2009 - Paramount Pictures
Directed By Stephen Sommers
SYNOPSIS
When a group of new warheads ordered by the U.S. Government is stolen by a new terrorist group, an elite military unit called G.I. Joe is tasked with retrieving them. But this terrorist group, COBRA, activates them and launches them toward several major world capitals. Now G.I. Joe must stop them.
MY THOUGHTS
As loud, obnoxious and idiotic as a frat party.
Seemingly with each and every year, Hollywood's 'paint-by-number' 'must-please-everyone' blockbusters lose more and more touch with reality.
Though set in the 'near future,' the technology of both the good guys and the bad guys is light-years beyond anything you'd find on Star Trek. If the militaries of the world had secret technologies, they wouldn't be as advanced as this in hundreds of years, even at the current evolution rate of technology.
GI Joe breaks more laws of physics than Batman & Robin. The 80's animated TV series the film was based on is far more grounded in the real world.
The actors all treat the material as serious as if it were a Shakespeare tragedy, except Marlon Wayans, who plays "Mandatory Standard Comic Relief Character." A wink and a nod to the audience would go a long way here, but is absent. There are too many interconnected lives and histories between the good and evil sides to be remotely believable.
The action is so frenetically paced and the editing is so quick, it is occasionally hard to follow.... clearly the Michael Bay influence (as Bay's Transformers films preceded this in the "80's cartoon/toy line as live-action feature film" genre.)
In the climactic undersea battle, shots of both the GI Joe and Cobra crafts are so brief, you can't recognize which is which later in the battle.
The first action scene is very far fetched, and the absurdity builds exponentially with each action set piece. About halfway through the film, I was howling with laughter at the lunacy of it all. Far more hilarious than any intentional comedy I'd seen in awhile.
Now you know how dumb this film is, and knowing is half the battle.
1927 - Paramount Pictures
Directed By Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack
SYNOPSIS
Natives try to survive in the jungles of Thailand.
MY THOUGHTS
Chang tells the true story of one man trying to protect his family and survive the jungle... but any semblance of a story takes a back seat to the incredible wildlife footage.
This was shot in the days before all sorts of telephoto lenses could capture the action at great distances, so the camera had to be right there amongst all the dangerous wildlife (stampeding elephants, tigers, bears, leopards.) No doubt, the daring and fearless Merian C. Cooper was manning the camera for those shots. The images are so strong you forget the film is silent!
Chang is also balanced by some cute and comical animal moments featuring a monkey, dog and several baby animals.
Some of the shots didn't turn out like it should have and some of the footage was re-shot on a sound stage. This doesn't affect the film terribly and is barely noticeable.
Chang also shows several animals really being hunted and killed. They are not terribly graphic, but PETA members may want to skip this one.
This film and a few others Cooper and Schoedsack made helped to inspire the basic plot of their masterpiece King Kong a few years later.
2009 - Walt Disney Pictures
Directed By Gregory Sherman, Jeffrey Sherman
SYNOPSIS
The sons of a famous songwriter, the Sherman Brothers try their hand at it and soon have hit songs on the radio. Then Walt Disney comes calling and the two are writing the music for Mary Poppins, The Jungle Book and The Parent Trap (among others.) Despite the family-friendly nature of their song output, the two have a strained relationship that results in them barely even speaking to each other today.
MY THOUGHTS
The documentary tackles the complex lives of one of the most underrated songwriting partnerships of the 20th Century.
The Boys features copious amounts of the Richard and Robert Sherman's music from their early days (You're 16, You're Beautiful And You're Mine) to their Disney heyday in the 1960s and later works in the 70s. It's great to see more than just their Disney output (Disney made the film) and the studio ponied up the money to license clips from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Snoopy Come Home, Charlotte's Web (made by other studios.) Many famous faces who sung those classic songs appear to discuss the brothers as well.... giving the film a true 'definitive' telling of their professional history.
But in tackling their lives away from the spotlight, The Boys is far less successful.
The Boys is co-directed by the sons of the Sherman Brothers. This gives the film a greater intimacy than it would have been otherwise, but the sons don't ask any tough questions that really get to the heart of the brothers' main issues with each other. It's mentioned frequently that their personalities and interests are different but it's hard to believe that alone would trump their family bond, their love of music, and the money they were making for their families. The film leaves you thinking: "There had to be something else."
On a side note: as someone who was once stuck on the "It's A Small World After All" ride at Disney World for 5-10 minutes longer than anyone should ever have, I'm glad the film also addresses the obnoxiousness of that song!
The Boys is a great overview of the Sherman Brothers' career, but is far less successful in handling their personal lives.
Sorry, Thanks is billed as an unconventional romantic-comedy, and it is. It ain't romantic or funny.
The lack of a well-crafted script really dooms the film.
The dialogue has a very amateurish feel almost as if it was all made up by the actors on the spot as cameras were rolling. The humor comes from a few half-assed one liners The weak script, along with many shots of the actors standing against walls doing nothing, gives the film a very directionless (and pointless) feel.
The acting is very naturalistic and real... but the actors (both leads and supporting) don't really DO anything and we never learn anything about the characters to give a crap.
