Battleship Potemkin, about the 1905 Russian Revolution, remains revolutionary to this date. Popularizing the use of montage, it's hard to think of any film since that doesn't owe at least a small debt to this classic.
It's been a favorite of mine and I was eager to see how a film of it's vintage would look in hi-def.
I was pleasantly suprised to see how strong and vivid the images are, despite being 85 years old.
Sure, there are several heavy lines that do crop up in the film and heavy grain throughout (as it was made) but the film has never looked better. The quality of the new transfer shows vastly more details than any beat-up old print you'd see in a film class or on some budget DVD.
Facing the scissors of many censor boards through the years, Battleship Potemkin has gone through several versions.
Few records survive of the first cut of the film, or even its second official version showcased at its 1926 premiere in Berlin, so historians have painstakingly restored the film to make a close approximate of those early versions. The intertitles also changed through the years, and this version returns them to their originals.
The 1926 version featured its own original score performed by an orchestra and that is what you hear on the soundtrack. The music is very dynamic and newly recorded with slight adaptations to fit the pacing/editing of this new version. The score is vastly superior to any public domain version of the film with random music that doesn't fit the action.
You can learn about the music and film restoration from a 40-minute documentary included on the disc. Some photo galleries are also included showing behind-the-scenes photos and movie posters.
Battleship Potemkin is one of the best silent films and Kino International has done an excellent job steering it into this 21st century blu-ray world.
A documentary that looks into the short and turbulent career of The Doors in the late 1960's and early 70's.
MY THOUGHTS
Oliver Stone's 1991 film The Doors painted front-man Jim Morrison as a drug-fueled monster.
The film angered the surviving band-members who actually participated in the film and felt screwed over by Stone. This probably kept them from telling the definitive Doors story for nearly 20 years.
When You're Strange is that definitive story and differs from your average rocumentary. All the footage featured is vintage film of the band, much of it rare and previously unseen. There's no modern day talking heads like music journalists telling us how great the band was, or band members looking back with rose-colored glasses on the 'good old days.' All the interviews used are from back in the day when the events happened. Johnny Depp narrates the film's poetic prose, keeping in nature with Morrison's lyrics. But his monotone delivery makes him sound thoroughly bored, detracting from the documentary.
The Doors music is used in generous portions, from the biggest hits to deep album tracks, and uses rare live tracks and the familiar studio ones.
The tensions inside the band and their troubles (like Morrison's Miami incident) are not glossed over and are portrayed matter-of-factly and given equal time with the band's high points. (no pun intended) Jim Morrison appears more as an actual person with problems, unlike the beast in Oliver Stone's tale.
When You're Strange offers very little new info to die-hard fans of the group apart from the footage.
I would have liked if they carried the film beyond the death of Jim Morrison. The band actually continued on and made two albums as a trio before calling it a day. The style of the documentary probably would prevent this however, with the media being less-interested in the band following Morrison's death, resulting in fewer interviews and footage of this era.
For fans of The Doors, When You're Strange offers a definitive history of the band and unseen footage, but little else. For newcomers to the band, the film is a great introduction.
Former baseball pitching great Luis Tiant returns to his native Cuba for the first time since the rise of Castro. He finds much has changed in 46 years and reconnects with family members and friends he left behind in order to fulfill his (and his father's) dream.
MY THOUGHTS
Lost Son Of Havana tells a tale that would be way too hard to believe if it was a fictional film.
The ups and downs and struggles of Luis Tiant's life on and off the field seem almost too outrageous to be real, but they were and this film is able to pull all the elements of his life together and create a meaningful film.
Luis Tiant is an unusual person to spotlight in a documentary. We don't get much insight to him, because he is more reserved than you'd expect the subject of a film to be. But when he does show emotion, it's powerful.... especially when he sees family members again for the first time in decades. Lost Son delves very little into his personal life (outside the trip) and what he's been up to since his playing days.
It does offers a great overview of Tiant's career in the majors from making it as an Cleveland Indian and suffering a career-ending injury, only to rebound and (as a member of the Boston Red Sox) have a starring role in the 1975 World Series. He again finds himself twice more in the minors and makes it back to the majors by sheer determination and reinvention. Two of his teammates, Carl Yastrzemski and Carlton Fisk, offer insight into his success.
We're also treated to Tiant's father's career as a pitcher in the Negro Leagues. Despite his overwhelming success, he wasn't able to parlay that a Major League career, even though he was playing at the time Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.
Lost Son shows the squalor that is everyday life in Havana, without ever getting preachy. The images are enough. Apart from a brief refresher course in how Castro came to power, politics isn't overtly mentioned. Former Senator George McGovern is interviewed and he was instrumental in getting Castro to release Tiant's parents and let them come to America and finally see their son pitch (and spend their final years.)
I was too young to experience Tiant's career and did not know much of his story (and none of his father's) and the film certainly filled all the gaps in my knowledge about him... as well as providing a heart-warming and uniquely true story.
When his brother is killed, kung-fu master Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) declares war on the drug pushers in his neighborhood as he searches for those responsible. The conspiracy may even extend all the way to the White House... but Black Dynamite is game!
MY THOUGHTS
The absolute PERFECT tongue-in-cheek homage to 1970's blaxploitation films.
As a fan of the genre, it's great to see others who have a great affection for it and can give it the proper send-up.
