Track the Films You Watch (2009) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

Joe, since you admit to not seeing LARCENY I don't see how you can follow that up with "a complete and bonafide "remake" is not accurate. Since I doubt you'll ever watch LARCENY I'll just ruin it for you that they end in the exact same manor and they also have certain characters going through the very same thing. Allen and Robinson's characters make the exact "switch" for the same exact reasons and the "others" do the exact same thing to keep the gig going. Considering I've actually seen both films I can say that they are certainly the same movie.

As for TERROR FIRMER, once again I'd recommend that you actually watch the film before you start saying people are wrong or trying to defend something. There are even Kaufman interviews where he talks about the two films and once again, it appears Allen has seen several Troma movies. This one? Who knows. TERROR is a complete piece of shit with a good idea. Perhaps Allen took the good idea and did something a lot better with it. Happens all the time. Perhaps it was just by chance. Either way red flags can and did go up.

Either way, this back and forth has gone on long enough so you can have the final word. LARCENY, INC. is on TCM all the time and it's on DVD through their Gangsters Collection Vol. 4 so you can actually watch it if you want.


MARIO, I too was duped into buy that Mondo Collection just a few hours before an eventual screener showed up. This was a pretty big bomb for BU, which is why many more re-releases eventually followed. The price tag was simply too high for the type of films these are. This is probably a big reason why so many studios like this have come and gone. I didn't think any of the films were that great either.

CUT AND RUN is one I hated more than you did. Italian cinema in this period is so interesting because you can pretty much see these directors putting a gun in their mouths and blowing their brains on the film. It seems every genre director from the late 70's "crash" from Bava to Fulci to Lenzi all tried to recapture that spirit in the 80's and delivered some truly horrid movies. It's rather sad to see but it's still interesting viewing all these Italian movies from the late 70's to the early 90's. Of course, the genre and these directors are mostly dead in terms of any type of cinema today, although it appears Bava and Mattei at least had some sorts of a comeback.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Just because a director is blind in both films, that's not enough to make me cry "remake!" and "ripoff!" You need to understand I'm not disputing similar ideas - maybe even inspirations directly taken - but to declare something a complete "remake" is an exaggeration in most of your claims, and I am sticking to that.

And bear in mind that you haven't seen EVERYTHING either, nor can anyone, ever. There's bound to be some stuff you'll watch and like, not even knowing it was based on something else. You tend to disregard people's opinions of movies unless you deem them worthy of "knowing as much as they should", and that's not always fair.

Since we've both exhausted this I'd like to know what others feel constitute an official "remake", or not.

EDITED: Okay, the more I read about LARCENY INC and SMALL TIME CROOKS, the more similarities I am made aware of. Still in all, I've also read that Woody's never gone on record as saying it was a remake. Again, I think it's that conclusive word I have a problem with, rather than "inspiration".

 

[Pete York]

I assume that anything that requires cooperation between studios, for the release of clips, that type of thing, will never, ever be available on a home video format. Or if it was, it ain't coming back soon (re: Brownlow and Gill's HOLLYWOOD). So I keep a lookout for stuff like this and was glad to have caught it.


01/17/09

Cheyenne (1947) Dir: Raoul Walsh
Production: Warner Bros.

Wyoming territory, 1867. Jim Wylie (Dennis Morgan) is a rakish gambler who’s good with a gun. Both proclivities require him to be two steps ahead of the law. But when a dogged lawman (Barton MacLane) finally catches up with him, Jim is given an option: track down and capture, dead or alive, a notorious outlaw who calls himself ‘The Poet’ and go free, or go straight to jail. The elusive ‘Poet’ has bedeviled the territory with his series of hold-ups, targeting the Wells Fargo stage, and his habit of leaving a rhyming note after each heist. That option is really no option and so Jim takes to the task.

The film is nearly as much a rom-com as a western. Jane Wyman plays a ‘lady’, Ann Kincaid, who is initially immune to Jim’s charms. Janis Paige is Emily Carson, an ‘entertainer’ whose earthiness contrasts with Ann. There is some rather risqué banter between Jim, Ann and Emily that is amusing. Alan Hale adds levity as a cowardly sheriff and Bruce Bennett is a Wells Fargo inspector. Arthur Kennedy stands out as Sundance, the vicious leader of a stick-up gang whose business has dried up because of The Poet’s proficiency. On the other hand, Dennis Morgan is boring, in his bland, z-grade Gregory Peck way. Max Steiner’s score can overwhelm. And the picture does take its time wrapping things up. But there are some nice ideas in the plot and Walsh is such a great storyteller that it’s all worth it. Does not seem to be related to the long-running TV show of the same name, also from Warner, that still airs today in reruns on EncoreWesterns.

