First published in 1818, the novel "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" was marvel of a horror novel. The novel was originally published anonymously, but more remarkably the true author was Mary Shelley, who was only 18 when she first began writing it, and published it when she was 19. The novel itself is a great book, and unusual in that it is almost entirely in the first person. The story begins with a ship which is stranded in the Arctic that finds Victor Frankenstein in poor health. He recites his life story of growing up and creating the monster that went on to destroy his whole family, including his wife Elizabeth. He vowed to hunt the monster at whatever cost and until his last breath. He ends up dying just before the monster breaks into the ship's cabin. Upon learning that his creator had died, he throws himself from the ship to perish in the ice. A dark novel that ends darkly and is creepy and full of horror. Perfect for Hollywood.
"Frankenstein" - 1931
Following the success of "Dracula", Universal chose to adapt another classic horror novel - Frankenstein. This film has Boris Karloff as the monster, and Colin Clive and Frankenstein. This movie really does not follow the novel at all, but it is unique and an intriguing film. The makeup and acting of Karloff are great. Dwight Frye appears in this movie as Fritz, the assistant to Frankenstein, who was not in the book at all. One switch is Frankenstein and his friend's names: in the movie, they are Henry Frankenstein and Victor Moritz; but in the book, they were Victor Frankenstein and Henry Clerval. The story from the book is all but abandoned.
The movie begins with Frankenstein and Fritz digging up bodies and cutting down hung bodies, and family members and friends worrying about Frankenstein working too much, and really, it takes awhile before you understand that Frankenstein is so wrapped up in his work to create life from death that he is losing his sanity. Friends ask his old professor Dr. Waldman (played by Edward van Sloan, Van Helsing from Dracula) to figure out what he is doing. Although Waldman disagrees with what Frankenstein is doing, he doesn't stop him either. Then follows the classic scene where he awakens the monster, and he shouts the famous "It's alive!", but then follows with a line that was originally censored out for many years "In the name of God, now I know what it feels like to be God!" Soon, Frankenstein realizes that a criminal brain was used for the monster, and he considers it a failure, which is accentuated when the monster kills Fritz. Frankenstein leaves Waldman in the castle where he's been experimenting so he can get married to Elizabeth. Waldman doesn't show up at the wedding because the monster killed him and escaped. The monster finds a little girl who isn't afraid of him and there is again a classic scene where he throws the girl in the pond. The father brings the girl into town where they go searching for the monster that killed her (although it's not clear how they know it was murder, or who killed her). The monster shows up at the wedding and attacks Elizabeth, but has to flee before he kills her. The town bands together to find the monster. When looking for the monster, Frankenstein is abducted by the monster and taken to a windmill, where he is thrown off. The windmill is burned, and presumably so is the monster. The movie ends happily, with Frankenstein recuperating, and everyone happy... a major departure from the novel.
One interesting fact about this movie was that Bela Lugosi screen tested for the part of the monster on the set of Dracula, and supposedly dressed up in full makeup. However, this footage has been lost and all that remains is a poster. Overall, this isn't a bad classic movie.
"Bride of Frankenstein" - 1935
Inevitably, the call for a sequel went out. Director James Whale wanted nothing to do with making a sequel to his original Frankenstein, but when Universal gave him complete artistic freedom, he agreed. Many people consider "Bride of Frankenstein" to be the best sequel in the original Universal Horror subgenre, and many even call it superior to the original. Watch it and see for yourself. Karloff returns as the monster, Clive returns as Frankenstein, and Fry returns as a different character.
This movie begins with Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron discussing the novel Shelley had written, and while their discussions go, you learn that it was a contest between them that inspired her to write the dark tale (and you also see a synopsis of the original). She reveals that the story did not end. Frankenstein has given up his ways of trying to create life from death and is instead now just trying to enjoy life. The monster on the other hand, who had survived the fire, spends his time trying to make friends. He spends time with an old hermit in the woods and his granddaughter. The hermit teaches the monster to speak, which is unique. And for a short period, he is happy, until the rest of the family returns home, and drives the monster away. Also thrown in the mix is Dr. Pretorius, who is the stereotypical mad scientist. Pretorius takes the monster in and tries to force Frankenstein into making a mate for the monster. Frankenstein chooses not to, but then changes his mind when his wife Elizabeth is abducted. The film climaxes when the bride is awakened. She has the now classic hair that stands up with the white shock through it. She is afraid of the monster, the monster seeks revenge. Frankenstein escapes with Elizabeth, but the monster attacks Pretorius. The castle blows up, burying the monster and taking Pretorius with it.
The original novel had the monster ask for a mate from Frankenstein, and Frankenstein agrees, then changes his mind and destroys his second creation before it is finished. This causes the monster to go after the rest of Frankenstein's family. Also, Elsa Lanchester who playes as Mary Shelley in the opening scene also plays as the Bride, but the credits give her no credit for the latter. The credits simply say the bride was played by "?"
"Son of Frankenstein" - 1939
Once again, a sequel had to come out. But this one breaks from the previous two in several ways. Pretorius is not mentioned, and the monster has no speech ever again. Although references are made to the first movie, and short scenes had been lifted for exposition purposes. Karloff returned as the monster, but gone was Clive and Frye. Making his appearance as Frankenstein's son was Basil Rathbone. Making his first appearance in a Frankenstein movie was Bela Lugosi who played as Ygor, a crooked, broken-necked blacksmith. This is actually a very good movie, sequel or not, and is the only Frankenstein movie of a normal length (this one being over 100 minutes).
The movie follows Wolf von Frankenstein and his family returning to the town of Frankenstein to claim his inheritance from his father. It is now the modern 1930's with cars. The town is slow to accept him because of his family's history. He becomes friends with Krogh the head inspector who has a fake arm because the monster had ripped it off when he was a child. While exploring his father's laboratory, he finds Ygor hiding inside. He explains that the village tried to hang him and failed, so now he is all crooked. He also shows Wolf what is hiding in the basement: the tombs of his father and grandfather, as well as the monster, who is now in a coma. He asks Wolf to revive "his friend". Wolf, who is torn between destroying the monster and resurrecting it for science, ultimately decides to resurrect the monster. After his attempt failed, Wolf leaves to ponder what to do next. But soon, villagers begin to turn up missing, and soon all the men who had sentenced Ygor to death have all been killed. The villagers blame Wolf, and they band together to storm the estate. Krogh doesn't believe that his friend had nothing to do with the monster, and remains inside the estate to get the truth from him. Finally, Wolf chooses to banish Ygor from the estate, and in the process shoots him. The monster chooses to get revenge for his friend's death by kidnapping Wolf's son. Wolf and Krogh (unaware or each other) hunt the monster back to the laboratory, where Wolf is able to send the monster into a steaming pond of sulfur. The movie ends with Frankenstein and his family leaving the town and leaving the deed with the townsfolk.
Originally, Peter Lorre and Claude Rains were to play as Wolf. Also, the town in which the developments take place is called Frankenstein, but in the previous two movies, it is called Goldstadt. Another interesting fact was that most of the script was unprepared until shortly before shooting scenes, which kept Bela Lugosi working. Ygor's character wasn't in the original script, and the rewrites that continued keep making Lugosi's character larger and larger, and some consider Ygor his best role.
"Ghost of Frankenstein" - 1942
Three years later came yet another sequel, which is for all intents and purposes not as good as the previous three. Karloff leaves the role of the monster, and in to fill it is oddly enough Lon Chaney (yes, the WolfMan!). Back again is Ygor, played by Bela Lugosi, who apparently didn't die in the previous movie. It is revealed that apparently Ygor has nearly superhuman strength and can't be killed by ordinary means.
This movie begins with Ygor finding his friend, the monster, and leading him to Ludwig Frankenstein, brother of Wolf from the previous movie. Ludwig, as a pure scientist, decides that the problem with the monster is the brain. He figures if he can put a pure mind in the monster, then the monster will be a good person. The monster kills one his doctors, so Ludwig plans to place his brain in the monster. Ygor implores Ludwig to put his brain in the monster's body, but Ludwig is strongly opposed to this. Ygor convinces the other doctor (Dr. Bohmer) that if Ygor's brain is put in the monster, then Bohmer will get all he wants from the medical profession. Unbeknownst to Ludwig, Bohmer follows through with Ygor's wishes. The brain is put in the monster, and when the monster awakes, he has the voice and characteristics of Ygor (which is slightly disturbing, but only in the sense that it seems rather comical). The towns people storm the house/laboratory to kill the monster that has been secretly creating havoc throughout the movie. Gas is released in the halls, and fire is set to the building. The monster, with Ygor's brain inside, is lost in the blaze as well as Ludwig.
Overall, this is not a very strong movie. Chaney's monster was in my opinion weak. His acting is what we now think of as the typical monster, arms out and staggering. No personality at all.
