Saturday, June 28, 2008
Watching The Lost the other week got me to thinking about I Know Who Killed Me and how even though it was kinda terrible, I also kinda really liked it a lot. So Shenan ended up picking us up a copy, and I figure it will get repeat viewings in the future.
I mean, I understand logically that this is a poorly written movie with a ludicrous story, filled with bad acting and an overbearing visual style. But the combination of these elements creates some weird, fascinating new beast. It's like if Brian DePalma tried to make an episode of Unsolved Mysteries crossed with a slasher movie, while on shrooms. It's a failure at being a serious movie, it's a fiasco, but it's not exactly a camp classic either, it's something new. All the things that don't work about it help create this weirdass, anti-logical fever dream. it's just so peculiar at times, but not in some surreal David Lynch way, more like it doesn't realize just how bizarre it is.
I think I said this before, but count me in if this Chris Sivertson fellow ever makes another movie. I'm not sure what it is, but he's got something. You have to have real talent and vision to make a movie like The Lost, which is a well made and ambitious horror movie/character study that suffers from being a little overstuffed with characters and style, and real talent and vision to make a movie like I Know Who Killed Me, which is a unique, incredibly watchable half-disaster. One day he'll hopefully make a movie that I will enjoy with no reservations, but if not I'm pretty confident that he'll continue to make movies that are worth seeing.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Once I found out that Robert Mitchum starred in a John Huston movie, I couldn't resist and immediately put it on my queue. But I had been watching an unbalanced number of Huston movies at that time, and didn't feel that was in the spirit of my K2K, so I held off.
It's similar in its broad outlines to Huston's The African Queen (religious woman and uncivilized man go on WW2 adventure together), so to a certain degree it was probably trying to cash in on the success of that film. Still, Huston changes up things enough so that it doesn't feel like a rehash, and explores some very different themes. This is less of a comedy and more of a drama, and this time around the woman is a nun, making the burgeoning attraction between the man and the woman a lot more awkward. And that leads to a touch not often seen in these kinds of movies, but one that I always appreciate, where the two characters decide not to shack up. It's refreshing to see a movie where they don't contrive to kept the boy and the girl together in the end.
Once I found out that Robert Mitchum starred in a John Huston movie, I couldn't resist and immediately put it on my queue. But I had been watching an unbalanced number of Huston movies at that time, and didn't feel that was in the spirit of my K2K, so I held off.
It's similar in its broad outlines to Huston's The African Queen (religious woman and uncivilized man go on WW2 adventure together), so to a certain degree it was probably trying to cash in on the success of that film. Still, Huston changes up things enough so that it doesn't feel like a rehash, and explores some very different themes. This is less of a comedy and more of a drama, and this time around the woman is a nun, making the burgeoning attraction between the man and the woman a lot more awkward. And that leads to a touch not often seen in these kinds of movies, but one that I always appreciate, where the two characters decide not to shack up. It's refreshing to see a movie where they don't contrive to kept the boy and the girl together in the end.
Wall-E
Saturday, June 28, 2008
I didn't expect this to be such a scathing criticism of American culture and politics. I mean that as a compliment. It's kind of ballsy for a kids' movie. America is satirized as basically becoming one giant Wal-Mart, and Fred Willard shows up as, essentially, a Bush surrogate. They even have him say "stay the course."
Of course, kids won't get any of this, I'm sure it's more aimed at the parents. But damn. Good job.
I didn't expect this to be such a scathing criticism of American culture and politics. I mean that as a compliment. It's kind of ballsy for a kids' movie. America is satirized as basically becoming one giant Wal-Mart, and Fred Willard shows up as, essentially, a Bush surrogate. They even have him say "stay the course."
Of course, kids won't get any of this, I'm sure it's more aimed at the parents. But damn. Good job.
Shallow Grave
Friday, June 27, 2008
Between 28 Days Later, Millions, Trainspotting and Sunshine, I've become a fan of Danny Boyle. This is his first film, which I've been meaning to see for a long time. It's a decent dark comedy thriller, kinda forgettable, but with some good scenes. Boyle likes to blend genres, but it doesn't really work here, and I think it creates an inconsistency of tone and some structural issues.