:star: :star: 1/2 out of 4
-------------------------------------
RAOUL WALSH – “Far Side of Paradise”
College Swing (1938) :star: :star: 1/2, Cheyenne (1947) :star: :star: 1/2


01/17/09

Down Three Dark Streets (1954) Dir: Arnold Laven
Production: Edward Small Productions/United Artists

Lesser known entry in the series of films that were paeans to the single-minded efficiency of the FBI, complete with adulatory voiceover narration expounding on the virtues of the FBI agent. In this case, our agent is Zack Stewart (Kenneth Tobey) and his supervisor is John ‘Rip’ Ripley (Broderick Crawford). The story follows the two men as they concurrently work on three cases; tracking down a ‘most wanted’-type murderer, an investigation of a car-theft ring, and an extortion case.

The extortion case features Ruth Roman as a single (widowed) mother whose little girl is threatened with being kidnapped unless she pays the receipts of an insurance settlement. Her fragile mental state and near breakdowns are quite believable. Marisa Pavan is also very good as a plucky blind woman whose small-fry husband is taking the rap for bigger fish in the car theft episode. Claude Akins, whose physical resemblance to the comic strip character Alley Oop always made him a perfect fit as a threatening lunk, executes a nasty piece of business with élan. Interesting that the director would go on to work extensively in TV, as the film somewhat has the feel of a couple of Dragnet episodes put together. But it’s better than that, there are a number of good thrills and surprises and a nice climax at the foot of the HOLLYWOOD sign that plays like a low-rent North By Northwest. Nice LA location work, as well. Don’t expect any shading in the characters, though. There’s obviously FBI cooperation in the making of the picture and as a result these boys are straight-arrow, focused, role model types.

:star: :star: :star: out of 4


01/17/09

Journey for Margaret (1942) Dir: W.S. Van Dyke
Production: MGM

Based on a true story, we are told. War correspondent John Davis (Robert Young) and his wife, Nora (Laraine Day), find themselves fleeing to London following the fall of France. There they experience the nightly German bombing raids and witness the effects. When one attack results in a profound change in both of their lives, they become lost emotionally, detached to the horrors around them. Soon, John is assigned to do a story about a home for war orphans. It not only brings him back but he sees a chance to make Nora whole again too.

This film gets points for its subject, children left homeless and parentless by war, a subject tackled during the war, no less. Although it starts out as a typical morale booster (an allowance today’s audience must be prepared to give), it transcends that with the sensitive treatment of the children. The child actors, notably Margaret O’Brien in her first credited appearance, are mostly affecting, although some may find them a tad precious. Robert Young, however, not so much. He didn’t have the heft for this kind of melodrama, there always seems to be a touch of jocundity under the surface that distracts. Fay Bainter as the woman who runs the orphanage, excels. Nigel Bruce has a small role as John’s editor. Laraine Day is good enough. Van Dyke’s last film. Facing terminal cancer he committed suicide shortly after the premiere of this picture.

:star: :star: :star: out of 4
-----------------------------
W.S. VAN DYKE – “Miscellany”
Journey for Margaret (1942) :star: :star: :star:


01/17/09

Right Cross (1950) Dir: John Sturges
Production: MGM

Ricardo Montalban stars in this boxing world/love triangle film that coincidentally aired on TCM the day he died. Not as frequently mentioned as the fact that he played Mr. Roarke on TV, is that Montalban also had a fine resume of film work, including Right Cross.

Sean O’Malley (Lionel Barrymore), a fading boxing promoter, and his daughter Pat (June Allyson) try to hold onto their last champion, Johnny Monterrez (Ricardo Montalban), while a competitor tries to sign him away. Sean has a seemingly big edge; Johnny and Pat are in love. Along for the ride is Johnny’s best friend, sportswriter Rick Garvey (Dick Powell, real life husband of Allyson) who is a long-time torch carrier for Pat. Complicating matters is an injured right hand, Johnny’s, that will force decisions to be made in urgency and already sensitive nerves rubbed raw.

