Thursday, December 29, 2016
Beauty And The Beast (2017) costume pics
So I wandered up to Cineapolis in Chelsea last night to see Why Him? purely because sometimes I see random shitty movies that may turn out to be slightly amusing. What I didn't pay much attention to was a couple of costumes they had in the lobby. On the way out I noticed it was costumes from the upcoming Beauty And The Beast live action movie starring Emma Watson. So for your viewing pleasure :
Live By Night (2016) costume pics
I was in a local multiplex the other day and saw this sitting in the lobby :
Posters like this are all over the place, it did not surprise me much to see this. But sitting next to this poster was :
Although I am probably not seeing this movie, I figured others might enjoy the pics!
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
La La Land costume pictures
While I was out recently at a multiplex theater, I ran across these costumes from the upcoming film La La Land, starring Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. I figured some people might like to see these!
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Train To Busan (2016) movie review
Train To Busan (2016)
The funny thing about seeing an average of a movie a day or more is the fact that the more movies you see, the less you can write reviews about them! In September alone I saw 50 movies in theaters, and since January 1st I have seen over 400 in theaters, and maybe a dozen online. Trying to even write one review a day is hard, so unless I write shorter reviews, or learn to type much faster, I'm going to be lucky to do 100 reviews a year. Oh well! That's more than many people see in many years, so it will have to do. Plus I do have older reviews I wrote on Quora that I haven't transferred here yet, so I can fill some pages with those. Normally October is a ridiculous month for movies, as so many horror movies play, but this month it has been exceedingly quiet, both because I have seen most classic or popular horror movies, plus some places aren't showing nearly as much as in other years. That being said, I am about to attend the FearNYC festival, which has a ton of both new and older horror movies, plus there is a Fulci retrospective happening as well, so I will be swamped the next two weeks. Let's see if I can even get a review done in that time!
Train To Busan is the Korean zombies on a train (that should have been the title) mega hit which I saw a while back but is STILL playing around town. Last I checked it grossed about 2 million dollars in the US alone, which is huge for a foreign film. On top of that, it has been huge in many other countries as well, pulling in almost 90 million dollars worldwide. For a simple zombie flick that's some major money!
Oddly enough, Train To Busan is actually a sequel to an animated film called Seoul Station directed by the same director as Train To Busan. A nuclear plant, or some such place in Korea has a leak of some sort, and as we see in the opening scene a deer that is hit by a truck gets up and wanders away in a zombie like state. We then meet a fund manager explaining to one of his clients that the rumors about some company are exaggerated, and he should hold on to his stock. Meanwhile, he tells his co-worker to sell all the funds stocks in that company as soon as possible, showing everyone that he is a selfish dishonest kinda guy. We then go home with him and see a bit about his family life, his mother, daughter, and ex-wife as well. He decides to take his daughter to see his ex-wife in Busan, unaware of the zombie virus that has started. He gets on the train with his daughter, and at the last minute a girl wanders on, having been bitten herself.
Now, we have all seen enough zombie movies to know that in a small confined area one zombie can take over the whole area in a short amount of time, depending on how quickly the infection spreads. Needless to say, soon enough the train is filled with zombies, and it becomes a fight between the infected and non infected while they try to get to Busan, the only station that may be safe to stop in.
As it goes with most Asian movies, this movie is not just a zombie movie, but also a movie about honor, family, society and politics. The characters are well formed, and interesting and watchable, and the acting is well done. The effects are good, and it is gory enough for most horror fans, while not being too gory to bring your girlfriend. There is enough plot to keep your interest, and although it is a long at almost 2 hours, it moves along well enough that it is not as boring as many films that are even shorter.
All in all I enjoyed this film, though I would not put this in the same category as Dawn Of The Dead, Night Of The Living Dead, or even 28 Days Later. But it is better than most modern horror films I have seen in the past few years.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : AMC Empire 25 , theater 5, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 10 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : about 40 people, many Korean
The funny thing about seeing an average of a movie a day or more is the fact that the more movies you see, the less you can write reviews about them! In September alone I saw 50 movies in theaters, and since January 1st I have seen over 400 in theaters, and maybe a dozen online. Trying to even write one review a day is hard, so unless I write shorter reviews, or learn to type much faster, I'm going to be lucky to do 100 reviews a year. Oh well! That's more than many people see in many years, so it will have to do. Plus I do have older reviews I wrote on Quora that I haven't transferred here yet, so I can fill some pages with those. Normally October is a ridiculous month for movies, as so many horror movies play, but this month it has been exceedingly quiet, both because I have seen most classic or popular horror movies, plus some places aren't showing nearly as much as in other years. That being said, I am about to attend the FearNYC festival, which has a ton of both new and older horror movies, plus there is a Fulci retrospective happening as well, so I will be swamped the next two weeks. Let's see if I can even get a review done in that time!
Train To Busan is the Korean zombies on a train (that should have been the title) mega hit which I saw a while back but is STILL playing around town. Last I checked it grossed about 2 million dollars in the US alone, which is huge for a foreign film. On top of that, it has been huge in many other countries as well, pulling in almost 90 million dollars worldwide. For a simple zombie flick that's some major money!
Oddly enough, Train To Busan is actually a sequel to an animated film called Seoul Station directed by the same director as Train To Busan. A nuclear plant, or some such place in Korea has a leak of some sort, and as we see in the opening scene a deer that is hit by a truck gets up and wanders away in a zombie like state. We then meet a fund manager explaining to one of his clients that the rumors about some company are exaggerated, and he should hold on to his stock. Meanwhile, he tells his co-worker to sell all the funds stocks in that company as soon as possible, showing everyone that he is a selfish dishonest kinda guy. We then go home with him and see a bit about his family life, his mother, daughter, and ex-wife as well. He decides to take his daughter to see his ex-wife in Busan, unaware of the zombie virus that has started. He gets on the train with his daughter, and at the last minute a girl wanders on, having been bitten herself.
Now, we have all seen enough zombie movies to know that in a small confined area one zombie can take over the whole area in a short amount of time, depending on how quickly the infection spreads. Needless to say, soon enough the train is filled with zombies, and it becomes a fight between the infected and non infected while they try to get to Busan, the only station that may be safe to stop in.
As it goes with most Asian movies, this movie is not just a zombie movie, but also a movie about honor, family, society and politics. The characters are well formed, and interesting and watchable, and the acting is well done. The effects are good, and it is gory enough for most horror fans, while not being too gory to bring your girlfriend. There is enough plot to keep your interest, and although it is a long at almost 2 hours, it moves along well enough that it is not as boring as many films that are even shorter.
All in all I enjoyed this film, though I would not put this in the same category as Dawn Of The Dead, Night Of The Living Dead, or even 28 Days Later. But it is better than most modern horror films I have seen in the past few years.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : AMC Empire 25 , theater 5, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 10 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : about 40 people, many Korean
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Don't Breathe (2016) movie review
Don't Breathe (2016)
Don't Breathe is another entry into the R rated horror genre, one that seems to be on an upswing, at least financially speaking. Made for only 10 million dollars, and having already grossed over 66 million, this movie is definitely a financial success. If you add in the international box office, it has made about 90 million. Definitely a nice haul for a new R rated horror film, which is good for those of us that like our horror a bit more bloody, dirty or boob filled.
For the few of you that haven't seen the trailer or heard, this movie is about 3 young people in a rough town who decide to rob a blind guy of his money. They figure it would be really easy since he's blind, so they bust in and try to rob him. Needless to say, he may be blind but he is not disabled, so he decides to terrorize them.
Let me get this out right now. I WANTED to like this film, I really did. But there are a few key things in this film that almost guaranteed that I wouldn't. First, we have the three young people who are basically robbing a blind guy. This does not make you sympathize with them in any way, no matter what their back stories are, or their reasons for wanting a blind guy's money. Second, we have the blind guy, who is not exactly a sympathetic character for reasons I will not disclose, since it has to do with some of the deeper plot points and twists. Third, we have the three thieves who, while battling the blind guy, do not use any brains or intelligence at all when trying to figure out how to get out of there. As someone who grew up on Helen Keller jokes, we all know there are multiple ways to fuck with a blind person, the most simple being to rearrange the furniture. Blind people expect things to be in the same place at all times. Move a chair, throw some shit down on the floor. There were so many options that were not taken advantage of it was shocking.
You see, many of the classic horror films have you rooting for both the bad guy AND the good guy(s), like in some of the Nightmare On Elm Street series. While you like Freddy, you also root for the teens fighting him. You also get teens who are smart, able, and have their wits about them. They make plans, try things out, come up with new ones when the old ones don't work. In Don't Breathe the blind guy is not very likable, and the kids are not very bright. Not much to root for in that bunch.
Even if you do get behind one of them, for whatever reason, they never really prove their worth by making smart decisions during the movie. They just keep doing the same stupid shit over and over, without any forethought at all. It makes you feel like they deserve everything they get.
Now, it is not like this film has nothing going for it, in fact, it has multiple positive points. It is shot really well, even in the scenes where it is dark and hard to tell what exactly is going on. They give you the illusion of it being pitch black without making you struggle to see things. This is a huge issue in many other movies, one they avoided completely here. Overall the cinematography is top notch, and I was impressed with it.
The actors were fine, my issues were mostly with the writers and how they wrote the motivations of the characters. But everyone played their parts well, there was no stand out terrible actor ruining this movie. I read that a bunch of them had worked on the Evil Dead remake, so I guess that helped.
There were some surprises in the movie, some plot twists which were interesting, and at times amusing. I was thankful they didn't spoil any of them in the trailers I had seen, so they were actually a surprise to me.
All in all this was a movie I wanted to like, but ended up feeling unsatisfied as I left the theater, never a good feeling when seeing a horror movie. Needless to say, many people did enjoy this movie, for one reason or another, so I might be in the minority in my view.
By the way, I saw this at one of the Dolby Atmos theaters, and boy was I impressed! It was so much better than the 4DX experience I suffered through a few months back. I really want to see other films in this theater, to see if it holds up over multiple films.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : AMC Empire 25 , theater 8, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 8 PM
Format : DCP in Dolby Atmos
Audience : about 40 people
Don't Breathe is another entry into the R rated horror genre, one that seems to be on an upswing, at least financially speaking. Made for only 10 million dollars, and having already grossed over 66 million, this movie is definitely a financial success. If you add in the international box office, it has made about 90 million. Definitely a nice haul for a new R rated horror film, which is good for those of us that like our horror a bit more bloody, dirty or boob filled.
For the few of you that haven't seen the trailer or heard, this movie is about 3 young people in a rough town who decide to rob a blind guy of his money. They figure it would be really easy since he's blind, so they bust in and try to rob him. Needless to say, he may be blind but he is not disabled, so he decides to terrorize them.
Let me get this out right now. I WANTED to like this film, I really did. But there are a few key things in this film that almost guaranteed that I wouldn't. First, we have the three young people who are basically robbing a blind guy. This does not make you sympathize with them in any way, no matter what their back stories are, or their reasons for wanting a blind guy's money. Second, we have the blind guy, who is not exactly a sympathetic character for reasons I will not disclose, since it has to do with some of the deeper plot points and twists. Third, we have the three thieves who, while battling the blind guy, do not use any brains or intelligence at all when trying to figure out how to get out of there. As someone who grew up on Helen Keller jokes, we all know there are multiple ways to fuck with a blind person, the most simple being to rearrange the furniture. Blind people expect things to be in the same place at all times. Move a chair, throw some shit down on the floor. There were so many options that were not taken advantage of it was shocking.
You see, many of the classic horror films have you rooting for both the bad guy AND the good guy(s), like in some of the Nightmare On Elm Street series. While you like Freddy, you also root for the teens fighting him. You also get teens who are smart, able, and have their wits about them. They make plans, try things out, come up with new ones when the old ones don't work. In Don't Breathe the blind guy is not very likable, and the kids are not very bright. Not much to root for in that bunch.
Even if you do get behind one of them, for whatever reason, they never really prove their worth by making smart decisions during the movie. They just keep doing the same stupid shit over and over, without any forethought at all. It makes you feel like they deserve everything they get.
Now, it is not like this film has nothing going for it, in fact, it has multiple positive points. It is shot really well, even in the scenes where it is dark and hard to tell what exactly is going on. They give you the illusion of it being pitch black without making you struggle to see things. This is a huge issue in many other movies, one they avoided completely here. Overall the cinematography is top notch, and I was impressed with it.
The actors were fine, my issues were mostly with the writers and how they wrote the motivations of the characters. But everyone played their parts well, there was no stand out terrible actor ruining this movie. I read that a bunch of them had worked on the Evil Dead remake, so I guess that helped.
There were some surprises in the movie, some plot twists which were interesting, and at times amusing. I was thankful they didn't spoil any of them in the trailers I had seen, so they were actually a surprise to me.
All in all this was a movie I wanted to like, but ended up feeling unsatisfied as I left the theater, never a good feeling when seeing a horror movie. Needless to say, many people did enjoy this movie, for one reason or another, so I might be in the minority in my view.
By the way, I saw this at one of the Dolby Atmos theaters, and boy was I impressed! It was so much better than the 4DX experience I suffered through a few months back. I really want to see other films in this theater, to see if it holds up over multiple films.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : AMC Empire 25 , theater 8, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 8 PM
Format : DCP in Dolby Atmos
Audience : about 40 people
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
The Screwfly Solution - Masters Of Horror (2006 episode)
The Screwfly Solution - Masters Of Horror
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
Normally I would not review an episode of a TV show here, but since this was shown in his retrospective and I did bother to go to a theater to watch it (since it was free and I had already seen the last movie), I felt it appropriate to do a quick review on each of the 2 episodes they showed. The Screwfly Solution was the 7th episode of season 2 of the Showtime anthology horror series called Masters Of Horror. Each one hour episode would bring in another horror director to create a standalone episode. This episode revolved around the spread of attacks on women by men, at first seeming to be some weird religious thing, then possibly a virus.
Once again art is being imitated by life as disease after disease is being spread, like SARS or Zika, threatening many humans in the world. Will one disease just affect men and make them kill women one day? Who know, but let's hope not.
This episode was not as good as the last one, but was still enjoyable, especially since it had both Elliott Gould and Jason Priestly in it. I am a fan of Elliott Gould in general, and of course I have some residual love for Jason Priestly due to my love of Beverly Hills 90210 from back in the day. For me, seeing these episodes on the big screen, rather than on my computer or TV at home makes a huge difference, as I like to be in a dark room with no distractions, and that just cannot happen at home.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 17 people (3 people left between episodes)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
Normally I would not review an episode of a TV show here, but since this was shown in his retrospective and I did bother to go to a theater to watch it (since it was free and I had already seen the last movie), I felt it appropriate to do a quick review on each of the 2 episodes they showed. The Screwfly Solution was the 7th episode of season 2 of the Showtime anthology horror series called Masters Of Horror. Each one hour episode would bring in another horror director to create a standalone episode. This episode revolved around the spread of attacks on women by men, at first seeming to be some weird religious thing, then possibly a virus.
Once again art is being imitated by life as disease after disease is being spread, like SARS or Zika, threatening many humans in the world. Will one disease just affect men and make them kill women one day? Who know, but let's hope not.
This episode was not as good as the last one, but was still enjoyable, especially since it had both Elliott Gould and Jason Priestly in it. I am a fan of Elliott Gould in general, and of course I have some residual love for Jason Priestly due to my love of Beverly Hills 90210 from back in the day. For me, seeing these episodes on the big screen, rather than on my computer or TV at home makes a huge difference, as I like to be in a dark room with no distractions, and that just cannot happen at home.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 17 people (3 people left between episodes)
Monday, September 5, 2016
Homecoming - Masters Of Horror episode (2005) review
Homecoming - Masters Of Horror episode (2005)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
Normally I would not review an episode of a TV show here, but since this was shown in his retrospective and I did bother to go to a theater to watch it (since it was free and I had already seen the last movie), I felt it appropriate to do a quick review on each of the 2 episodes they showed. Homecoming was the 6th episode in Masters Of Horror, a Showtime horror anthology show that would bring in a horror director to produce a one hour episode. This one in particular dealt with zombies and politics, and although that may seem a bit odd, many zombie movies have political and social issues being dealt with in a zombie crisis.
The basic plot is that it is an election year (just like now!) and the George Bush type candidate has a new problem on his hands. Soldiers have come back from the dead, and they want to vote. It seems that something that a speech writer said on a talk show set this premise in motion, and the speech writer and an Ann Coulter type try and figure out how to deal with this.
Watching this during an election year where Trump is running made the politics of this episode even more funny, and timely. In fact, the whole thing was ridiculous in that way when the real world seems to mirror what writers wrote 10 years before.
While this would not be up there in my must see horror or even zombie things, it was an entertaining hour which amused me in the way that Joe Dante tends to do. I preferred this one over the other episode he directed, which I will review next.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 20 people
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
Normally I would not review an episode of a TV show here, but since this was shown in his retrospective and I did bother to go to a theater to watch it (since it was free and I had already seen the last movie), I felt it appropriate to do a quick review on each of the 2 episodes they showed. Homecoming was the 6th episode in Masters Of Horror, a Showtime horror anthology show that would bring in a horror director to produce a one hour episode. This one in particular dealt with zombies and politics, and although that may seem a bit odd, many zombie movies have political and social issues being dealt with in a zombie crisis.
The basic plot is that it is an election year (just like now!) and the George Bush type candidate has a new problem on his hands. Soldiers have come back from the dead, and they want to vote. It seems that something that a speech writer said on a talk show set this premise in motion, and the speech writer and an Ann Coulter type try and figure out how to deal with this.
Watching this during an election year where Trump is running made the politics of this episode even more funny, and timely. In fact, the whole thing was ridiculous in that way when the real world seems to mirror what writers wrote 10 years before.
While this would not be up there in my must see horror or even zombie things, it was an entertaining hour which amused me in the way that Joe Dante tends to do. I preferred this one over the other episode he directed, which I will review next.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 20 people
Saturday, September 3, 2016
His Kind Of Woman (1951) movie review
His Kind Of Woman (1951)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This night's double feature was sort of a triple feature. First up was His Kind Of Woman, followed by two episodes of Masters Of Horror, both directed by Joe Dante. His Kind Of Woman is a slightly bizarre film. It has a great cast, with Robert Mitchum, Jane Russell, Jim Backus, Raymond Burr, and to top it off, Vincent Price! Here Vincent Price plays a rare non horror character, instead, playing a egomaniac actor who is in love with himself.
The plot, which is more than a bit convoluted, has to do with a mob guy who has fled to Italy and is not allowed back in the US. He concocts a scheme to get back into the US, and that's where Robert Mitchum's character comes in. Robert Mitchum is offered money to go to a resort in Mexico, and hang around for a while. He is told he won't be able to come back for a year or so, but he gets $50,000 in return for this. He takes the offer as he is broke, and on the way he meets a woman, played by Jane Russell. When they get to the resort, he meets Jim Backus, a rich real estate guy who is also a gambler. There is also Vincent Price, an actor who Jane Russell is trying to get back together with, even though he is still married. All the while Robert Mitchum doesn't REALLY know what's going on, but he keeps trying to find out anyways.
Now, this is where I will stop with the plot, except to mention there are like 5 more sub plots, and the whole thing is a bit of a mess. To be honest, the whole film is a mess, in so many ways. While Mia Farrow's father John Farrow is listed as the director, after he finished shooting the film and went home, Howard Hughes, the millionaire producer of the film, decided to bring in Richard Fleischer to shoot a couple extra scenes, and supposedly he re-shot much of the film.
So while the movie starts off like many typical noir films, it slowly turns into a noir comedy of sorts, partially intentionally, due to Vincent Price taking over the film by the end, and partially by mistake, with scenes that run way too long, or are just ridiculous. And while all this nonsense and silliness was going on, I was oddly enough loving the results! At 2 hours long, this one IS a bit too long, and shaving off 15-30 minutes would have made a much tighter and more enjoyable movie, but the is one where the sum of the parts equals more than it should.
All in all I really enjoyed this uneven mess, and suggest anyone who enjoys entertaining train wrecks to try and catch this movie when it plays.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 16mm
Audience : about 40 people
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This night's double feature was sort of a triple feature. First up was His Kind Of Woman, followed by two episodes of Masters Of Horror, both directed by Joe Dante. His Kind Of Woman is a slightly bizarre film. It has a great cast, with Robert Mitchum, Jane Russell, Jim Backus, Raymond Burr, and to top it off, Vincent Price! Here Vincent Price plays a rare non horror character, instead, playing a egomaniac actor who is in love with himself.
The plot, which is more than a bit convoluted, has to do with a mob guy who has fled to Italy and is not allowed back in the US. He concocts a scheme to get back into the US, and that's where Robert Mitchum's character comes in. Robert Mitchum is offered money to go to a resort in Mexico, and hang around for a while. He is told he won't be able to come back for a year or so, but he gets $50,000 in return for this. He takes the offer as he is broke, and on the way he meets a woman, played by Jane Russell. When they get to the resort, he meets Jim Backus, a rich real estate guy who is also a gambler. There is also Vincent Price, an actor who Jane Russell is trying to get back together with, even though he is still married. All the while Robert Mitchum doesn't REALLY know what's going on, but he keeps trying to find out anyways.
Now, this is where I will stop with the plot, except to mention there are like 5 more sub plots, and the whole thing is a bit of a mess. To be honest, the whole film is a mess, in so many ways. While Mia Farrow's father John Farrow is listed as the director, after he finished shooting the film and went home, Howard Hughes, the millionaire producer of the film, decided to bring in Richard Fleischer to shoot a couple extra scenes, and supposedly he re-shot much of the film.
So while the movie starts off like many typical noir films, it slowly turns into a noir comedy of sorts, partially intentionally, due to Vincent Price taking over the film by the end, and partially by mistake, with scenes that run way too long, or are just ridiculous. And while all this nonsense and silliness was going on, I was oddly enough loving the results! At 2 hours long, this one IS a bit too long, and shaving off 15-30 minutes would have made a much tighter and more enjoyable movie, but the is one where the sum of the parts equals more than it should.
All in all I really enjoyed this uneven mess, and suggest anyone who enjoys entertaining train wrecks to try and catch this movie when it plays.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 23rd, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 16mm
Audience : about 40 people
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Tourist Trap (1979) movie review
Tourist Trap (1979)
In late July and early August, The Metrograph in NYC has a series of movies called :
This Is PG?!
which documented a bunch of films that probably should have been rated R, but somehow ended up with a PG rating.
In 1979 David Schmoeller remade his college thesis film, and Tourist Trap was the result. In the vein of other films of the era, like Friday The 13th, Halloween, and many other stranded teen movies, this should have been a very popular film of the day. Due to some poor marketing, and the lack of an R rating, this film ended up doing well on cable and other outlets, but was not the kind of hit some of those other films were. The reason it was rated PG was the lack of boobs, or any nudity for that matter, and a lack of gore. Although scary, back then the MPAA would give you a PG rating without those two factors. And while nowadays studios prefer a PG-13 rating, back then they preferred an R as that's what people wanted.
The movie follows the same kind of plot of many of the movies of this era, flat tire, teens looking for their friend, one by one they go missing, etc etc. I don't have to go too much into the plot, as most of these are paper thin to a degree, and the enjoyment level is usually in the execution, pun intended. This film has the requisite scary things, in it, like mannequins, a creepy museum, a creepy house, special powers, masks, girls being abused, and plot twists. Plus lots of stupid decisions and amusing moments.
The movie stars Chuck Connors, best known for starring in the TV show The Rifleman, and many other western style shows and movies. He has acted in over 100 things, which is pretty damned impressive. It also stars Tanya Roberts, an actress who was one of the Charlie's Angels replacements, starred in Sheena: Queen Of The Jungle, and most famously for her role as Donna's mother on That 70's Show.
Now the director, he's interesting as well, as I have seen him speak a couple times now. Other than this cult classic, he also wrote and directed the original Puppetmaster, and one of my faves, Crawlspace with the always creepy Klaus Kinski. When I saw Crawlspace he showed up and did a Q&A and showed his short film, Please Kill Mr. Kinski, which is hysterical, and a must for any Klaus Kinski fan.
Now, there are a lot of great ridiculous horror movies of this era, and although this is a fun little one, this is not one of the classics, known or unknown. But it is well worth watching for both the very young and very hot Tanya Roberts, a creepy funny performance from Chuck Connors, and some very creepy mannequin scenes.
Those of us that went to this screening were lucky for two reasons. One, the director showed up and talked to us about the production, the effects, and all sorts of other things. He is an amusing guy, ad it is always fun when he shows up at a screening. Two, the print was his, and according to him he is retiring the print, as it is starting to show some wear and tear and he doesn't want to damage it anymore, which is sad, but is happening all over the world to many prints.
All in all we had a fun night watching this movie one last time.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 1, NYC
Date and time : Saturday July 30th, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : about 30 people
In late July and early August, The Metrograph in NYC has a series of movies called :
This Is PG?!
which documented a bunch of films that probably should have been rated R, but somehow ended up with a PG rating.
In 1979 David Schmoeller remade his college thesis film, and Tourist Trap was the result. In the vein of other films of the era, like Friday The 13th, Halloween, and many other stranded teen movies, this should have been a very popular film of the day. Due to some poor marketing, and the lack of an R rating, this film ended up doing well on cable and other outlets, but was not the kind of hit some of those other films were. The reason it was rated PG was the lack of boobs, or any nudity for that matter, and a lack of gore. Although scary, back then the MPAA would give you a PG rating without those two factors. And while nowadays studios prefer a PG-13 rating, back then they preferred an R as that's what people wanted.
The movie follows the same kind of plot of many of the movies of this era, flat tire, teens looking for their friend, one by one they go missing, etc etc. I don't have to go too much into the plot, as most of these are paper thin to a degree, and the enjoyment level is usually in the execution, pun intended. This film has the requisite scary things, in it, like mannequins, a creepy museum, a creepy house, special powers, masks, girls being abused, and plot twists. Plus lots of stupid decisions and amusing moments.
The movie stars Chuck Connors, best known for starring in the TV show The Rifleman, and many other western style shows and movies. He has acted in over 100 things, which is pretty damned impressive. It also stars Tanya Roberts, an actress who was one of the Charlie's Angels replacements, starred in Sheena: Queen Of The Jungle, and most famously for her role as Donna's mother on That 70's Show.
Now the director, he's interesting as well, as I have seen him speak a couple times now. Other than this cult classic, he also wrote and directed the original Puppetmaster, and one of my faves, Crawlspace with the always creepy Klaus Kinski. When I saw Crawlspace he showed up and did a Q&A and showed his short film, Please Kill Mr. Kinski, which is hysterical, and a must for any Klaus Kinski fan.
Now, there are a lot of great ridiculous horror movies of this era, and although this is a fun little one, this is not one of the classics, known or unknown. But it is well worth watching for both the very young and very hot Tanya Roberts, a creepy funny performance from Chuck Connors, and some very creepy mannequin scenes.
Those of us that went to this screening were lucky for two reasons. One, the director showed up and talked to us about the production, the effects, and all sorts of other things. He is an amusing guy, ad it is always fun when he shows up at a screening. Two, the print was his, and according to him he is retiring the print, as it is starting to show some wear and tear and he doesn't want to damage it anymore, which is sad, but is happening all over the world to many prints.
All in all we had a fun night watching this movie one last time.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 1, NYC
Date and time : Saturday July 30th, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : about 30 people
Thursday, August 25, 2016
The Fool Killer (1965) movie review
The Fool Killer (1965)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead starred a couple of famous actors, Vincent Price and Anthony Perkins in lesser known roles. This entry, The Fool Killer, was the highlight of the non Joe Dante films.
Personally I knew nothing about this film, the director, the story, the child actor, nor anything about the production at all. I must say that I am shocked how little known his film is, and even more shocked hot little has been written about it! I searched online to see if I could find articles on it, and so far there is little of any note. Granted, I did not scour the web, but most movies you can find info almost immediately. Even on IMDb, the message boards have only 3 entries.
I found one review online that mentioned this movie is like Huck Finn meets Norman Bates, and that is not really such a bad description. The plot isn't very intricate, but it is very realistic in its characters and the way it is handled. The basic story revolves around the child, George, who is 12. He has lost his parents, and was taken in by another couple, who basically use him as a farmhand. Since the movie is set in 1903, this would be the norm during this time period. He keeps making mistakes, like leaving something in the road which gets run over by the carriage, or kicking over a pail of milk, so he decides to run away. He hops a freight car and gets away, and when the train stops to take on some water, he goes to pee. Foolishly, he leaves his bag on the train, and it takes off without him. He wanders for miles, until he comes across a dirty little shack. Here he meets his first new friend, Dirty Jim. Dirty Jim explains he is dirty because his wife died and she drove him crazy keeping the place clean, so now he doesn't clean. The boy decides to stay a while, since he has nowhere to go, no shoes, and no way to get food. At some point he decides to do some cleaning, and this does not sit right with Dirty Jim. One night, Dirty Jim tells George all about the Fool Killer, a very large man who wanders around looking for fools to cut in half with his chopper. This obviously scares the boy, who worries he's a fool for all the things he has done wrong.
