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 2

post #31 of 1166
1/4/10 at 10:49am
I've decided to take a cue from Russell and use numbers instead of stars on page one when listing movies. Anything to help the page load faster unlike last year.

Once Upon a Honeymoon (1942)

Though I adore Cary Grant this movie was a complete bore even with the presence of the lovely Ginger Rogers. Set during the second world war it tries to combine a very serious subject, that of the encroaching Nazi threat with humour and it just doesn't sit well with me and seems inappropriate. I've seen a couple of Grant's films that I haven't cared for and this one can join their ranks.
Reply
post #32 of 1166
1/4/10 at 1:30pm

A Pete Smith Specialty: Fancy Answers: What’s Your I.Q.? - No. 5 (1941) (short) Dir: Basil Wrangell

Production: MGM

 

Pete delivers an oddball series of trivia questions, on subjects ranging from the flag, the animal kingdom, obscure musical terms, swim wear of the South Seas woman, types of grass and the etiquette of descending the stairs at a formal affair.  The audience is given a few seconds to answer from a multiple choice selection.  The best bit (which is cut-and-pasted from an earlier Pete Smith short) is a slow motion view of an acrobat stunt where four members of the “famous Cristiani family” simultaneously make a running leap into a standing position on the back of a cantering horse.  Ava Gardner makes her (brief) film debut in another scene.  Mildly amusing diversion, which will at least have you playing along to the end.

out of 4



Letty Lynton (1932) Dir: Clarence Brown

Production: MGM

 

New York socialite Letty Lynton’s (Joan Crawford) decision to escape her cold, unfeeling mother (May Robson) by fleeing to South America and becoming a woman of, shall we say, easy virtue has proved to be somewhat less than fulfilling for her.  So after a year of traveling, Letty decides to go back home, older and a little wiser and leaving a trail of broken men in her wake (Letty has affairs for sex, not love).  Anticipating a long and lonely voyage home by ocean liner, she fixes it so that she gets seated for lunch with playboy shipping heir Jerry Darrow (Robert Montgomery), who, unbeknownst to Letty, has himself fixed it so that he gets seated with Letty.  By the time they arrive in New York three weeks later, Jerry and Letty are in love and engaged, but trouble looms in the figure of Emile Renaul (Nils Asther), a besotted paramour from Letty’s past, who has traveled up from Uruguay by plane to get her back.  When Letty tries to explain to Emile that she feels nothing for him, he proves to be from the ‘no means yes’ school and does not take the rejection kindly.  Backed into a corner after Emile threatens to expose their shared past to Jerry, a desperate Letty contemplates ending her life by taking poison but it doesn’t quite go as planned.

 

A seemingly typical depression-era entertainment about the idle rich behaving badly, the film is nonetheless set apart by an enjoyable depraved indifference to decency.  Promiscuity, suicide, suggested rape, murder, unpunished crime, it’s all here--and this was the version that was approved by the Hays Office (MGM considered two sources for the film, both dealing with the same crime--in Scotland, 1857, a young woman named Madeleine Smith poisoned her lover.  One source was a play called Dishonored Lady which was deemed not fit for production by Hays.  The other, which the studio eventually chose, was a novel by Marie Belloc Lowndes. LETTY LYNTON has long been out of circulation following a ruling in 1938 that found MGM liable for copyright infringement of the play.  Two later films, David Lean’s MADELEINE and Robert Stevenson’s DISHONORED LADY were also based on this notorious crime).

 

The two stars are in fine enough form.  Their first scene together, when they are sharing the ‘arranged’ lunch, shows off their obvious chemistry (and Joan’s famous ‘Letty Lynton’ dress, which was copied by Macy’s and went on to move about half a million units).  As they are feeling each other out, you can sense Jerry growing smitten, especially after Letty scores a point off him (Jerry: “Where do you come from? Letty: “Long Island, and you sir?” J: “Boston.” L: “Mayflower?” J: “Sure.” L: “Well, here’s to the Mayflower and the millions of brave souls she brought over.”).  Crawford here is still well within the era where she could truly be called ‘beautiful’ or at least glamorous.  Her best moment is during the scene where she confronts Emile for the last time (also the film’s best scene) and she completely gives in to her darkest impulses, almost triumphantly (with a poor, unsuspecting bellhop nearly getting caught up in her maelstrom as well).  Montgomery’s role is to represent the idyllic future Letty could have (ex. his parents immediately and warmly accept Letty upon meeting her, in contrast to Letty’s cruel, emotionally distant mother), so he has noticeably less to do and is not as interesting, but still, you’d rather have him around than Robert Young, who was considered for the role.  Lewis Stone plays the hoodwinked District Attorney in the bold finale, a man who is well aware that he’s being hoodwinked, but can’t really do anything about it.   

out of 4



John Nesbitt’s Passing Parade No. 45: To My Unborn Son (1943) (short) Dir: Leslie Kardos

Production: MGM

 

The story of a humble newspaper editor from a small Yugoslavian village on the brink of World War II.  Peter Ravitch is a “dreamy, sentimental” type who believes in a “peaceful sunlit world”, and for that reason he will die.  As the Nazis approach his village, Peter joins the resistance, leaving behind his pregnant wife.  Soon, he is mortally wounded in a battle, but before he passes he composes a note to his unborn son.  That night the letter improbably travels by wind from the dead man’s hand to the village, where it is eventually passed to Peter’s wife.  The letter is part apology to the next generation and part admonition to learn from their forebears’ mistakes.  Some good storytelling in the montage scenes and sufficient poignancy in the loaded but surely resonant message to the audience of the day, who are encouraged to identify with the characters and situations in the short.

out of 4



George Washington Slept Here (1942) Dir: William Keighley

Production: Warner Bros.

 

Proto-MR. BLANDINGS plot of city-dwelling husband and wife team (Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan as Bill and Connie Fuller) purchasing a dauntingly run-down country house (where, it is said, George Washington once slept--or did he?) and renovating it to the point of both mental and pecuniary exhaustion.  The two films have other similarities, despite both being based on different sources (this film has the more notable pedigree, taken from a George S. Kaufman-Moss Hart play, while MR. BLANDINGS is based on a novel).  Outside of the main premise, both films also have the similar characters of the dull-witted local supervising the work (here played amusingly by ‘Pa Kettle’ Percy Kilbride) and a helpful male friend of the couple that the husband falsely believes is making a play for his wife (Melvyn Douglas in BLANDINGS, Harvey Stephens here).     

 

This kind of story walks a thin line between funny and cruel/bad (think THE MONEY PIT), as the humor derives from the situation getting worse and worse for the characters.  Thankfully this film manages to be steady fun, with a couple of laugh-out-loud moments.  I think it’s something about the Jack Benny persona, a sort of benign pompousness that audiences enjoy seeing deflated, even when he’s the ‘good guy’.  There’s a slow start, the first ten minutes or so featuring Franklin Pangborn as the Fuller’s landlord and his battles with the Fuller family dog isn’t very good, but it’s not long before Benny and the material start to work the situation for real yuks.  Perhaps excessively slapstick-y at times (Benny falls into a well, falls through the floor, goes up the stairs and falls through the ceiling), but even that stuff gets its fair share of hits (one of the better sight gags is, after being forbidden the use of the neighborhood’s main street, the off-road arrival by car of Benny at the house).  The arrival of a couple of nightmare relatives of the Fuller‘s also works; with Charles Coburn playing an egocentric uncle they cater to in hopes he will one day leave his fortune to them and Douglas Croft (young George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY) as Raymond, Connie’s obnoxious adolescent nephew.  Ann Sheridan is in her prime here, although she pales in unfortunate comparison to Myrna Loy in BLANDINGS and isn’t really asked to carry much of the comedy.  Hattie McDaniel is also along in a routine, thankless maid role.

out of 4


Reply
post #33 of 1166
1/4/10 at 8:55pm
Thread Starter 

Interesting, if not totally successful, sci-fi about scientists (Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley) who are working with cloning but decide to take it a step further and add human DNA.  This creates some sort of human that the two raise like a child hoping to learn about it but soon things start to spin out of control.  This film was marketed as some sort of horror movie like ALIEN but it's pretty far from that.  Instead, it's probably best to compare the film to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY as this here is a thinking movie.  I'm certainly not trying to say this is anywhere near the masterpiece of the Kubrick film, as it isn't, but I think a lot of people are seeing the trailer and leaving disappointed that this isn't a blood and guts horror flick.  The movie raises a lot of interesting ideas about cloning, human relations and eventually lines that can get crossed whenever you do push the previous limits of right and wrong.  This is very much a psychological movie as both scientists, who also just happen to be living together, have their own issues and it's these issues that will eventually test their own limits as this creature begins to take form and grow into an "adult".  The film asks a lot of questions but I think part of the problem is that a few of the characters just do too many dumb things.  The female scientist bothered me from the start until the end as I found she was simply way too dumb in how naive and silly she would act.  The scene where the two pretty much break the law to create this thing was handled as if we were watching a couple high school kids trying to steal some of their dad's beer out of the fridge.  The entire sequence had the female scientist just doing too many silly things and I think it would have helped if she at least thought about what could happen as this would have given us a reason to believe she was actually as smart as a scientist would be.  After some disappointing performances including Argento's disasterous GIALLO, it was nice seeing Brody back in good form.  I thought he was certainly the best actor in the group here as I not only believed him as a scientist but he made me believe everything the character did.  Brody had no trouble bringing the human drama to life and he was good enough to make us believe everything we were seeing.  Polley is also pretty good in her role even though, as I said, I really hated her character.  The two actors really do come off like a real couple, which certainly helped during the various twists at the end.  Delphine Chaneac does a good job as the adult-formed creature.  I think where the film ultimately fails is that we never do get to learn anything about the creature.  It does all sorts of changes throughout the movie and even though our scientists are suppose to be doing research, we just never learn enough about it.  The entire parents/daughter thing is an interesting idea and we get a few good moments from it.  Sadly, the final ten-minutes turn pure Hollywood with a stupid chase sequence and an even dumber ending.   Both of these would have fit into a Hollywood movie but SPLICE spent its entire running time trying to be smart yet tosses that away in the closing moments when it really wasn't needed.  I'm not sure if this stuff was forced by a studio but it's certainly feels tacked on.  It's easy to see why this movie bombed at the box office and who knows if it will catch on when it hits video.  Either way, this is a pretty effective little gem that, for the most part, tries to use a brain instead of gore and violence, which is a rare thing these days.  The end result isn't a masterpiece but it remains interesting and worth watching for those wanting something different. 
 

 

Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)
 

Tim Burton
 

A pretty simple story as Pee-wee Herman (Paul Reubens) has his bicycle stolen so he must track across the country to locate it.  On this journey he will come across a killer, the ghost of a dead trucker, a few bullies, a biker gang and various other oddballs before landing at a movie studio.  A minor story has to go along with this film because this was actually the first time I had ever seen Pee-wee in any type of action.  I was a kid when this show and movies were out and people always made fun of Pee-wee so I never wanted to check anything out with him in it.  It took quite a while to finally few this cultural phenomenon and I ended up enjoying myself a lot more than I thought I would.  I must admit that it took a few minutes for me to warm up to Pee-wee and his personality.  Once you get use to it then I think it's nearly impossible not to somewhat enjoy his charm and over the top qualities.  I think it's rather amazing at how well Reubens can morph into this character because you really don't see any type of actor but instead a real person.  You could have fooled me that this wasn't a documentary capturing a real eccentric person instead of me just watching a movie.  There are quite a few good scenes because the screenplay is smart enough just to throw this odd character into a pot with other odd characters who normally wouldn't enjoy him.  The scene with the bikers was a true gem as was his car ride with the man who escaped from prison.  More credit also needs to go to Burton who really makes a colorful film that's great to look at and that includes the wonderful breakfast maker at the start.   