Give come credit to Montalban. First of all, the dude is ripped. But he makes the boxing look good. Obviously punches are faked and don’t land, but what he does well is the footwork, something often overlooked in boxing movies. I think it’s because the actor has to be in excellent shape. Well here, he is. It makes a difference. He’s also good in the part. It’s an excellent portrayal of a fighter who could lose it all with his next punch. That uncertainty makes him angry, scared. Believe it or not, the film also offers some insight into the Mexican-American experience. The generation ahead of Johnny was conditioned into thinking they were less than the “gringos”. Johnny is the champion of the world (his self-worth is practically tied to his title), but he still has to deal with that resentment, some of which lingers in his own family. His relationship with Pat doesn’t help. June Allyson is fine, if a little far-fetched as a boxing promoter. Dick Powell plays the hard bitten cynic well. This is one of Lionel Barrymore’s last roles and his physical deterioration dovetails effectively with his character's fading fortunes and inability to mount much of a fight for his ‘asset’. Marilyn Monroe has a brief role, early in her career, as a model (named Dusky Ledoux) who Rick unsuccessfully hits on. On a technical note, there is an interesting subjective camera shot in the boxing match (Raging Bull?).

:star: :star: :star: out of 4
--------------------------------------
JOHN STURGES – “Strained Seriousness”
Right Cross (1950) :star: :star: :star:

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Thanks. If the Woody Allen interview crops up on TCM again, I'd appreciate it if you (or Michael, or anyone) could give me a heads up on it. I'd like to try watching more of the channel anyway. But with the recent "theme weeks" I'm trying to do, that might not always work out.

 

[Pete York]

In retrospect, what with you going through a block of Allen, it seems silly for me not to have mentioned it beforehand. My bad.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Godard's 1986 film, MEETING WOODY ALLEN, is available on YouTube in three parts. It's certain a Godard film but interesting none the less. I reviewed it last year I believe.

You can see part one here:

YouTube - Meeting With Woody Allen (1986) Godard (1)

Links to the other two parts are there also.

 

[Mario Gauci]

LARCENY, INC. Three ex-cons buy a luggage shop to tunnel into the bank vault next door.

SMALL TIME CROOKS Three ex-cons buy a cookie shop to tunnel into the bank vault next door.


Since no one saw fit to check this one out

:


BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET: A group of incompetent robbers break into a disused apartment to tunnel into the bank vault next door.

Maybe Joe K. should just ask ol' Woody himself if he happens to catch a glimpse of him around the Big Apple and settle the matter once and for all? By the way, being a New Yorker and all, did you in fact ever catch sight of him or that other famous 'strict' New Yorker, Lou Reed (one of my most favorite musicians)?


Re: Roger Ebert


Whenever you or I or Michael or anybody else who posts here namechecks another movie in our 'reviews', it's done based on our 'limited' resources and in fun rather than to show-off our knowledge over someone or other...and, believe me, this year I've been trying to cut down on all that self-referential stuff (which I hope you've noticed).

However, when somebody like Ebert - who, like him or not, is arguably the best-known film critic alive today - says that SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000) is reminiscent of BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET (1958), he'd better be right because a) he's getting paid for his writing and b) he has a reputation to uphold. So, you better believe him.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

He also gave LIGHT OF DAY (1987) three and a half stars, and often puts his 'reputation' on the line by praising many lousy movies, so while I can admire that riskiness personally, I'll still have my reservations as to his being concerned about his rep! But how is it that Ebert didn't mention LARCENY INC at all -- what does this mean for his credentials?? (LARCENY INC seems more reminiscent for SMALL TIME CROOKS than BIG DEAL does! ) .

 

[Joe Karlosi]

My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009) :star::star::star:

Remake of the 1981 slasher film about a maniac in a coal miner's outfit slaughtering everyone, and probably the better of the two for me simply because I can't recalll a single thing about the first version. These days there has been a return of sorts to the unrestrained gory days of early '80s slasher films, and this one delivers in all those typical categories you'd expect -- the over-the-top mutilations and gore sequences, the gratuitous sex (including full frontal female nudity) and people getting theirs in a variety of inventive ways. At least it's a step up in that the main cast and victims are not just silly teenagers, but rather silly 20-somethings and older this time out. And it is a very nice bonus getting a return from old timer Tom Atkins as a retired policeman in the mix, too.

