Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

Dead Again (1991, dir. Kenneth Branagh)

First I thought the comedy tone did not serve the film well at all, but it got better as it progressed. Not highly sophisticated, but always entertaining and amusing.


The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

Very fine innocent-man-gets-into-big-trouble thriller. Hitchcock has never disappointed me. Bernie himself has a small role!!!


Soylent Green (1973, dir. Richard Fleischer)

Not the most ingeniously conceived and written film, but a lot of good stuff in there. Not melodramatic or otherwise ill-tempered. Some compelling stuff.
Anyone who dares to call Fleischer a poor director will be sent to the butcher! ;)


Ronin (1998, dir. John Frankenheimer)

A decent action film, though the drama bits aren't too convincing, let alone compelling. Characters are way too unsmpathetic. Too much gory violence, too. Several mini HEAT-wanna-be shoot-outs, but the car chase is as excellent as everyone said.
Reminded me a bit too much of M:I, but still a decent film overall.
(Has Pryce and Lonsdale, the latter of whom was also in LE SOUFFLE AU COEUR.)

PS: Forgot to mention that FRENZY contained a lot of really clever dialogue, particularly in the first third of the film.

THE HOBBIT PART 1

I am so glad I saw it in a 24fps screening. That said, you really feel where they have dragged out the story. However, as someone who liked LOTR, I will say I overall enjoyed it.

Hilly wrote:

Superman III

can't say I'm mad on it, as a kid probably but not so much now. The comedy/campy element is much too much. Even the appearance of Shane Rimmer and Robert Beatty aren't enough. The films best bits are that in which Superman goes dark, Reeves' appearance if anything concretes it as he descends further, to his defeat by Clark and 'Good' Superman's fixing of Pisa/the tanker etc. The face-off between Evil Superman and Clark clinches what good there is in the film which is capped off by Clark having defeated Evil Superman and the theme flaring up. On that note the music itself is largely unremarkable.
Channel 5 in their wisdom chose not to show Superman IV after, a film I've not seen since 1994 and remains associated for the moment Opal Fruits caused great agony to an absess.

Oh, what makes up for disappointment is Annette O'Toole, someone who was quite something even in Smallville...

Superman III makes it into the "so bad it's kinda good" category by maybe a hairbreadth. It's bad, but it's enjoyable, and it's far from the complete unbridled shit that its successor is. Plus I have fond memories of it from my childhood. Seeing Superman drunk is worth the price of admission.

Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln

I went into this with mixed expectations. I was excited, with Spielberg directing and with Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" (which I have read twice and which is excellent) being used as a primary source of information, however Lincoln is a historical figure who I have studied for many years and who is very dear to my heart so I was naturally anxious that his character and the events around him would be presented faithfully, and not be exaggerated, misrepresented or sensationalized. I am happy to say that the movie succeeded marvelously by reckoning. It managed to take all the diverse perspectives, conflicts, influences and complications, disputes and criticisms around much of Lincoln's administration and present them all around the nexus of what was certainly the crowning achievement, namely the passing of the 13th amendment. The dialogue in this film is particularly impressive. Lincoln was renowned for communicating many of his most tricky positions to the general public through stories, analogies and anecdotes, and Spielberg's movie manages to incorporate many actual such quotes from Lincoln, more or less in context. The characters around Lincoln were all very colorful and well drawn and, so far as I can tell, nicely in sync with their historical counterparts. Seward, Bates and Mary Lincoln are 3 examples that stick out. I loved Tommy Lee Jones' performance "it's cooooool palid slime that pumps through your veins!" but I knew comparatively little of his character before going into the movie. A solid 4 thumbs up from me...I may even go see it again tonight.

My copy of The Bowery Boys: Volume 1 just arrived in the mail today. Such a nice Christmas treat.



I love old B-movie series. I started watching the previous incarnations of the Bowery Boys (East Side Kids, Dead Ends Kids, etc.) around 2002. For the past 10 years I have waited for Warner Brothers to finally put these out on DVD. I waited and I waited and I waited. Warner Brothers kept telling us they were coming, that they were working on them, etc., but nothing ever seemed to happen.

With a low grade, low production series like this, it was hard for them to find quality or even half decent prints of the films in order to restore them. Despite the long wait, I'm glad they put all that work into them, because so far these copies look pristine which is amazing when you look at how poor the quality of the knock off DVD's and TCM showings of them have been during the past decade.

With that said, the films are not in chronological order as some films are still in need of much work and this was the only they would be able to release them without another few years hiatus. They are also a part of the Warner Classics Archive, so they are all DVD-R so they hopefully will hold up well.

So I had time to watch the first film this afternoon, Live Wires (1946)



Unfortunately, the first film in the series is a bit of a bust. It's quite poor actually. The first film since the end of the East Side Kids series and that is nothing much of merit here. With an 1 hr and 5 min. running time, the first 40 minutes of the film are bland and boring. Not much happens and there is very little story to go around.

That said, I don't expect much from a B-movie series, but there isn't any of the solid humor or quirkiness that has made the other films they made prior to this good despite a lack of a decent, coherent story.

By the time the film gets going, it's too late. The last 25 minutes are solid. Mike Mazurki puts in a great performance as a gangster, it's just a shame they didn't introduce him sooner. The last portion of the film is humorous, full of punch, and engaging stuff.