Weird Science (1985)
 

John Hughes
 

Two nerds (Anthony Michael Hall, Ilan Mitchell-Smith) dream of being cool, having good looking girlfriends and being invited to the best parties in town and they finally get their chance after making their own sex pot (Kelly LeBrock) from their computer.  As you can tell, this is a nerds wet dream come true and before watching this movie it's very important to turn your brain off.  I must admit that I was really disliking this thing for the first hour but things finally got so campy that I started to have a little fun with it.  I still think this is a disappointing movie that doesn't live up to its cult status but at the same time I've seen a lot worse.  I think the best thing the film has going for it are the performances by the three leads and some of the supporting players.  Anthony Michael Hall fits that nerd role perfectly and he's also quite believable towards the end of the film when he fills out the role of someone cooler.  LeBrock clearly steals the film as she looks incredibly good and her performance is nice as well.  I thought she did a terrific job no matter what the scene called for and she really brought the film up a few notches.  Bill Paxton was fun in the role of the mean brother and Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't do too bad of a job as one of the bullies.  Cult favorite Michael Berryman (THE HILLS HAVE EYES) has a small but nice role as a biker mutant.  The biggest fault of the film has to be the screenplay, which is somewhat of a shock considering Hughes is best known for this.  I think his dialogue is perfectly fitting and I think the original storyline is good as well.  The problem is that very little is done with that storyline and everything is just way too predictable.  There are many cute moments but in the end the movie is just a tad bit too brain dead for its own good and a stronger story would have certainly helped. 

Matinee Idol, The (1928)
 

Frank Capra
 

Charming silent film from Capra has a famous actor (Johnnie Walker) deciding to take a vacation to the country where he ends up, accidentally, in a small play where he gets fired by the lead actress (Bessie Love).  To play a joke, the actor and his producers decide to take this small play to Broadway but they don't tell the lady that she just fired a famous face.  This film was for many decades considered lost before a print turned up and it's good that it did because this is an extremely charming little gem that has the perfect mix of romance, comedy and drama.  I was really surprised at how entertaining this film was but it's got a pretty smart little story even though you will have a hard time believing that this actress wouldn't be able to tell that both actors playing against her was the same person.  I think Capra handles the material quite well and really delivers an entertaining film.  What I enjoyed most is that the film seemed so natural and so smart that you really did get a feel as if you were really watching and seeing a small town acting squad.  I've read that Capra learned from these types of groups growing up and it really seems like there's a lot of love being thrown towards these small actors and plays that are often overlooked.  The comedy of the film works quite well as the play itself, a real misfire, is actually very funny even if the country actors feel like they're doing dramatic work.  We get to see the play acted out twice and each time the film is able to get many laughs.  The more dramatic stuff also works well because we can all understand the hurt feeling of trying to be and thinking you're doing good work only to have people laugh at you.  Walker and Love both turn in fine performances and their chemistry together also makes the film even better.  Love clearly steals the film with her charm and energy that practically jumps off the screen.  Johnnie Walkers character is called the greatest "Black Face Comedian" and it seems to be an off note of Al Jolson but it's still pretty good.  This isn't one of Capra's best known films and while it's not as powerful as some of his later day stuff, there's still enough here to make it worth viewing. 

Thank Your Lucky Stars (1943)
 

David Butler
 

Pretty much plot-less "musical" doesn't need a plot when you have guests stars that include Humphrey Bogart, Bette Davis, John Garfield, Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Jack Carson, Dinah Shore, Ann Sheridan, Dennis Morgan, Ida Lupino and many, many more.  What plot the film does have centers around a benefit show where a couple new to Hollywood tries to get on to make a name for themselves.  We also have Eddie Cantor playing not only himself but the role of another man trying to break into the business.  If you want any type of story then you're going to be disappointed but if you come to a film like this wanting a story then I'm not sure what to tell you.  One must remember that the country was at war when this was made and in the end the studio just wanted to deliver something fun and that's what they did.  With so many great A-list stars you can't help but have fun even when they're either making fun of themselves or making a fool out of themselves by singing.  Flynn and Davis are really bad to listen to but at least they both are having fun with it.  Bogart has a funny bit as the "tough guy" who gets pushed around by a nobody.  Bogart's reply to this is priceless.  Garfield is also quite good as he's the first one to appear in the film and he gets it off to a great pace.  Character actor Richard Lane also appears as a character and does fine work as does the rest of the supporting cast.  Cantor really seems to be having a blast with some great songs as well as making fun of himself as a boob throughout.  All in all, this is a very entertaining movie even if the 127-minute running time goes on a bit too long but there's no way to deny the charm of seeing all these stars in one film.
 

Hound of the Baskerville, The (1939)
 

Sidney Lanfield
 

Nice adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic novel has Basil Rathbone in his first role as Sherlock Holmes.  In the film he and Watson (Nigel Bruce) are called to the home of the Baskerville where there's fear that the family curse might strike Sir Henry (Richard Greene) but is it really a deadly beast or something human?  I'm not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure this novel has gained the most film adaptations, which is quite understandable as the story itself is a classic and a director would have so much to work with.  Not only do we get the rich characters of Holmes and Watson but the story offers up plenty of great supporting players and a setting to die for.  It doesn't take director Lanfield very long to draw us into the story as that happens from the word go when we see Baskerville running towards the camera in a fog so thick that you can actually feel it on your skin.  This wonderfully atmospheric sequence will put you right into the setting and then the wonderful cast takes over.  It's funny to see Rathbone get second billing but it's strange to see how little Holmes has to do in the film.  There's a very big chunk where Holmes is no where to be seen but the excellent supporting cast really keeps everything moving perfectly.  We have Lionel Atwill perfect as Mortimer, John Carradine as a weird butler, Wend Barrie as Beryl Stapleton and Morton Lowry as her step brother.  All of them do great work here as does Greene in the lead role.  It goes without saying that Rathbone and Bruce make quite an impression here and it's easy to see why they were cast in all the films that were to follow.  Rathbone works so incredibly well with all the supporting players and especially Atwill as the two of them also squared off in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN this year.  Some people have a problem with the ending, which is somewhat understandable but for the most part this is an extremely stylish little thriller that has enough atmosphere for two movies.  Yes, there are flaws but there's still enough here to make this a must see for fans of the genre. 
 

Cinderella (1977)
 

Michael Pataki
 

My rating certainly comes with a bit of nostalgia but I'm sure there are many out there who will go into this movie with memories such as mine.  I remember this film quite fondly from my teenage years as my friends and I stumbled across it on Cinemax one night.  We also saw bits and pieces of it but we'd try to catch it every time it was on.  I'm not sure if we ever watched the film from start to finish but we'd quite often get into fights about the hottest girl or which one we'd most like to be the Prince with.  Seeing the film after all these years certainly brought back a lot of fun memories but the film itself held up rather well.  The simple storyline has the Price having a party thrown for him so that he can pick a bride but it's pretty much just an orgy.  Cinderalla (Cheryl Smith) gets cleaned up by her fairy "godmutha" and he also gives her a snapping vagina (a different word is used in the film).  This softcore effort from producer Charles Band is certainly a very memorable film and once you see it you're bound to have scenes stuck in your mind for life.  I'm sure seeing it has a teen had an impact on several male viewers but even outside all the nudity there's just something charming about the film.  I think the most credit must go to Smith who does a wonderful job with the role of Cinderella.  It's not Oscar-worthy but it's fun and she comes off so sweet that you can't help but believe her in the part.  The supporting players are all pretty good as well with Yana Nirvana and Marilyn Corwin excellent in the parts of the ugly step sisters and Kirk Scott as a dumb Lord.  There are several musical numbers that are decent but nothing great.  What makes the movie are all the softcore moments and this is certainly what attracted us to the film many years ago.  I don't think more than five seconds go by without some sort of nudity and for the most part it's quite erotic whenever it's not trying to be funny (like the scene with the two girls bathing while their father is out hunting a certain creature).  
 

+PARTY GIRL
*DAMAGED LIVES
*THE ROAD TO RUIN
*GAMBLING WITH SOULS
*COCAINE FIENDS
**REEFER MADNESS
**ASSASSIN OF YOUTH
+SLAVES IN BONDAGE
*SEX MADNESS
+MAD YOUTH
+GANGS INC.
+LADY GANGSTER
+CONFESSIONS OF A VICE BARON
*DELINQUENT DAUGHTERS
+BLONDE ICE
+KILLER BAIT
+IMPACT
+SHE SHOULDA SAID NO
*JAIL BAIT
**THE GIRL GANG
*SWAMP WOMEN
**THE VIOLENT YEARS
+THE FLESH MERCHANT
+SIN YOU SINNERS
BAD GIRLS GO TO HELL  

The latest entry in ESPN's series takes a look at the men (and one woman) who helped start what would eventually become a $2-billion dollar industry.  Avid baseball fans dreamed of what it would be like running your own team so they came up with what we'd eventually call Fantasy Baseball.  This documentary is pretty good at giving us the events of how everything went down but in the end, for me, there just wasn't enough of a story here to really warrant a documentary.  Actually, the story is worthy of a documentary but the subject just seems a bit too light for the 30 FOR 30 series, which has turned out to pretty good episodes.  This one here is mildly entertaining but nothing else.  The biggest problem I had with the show was show we got rather silly re-enactments.  These were meant to be somewhat funny but not once did I laugh.  I thought they were way too silly, although perhaps they did this to fit in with the title.  The fact that these group of people never made a dime off of this is pretty unique but adding them to the Baseball Hall of Fame might not be a bad idea as one of the men interviewed suggested. 


Edited by Michael Elliott - 6/25/10 at 12:55pm
Reply
post #34 of 1166
1/4/10 at 10:16pm
Shockproof (1949) 3/5 - Douglas Sirk adapts a Sam Fuller story and it ends up being as odd as you'd think it would be.  It's a weird mix of suspense noir and fatal romance.  The main problem is someone shoe horned an ending on to it that is just not acceptable.  I'm tempted to dock it a star for this, but up till that last few minutes, it was damned fine.


Reply
post #35 of 1166
1/5/10 at 6:58am
I am now doing my ratings out of five stars. Here are the latest entry's to the list

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
Its not a perfect musical. The Men are underused, there's not quite enough truly songs and the courtroom scene is a little flat when the burst into song, nonetheless Gentlemen Prefer Blondes deserves its classic status for how brilliantly Howard Hawks, who had a clever understanding of how to exploit Marliyn Monroe's star power, as he creates superbly photographed and brilliantly choreographed production numbers where she completely shines and just dazzles. Diamonds Are A Girls best friend is one of the truly great cinema moments, and although there's not much else quite sublime as that to make this a masterpiece like say Singin In The Rain, its still a fabulous, charming, entertaining, likeable and still very funny musical. The rest of the cast are great too, but this works best as Monroes movie in my opinion.