After about 90 minutes Sorry, Thanks then just sort of ends. Nothing resolved. It's as if they ran out of money and just ran the credits. No message is made or even attempted here.
The only amazing thing about the film is the cinematography somehow is able to completely drain the vibrancy and beauty from the city of San Francisco.
A documentary tracing the rise and fall of singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson as told by people who knew him.
MY THOUGHTS
An engrossing and very entertaining warts-and-all tale of a complex and eccentric man.
If you are asking yourself "Who is Harry Nilsson?" Here are his three most famous songs:
or if you're a classic TV fan:
His family and lots of famous faces who were friends tell candid stories of the man including The Monkees' Mickey Dolenz, Monty Python's Eric Idle and Terry Gilliam, Yoko Ono, Beach Boy Brian Wilson, singer-songwriters Van Dyke Parks, Paul Williams and Randy Newman, and many others. Ample old interviews of the man himself detail his troubled early years as well as the highlights of his life.
Ringo Starr, who was a close personal friend, oddly doesn't appear, and it's not explained why. (Though elsewhere it's revealed he was too close and Nilsson's death causes him too much pain to talk about him.)
One of the highlights of the film is of the infamous tale of a Smothers Brothers comeback show at The Troubadour in Los Angeles. They were heckled mercilessly by very intoxicated fans Nilsson and John Lennon, who both got bounced from the club. It is told by archive video of Lennon and a modern day interview of Tom and Dick Smothers. It's the best version of the story that I've heard.
The film thankfully doesn't gloss over Nilsson's many faults (self destructive behavior, his first two failed marriages, etc.) and this helps to give a three dimensional portrait of the man.
'Who Is Harry Nilsson' definitely shows off the man's genius and if you're a fan of singer-songwriters or The Beatles, or 60s + 70s music, certainly seek this one out. It's also available streaming on Netflix.
The new caretaker of a cemetery (Richard Boone) sells two plots to newlyweds. He accidentally puts two black pushpins (meaning occupied plots) into the map in his office, instead of white ones (meaning unoccupied.) Within hours the two are tragically killed. He messes up again with the same results. He gets freaked out by his apparent godlike powers and questions his own sanity. Those he seeks for help don't believe him and urge him to use some more black pushpins. Then, he gets the idea to switch the black pushpins back to white ones... and the graves empty!
MY THOUGHTS
An ingenious and different 50's horror film.
I Bury The Living, like most of its genre at the time, is strictly a low budget 'B movie' affair. Unlike most of it's genre, it eschews the need for a silly looking monster or alien to bring the horror, keeping the film from becoming instant camp. Instead, 'I Bury' is able to provide authentic chills through psychology and paranoia.
Richard Boone's performance is roughly on par with most 50's sci fi/horror acting. It's a bit wooden, but Boone's a slight cut above the rest and helps to convey a darkness and paranoia in his character that benefits the film. Editing and music add to Boone's paranoiac performance.
Also look for Dennis The Menace's father Herbert Anderson in a supporting role, wearing what could be the same glasses from the TV classic.
My main fault with the film is its cop-out ending that lacks the punch of the rest of the film. Still, I Bury The Living is a worthy trip even though the destination is kind of lame.
Two down on their luck LA private eyes (Bill Cosby + Robert Culp) are hired to track down a missing woman. When the two get mixed up with thugs and a missing $400,000, their careers and lives are in jeopardy
MY THOUGHTS
A stylish tough-as-nails neo-film noir.
It's amazing how many early 70's gems like this (or the recently reviewed Fat City) have fallen through the cracks and gone into undeserved obscurity.
The screenplay, by Walter Hill, plays like a Raymond Chandler novel, which definitely fits the noir mold. The end of the production code years earlier helps Hickey & Boggs to delve into the seedier and darker territories of Chandler's world than previous film incarnations of his actual work, like The Big Sleep.
The undeniable chemistry between Cosby and Culp is still in effect from their days starring on TV's I Spy. However, these roles are far different. Instead of playing hotshot spies, they are low-rent private eyes, both divorced, living from case to case at near-poverty levels. Also, apart from a sarcastic comment or two, the film is completely devoid of humor, an essential part of their I Spy roles. The dark and grimy story benefits from the lack of comedy.
Bill Cosby really stands out here. He fairs far better than the usual stand-up comic turned dramatic actor (a la Robin Williams.) Cosby plays the role with a detached (and badass) cool.
Culp is equally as good. It's a shame this was the only feature film he directed. Apart from some initially confusing cutaways early in the film, his direction is really strong for a first timer.
One of the main characters is the city of Los Angeles. We get to see many landmarks from city hall, to LA Colosseum, to Dodger Stadium as well as many city streets. It's great to see how much of the city has changed in nearly 40 years (and how much is still recognizable.)
This is a must-see not just for noir fans or fans of the stars, but for anyone who wants to see an intelligent, suspenseful lost classic.
Hickey & Boggs is unavailable on DVD (but is available on Netflix's streaming service and on Amazon's Video On Demand.)