"House of Frankenstein" - 1944
The sequels kept coming, but the public's interest was fading. In order to keep the interest alive, crossover movies began to come out. These crossovers had multiple monsters in them. This was the second of three. It features the monster, Dracula, the Wolf Man, and of course the mad doctor and hunchback. It features John Carradine as Dracula, Boris Karloff as the Dr. Niemann, Glen Strange as the monster, Lon Chaney as the Wolf Man, and a short cameo by George Zucco as Lampini. For certain, this was a B movie, but had some interesting moments.
This movie is about a mad doctor (Dr. Niemann) and his assistant (a hunchback) who escape a prison and decide to get revenge against those who have harmed him. his plan is to take on the role of being Lampini, by killing the real Lampini and pretending to be him. Along the way, they discover they had Dracula with them, so Niemann sets Dracula free to do his bidding. Dracula does for a short time, but is soon destroyed by the sunlight. Niemann and the hunchback continue their journey. They find a gypsy girl that the hunchback falls for, but she isn't quite so interested in him. They soon find the monster and the Wolf Man enclosed in ice, so they melt them and take them to his old laboratory. Niemann promises to operate on Talbot and put his brain in someone else to cleanse him of the Wolf Man syndrome. Talbot's impatience grows, and as it does, his interest in the gypsy girl increases, much to the chagrin of the hunchback. The hunchback takes his frustrations out on the monster because he feels the whole problem is from him. The Wolf Man awakens and goes on a rampage and attacks the gypsy girl, who soon shoots him with the silver bullet. The monster awakens and takes his aggression out on the hunchback. Again the villagers storm the laboratory of Niemann. They are chasing the monster who takes Niemann with him into the swamp. Niemann pleads with the monster not to go the way he does, and they both end up sinking in quicksand.
Once again, not a particularly good movie, and even stranger that this movie is like two in one: the first being Niemann taking over Lampini's role and using Dracula, and the second being when he finds the monster and the Wolf Man and taking out his revenge. This movie references the first crossover movie "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" from the previous year, which I'd recommend seeing before this one. From what I've read, Kharis the mummy was to appear in this movie as well, but was cut due to budget restraints. Lugosi was to reprise his role as Dracula, but because of a delay in schedule, he could not take on the role. Oddly enough, because of the delay, Lugosi took a role in the play of "Arsenic and Old Lace" that was previously held by Boris Karloff. A story I read about the shooting of this movie was that Strange had a tough time in the role of the monster: the makeup was painful and at times he had to stand in the cold mud (for the climax of the movie) for hours while the crew argued over the placement of the cameras. Chaney suggested he have some alcohol to keep warm. All day Chaney would pass a whiskey bottle to Strange, and at the end of the day, Strange admits he could barely dress himself he was so drunk.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Universal Horror - Creature from the Black Lagoon
People have always been afraid of what they don't know. For example, fear of the dark is a major fear because of the unknown of what might be lurking in it. Fear of the water is an old phobia probably reached its pinnacle with another Universal movie from 1975 - Jaws. But in 1950's, monster movies about radiation and man's meddling in unnatural science was all the rage. Creature from the Black Lagoon presented an escape from man's flaws and showed a misunderstood creature and the story of trying to understand him. This series was the last of the classic Universal horror movies, and it also featured the shortest number of sequels for the classic horror movies.
"Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954)
This movie is certainly a classic, with one of the most recognizable monster makeups ever made. The marketing alone for the Creature is off the charts, making this movie a cash cow for everyone involved. Also, the underwater shots are amazing! They give a surreal feel to the movie. The best scene to me is the one with Julie Adams swimming, and the Creature is swimming just below her - naturally, she has no idea. A great element of this movie is the introduction of the Creature: he is introduced slowly. First, you see his claws and hand. Then you see part of his body. Then you see all of him. You see what he's capable of before you see what he looks like. A trend ahead of its time.
The movie begins as a group of archeologists uncover a fossil of a hand in limestone on the edge of a tributary of the Amazon River. The main doctor leaves to get help in excavating the rest of the fossil. He returns with more doctors and the beautiful Kay, but they find the camp destroyed and the hired help killed. Assuming wild animals, the scientists go to work and discover the rest of the limestone had crumbled into the tributary and been washed into the Black Lagoon. They ship into the Black Lagoon, where they soon find out that not only is the fossil in the lagoon, but so is a very alive one. The Creature takes out some of the men, one at a time. The scientists want proof the Creature is alive, but when the stakes become too high, they decide it's safer to escape with their lives. The problem arises when they try to leave and the Creature has blocked the exit into the tributary. They eventually free themselves, but the Creature steals Kay. The men rescue her and shoot the monster several times. The Creature falls to the bottom of the lagoon, apparently dead, and the scientists leave.
The Creature was known as Gill Man because of his gills on the side of his head, part of the reason he is so recognizable. Two men played as the Gill Man: one for the underwater sequences, and one for the land sequences. Both men are not the same height, but you wouldn't know it by watching the movie. Creature from the Black Lagoon was shown in 3D when it came out, but that required two reels running at the same time, which they usually weren't. Most of the theater employees didn't know or care, so if the 3D wasn't running in sync, then the image would be all screwed up. One of the reasons 3D fell out of favor in the 1950's.
"Revenge of the Creature" (1955)
The inevitable sequel came out just the following year. This one took a dramatic turn than many of the Universal horror sequels. The typical sequel would've had another group of scientists come, get attacked and one by one die, and then barely make it out alive after maybe killing the Creature. But this one took a radical departure from the normal and instead took a modern approach.
The captain of the boat that survived the first movie takes a new group of scientists into the Black Lagoon, but this time their goal is to capture the Creature, which they do. They bring him back to Florida to be studied. Clete and Helen study the Creature, who is put on display in a large tank and chained to the floor for the safety of the researchers. They begin putting the Creature through tests that border on torture. The Creature begins to obviously take a liking to Helen and struggles to escape. When he finally does, he wreaks havoc and escapes into the ocean. A search ensues but turns up nothing. With the coast on high alert, Clete and Helen try to live their lives like normal. The Creature finally shows up at a party and abducts Helen. Clete and the police go on high alert and pursue the Creature until they find him on a beach and shoot him repeatedly. Once again, he appears to die, falling to the bottom of the water.
This movie made an extraordinary switch in horror movies: sympathy for the Creature. One feels sorry for the Creature in this movie because of the cruel experiments he is subjected to, but at the same time, they are appalled at his abduction of Helen. One unusual element is that since the creature comes from deep in the Amazon, he is a fresh water creature, but they put him in a salt water tank with sharks and barracuda. Also, the Creature kills a college student by throwing him into a tree, but the strings clearly show. But one fascinating bit is an uncredited appearance by Clint Eastwood as a science tech early in the movie. The makeup itself had changed a little for Gill Man; weaker than the first, in my opinion.
"The Creature Walks Among Us" (1956)
The last of the Gill Man movies came out the very next year, and ended what could easily be called a trilogy. Each movie picks up where the previous one left off. Many have their feelings about these movies: some say the first is the best, others say the second is a great sequel, but not many will give high praise to the final in the Creature chronicles. It is actually, in my opinion, very highly underrated. It isn't all about scare or about violence, it's more about philosophy and man vs. nature vs. science, and it's more about questioning the nature of the Creature.
This movie is about a group of scientists once again trying to find the Creature in the everglades of Florida. They finally do, but the Creature is burned very badly in the process. The scientists take him in and bandage him, trying to heal his wounds. In the process, they find that he has lungs, and the allow them to breathe since his gills have been burned off. Most of his scale structure had been burned as well, and what is left is much more human than before. They clothe him and take care of him. He lashes out one night and escapes into the water, but with his new lungs, he begins to drown. He is rescued by the scientists and transported to a private residence where he is placed in a large cage with some sheep. He is surprisingly non-violent, and discussions arise on whether he is only violent to protect himself or because he sees it. One day a mountain lion enters the cage to get the sheep, but the Creature kills it. Debate begins one whether he killed it because he wanted to kill, or because it was self-defense. One of the scientists is obsessed with his wife, thinking she's always cheating on him. He accidentally murders a man he thinks is having an affair with his wife, and he tries to conceal the murder by placing the body in the cage with the Creature. The Creature, who saw the whole thing, breaks out of his cage, and goes on a rampage through the house looking for the man who tried to frame him. When he comes to the scientist who'd helped him earlier and the wife, the Creature leaves them alone and instead pursues the one that framed him. After killing him, the Creature leaves the estate, only killing one more man who tried to attack him. He reaches the sea, and begins walking toward it. You the audience knows that he will drown when he gets too it, because he no longer has gills.
There is much more subtext in this movie than any of the other Universal horror movies, and as such, a great way to end out the classic horror movies. There is real philosophical depth to this movie, which makes it just a good movie. Once again, we are sympathetic toward the Creature, which makes for a great story. Are the people the villains? Is the Creature? Is there a villain? Problems with this movie include seeing the strings that hold up the furniture and people the Creature throws, but with the climax, one doesn't always notice them. One interesting note was that this was the only one of the three Creature movies not shown in 3D. Overall, this was a great way to finish out not only the Creature movies, but the whole classic Universal horror genre.
"Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954)
This movie is certainly a classic, with one of the most recognizable monster makeups ever made. The marketing alone for the Creature is off the charts, making this movie a cash cow for everyone involved. Also, the underwater shots are amazing! They give a surreal feel to the movie. The best scene to me is the one with Julie Adams swimming, and the Creature is swimming just below her - naturally, she has no idea. A great element of this movie is the introduction of the Creature: he is introduced slowly. First, you see his claws and hand. Then you see part of his body. Then you see all of him. You see what he's capable of before you see what he looks like. A trend ahead of its time.
The movie begins as a group of archeologists uncover a fossil of a hand in limestone on the edge of a tributary of the Amazon River. The main doctor leaves to get help in excavating the rest of the fossil. He returns with more doctors and the beautiful Kay, but they find the camp destroyed and the hired help killed. Assuming wild animals, the scientists go to work and discover the rest of the limestone had crumbled into the tributary and been washed into the Black Lagoon. They ship into the Black Lagoon, where they soon find out that not only is the fossil in the lagoon, but so is a very alive one. The Creature takes out some of the men, one at a time. The scientists want proof the Creature is alive, but when the stakes become too high, they decide it's safer to escape with their lives. The problem arises when they try to leave and the Creature has blocked the exit into the tributary. They eventually free themselves, but the Creature steals Kay. The men rescue her and shoot the monster several times. The Creature falls to the bottom of the lagoon, apparently dead, and the scientists leave.
The Creature was known as Gill Man because of his gills on the side of his head, part of the reason he is so recognizable. Two men played as the Gill Man: one for the underwater sequences, and one for the land sequences. Both men are not the same height, but you wouldn't know it by watching the movie. Creature from the Black Lagoon was shown in 3D when it came out, but that required two reels running at the same time, which they usually weren't. Most of the theater employees didn't know or care, so if the 3D wasn't running in sync, then the image would be all screwed up. One of the reasons 3D fell out of favor in the 1950's.
"Revenge of the Creature" (1955)
The inevitable sequel came out just the following year. This one took a dramatic turn than many of the Universal horror sequels. The typical sequel would've had another group of scientists come, get attacked and one by one die, and then barely make it out alive after maybe killing the Creature. But this one took a radical departure from the normal and instead took a modern approach.
The captain of the boat that survived the first movie takes a new group of scientists into the Black Lagoon, but this time their goal is to capture the Creature, which they do. They bring him back to Florida to be studied. Clete and Helen study the Creature, who is put on display in a large tank and chained to the floor for the safety of the researchers. They begin putting the Creature through tests that border on torture. The Creature begins to obviously take a liking to Helen and struggles to escape. When he finally does, he wreaks havoc and escapes into the ocean. A search ensues but turns up nothing. With the coast on high alert, Clete and Helen try to live their lives like normal. The Creature finally shows up at a party and abducts Helen. Clete and the police go on high alert and pursue the Creature until they find him on a beach and shoot him repeatedly. Once again, he appears to die, falling to the bottom of the water.
This movie made an extraordinary switch in horror movies: sympathy for the Creature. One feels sorry for the Creature in this movie because of the cruel experiments he is subjected to, but at the same time, they are appalled at his abduction of Helen. One unusual element is that since the creature comes from deep in the Amazon, he is a fresh water creature, but they put him in a salt water tank with sharks and barracuda. Also, the Creature kills a college student by throwing him into a tree, but the strings clearly show. But one fascinating bit is an uncredited appearance by Clint Eastwood as a science tech early in the movie. The makeup itself had changed a little for Gill Man; weaker than the first, in my opinion.
"The Creature Walks Among Us" (1956)
The last of the Gill Man movies came out the very next year, and ended what could easily be called a trilogy. Each movie picks up where the previous one left off. Many have their feelings about these movies: some say the first is the best, others say the second is a great sequel, but not many will give high praise to the final in the Creature chronicles. It is actually, in my opinion, very highly underrated. It isn't all about scare or about violence, it's more about philosophy and man vs. nature vs. science, and it's more about questioning the nature of the Creature.
This movie is about a group of scientists once again trying to find the Creature in the everglades of Florida. They finally do, but the Creature is burned very badly in the process. The scientists take him in and bandage him, trying to heal his wounds. In the process, they find that he has lungs, and the allow them to breathe since his gills have been burned off. Most of his scale structure had been burned as well, and what is left is much more human than before. They clothe him and take care of him. He lashes out one night and escapes into the water, but with his new lungs, he begins to drown. He is rescued by the scientists and transported to a private residence where he is placed in a large cage with some sheep. He is surprisingly non-violent, and discussions arise on whether he is only violent to protect himself or because he sees it. One day a mountain lion enters the cage to get the sheep, but the Creature kills it. Debate begins one whether he killed it because he wanted to kill, or because it was self-defense. One of the scientists is obsessed with his wife, thinking she's always cheating on him. He accidentally murders a man he thinks is having an affair with his wife, and he tries to conceal the murder by placing the body in the cage with the Creature. The Creature, who saw the whole thing, breaks out of his cage, and goes on a rampage through the house looking for the man who tried to frame him. When he comes to the scientist who'd helped him earlier and the wife, the Creature leaves them alone and instead pursues the one that framed him. After killing him, the Creature leaves the estate, only killing one more man who tried to attack him. He reaches the sea, and begins walking toward it. You the audience knows that he will drown when he gets too it, because he no longer has gills.
There is much more subtext in this movie than any of the other Universal horror movies, and as such, a great way to end out the classic horror movies. There is real philosophical depth to this movie, which makes it just a good movie. Once again, we are sympathetic toward the Creature, which makes for a great story. Are the people the villains? Is the Creature? Is there a villain? Problems with this movie include seeing the strings that hold up the furniture and people the Creature throws, but with the climax, one doesn't always notice them. One interesting note was that this was the only one of the three Creature movies not shown in 3D. Overall, this was a great way to finish out not only the Creature movies, but the whole classic Universal horror genre.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Universal Horror - The Mummy
The 1920's were full of Egypt-mania. It became the fad of the day. New tombs and pyramids were being discovered, most famously Tutankhamen. Even theaters were being made to represent ancient Egypt. So, naturally, a movie about ancient Egypt was inevitable.
"The Mummy" (1932)
The first movie in this series stars Boris Karloff as the mummy called Imhotep (which was named after the designer of the ancient pyramids). His famous makeup has been called the most painful of his career. His screen time in this makeup was short, but very impressive. The best scene in my opinion was the scene near the beginning when he awakens.
The story begins with an expedition in 1921 with Sir Joseph Whemple, who uncovers the mummy of Imhotep. His assistant is told not to mess with the scroll that is found with him, but curiosity gets the better of him. The tampering with the scroll awakens Imhotep, and the sight of such a thing causes the assistant to go insane. Ten years later, Whemple returns with his son Frank. Imhotep is now seemingly much younger and calls himself Ardath Bay. He assists the archeologists, but only to awaken his long lost love, Princess Anck-es-en-Amon. In order to do that, he must cause Helen Grosvenor to die so he can revive her and make her a living mummy like himself.
The most interesting thing about this movie is how little Boris Karloff does. Even when he is Ardath Bay, he moves very little and very gracefully. He underacts the part, which makes this movie much creepier. Arguably this is the best of the series.
"The Mummy's Hand" (1940)
The inevitable sequel had to be made. But, this one was much different than many others. Instead of continuing the story, it chose to start over with a new mummy and new plot points. Everything introduced in this movie spilled over into the next three. Boris Karloff wisely was not in this movie. The mummy was played by Tom Tyler, but with one new addition: his eyes were made black. This was done by putting black over his eyes frame by frame to create the illusion he had no eyes. At the time, it was marvelous special effects, but cheesy if you slow it down, because you can still see his eyes. Plus his acting is far from the underacting of Boris Karloff in the previous movie.
The plot of this movie follows two down on their luck (and bummed) archeologists who come across some pottery that they believe would lead them to the tomb of Princess Ananka. Vowed to protect the tomb is the high priest, who keeps mummy Kharis alive by feeding him 3 tanna leaves every day. The high priest gives his charge up to a new high priest Andoheb, played by George Zucco. You also discover that 9 leaves will awaken Kharis and allow him to move about to cause chaos and death. The two archeologists gather financing and a crew, and soon they believe they have found the tomb of Ananka, but instead it is Kharis's. The high priest gives a 9-leaf brew to Kharis who awakens and begins killing whoever gets in his way. He kidnaps the daughter of the financier and with the high priest plans to make her the living mummy for Ananka. The high priest and Kharis are stopped. The archeologists will be bringing the tomb of Ananka to America to be put on display in a museum.
Interesting note: Kharis is burned at the end of the movie, but not a burn or scratch appears on him in the next movie. Weird, but it gets weirder that it's not explained.
Another interesting note: Due to a clerical oversight, The Mummy's Hand was never legally made available for television viewings, and remained largely unseen until Universal Studios VHS release in 1997.