At some point George gets sick, ends up being taken in by another family, gets his first kiss, and runs away again. He next meets Milo, played by Anthony Perkins. Milo seems to be a bit unstable, and has amnesia from the civil war. That's about all the plot I am willing to give you, the rest if very worth spending your time on.
This movie is not just great due to the story, which is actually really good, and comes from a Helen Eustis novel from 1954. From the start the first thing I noticed that was different was the soundtrack. It doesn't sound like all the other soundtracks from that day, nor does it stick to one sound throughout. There are orchestral spots, guitar spots that sound very modern, and other music scattered throughout. I need to listen to this movie again, at the very least just to hear the soundtrack.
Another thing that was wonderful about the movie was the innovative editing and camera work. One scene in particular of someone rolling around on the ground is filmed like they were holding the camera themselves, which reminded me of the Smashing Pumpkins video for their song 1979. I really wonder if something like that had ever been filmed in a Hollywood style movie before. There are also odd edits and dissolves used that definitely were not the norm in most movies. There are also some very nice well done shots from far away, taking in the landscape in scenes where most directors would have focused on close ups. All in all the style of this film was pretty amazing, and I need to watch it again soon.
The director of this movie, Servando González, has only directed 13 things, and most look like they were in Spanish, as he is Mexican. At least one thing did play in the US, according to the 1969 NY Times review, a movie called Yanco. I am of course wondering if anything else he directed was amazing as well.
Oddly enough, the 1969 NY Times review by Vincent Canby, panned the movie pointing out everything I loved about it and saying it made the movie suck. Even more odd is the fact that Vincent Canby, a very famous movie critic, had just started being the chief critic at the NY Times in 1969, when he wrote his review. You can read it here :
Vincent Canby's 1969 review of The Fool Killer
As a critic he was known for hating a lot of critically acclaimed movies, so it is not a huge surprise he did not like this, but I cannot imagine a serious critic who would hate this movie, but not everyone agrees! I must say though that this film was a complete surprise to me, due to my lack of even hearing about it before this.
The actors in this were pretty damned good too. Anthony Perkins plays a slightly off character, which seemed to be the role he was haunted with for many movies after Psycho. This movie came 5 years after Psycho, and he was still playing these kind of roles, and did until the end of his career. But he did it so well! The child in the movie was the child of actor Eddie Albert, best known to me for the TV show Green Acres, but he was actually in tons of stuff. The smaller roles were filled by people I have never heard of, but they all did a fine job.
One last point I want to make about certain scenes, shots and underlying themes in The Fool Killer. I will wholeheartedly admit that knowing that Anthony Perkins was gay could somehow alter my view of the movie, BUT, there seemed to be some serious homosexual undertones floating around throughout the movie. Even if we discount the naked swimming scene between the boy and Anthony Perkins, since most people did swim nude back then, there are numerous other scenes that point to the possibility that there were some veiled references. One scene that particularly stood out was when the boy was on his knees in front of a preacher, screaming mercy while at crotch level.
Anyways, all in all this film was great, I have no real negative points to discuss, other than the lack of info online about this movie, and the production of it. I NEED to see some of this director's other work, to see if this one was a fluke or if he is an unknown genius. I thank Joe Dante for bringing this special film to my attention, otherwise I would probably never heard about it.
8 out of 10 stars (may be upped to a 9 upon future viewings).
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Format : 16mm
Audience : about 50 people, I know a few of my friends there enjoyed it
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead starred a couple of famous actors, Vincent Price and Anthony Perkins in lesser known roles. This entry, The Fool Killer, was the highlight of the non Joe Dante films.
Personally I knew nothing about this film, the director, the story, the child actor, nor anything about the production at all. I must say that I am shocked how little known his film is, and even more shocked hot little has been written about it! I searched online to see if I could find articles on it, and so far there is little of any note. Granted, I did not scour the web, but most movies you can find info almost immediately. Even on IMDb, the message boards have only 3 entries.
I found one review online that mentioned this movie is like Huck Finn meets Norman Bates, and that is not really such a bad description. The plot isn't very intricate, but it is very realistic in its characters and the way it is handled. The basic story revolves around the child, George, who is 12. He has lost his parents, and was taken in by another couple, who basically use him as a farmhand. Since the movie is set in 1903, this would be the norm during this time period. He keeps making mistakes, like leaving something in the road which gets run over by the carriage, or kicking over a pail of milk, so he decides to run away. He hops a freight car and gets away, and when the train stops to take on some water, he goes to pee. Foolishly, he leaves his bag on the train, and it takes off without him. He wanders for miles, until he comes across a dirty little shack. Here he meets his first new friend, Dirty Jim. Dirty Jim explains he is dirty because his wife died and she drove him crazy keeping the place clean, so now he doesn't clean. The boy decides to stay a while, since he has nowhere to go, no shoes, and no way to get food. At some point he decides to do some cleaning, and this does not sit right with Dirty Jim. One night, Dirty Jim tells George all about the Fool Killer, a very large man who wanders around looking for fools to cut in half with his chopper. This obviously scares the boy, who worries he's a fool for all the things he has done wrong.
At some point George gets sick, ends up being taken in by another family, gets his first kiss, and runs away again. He next meets Milo, played by Anthony Perkins. Milo seems to be a bit unstable, and has amnesia from the civil war. That's about all the plot I am willing to give you, the rest if very worth spending your time on.
This movie is not just great due to the story, which is actually really good, and comes from a Helen Eustis novel from 1954. From the start the first thing I noticed that was different was the soundtrack. It doesn't sound like all the other soundtracks from that day, nor does it stick to one sound throughout. There are orchestral spots, guitar spots that sound very modern, and other music scattered throughout. I need to listen to this movie again, at the very least just to hear the soundtrack.
Another thing that was wonderful about the movie was the innovative editing and camera work. One scene in particular of someone rolling around on the ground is filmed like they were holding the camera themselves, which reminded me of the Smashing Pumpkins video for their song 1979. I really wonder if something like that had ever been filmed in a Hollywood style movie before. There are also odd edits and dissolves used that definitely were not the norm in most movies. There are also some very nice well done shots from far away, taking in the landscape in scenes where most directors would have focused on close ups. All in all the style of this film was pretty amazing, and I need to watch it again soon.
The director of this movie, Servando González, has only directed 13 things, and most look like they were in Spanish, as he is Mexican. At least one thing did play in the US, according to the 1969 NY Times review, a movie called Yanco. I am of course wondering if anything else he directed was amazing as well.
Oddly enough, the 1969 NY Times review by Vincent Canby, panned the movie pointing out everything I loved about it and saying it made the movie suck. Even more odd is the fact that Vincent Canby, a very famous movie critic, had just started being the chief critic at the NY Times in 1969, when he wrote his review. You can read it here :
Vincent Canby's 1969 review of The Fool Killer
As a critic he was known for hating a lot of critically acclaimed movies, so it is not a huge surprise he did not like this, but I cannot imagine a serious critic who would hate this movie, but not everyone agrees! I must say though that this film was a complete surprise to me, due to my lack of even hearing about it before this.
The actors in this were pretty damned good too. Anthony Perkins plays a slightly off character, which seemed to be the role he was haunted with for many movies after Psycho. This movie came 5 years after Psycho, and he was still playing these kind of roles, and did until the end of his career. But he did it so well! The child in the movie was the child of actor Eddie Albert, best known to me for the TV show Green Acres, but he was actually in tons of stuff. The smaller roles were filled by people I have never heard of, but they all did a fine job.
One last point I want to make about certain scenes, shots and underlying themes in The Fool Killer. I will wholeheartedly admit that knowing that Anthony Perkins was gay could somehow alter my view of the movie, BUT, there seemed to be some serious homosexual undertones floating around throughout the movie. Even if we discount the naked swimming scene between the boy and Anthony Perkins, since most people did swim nude back then, there are numerous other scenes that point to the possibility that there were some veiled references. One scene that particularly stood out was when the boy was on his knees in front of a preacher, screaming mercy while at crotch level.
Anyways, all in all this film was great, I have no real negative points to discuss, other than the lack of info online about this movie, and the production of it. I NEED to see some of this director's other work, to see if this one was a fluke or if he is an unknown genius. I thank Joe Dante for bringing this special film to my attention, otherwise I would probably never heard about it.
8 out of 10 stars (may be upped to a 9 upon future viewings).
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Format : 16mm
Audience : about 50 people, I know a few of my friends there enjoyed it
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Confessions Of An Opium Eater (1962) movie review
Confessions Of An Opium Eater (1962)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead included two lesser known works with famous actors, one with Vincent Price and the other with Anthony Perkins. Confessions Of An Opium Eater is based on a famous book by Thomas De Quincey. It revolves around a slave girl auction in San Francisco's Chinatown around 1902. Vincent Price has been called in to help stop the auction, he is supposed to be the Arnold Schwarzenegger type, the one who is good at his job so he will clean up the mess. The truth of the matter is he ends up much more like Kurt Russell in Big Trouble In Little China. In fact in some ways this movie seems like the precursor to Big Trouble, and I am guessing that John Carpenter saw this when young and this one influenced Big Trouble.
The film starts off with the unloading of some slave girls in California. First off, if you're going to be transporting slaves, you should at least have a system in place to do so! This was the most haphazard slave transport I have ever seen. The girls were running back and forth, trying to get away, there weren't enough ship crew to handle them, and the transfer from ship to ship was comical at best. When the girls are finally brought to land, it does not go much better. Chinese come to kidnap them, and a fight ensues where the girls try to get away again.
Cut to Vincent Price arriving in Chinatown, where gang wars are about to start due to some issues with the slave trade. He wanders into Chinatown looking for his contact, only to find out his contact has been killed. He meets someone mourning his death, who happens to be pro slave trade, so Vincent Price is definitely confused. He breaks into another building and finds a runaway slave, and vows to help her. They escape, only to be caught in the sewers and Vincent Price receives his first of many blows to the head which render him unconscious no matter how lightly he seems to be hit.
He is eventually saved by an Asian midget, and with the help of the midget, gets into the room where the slaves are being held. Now, this is all in the first part of the film. It carries on from here, and without giving away too much, he gets captured a few more times, gets saved a few more times, he gets high as a kite on opium, blows some shit up, etc etc etc. There is even some twerking during the auction, loads of proverbs uttered back and forth, an opium nightmare sequence, a port opium chase scene, and one more midget. Although it is only about 90 minutes long, it feels longer and packs a lot in the 90 minutes.
Let's go over the good stuff. This movie has some really fun, wacky scenes. The film looks good for much of it, though the print I saw was very old. The nightmare sequence is a lot of fun, and the post nightmare bit is insane and weird. The sets are great, with trap doors, hidden rooms, and all the trappings of a Chinatown thriller.
The bad stuff isn't so bad that it makes the movie unwatchable, in fact, some of the bad stuff is why this one is so good. The acting is either not great, or just badly directed. Vincent Price is an inept hero, to say the least, though you have to wonder if it was intentional or not, though I think not. The script, at least the first have, seemed to be written by just using one proverb after another, like opening a whole box of fortune cookies one after the other.
All in all I found this thoroughly enjoyable, faults and all. You do not see films like this anymore, possibly for some good reasons, but I am glad this one still exists!
8 out of 10.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 22nd, 2016 at 8:30 PM
Format : 16mm, faded and pretty worn, but still very watchable.
Audience : about 60 people, I know a bunch of people there that enjoyed it
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead included two lesser known works with famous actors, one with Vincent Price and the other with Anthony Perkins. Confessions Of An Opium Eater is based on a famous book by Thomas De Quincey. It revolves around a slave girl auction in San Francisco's Chinatown around 1902. Vincent Price has been called in to help stop the auction, he is supposed to be the Arnold Schwarzenegger type, the one who is good at his job so he will clean up the mess. The truth of the matter is he ends up much more like Kurt Russell in Big Trouble In Little China. In fact in some ways this movie seems like the precursor to Big Trouble, and I am guessing that John Carpenter saw this when young and this one influenced Big Trouble.
The film starts off with the unloading of some slave girls in California. First off, if you're going to be transporting slaves, you should at least have a system in place to do so! This was the most haphazard slave transport I have ever seen. The girls were running back and forth, trying to get away, there weren't enough ship crew to handle them, and the transfer from ship to ship was comical at best. When the girls are finally brought to land, it does not go much better. Chinese come to kidnap them, and a fight ensues where the girls try to get away again.
Cut to Vincent Price arriving in Chinatown, where gang wars are about to start due to some issues with the slave trade. He wanders into Chinatown looking for his contact, only to find out his contact has been killed. He meets someone mourning his death, who happens to be pro slave trade, so Vincent Price is definitely confused. He breaks into another building and finds a runaway slave, and vows to help her. They escape, only to be caught in the sewers and Vincent Price receives his first of many blows to the head which render him unconscious no matter how lightly he seems to be hit.
He is eventually saved by an Asian midget, and with the help of the midget, gets into the room where the slaves are being held. Now, this is all in the first part of the film. It carries on from here, and without giving away too much, he gets captured a few more times, gets saved a few more times, he gets high as a kite on opium, blows some shit up, etc etc etc. There is even some twerking during the auction, loads of proverbs uttered back and forth, an opium nightmare sequence, a port opium chase scene, and one more midget. Although it is only about 90 minutes long, it feels longer and packs a lot in the 90 minutes.
Let's go over the good stuff. This movie has some really fun, wacky scenes. The film looks good for much of it, though the print I saw was very old. The nightmare sequence is a lot of fun, and the post nightmare bit is insane and weird. The sets are great, with trap doors, hidden rooms, and all the trappings of a Chinatown thriller.
The bad stuff isn't so bad that it makes the movie unwatchable, in fact, some of the bad stuff is why this one is so good. The acting is either not great, or just badly directed. Vincent Price is an inept hero, to say the least, though you have to wonder if it was intentional or not, though I think not. The script, at least the first have, seemed to be written by just using one proverb after another, like opening a whole box of fortune cookies one after the other.
All in all I found this thoroughly enjoyable, faults and all. You do not see films like this anymore, possibly for some good reasons, but I am glad this one still exists!
8 out of 10.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 22nd, 2016 at 8:30 PM
Format : 16mm, faded and pretty worn, but still very watchable.
Audience : about 60 people, I know a bunch of people there that enjoyed it
Monday, August 22, 2016
Shelley (2016) movie review
Shelley (2016)
IFC Center here in NYC does midnight showings every Friday and Saturday night, mostly popular cult movies and classics. Sometimes they run a particular series like a block of Stephen King movies over several weeks, or the series they are running now, on aliens in movies. They also sometimes show movies under their IFC midnights banner, which is usually very small independent horror movies being released by IFC Films. Although I do try to catch these when they show, due to the fact that horror movies are only marginally scary at the theater, and almost never scary at home. The problem is that I can almost always guarantee that these movies will not be good, with very few exceptions.
This, unfortunately, was not the exception. The movie starts off well enough, a girl moves in with a couple that lives in the middle of nowhere, literally. They have almost no contact with the real world, and get very few visitors. They do not have electricity, so they only have one land line phone. The girl has been hired to help around the house, as the woman in the couple is somewhat sickly. She had tried to have kids but she kept miscarrying. The young girl who moves in with them has a son of her own, but he is living with her mom for the time being, so she can make some money and buy them a nice apartment.
All seems to be going well, the girl adjusts pretty quick and really starts to like the couple, especially the wife. While chatting one day the wife lets her know that she had some of her eggs frozen, and would love to have someone carry her child for her, as she can't anymore due to her health. She asks the young girl if she will do it, and she says yes, hoping she can buy that apartment much sooner, after 9 months, rather than the few years she needs to save that kind of money.
Now, this is a horror movie, and at this point there is just a bit of low level dread floating around, nothing over the top, just a bit off. Once she gets pregnant though, things start to get weird. She starts having a very bad reaction to carrying this child, and things don't go as planned.
I'm not one for spoilers, but this movie falls under the category of the horrors of having children, amplified by the horror aspect. We have seen this a million times before, and nothing very new is added to the mix here. The only things that is slightly novel in this movie is the fact that after a while there is a very low volume noise running through the film, so low that you wonder if you are hearing it or if there is something wrong with the movie. After a while, it gets a tiny bit louder, and a bit more as time goes on. The low level noise increases with the low level dread that is pervasive in this film.
For me, this film just didn't go anywhere with its dread and noise. I felt more or less the same way with The Witch, a movie I caught this past year. As that movie progressed, nothing much happened until right near then end, and even then it wasn't scary, just creepy. Eventually the movie wraps up in a very vague kinda way, and no real explanations are made.
The good parts of the film are that the cinematography is really nice, the actors do a good job, the story starts out ok, but unfortunately ended up nowhere. The sound design is a bit tricky, since the effect they use to make sound of dread is annoying to me. I am not sure others would hear it as much as I do, but who knows.
Overall this movie was a disappointment, and not one I would recommend.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : IFC Center, theater 5, NYC
Date and time : Friday, July 29th, 2016 at midnight
Format : DCP
Audience : 8 people, way more than usually shows up for these movies
IFC Center here in NYC does midnight showings every Friday and Saturday night, mostly popular cult movies and classics. Sometimes they run a particular series like a block of Stephen King movies over several weeks, or the series they are running now, on aliens in movies. They also sometimes show movies under their IFC midnights banner, which is usually very small independent horror movies being released by IFC Films. Although I do try to catch these when they show, due to the fact that horror movies are only marginally scary at the theater, and almost never scary at home. The problem is that I can almost always guarantee that these movies will not be good, with very few exceptions.
This, unfortunately, was not the exception. The movie starts off well enough, a girl moves in with a couple that lives in the middle of nowhere, literally. They have almost no contact with the real world, and get very few visitors. They do not have electricity, so they only have one land line phone. The girl has been hired to help around the house, as the woman in the couple is somewhat sickly. She had tried to have kids but she kept miscarrying. The young girl who moves in with them has a son of her own, but he is living with her mom for the time being, so she can make some money and buy them a nice apartment.
All seems to be going well, the girl adjusts pretty quick and really starts to like the couple, especially the wife. While chatting one day the wife lets her know that she had some of her eggs frozen, and would love to have someone carry her child for her, as she can't anymore due to her health. She asks the young girl if she will do it, and she says yes, hoping she can buy that apartment much sooner, after 9 months, rather than the few years she needs to save that kind of money.
Now, this is a horror movie, and at this point there is just a bit of low level dread floating around, nothing over the top, just a bit off. Once she gets pregnant though, things start to get weird. She starts having a very bad reaction to carrying this child, and things don't go as planned.
I'm not one for spoilers, but this movie falls under the category of the horrors of having children, amplified by the horror aspect. We have seen this a million times before, and nothing very new is added to the mix here. The only things that is slightly novel in this movie is the fact that after a while there is a very low volume noise running through the film, so low that you wonder if you are hearing it or if there is something wrong with the movie. After a while, it gets a tiny bit louder, and a bit more as time goes on. The low level noise increases with the low level dread that is pervasive in this film.
For me, this film just didn't go anywhere with its dread and noise. I felt more or less the same way with The Witch, a movie I caught this past year. As that movie progressed, nothing much happened until right near then end, and even then it wasn't scary, just creepy. Eventually the movie wraps up in a very vague kinda way, and no real explanations are made.
The good parts of the film are that the cinematography is really nice, the actors do a good job, the story starts out ok, but unfortunately ended up nowhere. The sound design is a bit tricky, since the effect they use to make sound of dread is annoying to me. I am not sure others would hear it as much as I do, but who knows.
Overall this movie was a disappointment, and not one I would recommend.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : IFC Center, theater 5, NYC
Date and time : Friday, July 29th, 2016 at midnight
Format : DCP
Audience : 8 people, way more than usually shows up for these movies
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Kuroneko (1968) movie review
Kuroneko (1968)
Kuroneko is a very classic Japanese ghost story. At this point I have caught a few of these movies, and although they are beautiful, well filmed, well acted and in a genre I usually enjoy, my normal reaction to them is to be bored and fall asleep. They seem so meditative and quiet that I feel no fear, no emotions, just a relaxed state which leads to sleep, which can be very disconcerting to other viewers at the theater I am in. Good thing I almost always go with my girlfriend, so she can nudge me awake!
The plot of these movies are usually pretty simple and straightforward, and this one is no different. A bunch of samurai come across a house, and when they stop by to get water and such, they find a woman and her mother-in-law home alone, and proceed to rape and kill them. A black cat (keroneko in Japanese) is nearby, and becomes the host of their urge for revenge.
At this point they come back as ghosts and start to lure in the samurai who killed them, enacting their revenge on them, one by one. The leader of the area finds out that the samurai are being killed, and wants someone to find their killer and rid the area of this problem. Oddly enough, the guy who appears is the husband (and son) of the ghost of his wife and his mother. He was in battle and ended up being the last one left to battle the notorious killer, only to find he gets lucky and kills the killer. When he arrives back to his village, he finds his old house burned down, and his wife and mother missing. He gets hired to find the samurai killer, and while looking for the problem, he finds his mother and wife, though he does not exactly recognize them.
Without giving away even more plot, I will leave it at this. There are many good things about the film. It is exceedingly beautiful, well shot, the acting is more than fine, and the story isn't bad at all, but somehow I was left feeling the same way, bored and sleepy. I am pretty sure I actually started to doze after about two thirds of it, and I even thought about not reviewing this due to that. But I am pretty sure that I saw enough of the rest of it to know what happened wouldn't change how I felt about the film as a whole.
I will say this much, MANY people think their film and others like this are amazing. In Japan these films are serious classics, like how Frankenstein and Dracula are in the US. Some people even express how scary these films are, this one in particular. But alas, I do not feel this way. If you do like the slower Japanese ghost stories, then this one might be for you, but not for me.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 2, NYC
Date and time : Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : about 30 people
Kuroneko is a very classic Japanese ghost story. At this point I have caught a few of these movies, and although they are beautiful, well filmed, well acted and in a genre I usually enjoy, my normal reaction to them is to be bored and fall asleep. They seem so meditative and quiet that I feel no fear, no emotions, just a relaxed state which leads to sleep, which can be very disconcerting to other viewers at the theater I am in. Good thing I almost always go with my girlfriend, so she can nudge me awake!
The plot of these movies are usually pretty simple and straightforward, and this one is no different. A bunch of samurai come across a house, and when they stop by to get water and such, they find a woman and her mother-in-law home alone, and proceed to rape and kill them. A black cat (keroneko in Japanese) is nearby, and becomes the host of their urge for revenge.
At this point they come back as ghosts and start to lure in the samurai who killed them, enacting their revenge on them, one by one. The leader of the area finds out that the samurai are being killed, and wants someone to find their killer and rid the area of this problem. Oddly enough, the guy who appears is the husband (and son) of the ghost of his wife and his mother. He was in battle and ended up being the last one left to battle the notorious killer, only to find he gets lucky and kills the killer. When he arrives back to his village, he finds his old house burned down, and his wife and mother missing. He gets hired to find the samurai killer, and while looking for the problem, he finds his mother and wife, though he does not exactly recognize them.
Without giving away even more plot, I will leave it at this. There are many good things about the film. It is exceedingly beautiful, well shot, the acting is more than fine, and the story isn't bad at all, but somehow I was left feeling the same way, bored and sleepy. I am pretty sure I actually started to doze after about two thirds of it, and I even thought about not reviewing this due to that. But I am pretty sure that I saw enough of the rest of it to know what happened wouldn't change how I felt about the film as a whole.
I will say this much, MANY people think their film and others like this are amazing. In Japan these films are serious classics, like how Frankenstein and Dracula are in the US. Some people even express how scary these films are, this one in particular. But alas, I do not feel this way. If you do like the slower Japanese ghost stories, then this one might be for you, but not for me.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 2, NYC
Date and time : Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : about 30 people
Friday, August 19, 2016
The Killing Of America (1981) movie review
The Killing Of America (1981)
Anthology Film Archives in NYC was running a series of films in July under the umbrella title Mondo Mondo. A Mondo film is basically a documentary, or faux documentary, that is also an exploitation film. Here is a link to what wikipedia says :
Mondo film
This genre was made popular by the 1962 movie Mondo Cane, which was a surprise hit and yielded a Grammy nomination for the theme song More, from the Mondo Cane soundtrack. The song was covered by Kai Winding and hit #8 on the Billboard Hot 100. Many other films with the word Mondo (Italian for world) in their titles, including Mondo Topless, Mondo Nudo, Mondo Bizarro, and even Mondo New York. There were also tons of other movies that employed this shockumentary style over the years.
The Killing Of America is a very different type of mondo movie. This one is a pure documentary, and while still using shock value to get its point across, the points are from real facts. It was written by Leonard Schrader, the brother of Paul Schrader who wrote Taxi Driver, which is ironic since Taxi Driver was the movie that spurred on John Hinckley Jr. to shoot President Ronald Reagan. Leonard Schrader also co-directed the movie, for which he received no credit.
The Killing Of America is a documentary about the proliferation of guns in the United States, and the large amount of people shot and killed each year in the United States. Considering this sounds like a movie they would make nowadays, the fact that it is from 1981 is astounding. It follows the history of mass shootings in the US, plus focuses on specific incidences as well. Some of the footage is very powerful and amazing, including the JKF footage, the Reagan footage, and many other historic events, including the girl in California that inspired the Boomtown Rats song, I Don't Like Mondays.
While the footage is shocking, it may seem less so to many due to the fact that we can see much of this stuff online, any day of the week. One of the things this movie does that random clips don't do for you is put the clips in their historical place, and add in statistics in the US, and in other countries as well. Watching this, for the more logical folks, can be very sobering and depressing, knowing what we know now about how far we have come in this area. Although gun control, gun bans, crime, and other things have gotten marginally better, we are still woefully behind many other countries, even Australia who outright banned guns in 1997.
This was the second time I have seen this film. The first time was a very clear digital version I saw at Spectacle Theater in Brooklyn, NYC. This time I got to see a nice 35mm print. I am glad I got to see it both ways, it gives you a much better overview of how the technical side of movies work.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who has any interest int he darker side of crime and guns in the US and elsewhere. Seeing the things that unfold on the screen are pretty amazing, even to someone who can see all these types of things every day on the web. One of the best I have seen in this mondo series.
Just so you know, at this moment the whole movie is on youtube.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs theater, NYC
Date and time : Friday July 29th, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Format : 35mm print
Audience : about 30 people
Anthology Film Archives in NYC was running a series of films in July under the umbrella title Mondo Mondo. A Mondo film is basically a documentary, or faux documentary, that is also an exploitation film. Here is a link to what wikipedia says :
Mondo film
This genre was made popular by the 1962 movie Mondo Cane, which was a surprise hit and yielded a Grammy nomination for the theme song More, from the Mondo Cane soundtrack. The song was covered by Kai Winding and hit #8 on the Billboard Hot 100. Many other films with the word Mondo (Italian for world) in their titles, including Mondo Topless, Mondo Nudo, Mondo Bizarro, and even Mondo New York. There were also tons of other movies that employed this shockumentary style over the years.
The Killing Of America is a very different type of mondo movie. This one is a pure documentary, and while still using shock value to get its point across, the points are from real facts. It was written by Leonard Schrader, the brother of Paul Schrader who wrote Taxi Driver, which is ironic since Taxi Driver was the movie that spurred on John Hinckley Jr. to shoot President Ronald Reagan. Leonard Schrader also co-directed the movie, for which he received no credit.
The Killing Of America is a documentary about the proliferation of guns in the United States, and the large amount of people shot and killed each year in the United States. Considering this sounds like a movie they would make nowadays, the fact that it is from 1981 is astounding. It follows the history of mass shootings in the US, plus focuses on specific incidences as well. Some of the footage is very powerful and amazing, including the JKF footage, the Reagan footage, and many other historic events, including the girl in California that inspired the Boomtown Rats song, I Don't Like Mondays.
While the footage is shocking, it may seem less so to many due to the fact that we can see much of this stuff online, any day of the week. One of the things this movie does that random clips don't do for you is put the clips in their historical place, and add in statistics in the US, and in other countries as well. Watching this, for the more logical folks, can be very sobering and depressing, knowing what we know now about how far we have come in this area. Although gun control, gun bans, crime, and other things have gotten marginally better, we are still woefully behind many other countries, even Australia who outright banned guns in 1997.
This was the second time I have seen this film. The first time was a very clear digital version I saw at Spectacle Theater in Brooklyn, NYC. This time I got to see a nice 35mm print. I am glad I got to see it both ways, it gives you a much better overview of how the technical side of movies work.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who has any interest int he darker side of crime and guns in the US and elsewhere. Seeing the things that unfold on the screen are pretty amazing, even to someone who can see all these types of things every day on the web. One of the best I have seen in this mondo series.
Just so you know, at this moment the whole movie is on youtube.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs theater, NYC
Date and time : Friday July 29th, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Format : 35mm print
Audience : about 30 people
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Tell Me Why: The Epistemology Of Disco (1991) movie review
Tell Me Why: The Epistemology Of Disco (1991)
The Metrograph in NYC was running a series:
Dim All The Lights: Disco And The Movies
which unfortunately ended. I did get to catch a few though, and this was one of them.
This film is a short that was shown before Wild Combination: A Portrait Of Arthur Russell which I also reviewed here :
The Metrograph in NYC was running a series:
Dim All The Lights: Disco And The Movies
which unfortunately ended. I did get to catch a few though, and this was one of them.
This film is a short that was shown before Wild Combination: A Portrait Of Arthur Russell which I also reviewed here :
As this first started I could see that this was something that was very crude in design, probably from a VHS master. I do not mean that as an insult, I have a fondness for VHS and other formats that have sort of drifted away, and if you watch enough of them you can recognize quality differences which lend themselves to certain eras or types of work. I personally have done some VHS work in the past, so I am familiar with the benefits and limitations of the format.
It starts off with some text and images, mostly regarding 501 jeans, gay culture, and disco music. It is done in a very wry way, commenting on and making up info as it goes, both satirically and historically. I was not really enjoying the narrator or the path of the video, it was a bit too out of my taste, but I can recognize where the director was coming from. Near the end the theme changed a bit to get more serious regarding the AIDS crisis and lives lost, and I could connect much more with this part of the short. At 24 minutes it ran a bit long for my tastes, but again, it did have an appeal in some aspects. There were clips of NYC, the movie Cruising, gay discos, jeans, etc etc. All in all I was left feeling like there was something there, but it was not fully realized.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 1, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday August 10th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Format : VHS to DCP
Audience : at least 60 people
Date and time : Wednesday August 10th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Format : VHS to DCP
Audience : at least 60 people
You can watch the whole thing here if you want :
Sausage Party (2016) movie review
Sausage Party (2016)
Shit.
Fuck shit fuck.
Shit fuck fuck fucked fucking shit motherfucker dick shit fuck fuck fuck.
Now that we have discussed the script and attempt at comedy, let's get down to the rest of the movie.
As you can see, I was not very impressed with Sausage Party. Normally when I dislike a movie this much I warn about massive spoilers, but everything I will complain about is pretty damned obvious and most people will have been able to guess this without me saying anything, BUT, possible spoilers ahead.
Let me rewind to the time before I saw this movie. I think it was during either the Star Trek marathon, or maybe Mike And Dave Need Wedding Dates, that I first saw this trailer. The basic premise, from what I gathered, was that food in the supermarket thinks getting picked and leaving the store is equal to a heaven like situation. Once in the kitchen however, food finds out the brutal truth that food is there to be massacred and eaten, not taken care of.
When I saw that trailer the first thing I thought about was that scene in Toy Story where the toys in the machine were waiting to be picked by the claw so they could go to nirvana. It was a smart and witty comment on society's need for religion. Now, anyone familiar with South Park will remember the South Park episode called The Simpsons Already Did It where Butters tries to come up with a way to punish the world, only to be told each time by his side kick that The Simpsons already tried that one. They were very sneakily saying that every time they try and write an episode they found that The Simpsons had already done one similar to the one they were thinking of writing. By the end of the episode they say that it is ok that The Simpsons already did it, as most stories have already been told, so we have to accept that fact. So in the spirit of South Park, I figured I would give this a chance to see if they have anything to add tot hat concept, and if they can entertain while doing so.
The movie starts off with one of the characters almost immediately uttering the word shit. I wish I had the actual script, not the older one floating around the internet, so that I could see exactly what the first few lines were, but I can tell you this, shit and fuck were used within one minute of the first word uttered. Now, I am not one to be upset or have any issues with crude language, as obviously I am fine writing those words here, and hearing them in any movie I see. In fact, I welcome those words if and when appropriate, or even when not, if it serves a purpose. Comedy can be and is a purpose, but the trick is, it has to be funny. Since funny is subjective, I will just go on to say I find some things extremely funny, and others not at all. But I usually prefer something a bit witty, over just straight up crude or shocking. BUT, and this is a huge but, I did like the Jackass 3D movie I finally caught recently, I love both South Park and Drawn Together and The Boondocks, and completely random ridiculous youtube videos that are crude and offensive to many. Though I may prefer wit, crude is not an issue for me.
The best way for me to describe the start of this movie would be to compare it to going on Omegle or Chatroulette. For those of you that don't know, those are sites where you are anonymous webcammer, connected with another anonymous webcammer. People wear masks, dance, do magic tricks, sing, play instruments, and other various things. Now, if the person who cams up is naked and masturbating, you know immediately what they are all about, at least in that very moment. They are not looking to discuss politics, talk about their depression, or connect with someone in any way except sexually, and it has to be immediate. They are not looking to chat you up for even one minute, their immediate action says all you need to know about what any further interaction with them will most likely be. I personally am not judging those people, and there are people that like that sort of thing, but even I prefer to get to know someone a bit before I see their genitals. The shock of exposed genitals does not shock me anymore, it is bland and boring, much like how a gynecologist must feel after seeing the ten thousandth vagina.
Sausage Party is exactly that. An exposed genital just sitting there, pleasing itself with no regard to anything else at all. I am guessing, though I don't think it's much of a stretch, that the writers of this comedy were high as fuck while writing it. Again, no judgements, there are funny stoner comedies, like Super Troopers, and Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle, both of which, if I remember correctly, were pretty crude at times. But that is the whole thing, they didn't start off crude, and in your face, like someone masturbating on cam when you meet them. They worked their way up to the crude, which made the crude all the more crude, shocking and funny.
After they have set the tone of the movie, they move on to the requisite funny opening song, which we are all familiar with from watching tons of South Park episodes. The same has been done in Drawn Together, The Boondocks, and a million other adult-ish animation shows and movies. The thing about those songs, other than being crude, is that they are also usually VERY memorable. You find yourself humming them after only a couple listens, sometimes after just one. I have always been shocked at how quick I can recognize a South Park song, or hum it weeks or months after I heard it once. Same with many other shows. While I did chuckle at one line in the song about the German food being a tad bit intolerant, the song itself was pretty boring and not memorable at all. In fact, they play the song again, and go over the lyrics as well in the middle of the movie. By the third playing of the song over the end credits I could hum along to it, but after I left the theater the song immediately left my head, which is not a good sign.
As they very meager plot is forwarded, we meet characters and get the general gist of what is going on. Food is waiting to be picked before it expires, and some characters are into each other. Next day comes, and one of the characters that was picked the day before gets returned. He is a mess, freaking out after he witnesses the slaughter of all of his friends. He tries to warn the others, but no one wants to listen. At this point, the characters who are into each other get picked, as does the honey mustard that was picked the day before. He is still panicking and due to his freaking out, a shopping cart accident happens and some of the characters are left at the store, including the ones who are into each other. When I had seen the trailer, I had assumed much of the movie would take place outside of the supermarket, but in reality most of it happens right there. The scene from the trailer in the woman's house where she is making food is in the movie about this time, and to be honest this is the most witty part of the movie, but as I said, it was in every trailer I saw, so this did not amuse as much as it should have.
At this point we meet a few more characters, the angry douche, the Jew hating Arab bread, the anti Arab Jewish bagel, the sexy little taco, the drunk American Indian alcohol, the black grits, and many others. The main sausage (who looks like a hot dog) decides to question whether their belief system is correct, while the bun he likes decides she prefers to believe in what they have been taught. The movie is relatively anti-religion, which is fine with me, but most of the jokes are on such a simplistic level that if you didn't already think these things yourself then you should wonder what you use your brain for in the first place. Plus the characters are so simply constructed, their personalities following the known and simple stereotypes that exist in the world, with little to no variation on the theme at all.
By this time in the movie I have realized it is probably not going anywhere, which was a shame. The animation was decent, good enough for what they were going for, mostly in a Pixar style, which is funny since they make fun of Pixar by having a character driving a car with a Dixar bumper sticker. The vocal work is OK, but the characters are so one dimensional you could have had anyone do a Woody Allen impression for the Jewish bagel, but somehow they spent the money on Edward Norton instead. I really wonder if having bigger name stars do the voices for things like this really make a difference at the box office or not. It definitely worked for Toy Story, but does every animated movie need such big name stars?
The jokes, if you can call them that, are not very funny at all. The problem is, this movie is designed to be seen while drunk, high, or having been hit in the head too many times. I recently caught Mike Judge's Idiocracy recently, knowing next to little about it. In that movie, an average guy from our time ends up 500 years in the future, and ends up being the smartest man in the world, the state of humanity having completely fallen apart. In this land of idiots, the #1 movie is called Ass, and all it consists of is 90 minutes of an ass on screen, sometimes farting. The most popular show on TV is Ouch My Balls! Although the TV show alludes to Jackass style programming, the movie feels more like Sausage Party, one long one note joke with little else going on. The funny thing is, Mike Judge is best known for Beavis And Butt-head, a show that many people said was the dumbest show in the history of man. Comparing that show to Sausage Party makes Beavis And Butt-head look like PBS programming.
One last comment on the movie itself, particularly one very talked about scene. SPOLIERS!!!! The movie ends, more or less, with a literal food porn scene, an massive orgy of food item violating food item. There's gay, straight, bi, threesomes, foursomes, moresomes, etc etc etc. By the time this scene was presented, I was so numb from the rest of the movie it came off as pure overkill. It was also edited ridiculously fast, most likely so the old MPAA ratings guys couldn't focus too closely on what was going on. I even read some of the script of the action in this scene, and to be honest, although it all sounds familiar, none of it really registered. It was just more of the same.
I must confess to have never seen a Seth Rogan movie before, as far as I know. I missed This Is The End, which shares many stars with Sausage Party, and I have never seen Superbad or Pineapple Express. So although I did have an idea this would be both raunchy, foul, crude and filled with weed humor, I still expected something more from it, considering how many people run out to see these movies. I must say I was disappointed in both the film makers and humanity. Even more so, I am in shock that the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes have this rated at 82% overall, and 86% for the Top Critics. The audience score is only 67%, which means either the audience is more discerning than the critics, or so many critics did not review this knowing they would hate it. I would love to know the real reason.
I have to take particular note of the audience that saw this screening with me. Although I have no proof, much of the audience, even though it was an 11PM showing on a weeknight, looked under 18. They seemed to find the movie amusing, which sounds about right, as when I was 14 maybe this would have been pretty funny to me, even though I was a pretty discerning kid even back then. I just find it amusing that a movie which is rated R will mostly appeal to a younger crowd. There is little in this film that most kids wouldn't have already seen in real life, or in youtube videos. At this point most 8-16 year olds have seen porn at least once in their lives, many watch it often. I'm not judging here, just stating facts. None of this movie will be a shock to kids, other than the fact that it is a major motion picture. They usually see this in 3 minute increments on youtube.
The other thing I have been wondering is what movies are benefiting most from the fact that most kids are buying tickets to other movies so they can sneak into this one. I know from people I have spoken to that buying a ticket for one film to get into an R rated film is a common occurrence. They may or nay nor even see the movie they paid for, the end goal is to see something they aren't "allowed" to see. But what movies are secretly making more money due to this?
Anyways, this was a rough outing for me, I really hoped that this would deliver something more than bare bones minimum sex and drug jokes, but I was mistaken. There is enough comedy just like this all over the web, in much more palatable lengths.
5 out of 10 stars.
Location : Regal Times Square E-Walk 13, theater 12, NYC
Date and time : Monday August 15th, 2016 at 11 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 30-40 people, many teens and young adults, seemed like they thought it was funny
Shit.
Fuck shit fuck.
Shit fuck fuck fucked fucking shit motherfucker dick shit fuck fuck fuck.
Now that we have discussed the script and attempt at comedy, let's get down to the rest of the movie.
As you can see, I was not very impressed with Sausage Party. Normally when I dislike a movie this much I warn about massive spoilers, but everything I will complain about is pretty damned obvious and most people will have been able to guess this without me saying anything, BUT, possible spoilers ahead.
Let me rewind to the time before I saw this movie. I think it was during either the Star Trek marathon, or maybe Mike And Dave Need Wedding Dates, that I first saw this trailer. The basic premise, from what I gathered, was that food in the supermarket thinks getting picked and leaving the store is equal to a heaven like situation. Once in the kitchen however, food finds out the brutal truth that food is there to be massacred and eaten, not taken care of.
When I saw that trailer the first thing I thought about was that scene in Toy Story where the toys in the machine were waiting to be picked by the claw so they could go to nirvana. It was a smart and witty comment on society's need for religion. Now, anyone familiar with South Park will remember the South Park episode called The Simpsons Already Did It where Butters tries to come up with a way to punish the world, only to be told each time by his side kick that The Simpsons already tried that one. They were very sneakily saying that every time they try and write an episode they found that The Simpsons had already done one similar to the one they were thinking of writing. By the end of the episode they say that it is ok that The Simpsons already did it, as most stories have already been told, so we have to accept that fact. So in the spirit of South Park, I figured I would give this a chance to see if they have anything to add tot hat concept, and if they can entertain while doing so.
The movie starts off with one of the characters almost immediately uttering the word shit. I wish I had the actual script, not the older one floating around the internet, so that I could see exactly what the first few lines were, but I can tell you this, shit and fuck were used within one minute of the first word uttered. Now, I am not one to be upset or have any issues with crude language, as obviously I am fine writing those words here, and hearing them in any movie I see. In fact, I welcome those words if and when appropriate, or even when not, if it serves a purpose. Comedy can be and is a purpose, but the trick is, it has to be funny. Since funny is subjective, I will just go on to say I find some things extremely funny, and others not at all. But I usually prefer something a bit witty, over just straight up crude or shocking. BUT, and this is a huge but, I did like the Jackass 3D movie I finally caught recently, I love both South Park and Drawn Together and The Boondocks, and completely random ridiculous youtube videos that are crude and offensive to many. Though I may prefer wit, crude is not an issue for me.
The best way for me to describe the start of this movie would be to compare it to going on Omegle or Chatroulette. For those of you that don't know, those are sites where you are anonymous webcammer, connected with another anonymous webcammer. People wear masks, dance, do magic tricks, sing, play instruments, and other various things. Now, if the person who cams up is naked and masturbating, you know immediately what they are all about, at least in that very moment. They are not looking to discuss politics, talk about their depression, or connect with someone in any way except sexually, and it has to be immediate. They are not looking to chat you up for even one minute, their immediate action says all you need to know about what any further interaction with them will most likely be. I personally am not judging those people, and there are people that like that sort of thing, but even I prefer to get to know someone a bit before I see their genitals. The shock of exposed genitals does not shock me anymore, it is bland and boring, much like how a gynecologist must feel after seeing the ten thousandth vagina.