How To Marry A Millionare (1953)
I did not think this one stood up so well. The humour felt like a film I could see a Gran and maybe teenage Gran daughter enjoying, but for me it felt like very Mamma Mia type humure and was just a little flat and uncinematic. The acting is good, particularly Monroe who gives a fine enough comedic performance but she is underused.

Moliere (2007)
A decent lead performance and some amusing moments but the film is all to lightweight, overly safely directed and forgetable, plus Lu divine Sagnier is criminally underused. 
Reply
post #36 of 1166
1/5/10 at 11:07am

Films Seen By Date
Out of
Short Films (Under 45m) Not Bold
TV Shows in Green
Previously Seen Films in Blue
Three or More Viewings in Red

Total Films in 2010: 217
January - 15
February - 19
March - 22
April - 24
May - 25

June - 8

July - 19

August - 17

September - 20

October - 18

November - 16

December - 14


1/1-Inglorious Basterds (2009)-
1/3-Quintet (1979)-
1/7-(500) Days of Summer (2009)-
1/8-The Staircase (2004)-
1/11-The Godfather (1972)-
1/14-When the Levees Broke (2006)-
1/16-The Godfather Part II (1974)-
1/17-The Godfather Part III (1990)-
1/18-Moon (2009)-
1/22-St. Elmo's Fire (1985)-
1/24-The Big Lebowski (1998)-
1/25-Che (The Argentine) (2009)-
1/25-Che (Guerrilla) (2009)-
1/26-Pride & Prejudice (2005)-
1/31-John Adams (2008)-

2/1-Cartesius (1974)-
2/2-In the Loop (2009)-
2/3-Zombieland (2009)-
2/8-Homicide: Life on the Streets (Seasons 1 & 2) (1993)-
2/11-Julie & Julia (2009)-
2/13-South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)-
2/14-Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)-
2/14-A Serious Man (2009)-
2/18-Shadows & Fog (1992)-
2/19-The Graduate (1967)-
2/20-A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006)-
2/20-Dear Zachary (2008)-
2/21-District 9 (2009)-
2/22-Memento (2001)-
2/23-Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)-
2/25-Steel Magnolias (1989)-
2/27-Kathy Griffin: She'll Cut a Bitch (2009)-
2/27-American Movie (1999)-
2/28-Revanche (2009)-

3/3-Knocked Up (2007)-
3/5-The Hurt Locker (2009)-
3/6-Crazy Heart (2009)-
3/10-Up in the Air (2009)-
3/12-Cape Fear (1962)-
3/13-Mallrats (1995)-
3/14-Raising Arizona (1987)-
3/15-Year One (2009)-
3/16-Bronson (2009)-
3/17-The Cove (2009)-
3/18-Witch Hunt (2008)-
3/19-Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)-
3/20-The Good Son (1993)-
3/21-Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic (2005)-
3/21-Raging Bull (1980)-
3/22-Big Fan (2009)-
3/25-When Harry Met Sally (1989)-
3/27-Holiday Inn (1942)-
3/28-Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs (1937)-
3/28-Word Wars (2004)-
3/29-Extract (2009)-
3/30-Stand By Me (1986)-

4/1-Open Range (2003)-
4/1-Hunger (2009)-
4/2-The Element of Crime (1984)-
4/3-The Informant! (2009)-
4/4-Brothers (2009)-
4/4-The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)-
4/5-The Toy (1982)-
4/6-The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)-
4/8-Five Easy Pieces (1970)-
4/9-The Buddy Holly Story (1978)-
4/10-Six Feet Under: Season 1 (2001)-
4/11-Sherlock Jr. (1924)-
4/11-Good Will Hunting (1997)-
4/12-The Way We Were (1973)-
4/15-Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)-
4/18-A Touch of Greatness (2004)-
4/18-The Third Man (1949)-
4/18-An Education (2009)-
4/22-Home Movie (2001)-
4/23-Beavis and Butthead Do America (1996)-
4/24-The State: Complete Series (1995)-
4/25-A Story of Floating Weeds (1934)-
4/25-All About Eve (1950)-
4/27-Duplicity (2009)-

5/2-Heist (2001)-
5/4-Reno 911!: Miami (2007)-
5/5-The Box (2009)-
5/6-Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)-

5/7-Following (1998)-

5/8-35 Rhums (35 Shots of Rum) (2009)-

5/9-Indiscreet (1958)-

5/10-The Blind Side (2009)-

5/11-The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)-

5/12-Smokey & the Bandit (1977)-

5/13-Monster (2003)-

5/15-Following Sean (2006)-

5/15-Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2008)-NO STARS

5/16-Ballast (2008)-

5/17-Thieves Like Us (1974)-

5/20-The Visitor (2008)-

5/21-Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009)-

5/22-Ossos (Bones) (1997)-

5/23-Simple Men (1992)-

5/25-Nashville (1975)-

5/26-Valley Girl (1983)-

5/26-Clean and Sober (1988)-

5/27-Holiday (1938)-

5/31-The Departed (2006)-

5/31-Bachelor Party (1984)-

 

6/4-Party Down: Season 1 (2009)-

6/7-Heathers (1989)-

6/9-Six Feet Under: Season 2 (2002)-

6/11-Babies (2010)-

6/18-The Invention of Lying (2009)-

6/19-Gunga Din (1939)-

6/20-Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)-

6/28-Six Feet Under: Season 3 (2003)-

 

7/5-Grizzly Man (2005)-

7/6-Wedding Crashers (2005)-

7/7-The Last Station (2009)-

7/9-Daughter from Danang (2002)-

7/10-Gegen die Wand (Head-On) (2004)-

7/12-The Planet of the Apes (1968)-

7/13-Manufacturing Dissent (2007)-

7/14-Lacombe, Lucien (1974)-

7/14-My Winnipeg (2008)-

7/18-Shutter Island (2010)-

7/19-Being John Malkovich (1999)-

7/20-Shotgun Stories (2008)-

7/21-Jaws (1975)-

7/23-Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)-

7/24-Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)-

7/25-World's Greatest Dad (2009)-

7/26-A Single Man (2009)-

7/29-The Insider (1999)-

7/31-Youth in Revolt (2009)-

 

8/1-Food, Inc. (2009)-

8/1-Daratt (Dry Season) (2006)-

8/1-The Road (2009)-

8/3-Six Feet Under: Season 3 (2004)-

8/3-Scott Walker: 30 Century Man (2007)-

8/4-Waiting for Guffman (1996)-

8/5-Seven Up! (1964)-

8/7-Paper Clips (2004)-NO STARS

8/7-Rushmore (1998)-

8/8-The Messenger (2009)-

8/9-Wall Street (1987)-

8/21-High Fidelity (2000)-

8/21-The Remains of the Day (1993)-

8/24-Six Feet Under: Season 5 (2005)-

8/29-Greenberg (2010)-

8/30-Citizen Kane (1941)-

8/31-The Pick-up Artist (1987)-

 

9/1-Matador (1986)-

9/5-Butterfly (1982)-

9/7-The Parallax View (1974)-

9/7-Over the Top (1987)-

9/8-Finding Forrester (2000)-

9/9-Four Little Girls (1997)-

9/11-The Apartment (1960)-

9/12-Innerspace (1987)-

9/12-The Maltese Falcoln (1941)-

9/15-Salesman (1968)-

9/16-Moonstruck (1987)-

9/17-Gosford Park (2001)-

9/18-L'Heure d'été (Summer Hours) (2009)-

9/19-The Kid Stays in the Picture (2002)-

9/20-The Wrestler (2008)-

9/22-The Prince of Tides (1991)-

9/23-The Fugitive (1993)-

9/24-Law and Order (1969)-

9/25-Das Weiße Band (The White Ribbon) (2009)-

9/29-Anatomy of a Murder (1959)-

 

10/9-The Pharmacist (1933)-

10/9-Gymkata (1985)-NO STARS

10/10-Hoop Dreams (1994)-

10/10-The Orphanage (2008)-

10/11-I Need that Record! (2008)-

10/11-Candyman (1992)-

10/14-Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season 1 (2000)-

10/15-Scenes from a Marriage (Television Version) (1973)-

10/16-The Barber Shop (1933)-

10/17-The Fatal Glass of Beer (1933)-

10/17-The Dentist (1932)-

10/19-Louie Bluie (1985)-

10/20-A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)-

10/24-Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season 2 (2001)-

10/25-Don't Look Now (1973)-

10/26-Child's Play (1988)-

10/31-Pro-Life (2007)-

10/31-The Changeling (1980)-

 

11/1-The Perfect Candidate (1996)-

11/8-El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes) (2009)-

11/8-Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season 3 (2002)-

11/9-Get Him to the Greek (2010)-

11/10-Winter's Bone (2010)-

11/13-The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/13-Waiting for Superman (2010)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/14-The Seventh Seal (1957)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/15-Brokeback Mountain (2005)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/16-Six O'Clock News (1996)-

11/17-Duets (2000)-star.gif

11/19-Star Trek (2009)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/20-Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore? (2006)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/21-Un Prophète (A Prophet) (2009)-star.gifstar.gifstar.gifstar.gif

11/27-Elvis (1979)-star.gifstar.gif

11/28-Extreme Measures (1996)-

 

12/3-It's a Wonderful LIfe (1946)-4

12/4-Goin' South-2

12/4-Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)-4.5

12/6-Primer (2005)-4

12/8-Me and Orson Welles (2009)-3

12/10-Brother's Keeper (1992)-3.5

12/12-Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer-3

12/13-Gremlins-3.5

12/15-In Bruges-4

12/16-Kurt & Courtney-2

12/25-Clueless-3.5

12/25-Black Swan-4

12/27-Metropolitan-4.5

12/30-Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work-2.5

 

Film Lists:
2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, Top 20


Edited by schmidtt - 5/4/11 at 10:20pm
Reply
post #37 of 1166
1/5/10 at 11:52am
01/02/10: BLANCHE FURY (Marc Allegret, 1948)
 
This is another title I inexplicably missed out on over the years (a local Sunday matinee` TV screening and a late-night Italian-subtitled broadcast on the renowned “After Hours” program come to mind) which, having watched now, I was quite enthralled with. BLANCHE FURY is a typical yet reasonably absorbing Gothic melodrama – given added luster by its dazzling color photography, inventive décor, and even the odd stylistic flourish by Frenchman Allegret – made in the wake of the famed “Gainsborough school” romantic period pieces which began with THE MAN IN GREY (1943; a viewing of which accordingly followed this one in short order, since I had already by-passed it last year on a couple of anniversaries tied with star James Mason!) though, plot-wise, the film seems to have at least as much to do with that which is virtually the template for this type of fare i.e. “Wuthering Heights”. In fact, here we have Stewart Granger (who was also in THE MAN IN GREY) forced to work as a stable-boy in his own family’s estate – since he is illegitimate – while the present unrelated masters have taken up their name!; of course, he is contemptuous of this situation, though he finds a surprising ally – and love interest – in a cousin of the new landlords (Valerie Hobson) who turns up on the premises ostensibly to serve as governess to the little girl that stands to inherit the lot. Of course, she instantly charms the younger man of the house (a characteristically despicable Michael Gough) and proceeds to marry him, while carrying on with her Granger affair; about to be dismissed for his none-too-submissive attitude, our disgruntled hero conspires with Hobson to get rid of all the obstacles to their running the estate (since he intends to marry her himself) – the blame of which he proposes to lay at the door of a gypsy troupe who had been causing trouble in the area and even threatened the family specifically! – but, while she concedes to the death of Gough and his father, she takes exception to Granger’s ruthlessness in the matter by wanting to dispose of the little girl as well. Needless to say, by reporting him to the proper authorities, she not only confesses to her own role in the plan, taints her reputation by being branded an adulteress but, most importantly, sacrifices her own happiness; the ultimate irony is that, just as Granger is being hanged, the little girl herself expires in a riding accident – leaving Hobson all alone, withchild (Granger’s offspring), and sole owner of the tragic property! In conclusion, apart from the above-mentioned THE MAN IN GREY, I have SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS (1948) – yet another costumer featuring Stewart Granger – scheduled for the coming days…       
 