"The Mummy's Tomb" (1942)
This sequel begins the first of two major jumps in time. This movie supposedly takes places 30 years after the events of "The Mummy's Hand". Time-wise, this should be the early 60's but it's still the 40's; don't you love movie logic? The two archeologists make an appearance in this movie as old men. Andoheb the high priest also makes an appearance as an old man, but this time he promotes Mehemet Bey to be the new high priest and take charge is getting revenge for desecrating the tombs of Kharis and Ananka. Also making his first appearance in the Mummy movies is Lon Chaney Jr., who plays as the Kharis. His movements are more what we think of today as the mummy slide and one arm folded up.
This movie follows Mehemet Bey and Kharis coming to America to kill the members of the archeologists family that opened the tombs in the previous movie. Kharis proceeds to kill the two archeologists and members of their family. The son of one of the archeologists becomes the main protagonist and his girlfriend becomes the new obsession of Bey and Kharis. Kharis eventually kidnaps the girlfriend and is chased by a town mob. They end up back at the archeologist's house which is set on fire by the mob. After a narrow escape by the heroes, Kharis is burned in the house.
In my opinion, this is the weakest of the sequels because the first ten minutes shamelessly uses footage from "The Mummy's Hand" to give exposition. It uses so much that it is not necessary to even watch "The Mummy's Hand". If you take the amount of exposition out of this movie, then the runtime becomes less than 50 minutes.
"The Mummy's Ghost" (1944)
Yet another sequel comes out two years later. This features once again Lon Chaney Jr. as Kharis and George Zucco as Andoheb. This is interesting in that Andoheb was shot and died at the end of "The Mummy's Hand", but he returns in the following movie saying he was only shot in the arm. Then he died of old age, but he is back again and doesn't die. Interesting in that you don't see him again. Making a good appearance in this one is John Carradine as Yousef Bey, the new high priest that is bestowed by Andoheb. This sequel is actually not bad, mostly for its tragic ending.
The story follows the new priest Yousef Bey coming to America to awaken Kharis and return Kharis and Ananka to Egypt. However, when they find Ananka's mummy, it disintegrates. They learn that her soul has been reincarnated in a young women named Amina. A white streak appears in her hair, but that is the only thing that symbolizes this. Kharis soon kidnaps Amina and brings her to Bey, who is prepared to make her into a living mummy for Kharis. But his thoughts turn on him, and he wants her for himself. He loses control of Kharis who takes Amina into the swamps. A mob is in pursuit, as well as her boyfriend. As Kharis is fleeing, Amina begins to grow old in his arms, and her hair becomes white. They escape into the swamp and vanish in the murk.
This is the only movie that allows Kharis to get his beloved Ananka, even though they are lost in the muck of the swamp. The tragic ending makes this sequel not horrible, but it's not great either.
"The Mummy's Curse" (1944)
No, that's not a typo: the last of the original Mummy came out the same year as the previous sequel. Once again Long Chaney Jr. suits up as Kharis. Once again Kharis is searching for Ananka. Once again a new high priest is in charge of Kharis. But this time, the serial of movies was out of ideas. Even though the last movie's swamp was in Massachusetts, this movie's swamp was in Louisiana - bit of a glitch. Also, it takes places 25 years after the last movie, which would make this at least supposedly the late 80's or early 90's by now, but no, it's still the 40's.
This movie follows an irrigation project that is clearing out the swamp. The superstitions of the men are fueled by the arrival of an archeologist and his partner, who are searching for Kharis and Ananka in the swamp. Kharis is awakened and is entreated to find Ananka. Ananka awakens from the muck and stumbles into the water, where she is washed and becomes young and beautiful again. She is found by the workers, but soon by Kharis too. The partner of the archeologist is the new high priest, and he has a spy working on the irrigation project. Kharis is tracked to an abandoned temple, where the priest and his assistant are killed, and taking with them the secret of the leaves that gives Kharis power. Ananka is back to being a mummy, and Kharis will be retrieved. Both of which are going to be sent back to the museum.
The stereotyping of the black actors in this movie are the norm for 40's movies, but it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth when you watch.
And thus ends the mummy movies. The sequels are not good movies. I recommend the first and that's it. The others are not essential viewing. The plot holes are horrible: everything from names changing from movie to movie, to changes in location, or the burning and/or killing then reappearance in the sequel without injury. The retelling of the leaves at the beginning of each movie as well as the choosing of a new high priest gets to be a cliche. Fortunately, these are short movies so you won't have to watch them long.
In the late 50's-60's mummy movies came out again, but not much better than the originals. To date, there haven't been really good mummy movies made since. Who knows if there can be. Just watch Karloff in the original, and forget the rest.
"The Mummy" (1932)
The first movie in this series stars Boris Karloff as the mummy called Imhotep (which was named after the designer of the ancient pyramids). His famous makeup has been called the most painful of his career. His screen time in this makeup was short, but very impressive. The best scene in my opinion was the scene near the beginning when he awakens.
The story begins with an expedition in 1921 with Sir Joseph Whemple, who uncovers the mummy of Imhotep. His assistant is told not to mess with the scroll that is found with him, but curiosity gets the better of him. The tampering with the scroll awakens Imhotep, and the sight of such a thing causes the assistant to go insane. Ten years later, Whemple returns with his son Frank. Imhotep is now seemingly much younger and calls himself Ardath Bay. He assists the archeologists, but only to awaken his long lost love, Princess Anck-es-en-Amon. In order to do that, he must cause Helen Grosvenor to die so he can revive her and make her a living mummy like himself.
The most interesting thing about this movie is how little Boris Karloff does. Even when he is Ardath Bay, he moves very little and very gracefully. He underacts the part, which makes this movie much creepier. Arguably this is the best of the series.
"The Mummy's Hand" (1940)
The inevitable sequel had to be made. But, this one was much different than many others. Instead of continuing the story, it chose to start over with a new mummy and new plot points. Everything introduced in this movie spilled over into the next three. Boris Karloff wisely was not in this movie. The mummy was played by Tom Tyler, but with one new addition: his eyes were made black. This was done by putting black over his eyes frame by frame to create the illusion he had no eyes. At the time, it was marvelous special effects, but cheesy if you slow it down, because you can still see his eyes. Plus his acting is far from the underacting of Boris Karloff in the previous movie.
The plot of this movie follows two down on their luck (and bummed) archeologists who come across some pottery that they believe would lead them to the tomb of Princess Ananka. Vowed to protect the tomb is the high priest, who keeps mummy Kharis alive by feeding him 3 tanna leaves every day. The high priest gives his charge up to a new high priest Andoheb, played by George Zucco. You also discover that 9 leaves will awaken Kharis and allow him to move about to cause chaos and death. The two archeologists gather financing and a crew, and soon they believe they have found the tomb of Ananka, but instead it is Kharis's. The high priest gives a 9-leaf brew to Kharis who awakens and begins killing whoever gets in his way. He kidnaps the daughter of the financier and with the high priest plans to make her the living mummy for Ananka. The high priest and Kharis are stopped. The archeologists will be bringing the tomb of Ananka to America to be put on display in a museum.
Interesting note: Kharis is burned at the end of the movie, but not a burn or scratch appears on him in the next movie. Weird, but it gets weirder that it's not explained.
Another interesting note: Due to a clerical oversight, The Mummy's Hand was never legally made available for television viewings, and remained largely unseen until Universal Studios VHS release in 1997.
"The Mummy's Tomb" (1942)
This sequel begins the first of two major jumps in time. This movie supposedly takes places 30 years after the events of "The Mummy's Hand". Time-wise, this should be the early 60's but it's still the 40's; don't you love movie logic? The two archeologists make an appearance in this movie as old men. Andoheb the high priest also makes an appearance as an old man, but this time he promotes Mehemet Bey to be the new high priest and take charge is getting revenge for desecrating the tombs of Kharis and Ananka. Also making his first appearance in the Mummy movies is Lon Chaney Jr., who plays as the Kharis. His movements are more what we think of today as the mummy slide and one arm folded up.
This movie follows Mehemet Bey and Kharis coming to America to kill the members of the archeologists family that opened the tombs in the previous movie. Kharis proceeds to kill the two archeologists and members of their family. The son of one of the archeologists becomes the main protagonist and his girlfriend becomes the new obsession of Bey and Kharis. Kharis eventually kidnaps the girlfriend and is chased by a town mob. They end up back at the archeologist's house which is set on fire by the mob. After a narrow escape by the heroes, Kharis is burned in the house.
In my opinion, this is the weakest of the sequels because the first ten minutes shamelessly uses footage from "The Mummy's Hand" to give exposition. It uses so much that it is not necessary to even watch "The Mummy's Hand". If you take the amount of exposition out of this movie, then the runtime becomes less than 50 minutes.
"The Mummy's Ghost" (1944)
Yet another sequel comes out two years later. This features once again Lon Chaney Jr. as Kharis and George Zucco as Andoheb. This is interesting in that Andoheb was shot and died at the end of "The Mummy's Hand", but he returns in the following movie saying he was only shot in the arm. Then he died of old age, but he is back again and doesn't die. Interesting in that you don't see him again. Making a good appearance in this one is John Carradine as Yousef Bey, the new high priest that is bestowed by Andoheb. This sequel is actually not bad, mostly for its tragic ending.
