|
Sadko
|
Jul. 15th, 2009 @ 07:28 pm
|
|---|
|
I’ve decided to be dogmatic about the definition of a Romantic Comedy in that it has to be a comedic film in which the romance is the central story. No claiming that just because it’s a comedy and there is a romance that it must count. If I did that, I could name Five Marx Brothers’ movies and knock off for lunch right now.
NO!
They must be actual Romantic Comedies. So let’s see how my list would work out in reverse order…
5. Lady and the Tramp
I’ll admit right now, after deciding on a number, I found myself at a loss to fill all the slots. One of the chief problems of course being that often Romantic Comedies are neither. Not funny, the relationships feel forced in that “Pretty Male Lead + Pretty Female Lead = Bed Bouncing” sort of way. So instead I opted for padding and chose a Disney movie. That should tell you how hard it was for me to come up with 5 of these things. There will be more padding later.
Get IT here
4. When Harry Met Sally...
Seems strange now, to think that this movie didn’t exist at some point. It is the launch pad for pretty much every Romantic Comedy for the next ten years or so. They all used the old standards, all turned the movies into Seinfeld like “Men are like this, but women are like this” observations. It’s still a good movie, but it gets dropped to the 4 slot because it spawned many ugly children and I blame it for them.
Get IT here
3. Better Than Chocolate
This Canadian Lesbian Romantic Comedy from 1999 (*whew* I am done giving this movie categories now) is far from perfect but it is charming and fun. At 91 minutes it also manages not to be long enough to wear out its welcome. If I have a complaint it’s that there are one two many storylines and that not all the stories are given equal treatment. Frankly, once again the bisexuals get shunted to one side to make way for the officially and fully gay. It’s a shame because according to the commentary there were scenes that would have fleshed out the bi character but they were dumped because they needed to trim for time. Why they didn’t trim the lip-sync dance numbers instead will remain a mystery to me forever, but whatever. It’s not the Seven Samurai of lesbian comedies, but it’s cute and funny and worth at least one viewing.
Get IT here
2. A Fish Called Wanda
It’s almost a heist flick, almost a sex comedy, almost a crime picture, but I choose it for this list so it’s a Romantic Comedy sez I! I said there would be more padding! Actually, the romance works in this movie in my view. It’s also genuinely funny in its own right. Not much of this movie creaks with age, it remains a funny and intelligent movie. Besides, every once in a while you need to include a movie where a stuttering animal lover fails to kill an old woman but can manage to whack her dogs in a list of Romantic Comedies. I am a very sick man.
Get IT here
1. My Man Godfrey
Because it’s the best of the bunch, that’s why! This is one of my favorite comedies hands down, without classification. The story of a tramp being taken in by a socialite and turned into a butler only to be more than he seems may be more than a little silly, but it works. Actually, since we’re close to having wide spread Hoovervilles again, it might just be worth a look now too. This is a good example of the screwball comedy, which people still try to make now but can’t seem to really get a handle on. Probably because they don’t have Carol Lombard anymore, who was a serious hottie back when it meant something. Actually they also had William Powell who was no slouch himself.
Get IT hereCurrent Mood:  nostalgic Soundtrack: Kirk Whalum - Same Ole Love |
|
Rambo (2008 Lionsgate Dir. Sylvester Stalone)
Oh me, oh my, oh Rambo. How I remember the Gung-Ho BS patriotism of Rambo: First Blood Part 2. That lovely childish one note rah-rahness that would embarrass a bright 12 year old. I remember being embarrassed upon seeing the silliness of RFBP2 when I was twelve and it came on cabal because Rambo III was just coming out at the time. Rambo III of course was scuttled by the Russians when they started to pull out of Afghanistan about three weeks before that movie opened, making it out of date on day one. So after twenty years, what could possibly bring Rambo back into the frey? Would you believe it’s the stupidity of religious people?
One hesitates to inject political meanings onto a movie, since it always reflects the person doing the injecting more than the movie. That’s always been my view anyway. It’s easy to see when the movie wears its message on its sleeve, like in the last two movies, but in this if there is a message it’s much more subtle. Strangely, I almost think someone gave Sly a copy of one of Richard Dawkins’ books or something because there seems to be a bit of an atheistic streak through the movie. It must be noted though that religious people are the source of all Rambo’s problems this movie. Maybe they wanted to paint the Christian missionaries as wimpy liberals or something, but since I have Christian missionaries as relatives… I can tell you that they ain’t liberals. Well, that’s enough remembering the past and thinking, let’s start the movie.
The movie starts with some assembled news clips about what a screwed up place Burma is and how the military dictatorship has been acting like a bunch of dickweeds to the local populace. Then we’re shown a scene of violence against innocent people who are forced to run across a rice paddy that the soldiers have just mined and see who makes it across while betting on it. Now, from what I’ve read, this is actually how the Burmese military treats the people of their nation. That bit might be exaggerated, but there is enough reality that I don’t fault them. There has been a lot of claims that the baddies in this are cartoonish, and maybe they are, but it’s a 93 minute action movie and all we need to know is that these are really bad guys.
The entire background having been established we will not go to our paper thin plot! We find Rambo living in Thailand. He spends his time catching cobras and generally hanging out. He’s then approached by the plot of the movie. It seems some well meaning missionaries want to get into Burma to do well meaning missionary work. They ask Rambo if they can rent his boat to take them up the river to Burma. The nice Christian nit wit then outlays their whole motivation as characters in a few brief but elegant sentences. Again, allow me to reassure you, Christian missionaries really do talk like the guy in this movie. At first Rambo refuses to take them citing the desire not to enter the war zone that is Burma.
That’s where the cute girl enters in the form of Sarah Miller played by Julie Benz. Kudos to the production, they didn’t try to make Julie Benz look glamorous or beautiful or even made up. It’s very rare that an actress is shown without make up anymore, but Julie goes sans pancake in this and looks okay for it. Actually this is as good time as any to point out that this is a dirty, rough edged, mean little movie. It’s probably the movie that they wanted to make all along but studios like slickness. Anyway, the Sarah convinces Rambo to take them up the river.
While traveling up the river they get halted by some river pirates who offer to let the group off with just being lighting murdered if the hand over Sarah over for a nice gentle gang raping. Rambo however is sweet on the girl and instead of giving her up, guns down all pirates and they continue on their merry way. Rambo drops the missionaries off, they enter a village and then are promptly killed/captured when the military decides that the villagers have been just too damn idyllic for their liking and proceed to kill everyone but the white folk. Not that they intend to spare the white folk you understand, they just want to kill them slowly for a period of a couple of weeks.
The pastor of the group comes to Thailand and tells Rambo how the rest of the movie is going to go. You’ve got to love how the plot is laid out by one guy standing in the rain explaining everything. He explains that the group was kidnapped, that he’s hired mercenaries to get them back and would he please take the mercs to the place he dropped the missionaries off. Rambo offers to tag along with the group because he sort of has the idea that while these guys are white people, there maybe aren’t enough white Americans to really get the job done. That’s actually not fair, since there isn’t a lot of jingoistic “war is fun” B.S. that the earlier movies in the series were marred with. Sadly though, his offer is rejected by the group who didn’t check that his last name and the title of the movie are the same thing and thus don’t know who the hero in this picture is.
Rambo decides to join them anyway, announcing he has come with them by killing a bunch of soldiers that the group was sort of spying on. It’s taken half the movie’s runtime, but we’re finally treated to some good old fashioned Rambo style killin’. Rambo then takes control of the group and announces they’re going to save the girl. Then they enter the camp, save the missionaries and run away.
I’ve more or less covered about twenty minutes there and the only thing of note (besides some really excellent action) is one scene in which one of the mercs announces his views. One of the missionaries decides to be a pain, and the merc clearly states “God didn’t save you, we did!” which I found to be a fairly interesting little moment. There are a few moments like that, which lead me to wonder if there isn’t an anti-religious feeling growing or if it’s just Sly feeling a little cranky. Either way, it doesn’t really matter much because the movie’s action really doesn’t stop from here on out.
At this point the baddies start chasing after our heroes. The mercs and missionaries form one group, while Rambo, the sniper and Sarah are the other group. The baddies chase, group one gets caught, Rambo does what Rambos do best. Tiggers bounce Rambos kill Russians and South East Asians. And if you came to see your old buddy Sly kill himself some naughty South East Asians, then the next twenty minutes should make you pretty happy because he kills A LOT of them.
Not content to blow up a bunch of them (and their dogs) with a landmine/unexploded bomb combination, he then starts what is possibly the bloodiest few minutes in cinema history. It all starts at the 71 minute mark, which is Chapter #25 (Fire Power) on my DVD. You get to see Rambo take a guys had off with one stroke of his knife, use a 50 caliber machine gun on a guy 18 inches away from the barrel and then just generally start to prove that he does in fact know why you decided to spend the money to see this.
This is one the few places I’ve ever thought that practical effects aren’t as good as the CGI. Using CGI in this movie, they’ve managed to accurately simulate what it looks like to be hit by some of the weapons used in this movie (or so I’ve been told) which means that this is actually what guys being hit with one of these heavy machine guns looks like. And what looks like is a big damn mess. Legs get ripped off, huge holes are torn through bodies and blood splatters everywhere. Before having CGI assists for this, you’d have had little splurts from squibs and maybe an amputee with an appliance. Now you get this! There is actually a bit where the sniper shoots someone, causing the head to explode. It’s a completely practical effect, and I looks soooo fake. It looks like a dummy with an exploding head piece, proving they should have CGI’d that shot, which is something I never thought I’d say.
This is not a great movie, but it’s a pretty good movie. Stalone proves to be a good director, with a good sense of tension and action. The movie doesn’t try to be a deeply philosophical character piece, even though they do manage to have a couple of character moments. Mostly Rambo’s character is understood through the strong/silent bit, but it works and accomplishes what it tries to do. I think that’s the important thing, the movie is trying to be a nasty, mean, graphic war movie and it accomplishes that. If it comes off as escapist and maybe a little simplistic, well… that’s what we came for.
My copy of the DVD comes from the Rambo Complete Collector’s Set, which has all four movies and a couple of bonus DVDs. One of the bonus discs is a digital copy disc, which I find kind of useless, and the other is a real bonus disc with a good handful of features. This disc has a commentary from Stalone, which I’ve only listened to a little, where he manages to not just narrate what’s happening on screen. Not a band movie, but maybe one that would only appeal to those who want to see real nastiness on screen.
Soundtrack: David Arkenstone - Winds of Change |
|
You know, I just counted up and discovered that I have a huge movie collection. Around 800 movies. Not TV shows, not documentary laden second discs. About 800 theatrically shown movies. If I count a whole disc of shorts as one movie that is, which I am because they were shown theatrically and come up past two hours.
I only counted up the vastness of my collection because of a question that occurred to me. I counted because I was wondering how many I hadn’t seen. So huge is my collection that I have about 200 or so movies that I have never seen. No where as one or two of these are my fault, in that I bought the movie and should really watch it, mostly it’s not. See, if you buy old movies, you’re going to have to get DVD sets in order to get a lot of the movie you want. As a result, you’re going to get a lot of movies you have no interest in. Even if you’re interested in Film Noir, and you get a Film Noir set, there is bound to be one or two movies that just don’t grab you. That doesn’t explain the huge number though, but I do have an explanation.
See, you know those 50 movie sets? The ones where 50 movies are crammed onto 10 discs, thereby giving you an idea of both the movie’s quality and the quality of the transfer into the digital medium? Yeah, those, we’ve got two of them. We’ve got 40 movies from an old magazine subscription, of about the same quality as the 50 movie packs in both movie and transfer. Yeah, there’s a reason the copyrights have lapsed, let me put it that way. Out of those 140 movies alone, I’ve probably only seen 20 of them. Beyond that reason though, I’ve got to be in a very special mood to sit down with a dumb sword and sandal flick. I get in those moods sometimes, but not since we bought those sets. I know I’ll watch them though, oh yes… I will watch them.
So that’s a big chunk right there.
Some of them are movies Syd bought, and we have different views on movies a lot of the time. I’m sorry, but I don’t think Girls Just Want to Have Fun is something I need to sit through. I’ve seen enough of it in passing to know how bad it is. I’m afraid it would make be stupider by being exposed to it. I wouldn’t have to worry about needing to turn off my brain, it would shut down in protest. Syd’s okay, she watched it as a kid so her mind is insulated in a warm fluffy blanket of nostalgia. I’m not so protected. It would rip through my I.Q. like anything even vaguely swift moving going through anything even remotely flammable (or not really) in a Michael Bay movie. My intellect would explode in a massive (and overly large for the materials) explosion that would have people making scoffing sounds because it takes a lot more to make something explode than Michael “More ‘Splosions” Bay thinking it would look cool. My point is, that there is a chunk of movies in our collection that I haven’t watched because teen wizards/dancers don’t appeal to me.
That excuses a lot of the movies that I’ve not watched. Almost all of them really. When you factor the box set orphans, the 50 movie carpet bombs, and the things Syd watches that I think would give me brain cancer, you get rid of a lot of the movies in that 200 or so movies. About 160 I would say, more or less. But that still leaves 40 movies, 40 flicks that I just can’t explain away with anything more than a shrug. And it’s not that I haven’t watched this DVD. If I had to add those in it would go up by at least 4 films because I haven’t watched any of the Alien movies since I got the Quadrilogy set. Things come up, don’t judge me. I haven’t watched one of the versions of Blade Runner either, and I’m thinking I shouldn’t because at this point we’re only encouraging Ridley Scott and he needs to stop! Seriously Ridley, if you’re reading this, just stop it. We get it, you’ve got a lot of versions of this movie running around, but we don’t need to see every damn work print in existence. I haven’t watched the so called director’s cut of American Gangster either, however I know that was just tossed together for gimmick’s sake. It was part of the Universal Gangster set though, and the theatrical cut was pretty good so I let it go. I know Universal did it just to try and be cute. The Kingdom of Heaven Director’s Cut is worth the effort though and makes the movie a hell of a lot better.
Anyway, where was I?
Oh yeah, so I’ve got around 40 movies that I bought, meant to watch and just haven’t watched yet. And yet, I can’t bear to part with them. Partly it’s just me being a greedy little monkey, wanting all the movies in the world, partly I still believe that some day I’ll get my mojo back and watch those movies, writing a short but effective ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) retroflix review for each and every one. Either that or it’ll just be like all those books we all mean to read. You’ve got Remembrances of Things Past sitting on your shelf, I’ve got Each Dawn I Die and The Val Lewton Collection patiently waiting for my attention.
On the other hand, I’ve watched a few thousand movies that I don’t own on DVD, so that might even the odds up a bit. Probably doesn’t count, what with most those movies being not worth mentioning. I watched a lot of crap back in the day. A lot of good stuff too I guess. Back in those days, movies were just consumed on merit of availability rather than any other factors. Home Video changed a lot of things.Soundtrack: - MST3K - 1005 - Blood Waters of Dr Z.avi |
|
I’ve been thinking about remakes for a while now, mostly because nine tenths of the movies out there seem to be remakes of one stripe or another lately. What I’ve been thinking though is that just because most of them are crap, people assume all remakes are crap. It might be true that a lot of remakes are garbage, but let’s face it, most movies are garbage anyway. I’m not just talking about movies today, I mean all movies. People forget that really bad movies have always been with us because time erases the bad and keeps the good. We only notice it with remakes because the movies they were based on are usually good ones and they’re hurt by the comparison.
Anyway, as I said I’ve been thinking about remakes because I’ve seen a few movies lately that I think could stand up to a decent remake. Now to make a good remake I think you need to bring something new to the table. A new setting, a few new ideas, maybe a few different camera angles (I’m looking at you Van Sant!) or even just take a few of the basic story points and make a completely new movie. Lots of remakes are good, and a few of them are so good that people forget about the original.
So I’ve been sitting here, watching some samurai movies (You’ll see why this is relevant in a moment) and thinking about movies that could get remade and how you could do it. I figure all of these could make pretty good remakes in the hands of a director that was any good and if the studio let it be a decent movie instead of demanding that they be allowed to put whatever brain dead flavor of the moment idiots they have lying around in the staring roles. Yeah, I know, but these are dreamcasts anyway. Let me believe they’d bring Robert Mitchum back to star in my first choice okay?
Ronin Gai (1990 - Japan)
This is a pretty awesome little movie in and of itself, but because it’s Japanese and requires either a little fore knowledge or a few viewing to understand the full implications of what’s going on a western set remake could do them good. You’d get the movie in one sitting, you’d understand it, but you need to know a little about the time period to get everything they’re saying. Anyway, you could remake this as a sort of Film Noir throw back. You set it between 1945 and 1958 in L.A. and go from there. You could pretty much make it anytime up to the present really, but I like the golden Film Noir sort of period best for this. You keep the prostitutes, make the ronin into private detectives (Or any outsider tough guys really) and you’re all set. You could put it a bunch of places though, even make it a Jack the Ripper story set in Victorian London.
Goyokin (1969 - Japan)
I’ll save you the effort of mentioning it, you’re going to see a pattern here. This movie could have several settings, but they’d all have to pretty much be before the advent of mass communication. What you mostly have here is an attempted gold heist that requires a bit of chicanery to work right. A boat carrying gold is made to crash on rocks because a beacon fire is put on one outcrop of land instead of another. Once you have light houses, this won’t work, but before that it could. You could put this in the American Civil War (people would believe that lighthouses either weren’t around or weren’t in the area being used) or anyplace in Europe along a coastline. All you’d really need is a coast area that needs to be skirted to work. After that, it’s just switch a few cultural points and the story would work.
Le Samouraï (1967 - France)
Yes, well, it fits with the group doesn’t it? This could be present day New York, possibly Chicago or Boston I suppose, anywhere with a good train system really. This one I’d like to see a remake using pretty much the same script for Jef’s part of the movie. You’d have to change things for the police stuff, because Paris in the 60s and New York in the present have different legal systems and some things you’d just have to change. However, I think it would be really neat to have the character of Jef Costello act as close to the original as possible, just to show that cool is cool no matter where or when. You’d have to get some people who would have enough confidence not to need the constant chatter that American movies often rely on, since it takes almost 9 minutes before anyone says anything in this movie. However, given a good crew and some luck, you could remake this really well without needing a big budget. Not needing a big budget could save a movie like this, giving the film makers a lot of wiggle room.
The Dark Corner (1946 - U.S.A. BABY!)
An actual Film Noir in my list, how do you like that? A modern updating would be cool for this movie. You could set it just about anywhere. You don’t even need a fully urban setting, although I’d think rural would be pushing it. You could get away with it being a suburban area though, some place just big enough to have some people in it. A small town somewhere would do really. Just so long as you could realistically have the basic elements, you could do it fine. You just need a Private Eye who was framed, enough people to watch things happening, a few guys to do the things that get done, not much at all really.
The Thin Man (1934 - U.S.A.)
Wait, what? The Thin Man! Yeah, why not? It’s a good movie, but you could do a much more accurate movie to the book these days. There are a lot of things both said and implied in the book that you just couldn’t do in the movies at the time. Given a more rigid interpretation of the book, you could make it a lot darker, sexier, harder, and all those things Hollywood has a great big stiffy for right now. You could set this during the time period or during the modern day, either would do really. Just so long as you get the whole poor detective who married a spoiled rich girl who is years below his age point across you’d get the interesting parts of the book. Probably going for a synthesis of the book and the first movie would give you the best results. Don’t try to recreate the Powell/Loy combination though, that would be disastrous. No matter what male lead you get, he won’t be William Powell and whoever you get to play Nora, she won’t be Myrna Loy. Just leave that alone and try to get two people who look good together and let them work out what works best for them.
So there you go, five suggestions for movies that could be remade and not suck. I could be wrong of course, but I think if made right these could be worth watching.Current Mood:  okay Soundtrack: Joe Hisaishi - Mother |
|
It occured to me while watching it the other day that Le Samouraï would be a great movie to remake right now. Just a straight, close as you can make it while changing a few things up, remake. You could do it on a small budget, just throw a couple of big name actors into the mix for draw and there you go. |
|
From Sadko which you can buy here.
Soundtrack: Pearl Jam - Yellow Ledbetter |
|
I was reading one of those lists that was something like The 10 Worst Book Adaptations or whatever and it occurred to me that this was just going to the internet with a barrel of fish and a shotgun. I thought it would be a more interesting challenge to go after what I thought were 5 good adaptations, and then I thought why not go for things that I thought were actually better than the book? So I did, here they are….
5. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Most people don’t even know that there is a book called “Who Censored Roger Rabbit?” or that it is amazingly and drastically different from the movie it would inspire. The characters that were transferred over are the same, and the fact that cartoons live side by side with humans is the same, but almost nothing else is. The cartoons are from the daily funnies in the newspaper and comic books instead of animated pictures and every time they speak they make a word balloon that turns to dust a few seconds later. The book is set in 1981, making it contemporary to its times and beyond the murder, the secondary mystery isn’t that interesting. The actual planning of the murder and the execution of it (if you’ll forgive a pun) is pretty cool though. The movie pretty much improves on everything except the actual murder, as I said. The characters are far more sympathetic in the movie, in the book they’re all suspects and you really don’t like any of them except maybe Eddie.
4. Misery
Yeah, I went there! The book is more layered, more complex and you could argue is a hell of a lot deeper, but the movie has the hammer. In the book, Annie hobbles him by cutting a foot off with an axe. In the movie she puts a post between his ankles and makes one good swing with a sledge hammer. Some how, that makes it 10,000 times worse. Probably because we don’t linger on the madness and we don’t have to deal with the propane torch, just one clean *WHACK!* and the nastiness hits you in the face. Also, the movie is shorter. I like the book, I do, but there is a hell of a lot of down time while Paul is waiting for the next outburst and we’re treated to page after page of it. The movie is just insanity followed by more insanity, and less of him just sitting in the bed for three hundred damn pages.
3. Goldfinger
Despite this being the place where Bond started to get silly, the movie makes several improvements over the book. One of the major improvements being Goldfinger’s final plan for Fort Knox. In the book, he really was going to steal all the gold while in the movie he plans to irradiate it. The book’s robbery plan was so often pointed out as ludicrous that they included a scene in the movie where Bond explains not only that it’s absurd but then explains exactly why it won’t work.
2. Jurassic Park
Because I wanted to see two thing. 1) Dinosaurs and 2) the raptors to get out and eat everyone. The book takes FOREVER to get to those things and when it does it’s not as interesting as it is in the movie. The movie also doesn’t get into as much sanctimonious bullhockey as the book does. The book really pushes the boundaries of being a hit job on science by an anti-science writer, while the movie is cool and has raptors and stuff. The book and movie have dozens of differences, one of the major ones being that the movie moves at an exciting clip while the book is more a Sci-Fi book so it works far more slowly. Also, in the sequel they get the dinosaurs off that stupid island! I hate the whole jungle thing. I want more dinos in the city.
And number on my list of movies that are better than the book…
1. The Godfather
In many ways, this is almost less an adaptation as it is an editing job. Coppola had a big note book with pages from the book mounted in it as his master script, with the bits he wasn’t going to use left out. The flashbacks were completely removed although some of these elements were used later for Godfather 2 (God Fatherer) but many were just plain left out so that the movie could focus on Vito and his sons.Soundtrack: Eric Idle - Medical Love Song |
|
I've watched a bunch of movies in the last two days, let me give you a list.
1) Shoot 'Em Up - Good clean fun! Lots of plot holes, and it's about as realistic as a cheese sandwich filling in for Pâté de Foie Gras, but if you let that get in the way you're going to be accused of being a humorless bell end.
2) The Chronicles of Riddick - 3/4 of a good movie, and 1/4 unwatchable dreck. I really like the character of Riddick, but when he's not on screen or directly part of the action this movie just dies on the table. Karl Urban is a nice looking guy and he's a capable actor, but he can't really hold a movie on his own. Much more could be said about this, but I'll leave it for now.
3) Dirty Harry - I only get cranky and muttering "right wing propaganda" in one or two scenes. There are a couple of spots where they've left reality behind to let the killer is play the system. However, for the most part the movie is fine.
4) Magnum Force - Again, only one or two spots where I give it the hairy eyeball. I like that this took some of the criticism of the first movie to heart and turned the entire concept around to show the other angle.
5) The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury - Ummm, yeah, a little bit crap. It was part of a two disc Riddick Trilogy, which I think was cheaper at the store than it is at Amazon.
Probably will be some full reviews later, but I'm really supposed to be working towards packing and not wasting time watching movies and writing reviews. I just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten about you. |
|
I got all the Star Trek Movies (the REAL ones, the ones that matter) a while ago and decided to drop a quick review when I watched them all. It took a little while to get through them and then there was packing and stuff, but did get it all done.
Star Trek the Motion Picture is too slow for its own good.
They got too into the idea that they were making a real live movie. There are just too many moments where an editor would have cut down today. Too many scenes of people just staring blankly at the view screen. Otherwise, much better than I remembered. It is interesting that the first Trek movie is as different from Star Wars as it can be while still being about space travel. No hand guns, no mysticism, and at least there is a passing admittance that real science actually exists. I must say though, these are THE worst uniforms in all of Trek history, despite looking more like actual Naval uniforms than any other in Trek history.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is still cool. Even though it contains some errors, you can easily forgive them because it's actually what we wanted ST:TMP to be. It’s like you never realized how very slow and tedious bits of TMP are until you watch Khan, and then suddenly you know. I appreciate a lot of director Nick Meyer’s additions to the Federation, what with actually getting a standardized rank system together and everything.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is a lot better than it's reputation. This is the first time in years and years that I'd seen it and it actually held up pretty well in my view.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is... I know I'm supposed to love it but I don't. I like the classic Trek idea of having a problem that doesn't involve a baddie, and I like the characters and how they each have a specific mission to complete in the story, but I never liked the Time Plot Stores there I said it! Also, there are just a few too many jokes and some of them don't work for me. Also, it's a bit dated. I still like it, but it's not my favorite.
.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is not as good as it should have been. Watching the features I very much got the idea that this movie was turned into something Shatner hadn't intended. It would be interesting to get a hold of his first script before the tinkering.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is still pretty good, but it feels even more dated than Voyage Home does.Current Mood:  groggy Soundtrack: George Winston - February Sea |
|
Schindler's List (1993 Universal Dir. Steven Spielberg)
This is more a retrospective than a genuine review, but I figure if you want a real review you’d be reading things that were written better. Besides, I assume you know the story of this movie already. A selfish, greedy, Nazi industrialist slowly has a change of heart about his place in the Holocaust unfolding before him and eventually makes a plan to save the people who worked in his factory.
It’s strange to say that when I think of the criticism aimed at Schindler’s List I automatically think of We Were Soldiers, or rather the commentary for it. In that commentary, Randall Wallace mentions the critics who said that too many of the dying soldiers last words were cliché. His response was something along the lines of “Well, that’s what they said. Sorry if when real human beings know they’re about to die their last words tend to be ‘Tell my wife I love her’ instead of platitudes about spreading freedom.” That tends to be how I feel about people who claim that this movie piles on the sentimentality a bit.
I do rather want to ask them to point out where exactly they think the reaction isn’t what a human being would do, so I can pull out a book or documentary and turn to the spot where someone does exactly what’s being done on the screen. The only thing I will allow without question is the complaint that some of the specifics of the historical record were changed in order to streamline the movie a bit. I read the book once, years ago, and was surprised how many little specifics of the Schindler Jew’s story were changed. Characters are combined, dropped all together, and while the story itself is streamlined, the movie attempts to open itself up to the Holocaust story as a whole.
I regularly and fairly often refer to this movie as Steven Spielberg’s last great film. He has made good movies since then, but nothing that was really great came after this. There are two reasons for this I think. One is that he just started getting old and didn’t have the same energy but the other is that I think he grew up a little after this. If the movie occasionally comes off as a bit juvenile in its examination, then that’s only because it was being made by the world’s most successful man-child. He may have been 46 when he made it, but in many ways this is the work of someone who previously had only barely reached adolescence.
If Spielberg turns our eyes in one direction occasionally, it’s because we need to be convinced that this really happened. In many ways, this isn’t just the story of Oskar Schindler and the Schindler Jews. This is the story of the entire Holocaust in one single movie, and it means to show us what it did to people on both sides of the conflict. It also gives almost documentary like examples of what exactly happened to real people who went through this, while fudging on a few of the actual details of the story. There is a bit that always brings the full tragedy home for me. I know a lot of people are going to wait for me to talk about the little girl in the red coat, but I’m not going to go there just yet.
The movie is entirely devoid of humor, even though there isn’t a great deal of it there is some in there. When Schindler is first getting started there are amusing bits during the section where he interviews his secretaries. That section still gets a laugh from me, and in many ways it disarms you when you watch it for the first time. When they collect the ingredients to include in the baskets to send Schindler’s buddies to get their contracts you almost want to admire the resourcefulness. It almost looks like it’s going to be a serious but relatively light spirited story about the Holocaust. There are enough moments that make you feel as though things might be alright, and then the one armed machinist is killed and all the lightness is sucked from the film. It’s the first real piece of brutality we see, and it changes how the film feels from there on out. After that, you do get the idea that the movie is about life and death.
There is a segment right after that, in a train station, where Stern is arrested for not having his work permit. When Schindler shows up, there are officers telling people to leave their luggage on the platform and to label it because it will meet them at their destination. After the scene where Schindler gets Stern, instead of just leaving the train station and getting on with the story, we follow the suitcases into the room where the Nazi’s are having Jewish workers unpack the bags, separate everything in them, and then check and label it all so that it can be processed. Clothes and shoes are thrown arbitrarily into piles as well as glasses. Items like candle holders are put on shelves, hundreds of photographs are cast into suit cases that have been laid open because they’ve clearly run out of baskets, and jewelry is checked for its value. The scene ends when someone spills a bag of capped teeth and gold caps without teeth. It still strikes me as the single most tragic moment in the movie. Not that the rest of the film is filled with swinging dance numbers, but the one quiet look on the man’s face always leaves me feeling saddened.
Then Amon Göth shows up and nothing is the same. Göth is basically the brutality of the entire Nazi state made into one man. There is no genuine humor or lightness after he arrives. Göth is basically everything that was bad about the Nazis, shown without any redeeming human values. This would later become a major criticism about this movie and Saving Private Ryan as well. Too many people felt the German’s were represented as vain, cowardly and selfish cardboard cut-outs of pure evil. That may be valid, but let’s face it Amon Göth was never going to win the Humanitarian of the Year Award before this movie came out either.