Sausage Party is exactly that. An exposed genital just sitting there, pleasing itself with no regard to anything else at all. I am guessing, though I don't think it's much of a stretch, that the writers of this comedy were high as fuck while writing it. Again, no judgements, there are funny stoner comedies, like Super Troopers, and Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle, both of which, if I remember correctly, were pretty crude at times. But that is the whole thing, they didn't start off crude, and in your face, like someone masturbating on cam when you meet them. They worked their way up to the crude, which made the crude all the more crude, shocking and funny.
After they have set the tone of the movie, they move on to the requisite funny opening song, which we are all familiar with from watching tons of South Park episodes. The same has been done in Drawn Together, The Boondocks, and a million other adult-ish animation shows and movies. The thing about those songs, other than being crude, is that they are also usually VERY memorable. You find yourself humming them after only a couple listens, sometimes after just one. I have always been shocked at how quick I can recognize a South Park song, or hum it weeks or months after I heard it once. Same with many other shows. While I did chuckle at one line in the song about the German food being a tad bit intolerant, the song itself was pretty boring and not memorable at all. In fact, they play the song again, and go over the lyrics as well in the middle of the movie. By the third playing of the song over the end credits I could hum along to it, but after I left the theater the song immediately left my head, which is not a good sign.
As they very meager plot is forwarded, we meet characters and get the general gist of what is going on. Food is waiting to be picked before it expires, and some characters are into each other. Next day comes, and one of the characters that was picked the day before gets returned. He is a mess, freaking out after he witnesses the slaughter of all of his friends. He tries to warn the others, but no one wants to listen. At this point, the characters who are into each other get picked, as does the honey mustard that was picked the day before. He is still panicking and due to his freaking out, a shopping cart accident happens and some of the characters are left at the store, including the ones who are into each other. When I had seen the trailer, I had assumed much of the movie would take place outside of the supermarket, but in reality most of it happens right there. The scene from the trailer in the woman's house where she is making food is in the movie about this time, and to be honest this is the most witty part of the movie, but as I said, it was in every trailer I saw, so this did not amuse as much as it should have.
At this point we meet a few more characters, the angry douche, the Jew hating Arab bread, the anti Arab Jewish bagel, the sexy little taco, the drunk American Indian alcohol, the black grits, and many others. The main sausage (who looks like a hot dog) decides to question whether their belief system is correct, while the bun he likes decides she prefers to believe in what they have been taught. The movie is relatively anti-religion, which is fine with me, but most of the jokes are on such a simplistic level that if you didn't already think these things yourself then you should wonder what you use your brain for in the first place. Plus the characters are so simply constructed, their personalities following the known and simple stereotypes that exist in the world, with little to no variation on the theme at all.
By this time in the movie I have realized it is probably not going anywhere, which was a shame. The animation was decent, good enough for what they were going for, mostly in a Pixar style, which is funny since they make fun of Pixar by having a character driving a car with a Dixar bumper sticker. The vocal work is OK, but the characters are so one dimensional you could have had anyone do a Woody Allen impression for the Jewish bagel, but somehow they spent the money on Edward Norton instead. I really wonder if having bigger name stars do the voices for things like this really make a difference at the box office or not. It definitely worked for Toy Story, but does every animated movie need such big name stars?
The jokes, if you can call them that, are not very funny at all. The problem is, this movie is designed to be seen while drunk, high, or having been hit in the head too many times. I recently caught Mike Judge's Idiocracy recently, knowing next to little about it. In that movie, an average guy from our time ends up 500 years in the future, and ends up being the smartest man in the world, the state of humanity having completely fallen apart. In this land of idiots, the #1 movie is called Ass, and all it consists of is 90 minutes of an ass on screen, sometimes farting. The most popular show on TV is Ouch My Balls! Although the TV show alludes to Jackass style programming, the movie feels more like Sausage Party, one long one note joke with little else going on. The funny thing is, Mike Judge is best known for Beavis And Butt-head, a show that many people said was the dumbest show in the history of man. Comparing that show to Sausage Party makes Beavis And Butt-head look like PBS programming.
One last comment on the movie itself, particularly one very talked about scene. SPOLIERS!!!! The movie ends, more or less, with a literal food porn scene, an massive orgy of food item violating food item. There's gay, straight, bi, threesomes, foursomes, moresomes, etc etc etc. By the time this scene was presented, I was so numb from the rest of the movie it came off as pure overkill. It was also edited ridiculously fast, most likely so the old MPAA ratings guys couldn't focus too closely on what was going on. I even read some of the script of the action in this scene, and to be honest, although it all sounds familiar, none of it really registered. It was just more of the same.
I must confess to have never seen a Seth Rogan movie before, as far as I know. I missed This Is The End, which shares many stars with Sausage Party, and I have never seen Superbad or Pineapple Express. So although I did have an idea this would be both raunchy, foul, crude and filled with weed humor, I still expected something more from it, considering how many people run out to see these movies. I must say I was disappointed in both the film makers and humanity. Even more so, I am in shock that the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes have this rated at 82% overall, and 86% for the Top Critics. The audience score is only 67%, which means either the audience is more discerning than the critics, or so many critics did not review this knowing they would hate it. I would love to know the real reason.
I have to take particular note of the audience that saw this screening with me. Although I have no proof, much of the audience, even though it was an 11PM showing on a weeknight, looked under 18. They seemed to find the movie amusing, which sounds about right, as when I was 14 maybe this would have been pretty funny to me, even though I was a pretty discerning kid even back then. I just find it amusing that a movie which is rated R will mostly appeal to a younger crowd. There is little in this film that most kids wouldn't have already seen in real life, or in youtube videos. At this point most 8-16 year olds have seen porn at least once in their lives, many watch it often. I'm not judging here, just stating facts. None of this movie will be a shock to kids, other than the fact that it is a major motion picture. They usually see this in 3 minute increments on youtube.
The other thing I have been wondering is what movies are benefiting most from the fact that most kids are buying tickets to other movies so they can sneak into this one. I know from people I have spoken to that buying a ticket for one film to get into an R rated film is a common occurrence. They may or nay nor even see the movie they paid for, the end goal is to see something they aren't "allowed" to see. But what movies are secretly making more money due to this?
Anyways, this was a rough outing for me, I really hoped that this would deliver something more than bare bones minimum sex and drug jokes, but I was mistaken. There is enough comedy just like this all over the web, in much more palatable lengths.
5 out of 10 stars.
Location : Regal Times Square E-Walk 13, theater 12, NYC
Date and time : Monday August 15th, 2016 at 11 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 30-40 people, many teens and young adults, seemed like they thought it was funny
Monday, August 15, 2016
For The Plasma (2104) movie review
For The Plasma (2014)
For a week in July For The Plasma had its New York City premiere, right before its release on the internet. One of the directors, Kyle Molzan, who works at The Metrograph theater in NYC, is an acquaintance of mine. He mentioned his film was showing for a week, so I decided to catch it one night.
For The Plasma is a confusing film. Part sci fi, part drama, part comedy(?), you are never too sure what you are watching. Even when you laugh at the funny parts, you are not sure you should be laughing, or that it is an intentional joke. The script comes off as something that was written for a class, or maybe some sort of project, and never meant to be filmed, but someone filmed it anyways.
The first part of the plot revolves around the reason for the two girls being out in the middle of nowhere. You see, one girl was already there, and called an old college friend to join her to give her some help with the job. The job is simple, watching the woods for signs of fires and such, if I remember correctly, BUT (there is always a but), the first girl has figured out how to predict the economy or the stock market or what have you by watching the woods as well. So she hires her friend to help with both jobs.
There is a second whole subplot having to do with a guy the first girl was into or dating or whatever, and the fact the the friend is now dating him and hiding it from the first girl. There are lots of secretive phone calls and such. Plus we meet the guy that tends to the lighthouse, and some Japanese businessmen who want to hire the first girl to do some other research, etc etc.
To be honest, none of the plots really go anywhere. They exist irregardless of the fact that they both make no sense, and are never forwarded to any new place, let alone any conclusion. It really does seem like someone wrote the script as an exercise for a class or something, then filmed it for the fuck of it. Granted, I am sure that's how many a movie is made, but here it feels like something is missing, like the secret to the whole movie. Or maybe there is no secret, that's the secret!
I have no shame admitting when I do not understand a movie, and this one just did not make a lot of sense in the long run. Each scene seems like it might lead somewhere, but it never does. Although this can work under certain circumstances, for me it did not work here. As for the rest of the movie, some of the shots were beautiful and well done, although the changes in camera style can be a bit disarming at times. The soundtrack was interesting at times, though I am not sure that I felt like it was part of the movie at times, or just something playing along with the movie. The performances were OK at times, but nothing to write home about. The script is, well, setting up a movie that never happens, unfortunately. Maybe one day someone can rework the whole thing and make a movie that is much more satisfying.
Overall I cannot totally hate on the movie, it is more a curiosity than something that I would severely dislike, though I can see people being one way or another on this one.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs smaller theater, NYC
Date and time : Tuesday, July 11th, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 16mm to digital
Audience : 11 people, a few laughs, an old couple who I am sure was related to either one of the film makers or an actor, and a lot of confused stares during the movie
For a week in July For The Plasma had its New York City premiere, right before its release on the internet. One of the directors, Kyle Molzan, who works at The Metrograph theater in NYC, is an acquaintance of mine. He mentioned his film was showing for a week, so I decided to catch it one night.
For The Plasma is a confusing film. Part sci fi, part drama, part comedy(?), you are never too sure what you are watching. Even when you laugh at the funny parts, you are not sure you should be laughing, or that it is an intentional joke. The script comes off as something that was written for a class, or maybe some sort of project, and never meant to be filmed, but someone filmed it anyways.
The first part of the plot revolves around the reason for the two girls being out in the middle of nowhere. You see, one girl was already there, and called an old college friend to join her to give her some help with the job. The job is simple, watching the woods for signs of fires and such, if I remember correctly, BUT (there is always a but), the first girl has figured out how to predict the economy or the stock market or what have you by watching the woods as well. So she hires her friend to help with both jobs.
There is a second whole subplot having to do with a guy the first girl was into or dating or whatever, and the fact the the friend is now dating him and hiding it from the first girl. There are lots of secretive phone calls and such. Plus we meet the guy that tends to the lighthouse, and some Japanese businessmen who want to hire the first girl to do some other research, etc etc.
To be honest, none of the plots really go anywhere. They exist irregardless of the fact that they both make no sense, and are never forwarded to any new place, let alone any conclusion. It really does seem like someone wrote the script as an exercise for a class or something, then filmed it for the fuck of it. Granted, I am sure that's how many a movie is made, but here it feels like something is missing, like the secret to the whole movie. Or maybe there is no secret, that's the secret!
I have no shame admitting when I do not understand a movie, and this one just did not make a lot of sense in the long run. Each scene seems like it might lead somewhere, but it never does. Although this can work under certain circumstances, for me it did not work here. As for the rest of the movie, some of the shots were beautiful and well done, although the changes in camera style can be a bit disarming at times. The soundtrack was interesting at times, though I am not sure that I felt like it was part of the movie at times, or just something playing along with the movie. The performances were OK at times, but nothing to write home about. The script is, well, setting up a movie that never happens, unfortunately. Maybe one day someone can rework the whole thing and make a movie that is much more satisfying.
Overall I cannot totally hate on the movie, it is more a curiosity than something that I would severely dislike, though I can see people being one way or another on this one.
6 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs smaller theater, NYC
Date and time : Tuesday, July 11th, 2016 at 7 PM
Format : 16mm to digital
Audience : 11 people, a few laughs, an old couple who I am sure was related to either one of the film makers or an actor, and a lot of confused stares during the movie
Sunday, August 14, 2016
The Big Clock (1948) review
The Big Clock (1948)
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead was a couple film noir movies that he loved, one called The Black Book (Reign Of Terror) and The Big Clock starring Ray Milland, Charles Laughton, Maureen O'Sullivan, and Harry Morgan, who is best known as Colonel Potter on TV's M*A*S*H. Although I did not get to see The Black Book, as I was at another screening, I did make it in time for The Big Clock.
In the last few years I have been able to catch a few Ray Milland Films, including Panic In Year Zero!, X: Man With The X-Ray Eyes, Dial M For Murder, and Frogs, and have been wanting to see more of his work. As for Charles Laughton, I caught a double feature of White Woman and Island Of Lost Souls, and although I did not love White Woman, I did think Island Of Lost Souls was pretty great. He also directed the amazing Robert Mitchum movie Night Of The Hunter, which I recommend to anyone who has not seen it. With both these guys in this, I felt I had to catch this movie.
Early on in the film I noticed a woman elevator operator who looked amazingly familiar. I could not place her, and went right over to IMDb when I got home, and it turns out she was Noel Neill, the actress who played Lois Lane in the original Superman serials and the second season of the classic TV version, which I watched many times as a small child. Funny how certain people just stick in your brain.
The plot revolves around a magazine conglomerate run by a Rupert Murdoch type who is rich, arrogant, and obnoxious. He is overly demanding of his staff, is obsessed with time, and fires people for not being able to do things he thinks they should, even if he's wrong. At some point he has a meeting with his mistress, or girlfriend, or lover, and things don't go too well. She then meets the main character, played by Ray Milland, who is about to go on vacation and things don't work out too well for him either and he gets fired. Somehow Milland and the mistress spend the night out drunk, and he has to sneak out when the boss shows up, and then all kinds of shit happens.
This is one of those noir films that focuses on the wrongly accused trying to keep themselves out of jail from a crime they did not commit. The look of the film is brighter than many noir films, though it has its dark moments, and there are some truly funny moments as well. The individual performances are really good, and although there is nothing wrong with this picture at all, it doesn't reach the heights I want it to. Not to say it's a disappointment, I guess I just wanted something more from it.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : About 30 people, I know a bunch of people I was with enjoyed it
Joe Dante is mostly known for directing the mega hit Gremlins, but he has also directed many other films of note. Recently BAM (The Brooklyn Academy Of Music) did a retrospective of his films :
Joe Dante at the Movies
and TV work, plus offered to show some films that Joe Dante was a fan of, or that influenced him. There were multiple double features, and some pretty great stuff was shown. He even showed up for some screenings, did a Q&A after a showing of his work print of Gremlins, and introduced a couple of screenings as well. I got to meet him and chat with him, and he is not only a great guy, but very down to earth, personable, and very aware. Talking with him felt like talking with any of my other movie obsessed friends, except that he has been amazingly successful, unlike the rest of us!
This double feature shown did not include a film that Dante directed, but instead was a couple film noir movies that he loved, one called The Black Book (Reign Of Terror) and The Big Clock starring Ray Milland, Charles Laughton, Maureen O'Sullivan, and Harry Morgan, who is best known as Colonel Potter on TV's M*A*S*H. Although I did not get to see The Black Book, as I was at another screening, I did make it in time for The Big Clock.