This film is also released in standard flat 2-D, but I wouldn't have awarded it three stars if not for the added gimmick of third dimension, which is really what the fun is all about here. The 3-D effects are well done, seeing things fly off the screen and into your face. One wonders whether they might have taken this even farther with more deliberate situations designed to fully utilize the effect, but what's there is still cool. The "mystery" of the film kept me going back and forth in my guesstimates, up to the final second, so that was an added bonus to the usual trappings that worked for me.


The Curious Dr. Humpp (1971) :star::star:

A crazed young doctor is interested in the libido of sexually active humans, so he sends his monster and henchmen out to kidnap couples while involved in the act, and keeps them prisoner at his laboratory to study them and induce them to have more sex, so the doc can seek to dominate sex (?) ... and also with a talking brain in a jar that deflates and inflates while it speaks. This is a foreign black and white sexploitation flick, with tons of nudity and all sorts of random sexual activity -- group orgies, lesbianism, female masturbation... Nothing out of the ordinary for this type of combo horror/softcore sleaze offering. For those who know what they want and what to expect, you know the deal.


Please Don't Eat My Mother (1973) :star:

A 40-something mama's boy (Buck Kartalian in a starring role!) is still a virgin and can't get any girls, so he obtains a plant which he keeps locked in his bedroom. The damn thing speaks in a sexy woman's voice and grows to huge proportions as it keeps asking its owner for more and more food - starting out with flies, but gradually moving on to humans.

This is a completely ridiculous and crazy comedy that's reminiscent of Roger Corman's LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS, and the main reason it gets one star is because Buck Kartalian is actually perfect for such a wacky part. It's very strange seeing him, an actor of many trades who's been in movies such as PLANET OF THE APES and COOL HAND LUKE, headlining a thing like this. When he's not trying to secure victims for plant food he's got a habit of being a voyeur who watches couples having sex - and I mean bordering on hardcore pornography, with even male frontal nudity as well as the females. This is pretty much a tiring film after awhile, and though it shouldn't have been more than 70 or 80 minutes, the damn thing stretches on for nearly 100.


The Private House of the SS (1977) :star::star:1/2

Interested in Nazi Sexploitation films? You're not? Well, if you were I'd say this Italian film from Bruno Mattei is one of the "better" of this kinky cult genre. The order of the day is depraved sex, sex, sex - and more sex. The story revolves around an SS officer who seeks to discover who the traitors are in the Third Reich. So he finds 10 whores who become trained to indulge in all sorts of wild sexcapades, so they can seduce the suspected turn-coats, and then get them to confess vital information. There is no point here really other than to indulge in a wide array of nudity and sexual insanity - ranging from S&M to lesbianism to plain old sex done with freaks ... even implied bestiality (yuck). I'm hesitant to say this, but sometimes the cinematography was actually impressive for such a concoction.

 

[Mario Gauci]

01/18/09: INVASION (Alan Bridges, 1965) :star::star::star:1/2

This low-budget British sci-fi outing is so rare that I have had to make do with a copy sporting forced French subtitles for this first viewing! I was glad to confirm that the film’s solid reputation was well-deserved; plot-wise, it is not dissimilar from two other notable genre entries from this country which I caught quite recently – namely UNEARTHLY STRANGER (1963) and THE NIGHT CALLER (1965). I recall being particularly impressed with the former and, actually, I feel that INVASION is very much on a par with it; incidentally, the title is a misnomer since the aliens here are actually stranded on earth and their mission is to recapture an escaped prisoner they were escorting rather than occupation! Even so, we do get a show of their (typically advanced) technology and, needless to say, there are human casualties involved; to be fair, though, we never learn of their true intent until quite late into the game and, consequently, the carefully-built suspense and smart handling throughout (this was director Bridges’ feature-film debut) makes for consistently satisfying viewing. One rather clever notion has the aliens requiring to physically touch an Earthling before they can speak our language…though, of course, no explanation is given as to why they happen to have an Oriental complexion! In the long run, the modest scale of the production (the setting is largely confined to a hospital and the woods nearby, with events unfolding over just one night) works in its favor, making the central concept both gripping and persuasive. Hero Edward Judd was something of a fixture in British sci-fi around this time: his rugged good looks and evident intelligence were always good value for money in these fantastic surroundings; leading lady Valerie Gearon does well by her role too, familiar character actor Anthony Sharp has a prominent (if rather unlikely) role early on in the proceedings and, obviously, the intervention by the military is a requisite in this type of film. Among the more visually striking moments are a shot where a door opening leads into a doll-house, with the camera then panning up to reveal the actual room, and a car very realistically crashing (into the invisible barrier created by the aliens in order to isolate the area) with its driver spurting out of the windscreen. As to flaws, these are indeed negligible – but I suppose I should mention the fact that one of the alien women unaccountably disappears during the film’s last third, while the climax is a bit rushed (if still quite unique: the pursuing alien deliberately crashes her spaceship into a fleeing rocket bearing her quarry!).