 
01/03/10: THE MAN IN GREY (Leslie Arliss, 1943)
 
A film which has a lot to answer for, since it started both a trend for Gothic romantic melodramas in British cinema which proved ideal escapist fare for a country at war, as well as starting off various star careers (notably James Mason and Stewart Granger). The former, in particular, cornered the market for a while in brooding anti-heroes whose sadistic streak women seemed to find perversely attractive; incidentally, his part here was smaller than I had anticipated – since the protagonists were really the two ladies who suffered at his hands i.e. Margaret Lockwood and Phyllis Calvert (both of whom would likewise become fixtures in this type of film). Still, this being the prototype, its makers utilized modern-day book-ends – with the conveniently look-alike descendants of the ‘good’ couple, Calvert and Granger, having better luck coming together – as a safety-pin (not to mention adopting such anachronistic devices as having Calvert’s “nigger” servant-boy played by a white child in black-face!). With this in mind, the film is somewhat halting as entertainment when viewed today, but it nevertheless yields pictorial felicities aplenty (courtesy of cinematographer Arthur Crabtree, who would almost immediately graduate to director and dabble in the costume genre for himself), as well as considerable interest throughout. For the record, the latter arrives by way of the occasional powerful scene (Mason and Granger’s night-time scuffle in a public garden, Lockwood’s come-uppance at the hands of the doting but honor-bound Mason) or humorous incident (a stock-company performance of Shakespeare’s “Othello” in which Granger and Lockwood discuss attending aristocrat Calvert, a mutual acquaintance, during the all-important murder scene of Desdemona). Among the film’s more notable (and commercially successful) follow-ups, then, were FANNY BY GASLIGHT (1944; which re-united Mason, Calvert and Granger) and THE WICKED LADY (1945; again directed by Arliss and featuring both Lockwood and Mason).
 
 
01/03/10: JAMES MASON: THE STAR THEY LOVED TO HATE (TV) (Mike Healey, 1984)
 
This adequate, if hardly comprehensive, look at one of the most revered actors of the 20th century (one I greatly admire myself) probably amounted to his last ever interview – since the versatile British thespian would die before the program had even aired! With a career spanning some 50 years, it necessarily skimps over score of titles (even some very good ones) and, given the title, tends towards discussion of his sinister roles (which is actually how he rose to stardom: see my review of THE MAN IN GREY [1943] elsewhere and on whose R2 DVD this documentary was included, albeit in abridged form) rather than being a broad overview of his entire body of work – though, curiously enough, there is no mention at all of Alfred Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) in which the actor did play villainous and is possibly the best film he was ever associated with! Mason, graceful as ever, is quite candid in his recollections – from the peculiar circumstances surrounding his first marriage (actress/writer Pamela Kellino would leave her cinematographer/director husband Roy for him, yet the three would form a lasting if not very successful film-making alliance!), his famous criticism of the British movie industry in a series of articles (what was seen as career suicide at a time when it had basically peaked did lead to a move to Hollywood, though his beginnings there were inauspicious) and when it came to choosing the three pictures he was least fond of, namely LADY POSSESSED (1952; one of the Kellino collaborations), FOREVER DARLING (1956; in which he appeared as an angel alongside Lucille Ball) and KILL! (1971; Romain Gary’s bizarre thriller about drug-smuggling). In direct counterpoint, then, the two roles he had singled out over the years as his favorites – ODD MAN OUT (1947) and LOLITA (1962) – are likewise given their due. All in all, a nice record of one of filmdom’s most compelling and intelligent presences in rare self-appraisal mode.
 
 
01/03/10: MANEGES (Yves Allegret, 1950) 
 
Having watched Frenchman Marc Allegret’s BLANCHE FURY (1948) to inaugurate a foreign-language film marathon (albeit by way of a British production and, therefore, in English!), it was logically followed by an effort from his younger brother Yves. Alas, this study of a femme fatale (played by the director’s own wife at the time, Simone Signoret) proved disappointingly dreary as a whole – wasting a rather interesting noir-ish structure wherein the female protagonist goes through a 180-degree turn from victim (we first see the girl badly injured, with her devoted husband Bernard Blier then recounting preceding events) to schemer (as she asks her mother, Jane Marken, to tell Blier about their true grasping nature and how she frequently betrayed him with other more handsome men). Though, perhaps appropriately, the English title of the film is THE WANTON, the original was more subtle – if no less obviously related to some of the themes involved; MANEGES, in fact, translates to riding-school and, indeed, Blier is the proprietor of one (not exactly an exciting milieu, I might add)…but I suspect that the director also intended to use the figurative meaning of someone being “taken for a ride” here. The film does have most of the qualities one associates with French cinema of the period (especially with respect to the acting strength and monochrome photography) but, as I said, plotting is rather weak throughout – while the iris effect utilized to depict the transition between past and present eventually becomes irritating with the repetition.
 
 
01/04/10: SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS (Basil Dearden, 1948) 
 
I have always wondered why this movie – which is generally accorded the rank of a minor classic by film critics and historians – is not better known today and more widely discussed; having now watched it for myself, while I would readily proclaim it a near-masterpiece, I can perhaps also pinpoint the reason behind its relative neglect: the thing is that its production company Ealing Studios (whose first color production – and, in hindsight, its costliest flop – it was) is more associated with its celebrated run of droll comedies than with tragic historical romances. Although SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS may initially seem to pertain to the “Gainsborough school” of costumers then in fashion in British cinema that were spearheaded by the box-office popularity of THE MAN IN GREY (1943), the film was clearly intended from the outset to be on a higher artistic plane altogether. Co-written by the great Alexander Mackendrick (who would soon go on to direct some of Ealing’s finest comedies), the film greatly benefits from Michael Relph’s sumptuous décor, Douglas Slocombe’s gleaming Technicolor cinematography (that indeed makes one bemoan the fact that Optimum’s far from optimally restored R2 DVD does not really do it justice!) and Alan Rawsthorne’s majestic score; on top of it all, we have masterful direction (undeniably one of the finest showcases for the distinguished Basil Dearden) and impeccable acting from a splendid roster of actors: Stewart Granger (as the dashing but ill-fated Swedish soldier Konigsmark, SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS was reportedly the one film of his he liked best!), Joan Greenwood (a very moving performance as the doomed Princess Sophie Dorothea), Flora Robson (excellent as an unlikely courtesan/king-maker with her own designs on Granger), Francoise Rosay (as the formidably inflexible matriarch), Peter Bull (typically loathsome as the future King George I), Michael Gough (as his martyred younger brother), Frederick Valk (as one of Robson’s ‘conquests’ and Rosay’s kin), Anthony Quayle (as Robson’s reptilian spy), Megs Jenkins (as Greenwood’s empathizing maid), Guy Rolfe (appearing in the opening sequences as one of Greenwood’s wardens) – and, allegedly in bit parts, even Peter Arne, John Gregson and Christopher Lee!! Among the various impressively-staged sequences in the film, two particular highlights stand out: a masked Greenwood’s panic-stricken passage through a crowd of Carnival revelers being terminated by the sudden appearance of a facially uncovered Granger; and the climactic swordfight in a darkened hall which depicts a wounded Quayle mortally knifing Granger in the back, followed by the latter (having just uttered the name of his beloved Sophie Dorothea with his dying breath) being stomped in the face by a vindictive Robson!
Reply
post #38 of 1166
1/5/10 at 6:30pm
Here are the latest entry's to the list

The Big Lebowski (1998)
Another masterpiece of film making from the Coen Brothers. This is one of there funniest, warmest and feel good films. The Dude is a superb character and played outstandingly by Jeff Bridges, in fact all the cast are outstanding, as is the script.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
This film is many things, imaginative, sweet in places, funny but what makes me happy to watch it so frequently is how beautifully made it is. It has some of the most beautiful looking moments in cinema, particularly the snow scenes. I don't think its a masterpiece, well lookwise yes but on the whole not in opinion but still very, very, very, good.

Chopper (2000)
Despite a strong lead performance and interesting moments, it never quite took of for me and felt uneven and also a little unremarkable at times. There's a chance, I may re watch it and consider it a masterpiece but at the moment its just good.

Starship Troopers (1997)
Really, really disliked this film. I found it dull, pretty poorly acted, horribly cliched and predictable at times and some of the acting was pretty awful. I would have forgiven, it if I found it fun or if there was good tension ext but sadly I found none of that. Pretty much a waste of my time in my opinion.
Reply
post #39 of 1166
1/5/10 at 9:56pm
I'm still going through the Sam Fuller set from Sony, tonights pick was the best so far!  Glad I picked this one up.  :)

Scandal Sheet (1952) 4/5 - If you ever meet someone who wonders what film noir is all about, you can't go wrong with showing them this one.  A damned tight thriller that never takes the easy way out.  The newspaper room back drop completely works and Crawford is amazing as the ruthless editor.  Recommended!
Reply
post #40 of 1166
1/6/10 at 8:57am


Quote:
Originally Posted by filmfandan View Post

Starship Troopers (1997)
Really, really disliked this film. I found it dull, pretty poorly acted, horribly cliched and predictable at times and some of the acting was pretty awful. I would have forgiven, it if I found it fun or if there was good tension ext but sadly I found none of that. Pretty much a waste of my time in my opinion.


Did you understand the satirical nature of the film?
Reply
post #41 of 1166
1/6/10 at 11:15am
01/04/10: QUEST FOR FIRE (Jean-Jacques Annaud, 1981)
 
This primeval epic has quite a solid reputation as the best caveman movie ever made – even sparking a brief run of prehistoric films in its day, including THE CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR (1986) which I have been meaning to revisit for the longest time now – yet there was still the odd dissenting opinion (such as the late Leslie Halliwell’s) with which, I have to say, I find myself agreeing. Essentially, it is a more realistic version of ONE MILLION, B.C. (1966) – that is to say exchanging fanciful dinosaur action for the humdrum titular expedition (following a bloody ambush by a simian-looking tribe) punctuated by scenes depicting primitive man’s baser instincts. This typically revisionist approach renders an already unattractive milieu (with its general lack of incident – despite a script by Gerard Brach – and preponderance for silly grunting – conceived by Anthony Burgess, no less) that much closer to boredom! Its lasting qualities, then, are mainly visual ones (superb location photography and Oscar-winning make-up effects) and aural (by way of an appropriately grandiose score from the renowned composer Philippe Sarde). Curiously enough, despite its being, ostensibly, a French production (emerging a winner at that year’s Cesars among others), the main actors are Americans: Everett McGill, Rae Dawn Chong and Ron Perlman!  
 
