film is a dark comedy and for the most part both Herzog and Cage go full steam to bring out the laughs and this includes a hilarious sequence with a couple old ladies with one on oxygen and others with Cage seeing things that aren't really there.  The terrific cinematography and nice music score also add a great deal as do the worn down streets from the post Katrina days.  This certainly isn't among the director's greatest works but it's still something very fresh and original and it really stands out compared to the other type of films being released today.

Nosferatu (1979)
 

Werner Herzog
 

Herzog's near flawless remake of the 1922 German classic gives us Klaus Kinski playing Count Dracula but unlike any film version before or since.  We all know the story as Dracula lures Harker (Bruno Ganz) to his castle and soon sets his eyes on his fiance Lucy (Isabelle Adjani).  By 1979 the tale of Dracula had been told at least a few hundred times too many and considering the type of movies Herzog was making, one would wonder why he's want to deliver us another version of the familiar story but it's a good thing he did because this here is without question one of the most beautiful, haunting and downright unique horror films ever made.  I believe this latest viewing was my third and it's rather remarkable at how wonderful and creepy this film is and how even though we know every inch of the story it's still like we're seeing it for the first time.  The film is very slow, there's no question about it but the slowness here isn't a negative thing but it's just one part of the terrific atmosphere built up by Herzog.  This is such a strange film to experience because the slowness is also surrounding by a certain cold nature and a cold look that makes the film come to life.  The life of the film is centered around the fact that everything looks and feels dead.  I think the pure genius of Herzog is painting a world where we really get to feel what it's like to be Dracula.  The world is a cold one, an ugly one and a rather lonely one.  I think the film's greatest aspect is that Herzog builds up this atmosphere so perfect that even though we've seen this story told hundreds of times, this here seems the most fresh and original.  Two other important factors in this is the cinematography by Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein and the haunting music score by Popol Vuh.  Both of these aspects add in heavily on the atmosphere and the damp look of the film is something that will make you want to pause the movie and just soak it in. 
 

Another important factor in all of this are the performances, which are all quite strange yet so realistic that you can't help but feel as if you're witnessing these characters for the first time.  Ganz makes for a perfect Harker and Adjani has the perfect feel and tone for Lucy.  Both Roland Toper as Renfield and Walter Ladengast as Van Helsing are perfect but so are various actors in smaller parts.  Then, of course, there's Kinski who is simply chilling in the role.  He has very little to say but Kinski is brilliant at getting Dracula's emotions to come through without words.  Just take a look at Kinski working in the scene where Harker is eating and take a look at Kinski's eyes as he simply stands there watching him eat.  Another great example is when Dracula first encounters Lucy.  The way Kinski plays all of this is pitch-perfect.  From the haunting opening shots of the mummies up until the chilling end, Herzog paints a true and ugly portrait that is remarkable and something so original that it's hard to believe the effort was made to begin with and it's even more remarkable that it came off so well.  There are so many haunting shots here with one of my favorites not being linked to any horror sequence.  It happens on Harker's walk to Dracula's castle when he's walking along the river and about to go into the cave.  The view of this as well as the waterfall are just chilling.  People often asks how many times much a familiar story or familiar subject matter be remade and it's quite clear that if you have the talent then you can do something truly original no matter how many times it was tried before your work.  This is a very unique film and certainly one of the greatest of its kind. 
 

Nosferatu in Venice (1988)
 

Augusto Caminito

Klaus Kinski returns to the role of Nosferatu in this Italian film that was originally suppose to be a follow-up to Herzog's 1979 film.  After various production issues including two director's being fired, the film ended up pretty much being 100% on its own with the only connection to the earlier film being Kinski.  In the film, vampire hunter Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) travels to Venice, the last known location of the vampire Nosferatu (Kinski).  Catalano tries to locate the whereabouts of the vampire who he believes has a desire to finally die.  This is a rather interesting failure that has a lot going for it but it's obvious the production issues caused a lot of problems especially during the first part of the movie.  The film starts off very ambitious as it centers on the Plummer character in current times but we then have several flashbacks to the earlier days of Nosferatu and how he became who he is.  This was an interesting idea but it never really works for several reasons and one of them is a bizarre rock score that doesn't fit anything we see.  Another reason these flashbacks never work is because at times it's hard to follow what exactly is going on and why certain flashbacks might be happening.  Then, around the fifty-minute mark, something strange happens and the film actually turns extremely entertaining as Nosferatu finds himself in current times and falling in love with a young black lady who might just hold the key to his eventual death.  Yes, Kinski drove several directors away from the film and this is partly to blame of the uneven film but you also have to give him credit because he turns in a great performance.  He has his long blonde hair flowing and there's no chalk make-up so we get to see this Nosferatu in a very human-like state and the actor makes us feel sorry for this person who simply won't die.  I found Kinski really intense throughout the film and this certainly spills over for several entertaining scenes but I think the romantic side works the best.  Plummer is also pretty good in his rather thankless role and we even get Donald Pleasence in a role but he's pretty much wasted.  Barbara De Rossi and Anne Knecht are both good as the ladies in the pack.  Augusto Caminito, Mario Caiano, Luigi Cozzi and Maurizio Lucidi all did some work on the film but it was Caminito who ended up shooting the majority of the film.  Even Kinski was apparently in charge of directing his scenes so who knows what was really going on with this production.  It's certainly a very troubled movie but at the same time there's just so much here that does work in the end.  We get some rather strong atmosphere and being 1988 and from Italy, there's much more sex, nudity and blood than normal, which is a plus.  I doubt art house fans are going to enjoy this thing but if you're a horror fan and like Kinski then it would be worth your time to check this out.  It's certainly not going to replace the Herzog film but it's an interesting little movie.