01/18/09: THE BOY WITH GREEN HAIR (Joseph Losey, 1948) :star::star::star:

Losey’s first feature film was this unexpected Technicolor fantasy with a strong anti-war message. Dean Stockwell is a boy whose parents are busy doing war duty during the London blitz; after they’re killed, he’s taken in by cheerful Irish former actor Pat O’Brien (who bursts into song at the drop of a hat) – in perhaps the least typical scene in the director’s entire oeuvre (more suited to an MGM musical, in fact!), he recalls his private performance before a European king! Anyway, things take a curious turn when, in direct opposition to children’s suffering in wartime, Stockwell’s hair goes from black to green (the color of Spring and, therefore, hope) overnight. However, this defiant gesture isn’t easily understood by either the boy’s peers (who take to bullying him) or the local elders (who treat him as an outcast); amusingly, milk-man Regis Toomey drops his consignment of bottles off-camera when the physical change which has occurred in Stockwell finally dawns on him! Medical science can’t help the boy either, but a ‘visit’ by other war orphans reassures him of the symbolic role he has to play. Even so, as with virtually every harbinger of an inconvenient truth, he still ends up victimized: his head is completely shaved and, running away, comes across sympathetic children’s doctor Robert Ryan(!) – to whom the story thus far is recounted in flashback. Given the vital importance of color here, this emerges a very pleasant-looking film indeed; the ensuing drama is remarkably well handled with, thankfully, little concession to sentimentality. Though there’s regrettably too little of Ryan to counterbalance O’Brien’s malarkey, the whole is undoubtedly boosted by the haunting tune “Nature Boy” (which would somehow find its way effectively into the eclectic MOULIN ROUGE [2001] score!).


01/18/09: STRAIT-JACKET (William Castle, 1964) :star::star:1/2

This supremely silly yet undeniably entertaining offering by notorious schlock-meister Castle (albeit gimmick-free) proved to be veteran Hollywood icon Joan Crawford’s second in a series of belated horror vehicles – following the seminal WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE (1962) – which inauspiciously terminated her lengthy and illustrious career. She plays a typical grande dame whose double axe-murder of husband (a very young Lee Majors!) and his one-night stand throws her into the looney bin for 20 years; when she re-emerges, more violent deaths follow in her path (one of the victims is unrecognizably lanky farmhand George Kennedy) – so that the frail and disorientated woman’s sanity is once again threatened. Apart from Diane Baker (as the heroine’s daughter, who had witnessed the initial massacre as a child), Crawford is obviously the whole show here: she approaches the role as if it were the logical continuation of her long run of glossy (but histrionic) melodramas of the 1940s and 1950s. This one is high-strung, to be sure – indeed, one could only sensibly classify it as Camp (never more so perhaps than, when drunk, the star unaccountably and shamelessly seduces Baker’s understandably ill-at-ease suitor more than half her age)! The film’s most outrageous conceit, then, is its pathetic attempt to pass off Crawford as a girl of 29 in the prologue…especially since when, made to don a black wig later, the passage of time is effectively blotted out and she looks exactly like in those early scenes!; this alone ensures a good time is generally had by the viewer, smoothing over the occasional longueur (usually relating to instances of tedious exposition or clichéd characterization). Apparently, STRAIT-JACKET was a dream project for Castle who, ever the shrewd entrepreneur, sought to combine the vibe inherent in BABY JANE (by borrowing one of its leading ladies) with the particular feel of another runaway hit – Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960), whose central premise he had actually already pillaged for HOMICIDAL (1961)! – by acquiring the services of Robert Bloch, author of that film’s source novel, to pen the script. The mix, however, is not as congenial as the producer may have envisaged (I will, in any case, check out HOMICIDAL itself presently): for one thing, while certainly well handled, the final revelation (involving impersonation) hardly comes as a shock in this case; besides, its power is subsequently dampened by having Crawford provide ludicrous psychological elucidation in an obviously tacked-on epilogue!