When I first saw this movie, it was the day it opened. I’d never heard of the movie, somehow managing to have it slip by me. My sister had heard of it though, and decided that I should go with her and her friend Jeremy to see it. We got into something like a ten or eleven p.m. showing. So it was getting quite late when the ghetto clearing comes. The clearing of the Krakow Ghetto is not an easy thing to watch at any time, but it’s harder late at night when you’ve been up all day. So that is where the three of us were at when this small figure in red came onto the screen. For a moment, I couldn’t actually tell if there was color inserted into the shot or if my eyes were so tired that I was seeing color where none existed. The fact that the little girl is rarely seen in complete focus also added something to the unreality of her coat being so colored.
I wasn’t ignorant about the Nazi’s at this time, but I can’t say that I was as educated about them as I would later become. I don’t think that anything really brought home the enormity of the situation like this movie did, at least for me. It ceased to be something I could view academically as a thing that had happened a long time ago in a far away place. It became a thing that was done by real people to other real people. When I compare how I personally thought and felt about this situation before and after watching the movie any complaints about mawkish sentimentality rather pales and causes me to think the critic is looking for something to complain about.
I remember being struck the first time I saw the movie by just how many lists were involved. At the age of 17, I was not all that familiar with the workings of bureaucracy, so the constant appearance of lists and how they are treated made the inhumanity of events seem multiplied. I sort of understood how some of the Nazis who were complicit in these events could live with themselves. These weren’t people to them, just a list that with items that they had to complete. If you just thought of them as items to be collected and disposed of, if you pile on enough levels of bureaucracy, if you use enough euphemism, then you could get people to do just about anything.
This of course is one of the main reasons for the little girl in the red coat. It’s when Schindler sees the little girl as one of the corpses being taken to a large fire for disposing that his resolve is made. Until then he was going along with it, trying to save individuals from Göth’s abuses one by one, using up his smoking accessories as bribes to get each person taken from the camp into the safety of his factory. When he sees the little girl, again with the coat actually being red, there is a change in him that leads him to action.
There isn’t much else to say about the movie after that. Schindler spends every penny he made off Jewish labor to save the Jews who labored under him. That’s not to say the movie just slides towards an inevitable conclusion, but in many ways you can see where Schindler is going after this. His transformation is complete after that moment and from there on he’s working towards the reason people would still be talking about him sixty years later.
I have to be honest, this is the second time I was dead wrong about how a movie would do. When I came out of the theater, after having seen this movie for the first time, I thought it was a shame no one would see it. I honestly thought that this would be something that would slip by and would be skipped by the general public.
As it turns out, I was wrong about that. It might seem like a silly thing to think now, but I will defend my pessimistic thoughts if I can. When we walked out of the theater on that December night in 1993, while the snow was falling in a flurry around us, and our eyes were moist with tears it was hard to see how people would flock to that. None of us were balling exactly, but I noticed that each of us needed to blow our noses as we walked towards my sister’s gray Sentra in the parking lot of the one and only theater in the area that was showing this movie. Instead of vanishing in a few weeks, it spread to other theaters and became something of a phenomenon.
The only problem of course is that this started the… well the petulant adolescent phase of Spielberg’s career. I still don’t think he’s really reached what I would call maturity, but after this movie he got a sense of importance. His movies are less fun after this, and far too often he seems to be trying to make a statement or prove a point after this film. A lot of the sheer joy of watching a Spielberg movie died away after this movie, and that’s a tragedy all its own.
My DVD copy is the Region One basic edition. There are a few historical features on the second side of the disc, but this was a very bare bones edition. I don’t mind a lack of features though because the movie is enough for me. My one complaint is that the movie is presented on a dual sided disc, and I really hate those. I always worry that in removing the disc from the player or from the box that I’m going to damage one side while handling it. That’s my only complaint though, and it’s not much of one at that. |
|
A Battle of Wits (2006 Zhang Zhiliang)  ( +23 )Soundtrack: Joe Hisaishi - Party -One Year Later- |
|
This thing about the worst remakes of all time really stuck in my craw and got me annoyed. It’s not because I disagreed with their choices as such, but rather because pointing out that a remake is bad is like pointing out that a professional basketball player is tall. They might as well make a list of the 25 most spoiled sports stars, or the 25 best looking supermodels. It’s a lazy article that was probably akin to shooting fish in some kind of hollow cylindrical object that can hold water.
The biggest problem being that you have to whittle the choices down to just 25. Also, a lot of the choices made there feel too safe to me. Most those movies are ones that the writer is confident aren’t going to have ardent supporters complaining about how their favorite movie was slagged off. Of course since they are talking about the 25 worst there might be a reason for that, but it still feels lazy to me.
So In decided that what we really need is a 25 BEST remakes, or at least the 25 that I can think of/like. I’ve tried to keep my list of remakes within movies that came out of Hollywood, just to prove that Hollywood remakes aren’t all bad. I sort of feel annoyed when people start getting all “In MY day the movies were better!” even though I can show that a lot of crap came out in any year they care to mention. As a side note, the rank in the list isn’t meant to be absolute. I’ve probably got some things in the wrong places, but I’ve tried to make the list as close to a descending to a number one as I could. Anyway, on with the list…
26. Let’s take a moment to mention most the superhero movies. I’m putting them collectively into the 26th slot because most hero movies have been made before, and will be made again. Superman, Batman, Captain America, The Green Hornet and many other heroes who would later have Big Time Feature films were serials, TV shows, and even a few big screen movies before the sudden resurgence in the 80s and 90s. Also, Indiana Jones is essentially a remake of most the Saturday serials all rolled into one trilogy. So, I think the super heroes as a whole deserve at least a nod for having so many movies.
Let’s begin with a real list of 25, shall we?
25. Valmont
Okay, so it’s just based on the same book as Dangerous Liaisons, but I think it fits. I might be stretching the point a little, but only a little and only for this one. I wanted one of those books that got remade again and again to represent all the Shakespeare and Jane Austen books that get done over and over. I could list every good production of each great book that's been done to death, but we'd be here all day if I did that.
24. Die Hard
It’s High Noon… with machine guns. Watch High Noon, now watch Die Hard. You notice anything? Like the troubles with the wide? The one guy who wants to help but can’t? The officials telling him to just go away and stop causing trouble? The big fires? Yeah, they are the same movie!
23. The Fly (1986)
Actually, I like this better than the 1958 version. The ‘58 version is scary, but I find this one more involved.
22. Three Men and a Baby
Hard to compare this to Trois hommes et un couffin, because I've never seen it. However, as well as Three Men did, we have to admit it's a remake that works.
21. Mark of the Vampire
Tod Browning remade his own silent (and lost) movie London after Midnight. How cool is that?
20. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
The story has been made a bunch of times, In the Wake of the Bounty was made first in 1933, but the ‘35 one is probably the best one. If not, we can always claim the 1984 version with a young (and not yet crazy) Mel Gibson.
19. The Ten Commandments (1956)
I’ve got some problems with this movie, which I won't go into here, but it can hardly be denied that it’s a great film in both the critical and popular senses. The 1923 original is a very different movie though. About half the movie is historical and half is contemporary, it’s an odd mix. You can see both if you buy the most current DVD though.
18. The Jackal
Based loosely on The Day of the Jackal, this is really a dark comedy retelling of the original suspense filled movie. This one is so over the top, and so silly in places that all you can do is call it a comedy. It was panned back when it came out, but I loved it because I saw the comedy. If you think of it as a statement about how over blown things are in modern movies (modern for the 90s anyway) then the massive cannon that Bruce Willis buys makes perfect sense.
17. Outland
A closer and more deliberate remake of High Noon, but this time it’s in SPACE!
16. The Great Gatsby (1974)
It was made twice before this version that I’ve actually seen came along. Once in 1926 and once in 1949. It’s a pretty good movie, even if it doesn’t quite mean you can skip reading the book if you want to pass the test in Lit Class.
15. The Italian Job (2003)
Not a really great movie, but if we’re honest neither is the 1969 version. It’s fun though, as is the original. I figure there is probably something about the ’69 version that I just don’t get, but I don’t think that’s such a massively great movie either. Oddly, the remake actually sort of, kind of, follows where the first one left off. The heist in the 2003 version is a short little thing, the movies is actually about getting the gold back from someone. That was going to be (sort of) the plot for The Italian Job 2, so there is that.
14. 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
I’ve probably seen the 1957 version at some point (because I’ve seen most things from the Western or Horror Genre made before 1980) but I can’t remember anything from it. The remake gets a little silly in some places, but for the most part it’s a perfectly serviceable western movie with some good performances and an entertaining story.
13. The Racket (1951)
First made in 1928. Not bad, not great either, but a good and serviceable movie. You get to watch Robert Mitchum breeze his way through a cop roll and Robert Ryan always makes a good bad guy.
12. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
You didn’t say it sucked in 1991 when it came out, so stop trying to front now. You probably started to pretend you hate the Ewoks in 1998 too. Broadly speaking it’s a live action remake of the 1971 Disney film, which is itself a remake of 1938’s The Adventures of Robin Hood staring Errol Flynn and THAT'S a remake of Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood! If you want to split hairs, there is another movie that was made in 1991 simply called Robin Hood that follows Errol Flynn's movie pretty closely.
11. To Be Or Not To Be (1983)
I like this, but I like the 1942 version as well. I haven't seen either version in years, but I have good feelings towards both.
10. A Fistful of Dollars
An Italian Western, with an American star, based on Yojimbo, which is a 1961 jidaigeki which is itself based on the 1942 film The Glass Key which is based on Dashiell Hammett's book. If you as some people though they'll mention another of Hammett's books, Red Harvest. My point is that here we have a remake of a remake, of a movie that was pretty good to begin with but nothing really great. *phew*
9. The Shining 1997
Actually, I like the made for TV remake. Mostly because I believe in Jack in this version of the story and he’s not completely insane on the day he shows up. I always kind of felt that there wasn’t much of an arc of decent in Jack Nicholson’s portrayal. I know, I know, I’m committing blasphemy for not preferring the Kubrick version. I’ve committed it before though, and I’ll probably do it again later.
8. The Magnificent Seven
Another Kurosawa remake, but it’s not just a remake of Seven Samurai, but a genuinely great movie in its own right. This is one of those places where you can say the film makers really got what the original guys were trying to do. The movie isn’t just a good western, but it’s a reflection on what the western genre had become and examines how the iconic heroes feel about their pasts, much like the samurai do in the Japanese original.
7. The Departed
I think this one stands on its own really. Oddly, watching Infernal Affairs and this isn’t like watching the same movie twice. I sort of feel like it’s watching two movies made about the same book that I haven’t read. There are lots of similarities, but there are just as many differences. The two movies are different enough, and good enough, that they both stand up on their own.
6. Scarface (1983)
You know, you really need to see the 1932 version to get why this is ranked so high. The new version is really a modern reflection of the original, while being a reflection of it’s times as well. You can see the defiance towards things like the old production code, which didn’t really have teeth when the first one was made, but was at least partly in place. The original had many forces to contend with, while the new version defies them and screams in their faces. The movie exists so completely in it’s time that it actually is a bit odd to watch now. When you see both, you get an appreciation for how things had changed, and how they’d stayed the same through out the years.
5. Ben Hur (1959)
A big damn epic! There was a one reel version made in 1907 and a larger epic version made in 1925, but it’s this one people think of when they think of Ben Hur. I like the ‘25 version, but I’ve got to admit that I think of this one first and I’m more likely to watch this version as well.
4. Ocean’s Eleven (2001)
I have tried to give the 1960 version and even shake, but just I didn’t like it much. This version is a vast improvement in my view. That’s why I ranked it so high. Not because it’s one of the best movies on this list, but because of how it compares to its counter part.
3. Nosferatu the Vampyre
I’m throwing it in here because Nosferatu is a great horror classic and this is a great movie as well. It's good for a remake and it's good just as a piece of horror. Score, and score!
2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
First made in 1910 and then made again in 1925, both these versions fail to follow the book as well as the final theatrical remake of the first book would do.
1. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
First made ten years earlier in 1931 (and again in 1936 as Satan Met a Lady, but we don’t discuss that version) the '41 version is a significant improvement over the original. About the only thing that the ‘31 version really and truly has going for it are a few bits of pre-code sexual innuendo that just couldn’t pass muster ten years later. In ever other way, from acting to scripting to editing, directing and camera work, the newer version is significantly better. It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t prefer the later Bogart version and makes it one of the best remakes of all.Current Mood: okay |
|
Movie:Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain (1983 Golden Harvest Dir. Tsui Hark)
How I got it: Bought it a while ago.
Why I haven’t watched it: I think you need to be in a mood for this stuff, and I wasn't.
Watching with: Popcorn
Fairness of Chance I'm Giving It: 74%
Impressions –
Shhh! Can you hear that? It's the sound of me being a pretty, pretty man.
I used to think that some of these Hong Kong movies didn’t make a hell of a lot of sense because they were re-edited for America, or because of translation errors, or even because of some cultural thing I didn’t know about. Now of course, I know better. Sometimes these movies don’t make any sense because they don’t make any damn sense. There is only so far you can allow yourself to take a movie before admitting that the problem might be with the story teller and not the story. That isn’t to say the movie is bad, but the opening has almost no narrative, just events. 20 minutes in and we’ve only hinted at the idea that there might be a plot.
Sooo this guy has four Ghostbusters behind him?
This isn’t to say these first 20 minutes haven’t been entertaining in their way, but it hasn’t told much of a story and we only have 90 minutes left. I will say this though, for the time and the place, the special effects are pretty darn special. There is an over reliance on jump cutting and under cranking (might possibly be some frame dropping in there too) but you have to remember what they had to work with. You can kind of see where comments like Tsui Hark wanted to be the Steven Spielberg of Hong Kong came from. It’s not that he’s aping Spielberg’s style to any great extent, it’s more the idea that balls and energy and some know how can make up for a lack of funding. If you’ve seen Kung Fu movies before this, and then movies made after this, it’s pretty clear how much influence Tsui Hark had on the market. This even went so far as to be one of the major influences for Big Trouble in Little China, so it must be good.
 Eyebrows ATTAAAAAACK!
The story itself is rather basic if you’ve seen enough fantasy and ghost based Kung Fu flicks. A young man is part of a battle between color coded armies, he takes refuge on a mountain, is attacked by monsters, saved a white clothed swordsman who he begs to take him as a student. They meet a couple of monks, fight off some nasty demon bad guys and then meet a guy who fights evil with his long eyebrows and beard. And we’re only 35 minutes in.
The magic fortress set comes with everything you see here, figures sold separately.
In order to kill the evil Blood Devil, they have to find a green sword and a purple sword which I guess are the only thing that can kill it. They have 49 days to perform this task. Along the way they are beset by more demons, met witches both good and bad, and use pretty must every kind of effect available at the time. In some ways the effects are extremely cool, if for no other reason than for the wide variety of effects used. An interesting effect I noticed is how rarely the camera moves. For a movie that moves so much, the camera work itself is fairly static.
If only this sword were out of its sheath, then I could admire myself in it.
It’s never boring, but it’s often bewildering. Not in a bad way, but certainly in a double u tee eff way. There is probably a cooler story behind this movie if I could get a hold of translations of the 40 volume book that this is supposed to be based on. It’s good anyway, it’s just it moves fast and some of it makes you shake your head with its absurdity. And just when you think you’ve got a handle on things, they go nuts again.
No idea what's going on here.
The end is less a real ending of the story as it is a platitude that the young will inherit the earth and that youth is just great. I know the young will inherit because it’s mentioned about 87 times in the 110 minutes. The end battle is kind of disappointing. It’s more special effects than action, probably worked better as a book. The movie is visually interesting, but intellectually a bit vapid. Still, it’s okay for what it is.
They're as bewildered as you are by this point.
My copy of the DVD is a region 3 import that you can get here if you’re interested. It has some deleted scenes, an alternate beginning and ending, some interviews and other stuff like that. Mostly I suggest this one because it’s Fortune Star, who have remastered a lot of movies into good DVDs and I’ve liked their work.
Together, they form an interpretive dance duo fight crime.Current Mood: tired Soundtrack: Kevin Kern - Pastel Reflections |
|
Movie: Scarface (1984 Universal Dir. Brian DePalma)
Screen capture HATES red.
How I got it: Part of that Universal Gangster set I mentioned a while ago.
Why I haven’t watched it: Just other stuff.
Watching with: On the couch
Fairness of Chance I'm Giving It: 75%
Impressions –
These are NOT Good Eats.
You know how sometimes you hear about a movie for so long that you begin to doubt its awesomeness? And then you watch the movie, and you see some of the seminal scenes and you are left with an overwhelming sense of “That’s it?” Welcome to my experience with Scarface. Not a bad movie, not at all, but no where near what I had been led to expect. Not as bloody, not as cool, not as awesome I’m afraid. However, still a good movie, even if Al Pacino brings all the Hoo-Ha he ever had with him.
Will you LOOK at this wall?
Actually, for all the expectations, what I found was an interesting little movie about a Cuban gangster who fights and kills his way to the top of the Miami drug scene and then brings it all crashing down around his ears. One of the things I was expecting to find, a shallow bunch of screaming, didn’t actually come true either. There is a depth to this movie, that isn’t even hinted at when you look at all the people who list this movie as an influence. It’s a fairly tightly written piece, well directed and pretty well acted.
No, really. LOOK at this wall!
There are problems though. One of the problems is that Al Pacino is so over the top that it gives a frightening glimpse into the Hoo-Ha years that would follow and soon become a millstone around his neck. Yes, Tony Montana is supposed to be flashy and ruthless, but he’s played so very much at the edge that it strains believability in places. Particularly the end shoot out is so over the top that all you can do is roll your eyes, look at the cat, and explain that this is no where near as cool as you had been told. On that note, what was the big deal with the chainsaw scene? I’ve seen tougher stuff on Sunday morning PBS. Granted, my PBS station is probably a lot different than yours, but still it wasn’t much of a scene really. I was expecting a lot more.
Drug dealers are VERY glamorous.
It is a good movie to watch if you want to know about the dark side of the 80s though. The excess, the drugs, the fashions, the screwy walls with beach scenes and silhouettes of palm trees painted on them… it’s all there. This does make a person whose idea of gangsters was formed with Goodfellas and Casino want to turn their nose up a little though. Too much of the movie is operatic and over the top that even when you know some things are based on fact, they come off feeling fake or at least less than honest.
Please to greet my small companion.
This is also a drug movie though and not just a gangster movie. While Tony sells cocaine, he’s also using it, which means we see him passing through all the stages of a cocaine habit, missing out the redemption and recovery part of course. In the end, Tony ends up the way all the rough and ready cowboys end, albeit without the same level of reality. Still, a good movie, just not a great one.
AAAAAAND, then he shoots everybody. Screen caps of muzzle flashes are easy with this movie, because it has so many.
The copy of the DVD that came with this set is the Platinum Edition, and comes with all the special features that would be on with those two discs if you bought this on its own. That means a fist full of documentaries about the movie on disc two. On disc one there is a score card that will help you keep track of F-bombs and guns shots… because you need that sort of thing, clearly. I never knew how empty my life was before I could tally the profanity and bullets in this film. I can just stop writing this review now, on the strength of that, you don’t need anymore reason to rush out and buy this NOW!
There is your gangster kids. Dead, in the pool. |
|
Movie: Donnie Brasco (1997 Tri Star Dir. Mike Newell)
How I got it: Bought it last weekend
Why I haven’t watched it: Been watching other things
Watching with: In the big chair in front of the TV
Fairness of Chance I'm Giving It: 90%
Impressions –
 Trust me, don't try the clams.
Why is it that so many of the big gangster movies made in the 90s and 00s take place in the 70s? Goodfellas, Godfather Part 3, Carlito's Way, Casino, American Gangster, Donnie Brasco, there is a long list of movies. It always seems that it’s stuff that’s based on a true story that comes straight out of the 70s. Is there some greater story there or are we just dealing with old farts who can’t let go of the days when they had 30 inch waist lines? When I set up some movie marathons again, I’m going to have to make 70s gangster movies one of my categories.
 Does this make me look old? Worn out? I hope so, it was the look I was going for.
It’s always odd watching a great big star in a movie they made when they were still rising. Johnny Depp was still greatly considered a medium size star at this time, known more for who he was dating than his actual film work. He was always a solid actor, but Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Sleepy Hollow were still in the future for him at this time.
 Street crossing, the newest extreme sport.
I’ve come to a conclusion about gangster movies and that is I prefer them when they’re about real people. Somehow, the stories don’t go so far into the massive excesses (see tomorrow’s review) when you’ve got real people to base them on. It sounds odd, because they go pretty far when based on real people but they always seem to go further when they’re making things up.
 Sometimes, yes is the only correct answer to the question "I can has cheeseburger?"
What you have here is a movie where an FBI agent goes undercover and infiltrates the mob. Al Pacino plays his mentor and general chorus for the audience through the first half of the movie. It’s through Pacino’s character as Lefty that we learn much of the lingo and attitudes of the local wise guys. We also quickly learn that Lefty is a looser and can barely keep his head above water. Fortunately, this is one of those movies where Pacino wise leaves his Hoo-Ha at home and turns in a good performance.
 When gangsters answer gay singles ads.
Depp plays our hero Joe Piscone, also known as Donnie Brasco. His marriage is falling apart because of his undercover work, he finds himself becoming more and more like the gangsters, and he’s got to keep turning information over to increasingly distant (at least to him) FBI contacts. By the end of the movie he even stops talking to his fed bosses because he fears that he might end up getting Lefty killed if he can’t get him away from everything before he has to give up all his evidence.
 College flashbacks.
There is an extended bit about Florida in the movie, which I find an interesting bit of synchronicity considering the other movie I watched this morning is also about gangsters in Florida. The Florida story is just a side line though, where deals are made so Joe/Donnie’s bosses can set up shop there, which of course all goes wrong in the end. That leads to a small and violent slaughter, which is one of the few pieces of violence in the movie. While being about gangsters, there is surprisingly little bloodshed in the movie itself, only two or three scenes of violence at all. What there is though, is shocking and bloody.
 So yeah, we're totally going to be ripped off by Mr. & Mrs. Smith
I’m not sure why this isn’t a more well regarded movie, it’s a good, solid piece of work. It’s a fairly accurate feeling portrayal of mob life, using solid language and outfits. Beyond that, here we have a movie that actually works well. I hadn’t seen the movie before this at all, so it was all new to me. It’s a pretty cool flick though.
 Keep smiling!
The DVD has a couple of featurettes, a commentary, a separate music score, deleted scenes… all the things you need for a good single disc. It wasn’t expensive either, which is always a plus when buying a little forgotten gangster film. I noticed though, looking it up, that there is an extended cut of the movie out now. I’m not too sure how much I like this trend of extended cuts taking over for theatrical cuts. They don’t always make a better movie when you get right down to them. Director’s cuts are fine, but these extended cuts seem to mess things up sometimes since I think it must just be the studio throwing all the stuff they have back into the movie whether is belongs there or not. Either way, it doesn’t much matter because I got this version instead of the extended cut.
 They are SEX-AH! Current Mood: tired |
|
Young Guns (1988 Morgan Creek Dir. Christopher Cain)
The most accurate portrayal of the Lincoln Country Cattle War and the early career of Billy The Kid the 80s ever produced. That is saying something, mostly that there weren’t that many movies about Billy the Kid made in the 80s of course, but it is something. Actually, as far as I know, it gets the attitude right even if some of the facts are off.
This is actually one of those movies that does exactly what it says on the tin. It says that this is going to be a rock n roll version of the old west with a lot of hot young stars. That’s exactly what it is, and then some. It’s got a great opening credit sequence, which kind of defines what the whole movie is going to be.
In many ways, that’s it right there. If you think that section looks dumb, then you can pretty much stop right there. If you’re worried about seeing drug use and young men visiting brothels, then you might have some trouble. However, if these things don’t bother you, then you’re likely to have a very good time. The guys are young, good looking and filled with a certain energy that was lacking at the time, but this was before the youth market got to be so damn arrogant as to be unbelievable. When watching it with Holly, she claims that the guys are so darn cute.
It starts with Billy The Kid being taken in by John Tunstall, played by Terence Stamp. You’ve got a bit of historical inaccuracy here in that Stamp looks to be about 50 and Tunstall was only about 25 when he died and kicked off the range war. It’s not the last inaccuracy, but that’s okay because it works as a film. The drama is a little light, but as a tale about young boys in trouble, it does well. It’s a quick moving western, with a simple but effective through line and a love story that doesn’t work for me. I know the music was a replacement score, but I really like how the music is used here.
The DVD is okay. It’s got a commentary, a few little documentaries and some other nice bits. I like the movie, but I’m not really inspired to talk about it that much at the moment. I’ve still not been to bed, but I want to get this done before I go to bed for 14 hours and fail to get this done. I know, it’s kind of a cop-out, but I think you’ll forgive me because you know I’ve been having a trying couple of days. What should be said though is that this is a pretty good movie to watch if you want to see a decent western. Not the greatest ever made, but it's not bad. In fact, it's pretty entertaining so long as you keep in mind that it is going to have a sort of rock music 80s score to it. Beyond that, no problem.
|
|
Movie: Monsieur Verdoux (1947 Dir. Charles Chaplin)
How I got it: One of the Charlie Chaplin Collections
Why I haven’t watched it: Just never got around to it.
Watching with: My morning drink of choice and a bottle of Excedrin.
Fairness of Chance I'm Giving It: 75%
Impressions –
This movie is part of Chaplin’s declining years. This is the first movie in some 30 years where Chaplin doesn’t play the little tramp in some capacity. Even in The Great Dictator, he is essentially playing the tramp in his roll as the barber. In fact, as far as I know, Chaplin never returned to the roll of the tramp again.
This movie involves a banker who marries and murders in order to get some money, known at the time as a Bluebeard. His later defense becomes that he has done no more than soldiers and other business men.
The movie starts too slowly for my tastes, which is odd considering how quickly it seems to start. We begin right in the middle of Verdoux’s murderous career. This means that we leap right into the tale, but it also means there is some fumbling to show off where we are in the story in the first twenty minutes or so. Things pick up a little after those first 20 minutes, when we start to see some of Henri’s personality come to the forefront, but there are still lots of little stops and starts.
Most of Verdoux’s victims are made out to be fairly horrible people, somewhat deserving of his murder. The problem with the segments involving each victim are too much like short movies that are almost too disconnected to really be part of the movie. This has always been one of Chaplin’s biggest problems in his long movies. His movies lack a full narrative thrust, being more a series of shorts barely stitched together. This movie does better than most, but it’s still a series of semi-connected vignettes rather than a whole and complete movie. As a result, it takes over an hour for the movie to get going as much as it does, which isn’t much.
This has become something of a cult classic, with its cynical approach and message that in evil, numbers sanctify. There is something of an anti-capitalistic approach here that figures in with so many of Chaplin’s movies. Since Chaplin was something of a socialist though, we must accept his ideals if we are to enjoy his movies.
I’m not as thrilled with this as I am many of his earlier films, but that is a matter of taste. It’s a well made movie, but made from an older and more cynical mindset of a man that was on the outs with his public. Too much of the comedy is dependant on a style that had long since gone out of fashion since the end of the silent days, and in the end this is a work that doesn’t come up as high as it could have.
|
|
Sorry, no review today. I only just remembered a few minutes ago and I'm very tired. I haven't even watched anything yet, I'll try to do two tomorrow or something. Until then, look at some stills from this movie...
( +28 ) |
|
Movie: American Gangster (2007 Universal Dir. Ridley Scott)
How I got it: Part of the Gangsters The Ultimate Film Collection (or at least the ultimate gangster films Universal has the rights to)
Why I haven’t watched it: Only got it on Saturday.
Watching with: Alone, on the couch.
Fairness of Chance I'm Giving It: 87%
Impressions –
I watched the theatrical cut this time, I’ll see the director’s cut later. I don’t actually know much about Frank Lucas, so I can’t say how close to the truth this movie is. However, since Hollywood studios hire more lawyers than writers, and that the movie says that it’s “Inspired by a true story” I’m going to guess that it’s not so close to the facts that the can say something like “based on a true story” if you catch my meaning. Actually, the movie does say based, while the box says inspired. I will point out that you can’t learn much on Frank Lucas on wikipedia (the fountain of all knowledge and never even a little bit wrong) because Frank Lucas’ page is about one third as long as the page for the movie about him.
Actually the movie is also about Richie Roberts, the cop who eventually busted and prosecuted Lucas. Ridley Scott manages to meld the two stories together in an interesting and engaging way, though I found Lucas’ story to be the more interesting of the two. What you have is the story of a drug lord, with a side story about the cop who became a lawyer and eventually put him away. Some slight reading puts the movie between 1% and 20% fact, making it 80% to 90% pure swamp gas. This isn’t going to be Goodfellas then.
The movie itself, as a movie though, is actually pretty good. I’ve often had a problem with Ridley Scott because very often he sorts of ignores the fact that narrative even exists and gives movies an overly simplistic through line. Too many of his stories fail to follow any kind of story progression from start to finish and as a result have poor climaxes. Just a bunch of stuff happens, kind of in the right order. The failure of narrative often dooms his movies in my eyes because while he gets wonderful performances and impeccable set design, if I’m not being drawn into the story then I’m not going to be happy with the movie. There are stumbles here and there where I don’t feel engaged, but for the most part Scott manages to keep the story moving and kept my interest.
The story itself follows Lucas from his rise to his fall in crime. One of the really interesting things about his rise was the fact that he went to Asia to get heroin directly instead of using connections within the US. This rise part of the movie is very well done and gives Denzel Washington a great place to use his nearly endless charms. The fall is less charming, and by comparison is a fairly short part of the movie because the fall all happens in about 20 of the film’s 160 minutes.
There is probably a lot more to say about this movie, but these are supposed to be hit and run reviews so I’m going to cut it short here. Over all it’s a good movie with good performances from all parties. One note about the DVD though, Universal is including digital copies of some movies now, so you won’t download a copy. The problem is I had to give a code so the disc would download the copy onto my computer. When I tried to play the digital copy, it asked for the code again. Only this time it claimed that code had already been used and I couldn’t use it again. Basically, I had just put a totally useless wmv on my computer of a movie I already own. Score! I almost want to bit torrent it just to annoy them for wasting my time like that. This is what they mean when phrases liked DRM’d into uslessness are used.
 Current Mood: okay Soundtrack: Pat Metheny - The Search |
|