 
01/05/10: UNE VIE (Alexandre Astruc, 1958)
 
Celebrated (and controversial) film historian/critic David Thomson considers Alexandre Astruc’s “The Camera-Stylo (The camera as pen)” theory as being the most important one to have emerged over the years; it is understandable, therefore, that he champions UNE VIE – Astruc’s 1958 adaptation of a Guy De Maupassant novel – as being as singularly important an achievement as Charles Laughton’s THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (1955) or that I learned of the film’s very existence in my teens via Thomson’s thought-provoking tome “A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema” (conversely, “Leonard Maltin’s Film Guide” dismisses it with a ** rating under its U.S. title of END OF DESIRE)! Like William Wyler’s definitive 1939 adaptation of Emily Bronte’s WUTHERING HEIGHTS, Astruc reportedly filmed only the first half of the novel so it may also not be accidental that UNE VIE shares with that earlier film a mistreated tragic heroine (a superbly delicate central performance from Maria Schell), brooding romanticism (Christian Marquand’s husband is a self-loathing brute who betrays his wife with every woman who crosses his path) and a vivid depiction of landscape (exquisitely captured by Claude Renoir’s luminous cinematography). The story per se could not be simpler as it details the tribulations that the waif-like Schell suffers at the hands of Marquand soon after their wedding: inhabiting an isolated country house, he first takes up with Schell’s lifelong companion (Pascale Petit) in a nearby room, eventually impregnating the latter and looking on impassively as she gives birth in the forbidding snow!; later on, upon a chance encounter at a fair with his newly-married best friend (Ivan Desny), he strikes up a passionate relationship with the latter’s own tantalizing wife (Antonella Lualdi) and with whom he shares a night-time clandestine barnyard encounter as Schell’s visiting mother expires after falling down the stairs! Ultimately, the unrepentant lovers are literally driven to their death – thrown off a cliff in a mobile wooden bath-house by the furious Desny – despite Schell’s own vain attempts to alert them of the impending calamity. Still, the ending is a hopeful one as the heroine regains a measure of dignity and happiness in the company of her own natural son and that of Petit and her daughter who come back to live with her in the same country house. I cannot finish off this review without mentioning Roman Vlad’s remarkable music which impeccably underscores the film’s intense and delicate mood swings.    
Reply
post #42 of 1166
1/6/10 at 2:02pm

Quote:
 The Big Lebowski (1998)
 

 

One of my favourite Coen brother films. Gets funnier everytime I watch it.

Colour Purple (1985)

I've had this in my collection for many years and somehow I always bypass it settling on something else to watch. It's not that it's a terrible movie for it has a great screenplay, acting, cimematography etc. It just doesn't touch me like it use to and I almost would rather watch anything else. I blind bought this oh so many years ago and I think it's one of those movies though well crafted has limited replay value at least for me.

Sicko (2007)

I've always wondered at Americas resistence to socialize health care. As a Canadian, it's something we take for granted. We may bitch and moan about it from time to time but it does work pretty well for us. It was quite amusing watching this film. Michael Moore certainly has his own biases but his documentaries are entertaining and have a certain amount of credibility.

Reply
post #43 of 1166
1/7/10 at 9:11am
A local bar changed itself into a movie theater last night to show a Grindhouse style double feature.  The venue sucked, but it was a blast all the same and my early contender for being the best night in a theater for the year 2010.  :)

Sugar Hill (1974) 4/5 - I had the vague idea that this was about a woman who's brother gets mixed up with a voodoo cult.  Instead, it's about a woman who's boyfriend is killed by the mob, so she gets a voodoo priestess to summon an army of zombies to fight the mobsters!  So in other words, this is the greatest movie EVER!

The Streetfighter (1974) 4/5 - I've seen this countless times and it still makes me giddy.  Watching it in a bar while pissed on Ubersteins of light amber, it simply doesn't get much better then this!
Reply
post #44 of 1166
1/7/10 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 

It's been years since I saw the STREETFIGHT but I hope to get to it and its sequels later in the year.

Five with Bogart and Two Pre-Codes:

Love Affair (1932)
 

Thornton Freeland
 

Predictable and rather boring love story about a rich social girl (Dorothy Mackaill) and a hard working man (Humphrey Bogart) who hopes to build airplane engines.  The two of them start up an affair but he slowly begins to lose sight of his dream while falling in love with her.  She also has other things on her plate including a rich man (Hale Hamilton) who has his own plans for her.  I was really looking forward to this small drama mainly because it was the first major role for the young Bogart.  I must admit that I found a little entertainment in watching him play the clean-cut good guy but the screenplay is so predictable that one will quickly lose interest in the film.  To make matters worse, the films runs a brief 68-minutes but it feels double that.  The screenplay really doesn't do a thing right as it's never really romantic, it features no laughs and in the end it seems as if you've really not even watched anything at all.  I'm really not sure what the purpose of the movie was as the screenplay is so confused in what it wants to say that we never really know if we should care about Mackaill's character or if we should see her as some sort of villain.  Even worse is the ending that really comes out of nowhere and amounts to nothing more than silly melodrama.  What keeps the film watchable is Bogart who actually manages to turn in a nice performance even if it is a tad bit strange seeing him act without that Bogart persona, voice and attitude that we'd see even in his smaller Warner roles.  Bogart plays the happy-go-lucky role pretty well and he doesn't seem to have a problem with the smiling and charming.  I must admit that he has one of the strangest ways of standing around (with his arms behind his back) but this too is rather funny.  Mackaill isn't bad in the film but she's not all that good either.  I think she has a little charm but the role of the rich spoiled girl has been played so much better by so many people.  It does seem she has a rather bad timing as there's one scene where it appears she accidentally hits Bogart in the face (the driving sequence) and then another where she walks straight into a chair (when their going to get her a cup of coffee).  In the end, this isn't a horrible movie but it's not a good one either and without Bogart it would have been totally forgettable.  I think even Bogart fans will find themselves bored so this is certainly only recommended to those who want to see everything he's done.
 

Big City Blues (1932)
 

Mervyn LeRoy

A rather predictable but mildly entertaining drama from Warner about a naive boy (Eric Linden) from Indiana who heads off to New York City and doesn't last long there.  His first night there sees him lose all his money but even worse is that he is at a party where a woman gets killed and soon he's getting the blame as well as another innocent woman (Joan Blondell).  Plot wise there's really nothing too original here but I did like the fact that the entire trip in NYC only takes place within 24 hours and I thought this added some charm to the film because a lot of plots like this take place over a longer period of time.  I also think director Mervyn LeRoy does a nice job handling everything as he keeps the film moving well and manages to have some nice drama and even a few laughs.  The screenplay keeps things fairly simple as nothing over the top ever happens and instead we're told a pretty straight-forward story from start to finish.  I think the biggest problem with the film is that the lead character does some incredibly stupid things that you can't help but dislike him and not really care what happens to him.  Just check out the sequence where he's gambling as this scene will certainly have most people wanting to strangle him.  Linden is decent in the role but one can't help but wonder why he was selected when there was surely a lot more talent on Warner's lot.  Blondell gets a pretty thankless role but she does a good job with it and certainly make it a lot better than I'm sure it was on the page.  There are about twelve different actors shown during the opening credits but they left out Humphrey Bogart who has a pretty good role as one of the tough guys at the party who gets a fight started.  I'm not sure why the studio kept his name off the credits considering it was a bigger role in the film than some of those who actually did get a credit. Fans of these low-budget Warner films from this era will certainly want to check this out but others might want to stay clear.  At 63-minutes the film moves along quick enough and is entertaining enough if you've got the time to kill.
 

Isle of Fury (1936)
 

Frank McDonald
 

A rather bland love triangle set in the South Seas as Val (Humphrey Bogart) and Lucille (Margaret Lindsay) are married during a rough storm and minutes later there's a boat crash and Eric (Donald Woods) washes ashore.  Soon all three become friends but Lucille begins to have extra feelings Eric as she starts to realize that she'll never fulfill her dreams on this island.  This here is a remake of the 1932 film THE NARROW CORNER, a film I haven't seen so I can't compare the two.  With that out of the way, this film here makes for some slight entertainment but in the end pretty much everyone can skip it unless you're fans of the cast.  The biggest problem is, once again, the screenplay which was clearly not given too much attention, which I guess can be understood since this was meant to be the second film on a double bill.  The screenplay never really knows what it wants to do because one moment we're on an adventure and then the next we're tied up in a love triangle that never really seems to work either because more attention is spent on Bogart and Woods instead of Woods and Lindsay.  The film is certainly confused in what it wants to do but like many "B" movies it's at least smart enough to throw everything in and just hope something sticks.  This film throws in a real crazy sequence where Bogart dives down to get some pearls and is attacked by a large octopus and soon enough Woods is underwater fighting it as well.  I'm not sure what it is but no matter what movie you're watching it's always a plus when a killer octopus shows up.  As far as the performances go I wasn't too thrilled with Lindsay who seemed to be sleepwalking throughout the film but I did enjoy Bogart and Woods.  I thought these two actors really kept the film moving as they had a nice chemistry together and you have to love Bogie's mustache.  The ending is pretty weak but the film only runs 62-minutes and makes for a decent time killer, although only fans of the stars should really seek it out.

Men Are Such Fools (1938)
 

Busby Berkeley
 

Predictable and rather boring melodrama about a hard working secretary (Priscilla Lane) who works her way to the top of her office when she meets and eventually marries an ex-football star (Wayne Morris).  Soon afterwards she eventually gives up her career and then problems start to rise as his career takes off.  This here is yet another Warner "B" film that has a pretty good cast but in the end it gets ruined due to a rather lackluster screenplay.  I really didn't think too highly of anything here, screenplay wise, because I found the comedy to be over the top and silly and then the melodrama was just too predictable.  I think the early "dumbness" of the characters really hurt the later drama because it's hard to take either character too serious considering some of the dumb situations they get into early on.  When the second half of the film takes place the characters just go through various motions that really make no sense except to lead up to the predictable ending.  Lane is charming enough in her role and I think she comes off the best as her wonderful energy is always going strong and this really keeps the film moving.  Morris doesn't give the greatest performance but he too is good enough in the role.  Humphrey Bogart gets third-billing and plays the boss who falls for Lane.  Once again we see Bogie in a rather thankless role that even he can't do too much with.  The movie runs a brief 68-minutes but it feels much longer because the screenplay drags in so many places and one can't help but feel they've seen this type of story one time too many. 
 