A mockumentary examining the life of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen,) a human chameleon. During the 1920s-30s, he has the unusual ability to become who he is around. When pared with obese people, he becomes fat; with Hasidic Jews, he spouts a beard; with African Americans, he becomes black, etc.
Zelig takes the form of countless (slightly dry) documentaries that you would see on PBS by Ken Burns or others that examine a topic seriously with prominent talking heads. Woody Allen is able to capture this perfectly and subvert it perfectly.
The humor comes off as strong and zany as an extended Monty Python sketch. This is about as high praise as I can offer a comedy. The joke does, however, run a little thin by the end of its short 80 minute run-time, but is still filled with many laugh out loud moments.
Inserting Woody Allen in classic newsreel footage predates Forrest Gump, and is just as effective, despite the lack of high-tech special effects of Gump. Seeing him with the New York Yankees or with Hitler is far more amusing than the later film.
There are so many hilarious oneliners in the film that singleing a few out would be an injustice to the others.
If you like the intelligent later-day mockumentaries of Christopher Guest, or are in the mood to laugh, I highly recommend Zelig.
After a World War II soldier (Marlon Brando) is shot and paralyzed, he must face an even greater battle... conquering his depression in a VA hospital, allowing his pre-war fiancee (Teresa Wright) to see him again, and trying to bring some normalcy to his life.
MY THOUGHTS
Brando shines in his screen debut.
The film boldly tackles the difficulties faced by returning soldiers. Issues are dealt with head-on like acceptance by loved ones and a society that sees them as different and 'less of a man' and soldier's own difficulties dealing with the same issues internally. This was a problem of thousands of veterans returning from the war, yet rarely seen on screen. Surprising for a 1950 film, it even references bladder and bowel problems that these injured soldiers face. This stark approach brought the film more realism than most films of the era.
Marlon Brando's agonized character brought even more realism and helped to bring the growing Method acting revolution to greater heights on the big screen. Brando, along with his fellow injured friends (played by Richard Erdman and Jack Webb,) seemed very authentic as paralyzed soldiers. (just try and look for any leg assistance when they try and sit up) Webb is just about the complete opposite of his Dragnet persona, very real and human. Several real paralyzed war vets play the soldiers in the background.
Teresa Wright (better known as Mrs. Lou Gehrig in Pride of The Yankees and the heroine of Hitchcock's Shadow Of a Doubt) gives a solid performance, but her old-school acting style seems out-of-date in comparison to Brando's Method acting. He's clearly the one to watch. Regardless, they have great chemistry and the clash of old-school and new-school acting somehow works.
The film's stark black and white photography keep your eyes clearly focused on the actors, rather than the surroundings, where they should be.
Robert Forster narrates this documentary tracing the history of exploitation films from the early days of film, to it's eventual death at the hands of porn, and it's influence on modern movies.
MY THOUGHTS
A great intro to the much-maligned and practically forgotten genre of exploitation films.
Exploitation films got their name because they had some content (usually sex and/or violence) that could be exploited to get people into theater seats. These cheaply made movies would find their audience in grimy, dingy, open all day/night theaters called grindhouses.
American Grindhouse covers the gamut of the subgenres of these films from titillating films of the silent era... to drug and prostitution films of the 1930's... to the monster, juvenile delinquent, nudist, burlesque, and teen beach movies of the 1950s... to the drug and biker films of the 60's... to the blaxploitation, Nazisploitation, extreme gore, women in prison films in the 1970's.
These films were mostly made far from Hollywood... yet many were able to influence Hollywood in a big way. The documentary is told in a very entertaining and fast paced way using dozens of clips of both the indie films and their Hollywood spawn.
American Grindhouse primarily uses exploitation film fans (and mainstream directors) John Landis and Joe Dante for interviews. They and the other interviewees (mostly filmmakers of these 'classics') all have a strong passion for these movies that are far from artistic masterpieces. They know they're not discussing high art and have a lot of fun. No snobbish film critics pop up with long-winded diatribes to slow the whole thing down.
One of the film's few flaws was to completely forget Roger Corman, the king of B-movies of the 50's, 60s, and 70's. They show a few posters of his films, but since he is still very much alive, his insight could have been fascinating. It's a glaring omission.
If you already consider yourself to be an expert on grindhouse films, you probably won't learn much new here.... but American Grindhouse serves as an excellent Exploitation 101 course for the newbie.
A mentally unstable man (Michael Shannon) murders his mother. Through a series of flashbacks we find out the strange circumstances that drive him to kill.
MY THOUGHTS
Pretentious bullshit.
My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done was produced by David Lynch and the film features many of the hallmarks of his directoral career (extreme oddball characters, use of music, etc.) I couldn't help but to think of Lynch's latest film as director, Inland Empire. Both films are overly ridiculous and obtuse. They are very pale copies of David Lynch's earlier films, or quality films for that matter. Film can be overly artsy and still be good, if they have something to say. My Son and Inland Empire do not.
Director Werner Herzog is a unique talent and it is painful to see him try and ape another's style and utterly fail to make a decent film.