Between 28 Days Later, Millions, Trainspotting and Sunshine, I've become a fan of Danny Boyle. This is his first film, which I've been meaning to see for a long time. It's a decent dark comedy thriller, kinda forgettable, but with some good scenes. Boyle likes to blend genres, but it doesn't really work here, and I think it creates an inconsistency of tone and some structural issues.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Inside
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I had been excited for this for a long time. It had been on my Netflix queue since it came out, and I was waiting for it to stop being a "long wait." All the reviews I had read were positive, some even gushing. Netflix gave it a very high recommendation. It's French, and those guys have been doing good stuff with the genre recently. Home invasion themed horror movies seem to be having a renaissance lately, with The Strangers and Them, and I am all for the return of that particular sub-genre. Inside even has a great, original hook: the victim is pregnant, and the intruder is a crazy lady who wants to steal her baby. That's some fucked up shit. I was primed.
This is very likely going to be my biggest disappointment of '08, at least in terms of horror movies. This sucked. Hard. I could leave it at that, but since I care about the genre so much, I'll try to dissect things a little more.
There were probably 3 ways this movie could have gone. It could have been a slower, moodier, "something in the dark is trying to get me" film. It could have gone for a gut-punch disturbing vibe. Or it could have been a crazy, no-holds barred, over-the-top gorefest. My guess is that they were going for the first 2, and ended up with some failed combination of all three.
It starts off slower, trying to build tension, but for me it just didn't work. This is difficult to criticize, because you can't always put your finger on it, but it wasn't working. Sometimes, you see a movie where a person walks around an empty house while something lurks in the shadows and eerie mood music plays, and it's suspenseful. Here, it was not. They try all the tricks.... long shots, people hiding in shadows, ambient noise. Just last month, The Strangers used these same ideas to good effect. This time, something about it doesn't work. They don't hit the right tone, or find the right look. I suspect it might have been shot on digital, because something seemed off. They tried to make it dark and moody, but instead it looked kinda flat and fuzzy.
This is the most violent horror movie I've seen in a long time. A lot of shit goes down here, and it's pretty over-the-top. Problem is, I think the filmmakers are aiming for disturbing violence, and instead it all comes off as ridiculous. I mean, you just can't take all these arterial sprays and exploding heads and vicious stabbings seriously, they are simply too flamboyant to believe. So then, hey, I love gore, maybe it could be some fun excess, except that the tone of the movie is too serious. So it's not disturbing and it's not absurdly fun... what is it? Maybe just gorenography? I tend to defend violent horror movies against charges of being torture porn, but since the violence here is not scary, disturbing or funny, I can only see it appealing to the kind of people who get off on violence.
I was expecting more of a one-on-one scenario, with a battle of wits between the two women, but the movie kinda becomes more of a slasher film. And this is where the movie starts becoming (unintentionally, I suspect) ridiculous. The body count is way higher than I would have imagined. A whole host of people start wandering into the house for one reason or another, and the killer wipes them out in various gruesome fashions. The victims include three cops, and in a film that strains all plausibility, I found it especially hard to take that some middle aged woman with a pair of scissors could pull this off. (I shouldn't go too far down this path, though. There's so many plot holes and implausibilities in Inside that I could give them their own post). The bodies stack up so high, and the story becomes so ludicrous, that any sense of realism is gone. Especially the part where the killer shoots one of the cops in the head with a stun gun (or something?) and then he wakes up later and goes batshit crazy and attacks the pregnant lady with his baton, like he somehow turned into one of George Romero's Crazies or a 28 Days Later or a The Signal or something.
I will say this: it gets so ridiculous by the end that I did kind of enjoy the last 10 minutes or so, at least as camp. And the final image, while not really earned in the dramatic/emotional sense, is cool. It's a woman with a burned off face, sitting in a rocking chair in darkened room, cradling a baby. That's some nightmarish shit.