King of the Underworld (1939)
 

Lewis Seiler
 

Warner remake of their 1935 Paul Muni flick DR. SOCRATES has Kay Francis playing a doctor trying to clear her name after her husband got connected to a gangster (Humphrey Bogart).  I watched this film for the first time many years ago and found it to be campy fun but this was my first viewing since seeing the original 1935.  My opinion on this film here has certainly changed but in the end I think this is still worth seeing if you're a fan of Bogart.  That original film was an incredibly smart and tense little gem that should be better known to film fans but this remake, clearly meant to be the second film on a double-feature, leaves out the brains and instead goes with action.  The movie runs a fast-paced 67-minutes and for the most part we get to see Bogart chew up one scene after another and this here is clearly fun if you're a fan of his.  He's constantly shouting at his men, giving orders or just going around like a madman and we even get to hear him quote a few things from Napoleon.  Bogart's maniac-style performance is clearly the stand out here and the reason people should tune in.  Francis seems to be rather upset at having to appear in something like this as she pretty much sleepwalks through here role and she certainly brings the film down some.  She was certainly a capable actress but you really can't tell that by watching her here.  James Stephenson adds nice support in his small role.  The ending to the original film worked wonderfully well because they went for suspense but that's not the case here.  The ending is pretty wacky and over the top and sure to draw a few laughs.  It does lead up to some violent gun play, which is never a bad thing in a Warner movie.

She Had to Say Yes (1933)
 

Busby Berkeley, George Amy
 

Warner Pre-Code has a sleazy boss coming up with the idea of "offering" girls from his stenographic department to clients in exchange for deals.  This is going well until one (Loretta Young) turns down a high-powered client (Lyle Talbot) but soon the two begin to fall in love but more shady deals might happen.  This is certainly a strange film for someone like Berkeley to make a debut on but if you're a fan of Warner's Pre-Codes then there should be enough here to keep you entertained even if the film tampers off during the second half.  The first half is a pretty interesting mix to the genre as it is hammered home that women are nothing more than sex objects and their only place in the world is to serve men.  This certainly isn't a storyline we could see too often in the Golden Era and especially after the Hayes Office took full effect the following year.  On that level this film remains entertaining just because of the sexual innuendo, riske storyline and some rather snappy dialogue including a funny little dig at the (then) Republic Party.  Young turns in a nice performance because she can perfectly mix that innocent nature with a burning sexuality.  Not for a second will anyone not believe she's this sweet girl but at the same time, when she needs to, she can turn on that sexual lure and it too is believable.  Talbot is just as usual and he too turns in a nice performance in that Lyle Talbot fashion.  What keeps the film from being a total success is the second half of the film when it loses its edge and goes into typical melodrama with one predictable turn after another.
 

Registered Nurse (1934)
 

Robert Florey
 

Mildly entertaining Pre-Code from Warner about various wild characters inside a hospital.  The film centers around a nurse (Bebe Daniels) who is wanted by two different doctors (Lyle Talbot, John Halliday) but she is hiding a secret about a mysterious husband that no one knows about.  These personal dramas have to be dealt with as well as countless patients.  With some saucy dialogue and some mild sexual innuendo, fans of the Pre-Code era might want to check this one out but I'd say most will come away disappointed because the film has so many elements in place but in the end they really don't come together to make a complete winner.  The biggest problem is the screenplay that really doesn't know if it wants to be a sassy comedy or a dark drama.  We get light moments followed by dark moments and none of them ever mix and I'd also add that the entire love triangle comes off rather fake and forced.  I think Daniels turns in a fine performance as she really digs into her role and manages to make a character we can feel for.  Talbot and Halliday are both good as well and we also get to see Humphrey Bogart's infamous wife Mayo Methot. Sidney Toler gets the most outrageous moments in the film as a wrestling promoter who ends up with a broken leg after he beats up his wife.  The entire beating of the wife sequence is played for laughs so that should tell you something.  
 

Where Time Stands Still (1945) ***

One of the better entries in MGM's TravelTalks series, this one takes us to Guatemala where we get to see a group of Indians who are still living as they were decades earlier.  We see them still carrying large packs on their backs even though there are automobiles around.  We also get to visit the Hotel Santu and the famous volcano that looms behind it.  The highligh to the film deals with a young man leaving a pile of sticks outside his girlfriend's house.  If her father takes the sticks inside then it means he gives his blessing for them to marry.  I won't spoil what he does but this is certainly one of the more entertaining entries.  James A. FitzPatrick does his usual nice job narrating our events.  The stories about the Indians were all very interesting as was all the buildings and various other items that they would work on.  As usual, the Technicolor really brings everything to life.

On the Shores of Nova Scotia (1947) ** 1/2

TravelTalks entry takes us to Lunenburg where we learn a whole lot about fishing.  We see the various waters off of Nova Scotia and then we learn their history, which includes some of the very best deep sea fishing around.  We learn about a 800-lb tuna that was caught there and hear that this isn't such a rare thing.  We also get to see the various types of boats, traps used to capture lobster and this episode also takes a look at handicapped folks and how they overcome their disabilities.  We meet a one-armed fisherman as well as a painter who has no arms.  Both stories are very interesting and they're certainly the highlight of this entry.  Everything dealing with the fishing was also interesting but it's hard to out do a man being able to paint great pictures with his mouth.

Georgetown, Pride of Penang (1941) ** 1/2

Another fun entry in James A. FitzPatrick's TravelTalks series.  This time out we travel to the "Prince of Wales Island" where we learn that 160,000 Chinese are currently living.  We learn about their various old customs, which includes painting the front of their ships white to make "eyes" for them to see during bad weather.  We also learn about the rice, coffee and spices that are major exports and we get to see a sacred funeral as it holds up traffic going through the streets.  Finally, we get to see the sacred Snake Temple where various deadly snakes live out their lives with people stopping by to worship and give them food.  Fans of the series will find this entry to be right up their with the rest.  This one here offers the fine narration and great Technicolor and the stories told are fairly interesting.  I think the highlight of the film has to be the Snake Temple but the various ways of the streets were also interesting.  We also get to hear how firecrackers are used to scare off evil spirits.

Johannesburg: City of Gold (1953) ** 1/2

On of the final entries in MGM's TravelTalks series, this one here takes us to Johannesburg where a gold find put the city on the map and soon it became one of the biggest spots for gold hunters.  We learn that natives of South Africa would try to work in the mines with hopes of earning a little money that they could then take home and live like Kings.  We also hear a terrific story of a 2,520 oz. gold piece that was found there and we get to hear how the rocks are taken out of the mine and broken down.  As is the normal case, the Technicolor is the real star here as some of the beautiful visuals of the city are the main highlight.  The Sunday-Tribal dancers are another highlight.

Glimpses of Austria (1938) ** 1/2

Another TravelTalks entry, this one taking us to Vienna, the largest city in Astria.  Once there we get to visit the large Schonbrunn Palce, which has a total of 1441 rooms and over 300 kitches.  From here we go to the Charles Church, which was created due to a major plague that hit the town and then we see the historic Statut Opera House.  We also get to see several folk dances as well as the many dazzling costumes that people were wearing around at the time.  Fans of the James A. FitzPatrick series will certainly want to check this here out if, like me, they have a morbid desire to see every film in the series.  As is the usual case, this here offers some great scenery with the Technicolor and the stories we're told aren't too bad either.  The most fascinating stuff deals with the various famous people who ended up staying at the White Horse Inn and a famous joke that would come from that meeting (now politically incorrect). 

Calling on Costa Rica (1947) ** 1/2

TravelTalks short takes us to Costa Rica where we learn that it's the second smallest American colony.  We touchdown at the San Jose International Airport where we then take a look at the capital city and its 70,000 people.  We learn how Columbus landed there in 1502 and how the U.S. paid $26,000 for the assassination of William Walker who was, at the time, trying to take the city over.  Other stories include the orchids grown there and how the beautiful women also have a personality.  I've seen dozens of these shorts and I believe this was the first one that showed us pretty girls and then told us that they also had a personality so I guess that makes this an original.  The short once again features the nice narration and beautiful Technicolor that we've come to expect and the stories here are certainly above average.  The entire story dealing with Walker was certainly the highlight so fans of the series will find enough here to keep them entertained. 

  


Edited by Michael Elliott - 1/31/10 at 4:17pm
Reply
post #45 of 1166
1/7/10 at 2:26pm
The first page of the thread takes a long time to load, so I am just going to chime in from time to time with a review instead of keeping my year-to-date list in this thread. I doubt anyone would take the time to read it anyway. As usual, first-time viewings will be in bold.

The Land Before Time (1988): 2.5/5

I remembered this movie as having some heartbreaking moments along with some decent dinosaur action and humor. Seeing it again for the first time as an adult, some of it still works, but it is so obviously kid-oriented. Some of the character motivation seemed to come from nowhere, such as Petrie's fear of flying and the group moving from Cera's rock to Littlefoot's pawprint. My favorite character is the older dinosaur that talks to Littlefoot after his mother dies.

The DVD edition leaves much to be desired from a video and supplemental perspective. It's hard to believe that this is the same studio that put out the excellent Jurassic Park and Jaws DVDs.

I guess this further proves that the Netflix star prediction system is not infallible. TLBT is part of the group that they thought I would give four stars or better. I hope that the next ones are closer to that mark.
Reply
post #46 of 1166
1/7/10 at 9:52pm
Quince Tree of the Sun - An unusual and fascinating film. A semi-documentary about artist Antonio Lopez and his quest to a paint a quince tree in his backyard. Lopez's techniques are startlingly rigid: he pounds stakes into the ground so that his feet are always planted in the same spot, he makes marks on the tree to record the changing position of a leaf or fruit and adjusts his work accordingly, he painstakingly measures and re-measures in his attempts to be precise. His family and associates patiently and good-naturedly tolerate this obsessive attention to precision. But Lopez's enemy is time and chaos. The marks he makes on the tree multiply as the fruit continues to grow heavier, and the changing weather means the light is unreliable. Eventually defeated by his inability to capture the same sunlight every time, he abandons the painting he's been working on for weeks, and starts it all over as a sketch instead. But he never appears frustrated about it, for him the joy is being with his tree, not the end product. Along the way are several discussions about his work and art in general, especially interesting are the ones with his old art school chum. What struck me most is how the art of the film is contrasted with Lopez's art. Film is made to capture time, and Erice frequently reminds us of that with meaningful fades and edits, and the radio which chronicles developing world events. Another interesting contrast is provided by the three Polish workers who are doing some renovations to the house. Their art (and their ideas about quinces) is more pragmatic, but no less valid. Although the movie requires some patience, it gives you a lot to think about. It's a shame Erice hasn't done more... a mere three features over the past 37 years, but all of them of fine quality. Rating: 9


Jimi Plays Monterey and Shake! Otis at Monterey (Blu-Ray) - Two of the most electrifying performers from Monterey each get their own mini-feature. Jimi starts off with a brief selection of meaningless fluff... an artist doing an impressive quick & dirty portrait of Hendrix on a wall, some hippie moron talking about how "groovy" the festival is, and some throwaway background narration by pervy daughter-fucker "Papa" John Phillips. Once the concert starts, however, it's golden. Hendrix was an incredibly dynamic stageman, and Pennebaker wisely keeps the camera focused squarely on him most of the time. Shake is a bit shakier. Redding is one of my favorite artists at the whole show, and it's a shame they gave him a mere 17 minutes. His performance is dynamite, and there's none of that pointless intro nonsense. But Pennebaker does fuck up in one crucial way. When "Try a Little Tenderness", one of Redding's signature songs, starts up the director picks that moment to cut away and show us a goddamn 3-minute montage of festival attendees (usually in relation to the lyrics... weary women, people being tender). We only get to see Otis again during the final minute of the song. So fucking stupid. Rating: 7 (Jimi) / 6 (Otis)