In the lead, Michael Shannon is completely awful. He creates a completely unsympathetic character who never once seems to be connected to reality or the people around him. He plays the role so over the top (or completely flat) that I found myself laughing unintentionally at his performance, drawing me out of the film.
The film features some excellent character actors to fill out the main cast but all are wasted. William Dafoe, Chloe Sevigny, Brad Dourif, and Udo Kier are given little to do but react. It's hard to empathize with them either since we learn basically nothing about them and they do nothing. I'm guessing the actors all signed up for the film just to work with Herzog.
As a fan of both Herzog and Lynch, I found the film to be nearly unwatchable.
2010 - Warner Animation
Directed By Brandon Vietti
SYNOPSIS
5 years after The Joker (John Di Maggio) killed his second Robin, Batman (Bruce Greenwood) must contend with a new menace in Gotham City, The Red Hood (Jensen Ackles.) This new vigilante astounds Batman with his fight moves, and the Caped Crusader quickly determines it is Jason Todd, his second Robin, somehow back from the dead. Now Batman must discover how he is still alive and how (and if) he should stop his old partner.
MY THOUGHTS
DC Comics and Warner Animation have put an outstanding series of direct-to-DVD films, and this is probably the best of the lot yet.
Like the others, this is based on actual story from the comics, and they remain faithful to the characters in the comic books, which are often tweaked and altered for feature films.
One of the strengths of the film's story is that it didn't waste any time with a dull Bruce Wayne subplot. It is ALL Batman all the time.
But on the other hand the big drawback to Red Hood is it's short run time. The film clocks in at only 1 hour and 15 minutes. It could have been longer but that probably would have been added Wayne-filler and ruined the taught pace of the story. So it's a strength and a drawback at the same time.
Fanboys would probably chide the film for not casting Kevin Conroy (Batman) and Mark Hamill (Joker) because of their long involvement with the 1990s Batman animated series and the many offshoots of that show... but Greenwood and DiMaggio are excellent. The rest of the cast is also strong. Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing, Jason Isaacs as Ra's Al Ghul, and Jensen Ackles as the Red Hood round out the major players.
The film is a visual delight. The high-quality (2-D) animation rivals any theatrical release. That is where the DC series triumphs over Marvel's similar line of direct-to-disc series (which look like 1990's TV animation.)
The staging of the fight scenes are cleverly done and look more realistic than the average animated fare. 'Red Hood' also offers a more realistic and less stylish Gotham City than the Batman animated series, much like the Gotham of the recent live-action Christopher Nolan films compared with the earlier Burton/Schumacher series.
The film is an excellent addition to any comic book geek's collection, as long as they are old enough. The story is very dark and not for children.
After his 5th heart attack, cantankerous Jacques (Brian Cox) is rushed to the hospital. He meets a young homeless man Lucas (Paul Dano) recovering from a suicide attempt. When recovered, Jacques takes the young man under his wing to potentially take over his dive bar should he die. Jacques tries to instill his rough-around-the-edges ways in Lucas, but his lessons aren't a perfect match for the kind-souled young man.
MY THOUGHTS
The Good Heart brought Brian Cox and Paul Dano back together. It was the first time they worked together since Dano's debut in 2001's L.I.E. They showed a strong chemistry in the earlier film and it carries over to this one. It's The Good Heart's major strength.
The well-shot bleak cinematography is balanced by an occasionally wickedly hilarious script but the film has more faults than strengths.
The story is improbable. Why would this old man, who dislikes and distrusts everyone, would take Lucas (who he barely even knows) under his wing?
Why is Lucas homeless? This is never fully explained. He seems like an intelligent, level-headed, and 'good hearted' guy (sorry) and not a typical homeless man. "Because I want to be" is not a decent excuse. No reason is given for his suicide attempt. You could guess it stems from the homelessness... but if he chose to be homeless, he would be happy. Ugggh!
The love story between Lucas and the French girl is underdeveloped and seems forced, just to create tension between Jacques and Lucas.
The film's end is very unsatisfying and ruins much of the good aspects of the story, but I will not give it away, if you choose to take this bleak journey.
The film is remarkably similar to Allen's other films during the 1980's and early 90's. Most of his films feature large ensemble casts and deal with romantic relationships in a sophisticated manner that can shift from incredibly funny to dead serious from scene to scene. 'Hannah' is no different, except the (Oscar-winning) screenplay is a bit sharper and the performances reflect this. Everything from the New York setting, to the jazz score, to even the font used in the credits sync with his other films during the era... except the film is better.
One of the highlights of the 80's and 90's (and later) Allen films is the great casts he could assemble because everyone wanted to work with him. Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest both won Best Supporting Oscars for their roles. The rest of the cast are lines with familiar faces including Max von Sydow, Julie Kavner, Sam Waterston, Carrie Fisher, John Turturro, and in a teeny-tiny role, Julia Louis Dreyfuss.
Hannah And Her Sisters is Woody Allen at the top of his game as a director and writer, and it is one of his finest films, along with Annie Hall and Manhattan. If you have never seen a Woody Allen film, this is an excellent place to start.
A family of three lives at a remote farm in the wilderness, along with a farmhand. Following a piercing noise, the mute farmhand and all the wild and domesticated animals begin to attack the humans. The family begins to suspect the noise wasn't an airplane... and could quite possibly be something from another world.
MY THOUGHTS
As a lover of so bad they're good sci-fi and horror cheese from the 1950's... I can definitely say The Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes is flat out horrible.... and not in a good way.
I wonder if Alfred Hitchcock possibly saw this film and it inspired him to make a nature-gone-mad film properly a few years later. What separated his The Birds from the rest of the flock of horror films... was that it never explained why the fowl attacked. Any explanation would be ridiculous. That's all too evident here. An alien lands and has the ability to 'see through the eyes' of lesser beings and control them. Why? I don't know. If the (two-eyed) alien explained why he did this during the film's climax... my brain had already atrophied and I missed it. His explanation of that would raise the ridiculousness to new heights.
'Beast' is a very low budget affair with a brief run-time, cheap special effects (even for the time) and less than stellar performances. It's the sort of film that should have ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. But the films that aired on MST3K were more-often-than-not fun to watch. Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes is not.
Rob (Ezra Miller) is an unhappy loner at a prep school. He joins an extracurricular video club and one of his assignments is to get video of the school's hallways. While doing so, he captures the overdose deaths of popular twin girls. He then gets assigned to make a video to memorialize the beloved girls.
MY THOUGHTS
A unique look at the life of the modern teen.
Despite it's uniqueness, Aftershool in many ways is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant. The film's use of uncomfortably overlong shots convey the authentic unease of the high school years matches the earlier film. The natural performances filled with many dialogue-free passages and dark subject matter also ape Elephant. Despite the similarities, the two films are very different beasts.
One thing Elephant was lacking was one central performance to unify it together. Ezra Miller shines with his sensitive and complex portrayal of Rob. He perfectly captures the angst and alienation of the teen years without cliche.
The only thing Rob can connect to is YouTube-type videos. The film makes a definite and valid comment how the internet (from porn to violent videos) is disconnecting us all from communicating directly with each other.
Afterschool could easily be called 'boring' or 'dull' by the average film-goer. Its style may be oft-putting for some, but its realism makes for a compelling film. Thankfully, we still have filmmakers who try to make something against the norm.
A washed-up boxer (Jamie Smith) sees a woman (Irene Kane) being abused and tries to stop her attacker. He gets to know her and falls in love. Her attacker is her employer/boyfriend (Frank Silvera) and tries to have the boxer killed. Instead, his goons kill the boxer's manager. Now the boxer is wanted for his boss' murder... and his girl has disappeared.
MY THOUGHTS
Stanley Kubrick's second film definitely shows the promise of his immense talents. Not only does he direct, but he wrote the screenplay, shot the film, edited it, and co-produced it. It's a B-movie both by budget and run-time... but far exceeds your average production.
Stanley Kubrick had already done a short film on boxing called Day Of The Fight, so he was well versed in the subject for a launching point for the film:
The boxing scenes in Killer's Kiss show this, but they are only a small part of the overall film.
The low budget limits the acting quality and the film's short run-time limit the character development. These keep the film from developing truly great and interesting characters. The awesome camerawork and location shooting makes up for these shortcomings a bit. The camerawork evokes the best of film noir and Kubrick was able to light these actual locations to great stylish effect. The climactic chase scene is the highlight of the film.
The film is not in the same league with Kubrick's later work, but is still an interesting piece of film history.
1956 - Toho
Directed by Ishiro Honda
(American dubbed version)
SYNOPSIS
Nuclear tests near Japan unleash several giant caterpillars that terrorize a small mining town. A giant egg in discovered in one of the mines cracks, releasing a massive pterodactyl named Rodan who eats the catepillars like a snack and soon he and his mate threaten the entire country!
MY THOUGHTS
An entertaining Godzilla retread.
Like many of the Godzilla (or most disaster films) series, we're made to watch uninteresting humans that we never really care about and how they react to the crisis at hand.... all while we wish for more monster action.
Rodan also follows the formulaic plot of the 'man in monster suit' genre known as Kaiju --- 'monster emerges, threatens people, people strike back, monster strikes back harder, someone comes up with a successful plot to stop monster.' It's done no better or worse than any other. But starting the film off with another villain, the caterpillars, was a bit of a departure from the norm. Still, it just delayed Rodan's entry into the film.
Rodan is serious in tone, like the first two Godzilla films that proceeded it. This film lacks the original Gojira's anti-war and anti-nuclear message and chooses to not make any political statement at all. By the time Rodan and Godzilla would meet, in 1964's Ghidorah, The Three-Headed Monster, the characters would be played for humor. The later films are 'more fun' but these early films are still cool. This was the first Kaiju film by Toho in color.
The miniature models that get trampled and destroyed by Rodan are some of the best I've ever seen. Recreating a small town, instead of Tokyo, seems to look 100 times more authentic. The miniatures are still superior to those in the 1990's and early 2000's Godzilla films.