The story follows the new priest Yousef Bey coming to America to awaken Kharis and return Kharis and Ananka to Egypt. However, when they find Ananka's mummy, it disintegrates. They learn that her soul has been reincarnated in a young women named Amina. A white streak appears in her hair, but that is the only thing that symbolizes this. Kharis soon kidnaps Amina and brings her to Bey, who is prepared to make her into a living mummy for Kharis. But his thoughts turn on him, and he wants her for himself. He loses control of Kharis who takes Amina into the swamps. A mob is in pursuit, as well as her boyfriend. As Kharis is fleeing, Amina begins to grow old in his arms, and her hair becomes white. They escape into the swamp and vanish in the murk.
This is the only movie that allows Kharis to get his beloved Ananka, even though they are lost in the muck of the swamp. The tragic ending makes this sequel not horrible, but it's not great either.
"The Mummy's Curse" (1944)
No, that's not a typo: the last of the original Mummy came out the same year as the previous sequel. Once again Long Chaney Jr. suits up as Kharis. Once again Kharis is searching for Ananka. Once again a new high priest is in charge of Kharis. But this time, the serial of movies was out of ideas. Even though the last movie's swamp was in Massachusetts, this movie's swamp was in Louisiana - bit of a glitch. Also, it takes places 25 years after the last movie, which would make this at least supposedly the late 80's or early 90's by now, but no, it's still the 40's.
This movie follows an irrigation project that is clearing out the swamp. The superstitions of the men are fueled by the arrival of an archeologist and his partner, who are searching for Kharis and Ananka in the swamp. Kharis is awakened and is entreated to find Ananka. Ananka awakens from the muck and stumbles into the water, where she is washed and becomes young and beautiful again. She is found by the workers, but soon by Kharis too. The partner of the archeologist is the new high priest, and he has a spy working on the irrigation project. Kharis is tracked to an abandoned temple, where the priest and his assistant are killed, and taking with them the secret of the leaves that gives Kharis power. Ananka is back to being a mummy, and Kharis will be retrieved. Both of which are going to be sent back to the museum.
The stereotyping of the black actors in this movie are the norm for 40's movies, but it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth when you watch.
And thus ends the mummy movies. The sequels are not good movies. I recommend the first and that's it. The others are not essential viewing. The plot holes are horrible: everything from names changing from movie to movie, to changes in location, or the burning and/or killing then reappearance in the sequel without injury. The retelling of the leaves at the beginning of each movie as well as the choosing of a new high priest gets to be a cliche. Fortunately, these are short movies so you won't have to watch them long.
In the late 50's-60's mummy movies came out again, but not much better than the originals. To date, there haven't been really good mummy movies made since. Who knows if there can be. Just watch Karloff in the original, and forget the rest.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Universal Horror 1931-1956
In 1912, Carl Laemmle, Sr. founded Universal Studios, which is currently the second oldest movie production company in continuous production today. In the early days of the motion picture industry, a person was in control of the studios (not a corporation). For about a decade, Universal was the largest studio, and because of shrewd investing, Laemmle financed the movies himself and not allowing the company to take on debt. Universal's main focus for the first number of years was mostly inexpensive melodramas, westerns, and serials. Erick von Stroheim was allowed to create lavish movie productions, and because Laemmle was financing it himself, Universal nearly bankrupted. They had to look at other markets and types of films. Irving Thalburg took care of most of the production for the company, but was lured away by Louis B. Mayer (of MGM) which made Universal a second-rate studio for years afterward. The two most successful hits for Universal's early days were "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (1923) and "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925), both starring Lon Chaney. With the success of such dark content, Univeral first had its taste of being a successful horror studio.
In 1928, Carl Laemmle, Sr. gave control of universal to his son, Carl Laemmle, Jr. Carl Jr. loved macabre movies and it was just a matter of time before Universal made a real horror movie. In this time, "Showboat" (1929) and "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) were released.
Beginning in 1931, Universal under the leadership of Carl Laemmle, Jr. began a sub-genre series of horror movies called Universal Horror, all now regarded as all-time classics. The aspect that most notice is that they all had sequels, and soon had tie-ins (where the major characters had a movie together), and eventually spoofs. The first of these is "Dracula" (1931) with Bela Lugosi, and then with "Frankenstein" (1931) with Boris Karloff. In 1932, "The Mummy" was released. "The Invisible Man" was released the following year, starring Claude Rains. In 1941, "The Wolf Man" was released with Lon Chaney, Jr. The last of the great classic Universal Horror to be released was "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in 1954.
The flaws with these movies are the lack of creativity. What I mean is there are whole scenes where the dialogue is extremely similar. Whole scenes of dialogue from Dracula can be found very similar in The Mummy. Also, many of the actors are in several different movies. Such as Dwight Frye, who played as Renfield in Dracula, played as Fritz in Frankenstein; or Bela Lugosi who was Dracula, played as Ygor in later Frankenstein movies.
This month, I am planning to make Universal Horror posts with the five major themes of Universal Horror, and some of the sequels, spoofs, and crossovers that followed.
In 1928, Carl Laemmle, Sr. gave control of universal to his son, Carl Laemmle, Jr. Carl Jr. loved macabre movies and it was just a matter of time before Universal made a real horror movie. In this time, "Showboat" (1929) and "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) were released.
Beginning in 1931, Universal under the leadership of Carl Laemmle, Jr. began a sub-genre series of horror movies called Universal Horror, all now regarded as all-time classics. The aspect that most notice is that they all had sequels, and soon had tie-ins (where the major characters had a movie together), and eventually spoofs. The first of these is "Dracula" (1931) with Bela Lugosi, and then with "Frankenstein" (1931) with Boris Karloff. In 1932, "The Mummy" was released. "The Invisible Man" was released the following year, starring Claude Rains. In 1941, "The Wolf Man" was released with Lon Chaney, Jr. The last of the great classic Universal Horror to be released was "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in 1954.
The flaws with these movies are the lack of creativity. What I mean is there are whole scenes where the dialogue is extremely similar. Whole scenes of dialogue from Dracula can be found very similar in The Mummy. Also, many of the actors are in several different movies. Such as Dwight Frye, who played as Renfield in Dracula, played as Fritz in Frankenstein; or Bela Lugosi who was Dracula, played as Ygor in later Frankenstein movies.
This month, I am planning to make Universal Horror posts with the five major themes of Universal Horror, and some of the sequels, spoofs, and crossovers that followed.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Chato's Land
In 1972, a movie called Chato's Land was released, written by Gerald Wilson, Directed by Michael Winner, and starring Charles Bronson and Jack Palance. This is in my opinion one of the most underrated westerns ever made.
Westerns of the time were gritty and violent, and few lines of dialogue. Most of the heroes were one step from being villains. This movie isn't far from that, but it takes things one step farther. In this movie, the Americans western drunks are the villains and the natives are the protagonists, even though the movie follows the drunks.
This movie starts out with a native (Bronson) called Chato who murders a sheriff out of self-defense in a saloon. He flees into the desert, and a posse is raised by an ex-Confederate soldier names Quincy (Palance) to hunt and kill the native. Chato leads the men deeper into Indian territory, and toys with his pursuers, slowing taking them out one at a time. As the chase goes on, the group begins to splinter. Quincy begins to start questioning why they are going after Chato, as does a few others, but the more powerful of the group are more ardent than ever to kill Chato. In the middle of the posse's splintering, they find Chato's woman and a few of the crazier men tape her and leave her for bait. Chato rescues her, then begins to kill off the rest of the men one by one, even the ones who wants to quit the chase.
This movie is unapologetic, as are most westerns of its type and time. It's far different than the John Wayne and Alan Ladd movies of twenty years earlier. It is full of character-driven story with the posse, and the slow disintegration of the cause which had rallied them. Bronson has the usual cool composure which adds to his mystery, but also to our hoping he succeeds in his revenge. But when Quincy begins questioning the purpose of the posse, then we feel the inevitable tug that a good Western gives: who do we cheer for? I highly recommend this movie if you can find it.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a trailer, but I found a few scenes from the movie. The first one shown is the first in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0eTRk7YYTI
Westerns of the time were gritty and violent, and few lines of dialogue. Most of the heroes were one step from being villains. This movie isn't far from that, but it takes things one step farther. In this movie, the Americans western drunks are the villains and the natives are the protagonists, even though the movie follows the drunks.
This movie starts out with a native (Bronson) called Chato who murders a sheriff out of self-defense in a saloon. He flees into the desert, and a posse is raised by an ex-Confederate soldier names Quincy (Palance) to hunt and kill the native. Chato leads the men deeper into Indian territory, and toys with his pursuers, slowing taking them out one at a time. As the chase goes on, the group begins to splinter. Quincy begins to start questioning why they are going after Chato, as does a few others, but the more powerful of the group are more ardent than ever to kill Chato. In the middle of the posse's splintering, they find Chato's woman and a few of the crazier men tape her and leave her for bait. Chato rescues her, then begins to kill off the rest of the men one by one, even the ones who wants to quit the chase.