Hopefully, I'll get to watch the second film in the series In Fast Company this evening and I hope that that film picks up right where Live Wires left off.

Loomis wrote:

The BATMAN BEGINS trilogy is far from flawless, but on the whole it works brilliantly and is unquestionably one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since, well, THE GODFATHER, not to mention qossibly the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time.

*vomits*

GATTACA. An intriguing premise, imaginative production design, decent cinematography and a fine score ultimately count for little against ponderous and incoherent storytelling. More seriously, it's almost impossible to care about any of the characters, who are mere ciphers in what is at the end of the day little more than a dull and thumpingly obvious message movie. Single-issue cinema at its most tedious.

Largo's Shark wrote:

*vomits*

How is the Nolan Batman trilogy not one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since THE GODFATHER? And which trilogy or trilogies surpass it if we're talking about the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time?

I mean, it's not as though the competition is all that great. It's not so much that the Nolan Batman flicks are brilliant - it's more that Hollywood hasn't given us all that many great trilogies.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

*vomits*

How is the Nolan Batman trilogy not one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since THE GODFATHER?

None of the movies are very good.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The BATMAN BEGINS trilogy is far from flawless, but on the whole it works brilliantly and is unquestionably one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since, well, THE GODFATHER, not to mention qossibly the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time.

*vomits*

You would suggest what, BACK TO THE FUTURE? MATRIX? prequel SW?

(pause for me to piss blood WHILE vomiting)

If we go for action, without superhero, I'll put original STAR WARS over the DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY.

And I'd rather take the first three SUPERMAN movies to a desert island.


"Why so serious?"

What I liked about the Dark Knight Trilogy is that it is, in fact, a trilogy, rather than just a set of three stories in a row. It has narrative and thematic unity.

I just watched Fritz Lang's "M", the Criterion 110 min restored version.

The original German version was 117 min.

Has anyone seen both the German version and the Criterion version?

What's in the German version that Criterion leave out?

Watched two more Bowery Boy film entries today. In Fast Company was pretty good outing. Unfortunately, the third film Bowery Bombshell was pretty lackluster. The series seems to be trying to figure out what direction it wants to go in and the films suffer as a result. Hopefully, the next few entries are a little better.

The Hobbit

It was...ok. I've never read the book so I didn't have any expectations but I was left the impression that the story was unnecessarily bloated so they could make more than one movie. There were a few really great scenes, but some of it felt unnecessary and even redundant.

It covers 107 pages in 157 minutes. It really is bloated.

trevanian wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The BATMAN BEGINS trilogy is far from flawless, but on the whole it works brilliantly and is unquestionably one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since, well, THE GODFATHER, not to mention qossibly the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time.

*vomits*

You would suggest what, BACK TO THE FUTURE? MATRIX? prequel SW?

INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc.

Indiana Jones isn't a trilogy. If Bourne had stopped at ULTIMATUM I'd probably rank that trilogy ahead of the Nolan Batman trilogy.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It covers 107 pages in 157 minutes. It really is bloated.

I lived in Japan when "Fellowship of the Ring" came out and remember how angry the Japanese audience was when the movie ended with nothing resolved. Evidently the story isn't familiar there so nobody knew that the first movie was just one of the three and that when the first one ended everything would be left hanging. I had no idea they were planning a trilogy for this and empathized with my Japanese friends when it ended suddenly without anything being resolved. The last 10 minutes was my favorite part of the movie though.

RAIDERS, TEMPLE and LAST CRUSADE are a trilogy. Deal with it motherfucker.

Largo's Shark wrote:

RAIDERS, TEMPLE and LAST CRUSADE are a trilogy. Deal with it motherfucker.

Indeed.

Drax wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It covers 107 pages in 157 minutes. It really is bloated.

I lived in Japan when "Fellowship of the Ring" came out and remember how angry the Japanese audience was when the movie ended with nothing resolved. Evidently the story isn't familiar there so nobody knew that the first movie was just one of the three and that when the first one ended everything would be left hanging. I had no idea they were planning a trilogy for this and empathized with my Japanese friends when it ended suddenly without anything being resolved. The last 10 minutes was my favorite part of the movie though.

Most of the stuff Jackson added or changed makes sense with the idea of splitting it into three movies (for example the albino goblin was added but makes sense cuz you need a villain if its just part one) but the whole thing is still very bloated. (20 minute scene to resussitate a dead hedgehog and most of the other Radagast business)

Largo's Shark wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The BATMAN BEGINS trilogy is far from flawless, but on the whole it works brilliantly and is unquestionably one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since, well, THE GODFATHER, not to mention qossibly the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time.

*vomits*

You would suggest what, BACK TO THE FUTURE? MATRIX? prequel SW?

INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc.

Doncha have to stop at 3 for it to be a trilogy? Or, failing that, at least go in sets of 3? (I'd accept TIME BANDITS, BRAZIL & MUNCH as a legit spiritual trilogy that smokes damn near everything else.)

Even if you ignore the fourth movie, Indy aint a trilogy. Its just a series of three.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Even if you ignore the fourth movie, Indy aint a trilogy. Its just a series of three.

Yup. It's as much of a trilogy as Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger.