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 4

post #91 of 1166
1/17/10 at 5:01pm
It's Complicated (2009)

Enjoyable adult comedy stars Meryl Streep as an older divorcee of ten years' standing who's beginning to feel her age and very alone. She runs into her ex-husband Alec Baldwin, who has re-married a new girl young enough to be his daughter, at their son's graduation. Alec begins to feel attracted to Streep again, and after a night of drinking and dancing the two wind up in bed having the time of their lives, which soon becomes a regular thing (and an all-out marital affair in Baldwin's case). It seems that being divorced has been just the shot in the arm this couple has needed to rekindle their feelings for the past decade. Also muddled into the mix (and making the title of this movie hold up) is that Streep is having her house re-done by a nice-guy architect (Steve Martin) also who's starting to fall for her.

There are some good laughs here, and Alec Baldwin kind of takes top honors, I thought. Steve Martin seemed underused at first, but finally balances his part well between a straight sort of dramatic character and some funny comical moments in the spirit of his best '80s comedies.
Reply
post #92 of 1166
1/17/10 at 6:57pm
The Passion of Anna (rewatch) - Much better the second time around. It does take a while (roughly the first half of the film) before it starts getting good, and I still think the idea of interviewing the actors about their characters is a silly novelty (although I can see some purpose to it). And while I'm criticizing, the film is overall disjointed and unfocused, often the case with Bergman films of this period. But there is a lot of interesting stuff going on. No one does chamber drama, and those intense dialogues, like Bergman. Although this isn't his best work in that area, there are some revealing interactions, some explosive, some wonderfully understated. The use of flashbacks is intriguing, most notably the callback to Shame. I can't believe I'd forgotten about it entirely. I don't know if he shot more footage for this film, or if it's a previously discarded ending, but as a huge fan of Shame I was grateful to see it. And the exploration of "physical and psychological violence" is incredibly powerful and disturbing. And that final shot, of Von Sydow pacing on the road between the edges of the frame, unable to choose his fate... and as the film becomes grainier and grainier, he collapses and disintegrates. That's a brilliant shot, absolutely brilliant. I'm really glad I finally gave this one a second look. Rating: 8


The Return - A haunting debut feature, with lots of room for interpretation (including an intriguing religious angle). It gives you room to think about the think about the metaphorical implications, while also serving just fine as a surface narrative. A bit "been there, seen that" at first, but as the story develops it comes into its own. It's impossible to avoid the Tarkovsky reference; Zvyagintsev's work greatly resembles his, with a slow-paced tempo and long, lingering close-ups. The color palette is drained, painting a world of drab blue-grays that matches the bleakness of the story (although, admittedly, isn't that engaging to the eye). The two boys were both passable for child actors... the younger one, who looks a whole lot like Haley Joel Osment, kind of bugged me with his constant pouting, but given the character and the situation, I guess he didn't have a lot of options there. In a bit of poetic tragedy, the older boy drowned before the film was released. Rating: 8


You Only Live Once - Had a bad feeling about this as soon as the movie started with a lame ethnic stereotype ("he take-a my apples!"). Lang's American movies are no where near the quality of his early work, but they're usually pretty decent. This one is pretty disappointing, though. While there are several impressive shots, a lot of the cinematography is flat and lifeless. The timing often feels all wrong and the story (an ex-con who can't catch a break) is one I've seen a hundred times before. Lang sets up a series of plot contrivances in order to keep his hero (who is not much of a hero) in trouble, some of them as ludicrous as anything in Dancer in the Dark. It's all just really ham-fisted. Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sidney make the best of what they've got, though. I'd probably give this a lower score if it wasn't for some occasional nice photography. They Live By Night is a better telling of a similar tale. Rating: 6


Avanti! - The two biggest laughs in this comedy are not intentional. The first is that Juliet Mills is supposed to be a "fat-ass". What? WHAT? She put on 25 pounds for the role, but she still looks perfectly normal... sexy and beautiful, even. And yet the movie treats her like Mama Cass. It's absolutely insane. And this brings us to the other big laugh: her wonderment at how all Americans are so thin! HAHA! HA! HA! Even in 1972, the era of Twiggy, that would have been utter nonsense. Putting aside the film's dubious treatment of weight, it's a passable romantic comedy, one without any big laughs but it's amusing enough (more so if you enjoy Italian stereotypes like women with mustaches ho ho!). It's a watered-down version of the sexual revolution for a more conservative audience, but it still gets rather racy at times. Lemmon and Mills have a nice, charming chemistry together. Rating: 7


Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Blu-Ray) - Well, this is the longest it's ever taken me to see a Harry Potter movie. Not only is it the first one I didn't see in the theater, but it's been sitting around the house for about a month, waiting for a time when my wife and I could agree to watch it. Finally I said screw it and watched it without her. I suppose the hesitation comes from the fact that I remember very little of the book, and what I do remember is mostly a lot of teenage angst. And oh yes, there is plenty of silly adolescent romance. I wouldn't mind it, in fact I prefer when the series get a nice injection of humanity (which is what makes Cuaron's so special) but here it definitely gets too much screen time and detracts from an already complicated story. And I know the books get darker metaphorically and it suits the film to have it get darker literally, but seriously, who turned out the lights? I fear that Deathly Hallows will require night-vision goggles if this continues. Still, I'm willing to forgive an awful lot when it comes to Harry Potter. I get so entranced by the world and found myself quite wrapped up in it despite these distractions. The craftsmanship is top-notch, especially in the special effects department. Most importantly, I cared what was going on and it made want to revisit both the books and the other films. Certainly not the best in the series, but satisfying enough for a fan. Rating: 8
Reply
post #93 of 1166
1/17/10 at 9:12pm
Dr. Renault’s Secret – Gorgeous BW cinematography distinguishes this economical thriller about a young scientist (apparently the inventor of the frontal lobotomy) who comes to collect his bride in a small French village only to find that all heck is breaking loose thanks to her uncle’s experiments in turning gorillas into men. Noel, the mad doctor’s melancholy ‘assistant’ is just a wee bit sensitive, especially for someone who used to be a gorilla, and doesn’t like being teased about his dancing, or, well, anything else. Apparently you can turn a monkey into a man, but you can’t give him a sense of humor. Rather than just throwing poop on people though, Noel may or may not be embarking on a killing spree. Is it him or is it Mike Mazurki, the village bully, who only wants enough money to go to Tahiti and live like a king? I’ll never tell. Come to think of it, Mike looks even more simian than the monkey guy. I wonder if they planned it that way?
Dragonwyck – Carefree country girl Gene Tierney gets a grand, gothic lesson in life when Vincent Price hires her to live in his creepy castle and play governess to his creepy daughter. When his creepy wife ‘unexpectedly’ dies, Vince confesses his love for Gene and, despite the misgivings of nearly everyone around her, she consents to be married. Everything goes downhill fairly quickly after that, as I suppose one would expect from this type of fussy drama. It’s all very sweeping and tragic, but not very much actually happens. Gene Tierney was definitely one of the more exotic and voluptuous of the classic leading ladies and is very lovely here, but unless you enjoy watching Vincent Price prancing around and acting like a privileged snot for two hours, I’d advise getting your gothic fix by going back and watching ‘Jane Eyre’ again instead.
Dillinger – An old man takes the stage in a crowded theater to tell the audience about his son John Dillinger and how he came to live a life of crime. When Dillinger goes to jail for stealing seven dollars, he meets up with a gang of big time bank robbers who promise to take him under their wing if he busts them out of jail. Before long, they are robbing every bank in sight and Dillinger is resenting like hell being told what to do. He’s got ideas of his own, see…Nobody plays a ruthless, paranoid hood the way Lawrence Tierney does and this is easily the best role and movie I’ve ever seen him in.  Definitely one of the more underrated Warner gangster classics.
The Amazing Transparent Man – Edgar G. Ulmer eschews his usual mist-laden dreamscapes to tell the no nonsense tale of a safecracker named Faust, looking uncannily like Richard Nixon, who is exposed to an atomic ray that renders him invisible so that he can steal Nuclear secrets for a corrupt army major. Faust has some ideas of his own, of course, and ultimately must choose between helping his country and indulging his coarser nature as a crook. The Nixon factor just seems to foreshadow everything, of course. Is this some mad metaphor about a certain ambitious politician making a Faustian bargain to further his career by securing a position as a HUAC chair? Am I watching entirely too many movies lately? Mmmmmm…..could be.
The Dark Corner – Hardboiled noir about a private dick who has to find out who framed him when his old two-timing partner shows up dead in his living room. Mark Stevens comes off like an Alan Ladd stand-in as the detective and Lucille Ball plays his loyal secretary, determined to solve the crime and clear his name so that she can get him to the altar. Clifton Webb and William Bendix round out the cast and plenty of snappy dialogue is exchanged by all parties. Lucy looks pretty hot, all long legs and reproachful looks and Bendix, who usually plays a loveable schlub, manages to be genuinely menacing as a bad detective who carries a roll of nickels in his pocket ‘cuz knucks is illegal’..
Destroy All Monsters – Somehow all of the world’s monsters have been contained on a single tiny island in the Pacific, sort of like what they did in ‘Escape from New York’, except with atomic mutations. Everything is hunky dory until an alien race called the ‘Keeloks’, a bunch of chicks in sparkly sliver nun’s habits, take over the monsters and command them to destroy the world’s capitals. A crack team of astronaut agents is called back from the moon to deal with the catastrophe but they’ve really got their hands full here and the Keelok queen appears periodically just to mock them and remind them that their time is running out. The best Godzilla movies are the ones with science fiction sub-plots featuring alien invaders and this one is right up there with ‘Monster Zero’ in my book. The great Ishiro Honda delivers another classic for the perpetual eight year old in all of us.
Reply
post #94 of 1166
1/17/10 at 9:35pm
Thread Starter 

AVATAR, IT'S COMPLICATED, UP IN THE AIR and several other films I wanted to see didn't start until late so my girlfriend and I went into THE BLIND SIDE and I must admit to having fantasies about a gang coming into the theater and shooting me up just so I could be put out of misery.  I realize that going to the movies is going to be a very rare thing but my mother took Dylan this weekend, which gave the girlfriend and I a chance to go out and we sadly wasted it on that film. 