This movie is unapologetic, as are most westerns of its type and time. It's far different than the John Wayne and Alan Ladd movies of twenty years earlier. It is full of character-driven story with the posse, and the slow disintegration of the cause which had rallied them. Bronson has the usual cool composure which adds to his mystery, but also to our hoping he succeeds in his revenge. But when Quincy begins questioning the purpose of the posse, then we feel the inevitable tug that a good Western gives: who do we cheer for? I highly recommend this movie if you can find it.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a trailer, but I found a few scenes from the movie. The first one shown is the first in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0eTRk7YYTI
Dead Calm
In 1989, a movie called Dead Calm was released, directed by Phillip Noyce, written by Terry Hayes (based on the novel by Charles Williams), and starring Sam Neill, Nicole Kidman, and Billy Zane. This is such an underrated movie that hearkens back to Hitchcock.
This movie is about a man and wife (Neill and Kidman) who lose their young son in a tragic car accident and decide to go sailing to recover from the emotional loss. John (played by Neill) is an ex-Navy man and his wife Rae (Kidman) was actually driving the car that killed their son. Very shortly into the movie, the two find an adrift schooner that does not answer any radio calls. A man (Hughie, played by Zane) rows to their boat from the schooner. He is a very strange man who at first seems to have a drive to get away from the schooner and everything on board. While Hughie sleeps, John decides to go aboard and see what happened. He finds a boat and an engine that are flooded and a scene of carnage. Hughie has killed his shipmates. When John returns to his boat, Hughie has escaped from his room and hijacks the boat, taking Rae and their dog with him. The movie continues to escalate until John is finally reunited with Rae, but is Hughie still there?
This movie screams Hitchcock like few since his time. It is a small cast (only three main actors) and it has the element of sexuality that is subtle yet obvious, in that no matter what Rae does, she is doing it to get back to John. This movie makes one look at Billy Zane in a totally different way. Yes, he is a jerk in Titanic, but he is a psychotic jerk in this movie. For this reason, I think he is amazing in this movie; you never really know what he’s up to or what he will do. The small scale of the movie is another high point. Since there are few actors, there is little to distract you from the story. You are very in tune with the characters and their feelings. In one way, this is a very character-driven story, but on the other hand, it is very much a thriller. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ew7fItO7P0
This movie is about a man and wife (Neill and Kidman) who lose their young son in a tragic car accident and decide to go sailing to recover from the emotional loss. John (played by Neill) is an ex-Navy man and his wife Rae (Kidman) was actually driving the car that killed their son. Very shortly into the movie, the two find an adrift schooner that does not answer any radio calls. A man (Hughie, played by Zane) rows to their boat from the schooner. He is a very strange man who at first seems to have a drive to get away from the schooner and everything on board. While Hughie sleeps, John decides to go aboard and see what happened. He finds a boat and an engine that are flooded and a scene of carnage. Hughie has killed his shipmates. When John returns to his boat, Hughie has escaped from his room and hijacks the boat, taking Rae and their dog with him. The movie continues to escalate until John is finally reunited with Rae, but is Hughie still there?
This movie screams Hitchcock like few since his time. It is a small cast (only three main actors) and it has the element of sexuality that is subtle yet obvious, in that no matter what Rae does, she is doing it to get back to John. This movie makes one look at Billy Zane in a totally different way. Yes, he is a jerk in Titanic, but he is a psychotic jerk in this movie. For this reason, I think he is amazing in this movie; you never really know what he’s up to or what he will do. The small scale of the movie is another high point. Since there are few actors, there is little to distract you from the story. You are very in tune with the characters and their feelings. In one way, this is a very character-driven story, but on the other hand, it is very much a thriller. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ew7fItO7P0
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 3D
After Jaws 2, one would assume that the sequels would stop. The second installment wasn't horrible (at least to me), but there was no way to recreate the feeling or suspense from the first. But it was attempted, and to some mild success. But then in someone's infinite wisdom, a third installment was mentioned. This one was written by Carl Gottlieb (of the first two), Michael Kane, and Richard Matheson, and directed by Joe Alves, and starring Dennis Quaid, Louis Gossett Jr, and a young Lea Thompson. This movie was released in 1983, and really, there's nothing nice I can say about this movie.
At the time of Jaws 3's release, the 3D movie boom fad was in full swing. Maybe someone decided it was a good idea to have a 3D shark coming at the audience. Or maybe someone thought it was a good idea to have a severed arm floating at the audience. Either way, there wasn't much thought involved in the plot.
Jaws 3 takes place in SeaWorld (home of marine mammals such as dolphins) and sea shows on skis. Trouble brews when a small Great White Shark strays into the park and begins creating havoc. The shark is caught and displayed, but dies in captivity. Soon, they have a bigger problem on their hands when the shark's mother (yes, you read that right) comes to destroy the killers of her child. As outlandish as that is, get this: the mother is 35 feet long. I can't even make this BS up!
This movie is full of cliches. There is a power-hungry boss who sends an adventure man to kill the large shark with his grenades. There are ecological debates throughout the movie. New cliches break forth in this movie in the hopes of scaring the audience rather than stick with science, such as chasing the skiers at breakneck speeds (a trait begun in the 2nd, but made somewhat believable, and filmed well too). But the worst part is the breaking with science. The first Jaws was all about the science - what's real is scarier than what's fiction. The second began to break from that, but was still mostly science-oriented. The third completely breaks from that just to create excitement and terror... instead only creating hilarity.
The acting is just as bad as anything else in this movie. The cast obviously knew it was starring in some major crap. Nothing of positive memories can be thought of with this movie. It is all about "ohh scary shark!" which takes away from any reality that there could've been.
A big change for the quadrilogy is that we are no longer on Amity Island. This entire movie takes place in SeaWorld. Also gone is Chief Brody, although you do see Martin Brody in the background in two scenes, since he is now working for SeaWorld. The story centers on the kids: Michael and Sean. Michael works for SeaWorld, and Sean comes to visit. Michael is the main one that has to deal with the shark (a theme for the next Jaws movie too). Sean has somehow developed a southern accent and looks like a cowboy; interesting for a guy who comes from Amity... where's the New England accent?
By far the worst part of this movie is the "special effects". Because this movie is meant to be in 3D, certain elements are not in the film, they are added. This makes them look like they are popping off the screen at the audience. The submersible, severed limbs, and sharks are usually what are in this category. But if you watch this movie in 2D, which is the only way it's available now, you will see how poor their techniques were. Because the stand out images are not included in the original film, but added for effect, sometimes, parts of them disappear! The bottom of the submersible disappears when it makes a turn. Also, when the shark is coming at the audience near the end, it isn't swimming: it's just getting closer. One could say it's coasting, but not even the mouth moves. It is so obviously not a real shark that it's painful to watch.
In my opinion, the third Jaws movie is not only the worst of the quadrilogy, but one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made. There really is nothing positive I can say about it, and even talking about it this much is making me ill. It is difficult for any film fan to watch because it's so bad. Good luck watching it. You might want some liquor first. At least then it'll be hilarious.
Here's the trailer, which shows nothing... thankfully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=636cMq0PFT4
At the time of Jaws 3's release, the 3D movie boom fad was in full swing. Maybe someone decided it was a good idea to have a 3D shark coming at the audience. Or maybe someone thought it was a good idea to have a severed arm floating at the audience. Either way, there wasn't much thought involved in the plot.
Jaws 3 takes place in SeaWorld (home of marine mammals such as dolphins) and sea shows on skis. Trouble brews when a small Great White Shark strays into the park and begins creating havoc. The shark is caught and displayed, but dies in captivity. Soon, they have a bigger problem on their hands when the shark's mother (yes, you read that right) comes to destroy the killers of her child. As outlandish as that is, get this: the mother is 35 feet long. I can't even make this BS up!
This movie is full of cliches. There is a power-hungry boss who sends an adventure man to kill the large shark with his grenades. There are ecological debates throughout the movie. New cliches break forth in this movie in the hopes of scaring the audience rather than stick with science, such as chasing the skiers at breakneck speeds (a trait begun in the 2nd, but made somewhat believable, and filmed well too). But the worst part is the breaking with science. The first Jaws was all about the science - what's real is scarier than what's fiction. The second began to break from that, but was still mostly science-oriented. The third completely breaks from that just to create excitement and terror... instead only creating hilarity.
The acting is just as bad as anything else in this movie. The cast obviously knew it was starring in some major crap. Nothing of positive memories can be thought of with this movie. It is all about "ohh scary shark!" which takes away from any reality that there could've been.
A big change for the quadrilogy is that we are no longer on Amity Island. This entire movie takes place in SeaWorld. Also gone is Chief Brody, although you do see Martin Brody in the background in two scenes, since he is now working for SeaWorld. The story centers on the kids: Michael and Sean. Michael works for SeaWorld, and Sean comes to visit. Michael is the main one that has to deal with the shark (a theme for the next Jaws movie too). Sean has somehow developed a southern accent and looks like a cowboy; interesting for a guy who comes from Amity... where's the New England accent?
By far the worst part of this movie is the "special effects". Because this movie is meant to be in 3D, certain elements are not in the film, they are added. This makes them look like they are popping off the screen at the audience. The submersible, severed limbs, and sharks are usually what are in this category. But if you watch this movie in 2D, which is the only way it's available now, you will see how poor their techniques were. Because the stand out images are not included in the original film, but added for effect, sometimes, parts of them disappear! The bottom of the submersible disappears when it makes a turn. Also, when the shark is coming at the audience near the end, it isn't swimming: it's just getting closer. One could say it's coasting, but not even the mouth moves. It is so obviously not a real shark that it's painful to watch.
In my opinion, the third Jaws movie is not only the worst of the quadrilogy, but one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made. There really is nothing positive I can say about it, and even talking about it this much is making me ill. It is difficult for any film fan to watch because it's so bad. Good luck watching it. You might want some liquor first. At least then it'll be hilarious.
Here's the trailer, which shows nothing... thankfully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=636cMq0PFT4
Greenberg
In 2010, Greenberg was released, written by Noah Baumbach (story by Baumbach and Jennifer Jason Leigh), directed by Noah Baumbach, and starring Ben Stiller, Rhys Ifans, Greta Gerwig, and Jennifer Jason Leigh. This is a very low key comedy that fits in with Baumbach's other works, and is highly recommended.
Following a nervous breakdown, Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) house sits for his brother's family. He is a very quirky guy. He writes letters of complaint to large companies, he doesn't drive (and he is in LA), he always seems on the edge of another mental collapse. While he is at the house, he begins to fall for the "maid/nanny" type lady Florence (Greta Gerwig). She finds him interesting, but wants to take things slow, which confuses Greenberg, but then again, so does everything. His opinions alienate most people he knows without understanding that. He gets back in contact with one of his old band mates Ivan (Rhys Ifans) who drives Greenberg where he needs to go sometimes, but obviously just tolerates Greenberg. His biggest personal flaw is not letting anyone inside to his inner self. He thinks he is by remembered mundane details from years earlier, and the self-centered talking, but really he just alienates everyone. The best quote (even though there are many) is: "A shrink said to me once that I have trouble living in the present, so I linger on the past because I felt like I never really lived it in the first place, you know?" Greenberg is a very flawed character, but very real too. Something about him draws Florence to him, but at the same time pushes her away. But that's how Greenberg is.
It's hard to really explain this movie to someone who has seen any Noah Baumbach movies. His movies are typically comedies, but the hilarity is so low key that many would miss it. There are moments that make you laugh out loud, but in any other movie, they wouldn't even elicit a chuckle. That's the genius of Baumbach. He creates an atmosphere that brings you into the movie and feel the flow of it. The hilarious in his movies are barely chuckles in others, but then again his movies are very down to earth and not outlandish in any way. There is realism in his movies. Greenberg is the perfect example of this. One can only get away with this in an independent movie, and Baumbach succeeds admirably.
I highly recommend this movie, but with all other Baumbach movies, you may go to a sad place and question yourself for awhile, but that's only because of the real quality of the movie. It almost makes you feel like a voyeur, it's so real. But you will be glad you watched when you are finished.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVcIUSpz2v0
PS- If you notice, this takes place in Los Angeles. Baumbach does not use the glamorous sites of LA, and instead used what the majority of LA looks like. I've been there several times, and I like that it (like the rest of the movie) is grounded in reality that there is nothing cleaned up for the film. Everything is just as it is (just like the themes of Baumbach's movies).
Following a nervous breakdown, Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) house sits for his brother's family. He is a very quirky guy. He writes letters of complaint to large companies, he doesn't drive (and he is in LA), he always seems on the edge of another mental collapse. While he is at the house, he begins to fall for the "maid/nanny" type lady Florence (Greta Gerwig). She finds him interesting, but wants to take things slow, which confuses Greenberg, but then again, so does everything. His opinions alienate most people he knows without understanding that. He gets back in contact with one of his old band mates Ivan (Rhys Ifans) who drives Greenberg where he needs to go sometimes, but obviously just tolerates Greenberg. His biggest personal flaw is not letting anyone inside to his inner self. He thinks he is by remembered mundane details from years earlier, and the self-centered talking, but really he just alienates everyone. The best quote (even though there are many) is: "A shrink said to me once that I have trouble living in the present, so I linger on the past because I felt like I never really lived it in the first place, you know?" Greenberg is a very flawed character, but very real too. Something about him draws Florence to him, but at the same time pushes her away. But that's how Greenberg is.
It's hard to really explain this movie to someone who has seen any Noah Baumbach movies. His movies are typically comedies, but the hilarity is so low key that many would miss it. There are moments that make you laugh out loud, but in any other movie, they wouldn't even elicit a chuckle. That's the genius of Baumbach. He creates an atmosphere that brings you into the movie and feel the flow of it. The hilarious in his movies are barely chuckles in others, but then again his movies are very down to earth and not outlandish in any way. There is realism in his movies. Greenberg is the perfect example of this. One can only get away with this in an independent movie, and Baumbach succeeds admirably.
I highly recommend this movie, but with all other Baumbach movies, you may go to a sad place and question yourself for awhile, but that's only because of the real quality of the movie. It almost makes you feel like a voyeur, it's so real. But you will be glad you watched when you are finished.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVcIUSpz2v0
PS- If you notice, this takes place in Los Angeles. Baumbach does not use the glamorous sites of LA, and instead used what the majority of LA looks like. I've been there several times, and I like that it (like the rest of the movie) is grounded in reality that there is nothing cleaned up for the film. Everything is just as it is (just like the themes of Baumbach's movies).
Numb
In 2007, a movie called Numb was released, written and directed by Harris Goldberg, and starring Matthew Perry, Kevin Pollak, and Mary Steenburgen. This is a fascinating movie, and one with a formula I shouldn't have liked, but I very much did.
Numb is about a screenwriter (Matthew Perry) who has Acute Dispersonalization Disorder. This means that what he feels doesn't feel real to him. He is easily overwhelmed by the world's mundane sights and occurrences and is prone to nervous bobbing of the legs. His writing partner (Kevin Pollak) doesn't take him very seriously, so he doesn't receive much support there. He begins to go on a search to make it go away. In the process, he visits therapist after therapist (and even having an affair with one), he goes through experiences that he would never have done on his own, and he meets the girl of his dreams, which only makes him try harder.
It is true that this is a romantic comedy, but it is made so well, that one can forget that's what it is. The comedy in this movie is very subtle at times, which I think works perfectly since Matthew Perry is also being very subtle. His acting is almost like what Brent Spiner had to do for Star Trek. There are some great scenes where he is making out or having sex with women, but he is just looking around the room, obviously bored. The only person that doesn't happen with is the character Sara, who brings out his nervous side. He doesn't want to tell her about his disorder, so he comes across as just odd for awhile. Then when he does tell her, she goes on a crusade with him to help get him treatments. Naturally, they split up, which sends Perry into a crusade to make the disorder go away.
This is very much a comedy. In fact, this movie is quite hilarious at times. There are some achingly poignant moments too. Perry's biggest fear is the death of his father. He won't even say the word 'death' because he is afraid that it might kill his father. A therapist (that's he's sleeping with) finally gets him to say the word death, and when nothing happened, he is relieved, until shortly afterward, he learns that his dad did die. He realizes his biggest enemy is this disorder, so his crusade takes him into a study about the disorder, hoping to meet others and discuss what it's like to suffer from it. It turns out that he is the only subject and the study only reveals that he is indeed suffering from the disorder, which he knew before he started. Mary Steenburgen is by far one the funniest characters in the movie, even though you don't see much of her. Also, Kevin Pollak was great. Of course, Perry was perfect in this role.
In the end, Perry learns that in order to move on with life, he must accept the disorder as it is, and move on. He must learn to live with it since it won't go away. One just has to do the best they can with what they have. It ends happily, but it doesn't end with the normal kissing embrace. Instead, it ends similar to Sideways: you somewhat know, but since you aren't really shown, you can imply your own ending. Very well done. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQiNBfgBvoY
Numb is about a screenwriter (Matthew Perry) who has Acute Dispersonalization Disorder. This means that what he feels doesn't feel real to him. He is easily overwhelmed by the world's mundane sights and occurrences and is prone to nervous bobbing of the legs. His writing partner (Kevin Pollak) doesn't take him very seriously, so he doesn't receive much support there. He begins to go on a search to make it go away. In the process, he visits therapist after therapist (and even having an affair with one), he goes through experiences that he would never have done on his own, and he meets the girl of his dreams, which only makes him try harder.
It is true that this is a romantic comedy, but it is made so well, that one can forget that's what it is. The comedy in this movie is very subtle at times, which I think works perfectly since Matthew Perry is also being very subtle. His acting is almost like what Brent Spiner had to do for Star Trek. There are some great scenes where he is making out or having sex with women, but he is just looking around the room, obviously bored. The only person that doesn't happen with is the character Sara, who brings out his nervous side. He doesn't want to tell her about his disorder, so he comes across as just odd for awhile. Then when he does tell her, she goes on a crusade with him to help get him treatments. Naturally, they split up, which sends Perry into a crusade to make the disorder go away.