Murder of Mary Phagen, The (1988)
 

William Hale

Extremely powerful drama about the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagen in the factory she worked out in Atlanta, 1913.  A determined prosecutor (Richard Jordan) pins the crime on a Jewish manager (Peter Gallagher) who claims his innocence.  He's eventually found guilty due in large part to the testimony of a black janitor (Charles S. Dutton) who would normally seem like an unlikely person to get to testify.  All of this eventually ends up in the lap of Gov. John Slaton (Jack Lemmon) who will be leaving office soon but must decide whether or not to overturn the conviction, which looks to have been made because the man was Jewish.  This story was altered and told in 1937 masterful THEY WON'T FORGET with Claude Rains but this version here is just as good and just as powerful.  The movie clocks in at four hours if you include the commercial breaks so it's a long movie but it never felt that way as I was so caught up with what was going on that the movie seemed to run just a few short minutes.  The masterful performances make this a must see but so does the story, which is as powerful as an courtroom drama that I've seen.  I wasn't overly familiar with the case so I was really hanging on the edge of my seat all through the original case, the Governors investigation as well as the aftermath that followed.  I was really shocked to see what type of racism was being used and how much of the bitterness of Atlanta went back to the Civil War days.  From what I've read, this film was pretty faithful to the actual events, which makes one scratch their head and question everything that was done.  I won't ruin the ending but how everything plays out is just incredibly sad and pathetic.
 

This made-for-TV drama certainly has the drama down as the thing will leave you in suspense from the opening moments to the very final scenes.  The performances are great from the veterans but we also get some fresh faces who would become quite famous over time.  Kevin Spacey plays an alcoholic reporter who brings the case the media attention.  William H. Mac has a small bit as a relative to the dead girl.  Gallagher is extremely laid back in his role and delivers a marvelous performance as you can't help but feel sorry for him.  The actor certainly digs deep and manages to bring out a lot of emotions without screaming or going over the top.  Jordan is equally as great as the seedy prosecutor who might be hiding a few secrets of his own and Dutton nearly steals the film as the man with too many questions of his own to be a so-called witness.  Robert Prosky and Kathryn Walker also turn in fine work.  Then there's the legend Lemmon who turns in one of the best and most powerful performances of his career.  I know that's saying a lot considering how many great roles he has had but he really delivers some strong emotion here and his final speech is extremely touching even if he doesn't say too much.  The pain and anger in Lemmon's eyes is all we have to see to know what he feels.  The way Lemmon invests himself into the role and the character's motives for trying to bring justice to this case was very believable and heartfelt. 
 

post #210 of 1166
The Frogmen – Richard Widmark and Dana Andrews play evil, mutated man-frogs who attack a coastal town looking for giant flies. Okay I’m kidding but wouldn’t that have been a great movie? Sigh. Actually this is about underwater demolition teams in the South Pacific in WWII. It’s interesting to see how these guys use a life raft to roll in and out of the water. The high speed extractions look particularly harrowing. Other than that, this is pretty much by the numbers: a roughneck squad of danger lovin’ swabbies loses their beloved commander and must learn to tolerate a new, younger officer who is strictly by-the-book. I’ve seen this same movie about 100 times now in different forms. Still and all, it manages to be reasonably entertaining; but not nearly as entertaining as that man-frog movie would have been…

Flight of the Phoenix – A veteran pilot is forced to crash land a beat up old cargo plane full of soldiers and oil workers in the middle of the Sahara desert. Their fight for survival begins immediately, with food and water running dangerously low and with intolerable heat and roving bands of ruthless Bedouins bearing down on them. When they finally decide that their only hope is to try and rebuild the plane and fly themselves to safety, the only question is whether they can keep from dying, or killing each other, in the meantime. This is one of those classic Sunday afternoon adventure movies with a terrific international cast. Everyone hams it up a bit, especially a shameless Ernest Borgnine, but this is larger than life storytelling so it’s all okay. The power struggle between Hardy Kruger, as the German prick engineer who figures out how to re-build the plane, and James Stewart, the very epitome of ‘Grizzled’, as the pilot who must fly it is particularly compelling. I’ve seen this movie a hundred times and it’s all still entertaining as hell. I heard they did a remake, but when the original is this good, I really can’t be bothered.

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 (2010)