In the last few years I have been able to catch a few Ray Milland Films, including Panic In Year Zero!, X: Man With The X-Ray Eyes, Dial M For Murder, and Frogs, and have been wanting to see more of his work. As for Charles Laughton, I caught a double feature of White Woman and Island Of Lost Souls, and although I did not love White Woman, I did think Island Of Lost Souls was pretty great. He also directed the amazing Robert Mitchum movie Night Of The Hunter, which I recommend to anyone who has not seen it. With both these guys in this, I felt I had to catch this movie.
Early on in the film I noticed a woman elevator operator who looked amazingly familiar. I could not place her, and went right over to IMDb when I got home, and it turns out she was Noel Neill, the actress who played Lois Lane in the original Superman serials and the second season of the classic TV version, which I watched many times as a small child. Funny how certain people just stick in your brain.
The plot revolves around a magazine conglomerate run by a Rupert Murdoch type who is rich, arrogant, and obnoxious. He is overly demanding of his staff, is obsessed with time, and fires people for not being able to do things he thinks they should, even if he's wrong. At some point he has a meeting with his mistress, or girlfriend, or lover, and things don't go too well. She then meets the main character, played by Ray Milland, who is about to go on vacation and things don't work out too well for him either and he gets fired. Somehow Milland and the mistress spend the night out drunk, and he has to sneak out when the boss shows up, and then all kinds of shit happens.
This is one of those noir films that focuses on the wrongly accused trying to keep themselves out of jail from a crime they did not commit. The look of the film is brighter than many noir films, though it has its dark moments, and there are some truly funny moments as well. The individual performances are really good, and although there is nothing wrong with this picture at all, it doesn't reach the heights I want it to. Not to say it's a disappointment, I guess I just wanted something more from it.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) , theater 2, Brooklyn, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Format : 35mm
Audience : About 30 people, I know a bunch of people I was with enjoyed it
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Wild Combination: A Portrait Of Arthur Russell (2008) review
Wild Combination: A Portrait Of Arthur Russell (2008)
The Metrograph in NYC is currently running a series:
Dim All The Lights: Disco And The Movies
which unfortunately ends tonight, though there will be a couple films that will have additional screenings, including this one. Fortunately I got to see a few of the screenings, plus I am catching one last one tonight.
Arthur Russell is a man I knew a little bit about, and when I say a little bit, I would say probably about .01% of what was in the movie. I knew his name, I knew that he played cello, I knew he did some avant garde work, and I knew that he made a couple disco records, including one under the group name Dinosaur L. That was about it. When I saw this documentary on him was playing, I saw this as an opportunity to learn more about him.
Documentaries can be amazing for a few reasons. One, if you already know the subject it can be both entertaining and a perfect opportunity to learn more about something you love, which is exactly what happened when I watched the De Palma documentary recently. If you know virtually nothing about the subject it is like taking a speed class without having to memorize anything for a test. This past year or so I saw a documentary called Not Film, which was about a movie called Film, and its director, Samuel Beckett. Being that I knew nothing at all about Samuel Beckett, and had watched Film only moments before, it was a pretty amazing literary lesson.
The documentary opens with Arthur's parents talking about his childhood and how he was raised, and some of the issues he suffered from. It then follows him to San Francisco where he met famed poet Allen Ginsberg, then off to NYC where he made his home. I won't spoil the journey by giving you any more details of his life, but we do hear about all of his collaborations, bands, music, and changes in his life.
The film is shot beautifully, and mostly chronologically, and covers a wide spectrum of his life and music. There are many performances of his in the film, both audio and video, of all of his styles of music. It s a very comprehensive documentary, which is something I look for when it comes to subjects I know little about. It is also very poignant and touching, and shows you both a NYC that barely exists anymore, and the kind of person who used to live here but could never survive here nowadays.
Keep in mind, this is a documentary on the man and his music, and his music was far from just disco, it covered many bases, and no matter what kind of music you are a fan of you could find some of his to fit your tastes, unless of course you have no soul. I was very pleased I got to see this documentary on this man, and will be seeking out more music from him in the future.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 1, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : At least 60 people, audience was moved and enjoyed it a lot
The Metrograph in NYC is currently running a series:
Dim All The Lights: Disco And The Movies
which unfortunately ends tonight, though there will be a couple films that will have additional screenings, including this one. Fortunately I got to see a few of the screenings, plus I am catching one last one tonight.
Arthur Russell is a man I knew a little bit about, and when I say a little bit, I would say probably about .01% of what was in the movie. I knew his name, I knew that he played cello, I knew he did some avant garde work, and I knew that he made a couple disco records, including one under the group name Dinosaur L. That was about it. When I saw this documentary on him was playing, I saw this as an opportunity to learn more about him.
Documentaries can be amazing for a few reasons. One, if you already know the subject it can be both entertaining and a perfect opportunity to learn more about something you love, which is exactly what happened when I watched the De Palma documentary recently. If you know virtually nothing about the subject it is like taking a speed class without having to memorize anything for a test. This past year or so I saw a documentary called Not Film, which was about a movie called Film, and its director, Samuel Beckett. Being that I knew nothing at all about Samuel Beckett, and had watched Film only moments before, it was a pretty amazing literary lesson.
The documentary opens with Arthur's parents talking about his childhood and how he was raised, and some of the issues he suffered from. It then follows him to San Francisco where he met famed poet Allen Ginsberg, then off to NYC where he made his home. I won't spoil the journey by giving you any more details of his life, but we do hear about all of his collaborations, bands, music, and changes in his life.
The film is shot beautifully, and mostly chronologically, and covers a wide spectrum of his life and music. There are many performances of his in the film, both audio and video, of all of his styles of music. It s a very comprehensive documentary, which is something I look for when it comes to subjects I know little about. It is also very poignant and touching, and shows you both a NYC that barely exists anymore, and the kind of person who used to live here but could never survive here nowadays.
Keep in mind, this is a documentary on the man and his music, and his music was far from just disco, it covered many bases, and no matter what kind of music you are a fan of you could find some of his to fit your tastes, unless of course you have no soul. I was very pleased I got to see this documentary on this man, and will be seeking out more music from him in the future.
8 out of 10 stars.
Location : The Metrograph, theater 1, NYC
Date and time : Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : At least 60 people, audience was moved and enjoyed it a lot
Bloodthirsty Butchers (1970) review
Bloodthirsty Butchers (1970)
Last night Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn (which is not yet open) hosted a screening at Anthology Film Archives. This is at least the second event they have held in anticipation of their upcoming grand opening. They decided to show Bloodthirsty Butchers, one of the many portrayals of the tale of Sweeney Todd. This particular version was directed by Andy Milligan, a director whose work has to be seen to be believed. Introducing last night's screening was none other than Frank Henenlotter, director of Basket Case and Frankenhooker.
It's hard to describe Andy Milligan, or at least an Andy Milligan movie. The easiest way is to say that an Andy Milligan movie makes an Ed Wood movie look like a Steven Spielberg movie. The budget for this movie was supposedly $18,000, but it looks more like the budget was about $500. Most of his movies were filmed on Staten Island, but this one was mostly filmed in England, though somehow he made England look as drab as Staten Island. The acting is atrocious, the sets are bad, the scripts are filled with line after line of bullshit, and the plot is usually threadbare and messy at best. Let's not forget the shaky camerawork and terrible sound! Frank Henenlotter explained last night that the reason for some of the horribleness of his films had to do with the equipment he was using, which was a 16mm camera that had to record all the sound on the film, not allowing him to fix anything later.
The plot of this version of Sweeney Todd is a bit different than the others I have seen, with some changes to the characters and their motivations, but to be honest, none of that is really that important. For a film like this, the ride is what's important. Although this runs only about 80 minutes, it feels MUCH longer while you are watching it. There are lots of thick, hard to understand British accents, scenes with some terrible acting in it, including a great inconspicuous tailing of one character, and sound effects that do not follow what is going on in the film. But when it is done you feel like you watched something special. Maybe special in how bad it is, or weird, or whatever, but nothing like anything else you have seen.
I think this is the third Milligan film I have seen, and although they are complete travesties, they are also a lot of fun in their insanity. Of course, you have to like completely horrible B movie acting and be able to view this in a completely different light than a movie that would come out nowadays, or even then to be honest. But this is like when you find yourself listening to a singer you know is horrible, but you still like to listen to it.
As far as the Sweeney Todd story goes, this is not the best telling of it by any means, that is and will always be reserved for the Angela Lansbury version, with either Len Cariou or George Hearn, both are great. You can find a DVD version filmed on Broadway for PBS, and also another version filmed from the audience as well on youtube. Now, SOME of you may have seen the actual travesty of this story directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp and Tim Burton's wife. Now, I know many people are fans of this, but it is literally one of the only times I wanted to walk out of a film it was so horrible. So no version, no matter how bad, could ever get THAT bad.
All in all, considering I had already seen this movie once before, I had a pretty fun time both listening to stories of Andy Milligan from Frank Henenlotter and watching the debacle he directed. Hopefully there will be many more fun nights like this when Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn opens as well!
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs theater, NYC
Date and time : Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : 35mm print, very faded
Audience : About 60 people, almost sold out, audience laughed, seemed to have fun
Last night Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn (which is not yet open) hosted a screening at Anthology Film Archives. This is at least the second event they have held in anticipation of their upcoming grand opening. They decided to show Bloodthirsty Butchers, one of the many portrayals of the tale of Sweeney Todd. This particular version was directed by Andy Milligan, a director whose work has to be seen to be believed. Introducing last night's screening was none other than Frank Henenlotter, director of Basket Case and Frankenhooker.
It's hard to describe Andy Milligan, or at least an Andy Milligan movie. The easiest way is to say that an Andy Milligan movie makes an Ed Wood movie look like a Steven Spielberg movie. The budget for this movie was supposedly $18,000, but it looks more like the budget was about $500. Most of his movies were filmed on Staten Island, but this one was mostly filmed in England, though somehow he made England look as drab as Staten Island. The acting is atrocious, the sets are bad, the scripts are filled with line after line of bullshit, and the plot is usually threadbare and messy at best. Let's not forget the shaky camerawork and terrible sound! Frank Henenlotter explained last night that the reason for some of the horribleness of his films had to do with the equipment he was using, which was a 16mm camera that had to record all the sound on the film, not allowing him to fix anything later.
The plot of this version of Sweeney Todd is a bit different than the others I have seen, with some changes to the characters and their motivations, but to be honest, none of that is really that important. For a film like this, the ride is what's important. Although this runs only about 80 minutes, it feels MUCH longer while you are watching it. There are lots of thick, hard to understand British accents, scenes with some terrible acting in it, including a great inconspicuous tailing of one character, and sound effects that do not follow what is going on in the film. But when it is done you feel like you watched something special. Maybe special in how bad it is, or weird, or whatever, but nothing like anything else you have seen.
I think this is the third Milligan film I have seen, and although they are complete travesties, they are also a lot of fun in their insanity. Of course, you have to like completely horrible B movie acting and be able to view this in a completely different light than a movie that would come out nowadays, or even then to be honest. But this is like when you find yourself listening to a singer you know is horrible, but you still like to listen to it.
As far as the Sweeney Todd story goes, this is not the best telling of it by any means, that is and will always be reserved for the Angela Lansbury version, with either Len Cariou or George Hearn, both are great. You can find a DVD version filmed on Broadway for PBS, and also another version filmed from the audience as well on youtube. Now, SOME of you may have seen the actual travesty of this story directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp and Tim Burton's wife. Now, I know many people are fans of this, but it is literally one of the only times I wanted to walk out of a film it was so horrible. So no version, no matter how bad, could ever get THAT bad.
All in all, considering I had already seen this movie once before, I had a pretty fun time both listening to stories of Andy Milligan from Frank Henenlotter and watching the debacle he directed. Hopefully there will be many more fun nights like this when Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn opens as well!
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : Anthology Film Archives, downstairs theater, NYC
Date and time : Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : 35mm print, very faded
Audience : About 60 people, almost sold out, audience laughed, seemed to have fun
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Lights Out (2013) review
Lights Out (2013)
In 2013 David F. Sandberg and his wife, Lotta Losten, released this 3 minute short they made together on the internet. 3 years later the full length film was released in the United States and made 10 times its budget in 2 weeks!
If you have seen the trailer for the movie or seen the movie then you have an idea what this short is about. There is no dialogue and it is VERY short, but it is effective and very scary, which is why they decided to make a full length film of this.
Obviously there is not much to say about this version of Lights Out, other than I would watch this after you see the full length version. I am happy to see that he used his wife in a role in the full length as well, it's nice that he could work that out.
If you are looking to read my review on the full length, you an do that here :
In 2013 David F. Sandberg and his wife, Lotta Losten, released this 3 minute short they made together on the internet. 3 years later the full length film was released in the United States and made 10 times its budget in 2 weeks!
If you have seen the trailer for the movie or seen the movie then you have an idea what this short is about. There is no dialogue and it is VERY short, but it is effective and very scary, which is why they decided to make a full length film of this.
Obviously there is not much to say about this version of Lights Out, other than I would watch this after you see the full length version. I am happy to see that he used his wife in a role in the full length as well, it's nice that he could work that out.
If you are looking to read my review on the full length, you an do that here :
Lights Out (2016) review
Lights Out (2016)
The thing about going to the movies nowadays is that it is very likely you will see trailers for most films coming out in the next month or two, at least in the genre you are currently seeing. If it's a comic book movie, expect to see trailers for the next 5 comic book movies. God forbid you see anything remotely family oriented or dramatic, you will get the most horrible trailers for some of the worst movies you have ever seen, or at least I have ever seen. You see, generally speaking, I try and avoid trailers. To me, most trailers give away far too much plot, and ruin most movies. Did I need to know that Wonder Woman is making an appearance in Batman V Superman? Would I not have enjoyed that piece of shit at least a bit more had that been a surprise? Didn't everyone already plan on seeing it regardless of the fact we all thought it would suck? But when I am sitting in a theater, I cannot not just ignore them, or look away. I have to sit there and watch the stupid trailer, which will most likely just either make me hate the movie more, since it's not something I would ever see, or show me parts of a movie I am already going to see, and spoil the best scenes. The trailers that I love/hate the most are the horror ones. I love them because they let me know about movies I probably don't know are even coming out, but I hate them because they show far too much of the scary stuff in an effort to make you think the whole movie will be scary, even though you mostly likely saw almost every scary scene in the movie.