But this ain't a positive assessment, so I ain't ending things on a positive note. Perhaps my biggest complaint with Inside is the blandness of the killer. And that's just nuts, because this should be a great character. There's so much potential to create a memorable villain, a woman intent on cutting out another woman's baby and stealing it, and really go to some dark psychological places. Have some intense back and forth with the victim. But instead the killer is blah, and spends most of the time grunting or yelling in anger, and not showing much personality. And she doesn't look creepy, just ugly. She's not scary so much as she is kind of annoying.
So, there it is. This had potential to be one of the best, most disturbing horror movies in a long time, and instead it's probably the worst I've seen this year. What a fuckin' shame.
I had been excited for this for a long time. It had been on my Netflix queue since it came out, and I was waiting for it to stop being a "long wait." All the reviews I had read were positive, some even gushing. Netflix gave it a very high recommendation. It's French, and those guys have been doing good stuff with the genre recently. Home invasion themed horror movies seem to be having a renaissance lately, with The Strangers and Them, and I am all for the return of that particular sub-genre. Inside even has a great, original hook: the victim is pregnant, and the intruder is a crazy lady who wants to steal her baby. That's some fucked up shit. I was primed.
This is very likely going to be my biggest disappointment of '08, at least in terms of horror movies. This sucked. Hard. I could leave it at that, but since I care about the genre so much, I'll try to dissect things a little more.
There were probably 3 ways this movie could have gone. It could have been a slower, moodier, "something in the dark is trying to get me" film. It could have gone for a gut-punch disturbing vibe. Or it could have been a crazy, no-holds barred, over-the-top gorefest. My guess is that they were going for the first 2, and ended up with some failed combination of all three.
It starts off slower, trying to build tension, but for me it just didn't work. This is difficult to criticize, because you can't always put your finger on it, but it wasn't working. Sometimes, you see a movie where a person walks around an empty house while something lurks in the shadows and eerie mood music plays, and it's suspenseful. Here, it was not. They try all the tricks.... long shots, people hiding in shadows, ambient noise. Just last month, The Strangers used these same ideas to good effect. This time, something about it doesn't work. They don't hit the right tone, or find the right look. I suspect it might have been shot on digital, because something seemed off. They tried to make it dark and moody, but instead it looked kinda flat and fuzzy.
This is the most violent horror movie I've seen in a long time. A lot of shit goes down here, and it's pretty over-the-top. Problem is, I think the filmmakers are aiming for disturbing violence, and instead it all comes off as ridiculous. I mean, you just can't take all these arterial sprays and exploding heads and vicious stabbings seriously, they are simply too flamboyant to believe. So then, hey, I love gore, maybe it could be some fun excess, except that the tone of the movie is too serious. So it's not disturbing and it's not absurdly fun... what is it? Maybe just gorenography? I tend to defend violent horror movies against charges of being torture porn, but since the violence here is not scary, disturbing or funny, I can only see it appealing to the kind of people who get off on violence.
I was expecting more of a one-on-one scenario, with a battle of wits between the two women, but the movie kinda becomes more of a slasher film. And this is where the movie starts becoming (unintentionally, I suspect) ridiculous. The body count is way higher than I would have imagined. A whole host of people start wandering into the house for one reason or another, and the killer wipes them out in various gruesome fashions. The victims include three cops, and in a film that strains all plausibility, I found it especially hard to take that some middle aged woman with a pair of scissors could pull this off. (I shouldn't go too far down this path, though. There's so many plot holes and implausibilities in Inside that I could give them their own post). The bodies stack up so high, and the story becomes so ludicrous, that any sense of realism is gone. Especially the part where the killer shoots one of the cops in the head with a stun gun (or something?) and then he wakes up later and goes batshit crazy and attacks the pregnant lady with his baton, like he somehow turned into one of George Romero's Crazies or a 28 Days Later or a The Signal or something.
I will say this: it gets so ridiculous by the end that I did kind of enjoy the last 10 minutes or so, at least as camp. And the final image, while not really earned in the dramatic/emotional sense, is cool. It's a woman with a burned off face, sitting in a rocking chair in darkened room, cradling a baby. That's some nightmarish shit.
But this ain't a positive assessment, so I ain't ending things on a positive note. Perhaps my biggest complaint with Inside is the blandness of the killer. And that's just nuts, because this should be a great character. There's so much potential to create a memorable villain, a woman intent on cutting out another woman's baby and stealing it, and really go to some dark psychological places. Have some intense back and forth with the victim. But instead the killer is blah, and spends most of the time grunting or yelling in anger, and not showing much personality. And she doesn't look creepy, just ugly. She's not scary so much as she is kind of annoying.
So, there it is. This had potential to be one of the best, most disturbing horror movies in a long time, and instead it's probably the worst I've seen this year. What a fuckin' shame.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Lone Wolf and Cub: Baby Cart at the River Styx
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
And I thought the first one was pretty cool. Holy fuck. This is a two-fisted, super sized serving of awesomeness slammed into your face at high speeds. This one ups the ante in every way possible: it's faster paced, more stylish and, somehow, it's way more violent. There's a part where Lone Wolf (or whatever his name is, who cares) slashes a guy in the face and his whole head opens up like a clam or something. Holy fucking shit! And earlier some people are attacking LW&C, and the little baby hits a switch on his baby cart and a blade shoots out and kills one of them. Later, LW pushes the cart forward at some ninjas, and blades stick out of the wheels and cut their feet off. So even the baby is killing people this time!
Okay, I feel a little guilty raving about this ridiculous samurai movie just one day after expressing some disappointment with Samurai Rebellion, a far more complex, artistic and sophisticated film, which contained much better acting and deeper themes and, you know, visuals delicately crafted to tell a more subtle, emotional story. It's weird to call this one a great movie and Rebellion just a good one, when Lone Wolf and Cub is nothing more than a hollow exercise in style.
But, what style! Hot, sticky, unrelentingly badass style! As much as Samurai Rebellion is clearly higher art, you can't compare movies that way. It's relative to what the individual movie is aiming for. As a serious drama, Rebellion was handsomely mounted but not quite emotionally involving for me, with an ending that was supposed to be powerful and tragic, but instead felt protracted and dramatically inert. The drama in Lone Wolf and Cub 2 is worse (character development is practically nonexistent) however, it's a sterling example of a flamboyant, crazy-violent samurai action picture... probably about as good as it could possibly be.
One complaint? The lead character. He's got a great gimmick carting the baby around, but not much of a personality. Obviously he kills the shit out of a lot of people, so he's badass, but only by default. There's nothing about his non-murder behavior that makes him particularly cool. He doesn't show much emotion, but he doesn't seem stoic, just bored. He doesn't really say anything cool, except when he claims to have dedicated his life to evil, but then he goes and does something good and you know he's just lying to scare his enemies. Maybe he's kind of an asshole, but that doesn't count. Also, he seems too fat to be such a good fighter.
The character could use a little work, is all I'm saying. Maybe they'll develop him more over the course of the series.
And I thought the first one was pretty cool. Holy fuck. This is a two-fisted, super sized serving of awesomeness slammed into your face at high speeds. This one ups the ante in every way possible: it's faster paced, more stylish and, somehow, it's way more violent. There's a part where Lone Wolf (or whatever his name is, who cares) slashes a guy in the face and his whole head opens up like a clam or something. Holy fucking shit! And earlier some people are attacking LW&C, and the little baby hits a switch on his baby cart and a blade shoots out and kills one of them. Later, LW pushes the cart forward at some ninjas, and blades stick out of the wheels and cut their feet off. So even the baby is killing people this time!
Okay, I feel a little guilty raving about this ridiculous samurai movie just one day after expressing some disappointment with Samurai Rebellion, a far more complex, artistic and sophisticated film, which contained much better acting and deeper themes and, you know, visuals delicately crafted to tell a more subtle, emotional story. It's weird to call this one a great movie and Rebellion just a good one, when Lone Wolf and Cub is nothing more than a hollow exercise in style.
But, what style! Hot, sticky, unrelentingly badass style! As much as Samurai Rebellion is clearly higher art, you can't compare movies that way. It's relative to what the individual movie is aiming for. As a serious drama, Rebellion was handsomely mounted but not quite emotionally involving for me, with an ending that was supposed to be powerful and tragic, but instead felt protracted and dramatically inert. The drama in Lone Wolf and Cub 2 is worse (character development is practically nonexistent) however, it's a sterling example of a flamboyant, crazy-violent samurai action picture... probably about as good as it could possibly be.
One complaint? The lead character. He's got a great gimmick carting the baby around, but not much of a personality. Obviously he kills the shit out of a lot of people, so he's badass, but only by default. There's nothing about his non-murder behavior that makes him particularly cool. He doesn't show much emotion, but he doesn't seem stoic, just bored. He doesn't really say anything cool, except when he claims to have dedicated his life to evil, but then he goes and does something good and you know he's just lying to scare his enemies. Maybe he's kind of an asshole, but that doesn't count. Also, he seems too fat to be such a good fighter.
The character could use a little work, is all I'm saying. Maybe they'll develop him more over the course of the series.
The Enforcer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Yeah, it seems to me that the Dirty Harry movies are a lot better when they are trying to be fun, rather than trying to be serious. This one is the most overtly comic so far, and it's actually a little weird to see how far it's spun off from the original movie. This time Harry gets saddled with a feisty female partner, and of course they butt heads because Harry doesn't think a woman can do the job, but they end up forming a respect for each other, etc etc. It's a little corny, but still mostly amusing.
It's funny, I can't think of too many series where the first movie is my least favorite. I don't mean sequels that are better than the original, as that actually happens more often than people admit, but rather longer running series where the initial entry is the weakest. I felt that way about the Bourne series, but what else besides that? Dr. No isn't the best Bond movie, but it's not the worst either.
We still have Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool left to watch, so we'll see how it all tallies up.
Yeah, it seems to me that the Dirty Harry movies are a lot better when they are trying to be fun, rather than trying to be serious. This one is the most overtly comic so far, and it's actually a little weird to see how far it's spun off from the original movie. This time Harry gets saddled with a feisty female partner, and of course they butt heads because Harry doesn't think a woman can do the job, but they end up forming a respect for each other, etc etc. It's a little corny, but still mostly amusing.
It's funny, I can't think of too many series where the first movie is my least favorite. I don't mean sequels that are better than the original, as that actually happens more often than people admit, but rather longer running series where the initial entry is the weakest. I felt that way about the Bourne series, but what else besides that? Dr. No isn't the best Bond movie, but it's not the worst either.
We still have Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool left to watch, so we'll see how it all tallies up.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Samurai Rebellion
Monday, June 23, 2008
I can imagine a dude checking this movie out because of its title, expecting a badass action movie, but finding out that it's really a slow paced drama with a little action at the end. The original title of this one was Rebellion, but I believe distributors changed the title to make it sound more like an action/adventure picture. Which is a shame.
I knew what to expect. I Netflixed this one because I heard it was great, and because I'm loving Toshiro Mifune and wanted to see him in something that wasn't directed by Kurosawa. And also I'm starting to dig samurai films, and I've been watching a lot of Japanese films in general lately.
Strangely enough, I liked the slow buildup a lot more than I liked the more fast paced, action-y final 20 or 30 minutes. I sorta expected the opposite. I thought it had a fairly interesting story (sort of about the politics or governance of Japan in the Edo Period, and how certain events come in the conflict with the values of one family), some pretty b&w photography, a nice visual style (I'm a sucker for those slow zooms or pans towards a character's face as they start to boil under the surface) and good performances. But it fell apart for me when everything comes to a head at the end, especially the final scene, which dragged and didn't have much emotional impact for me.
There are some ideas I like, especially the final duel between two guys who don't particularly want to kill each other, but it all felt flat to me. The emotions don't come across... I guess I was more interested in seeing how this power structure worked than I was in the characters.
So I can give it a thumbs up overall, but I was disappointed and didn't love it like I thought I might.
Seperate thought: I'm trying to figure out what this newfound appeal of samurai movies is to me. I dig action/adventure movies, that's a given, so maybe it's just a desire to branch out in a new direction in that genre? That's probably part of it, but I think I also respect this idea of heroes with a strong moral code, following a belief system. And then, it pretty much always turns out that the system/society is fucked up, and the hero samurai has to rebel or make a stand in order to do the right thing. Or even in something like Seven Samurai, the samurai don't rebel, but the movie is ultimately a criticism of the society they live in. So there's a moral code, but also a strong message of individualism in these movies. Perhaps these messages resonate with me?
I can imagine a dude checking this movie out because of its title, expecting a badass action movie, but finding out that it's really a slow paced drama with a little action at the end. The original title of this one was Rebellion, but I believe distributors changed the title to make it sound more like an action/adventure picture. Which is a shame.
I knew what to expect. I Netflixed this one because I heard it was great, and because I'm loving Toshiro Mifune and wanted to see him in something that wasn't directed by Kurosawa. And also I'm starting to dig samurai films, and I've been watching a lot of Japanese films in general lately.
Strangely enough, I liked the slow buildup a lot more than I liked the more fast paced, action-y final 20 or 30 minutes. I sorta expected the opposite. I thought it had a fairly interesting story (sort of about the politics or governance of Japan in the Edo Period, and how certain events come in the conflict with the values of one family), some pretty b&w photography, a nice visual style (I'm a sucker for those slow zooms or pans towards a character's face as they start to boil under the surface) and good performances. But it fell apart for me when everything comes to a head at the end, especially the final scene, which dragged and didn't have much emotional impact for me.
There are some ideas I like, especially the final duel between two guys who don't particularly want to kill each other, but it all felt flat to me. The emotions don't come across... I guess I was more interested in seeing how this power structure worked than I was in the characters.
So I can give it a thumbs up overall, but I was disappointed and didn't love it like I thought I might.
Seperate thought: I'm trying to figure out what this newfound appeal of samurai movies is to me. I dig action/adventure movies, that's a given, so maybe it's just a desire to branch out in a new direction in that genre? That's probably part of it, but I think I also respect this idea of heroes with a strong moral code, following a belief system. And then, it pretty much always turns out that the system/society is fucked up, and the hero samurai has to rebel or make a stand in order to do the right thing. Or even in something like Seven Samurai, the samurai don't rebel, but the movie is ultimately a criticism of the society they live in. So there's a moral code, but also a strong message of individualism in these movies. Perhaps these messages resonate with me?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Kelly's Heroes
Sunday, June 22, 2008
I picked this up in a really cheap two-pack with The Dirty Dozen. Kinda hard to resist.
Actually, I hadn't seen this since I was a little kid, and I remembered it as being funnier. It's a big, fun, well-staged war adventure with a great cast, but as a comedy it's only intermittenly funny. That's kind of a shame, because there's a lot to like here. Instead of a comedy, it kind of comes off as a really odd, quirky war movie. I think a shift towards the serious would have helped a bit. As it stands, this is an entertaining movie that seems like it could have been a much better one.
I have no idea what the movie cost, but it looks fairly big budget. And I think it just goes to show that money doesn't help comedy. A bigger budget can help make a lot of movies better in a lot of ways, but it doesn't make a movie any funnier. This is full of tanks and shootouts and explosions and action and all sorts of big WW2 stuff, but that doesn't give any of the punchlines more zing.
So if you watch Kelly's Heroes some time soon, think of it less as a comedy and more as an adventure, and that should help. I know I won't make that mistake again.
I picked this up in a really cheap two-pack with The Dirty Dozen. Kinda hard to resist.
Actually, I hadn't seen this since I was a little kid, and I remembered it as being funnier. It's a big, fun, well-staged war adventure with a great cast, but as a comedy it's only intermittenly funny. That's kind of a shame, because there's a lot to like here. Instead of a comedy, it kind of comes off as a really odd, quirky war movie. I think a shift towards the serious would have helped a bit. As it stands, this is an entertaining movie that seems like it could have been a much better one.
I have no idea what the movie cost, but it looks fairly big budget. And I think it just goes to show that money doesn't help comedy. A bigger budget can help make a lot of movies better in a lot of ways, but it doesn't make a movie any funnier. This is full of tanks and shootouts and explosions and action and all sorts of big WW2 stuff, but that doesn't give any of the punchlines more zing.
So if you watch Kelly's Heroes some time soon, think of it less as a comedy and more as an adventure, and that should help. I know I won't make that mistake again.
Planet Terror
Saturday, June 21, 2008
This is like, what? The 3rd or 4th time this has made it on the blog since I started it 7 months ago? Yeesh. I am out of comments to make about it, except that it's a little weird that I actually paid attention to when we watched this one drunk, but not Assault On Precinct 13 which I hadn't seen in a few years, and not Purple Rain even though I had never seen it.
This is like, what? The 3rd or 4th time this has made it on the blog since I started it 7 months ago? Yeesh. I am out of comments to make about it, except that it's a little weird that I actually paid attention to when we watched this one drunk, but not Assault On Precinct 13 which I hadn't seen in a few years, and not Purple Rain even though I had never seen it.
Commando
Saturday, June 21, 2008
After Roller Boogie the night before, it was hard to resist. I just queued Showdown in Little Tokyo the other day because it's by the same director and seems to be along similar lines.
Hey, Commando. Remember when I told you I'd watch you last? I lied.
After Roller Boogie the night before, it was hard to resist. I just queued Showdown in Little Tokyo the other day because it's by the same director and seems to be along similar lines.
Hey, Commando. Remember when I told you I'd watch you last? I lied.
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle
Saturday, June 21, 2008
This was the first time I'd seen this all the way through since it was in theaters, and the first time I've seen any of it since the sequel came out. This still holds up as a really funny movie, more consistantly funny than the sequel, although way less topical and subversive. It's lacking the sequel's point of view, and is instead really just a fun time at the movies. I'm definitely on board if they ever make a Harold and Kumar Escape From Earth or Freddy vs. Jason vs. Harold vs. Kumar or whatever.
This was the first time I'd seen this all the way through since it was in theaters, and the first time I've seen any of it since the sequel came out. This still holds up as a really funny movie, more consistantly funny than the sequel, although way less topical and subversive. It's lacking the sequel's point of view, and is instead really just a fun time at the movies. I'm definitely on board if they ever make a Harold and Kumar Escape From Earth or Freddy vs. Jason vs. Harold vs. Kumar or whatever.
Roller Boogie
Friday, June 20, 2008
This came on TCM Undetground at like 3 or 4 in the morning, and Patrick and I couldn't stop watching. I feel like we must have watched something else on Friday, but nothing is coming to mind.
This is a good bad movie that may secretly be kinda actually good. I mean, it's terrible, but so profoundly silly and sometimes very entertaining, that you figure the fun might not be an accident. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the case, since it was directed by the fellow who made Class of 1984 and Commando. Both those movies seems like below average B-movies on the surface, only upon closer inspection are a lot more fun and funny than you'd expect. Class of 1984 is probably his best overall, but Commando is such a strange and silly action picture that it will always hold a special place in my heart.
Roller Boogie has a lot of that silliness. It's a generic teen movie in most respects, except it takes place in a world where pretty much everybody roller skates all the time, and roller discos are the most popular thing ever. Linda Blair is the main character, and she's a musical genius destined for greatness, except FUCK THAT, she just wants to roller boogie. And she falls in love with a roller boogier from the wrong side of the tracks, and her parents disapprove, and then the owner of the local roller disco has to close the place down, so all the kids need to figure out how to save his business... etc.
A lot of the skating scenes are infectiously goofy fun, with all the cheesy music and disco lights and shit, and all sorts of silly shots of people doing crazy skating tricks and jumping over the camera and whatnot. A lot of the laughs come from the corny acting and writing and music and roller-boogie-ing, although they throw in some unexpected satire here and there that's kinda funny. Yeah, I kinda enjoyed this movie. It's a good bad movie that's maybe not as bad as it seems.
This came on TCM Undetground at like 3 or 4 in the morning, and Patrick and I couldn't stop watching. I feel like we must have watched something else on Friday, but nothing is coming to mind.
This is a good bad movie that may secretly be kinda actually good. I mean, it's terrible, but so profoundly silly and sometimes very entertaining, that you figure the fun might not be an accident. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the case, since it was directed by the fellow who made Class of 1984 and Commando. Both those movies seems like below average B-movies on the surface, only upon closer inspection are a lot more fun and funny than you'd expect. Class of 1984 is probably his best overall, but Commando is such a strange and silly action picture that it will always hold a special place in my heart.
Roller Boogie has a lot of that silliness. It's a generic teen movie in most respects, except it takes place in a world where pretty much everybody roller skates all the time, and roller discos are the most popular thing ever. Linda Blair is the main character, and she's a musical genius destined for greatness, except FUCK THAT, she just wants to roller boogie. And she falls in love with a roller boogier from the wrong side of the tracks, and her parents disapprove, and then the owner of the local roller disco has to close the place down, so all the kids need to figure out how to save his business... etc.
A lot of the skating scenes are infectiously goofy fun, with all the cheesy music and disco lights and shit, and all sorts of silly shots of people doing crazy skating tricks and jumping over the camera and whatnot. A lot of the laughs come from the corny acting and writing and music and roller-boogie-ing, although they throw in some unexpected satire here and there that's kinda funny. Yeah, I kinda enjoyed this movie. It's a good bad movie that's maybe not as bad as it seems.
Teen Wolf
Friday, June 20, 2008
When I was a little kid, I used to rent Teen Wolf a lot. On a boring Saturday, I would watch it, rewind it, watch it again, and so on, until the day was over. I don't know why I loved the movie so damn much, but I did. I pretty much thought it was the best movie ever. It didn't take me too long to realize that the best movie ever was that other Michael J. Fox movie that came out in 1985. I guess I was close, though. Maybe I could sense that I had found the right actor and year for my favorite movie ever, but but found the wrong title. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Trivia that only I would notice: Jerry Levine plays "Stiles" in Teen Wolf. In one scene, his character wears a shirt that says "What Are You Looking At Dicknose?" Levine later when on to direct TV shows, including some episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. In one episode of said show, directed by Levine, the character Mac is wearing a shirt with the same slogan on it. WAY TO GO DAN FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON TO CARE.
When I was a little kid, I used to rent Teen Wolf a lot. On a boring Saturday, I would watch it, rewind it, watch it again, and so on, until the day was over. I don't know why I loved the movie so damn much, but I did. I pretty much thought it was the best movie ever. It didn't take me too long to realize that the best movie ever was that other Michael J. Fox movie that came out in 1985. I guess I was close, though. Maybe I could sense that I had found the right actor and year for my favorite movie ever, but but found the wrong title. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Trivia that only I would notice: Jerry Levine plays "Stiles" in Teen Wolf. In one scene, his character wears a shirt that says "What Are You Looking At Dicknose?" Levine later when on to direct TV shows, including some episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. In one episode of said show, directed by Levine, the character Mac is wearing a shirt with the same slogan on it. WAY TO GO DAN FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON TO CARE.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Friday, June 20, 2008
The best of the Mariachi movies, and also perhaps contains my favorite Johnny Depp performance? Antonio Banderas is ostensibly the lead, but he shares screen time with so many other characters that it doesn't feel that way. And then Depp comes along and walks away with the whole movie. I'm on board if they do a fourth one.
The best of the Mariachi movies, and also perhaps contains my favorite Johnny Depp performance? Antonio Banderas is ostensibly the lead, but he shares screen time with so many other characters that it doesn't feel that way. And then Depp comes along and walks away with the whole movie. I'm on board if they do a fourth one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)