Everything is played perfectly straight, a la The Naked Gun. This gives it an authentic feel that matches its actual 1970's counterparts, but what happens plot-wise is far too outrageous to be believable... but the characters believe. The 1975 blaxploitation parody Dolemite is very similar in tone to this film and Black Dynamite does pay homage to that classic many times.
It also matches it's 70's era brothers visually. The film uses very grainy film stock and lighting that apes the low budget originals. Sometimes a boom mic will appear in shot or the editing will be intentionally bad. Along with costumes and locations and spot-on music, the film could almost be billed as a "lost" film from the 1970's.
The humor of Black Dynamite is often very subtle, but if you 'get it' you'll often howl from the general silliness.
Black Dynamite is the perfect love letter to the often marginalized blaxploitation genre.
When his son is senselessly killed during a gang initiation, mild-mannered Nick Hume (Kevin Bacon) goes for vengeance. After killing one gang member, the gang soon discovers his identity, which has great consequences for Nick and his family. Nick's thirst for vengeance keeps him going until he can kill every last member of the gang... or die trying.
MY THOUGHTS
The parent/family revenge genre is a very limited one plot-wise and every film invariably gets compared to the king, Death Wish, and Death Sentence is no different.
Kevin Bacon is a far more realistic 'everyman' than Charles Bronson could ever be. Bacon is much more believable an an insurance executive than Bronson's architect. It makes his transformation from average dad to Rambo much more dynamic than Bronson's, who doesn't really change at all.
You can easily sympathize and understand Nick Hume's pain and desire for revenge. But by the end Bacon's character goes too far and even shaves his head Taxi Driver-style before his final assault. Nick winds up becoming no better than his foes. Kevin Bacon handles both sides of the role equally well and delivers one of his better performances.
The film creates a great balance between the two families.The ordinary, loving, suburban Humes and the dark, grimy, inner city Darleys. The first gang member killed by Bacon happens to be the younger brother of leader Billy Darley. He feels as much affection for his little brother as Nick Hume feels for his dead son. The only person Billy Darley answers to his father, Bones, who employs his gang. There is no love lost between the two and the Billy/Bones relationship is the exact opposite of the Humes. Garrett Hedlund (as Billy) and John Goodman (as Bones) are both amazing in their dark and often frightening portrayals.
Action rules the film and it's loaded with many exciting battles and chases. The most memorable is the gang's first attack on Hume. He's walking down the city street and they wind up chasing him nonstop through back alleys, a couple grimy buildings and finally through a parking garage. The camera is always moving, following or leading the characters through the chase which brings a lot of immediacy to the scene and you feel you're right there in the middle of it. The whole garage sequence is seemingly done in one shot. The camera cleverly moves around the levels of the garage via cranes to achieve this.
The violence is very real,brutal, and very bloody with limbs getting blown off. Not for the squeamish!
Significant plot holes and gaps in logic do weigh the film down.
There's enough probably cause to arrest Bacon's character for killing the first gang member, not to mention the second but the police do nothing through most of the film. The gangbanger was killed just hours after he was released from custody because Bacon refused to testify against him. That would be enough to raise some suspicions but none are raised.
Bacon escapes from his police-guarded room at a hospital, which the police catch on after a few minutes. The most logical place for the cops to search would be his home. That's where he goes and seemingly spends significant time (maybe overnight) without any visits from the cops. He then drives around in his own car and is not stopped by officers, who would no doubt by then have an APB out on him for his arrest.
Bones chides the gang for getting the murder of Hume's son in the papers. They later bemoan that when one of them dies, they never get a mention in print. The gang massacres the Hume family and kills a few cops in their quiet suburban neighborhood. Definitely a front page story... but Nick shows up later and they're shocked he's still alive. Maybe they canceled their subscription?
These issues (and others) are so prominent that they can pull you out of the story if you let them.
Despite many flaws, Death Sentence is better than your average revenge-film and filled with exciting and brutal action.
Just one year ago I set out to share my love of film with the world. I didn't realize I would tackle so many films... I've posted over 200 reviews. (#214 will come shortly after this post.)
As for the future of Blues In The Night, expect some more theme weeks and other special post in the near future.
A group of hippies are bored so they hold a black mass and resurrect Count Dracula (Christopher Lee.) Dracula arranged the whole thing to get revenge on the Van Helsing family. Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham) is one of the hippies. When some of her friends turn up dead and then she goes missing, her grandfather and occult expert (Peter Cushing) goes looking for her.
MY THOUGHTS
Should have been called Drek-ula.
I know Hammer's films tended to be on the cheesy, campy side, but this goes TOO FAR. It's in Limburger territory.
The closest thing to creativity in the screenplay is the lead hippie's name is Johnny Alucard - yes Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards. Far out man... Some of the hippie lingo and one-liners are so bad it's amazing the actors didn't wince while saying them ("Laura will be there. A bit drained, but she'll be there.") Plot-wise its the same old tired Dracula story.
Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are both fine actors, and in their signature roles, Dracula and Van Helsing. They deserve much better than this steaming pile. They also hold the distinction of being the only two actors in the film who don't give a completely embarrassing performance.
The music seems to be from an entirely different film or it could be made up of rejected theme songs from 1960's game shows. They should have just used the theme from the Benny Hill Show - it would have been just as effective.
If you do decide to see Dracula A.D. 1972, make sure you have some holy water, garlic and a crucifix or you may not survive.
Posts