Wagon Master - Oh joy. Another John Ford western. It didn't annoy me too much, probably because it doesn't have John Wayne in it, but it is pretty simplistic and forgettable. Most of the characters are bland western archetypes, none more bland than Ben Johnson in the lead. Only Ward Bond stands out... his speech is peppered with a lot of ridiculous "dadblasted"s and "consarnit"s but he does command the screen, and his character is the most complex. The photography is the definite highlight, Ford's beautiful landscapes looking gorgeous as ever (the scenes shot on sets, however, look kinda tacky). The moments of humor are hit and miss... more miss than hit, I'd day, but the misses aren't too groan-worthy. I could have done without the square dancing, which comes right after line dancing and Irish step dancing in terms of lame dances. Overall, I didn't hate the movie but I doubt much of it will stick with me. Rating: 6


Mother - As with The End of St. Petersburg, Pudovkin's work here rivals that of Eisenstein, and ranks right up there with Strike as one of the great early Soviet films. It's an adaptation of a Gorky novel, about an elderly mother at first indifferent to the cause, but gets converted after being disillusioned by the imperialist/capitalist regime. It's about as propagandistic as it sounds, but the narrative is quite strong, and the camerawork is terrific. Some clever editing techniques (including a wonderful "Tell-Tale Heart"-esque moment) and a lot of dynamic cutting. Nice symbology and good performances, particularly Vera Baranovskaya in the title role. Pudovkin has a good eye for memorable, expressive faces. My only complaint is that I thought the story lost sight of the mother too often, especially as it builds towards its chaotic climax. But man, what an ending! Rating: 9
Reply
post #47 of 1166
1/8/10 at 9:37am
Sunshine Cleaning (2008)

The feel of this movie was familiar and that's because it's from the producers of Little Miss Sunshine. They even have Alan Arkin in another quirky character role. Though not as engaging as Little Miss Sunshine it has it's moments and the two leads, Emily Blunt and Amy Adams manage to make this film shine no pun intended. Briefly the story is about two sisters in dead-end jobs who decide to start a cleaning business together. The catch is the cleaning involves biohazard material, blood, excrement etc. cleanup and that's where some of the comedy arises maybe too slapstickish at times. Overall it was an enjoyable watch but has limited repeat value for me.

No Country for Old Men (2007) 

Great story, well acted and directed from the minds of the Coen brothers. The brothers certainly have a way of weaving a story and getting the most out of their actors.  Standouts here are Javier Bardem as the psychopathic hitman and Josh Brolin as the unlucky man that is desperately trying to escape him and his fate.
 
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)

Johnny Depp is Gilbert Grape the man of the family that has to deal with two sisters, a mentally handicapped brother who likes to climb tall structures and a morbidly obese mother whose every day life is a struggle. Gilbert also has to deal with an affair that has turned dangerous and a young woman stranded in town that he has developed serious feelings for. The cast is excellent especially Darlene Cates who gives an emotional performance as the mother. But the standout here is Leonardo DiCaprio as Arnie the retarded younger brother. I didn't have much respect for him years ago but this movie changed my mind and made me a fan. Great little movie.
Reply
post #48 of 1166
1/8/10 at 2:35pm

Scarface (1983)
First time I saw this and have heard mixed things about it, some seem to hate it and others consider as one on the true greats, now that I have watched this, I have to say I agree with the ones that consider it an absolute classic. I thought it was fantastic, brilliant direction, a mesmerizing performance from Al Pacino, outstanding support from the rest of the class involved, amazing shoot out scenes and for a film not far of 3 hours, it flew bye. Superb.

Se7en (1995)
A disturbing and excellently played shocker, this still has the power to send chills down the spine.

Millers Crossing (1990)
Cant really give much reason, I just felt let down by the humour, it just did not do it for me. I think the Coens have done far better and I think theres loads better films about crimes. I am willing to give it another go in the future to see if it improves.
 


Edited by filmfandan - 1/9/10 at 2:33pm
Reply
post #49 of 1166
1/9/10 at 5:30pm
Cloverfield (2008)

Goodness, this one takes me back to the good old days of Godzilla.

I've avoided watching this movie for a long time, not because I wouldn't like the subject matter but because of the camera work. I certainly can see though that the shakey cam style of filming suited this material. Luckily I only had to close my eyes a couple of times, didn't get sick and managed to watch the whole thing. I had a massive headache at the end though. Good gut-wretching experience of a movie but I would be pushing my luck if I watched it again.
Reply
post #50 of 1166
1/9/10 at 7:01pm
Requiem For A Dream (2000)
Director Darren Aronofsky beautifully crafts the horror and shockingness of drug addiction with outstanding use of music, wonderful direction and superb performances. This is a beautiful, raw, groundbraking horrifying and amazing experience. A masterpiece in my opinion and I also think its the best film that deals with Drugs, even better than Trainspotting in my opinion.

The Road (2009)
The first great film I have seen at the cinema in 2010 since I got off to a slow start with Did You Hear About The Morgans last week. The Road tells a simple yet heartbreaking, touching, moving and really quite bleak story about Survival. Performances are also excellent and its beautifully filmed.
Reply
post #51 of 1166
1/9/10 at 10:38pm

Quote:
The Road (2009) 

 

I'm hoping to be able to catch this. Have you read the book and if so does it follow pretty closely?
Reply
post #52 of 1166
1/9/10 at 10:49pm
An update from the past couple days.  I fit in another Sam Fuller classic and caught a couple of anticipated flicks at the movies. 

The Crimson Kimono (1959) 3.5/5 - Another tight Fuller crime film.  The man was born for this style of movie, and he's one of the few directors who can hammer you over the head with a message and not annoy me.  At any rate, you get snappy dialog, racial tension and a kick ass kendo fight. 

Avatar (2009) 3.5/5 - James Cameron is back in the Sci-Fi saddle, and he's bringing it in 3D.  Sadly, I have pretty much only one eye, so even though I went to the 3D, it looked like a regular movie to me.  It's a good one, Cameron has never made a film I didn't like.  That said, I wanted to love this one but just didn't.  You know exactly what's going to happen from the get go, the numerous heavy handed messages are a bit much and it had me thinking "get on with it!" before the big wham bams started happening.  The visual splendor and insanely well thought out alien world make it more then worth the time to sit through the more mundane aspects.  So good stuff, just not great.  Maybe seeing it in actual 3D will make it a great one.

The Boondock Saints II : All Saints Day (2009) 2/5 - Felt as much like a remake then a continuation, it just simply never worked.  Duffy wants this to be the coolest movie ever made, and instead it's one of the most annoying with every character seeming to attempt to win the "King Asshole" title.  Not too surprising since this was written by Duffy as well.  No wonder it debuted at the $3 theaters.  Maybe "The Boondock Saints III : Saint Misbehavin'"  will be better.
Reply
post #53 of 1166
1/10/10 at 2:44am


Quote:
Originally Posted by PatW View Post



I'm hoping to be able to catch this. Have you read the book and if so does it follow pretty closely?

I haven't read the book, PatW, but its definitely a film I would recommend a lot and I can see it doing at least reasonably well at the Oscars.
Reply
post #54 of 1166
1/10/10 at 4:47am
Taken (2008)

Liam Neeson plays a retired CIA agent whose former career has made him all paranoid, especially when it comes to worrying about his 17-year-old daughter's well being. When daddy's little girl asks him to sign a consent form so she may travel to Paris with her scatterbrained girlfriend (they actually are lying and want to follow a rock band all around the map), it's with grave reservations that he eventually complies. Once the girls arrive at their destination, it's only mere minutes before dad's worst fears are confirmed, and they're "taken" by foreign bad guys, to be drugged and sold as sex slaves. It's  theorized that Neeson has only 96 hours to find and rescue his daughter before she becomes completely untraceable.

As a fan of James Bond, I understand that many spy and action movies require accepting a lot of things that just aren't realistic. That's the fun of these types of films. But the contrived ease and lightning speed with which Neeson is able to arrive at the precise locations and track down and identify the specific criminals here, just struck me as totally unbelievable and cliche. Liam's fun to watch, and he's got some pretty cool lines ready for his daughter's captors, but in addition to the by-the-numbers approach to the material, there's a lot of hand-held and shaky camera craziness to distract those viewers who dislike such an approach.

Go watch HARDCORE (1979) with George C. Scott instead. 
Reply
post #55 of 1166
1/10/10 at 5:39am
 "Infestation"-   -  First film of 2010 at last!

Meh. Not the great ride I thought it was going to be.

The film gets off to a very fast (though needlessly interrupted thanks to the opening shot) start that sees the World, country, county....er....no idea....attacked by a giant bug sonic assault where everyone wakes up (or not) cocooned up.
A group of survivors (lead by a guy who looks like he's had giant hamster cheeks grafted onto him) fight their way...blah...blah...you know the deal. It's "Dawn of the Dead" with beetles.

Despite the 'getting down to business' start the film does take long and numerous downtime breaks to have the less than thrilling characters less than thrillingly waffle on about their less than thrilling lives and actually, despite the fast start, the 'bug action' is quite far apart and not that interesting really.

The FX are pretty good with only a few of the CGI shots looking bad.
But death and violence is minimal, as is bloodshed, lots of cliche characters sitting around (or walking along) arguing is at a max, loud false scares are frequent and will only surprise those of a generally nervous disposition anyway.

Things pick up with the late introduction of the ever welcome Ray "Twin Peaks" Wise and there is a general air of 'fun' about the project.
But some of the more serious dramatic parts really don't mix well with the generally comic tone. An uncomfortable, actually really serious, topless attempted seduction scene in the film is the best example of this.

And the big problem.........The end!
I know we live in a time where film makers think that a sudden, movie destroying, 'twist' has to rear its inbred head far too often but "Infestation" has perhaps the least satisfying, utterly meaningless, finale I think I have ever seen. It's wrong to really call it a twist, it's just a...er....the film ran out of the camera moment that literally leaves you with no idea at all...at all...about what just happened or is about to happen.
It could be a big bad nasty twist, or a happy ending or the Producers suddenly breaking onto the set to close things down.
You literally have no end...to the end. Not happy, not downbeat, just nothing.