 

[sestamuch]

My Bloody Valentine is on my to see list.

 

[Pete York]

01/18/09

The Captive City (1952) Dir: Robert Wise
Production: Aspen Productions/United Artists

Ripped from the headlines, as they say, comes this story of a small town newspaper editor crusading against pervasive corruption and the mafia, despite the objections and warnings of many of the town’s leading citizens. The reporter is Jim Austin (John Forsythe), the paper is The Kennington Journal in the small town of Kennington. In a neat framing device the film opens with a frantic Jim and his wife speeding along the road in a car, pursued by another car. They come upon a police station and make a mad dash to get inside. Jim tells the officer on duty that he’s on his way to testify in front of the Kefauver Committee. He asks to be allowed to put his story on tape, in case he never makes it.

Obviously made to capitalize on the massive popularity of the 1950 Kefauver hearings on organized crime (one of the early television phenomenon’s), the film even has an appearance by Estes Kefauver. The first thing we see is a statement from him: “Ordinarily, Americans don’t think much about the existence of organized crime; they know vaguely that it is there, and they let it go at that…UNLESS PRODDED BY SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.” As goes the story. Jim is initially dismissive of a tip that widespread gambling and a wire syndicate has set up in Kennington, until something happens that PRODS him into thinking otherwise. The appearance on the scene of a man whose name ends in a vowel, Dante Fabretti, really sends Jim’s antenna into overdrive. The film ends with a stiffly delivered lecture from Sen. Kefauver, and the point is obvious: stamping out crime is largely a local matter and silence and inaction makes us all complicit--even small town America isn’t immune from the insidious grasp of the ‘Black Hand’.

Forsythe, with his limited range, is okay as Jim. I didn’t recognize any of the other actors, outside of Marty Milner (“Adam-12”, Sweet Smell of Success) in a Jimmy Olsen role as the boy photographer. They left little impression anyway except for the woman playing Jim’s wife, Joan Camden, who was irritating. The movie was interestingly shot, tending towards bright, high key lighting. Lee Garmes was the DP. The credits go so far as to mention that Garmes “photographed with the Hoge Lenses”. I don’t know what that means but I imagine they were specific to achieving the look of the picture. A lot of action was in the extreme foreground, with cars and people constantly invading that space, while something grabbed the eye in the rest of the frame. All in deep focus. Wise obviously applying what he took from Citizen Kane. While the look of the film is a very large part of what I liked about this, the story does hold the attention.

:star: :star: 1/2 out of 4
-------------------------------------
ROBERT WISE – “Strained Seriousness”
The Captive City (1952) :star: :star: 1/2


01/18/09

Up the River (1930) Dir: John Ford
Production: Fox Film

A ‘Comedy Drama’ according to the credits. If you had asked me to guess which one Ford got right, and believe me, he only got one right, I would not have said comedy. But here it is, a genuinely amusing, if incredibly goofy, early sound film (there are even several title cards used). Spencer Tracy, Humphrey Bogart star and Ward Bond appears, all in very early roles. It’s amazing to see Tracy as almost fully formed right out of the box, Bogart less so, still learning. As befitting most productions of the time, the camera is static and uninteresting. The print was also in bad shape (I’m not sure how the DVD is but it couldn’t be much better).

Saint Louis (Tracy) and Dannemora Dan (Warren Hymer) are two inveterate criminals. Prison seems to be a mere irritant to them as they break out almost at will. The film opens with a nicely shot nighttime jail break of theirs. But soon they’ll be back. Upon their return they make pals with cellmate Steve Jordan (Bogart), a guy whose society family doesn’t know he’s in prison. When Steve is released he’s threatened with exposure by some creep unless he agrees to participate in a criminal enterprise. Saint Louis and Dannemora promptly break out to help Steve and return in time for the big inter-prison baseball game (not that we ever find out what happens to the blackmailer).