Blind Side, The (2009)
 

John Lee Hancock
 

Typical sports drama about a poor black kid (Quinton Aaron) who is living on the streets when a couple rick folks (Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw) take him into their home.  They try to get his grades up at school so that he can play football and soon they discover his true talent.  You know going in what to expect from this true-story but the amount of sugar really got under my skin after a while as did the fact that this thing followed every sports cliche in the book.  Every once in a while a film will come along and makes millions of dollars and I'm left there scratching my head as to why.  I think I know why but this film pretty much plays to a simple crowd who probably aren't going to expect too much.  I'm not sure how many times this film followed a cliche and delivered the same type of cliched line and I honestly couldn't help but laugh.  Just like the scene where Bullock walks up to some gangsters in the ghetto and insults them.  Now, this gangster just pulled a gun on her son and has probably killed a few folks in his day yet he's going to let this white woman come up on his turf and insult him?  It's doubtful but it's one of those "cheer" moments that only take place in movies like this.  If one hasn't seen a lot of sports movies then perhaps they won't get annoyed with all the stuff here but I've seen quite a few in my day and by the hour mark I was wishing I was somewhere else.  The film has been getting a lot of attention for its performances and they're pretty good throughout, although I certainly attach the word Oscar to any of them.  Bullock gives the Southern accent her all and delivers a fiery performance but to me the real breakthrough was Aaron.  He does a pretty strong job at playing quiet and really delivering emotions without saying a word, which is a lot more impressive than just shouting out lame dialogue.  Even McGraw does a nice job but I must say the real NCAA coaches don't come off as good.  The subject matter has been sugar-coated to the point of being watered down but this is to be expected since this is a mainstream film trying to capture as many people as it can.  It certainly worked because as I was walking out there were many people crying, myself including, but my tears were of frustration for just wasting $20.

Key to the City (1950)
 

George Sidney
 

Coming fifteen years after teaming up for THE CALL OF THE WILD, Clark Gable and Loretta Young finally made another film together even though both had remained at MGM over the course of time.  Their love child from the making of that 1935 film might have had something to do with this but in this film they play Mayors who meet at a convention in San Francisco.  At first, naturally, they can't stand one another but soon they begin to fall in love even though Gable is facing some heat in his political job.  When you know the troubled history that Gable and Young went through it's somewhat amazing that MGM would force them into this film but what's even more amazing is that they turn in such fine performances and the charm that's on display here is the same that was seen in that 1935 film (which I highly recommend).  That's certainly the sign of great actors but it's a shame that the studio, knowing the trouble, wouldn't deliver a better screenplay.  This is certainly another example of great actors having to work their tails off to make material seem a lot better than it actually is.  This certainly isn't a bad movie because it does have several good moments but with these two stars you'll be hoping there was more here.  What does work is naturally Gable and Young, both extremely charming and making the film fun to watch.  The two work perfectly well together as both make you believe their characters and makes you believe everything they do.  The supporting cast is also quite good with Raymond Burr as Gable's political rival, Frank Morgan (in his final film; he died before this was released) sweet as the fire chief and Lewis Stone.  The screenplay makes a few bad mistakes including the silly political stuff that ends with a pretty over the top sequence inside of Gable's office at the end.  This political stuff also keeps Gable and Young away from one another, which is another mistake as it's them carrying the film.  Fans of the two stars will certainly want to check this out but others will find much better films from the two.

Reply
post #95 of 1166
1/18/10 at 1:19am
I was wondering if 'Call of the Wild' was any good. I recently re-read the book and thought Gable and Jack Oakey might be great as the leads. I don't really recall any love interest though, except maybe among the dogs. I guess that's Hollywood for you.
Reply
post #96 of 1166
1/18/10 at 7:40am
01/17/10: VERONICA AND HER DUNCE (Eric Rohmer, 1958)
 
Slight, atypical (being closer to Truffaut in its look at a mischievous lonely boy) but likeable 18-minute short from Rohmer. The plot could not be simpler, what with a single setting (the dining-room of a flat) and only 3 characters (the child, his mother and his young female guardian). The latter overlooks the kid’s studies during afternoons while his mum is away on some errand, asking her to be severe if necessary. Anyway, after a few tantrums, ‘tutor’ and student settle down to work at some arithmetic problems – but logic soon leads to confusion, and she cannot quite explain to him how to get at the requisite answer except that that is the way it should be done! Next, they tackle composition and she has a hard time convincing him on the need to elaborate with respect to a typical Thursday morning’s activities – since one simply thinks about doing something and as such does not require further explanation! When the girl leaves, he is not yet ready and the mother has still not returned; though the boy assures her he will keep working on the essay, he takes to playing with his ball as soon as she exits. Enjoyable on the surface but full of often sardonic insight about methods of upbringing and teaching in the modern world.
 
 
01/17/10: CHANGING LANDSCAPE (Eric Rohmer, 1964; TV)
 
Educational documentaries are not exactly my cup of tea – so I approached this Rohmer short (from the series “The Industrial Era”), running 22 minutes, with reasonable trepidation. Despite affording landscape the same consideration he usually bestowed upon his human characters, it all proved somewhat less than entertaining, even a little dull. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the film’s basic instructiveness: delineating the way the once picturesque French countryside (which had inspired many a celebrated Impressionist painter) has been gradually ‘devoured’ in the name of progress by noisy machinery deployed in the erection of imposing steel structures. Incidentally, while the deliberately gray quality of the cinematography suggests that something of the vitality so representative of Paris has definitely been lost in the process, one can still detect a certain elegance in these abstract forms which, either by coincidence or design, can often be seen to evoke past monuments.
Reply
post #97 of 1166
1/19/10 at 8:48am
Star Trek (2009) 4/5 - Sets a high standard for rebooting a classic series.  It manages to be it's own ass kicking sci fi action film, while masterfully acknowledging everything that came before it.  To my memory, it actually works as both a re-imagination with a (borderline to young) young cast, while working as the next film in the Star Trek series (I think it would be #32) I know it's blasphemy, but this is my favorite Star Trek movie.
Reply
post #98 of 1166
1/19/10 at 10:40am
 I have to say the two worst Rathbone Holmes films for me are the one on the train (awful, messy, ending) and the one on the boat (with a singing Watson!).

I actually have a soft spot for the much maligned 'Nazi' entries.  Because as simple exciting stories and Holmes adventures they work perfectly and the war angle is actually close to one of Holmes' last stories and the speech used by Rathbone about WW2 and the Nazis at the end of  one of the entries is simply Doyle's speech for Holmes about WW1 and the Germans. 

Rathbone's 'gruff hero' Holmes manages to actually work, because it still gives us something to the man who would remain a rather empty logic shell if (and indeed they had to) remove his drug addiction and his melancholy, depressive, angry, often torn nature.

This is why for me the normally wonderful Peter Cushing makes a very dull and empty Holmes.
As they remove every dark/controversial aspect of the man for mainstream cinema appeal at the time (Hammer's weak "Baskervilles") and for the TV standards of the time (the generally dull and story butchered BBC TV series) but replace it all with nothing.  Leaving nothing.

Which is why (for different reasons) Brett and Rathbone are still the most effective versions (though Clive Merrison - once he ditched the OTT laugh - on the stunning, complete canon, Radio adaptations is right up there too).





"Watchmen" - The Ultimate Cut - (for the film). (for the adaptation)

I'll come right out and say it. I love it.

Thought it a fine (as best as we can hope for, or would actually work as a live action movie) adaptation done with massive care, time, money and love.
As a sane fan of the graphic novel (and with a realistic head on my non-fanboy shoulders) I understood you would have to remove parts and layers of the overall novel experience...but in this (only way to see it) 'Ultimate Cut' the makers have done a stunning job as far as the film standing on it's own goes and a fine job as adaptors.

Rorschach was spot on perfect in every way and actually looked more effective in the film than he he did even in the graphic novel.
The world was superbly realised, the story epic in scope but still personal and easy to follow even for those with no knowledge of the novel, the FX were often stunning, the action brutal and effective and the mixture of macho cliche, parody, homage, observation, commentary, fun, thrills, laughter, heartache and tragedy was mixed almost as well in the film as in the graphic novel.

And until you've seen the proper version of "Watchmen" in it's 'Ultimate Cut' form AND THEN watched the excellent version of "under the Hood" on the 'Complete Story' DVD...you have not really seen the "Watchmen" film.
Taken as a whole the DVD experience of "Watchmen" is a mini marvel as far as adapting such a great and ,multi-layered book and it's one hell of a well made package done with massive love.

In these days of massive DVD/Blu-Ray sales worldwide, with increasingly big and powerful home theatre systems...the cinema version of a film is becoming less and less and important and is almost gone as far as a definitive viewing experience of a film goes.
The excellent (as best an adaptation as we could have hoped for...and if you are against ANY adaptation don't see the bloody thing then) 'Ultimate Cut' and the separate 'Under the Hood' feature (done as a TV documentary) make for a masterwork in my view.

Loved the graphic novel, loved the 'Ultimate Cut' and I can't understand the hate for the movie (which actually improved the ending of the graphic novel by easily and effectively ditching the, never would work in a film anyway, rather goofy 'octopus' monster).
Essential viewing.




"A Dangerous Man". -

Nice one Stevie!

Stevie the Seagull flaps his chubby wings extra hard and manages to halt his career plummet (yet again) after the unwatchable lows of "Kill Switch".

This is well paced, well directed, wonderfully brutal (wince like a wincy thing at the meaty, crunchy, 'rod in the back of the neck' death) and entertaining stuff that effectively juggles many different groups of characters, from Seagal's delightfully cliche 'ex Special Forces' (of course!!) troubled hero to Russian mobsters (Seagal's current fetish), Chinese criminal gangs, corrupt Police and the Chinese military.

The dialogue is also a gem of multifaceted delights. Made better by Seagal's obvious unwillingness to see trash dialogue AS trash dialogue.
Highlights are (in a wonderfully unhinged moment for his character) Seagal's pronouncement to a would-be mugger that he's going to"Fuck you up ugly", his remark to the lead bad guy"Where I come from, we say death is emptiness. In that case, I've been dead for many years" and a stunningly delightful line from a Russian mobster to the corrupt Police Captain, "Where I come from we fuck Cops in the mouth when we've run out of farm animals"!
Genius!

Seagal is thankfully not doubled except for a couple of 'throwing the bad guy across the room' stunts and his ultra-fast punches, blocks and thudding kicks still manage to impress despite his extra bulk (though again, he looks better than he has done). the gunplay is not as blood drenched or in your face as that of "Renegade Justice" and tthe support characters do more of it...but again it's effective and violent enough.

Trashy, cheesy, nasty, fast paced, no-nonsense funstuffs!
Now try to keep the quality constant Stevie!
Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 1/19/10 at 11:09am
Reply
post #99 of 1166
1/19/10 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak View Post

 "Watchmen" - The Ultimate Cut - (for the film). (for the adaptation)

 


My only problem (for lack of a better word) with the ultimate cut is that the style of animation chosen for The Black Freighter stuff is too modern looking for my tastes. I think they should have just had panels done in a 1950's EC Comics-style rather than the anime type of look that they went with. Admittedly, what they went with is much more dynamic and interesting than just putting up static drawings on the screen.
Reply
post #100 of 1166
1/19/10 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post



My only problem (for lack of a better word) with the ultimate cut is that the style of animation chosen for The Black Freighter stuff is too modern looking for my tastes. I think they should have just had panels done in a 1950's EC Comics-style rather than the anime type of look that they went with. Admittedly, what they went with is much more dynamic and interesting than just putting up static drawings on the screen.

Yeah I agree, but i thought it was still effective...On the DVD comm track Gibbons says they changed it from the 'EC' look to a more anime-type look for a modern audiences reference point.
Reply
post #101 of 1166
1/19/10 at 5:18pm
While the City Sleeps (1956)

Somewhat interesting film noir about a contest among a news service's three divisions set by the boss. Who ever can identify the serial killer known as the lipstick killer will become the new assistant to Walter Kyne (Vincent Price) the new owner of the news service. This movie has great atmosphere and  good performances especially from Dana Andrews. Though parts of it seems alittle silly, it still makes for an enjoyable watch.
 
 The Hurt Locker (2008)

Admittedly I'm not too big of a fan of this genre and though I didn't find the story all that captivating what made this movie for me were the wonderful performances. That alone is reason enough to see this. Nobody in particular stands out for me other than great ensemble work.

 Return to Me (2000)

When I think of actors in romantic comedies, David Duchovny is the last one I think of. I loved him in the X-files series and surprise, surprise he was quite good here as a grieving widower who finds a new love (Minnie Driver) and unknown to either of them she is the recipient of his dead wife's heart. Bonnie Hunt along with her partner wrote this and you can tell a lot of heart was put in this story. There are many funny moments here most of them supplied by James Belushi which does break up the sentimentality of the story. There are alot of good actors and each one is given  their moment to shine. Though this movie does appeal more to women, there is enough here for guys as well.  

Reply
post #102 of 1166
1/19/10 at 7:35pm
For rewatches, I find myself with less and less new to say each time. From here on, I will just highlight something that stood out for me on the most recent viewing. I will elaborate and discuss those movies further if someone asks me about it or comments upon it.

Singin' in the Rain: 4/5

The long song and dance takes are simply amazing.

Invictus: 3/5

I found this to be a passable sports movie that unfolds according to formula. It doesn't have the memorable characters, witty one-liners, and rousing moments that make this genre come alive. I also saw nothing to explain how the team turned from laughingstocks into champions in that short of a time.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: 5/5

I introduced a friend to this movie. Both of us were dazzled by the score on this viewing.

Psycho: 4.5/5

The shower scene is more famous, but the death of Arbogast is much more jarring and scary to me.
Reply
post #103 of 1166
1/19/10 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkin The Ewok View Post

Psycho: 4.5/5

The shower scene is more famous, but the death of Arbogast is much more jarring and scary to me.


I saw Psycho a few years ago in an art theater and the crowd went crazy during Ar-bo-gast's murder. I've seen the movie so many times that its power is lost on me but I was amazed by how legitimately scared the crowd seemed to be by the shower murder, the Arbogast murder and the Mrs. Bates reveal.
Reply
post #104 of 1166
1/19/10 at 9:48pm
Braveheart – I guess I don’t need to spend much time recounting the story of William Wallace, given how popular this film is. I finally got around to picking up the Blu-ray after not having seen the movie in many years. The Blu looks awesome, of course, but what really struck me was how incredibly influential Gibson’s Action-Epic style has been on modern cinema, both in a good and a bad way. Braveheart definitely shows how to streamline the pomp and palace intrigue that can bog down a lot of the old Hollywood epics, but there are probably too many modern movies that have been so influenced by the relentless pacing and action set pieces that they forget to generate any genuine drama, which of course is the key to everything. Despite all the controversy and bullshit, Mel is a damn talented film maker and it will always be interesting to see what he comes up with next.
Boondock Saints – Two Irish brothers decide to take the law into their own hands and begin punishing the wickedest guys they can find in the most violent ways possible, all in the name of God’s mighty vengeance. Willem Dafoe plays a brilliant but eccentric FBI agent on the trail of the brothers who becomes conflicted about whether it is he or they who are truly dispensing justice. I’ve been hearing about this film for years and was surprised to discover how much fun all the mayhem is. At times, it’s definitely a bit forced, but for the most part, everything works and the end result is both funny and compelling. Dafoe in particular seems to be having an absolute blast, cutting loose in much the same way he did as Bobby Peru in Wild at Heart. Billy Connolly and Ron Jeremy also show up briefly and the great Jeanna Fine stretches her acting skills by playing a porn star in a peep booth.
Eagles Over London – It’s cross and double cross when Frederick Stafford and Van Johnson try to stop a group of Nazi Saboteurs who have infiltrated war torn London dressed as British soldiers to destroy a radar device so that the Luftwaffe can rain bombs from the sky in a rousing Macaroni Combat movie from Enzo Castellari, the director of the original ‘Inglorious Bastards’. It’s a little weird watching an Italian war movie about the allied war effort, but this is more about getting butts into seats than any revisionist political statement. The feel of this movie is very much along the lines of the Warner war movies of the 1940’s with such dramatic conventions as having Frederick and Van as pals who lust after the same girl (and the girl is the spitting image of Lady Penelope from Thunderbirds, except of course she’s not a puppet, but still, a little creepy.) Okay, the air combat scenes consist of guys in stationary ‘cockpits’ with model airplanes flying all around them and there’s lots of stock footage, but it’s all done very cleverly with spilt screens so you’ve got to give Enzo a lot of credit for making it work as well as it does.
Reply
post #105 of 1166
1/19/10 at 10:02pm
 Eastern Promises (2007)

This is my second viewing this time on blu-ray which I bought cheap. No reflection on the movie since it's a great one but I'm partial to the director David Cronenberg who's History of Violence I also admire. Both these movies starred Viggo Mortensen and here he plays Nikolai a driver for one of the heads of the Russian mob. Naomi Watts is Anna a young nurse who tries to locate the family of a young Russian woman who died during childbirth. This movie has the feel of film noir because of atmosphere and the feelings expressed. There's a twist in the movie but this time I didn't feel I was being cheated nor was I upset probably due to the quality of the film and the superb acting of the cast. This is another masterpiece by Cronenberg and he's one of the few directors who's material I look foward to.

 The Thin Man (1934)

This is the second viewing of this movie and it doesn't fail to charm. It's hard not to be taken in by the tipsy ex-detective and his socialite wife and their comical dog Asta. This is one of a series of movies and if you haven't seen any of them I highly recommend this series. 

The Hangover (2009)

It must be generational and I must be in the minority but man I hated this movie. I didn't find it funny in the least and why I gave it one star, I don't know. Maybe that Golden Globe win was at the back of my mind.

Reply
post #106 of 1166
1/19/10 at 11:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holer View Post

I was wondering if 'Call of the Wild' was any good. I recently re-read the book and thought Gable and Jack Oakey might be great as the leads. I don't really recall any love interest though, except maybe among the dogs. I guess that's Hollywood for you.


I'm a major fan of Young so I never really read anything about her "troubled 1935" but THE CALL OF THE WILD is one of my favorite films.  Her and Gable are excellent together and the film is just rip-roaring fun.