So what we are left with is a generally fun, generally well acted creature feature but with a lethargic screenplay, ho hum direction, dull cliche, little ick factor (unless you have a toothpaste phobia), so-so FX, seen it all before action and a lousy ending.
The fact...and I do mean fact...here is that this wants to reach the majestic heights of "Tremors", the film that every single light hearted monster romp will be forever judged, but it fails in most of the ways where "Tremors" beautifully succeeds.
Only the excellent (and again something that succeeds in the way "infestation" does not, including the introduction of the odd serious moment) "Deep Rising" has come close to having any chance of usurping "Tremors" from its throne.
"Infestation" has no chance.
Reply
post #56 of 1166
1/10/10 at 9:55am
01/06/10: JOSEFA’S LOOT (Claude Autant-Lara, 1963)
 
This bucolic French comedy is a latter-day (but very minor) work by a renowned film-maker – despite utilizing the services of his legendary in-house screenwriting duo of Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost – as much adept at serious subjects as droll ones. The female lead here is an Italian shopkeeper – played by a typically shrill Anna Magnani – who is thought to be wealthy (even by her own crooked offspring living in Paris) due to her former association with a gangster, but is actually penniless (though she still contrives to present the local curate with a juke-box!). In fact, the boy conspires with another man (popular comic Bourvil, in his third and last film with the director) to fleece the woman of her money after the latter claims to have been involved in a car accident with Magnani’s son!; needless to say, the indomitable lady will have nothing to do with Bourvil, so he turns for help to the Mayor (Pierre Brasseur, in his second of three films with Autant-Lara) – who, as it happens, is the boy’s real father even if Magnani cannot stand him! To complicate matters further, the woman has her hands full trying to keep rowdy, drunken patrons at bay – which eventually leads to the most vociferous (and irritating) among them to incite the others to break into Magnani’s shop while she is away and accidentally burn it down! Having confessed to Bourvil her predicament, the two become friends (she even forgives her son’s impertinence on learning that he is a talented, if still struggling, lyricist – with Bourvil supplying the music and vocals to the songs himself!) and, eventually, they leave town together. Ultimately, while the material at hand is clearly unworthy of its stars and director, the film emerges as a harmless (if rather dim) diversion for their fans.
 
 
01/08/10: EN CAS DE MALHEUR (Claude Autant-Lara, 1958) 
 
The film under review closes off nicely Claude Autant-Lara’s impeccable 15-year run of noteworthy pictures that had begun with 1943’s DOUCE (see my upcoming rave review); it is also notable for being an unlikely but fairly successful meeting between the biggest (Jean Gabin) and hottest (Brigitte Bardot) stars in French Cinema at the time i.e. just before the outbreak of the “Nouvelle Vague” brought along a horde of fresh and irreverent talent. Adapted from a Georges Simenon novel, the plot of EN CAS DE MALHEUR is quite predictable and not entirely convincing but the consummate professionalism of all concerned smooths over any bumps that come up along the way. Bardot is an aimless youth who, together with her reluctant girlfriend, amateurishly attempts to pull off a small-time jewel heist that, inevitably, goes wrong and, eventually, picks up Gabin’s name at random from a phone book to act as her defense counsel in court; not having the financial means to pay for his services, she elects to remunerate him in the only way she knows how: seduction. Although this particular sequence, as shown in the finished film, is disappointingly chaste, the deleted clip reproduced at the end of the copy I acquired is, however, too crude to be seen at such an early stage of the film and, in my opinion, the director was wise to jettison it; in any case, he did contrive to gives us a good look at the gloriously naked body (solely from the back, of course) of the 23-year old Bardot later on when she rushes out of the bathroom and into bed (much to the chagrin of Gabin’s mousy secretary) of the apartment that Gabin provided her with! Needless to say, Gabin is already married (to the formidable Edwige Feuilliere) and, although on the surface she appears to condone Gabin’s latest flirtation, she is obviously none too happy about it. To complicate matters further, Bardot is also seeing her irascible Italian lover (Franco Interlenghi) on the side and things come to a tragic head when she unwisely decides that loveless wealth is preferable to blissful poverty. Abetted by Jacques Natteau’s noir-ish lighting and Rene` Cloerec’s fine score, the colorful cast also includes three alumni from the films of Luis Bunuel, namely Julien Bertheau (appearing briefly at the very end as the investigating inspector at the scene of the crime passionel), Jean-Pierre Cassel (unbilled as an animated trumpeter, one of Bardot’s casual lovers) and an unrecognizable Bernard Musson – and even Jacques Marin and Daniela Bianchi (also unrecognizable). While the film’s 122-minute running time would seem overgenerous on paper, it is only the belated (and unnecessary) introduction of the character of Bardot’s maid that makes one realize this as we lay watching; I strongly suspect that the film-makers wanted to push the boundaries of censorship even further by hinting at a possible ménage-a-trois between her, Bardot and Gabin but, perhaps thankfully, this is not made all that clear in the few scenes they share together…which is just as well since the huge difference in age between onscreen lovers Gabin and Bardot and the above-mentioned nude scene had already raised the proverbial conservative eyebrows! For the record, the film was remade 40 years later as EN PLEIN COEUR aka IN ALL INNOCENCE with Virginie Ledoyen stepping into Bardot’s 'shoes'. 
Reply
post #57 of 1166
1/10/10 at 12:49pm
The Karate Kid (1984): 4.5/5

I went in thinking that it would be mostly about Daniel's journey as a fighter, but The Karate Kid is really a coming-of-age story with lessons and struggles that apply to all aspects of life. All of the cast and crew turned in some superior work, but special praise must be given to Pat Morita and Ralph Macchio, the anchors of the film. The sequence from the drinking scene to the end of Daniel's birthday is filmmaking at its finest.
Reply
post #58 of 1166
1/10/10 at 1:19pm

Quote:
The Karate Kid (1984): 4.5/5

 
It's been years since I saw this one and I can remember liking it a great deal. Not enough to buy but close. I'm not too anxious to view the re-make when it arrives but I suppose I'll give it a chance. I find most re-makes inferior to the original.  

Reply
post #59 of 1166
1/10/10 at 1:47pm
I don't expect The Karate Kid (2010) to live up to the original, but with the basic story and Jackie Chan, I think it will still be an entertaining trip to the movies.
Reply
post #60 of 1166
1/10/10 at 8:48pm
The Rite (rewatch) - Even more impenetrable than Persona. Individual scenes work on their own, for the most part. The interrogation scenes are especially strong, with all those Kafkaesque power plays and sudden emotional outbursts and twisted bureaucracy. But the film as a whole doesn't hang together, and after a second viewing I still have no idea what Bergman is getting at beyond exorcising a few random personal demons. It's a hodge-podge of themes: censorship, acting and artistry, emotional breakdown, sexual politics, marital issues... and a cult ritual with giant dildos (it's amazing what you can get away with on Swedish television). It gets really ridiculous and hysterical at times but has a host of strong moments, and some powerful performances. I kind of feel like I'm rating this too high, and if it wasn't so short I'd probably be harsher on it, but it's such an odd curiosity that I find it compelling. Rating: 7


Alone Across the Pacific - A disappointing film from Ichikawa, especially considering it was made in the same year as the magnificent Revenge of a Kabuki Actor. A young man decides to sail his tiny yacht from Osaka to San Francisco, just for the hell of it. Ichikawa cranked out a lot of movies in his lifetime, and this feels like one of the more half-hearted efforts. The naval cinematography (is that right? seems like there ought to be a better phrase for that) is superb, capturing the enormity of the Pacific, the cramped confines below deck, and a few exciting sequences. There's some nice attention to detail and good use of the ultra-wide frame. But there's just not much heart and soul or depth to it. Star Yûjirô Ishihara is likeable enough in the lead role, but we don't really get too attached to him or get invested in his journey. Because the journey itself is almost entirely geographical; he doesn't evolve much as a character. Perhaps the whole thing is a response to the Japanese "Sun Tribe" films (Ishihara had a small role in Crazed Fruit, and most likely did other work in the genre), some kind of critique on the restlessness of youth. But I didn't really get that from it. Just sort of felt like an average survival/adventure tale. Rating: 6


The Straits of Love and Hate - Another Mizoguchi film about a woman in a bad situation. Kenkichi is the layabout son of wealthy resort owners. He impregnates Ohumi, one of the maids, takes her to Tokyo, and soon abandons her. This movie, based on a Tolstoy novel, isn't as soul-crushing as Mizoguchi's other works, though. The film has a casual pace, moments of comedy (often in conjunction with moments of tragedy) and Ohumi gains support from Yoshitaro, a kindly bohemian young man. Although you couldn't say that things go swimmingly for Ohumi, her fate is not as cruel as most Mizoguchi heroines. Unfortunately the print was severely battered, so it's hard to comment on the technical aspects, but there were a number of impressive tracking shots. Not one of his greatest films, but certainly a good one with excellent characterization, and it's nice to see a lighter-hearted touch. Rating: 8


Take Aim at the Police Van - Seijun Suzuki's film in the "Nikkatsu Noir" set starts off beautifully: a sniper looks through his scope to read signs that warn caution drivers about frequent accidents. Then the credits kick in with a jazzy score over a POV shot from a car driving at night. It gets you really psyched to be watching another crazy, stylish Suzuki film. But these kind of moments are few and far between, and the bulk of the film is just an average noir mystery/thriller. The plot is confusing, including at least one instance of the hero suddenly realizing something that he already knew long beforehand, but usually it comes together to make sense. Except the ending, the reveal of who the elusive criminal mastermind "Akiba" is. Maybe I missed something, but I couldn't see any reason for it. Still, the movie is pretty fun, though I'd hoped for a little more style from Suzuki. Rating: 7


The Hangover - I mostly wanted to see this because of Zach Galifianakis, and he definitely has most of the best laugh-out-loud moments. But there's some other funny stuff here too, especially the small roles by Rob Riggle and Ken Jeong. The movie is a nice twist on the "guys have a wild night" chestnut, and doesn't ever get too obnoxious. The whole business with the tiger was kind of stupid, and the Ed Helms story resolves itself quite predictably, but other than that I had no problems. It's rare for me these days to find a comedy I would want to watch a second time, and this one wasn't exceptional enough to break that pattern, but I enjoyed it enough. Rating: 7


Sada (rewatch) - I know I just watched this about 2.5 months ago, but I just bought the DVD so I figured I'd give it a second look and make sure it was a good purchase. Truth is, I'm a bit less fond of it than I was the first time. The slapsticky parts really annoy me. But it's still a really good movie with a lot of exciting, stylish moments, and a damn sight better than In the Realm of the Senses. If it were up to me, people would be forced to watch them as a double feature, because Obayashi's version of the Sada Abe story deserves a lot more attention than Oshima's. I wouldn't say it was a bad purchase, but I'm slightly less jazzed about it than I was before. Just bring on Hausu! Rating: 8


Paranormal Activity - Well, not only did I miss all the hype and excitement about this movie, but apparently I've missed the subsequent backlash as well. That was fast. Usually it takes people about a year to start bad-mouthing the movie they previously couldn't shut up about. But this one seems to have gone from "greatest thing ever" to "piece of shit waste of time" in about 3 months, judging by the ratings I'm seeing around the interwebs. I thought it was good. The worst thing about it is the acting. The two leads don't succeed in coming off as natural, it's like they're trying a little too hard. This problem actually starts to go away as the story gets creepier and they don't have to do so many casual banter/establishing the relationship scenes, so overall I'd say the performances are slightly better than Blair Witch Project. And really, for a low-budget horror movie, you don't expect high-caliber acting anyway. What you want are scares, and it delivers. Although you pretty much know when most of the scares are coming, you never know what form they'll take, and they do a good job of mixing it up and keeping it fresh. There's probably nothing I haven't seen somewhere else, but I liked how it progressed and it certainly creeped me out a couple of times. The ending does leave something to be desired... not terrible, but a bit cheesy. I usually consider an "alternate ending" on the DVD to be a bad sign, but in this case I think the alternate was a slight improvement. On another day I might rate this a notch lower, but it just seems like it's been a while since I've seen a good scary movie. Rating: 8
Edited by Martin Teller - 1/11/10 at 9:09am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2010)