I’ve revealed the plot because it is pointless. Utterly ridiculous. Non-sensical. And Bogie’s romantic subplot is filled with dreadful dialogue and a dreadful performance from the girl (Claire Luce). But damn if I didn’t laugh throughout this film. Mostly one-liners and sight gags, but one of the highlights is the prison’s talent show (the ‘comedy’ stylings of ‘Black & Blue’ excepted, for those that have seen this). Witness Saint Louis’ knife throwing act, with what certainly appears to be real knives being thrown at Hymer (who’s blinking nervously). And the one trademark Ford moment; a quartet singing some sentimental number while the camera pans across the emotional faces of the inmates in the crowd. Crazy thing is, I might be willing to watch this again at some point.

:star: :star: out of 4
------------------------
JOHN FORD – “Pantheon”
Up the River (1930) :star: :star:

 

[Michael Elliott]

My Bloody Valentine (1981) :star::star: George Mihalka

A small mining town cancels all Valentine Day events after a mine cave in where one survivor later killed several people. Twenty-years after this event the locals teens decide its time to party and sure enough the maniac shows back up to kill. This slasher seems to have a rather big following but I'm not one of its major fans even after viewing the "uncut" version via the recent LionsGate release. For a horror movie this isn't too bad but it certainly can't compare to the better films of the genre including several of the Friday the 13th movies as well as The Burning, which might be the best of the slasher era films. The biggest problem I have with this movie are the characters and the performances. Yes, you shouldn't expect Oscar worthy material but there are too many times where the performances left me wanting to smile or laugh and this isn't a good thing. Another issue are the characters themselves because I really didn't care for any of them. The love triangle side of the story never really works because it's so underwritten. The final issue I have with the film is some rather weak direction, which doesn't allow the movie any atmosphere or tension. I'd be lying if I said there was a single second of fear in this movie and it's a real shame because an underground mine allows for plenty of darkness but nothing is done with it. The film has plenty of scenes where the killer jumps out at you and there's even a "jump" scene at the end but none of them work too well. What does work are the special effects, which are pretty good especially when viewed in their uncut form. The pick axe through the eye is probably the highlight of the movie but there are other goods ones including the boiling water and another scene where a heart is ripped out. This type of movie is certainly made to show off various killings and it does live up to standards on that level. I just need a little more to go along with that violence and this film doesn't have enough for that. Horror buffs will certainly want to check this out but the genre does offer better.

Manhatta (1921) :star::star::star::star: Charles Sheeler, Paul Strand

Cinematographer Paul Strand and painter Charles Sheeler teamed up to make this movie, which was their attempt to show their love for the city of Manhattan. The say they achieved in showing that love would be an understatement because this 11-minute movie is extremely well-made and contains some downright break taking visuals. The semi-documentary film has various images of the city put together in no real order nor do they try to tell a story out of the images. Instead we just see various items from the city, ranging from haze rising over buildings to various ships on the water. All of these images make for an incredible film because it really seems like you're watching a science-fiction film with a bunch of fake images. It's rather amazing at how well the cinematography is here because unlike many, or perhaps any film, this one here puts you so close to what you're looking at that it's nearly impossible to remember you're watching a movie. This is certainly one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen and perhaps the start of what would become avant-garde film and one has to wonder if Stanley Kubrick saw this and learned from it.

N.Y., N.Y. (1957) :star::star::star::star: Francis Thompson

I've read a lot of different things about this film but the main thing appears to be that director Thompson spent over twenty-years making the perfect camera to put his strange and unique vision on film. The kaleidoscope lenses used here were Thompson's creation and the secrets he took to the grave with him. There's not really any story being told but instead we just see all sorts of visuals from the morning time through the evening up into the night. All of the images coming from New York City but we're seeing them unlike anything before or after. I'm really not sure how to explain this form of cinema except by calling it very original and unique. Needless to say I haven't seen a movie like this one before and I'm sure you'd see or feel something different with each new viewing because there's just so much going on here. I think the best stuff was the night scenes just because of how the beautiful colors leaped off the screen. The kaleidoscope lense certain made a true treasure in terms of visuals.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Gran Torino (2008) :star::star::star:1/2

Senior citizen Clint Eastwood portrays Walt Kowalski, a tough, old fashioned, angry, racist Korean War Vet who has just lost his wife of many years and is now going it alone in his home. The neighborhood has changed over the years and its citizens are now mainly Asians or black people, who Walt has nothing but disdain for, using each and every prejudicial slur in the book (and many others I don't think I've ever heard) as part of his regular hateful vocabulary. He even wants no part of his kindly Hmong next door neighbors until he encounters the young teenage brother and sister, who begin to make a slight dent in his cynical armor. Kowalski is eventually faced with a turn of events which will ultimately determine what he's made of at this late stage in his life.