So a month or two ago I start seeing the trailer for Lights Out. I was impressed with the scariness of the trailer, as most people have some fear of the dark, or more specifically what is hiding in the dark. At some point after seeing the trailer a few times I notice James Wan's name, who wrote and directed the first Saw movie, and had his hand in many other recent horror movies which I have not seen. I liked Saw, so I thought, maybe I should see this. I sent the trailer to a few of my friends who are easily scared, and some of them couldn't even make it through the trailer. Yes, I can be a dick sometimes, but it's fun to scare people! So after seeing this trailer way too many times, I decide I will try and watch this movie even though my expectations for any new horror movie is exceedingly low.
A bit of history about my love of horror movies. I have literally seen horror movies from pretty much every decade and era, and found ones I like in all of them. Obviously like many people, I tend to lean towards certain types or eras, but I try not to be so limited in my views that I think if the movie was released in any year past, let's say 1984, it is going to automatically suck. I do love the old monster movies from the 1950s, the cheesy exploitation ones from the 1960s, the creepy and fucked up ones from the 1970s, the gory slasher films from the 1980s, etc etc. I did not watch a lot of any kind of movies in the 1990s, but by the 2000s I started watching many horror movies from overseas, especially Japan. At this point in America, the PG-13 horror movie became the norm, mostly due to a taming of the violence in horror movies, combined with studios mistaken belief that a PG-13 will make them more money as more kids see horror movies. Thankfully movies like Cabin Fever, Saw, Hostel and the like proved that wrong, and we started seeing movies with a bit more bite in them. This is not to say that a PG-13, or even a PG movie, can't be scary. As much as I like blood and gore, Poltergeist (the original) was a PG movie that ***SPOILER ALERT*** had no deaths in it, but was still damned scary and well made to boot. So when I see a new horror movie, although my expectations may be low, I do try to keep an open mind and enjoy it for what it is, not what I personally want it to be.
Lights Out is a very simple story. If you have seen the trailer you know the gist of the film, and have seen some of the opening scenes. Basically as a woman is shutting down a mannequin factory, she goes to turn off a light, and notices someone standing in the darkness right as she does. She turns the light back on, and they are gone. Turn it off, she sees the person again. On, they disappear. Off one last time, the person is right next to them! Simple, scary and pretty much a completely basic caveman fear we all have to some degree or another. The fear isn't actually of the dark, but what is hiding in it waiting for us. Obviously there is a story to this movie as well, because of movie of jump scares without a plot would be pretty boring. We meet the Dad, who is trying to help Mom with some mental issues she is having, and we meet their child who is worried about Mom. Later, we meet the sister, or half sister, and her boyfriend. It seems like Mom is connected to this thing in the shadows, and this thing is possessive as hell.
There are some really good things about Lights Out. One, it is actually scary on that base kind of level. Two, it is shot amazingly well for a movie that takes place in the dark for much of the time. Flashlights, cell phones, candles and the like make up much of the lighting, and you don't have to be a genius or have made a multi million dollar movie to realize it is not easy to light a movie with so little and still be able to see what is going on. I have complained about numerous movies as of late, like the latest Star Trek, Batman V Superman, etc etc, being way too dark, visually speaking, and being unable to focus on the action. You do not have that problem here, which is amazing since so much is in the dark. Hats off to the director for pulling that off.
The characters are written well enough, though the sister/girlfriend's lack of trust in men and bitchiness is a bit forced, as is her boyfriend's neediness. The Mom is written a bit better, and pulls off the mentally ill Mom thing very well. I felt like Mom and daughter looked a bit too similar, but this is a small complaint. I found the thing in the dark to be scary, but I know there are people who didn't, but that's one of those things you either find scary or you don't. I did.
There are multiple good scenes that were NOT in the trailer, thankfully. Scenes that surprised the audience, both scary and plot wise, and that is part of what made this film for me. Another part that I REALLY enjoyed was the fact that it had a beginning, middle and end. Now, that may sound weird, but so many horror films now start off OK, make it to the middle where things start to level off, and by the end it is like the director/writer didn't know what to do so it just sort of ends, either with no resolution, or with an ending that literally makes no sense and gives no understanding of what you just watched. Sure, horror movies almost always have plot holes, or confusing bits, but the lack of being able to write a proper story to go with what is in your head is a travesty of many a new horror movie.
I want to bring up two things before I wrap this up. One, right as I was getting ready to run out to see this, I was checking showtimes and there were some reviews posted on the right of the computer screen. The reviews were pretty bad, and had I been on the fence about this I would not have seen it. On top of that, complaints about the fact that it was PG-13 were there, which I didn't even realize was the rating before I was leaving. One review said that the movie was practically family friendly. Now, I do not like to give away too much in the way of plot points, but I can assure you, regardless of how many deaths, how much blood and gore, and what was visible on the screen, the themes in this movie are pretty damned dark and depressing and any child with a slightly sensitive nature would be wrecked by this movie. I am sure many a fucked up teen was scared shitless by this movie, so maybe for some this is just a walk in the park, but for many this movie would follow someone for life. That is not a criticism at all, except to criticize the person who said this was practically good for the whole family.
My last point has almost nothing to do with this movie, but the movie business in general. Here is a horror movie, that was made for 5 million dollars, based on a 3 minute short, with no stars in it and a first time director. It has now made 50 million dollars within a couple weeks. I walked out of the movie at the end thinking this was a good, solid movie, almost very good, and I would like to see another installment of it. I walked across the hall, and then caught the Thursday preview screening of Suicide Squad, a movie that was hyped beyond belief, and cost 175 million dollars, not counting a marketing campaign which probably cost more than the movie itself. When I left the theater after that, I also felt it was a good movie, but not very good or great, which is what I would expect from 175 million dollars. The insanity of the big name stars, the expensive sets, the costly popular songs, and the need for a movie to break a billion dollars to be considered a success is both disgusting and annoying. I get the difference in genres, costs, expectations, but there is no reason for Will Smith to be in this movie commanding a ridiculous salary. When Robert Downey Jr. was in the first Iron Man, he didn't get the job because he was a superstar. He BECAME a superstar who deserves a ridiculous salary to be Iron Man now, because he made that character who he is. He was a known actor who might not have been an unknown, but he was not a household name like Will Smith. I feel way better seeing a movie like Lights Out which at the very least is somewhat of an original idea, with newer and less known actors, than watching overblown movies with overpaid salaries and actors who we all know. Marvel built that franchise from the ground up, while DC is trying to buy their way in with Ben Affleck and Will Smith. Rant over. (I may have to add this rant to my Suicide Squad review).
All in all, Lights Out was a pleasant and much needed surprise for me, especially when it comes to horror movies. I am very glad I caught this before it left the theaters.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : United Artists Kaufman Astoria 14, theater 9, Queens, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 30-40 people, many of them scared and/or screaming, a few laughs, people seemed to really enjoy it. Amazingly very few cell phone users, for such a young crowd.
The thing about going to the movies nowadays is that it is very likely you will see trailers for most films coming out in the next month or two, at least in the genre you are currently seeing. If it's a comic book movie, expect to see trailers for the next 5 comic book movies. God forbid you see anything remotely family oriented or dramatic, you will get the most horrible trailers for some of the worst movies you have ever seen, or at least I have ever seen. You see, generally speaking, I try and avoid trailers. To me, most trailers give away far too much plot, and ruin most movies. Did I need to know that Wonder Woman is making an appearance in Batman V Superman? Would I not have enjoyed that piece of shit at least a bit more had that been a surprise? Didn't everyone already plan on seeing it regardless of the fact we all thought it would suck? But when I am sitting in a theater, I cannot not just ignore them, or look away. I have to sit there and watch the stupid trailer, which will most likely just either make me hate the movie more, since it's not something I would ever see, or show me parts of a movie I am already going to see, and spoil the best scenes. The trailers that I love/hate the most are the horror ones. I love them because they let me know about movies I probably don't know are even coming out, but I hate them because they show far too much of the scary stuff in an effort to make you think the whole movie will be scary, even though you mostly likely saw almost every scary scene in the movie.
So a month or two ago I start seeing the trailer for Lights Out. I was impressed with the scariness of the trailer, as most people have some fear of the dark, or more specifically what is hiding in the dark. At some point after seeing the trailer a few times I notice James Wan's name, who wrote and directed the first Saw movie, and had his hand in many other recent horror movies which I have not seen. I liked Saw, so I thought, maybe I should see this. I sent the trailer to a few of my friends who are easily scared, and some of them couldn't even make it through the trailer. Yes, I can be a dick sometimes, but it's fun to scare people! So after seeing this trailer way too many times, I decide I will try and watch this movie even though my expectations for any new horror movie is exceedingly low.
A bit of history about my love of horror movies. I have literally seen horror movies from pretty much every decade and era, and found ones I like in all of them. Obviously like many people, I tend to lean towards certain types or eras, but I try not to be so limited in my views that I think if the movie was released in any year past, let's say 1984, it is going to automatically suck. I do love the old monster movies from the 1950s, the cheesy exploitation ones from the 1960s, the creepy and fucked up ones from the 1970s, the gory slasher films from the 1980s, etc etc. I did not watch a lot of any kind of movies in the 1990s, but by the 2000s I started watching many horror movies from overseas, especially Japan. At this point in America, the PG-13 horror movie became the norm, mostly due to a taming of the violence in horror movies, combined with studios mistaken belief that a PG-13 will make them more money as more kids see horror movies. Thankfully movies like Cabin Fever, Saw, Hostel and the like proved that wrong, and we started seeing movies with a bit more bite in them. This is not to say that a PG-13, or even a PG movie, can't be scary. As much as I like blood and gore, Poltergeist (the original) was a PG movie that ***SPOILER ALERT*** had no deaths in it, but was still damned scary and well made to boot. So when I see a new horror movie, although my expectations may be low, I do try to keep an open mind and enjoy it for what it is, not what I personally want it to be.
Lights Out is a very simple story. If you have seen the trailer you know the gist of the film, and have seen some of the opening scenes. Basically as a woman is shutting down a mannequin factory, she goes to turn off a light, and notices someone standing in the darkness right as she does. She turns the light back on, and they are gone. Turn it off, she sees the person again. On, they disappear. Off one last time, the person is right next to them! Simple, scary and pretty much a completely basic caveman fear we all have to some degree or another. The fear isn't actually of the dark, but what is hiding in it waiting for us. Obviously there is a story to this movie as well, because of movie of jump scares without a plot would be pretty boring. We meet the Dad, who is trying to help Mom with some mental issues she is having, and we meet their child who is worried about Mom. Later, we meet the sister, or half sister, and her boyfriend. It seems like Mom is connected to this thing in the shadows, and this thing is possessive as hell.
There are some really good things about Lights Out. One, it is actually scary on that base kind of level. Two, it is shot amazingly well for a movie that takes place in the dark for much of the time. Flashlights, cell phones, candles and the like make up much of the lighting, and you don't have to be a genius or have made a multi million dollar movie to realize it is not easy to light a movie with so little and still be able to see what is going on. I have complained about numerous movies as of late, like the latest Star Trek, Batman V Superman, etc etc, being way too dark, visually speaking, and being unable to focus on the action. You do not have that problem here, which is amazing since so much is in the dark. Hats off to the director for pulling that off.
The characters are written well enough, though the sister/girlfriend's lack of trust in men and bitchiness is a bit forced, as is her boyfriend's neediness. The Mom is written a bit better, and pulls off the mentally ill Mom thing very well. I felt like Mom and daughter looked a bit too similar, but this is a small complaint. I found the thing in the dark to be scary, but I know there are people who didn't, but that's one of those things you either find scary or you don't. I did.
There are multiple good scenes that were NOT in the trailer, thankfully. Scenes that surprised the audience, both scary and plot wise, and that is part of what made this film for me. Another part that I REALLY enjoyed was the fact that it had a beginning, middle and end. Now, that may sound weird, but so many horror films now start off OK, make it to the middle where things start to level off, and by the end it is like the director/writer didn't know what to do so it just sort of ends, either with no resolution, or with an ending that literally makes no sense and gives no understanding of what you just watched. Sure, horror movies almost always have plot holes, or confusing bits, but the lack of being able to write a proper story to go with what is in your head is a travesty of many a new horror movie.
I want to bring up two things before I wrap this up. One, right as I was getting ready to run out to see this, I was checking showtimes and there were some reviews posted on the right of the computer screen. The reviews were pretty bad, and had I been on the fence about this I would not have seen it. On top of that, complaints about the fact that it was PG-13 were there, which I didn't even realize was the rating before I was leaving. One review said that the movie was practically family friendly. Now, I do not like to give away too much in the way of plot points, but I can assure you, regardless of how many deaths, how much blood and gore, and what was visible on the screen, the themes in this movie are pretty damned dark and depressing and any child with a slightly sensitive nature would be wrecked by this movie. I am sure many a fucked up teen was scared shitless by this movie, so maybe for some this is just a walk in the park, but for many this movie would follow someone for life. That is not a criticism at all, except to criticize the person who said this was practically good for the whole family.
My last point has almost nothing to do with this movie, but the movie business in general. Here is a horror movie, that was made for 5 million dollars, based on a 3 minute short, with no stars in it and a first time director. It has now made 50 million dollars within a couple weeks. I walked out of the movie at the end thinking this was a good, solid movie, almost very good, and I would like to see another installment of it. I walked across the hall, and then caught the Thursday preview screening of Suicide Squad, a movie that was hyped beyond belief, and cost 175 million dollars, not counting a marketing campaign which probably cost more than the movie itself. When I left the theater after that, I also felt it was a good movie, but not very good or great, which is what I would expect from 175 million dollars. The insanity of the big name stars, the expensive sets, the costly popular songs, and the need for a movie to break a billion dollars to be considered a success is both disgusting and annoying. I get the difference in genres, costs, expectations, but there is no reason for Will Smith to be in this movie commanding a ridiculous salary. When Robert Downey Jr. was in the first Iron Man, he didn't get the job because he was a superstar. He BECAME a superstar who deserves a ridiculous salary to be Iron Man now, because he made that character who he is. He was a known actor who might not have been an unknown, but he was not a household name like Will Smith. I feel way better seeing a movie like Lights Out which at the very least is somewhat of an original idea, with newer and less known actors, than watching overblown movies with overpaid salaries and actors who we all know. Marvel built that franchise from the ground up, while DC is trying to buy their way in with Ben Affleck and Will Smith. Rant over. (I may have to add this rant to my Suicide Squad review).
All in all, Lights Out was a pleasant and much needed surprise for me, especially when it comes to horror movies. I am very glad I caught this before it left the theaters.
7 out of 10 stars.
Location : United Artists Kaufman Astoria 14, theater 9, Queens, NYC
Date and time : Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 9 PM
Format : DCP
Audience : 30-40 people, many of them scared and/or screaming, a few laughs, people seemed to really enjoy it. Amazingly very few cell phone users, for such a young crowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)