The voice dubbing was better than the average Godzilla film as well and used actual Asian-American actors like Keye Luke and a young George Takei. This is great considering there's some Godzilla films where I've heard Japanese characters speak with thick New York accents!
Rodan could have used more Rodan, but otherwise is still an entertaining film for fans of Kaiju.
Former New York drug dealer Priest (Ron O'Neal) is now living the high life in Italy. His only cares are his girl (Sheila Frazier) his drug habit and his weekly poker game. Priest learns of an oppressive government in a small African nation and is convinced to help the helpless citizens. While helping smuggle in arms for the people, he is captured by the government.
MY THOUGHTS
As a fan of the blaxploitation genre, I found the original Super Fly (despite its AMAZING soundtrack) to be a very lackluster film. Super Fly T.N.T. is worse.
The Priest character is an anti-hero... yet anti-heroes possess some admirable traits. Priest does not. He's a pusher and junky working for the mob with a bad attitude. In the sequel, he does NOTHING with his time before being called into service.
TNT is remarkably similar to the second Shaft sequel Shaft In Africa, released the same year. Both feature their titular character being thrust into action in Africa. While Shaft In Africa is a passable action film, Super Fly T.N.T. is horrible.
The film was directed by star, Ron O'Neal and shot in Italy and Africa, yet you would never know it. When you have the opportunity to film on-location you can show off your surroundings, it adds so much to the film's realism. O'Neal doesn't do this at all. It could have been shot on a studio back lot for the same effect he goes for here. At many points, the film is so dark, you cannot see what is going on. This is especially evident when Priest is captured and is planning his escape in his cell. O'Neal is a very sub-par director and would only helm one other film.
Alex Haley wrote the screenplay. The author of Roots is more than a competent writer, so its a wonder how this script was such a muddled mess. The beginning of the film contains some finely written scenes like Priest and his girl going to dinner with Robert Guillaume and his date. The dialogue seems like real life and the film briefly comes alive. Once the scene is over, Guillaume's character and his date disappear from the rest of the film. This and the establishing poker match add little to the plot. The pivotal character of Dr. Sonko (Roscoe Lee Browne) is introduced early on, but we don't find out what he's all about until Priest does... 30 minutes into the film.
That first half hour is completely lacking any action or drama... or even a point. Apart from the dinner scene, it drags on at a snail's pace.
The middle of the film also lacks little action or drama until Priest is captured and tortured.
The film ends abruptly. Priest escapes capture and makes it back to Italy. We never find out if Priest's sacrifices helped at all. Did the weapons made it to the people? If they did, did the weapons help at all to overthrow the government?
Plus, Priest entered the African nation without a passport, yet was able to fly back on an airline. He might have received help from Sonko... but who knows.
I wonder if the filmmakers ran out of money and didn't film a chunk of the screenplay, resulting in this crap fest.
Super Fly T.N.T. is probably best remembered by being name-dropped in Pulp Fiction. Samuel L. Jackson's Jules proclaims "Every time my fingers touch brain I'm Super Fly T.N.T., I'm the Guns Of The Navarone." Why would he insult himself like that?
A rocket arrives to rescue the survivors of the doomed first mission to Mars. No one believes the sole survivor, Carruthers (Marshall Thompson,) that his 9 crew mates were killed by a monster. He is to be shipped back to Earth to stand trial for their murder. One crew member after another disappears and they are forced to believe the monster is real and aboard their ship!
MY THOUGHTS
A very entertaining and (at times) tense thriller
'It' plays disturbingly similar to Ridley Scott's Alien, just without the overwhelming claustrophobic atmosphere (or positive female roles.) The film does have some genuine tension which is rare for a 50's monster film.
The film is also reminiscent of the 1951 version of The Thing, just set in space. The human characters are all scientists battling an alien creature. The actors portraying them are uniformly wooden in both movies. The bland acting didn't hurt The Thing and it doesn't hurt It. Also coincidentally, the monsters were both played by cowboys. James Arness played The Thing and here Ray "Crash" Corrigan is It.
The monster suit could pass for a less cool-looking relative of the Creature From The Black Lagoon. Thankfully, the director wisely kept the creature in the shadows for most of the film. 'It' is certainly more menacing and creepy that way.
The script was able to keep create an intelligent film that is not hindered by its low budget. The action essentially takes place on only two sets. (Each level of the ship is merely the same set redressed.)
Despite the smart screenplay, there are a few glaring science errors that probably went over the heads of a 1950's audience that really stick out today.
It's noted the monster breathes oxygen... so what was it doing on oxygen-free Mars?
You're in a fragile space ship, so why are you firing guns and setting off grenades? The ship must have a good ventilation system to soak up all the explosive and cigarette smoke to keep the crew from dying of smoke inhalation. These are only the tip of the iceberg...
So if you just kick up your feet and turn off your brain you will certainly enjoy this classic monster flick.
An alcoholic drifter and former country singer (Robert Duvall) is unable to pay his bill at a small motel in Texas, he volunteers to work it off. Soon he falls in love with the motel's owner Rosa Lee (Tess Harper) and marries her. He begins to pull his troubled life together and maybe plot a comeback as he is able to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Ellen Barkin) while bonding with Rosa Lee's young son (Allan Hubbard.)
MY THOUGHTS
Many of the best indie dramas since the 90's have been low-budget 'small films' that were well-written and showcases for great actors portraying interesting, if troubled, characters. Those countless films clearly used Tender Mercies as a template. 2009's Crazy Heart is a great example and it borrows more than a little from this film and is probably one of the better examples of the influence of this film.
Robert Duvall has always been one of the best actors out there and this is one of his best roles. Often a supporting performer elsewhere, he shines in the lead as Mac Sledge. Sledge is a difficult role especially with balancing the darker elements with the lighter, dry comedic aspects of the character. Mac Sledge and his world seems very real. It's a very subtle and subdued performance that fits the character like a glove (or guitar.) The subtle way he is able to make that transformation from a dark soul to a warm and centered one because of a the love of a woman is the highlight of the film. He definitely deserved the Oscar for Best Actor that he won here.
The supporting performances augment the fine performance by Robert Duvall, as do the direction and screenplay,. They help make Mac Sledge one of the main highlights of his long successful career.
You do not need to be a fan of country music to find the film to be great. The film speaks at a far deeper level. You will be able to reflect on your own problems as Mac tries to conquer his.
When aging CIA agent Miles Kendig (Walter Matthau) is put out to pasture, he quits. In order to get back at his boss (Ned Beatty,) he vows to write his memoirs which will reveal critical secrets of all the major world powers. Kendig sends his book out one chapter at a time to all the involved parties and tries to stay one step ahead of them... who will stop at nothing to keep him from publishing the book.
MY THOUGHTS
A very entertaining and fun cat and mouse spy tale.
The script of Hopscotch moves with the intelligence and suspense of the best of James Bond films, though it is a very different animal.
It's that different animal because of Walter Matthau. The film offers him a great opportunity to display his unique skills to their fullest. Matthau was equally adept with comedy and drama. His wholly original mix of charisma, charm and gruffness is used to perfect effect here. He handles the mix of high comedy and high drama far better than, and with far more sophistication and subtlety, than Roger Moore's James Bond.
Hopscotch also benefits from Matthau's genuine chemistry with Glenda Jackson, playing an old flame. The two make for a quirky but realistic couple.
The film is also filled with many other great actors in supporting roles which flesh out the world and Kendig's character like Herbert Lom as Kendig's Russian counterpart and a young Sam Waterston as Kendig's protege who's forced to go after him, yet admiring and rooting for him the whole way.
Matthau is great with comedy and drama and Hopscotch is perfectly able to balance them. The comedy never lets you forget that Kendig is in serious and life-threatening trouble... or destroys the realism the film is able to maintain. Yet at the same time, the drama never gets too heavy handed and is often broken up at just the right time by a one-liner or crazy situation. It never gets too silly or overly dramatic to be believable and that is a very difficult balance to maintain.
A perfect film for lovers of Walter Matthau or fans of spy films looking to laugh.
1946 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By Alfred L. Werker
SYNOPSIS
Janet Stewart (Anabel Shaw) goes to San Fransisco to meet her returning POW husband (Frank Latimore.) She gazes out her window at witnesses a man murdering his wife. She goes into a severe shock. Her psychologist (Vincent Price) just so happens to be the murderer... and he will stop at nothing to make sure she is unable to tell.
MY THOUGHTS
Vincent Price shines in an average b-movie.
The film is a part of the Fox Film Noir series and like many of those entries, calling it 'noir' is a little iffy. The extreme shadowing and unique camera angles are barely evident here. Perhaps it's due to the film's b-movie status and quick shooting schedule. It was shot in just 19 days.
Thematically it does fit the noir category. Murder and deceitful characters are essential noir elements. The film seems more than a little influenced by Hitchcock's Spellbound.
Shock is also able to create and maintain a decent level of suspense throughout... though calling the film 'Shock' is a bit misleading. Janet Stewart may be in shock, but the film is not shocking at all. It's rather routine instead.
The characters spout all sorts of psychological jargon and theories. Some of it seems real, while the rest seems as phony as the technobabble in 50's sci-fi B-movies.
Vincent Price is able to spout the occasionally silly babble without seeming ridiculous. Whether in horror films or otherwise, Price always shined playing dark shady roles. The roles seemed to always be written to be 'all bad' yet Price is always able to make them seem more human and real. This is one of them, and he's a delight to watch.
All in all, it's an entertaining film, if a bit predictable.
Country singer Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) has led a rough life on the road... too much booze, smokes and ex-wives. He meets a young journalist (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and falls for her and her 4 year old boy (Jack Nation.) After a car accident, Bad finds out his destructive lifestyle is killing him and stops touring. His relationship inspires him to write songs for the first time in years... but his alcoholism stands to doom their coupling.
MY THOUGHTS
A ho-hum movie containing an amazing performance.
You cannot begin to discuss this film without singling out the amazing job by Jeff Bridges. Bad Blake is created wholly in the flesh and seems to be a real person like Waylon Jennings who just happens to have an invisible camera on him as he goes about his life. Bridges' bushy beard ages him perfectly to give him that look of a man that lived a rough life.
It may not be his single best performance, but it's up there. Bad Blake is the sort of flawed, troubled character that Oscar likes to single out come awards time, so Bridges finally won his first statue for this film.
Who knew he could sing so well? If he wasn't such a great actor, I would definitely say he missed his calling.
The music is outstanding. It's sad what passes for country music these days doesn't hold a candle to these songs. Music producer T-Bone Burnett was also responsible for the soundtracks to O Brother Where Art Thou? and Cold Mountain (among others) and this collection of songs is just as strong.
Storywise, the film offers little new. It's your typical troubled musician story that plays like a dramatized version of VH-1's Behind The Music. The script feels like it's puzzled, unsure whether to tell a plot-driven story or deliver a character study... so it does a bit of both and moves at an unsteady and unsure pace.
The Bridges/Gyllenhall relationship is a bit awkward, as is their chemistry.The whole 'lonely single mother looking for any man's attention' cliche is in full effect. But that doesn't bring the film down... and in fact helps flesh out the Bad Blake character.
Crazy Heart is not a very original tale, but it's one that is made great by Jeff Bridges amazing portrayal.
Two decades after an alien mothership breaks down over Johannesburg, government agent Wikus (Sharlto Copley) is put in charge of moving the alien refugees to a new camp. Wikus is exposed to biotechnology and is slowly turning into one of the aliens. In order to be cured, he must team up with an alien and get some missing fuel to return the alien drop-ship to the mothership.
MY THOUGHTS
At it's best, science fiction is able to tackle contemporary social issues and address them in an abstract way, and bring the viewer (or reader) new insight.
The original Star Trek TV series is one great example. Because the writing was so strong, it was enough to make you forget how bad many of the sets looked, hammy performances, bad special effects. The show was able to make subtle, yet powerful, statements about racism, the Cold War, Vietnam and dozens more issues. With it's sci-fi bent and subtle storytelling, the show was able to slip this commentary right under the nose of the TV censors, who would have completely rejected the episodes and keep them off the airwaves.
District 9 boldly attempts to be relevant and meaningful in the same way... but fails. The film flaunts it's views on racism and xenophobia within the first few moments, completely without any subtlety and never lets up.
It's like being repeatedly bashed in the head by a croquet mallet. Once is enough, but it keeps hammering away until you've bled out.
The camera never passes up a chance to linger on the 'no non-human loitering' signs - clearly a take on the old 'white's only' signs in 20th century America. The film is set in South Africa, no stranger to racial problems in recent times. The alien's camp resembles any refugee camp you'd see on the news or even a WW2 concentration camp. This message would have been as easily tackled in a 5 minute short.
Especially with it's setting, no doubt the screenwriters got help from this book:
The social commentary is grafted onto a basic action plot that's as unrealistic as any Steven Seagal movie. The wimpy, nerdy (not to mention sick and injured) Wikus is able to escape from an underground quarantine lab in "the most guarded building in the world." Unlikely.
With the entire world alerted to his escape, he is able to go into hiding. Wikus (now add malnourishment to his list of woes) and an alien return to the same heavily guarded building, break in, and take the vital fuel for the alien's ship and are able to escape again with relative ease. The authorities know exactly where they are headed yet cannot stop them. Preposterous.
This fuel that they go get is also somehow responsible for turning Wikus into an alien. How?
When things begin to look very grim, some sort of alien mechanical suit magically shows up for Wikus to wear which looks like the lovechild of Ripley's mechanical suit from Aliens and a Michael BayTransformer. Ugh.
A 'clever' way to write yourself out of a script jam.
We're introduced to the characters and situations in a documentary style*, which ultimately feels just like the reality garbage people are force-fed every night on television. I, for one, avoid television for this reason and despise the fact its creeping into cinema. The film forgets this as the plot gets going but reverts to the documentary style whenever it slows down. (*I hate to use the term 'cinema verite' here because style and subtlety are so crucial, which are completely lacking in District 9)
District 9 never fails to cut to 'live news footage' to make a statement about the overeager news media. Somehow their news tickers are able to report things like 'massive casualties' mere seconds after an incident happens. Any reputable news source would wait to confirm information like that before putting it out there (even Fox News!) So.... is it commentary on the media... or poor writing/filmmaking? You decide.
None of the human or alien characters are remotely interesting. Sharlto Copley (as Wikus) does a decent job, but Wikus is pretty much an asshole and an idiot at the beginning of the film, so when he's infected, we don't give a crap. Every other character is one dimensional. Even Wikus' close alien ally, Christopher, isn't given much personality. It's hard to feel bad for the aliens because we never really get to know any.
The bloody action and special effects are nicely done, especially considering the film's small budget. District 9 is well paced and picks up steam, moving like a roller-coaster. But it's not enough to save the film.
It is absolutely ridiculous District 9 was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, but then again so was Crash, which also tackled racism with the subtlety of a nuclear bomb blast.
District 9 is the type of film that morons would claim as being meaningful and important.
Posts