My Bogart viewing continues (most of these viewed a week or so ago but my memory held up a little):

Oklahoma Kid, The (1939)
 

Lloyd Bacon
 

When Warner decided to throw James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart into a Western it got headlines in 1939 and it continues to do so today among film buffs.  The idea of Cagney and Bogart in a Western will always draw new people to this film but it's a shame the headlines have gotten in the way of the fact that this is an extremely good movie.  The film takes place as Oklahoma is giving away free land where a father (Hugh Sothern) and son (Harvey Stephens) plans on building a city that can do good.  Unfortunately for them a bad guy (Bogart) ends up getting is hands on the territory and soon the new city is full of gambling and murder.  When the father is falsely accused of murder and a mob kills him, his secret son known as The Oklahoma Kid (Cagney) shows up to seek vengeance against the bad guys.  The Western genre was full of revenge films even by 1939 but this one here comes off incredibly fresh for many reasons but the main one is that the movie is rather dark and doesn't pull any punches.  I really think this is one of the most underrated and overlooked films from Hollywood's Golden Era and again I think the main reason is because of the two legends in a genre they aren't known for.  Yes, it does take a couple minutes to get use to seeing them but after that they sink into their roles so perfectly that you'll forget who you're watching and really get sucked up in the story.  I think the second half of the film works extremely well because of how dark it is and because the high drama is on full impact due to some strong direction by Bacon.  The mob/hanging scene is perfectly done and there's an even better sequence with Cagney stalking one of the killers through the desert.  All of this leads up to a very satisfying ending that packs a nice little punch.  You'd never know Cagney wasn't a Western star by seeing him here because he's so terrific in the part.  Yes, he doesn't go all out with a country voice but that doesn't matter because I enjoyed how low key he played the part instead of his normal fast-talking.  I thought he was very menacing here by not saying too many words and I thought you could believe his character at every step through the picture.  Bogart is also very good and extremely cold in his role.  Apparently he and Cagney didn't get along too well here due to a comment Bogart made but that bitterness certainly carries over to the film and helps.  Rosemary Lane is good as the love interest and Donald Crisp gets a lot of good scenes as the honest Judge.  All in all, this is a very impressive little gem that continues to get new viewers but I think it's should be better known as a good film instead of just a film with two stars you wouldn't expect.
 

Harder They Fall, The (1956)

Mark Robson
 

I'm not sure what the actual numbers would be but there are many great stars who end their careers in some really bad movies that don't manage to do them any real justice.  That's thankfully not the case with Humphrey Bogart who went out with this picture turning in one of his strongest performances in a film that's as hard hitting as many of his early ones.  In this film he plays a washed up sports writer who is hired by a promoter (Rod Steiger) to push his latest boxer in the press.  The promoter has a bunch of fights fixed so that the strong looking fighter can eventually fight for a title and it's up to Bogart to try and sell him with all the dirty laundry that comes with the sport.  This extremely hard hitting drama is certainly one of the best out there in terms of the corrupt sides of boxing and it's easy to see the influence this would have on many future films including Martin Scorsese's RAGING BULL.  There were a few other boxing pictures out at this time, REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT comes to mind, but this one here has an advantage of giving us a documentary style, behind-the-scenes look at what goes on with these boxers who give their bodies to this sport where they end up broke and beaten down while the mangers and promoters get all the cash.  I think the film does a wonderful job at staying true to the grit of the sport and it doesn't shy away from any of the hard subjects.  The movie comes off as being brutally honest in what it means to have self respect and what happens when one sells themselves due to money.  The film really does work as an old-time drama that you'd see from the 1930s but it also manages to come off quite fresh with a 1957-vibe that really works.  You can even feel this in terms of the performances by the old styled Bogart going up against the more method-acting Steiger.  The two men have completely different ways of acting but seeing them take their different styles and going after one another makes for some great entertainment.  You can't help but be entertained when you see the two going against one another.  The more laid back Bogart and the shouting Steiger works extremely well for their characters and comes across well on the screen.  Bogart clearly steals the film in his final performance, which ranks among his very best.  Steiger, playing a ruthless part like his role in ON THE WATERFRONT, is also very good and creates a real coldness that not too many others could top.  Director Robson doesn't pull any punches with the story and even the somewhat forced ending doesn't really hurt anything too badly.  The movie has a terrific score, masterful cinematography by Burnett Guffey and the fine performances that really push this over the edge.  Even those not interested in boxing will find enough drama here to make the film worth viewing.
 

You Can't Get Away with Murder (1939)
 

Lewis Seiler
 

Nice crime flick from Warner has the young Johnny (Billy Halop) looking up to tough guy Frank (Humphrey Bogart) and soon the two are pulling jobs together.  Johnny steals a gun from his sister's fiance, which Frank uses to kill a guy but the police pin it on the fiance.  Soon Johnny and Frank are behind bars for another crime while the kid soon starts to feel guilt over an innocent man about to die.  This 78-minute movie features a lot of plot and some might say there's too much plot but there's no denying that this is 100% pure Warner action as not only do we get the best of their crime films but also a pretty good prison drama as well.  There's a lot going on in this film and I think most fans of the genre are really going to eat this thing up.  Of course, it all starts with Bogart playing another one of his tough guy roles and naturally he handles the material very well.  Everything people love about Bogart from that wicked voice to that personality is on full display here as his character chews up each scene he's in.  Halop doesn't do too bad either, although I must admit that his character was so annoying in certain scenes that I was wanting to punch him myself.  Gale Page and Harvey Stephens are good as the sister and fiance and then we have Henry Travers in a good part of the elder con trying to steer the young kid in the right direction.  Character actors George E. Stone and Joe Sawyer also appear in minor roles.  The screenplay pretty much tries to throw everything at you at once and while the film does lose focus in a few spots, that doesn't mean the thing ever gets boring or slow.  The director keeps everything moving at a pretty good pace and I must admit that the film ended a lot differently than I expected.  The prison escape was pretty intense as was a few earlier scenes were Bogart wants to seek his revenge.  All in all this movie certainly deserve to be more wildly seen as it contain the some great "tough guy" stuff that film buffs will eat up. 

Racket Busters (1938)
 

Lloyd Bacon
 

Tired crime flick from Warner has Humphrey Bogart playing a racketeer who decides to form a truckers union so that he can take over all the store, drivers and the produce.  If people don't go along with this they end up beaten but one man (George Brent) decides to stand up to them.  I've always been a fan of Warner's various "B" pictures but this one here left me disappointed for many reasons.  For starters, the screenplay really doesn't offer up anything that original as we've seen this story countless times before.  Some might say that all of these pictures had the same story and that's true to an extent but I think most took that basic structure and tried to do things their own way.  That really doesn't happen here because there isn't a single second in the film where you feel anything for the stuff that's going on.  Some of this problem should fall on the shoulders of Bacon who seems to be sleep walking in his director's chair.  He usually manages this type of material quite well but perhaps he too found the story boring.  Another problem is the D.A. who is extremely boring and his character just doesn't have enough fire behind him to make anyone interested in anything he has to say.  Even the performances are rather disappointing as Bogart doesn't do too much and doesn't have half the energy he usually delivers in this type of role.  It was somewhat fun seeing Brent in this type of picture but the screenplay doesn't do him any justice either.  The normally reliable Allen Jenkins is here playing the comic sidekick but even he can't deliver any laughs.  The movie is mildly entertaining if you're a fan of this genre but I think most people are going to sit here and just know that there are much better movies out there and this here is strictly by the numbers.

Black Legion (1937)
 

Archie Mayo, Michael Curtiz (uncredited)
 

Pretty hard-hitting Warner drama about factory worker Frank (Humphrey Bogart) who loses a promotion to a Jewish man so a friend (Joe Sawyer) introduces him to the "Black Legion", a KKK-type group.  Soon the men are pushing out those who they don't consider real Americans and Frank begins to lose control of his wife (Erin O'Brien-Moore) and best friend (Dick Foran).  There's no question that this film has it's heart in the right place but at the same time you can't help but know the real history of things and have a hard time buying into this "equal" talk here especially when you know very well that things were a lot uglier in this country in terms of race issues.  This film pretty much just talks about foreigners and never mentions the fact that groups like this were going after blacks so leaving this out, as if they were important enough to throw into the subject, is a bit misleading and really goes again the message of treating everyone equal.  With that in mind, the rest of the film is pretty good and contains some very good performances and some dark situations.  I wasn't shocked that a blue-collar studio like Warner would dig deep into the subject matter and try to give an honest look at the events.  What did shock me is that the film stayed true to its dark nature and carried it out till the end.  This might explain why the movie was banned all across the world but I give the studio credit for not weakening out towards the end.  The Oscar-nominated story might leave out certain groups but it works outside of that one issue.  I think the movie does a great job at making people understands Frank issues and I think the movie does a great job at making us side for Frank.  I'm sure many Americans were feeling frustrated just like this character so the movie lets us feel for him but then it makes sure that people know violence in these types of groups isn't the way to correct things.  The movie, except for the very end, never becomes preachy and instead it lets the story do all the talking and we're never constantly beat over the head with any type of message.  We get to view the events that happen and I think most people will clearly get what the film is trying to say.  Bogart turns in a wonderful performance and I was really surprised at how good he was in this type of role.  I'd certainly say this is the best work I've seen from him in these pre-fame years as he really makes for a believable character.  I think he really fits into that working class nature and he makes you understand everything Frank is feeling and fearing.  Dick Foran is just as good as his best friend who tries to get him to quit the group and O'Brien-Moore and Ann Sheridan add nice support as the wives.  Apparently Michael Curtiz stepped in when it came time to director the Black Legion scenes and I believe it as these sequences seem a lot different than everything else.  That's certainly not a bad thing as they contain some nice drama and just contain an overall different feel.  This is certainly an impressive film but at the same time I wish the "message" would have gone for everyone being effected by groups like this instead of it just limiting itself to those running the studio.

Great O'Malley, The (1937)
 

William Dietrich
 

Boring melodrama from Warner about cop James O'Malley (Pat O'Brien), an overbearing cop who follows the law down to the wire and this includes passing out tickets for the smallest of issues.  Soon he costs a poor man (Humphrey Bogart) a job and the man turns to crime and soon finds himself away from his cripple daughter and doing a ten year sentence.  O'Malley gains more and more enemies and soon finds himself close to the man's daughter where he might finally learn his lesson.  I'm really not sure what the point of this film was for several reasons.  O'Malley is an ugly character, a complete jerk and one people are really going to hate so showing this type of cop to people probably wasn't the best of ideas.  I'm not even sure why a story like this would interest anyone and the film comes off like the stars and director didn't have much faith in it either.  Dietrich is certainly directing by the numbers as nothing here really jumps out at you as having much effort put into it.  There's really not any powerful scenes, drama, laughs or anything else.  Granted, nothing here is overly bad but just flat.  O'Brien gives a decent performance but it's certainly far from his best because there's not much soul or fire to the character.  Bogart does get to shine in a role that you normally wouldn't see him play.  I thought he did a pretty good job playing the poor guy trying to look out for his family and it's the type of role you'd expect someone like Spencer Tracy to play but Bogie does fine with it.  Sybil Jason and Ann Sheridan add nice support as does Donald Crisp.  Warner was the studio for blue collar tales but this one here never really works and I'm really not sure what the point of any of it was.

 

Reply
post #107 of 1166
1/20/10 at 9:07am
This is how I rank the Rathbone/Bruce films, from best to worst:

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes in Washington
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Sherlock Holmes in the Spider Woman
Sherlock Holmes Faces Death
The Scarlet Claw
Sherlock Holmes in Pearl of Death
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon
Sherlock Holmes in Pursuit to Algiers
Dressed to Kill
Sherlock Holmes and the House of Fear
Terror by Night
The Woman in Green
Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror
Reply
post #108 of 1166
1/20/10 at 9:43pm
(500) Days of Summer - Fair. In a sea of postmodern romances, it's in the middle of the pack. For a movie where the character has a soapbox speech about how emotions are spoon-fed us through pop songs and movies, it's a bit hypocritical that so much of the rest of it is spoon-feeding us emotions through hip soundtrack selections and references to Truffaut, Bergman, and The Graduate. Early in the film, when Joseph Gordon-Levitt has his "I like The Smiths, SHE likes The Smiths!" moment, I groaned a bit inside. You can tell that it was a script written by men, because that is such a male fantasy, the idea that finding (and landing) your soulmate is as easy as finding someone with the same taste in music. So I was tickled when, in a subsequent scene, his younger sister deflated that notion. But the filmmakers still seem to want it both ways, painting a relationship as a series of anecdotes and shared interests, and then occasionally bursting that bubble. I dunno, I didn't get a clear message from it, but then I mostly felt like it didn't have much of a message. It seemed more like a bag of clever tricks and shiny objects, and didn't feel new or original at all. I don't mean to sound like I'm totally bagging on it... it was enjoyable enough to watch. I just don't think much of it will stick with me for long. Rating: 7


Moon - Quite well done sci-fi. Director Duncan Jones is very obviously inspired by 2001, Alien, Blade Runner and Solaris (either version, take your pick... I'd say closer to Soderbergh's), but that's a fine set of influences. Other films that he draws inspiration from -- Outland and Silent Running, for example -- he improves upon, in my opinion. It's hard to be specific about Sam Rockwell's performance without giving away too much, but he does admirable job with a difficult role. I've never been a huge fan of his, but I was impressed. And Jones handles the unusual nature of the performance in a way that never calls much attention to itself. I found myself easily going along with it and not thinking about the technical problems it must have posed. The film won't really satisfy those looking for a space adventure or thriller, but it's a thoughtful rumination on identity (again, like Solaris). The film doles out information at a satisfactory rate, but never holds your hand with awkward exposition. Nice score by Clint Mansell, too. I've ordered the Blu-Ray, looking forward to going through the extra features. Rating: 9


The Wedding March - Somehow this made it to #350 on the TSPDT list, despite being really hard to find nowadays. The only version I could get my hands on had Spanish intertitles. I had to make do with my limited knowledge of Spanish. Unfortunately, there were a lot of intertitles, but I think I got the gist of it, even if I missed a couple of the nuances. Like Greed, this film is much shorter than von Stroheim wanted it to be, but in this case I would have liked to see the longer version. It's a blunt melodrama dealing with loveless marriages, but it's done in a way that you don't mind the lack of depth. Some of the scenes are gorgeous, particularly the encounters between Fay Wray and von Stroheim. He uses apple blossoms to great effect, much like the Japanese often use cherry blossoms. I'm not too hot on him casting himself. His creepy appearance suited him perfectly for Foolish Wives but here it doesn't work as well... he often gazes at Wray as if he has rape on his mind. I really wanted to see more of Zasu Pitts as well, she was the most tragic figure of them all in my opinion. I suspect she would have played a much larger role in the second part. I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would. I was kind of bummed about it at first (some of the early scenes go on way too long) but it grew on me quite a bit. Rating: 8
Reply
post #109 of 1166
1/21/10 at 5:54am
8-Diagram Pole Fighter - When the Yang brothers and their father are ambushed by a gang of treacherous Mongols, all but Brothers number 5 and 6 are killed. Number 6 Brother returns home insane and Number 5 Brother (Gordon Liu) forces his way into a monastary and demands to become a monk, ultimately shaving off his own hair and even burning those little holes into the top of his head. I had always wondered how they made those little holes and this film unflinchingly answers that question. Eventually, Yang Number 8 Sister goes looking for Gordon and is captured by the Mongols in hopes of luring him into a trap. I had always thought that this was a sequel to my favorite Kung-Fu movie,  'The 36 Chambers of Shaolin', but instead it's a completely different story with a similar plot device. Here, Gordon doesn't have to apprentice his way into the Monk brotherhood because they apparently are so impressed with his pole-fighting technique, they give him a pass. Even though they profess to preach peace, they admire a guy who can kick ass as much as anybody and when he decides to leave the Monastary and save his sister, all he has to do is challenge the head monk to a fight. Seriously, this movie doesn't even begin to have the depth of story that 36 Chambers has. Shaw Brothers seemed to veer between making story-driven epics and quickie kung-fu flicks and this is definitely in the latter category; an excuse to show off lots of Pole Fighting. Having said that though, the fight scenes are spectacular and the finale is just INSANE with pole-fighting Mongols and Monks going at it on a mountain of coffins in what can only be called an Orthodontists dream.
Reply
post #110 of 1166
1/22/10 at 7:07am
 They all needed to see a dentist at the end of "pole Fighter" and no mistake!



"The Spirit"

Holy hellfire and hamsters!
Perhaps the most annoying movie ever made!

Seems Frank Miller decided to shove all the crap, really annoying, characters he had at the bottom of his waste bin after doing the wonderful "Sin City"...give them to actors who also decided to give really annoying performances...and gave them all really annoying dialogue to say.

Was this comedy? Parody? Homage? Slapstick cartoon? Thriller? Serious crime drama? 40's Noir?

It actually had all of those aspects, all done badly, and none of it fitted together and i actually gave up an hour in and skipped to the end. Damn!
This was just so annoying.
Annoying in every way!
A pox on it!
 
Reply
post #111 of 1166
1/22/10 at 9:05am
The Great Muppet Caper: 4/5

My biggest dislike of this movie is the Kermit/Fozzie identical twin gag. It was fine as an excuse to show a hybrid Muppet picture, but the gag was overused. I would also argue that the red-handed gag overstayed its welcome by one use, especially since it was a trailer line.

Charles Grodin is great fun to watch, especially his part in the water ballet sequence. The best cameos were Cleese and Ustinov. I picked up on a couple of jokes that escaped me on past viewings. My favorite of those was Scooter's line "Popcorn, chicken?" during the Baseball Diamond sequence.
Reply
post #112 of 1166
1/22/10 at 12:01pm
Thread Starter 

Since D.W. Griffith's birthday was today I decided to watch some of his shorts throughout the week and save two features that I hadn't seen for today.  None of them ended up among his best films but my quest to watch them all continues and the features are almost done as I only have one more easily available and the rest, to my knowledge, are lost or have never been released to any format.


Muggsy's First Sweetheart (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Muggsy (Billy Quirk), a young punk, falls for the beautiful Mabel (Mary Pickford) and goes to her house for a visit but her jokester father plays a trick on him, which sets forth all sorts of problems.  Griffith will never be known for his comedies and most people don't even realize that he made quite a few of them but this here certainly isn't the best work he did in his career.  The biggest problem here is that the laughs really don't come and we're left with a pleasant movie but not a funny one.  Quirk left Biograph after this picture and he turns in a pretty good performance as he's very light on his feet and manages to play the part quite well.  Pickford doesn't get to do too much but it's always fun seeing her in these early roles.  The supporting players include George Nichols as the father and he clearly steals the film in the few scenes that he has.  The "twist" in the film, or gag if you will, doesn't really work too well and the entire film is pretty much wrapped around this joke and it just didn't make me laugh.  There's a twist in the second act but it too didn't work as well as I'm sure the filmmakers were wanting.  Fans of early cinema will still see plenty of Griffith's style here as he does manage to keep the film moving and his editing choices are still very interesting and certainly a step up from various other productions of this period. 
 

Flash of Light, A (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Pleasant melodrama from Griffith about a young chemist (Charles West) who has an experiment blow up in his face, which leaves him blind.  His new wife doesn't like being burdened with him so she runs off and leaves her younger sister to take care of him.  This isn't the best Griffith short out there but he manages to tell the story in a way that will keep you entertained even if that story is rather silly and far fetched.  The biggest problem are all the plot twists that has the younger sister taking over the role of the older one and how the husband, even blind, would fall for this doesn't really work nor does the ending and the twist that happens here.  Griffith, as usual, knows how to pour the drama on thick and for the most part he does a nice job keeping everything under control and his points about marriage are easy to spot and he doesn't spend too much time preaching here.  What does hurt the movie are the leads who aren't the best people Griffith had available and there's even more proof as Mack Sennett, Mary Pickford, Dorothy West and Blanche Sweet also have minor roles here. 

Usurer, The (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Winning moral tale from Griffith about an usurer (George Nichols) who lives in luxury because he's cold-hearted enough to make sure his poor clients become even poorer.  His evil ways will soon take a turn for the worse when he ends up locked with the one thing he loves most.  Once one goes through many of Griffith's four hundred plus shorts they'll notice that one of the most returned to subjects are the evils of the rich and how they constantly keep poor people down.  Griffith, by this time in his life, was making pretty good money but that didn't keep him from taking it easy on the rich and the story here is pretty hard-hitting and manages to still pack a punch, story wise, today.  The movie runs at a very fast pace and one can't help but get the message loud and clear.  Griffith's directing style doesn't miss a beat and his masterful touch for editing is perfectly done here once again and this is especially true with the sequence at the end with the usurer.  Nichols manages to turn in a fine performance as does Grace Henderson as his sister and we also have Mack Sennett with a pretty good role.  You can also see Mary Pickford as a sick child who has her bed taken away and we see Henry B. Walthall in one brief scene.  Griffith's first wife, Linda Arvidson, can also be spotted here. 
 

Sorrows of the Unfaithful, The (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith

Childhood sweethearts Mary (Mary Pickford) and Bill (Henry B. Walthall) are about to be married when a stranger washes up (Edward Dillon) and soon Mary falls for him.  This doesn't sit well with Bill considering he's the one who saved the man's life and when the stranger learns of this he decides to do something drastic.  It's not often you can blame Pickford for anything but I believe she's the main problem here as her performance is pretty much all over the place.  You might also be able to blame Griffith here because her character goes from loving Bill to pretty much jumping on the stranger as soon as she sees him.  This really doesn't work with the drama and Pickford's performance is so child-like that you can't ever really take it serious.  Walthall clearly steals the film as the hurt boyfriend and Dillon isn't too bad either.  One of the best moments in the film happens early on as we see Mary and Bill as kids and the way Griffith cuts this to the current times was nicely done.  The film once again deals with morals, a strong point for the director and for the most part he handles the material nicely but Pickford's character certainly needed a few touch ups.

Modern Prodigal, The (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Winning drama from Griffith has him doing what he does best and that's telling two separate stories and then bringing them together.  We see a convict (Guy Hedlund) breaking free from jail but being too ashamed to go to his mother's house.  We then see a protective father (George Nichols) walking with his son (Jack Pickford).  Away from his father, the boy goes swimming with some friends but drowns only to be saved and brought back to life by the convict.  All is well except the boy's father happens to be the Sheriff who then has a decision to make.  The story here isn't anything overly special but fans of early cinema and Griffith will certainly find plenty here to enjoy.  Once again the best stuff is seeing Griffith handle both stories and how he edits them together to really bring the story to life (or at least a lot better than your typical 1910 film).  I think Griffith spent the perfect amount of time to both stories before bringing them together and the actual chase of the convict has some nice drama as well.  Hedlund, Nichols and Pickford are all good in their roles as is Kate Bruce as the boy's mother.  Griffith regular Mack Sennet would "borrow" quite a bit from this film as would Chaplin in their film THE ADVENTURER. 
 

In Life's Cycle (1910)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Fair melodrama about a father (George Nichols) who makes his kids promise not to forget their mother who recently passed.  As adults, the son (Henry B. Walthall) goes to become a priest while the daughter (Stephanie Longfellow) runs off with a bad man and soon finds herself in trouble.  The son keeps his promise of visiting the grave of his mother but the daughter doesn't follow suit.  This isn't the best film to come from Griffith but it at least features some pretty good performances with Walthall leading the way.  He manages to pass off emotions without ever going over the top and he really manages to put in a lot of heart to the character.  Nichols also manages to be pretty good in his part as is Charles West in a supporting bit.  Longfellow on the other hand is pretty forgettable in the role of the daughter and this does bring the film down a few notches considering she has perhaps the most important part here.  Fans of the director will want to look quickly for his first wife in a small role.  Griffith handles the material quite well as its nothing he wasn't use to but the screenplay really isn't all that special and there's not enough backbone to back up all the preaching.
 

Scarlet Days (1919)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

If there was ever an example of too much plot in a short-running film then this would be it.  Lost for many decades until a print turned up in Russia during the early 70s, this Western is one of the least known features from Griffith.  The film has several story lines going at once but the main one deals with a young woman (Carol Dempster) who is told by her dying aunt that she has a mother living in San Francisco.  The woman travels out there not knowing that her mother (Eugenie Besserer) is a saloon gal who is about to hang for accidentally killing the woman trying to steal some money she was saving for the kid.  The town owner (Walter Long) allows her to meet with her daughter but soon a Mexican bandit (Richard Barthelmess) and another man (Ralph Graves) want to try and make sure the mother and daughter don't have to separate.  All of this plot takes place during a 75-minute movie and there's just way too much going on here and not enough detail is given to any of it.  There are some great performances scattered throughout the film and that's the main reason to watch this but in the end you have to consider this a major disappointment from the legendary director.  Again, the biggest problem is that we've got a story worthy of a three-hour epic yet we have very little time to really dig into it.  We never really know why Long and the Sheriff (George Fawcett) are so against the mother.  We never really, fully get to know why the mother stayed away from the child.  We get Graves' character who has a minor story himself but we never get too much detail to fully understand anything he's doing.  Another major problem is Dempster and I'm not one of those who like to kick her around even though it's clear someone like Lillian Gish would have been a lot better in the part.  Dempster has way too many moments where it seems like she's just looking around not knowing what to do and this is rather distracting.  She really never seems comfortable in the role and this certainly hurts the film.  Fawcett, Long, Graves and Besserer all turn in fine performances but the real stand out is Barthelmess who is simply amazing in the role of the Mexican bandit.  I've seen plenty of his performances and this here is by far the best work I've seen from here because there's not a single second where I didn't believe him in this part and he had a certain grace and charm that really carried the film.  The ending will remind people of the ending to THE BIRTH OF A NATION as we have a group of people taking shelter in a cabin while trying to fight off the bad guys.  While there's some nice editing and cinematography here, there's never any real suspense like that 1915 film and in the end the entire movie is pretty disappointing. 
 

Dream Street (1921)
 

D.W. Griffith
 

Typical love triangle has brothers (Charles Emmett Mack, Ralph Graves) falling in love with the same woman, Gypsy Fair (Carol Dempster) and soon their loving relationship starts to fall apart.  Things take an even more dangerous turn when the evil Swan Way (Edward Peil Sr.) takes an interest in Gypsy.  You can't help but watch this film and have BROKEN BLOSSOMS in the back of your mind since the stories from both films came from the same book.  When this film was originally released it got mixed reviews with some calling it quite poor but others, like the Nation Board of Review, calling it one of the ten best films of the year.  I'm going to have to fall on the negative side.  I should mention that the film originally played with a sound introduction by Griffith as well as two other sound sequences but my copy didn't have any of this but I'm not sure how much that would have added to the film.  With that said, the biggest problem is without question the acting which is pretty horrid.  Most people hate Dempster with a passion but I think given the right role she could do nice work (see Griffith's THE SORROWS OF SATAN) but this isn't that right role.  She's all over the map here because at times she underplays scenes and then other times she's way too over the top.  I also can't help but feel Griffith made her watch Gish's performance in that 1919 film and there's even a sequence here where the evil Chinese lord throws her into a closet and we get that "fear" sequence, which comes off incredibly bad even when you don't compare it to the masterful sequence by Gish.  Mack doesn't fair any better as he too seems to be all over the place as is Graves.  Tyrone Power, Sr. has a nice little part and Porter Strong, Griffith's blackface expert, has his typical comic relief part.  Griffth's direction handles everything quite well but there's just no getting over the fact that the performances aren't very good and we're also missing G.W. Bitzer and this certainly takes away from the look of the film.  Griffith fans will certainly want to check this one out just to complete their viewing pleasure but everyone else would be best to stay away. 
 

Reply
post #113 of 1166
1/22/10 at 1:12pm
Small parts and pieces of The Spirit worked really well, but Frank made some really bad choices overall and, oddly enough, a lot of the things he took right out of The Spirit comic just didn't work at all. Too cornball and old fashioned. He would have done much better just sticking to a single proven storyline like the San Serif story - that should have been right up his alley and would have been a perfect match for his Sin City sensibilities. His ego definitely got away from him on that one though and it's a shame. The Spirit is a great character and would make a great movie in the right hands.
Reply
post #114 of 1166
1/22/10 at 1:21pm
I agree with what Holer is saying.  On the second viewing, I didn't hate THE SPIRIT as much as I did the first go round.  It's far from a good movie though.  I think the main problem is that Frank tried to jam Eisners work with his own sensibilities and it just doesn't work.  Eisners Spirit comics have a humour to them, and it comes from playing it straight.  Millers over the top attempts of recreating the humour are just too obvious to be naturally funny.  It is a shame since THE SPIRIT is a pretty cool strip.  You can't force campiness, it has to happen on it's own accord to be effective.  Watch "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Shock Treatment" back to back for a good example.
Reply
post #115 of 1166
1/22/10 at 1:36pm
Doom - A team of crack astro-marines goes to some deep space archeological dig called 'The Ark' to investigate a quarantine situation involving a bunch of research scientists. Naturally, the marines are all risk takers and heart breakers and, before you can say 'Bug Hunt', they're fending off some pretty nasty beasties that may or may not have once been the scientists themselves. I don't know when it became a standard practice for me to automatically lower my expectations before going into a movie like this but it's definitely where I'm at these days. Don't expect too much and then you won't be disppointed when it inevitably doesn't live up to it's promise. The funny thing is, this one didn't even seem that promising - just some twisted up video game rehash of Aliens and those Mila Jovovich zombie movies, except without even having Mila to lust after! In the end, a few of the fight scenes were pretty great, and the last third of the movie, diabolically, actually snuck up on me and started to get pretty interesting, but then they pulled that stunt of going into First Person Shooter mode and that screwed the pooch for good. Maybe they were trying to be ironic? Or was it just product placement taken to a whole new level? Oh well. Something to do, I guess, until the Alien quadrilogy hits Blu-Ray.
Reply
post #116 of 1166
1/23/10 at 7:22pm
The Informer - An incredibly stupid man rats out his murderer IRA buddy, and then his guilty conscience makes him absurdly defensive. "Subtle" usually isn't in John Ford's vocabulary, but this film has a slightly more complex morality than his usual work (for example, the protagonist is a violent, impulsive drunk). But Ford makes a fatal mistake: he assumes your sympathies lie with the Sinn Fein. I don't have a massive hardon for Ireland the way Ford does, and I don't approve of the IRA's tactics. So I really couldn't care what any of these idiots did to each other. And Victor McLagen's performance is so over-the-top that I never developed any sympathy for him either, whether I was meant to or not. However, the black & white photography is very impressive, almost noir-ish in its gritty contrasts. And the film does provide some tense scenes, especially the trial (reminiscent of M). Rating: 6