If this is to be Clint Eastwood's last film, it would be a case of his going out on a high note. This is a very good film, though at this point I would hesitate to call it "perfect". At first I didn't know what to make out of Eastwood's over the top racial rantings ... they were so exaggerated and cartoonish that he was coming off as satirical. There are a lot of funny lines in the film in spite of this, and it's a relief that the script winds up making us care about Walt in contrast to his ways, which believe it or not actually begin to make him endearing as the story progresses (you have to see for yourself). If I am going to get picky, the acting wasn't the greatest. At times I thought even Clint's delivery seemed a bit false, or that he was pausing while delivering some of lines, or something. But this is a touching movie about people, heart, and responsibility. I really liked it.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Joe, have you seen any of the Dirty Harry films? I can't remember if you discussed them or not but I didn't see any reviews at IMDB.

Also, where did you see Mattei's PRIVATE HOUSE OF THE SS? I've seen three or four of his other WIP movies but not this one. You should check out SADOMANIA if you want a really trash one. You mention the almost animal stuff so you should stay away from certain D'Amato films like EMANUELLE IN AMERICA and CALIGULA: THE UNTOLD STORY as they go even further and actually show the crap.

I've got HUMPP here but haven't watched it yet. I did view PLEASE DON'T EAT during last year's horror challenge and enjoyed it more than you did. It certainly went on too long but I found it fairly funny, campy and pretty erotic as well.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm pretty sure I saw TIGHTROPE in the theater, but that's not Dirty Harry, I don't think. I may have seen one or two other Eastwood cop films in the theater in the '80s. I saw some Dirty Harry stuff on TV, but not whole films. I'm thinking that this may just be Clint's "tough guy delivery", and I'm certainly familiar with the approach ... but something hit me as off in GRAN TORINO the way he delivered lines at times (not only the tough lines). I'm going to have to get those Harry films viewed.

I saw the PRIVATE HOUSE OF THE SS on a DVD last night (I should say 12:30 am this morning). Speaking of animal stuff, I still have the cannibal film here on DVD waiting for me to get up my nerve (I forgot the title, but you know the controversial one I mean).

 

[Michael Elliott]

No, I agree with you at least for the first fifteen-minutes. You can read the full thread at this site but I wasn't sure how to react to his delivery during the start of the film. Whenever he'd grunt they'd get the camera right up on him and make it comical. I believe this pays off in the end because the humor makes us come around to the character a lot more.

TIGHTROPE is one I enjoy because it seems more like a Bronson movie in its overall tone. As you said, it's not in the Dirty Harry series but it certainly could have been.

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, CANNIBAL FEROX and EATEN ALIVE are the big three but I think JUNGLE HOLOCAUST is the best of the bunch. If you got HOLOCAUST it'll make an interesting debate depending on which side you're on. I'll discuss that more after you watch the film. I do remember when I first reviewed that the webmaster and I got three e-mails from PETA threatening to kill us if we didn't take the review down. Being a dumbass I gave one of them my home address but they never showed up.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yeah - the grunting --- that kind of stuff, too. It was just really silly and comical at times. But the audience in the theater ate it up and laughed, and eventually it all worked to make the character more endearing. I guess I'll visit that other GRAN TORINO thread.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Thanks --- YouTube is a great place to see all sorts of interviews. I'm watching one with Woody Allen right now where he's asked 1o questions by TIME, and one of them is about stealing from other sources - and Woody freely admits: "I've stolen from everyone - I'm a shameless thief" ! ( )

YouTube - TIME Interviews Woody Allen

 

[Michael Elliott]

That Godard thing was an actual film released into theaters, although I don't think it ever made it to the U.S.. I'm sure Godard fans might disagree but it's certainly one of the best films I've seen from the director.