The Bad and the Beautiful - Vincente Minnelli’s Hollywood exposé doesn’t live up to his dazzling musicals, but it's not bad. It chronicles the rise and fall of an ambitious Selznick-like producer, as told via flashback by a director, actress and writer… all people he’s screwed over while clawing his way to the top, but each benefited from his attentions nonetheless. The film isn’t nearly as scathing as it could be, but the script is pretty well-written and it’s pretty entertaining. Largely because of Kirk Douglas’ charismatic performance, and the rest of the cast is good too. These characters obviously have real-life analogues, and the prestige director “Von Ellstein” is even a dead ringer for von Sternberg. Some excellent cinematography seals the deal, making it a fine picture, although one that falls short of greatness. Rating: 7


8 1/2 (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - This is my third viewing, and it just gets better every time. Every scene is amazing. You find yourself looking forward to the parts you remember, and during the other parts you're thinking "I can't believe I forgot this scene!". For most directors, the meta-narrative about a filmmaker who can't seem to make his film would be plenty enough. But what's magical about 8 1/2 is it's about so much more than that. Guido isn't simply unable to commit to his film... he's unable to commit to anything. His dreams, his fantasies and his past keep intruding on reality with childlike abandon. And it's done so brilliantly, it just flows perfectly and doesn't feel written at all. It really is a perfect movie, even though I kind of hate to say it, partly because I like Nights of Cabiria even more, and I wouldn't call that one "perfect". The lighting is perfect, the music is perfect, the casting is perfect (especially the minor roles and background actors -- what a sea of amazing faces!). It sweeps you off your feet. There are films I love that aren't canon, and there are canon films that I'm not fond of at all, but sometimes canon is canon for a very good reason. Absolutely one of the best films ever made. Rating: 10


You, the Living (rewatch) - Just came out on DVD, and with generous extra features. It's very much the baby brother of Songs from the Second Floor, but that's fine with me. It's supposed to the second of a trilogy anyway. Andersson can keep churning out similar movies for the rest of his life and I'll be happy (sadly, with his age and the time he takes on each film, there might not be many more). I just love his sense of style... the drab, sterile environments, the (mostly) static camera, the careful compositions, the interplay between foreground and background, the walking dead look of the actors, the ubiquitous sousaphones, the sense of the fantastic meeting the crushingly mundane. This one definitely has a lighter touch than its predecessor. There's even some camera movement! In two different scenes! But it's also darker. Andersson finds dark comedy in our eternal tragedy, and deep melancholy in our minor joys. The one scene that could be considered "happy" is a dream. And largely the film is about our inability to live our dreams, our profound inadequacy as human beings. Rating: 9


The Touch (rewatch) - Bergman's other big failures are notably outside his comfort zone. High Tension is a thriller and All These Women is a broad sex comedy. But this is well within his milieu: a 3-character domestic drama. And so it's even more disappointing in its blandness. It could almost be a TV movie (of course Bergman did some excellent TV movies, but you know what I mean). It's hard not to blame the language. The film was originally supposed to be in Swedish (when appropriate) AND English, but the studio demanded all English. Apparently a restoration of the dual-language version is making the rounds, but I doubt it would be much of an improvement. Elliot Gould's in 80% of it, so those scenes would still be English. And Bergman just doesn't write or direct well in English. A lot of it sounds so phony and wrong. And nothing else about it is that great, either. The music is lame, the photography lifeless, the symbolism blunt... even the editing is off. There are some good scenes, though, particularly towards the end. Rating: 5
Reply
post #117 of 1166
1/23/10 at 10:47pm
Thread Starter 

I've had 8 1/2 sitting here for a few years now but several people told me I should get other Fellini films under my belt before trying it.  Now that I've done that I hope to have it on sometime this year.


Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ, The (1906)
 

Alice Guy
 

This ambitious French film is often overlooked when people discuss epics but you pretty much have to consider this one considering most movies of this era were running under nine-minutes but this one here lasts a whopping thirty-three.  The movie tells the story of Christ in twenty-one different "chapters" and it's quite an ambitious little film even if the end results really aren't as good as one would have hoped.  I think film buffs will certainly find this thing to be of interest but I think those who enjoy religious movies will also find this thing curious.  I think the biggest problem is that the movie is extremely uneven because of the style the story is told.  We will get a title card telling us what the chapter is called and then we'll see the images.  Some of these chapters (like caring the cross) will run upwards of a minute but there are some (Jesus Sleeping) that only last a few seconds.  I'm really not sure why some of the sequences here were included at all when some of the bigger parts (Judas) are left a little short.  Another minor problem is that Guy never moves the camera in the movie, which takes away from some of the dramatic moments.  Even though this was a few years away from Griffith, folks like Porter were doing a better job with the camera than what's on display here.  One key sequence where this is noticeable is when they talk about Jesus and his pain of being on the cross yet the camera is so far back that you can never see his face, which is clearly what we were suppose to be looking at.  What does work are many of the costumes and the art design isn't too bad either.  I think there were a few effective moments including the Resurrection as well as the sequence where the cross becomes too much and Jesus falls to the floor.  While the film is certainly creaky in spots there's no denying that at the same time it's highly impressive just for the effort.

Assassination (1987)
 

Peter R. Hunt
 

Charles Bronson fans are the only ones who should even attempt to make it through this outrageously stupid film from Cannon.  Bronson plays a Secret Service agent who ends up having to guard an ultra-snotty First Lady (Jill Ireland) and soon enough a group of hit men are after her.  I'll never accuse any Cannon/Bronson movie of being high art but of all the films they made together this one here has to be the dumbest.  In fact, I might go even further and call this the dumbest action movie of the decade and that reason alone almost makes this turkey worth sitting through.  As a Bronson fan I must admit that I can just about sit through anything that he's in but my patience are really tested here but thankfully the film reaches a "so bad it's entertaining" level.  There are about fifteen major illogical points that could be thrown at this film but that would take way too much effort to write out and I'm sure most people could write a book worth of dumb things that the characters do here.  I must admit it's rather funny seeing a Secret Service agent and the First Lady jump from one cheap motel to another and going from one small town to the next and it never really being clear why they don't just have more security with them.  There are countless times you'll be scratching your head as to why the agent just keeps the First Lady in constant danger but I doubt the screenwriters were really worried about logical points as their main concern was getting to the next item to blow up.  The action scenes here are pretty weak and campy as is the PG-rated violence.  I've heard this wasn't originally meant for Bronson but he took it just so he could be in another film with his wife (this would be their last together).  The two are charming enough together even though it's pretty clear neither are giving it their all.  The supporting players don't fair much better but I doubt anyone will be tuning in to see them.  If you're not a fan of Bronson then it's best you stay far away from this unless you just like corny action pictures.

Murphy's Law (1986)
 

J. Lee Thompson
 

Violent and foul-mouthed actioneer from Cannon has Charles Bronson playing a tough cop who is framed for the murder of his ex-wife and her new lover.  The real murderer (Carrie Snodgress) just happens to be a psycho he put away years earlier but Bronson must break out of jail (with sidekick Kathleen Wilhoite) and prove his innocence.  This certainly isn't high art but fans of Cannon and Bronson are certainly going to have enough to make this thing worth viewing.  Not only do we have Bronson being his usual tough self but we also get some pretty graphic violence, outrageous fights, a strange killer, nudity and just all sorts of whacked out craziness.  We get that type of thing in several Bronson titles but the original idea here is teaming him up with a female sidekick who just happens to have a very foul mouth and is constantly coming up with new insults to throw at the star.  I'm certain the potty humor is going to make many role their eyes but Wilhoite is so good and delivering it that I found it rather funny.  Even Bronson himself seems rather amused by it because he's a lot looser here than in many of these Cannon movies.  He even cracks a smile a couple times and it almost seems like it was real.  This is another winning character he delivers and he's everything we want from Bronson and that's just rough and he doesn't care about anyones rights.  Not only does he have to track down this psycho female but he must also battle some gangsters and this here leads to one of the most outrageous scenes where he has to break into the apartment and beat the guy to a living pulp.  Thompson handles the material quite well even though we never really get any suspense or anything like that.  He at least keeps the film moving at a nice pace and things certainly never get boring even with the longer than normal running time. 

Hound of the Baskervilles, The (2000)
 

Rodney Gibbons
 

Decent adaptation of the Arthur Conan Doyle book has Holmes (Matt Frewer) and Watson (Kenneth Welsh) trying to determine if Sir Henry (Jason London) is being stalked by a family curse or something human.  This Canadian, made-for-TV version of the famous story wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting and it actually had a pretty good look and feel to it.  I think director Gibbons perfectly nails the atmosphere of the story and manages to get you right into the mood of the dark tale.  The movie does a pretty good job at keeping everything moving quite well even if you've seen previous versions of the story done (much better by Fox and Hammer).  Many fans of Holmes often complain that they don't like the fact that he's missing from so much of this story but I think they won't mind it here.  I'm really not familiar with Frewer's work as an actor but I didn't care for him at all here and I must say that the film suffers whenever he's on the screen.  I'm really not sure if he thought he was playing some spoof or what but I found his performance to be almost comic like and it really didn't mix too well with any of the other actors and the type of performances they were giving.  I also didn't believe for a second that he was some sort of brilliant mind and this here is something very important to believe when it comes to Holmes.  I thought Welsh was extremely good as Watson and he certainly helped carry a lot of the film.  London doesn't do the best job possible but he's not too bad.  None of the other supporting players jumped out at me but none of them were bad or damaged the film.  I do think the final thirty-minutes drag a little too slowly but if you've seen previous versions and want to try a new one then I don't think you'll mind this one.  If you haven't seen any of the earlier versions then you will want to start there first and leave this one for later.

Home Alone (1990)
 

Chris Columbus
 

Simple story of a kid (Macaulay Culkin) being left home alone and having to keep a couple burglars (Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern) out.  It's hard to believe this film is twenty-years-old now because I still have a lot of memories watching it when it first came out and how it was the "cool" thing to do.  Being an adult now, I certainly view a few things here as being questionable in terms of entertainment for a child but there was those bits of controversy back then as well but what remains today is still a joyful little gem that has plenty of laughs from start to finish.  Culkin became an instant star after this movie and it's easy to see why as he's certainly cute enough for that child star label but he also manages to have good comic timing and a wit all of his own.  He certainly had a large part to do with the film becoming a hit but I'd say the real stars in terms of laughs would have to go to Pesci and Stern.  Yes, John Hughes screenplay offers them all the abuse they're going to take but for my money it's the two actors who really bring the laughs.  Seeing Stern get hit in the face with an iron or Pesci having his scalp burned off by a blow torch aren't necessarily funny things but the way the actors play it and their screams and facial gestures that really make the laughs.  The final twenty-minutes offers up plenty of Three Stooges-type violence but it's Pesci and Stern who really make it so funny with their timing.  The supporting cast includes some nice performances by John Heard, Roberts Blossom, Catherine O'Hara and a nice cameo from the one and only John Candy.  I think the best thing about the screenplay is that it really captures the spirit of a kid being left home alone and being able to experience things he wants to do but normally wouldn't be allowed to by the parents.  There are several nice gags aimed at that type of humor and this is where the heart of the movie is. 

Hangover, The (2009)
 

Todd Phillips
 

Four buddies head off to Vegas for a bachelor party but the next morning they wake up not knowing what happened the night before and discovering one is missing.  They must then try to retrace their steps and locate the missing buddy.  I'm always a bit hesitant to fall into the mass market when it comes to something popular because a lot of times I end up watching the film and it turns out to be a major disappointment but that's not the case with this gem because it lived up to its reputation and in my opinion passed them.  I'm not going to call this the greatest film of the year but I might add it's the most original.  You'd think a comedy about getting messed up in Vegas would be "been there, done that" but this takes a familiar set up and does something original with it.  Instead of showing us the crazy party night, we don't see a second of it and instead we're thrown into a mystery and the laughs come from trying to figure out that mystery.  For my money the screenplay is nearly flawless as it does a great job at building up our thoughts on what happened but the film then takes us to places that you certainly won't see coming.  The majority of the laughs come from things that you normally wouldn't expect like a masterful scene involving a trunk.  Even the jokes that you do expect (strippers) is done extremely well and with hilarious results.  I won't ruin many of the jokes because of the "mystery" behind them is what makes them work so well but there were several scenes where tears were running down my face from laughing so hard.  Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis give terrific performances and their chemistry and comic timing with one another helps push the film even further.  The three make for an excellent team and watching this film makes it look like the trio had been working together for years because they come off so well together.  Heather Graham isn't too bad in her role and the great Jeffrey Tambor even gets a nice laugh.  You really have to respect a movie that takes a familiar plot and mixes it up to the point of it being completely original and most importantly, downright hilarious.  I hate labeling films when they're so fresh but I would be shocked if this movie isn't looked at in ten years the same way we look at "dirty" comedies like NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE and PORKY'S today. 
 

Reply
post #118 of 1166
1/24/10 at 9:21am

Moon (2009) 


This just proves that you don't need a large budget in order to captivate an audience. A thoughtful and intriguing script will do that quite nicely.

Sam Rockwell is Sam Bell an astronaut alone in a facility on the surface of the moon. His job is to harvest Helium 3 a source of energy that can be sent back to earth. Sam has a three year contract and at the end of that he'll be able to go home and be with his family. Sam's only company on the moon is Gerty a throwback to Hal minus the psychosis. Of course a lot more happens than that brief synopsis and to say anymore would give keys points away. Sam Rockwell is outstanding here especially considering the nature of his role. He goes through a range of emotions that's just amazing to witness. The story is tight with not alot of CGI to get in the way. This is just good old fashioned adult sci-fi something we've been missing for awhile. 

Public Enemies (2009)

I love Johnny Depp but he just seemed out of place here. The film looked good but somehow the story didn't captivate me. I found it overlong and actually boring. Most of the secondary characters were just window dressing and underutilized. I'm not that familiar with the post depression history and the rise of the gangsters but I know enough to know that some of the historical facts were mixed up. I admire Michael Mann and have watched most everything he's done. For me this movie was a missed opportunity.


In Bruges (2008)

Yes, this movie is quite slow but intermingled with that, is moments of sheer brilliance of hilarity and violence that it takes your breathe away. There is alot of cursing and swearing in this movie and it only adds to the crazy stuff going on. On the dvd there is even an extra titled F**king Bruges and well you get the drift.

Two Irish hitmen are ordered to lay low and sent to the beautiful picturesque city of Bruges to await further instructions. The younger of the two Ray, played by Colin Farrell is bored with his surroundings until he meets a young woman. Ken played by Brendan Gleeson on the other hand is quite happy with his surroundings, and is quite content sightseeing and biding his time. Directed by Martin McDonagh, this is an extremely clever movie, funny in the extreme with a surprisingly good performance by Colin Farrell an actor I haven't really cared for in the past. All the cast here though is superb. Good movie.


 

Reply
post #119 of 1166
1/24/10 at 10:30am
Gamer - In a futuristic society, humans are able to inhabit other humans in order to play real life Sim and Combat games. Gerard Butler is a Death Row convict forced to be an unstoppable killing machine in hopes of getting free and finding his wife an child, but first he must uncover the secret of the technological conspiracy that threatens to take control over all mankind. I know the critics like to knock these Neveldine/Taylor guys for making manic, incomprehensible films, but I beg to differ. These guys are pretty much single handedly creating the future of genre action films and are definitely doing some of the most innovative digital film work going. Even with their breakneck pacing and insane, assaultitive imagery, they still manage to squeeze in enough exposition to keep things interesting. I really enjoyed the Crank movies and here they manage to dial things back just a wee bit and create a pretty nifty sci-fi story. Whereas something like Transformers uses a similar style but ends up often being completely disorienting, everything these guys do is somehow in service of the story and always seems to pay off in the end. I know I'm probably in the minority in saying this, but I found this film to be a stone blast and these guys are filmmakers that I am definitely going to keep my eye on.
Reply
post #120 of 1166
1/25/10 at 5:48am
Along the Great Divide - A federal marshall must bring an ornery old coot to a distant town to stand trial for murder and he must face the burning desert, cowardly deputies, a blood-thirsty lynch mob and the old coots voluptuous, determined daughter to do it. Who you gonna call for a job like this? Why, Kirk Douglas of course! It's hard to believe that Kirk didn't make his first western til 1951, but there are definitely a couple of scenes where he seems a little unsure of himself mounting his horse, a far cry from his usual bravado. Walter Brennan plays the old coot and gets to serve up a reminder of what a good actor he could be when he wasn't relegated to the gimpy sidekick role. I kept wondering why a film like this, directed by Raoul Walsh, with an A-list star, would get relegated to the DVD-R ghetto, when crap like 'Catlow' gets the full remaster treatment. I did notice though that the film element wasn't in the greatest shape and that there were a few scenes where they seemed to be compensating for missing bits and pieces altogether. I wonder, do they set a certain standard that says if a film can't be restored beyond a certain point, they're just not going to release it on DVD? Is that a factor? Anyway, this is definitely one of the better Warner Archive releases I've seen so far.

The 49th Parallel - A small group of Nazi's is stranded in the Canadian wilderness when their U-Boat is sunk by the Canadian airforce. They must make their way across the harsh countryside in hopes of returning somehow to the Fatherland. Every Powell/Pressburger movie I have seen has been amazing and this is no exception. The story is broken into small vignettes showing how Canadians conduct their lives in various remote and often harsh circumstances, the only constant being how badly the Nazi's treat everyone, especially given the kindnesses they are shown. Richard George, in particular, does an amazing job as the Nazi commander, a true believer who seems to think he has a perfect right to be an utterly treacherous bastard. Like all P&P films, this one has a lot on it's mind and seems like it might be directed as a kick in the pants toward the US, which was still not in the fight at that point. Leslie Howard, Raymond Massey and Laurence Olivier all shine in small roles as defiant Canadians, especially Olivier, who's over-the-top Fronch Canaadeeaan trapper is absolutely hilarious.
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)