This is very much a comedy. In fact, this movie is quite hilarious at times. There are some achingly poignant moments too. Perry's biggest fear is the death of his father. He won't even say the word 'death' because he is afraid that it might kill his father. A therapist (that's he's sleeping with) finally gets him to say the word death, and when nothing happened, he is relieved, until shortly afterward, he learns that his dad did die. He realizes his biggest enemy is this disorder, so his crusade takes him into a study about the disorder, hoping to meet others and discuss what it's like to suffer from it. It turns out that he is the only subject and the study only reveals that he is indeed suffering from the disorder, which he knew before he started. Mary Steenburgen is by far one the funniest characters in the movie, even though you don't see much of her. Also, Kevin Pollak was great. Of course, Perry was perfect in this role.
In the end, Perry learns that in order to move on with life, he must accept the disorder as it is, and move on. He must learn to live with it since it won't go away. One just has to do the best they can with what they have. It ends happily, but it doesn't end with the normal kissing embrace. Instead, it ends similar to Sideways: you somewhat know, but since you aren't really shown, you can imply your own ending. Very well done. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQiNBfgBvoY
Friday, July 16, 2010
Pretty Bird
In 2008, Pretty Bird was released, written by Zene Baker and Paul Schneider, directed by Paul Schneider, and starring Paul Giamatti and Billy Crudup. This a great dark comedy, showing independent filmmaking in a great way.
This movie is about Curtis (Billy Crudup)who decides he wants to make a rocket belt (the personal rocket that was used in the beginning of Thunderball, if anyone remembers). He is a slick-talking business man who convinces his childhood friend Kenny to help finance the endeavor. They need a rocket scientist so they enlist Rick (Paul Giamatti) to build the belt. Tensions are always high as Kenny will believe anything Curtis says, and Rick is as paranoid and pessimistic as anyone can get. Rick feels left out of all the decisions and since he had been recently screwed over by his last job, he wants partial ownership since he built the rocket belt. While Curtis tries to find financial support, he starts to ostracize Kenny and Rick. Kenny's money runs out as he is forced to close his mattress store, and it seems the partnership is over. Then Curtis hides the rocket belt. Things start to get ugly as no one knows what anyone else is doing or what's going on. Rick abducts Curtis and holds him in a box for 8 days trying to find out what Curtis did with the rocket belt. Curtis escapes, and the movie ends without any resolution of where the rocket belt is or what's happened to everyone.
The dark humor involved is hysterical. Paul Giamatti is at his best playing dark brooding characters, which is exactly what Rick is. Also, he has a sex scene, which is like watching a train wreck (obviously on purpose). The dealings between 3 completely different personalities are fascinating to watch. You know these people won't get along, but you keep watching and wondering how they will dissolve.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies that are a little off kilter. It is independent, dark, funny, and at the end of it, makes you want to start it over.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_FvxWAWqA4
This movie is about Curtis (Billy Crudup)who decides he wants to make a rocket belt (the personal rocket that was used in the beginning of Thunderball, if anyone remembers). He is a slick-talking business man who convinces his childhood friend Kenny to help finance the endeavor. They need a rocket scientist so they enlist Rick (Paul Giamatti) to build the belt. Tensions are always high as Kenny will believe anything Curtis says, and Rick is as paranoid and pessimistic as anyone can get. Rick feels left out of all the decisions and since he had been recently screwed over by his last job, he wants partial ownership since he built the rocket belt. While Curtis tries to find financial support, he starts to ostracize Kenny and Rick. Kenny's money runs out as he is forced to close his mattress store, and it seems the partnership is over. Then Curtis hides the rocket belt. Things start to get ugly as no one knows what anyone else is doing or what's going on. Rick abducts Curtis and holds him in a box for 8 days trying to find out what Curtis did with the rocket belt. Curtis escapes, and the movie ends without any resolution of where the rocket belt is or what's happened to everyone.
The dark humor involved is hysterical. Paul Giamatti is at his best playing dark brooding characters, which is exactly what Rick is. Also, he has a sex scene, which is like watching a train wreck (obviously on purpose). The dealings between 3 completely different personalities are fascinating to watch. You know these people won't get along, but you keep watching and wondering how they will dissolve.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies that are a little off kilter. It is independent, dark, funny, and at the end of it, makes you want to start it over.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_FvxWAWqA4
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Deep End
In 1970, a movie called Deep End was released, directed by Jerzy Skolimowski, written by Skolimowski, Boleslaw Sulik, and Jerzy Gruza, with no major stars. This is on the surface a darkly humorous coming of age story for a boy at his first job, but is much deeper than it seems. Once I started to see the deeper layers, I thought this was a phenomenal movie.
The story is about Mike, a boy of about 16 who gets his first job at an English bathhouse. He quickly learns that there are politics in getting tips: the women will tip him for his "company", but he is young and has no interest in them. His fellow coworker Susan is an older beautiful woman that takes him under her wing. He starts to have a thing for her. She somewhat toys with Mike, making him a little jealous of her fling with a coach and also her fiance. He starts to go crazy with his jealousy and begins following her and even causing problems for her. His whole quest is to sleep with Susan, and in the end, he finally succeeds, but when she wants to leave and go home to her fiance, Mike wants her to stay and talk awhile. A freak accident that Mike causes leaves her dead in his arms.
At first I found this movie to be a simple coming of age story: virgin guy wants experienced older woman, and finally gets his wish come true. But if you look deeper, you find a dark comedy. Some of the moments in the movie are very funny, and some probably aren't really meant to be, but they are. But if you look even deeper, you see a deeply psychological drama. Mike for instance starts out as a nice kid who just wants to have a decent job. But the job starts showing him the dark side of life, which helps him transition into a bit of a narcissist. He thinks that Susan belongs with him, and he will do anything to get her. And when he thinks he has her, and she leaves to go back to her fiance, he won't let her leave, then flings the lighting apparatus at her, hitting her in the back of the head, and dies. Susan on the other hand seems to be a nice person at first. You can tell she's a bit of an interesting character immediately, because she seems to enjoy toying with Mike, teasing him. She is a bit of a narcissist herself in that she thinks that everyone wants her, and she toys with everyone until they are interested in her. It just so happens that the person who becomes obsessed with her ends up accidentally killing her.
There is a great scene late in the movie when Mike and Susan finally do their act. Mike is a virgin, and Susan is a bit of a swinger. The camerawork favors Mike's perspective during this scene. It is nothing but closeups on parts of their bodies, but uninteresting parts: hair, hands, mouth, eyes, etc. Nothing revealing. There is also no sound. No music. It is focusing on the small, minute details that only someone who's never experienced it would focus on. Great camerawork.
For me, this movie started off a little slowly, but once I figured out that Susan and Mike are having this emotional dance with each other, I realized where it was going, and I paid attention to the layers of the story. I recommend this movie, but to get it all, one must really watch the emotional interactions between Mike and Susan.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for it. But I found a scene with Mike and Susan, where Susan is toying with Mike, and this is before he realized he really wants her - and more importantly, that he could probably have her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhMKqwfqVw
The story is about Mike, a boy of about 16 who gets his first job at an English bathhouse. He quickly learns that there are politics in getting tips: the women will tip him for his "company", but he is young and has no interest in them. His fellow coworker Susan is an older beautiful woman that takes him under her wing. He starts to have a thing for her. She somewhat toys with Mike, making him a little jealous of her fling with a coach and also her fiance. He starts to go crazy with his jealousy and begins following her and even causing problems for her. His whole quest is to sleep with Susan, and in the end, he finally succeeds, but when she wants to leave and go home to her fiance, Mike wants her to stay and talk awhile. A freak accident that Mike causes leaves her dead in his arms.
At first I found this movie to be a simple coming of age story: virgin guy wants experienced older woman, and finally gets his wish come true. But if you look deeper, you find a dark comedy. Some of the moments in the movie are very funny, and some probably aren't really meant to be, but they are. But if you look even deeper, you see a deeply psychological drama. Mike for instance starts out as a nice kid who just wants to have a decent job. But the job starts showing him the dark side of life, which helps him transition into a bit of a narcissist. He thinks that Susan belongs with him, and he will do anything to get her. And when he thinks he has her, and she leaves to go back to her fiance, he won't let her leave, then flings the lighting apparatus at her, hitting her in the back of the head, and dies. Susan on the other hand seems to be a nice person at first. You can tell she's a bit of an interesting character immediately, because she seems to enjoy toying with Mike, teasing him. She is a bit of a narcissist herself in that she thinks that everyone wants her, and she toys with everyone until they are interested in her. It just so happens that the person who becomes obsessed with her ends up accidentally killing her.
There is a great scene late in the movie when Mike and Susan finally do their act. Mike is a virgin, and Susan is a bit of a swinger. The camerawork favors Mike's perspective during this scene. It is nothing but closeups on parts of their bodies, but uninteresting parts: hair, hands, mouth, eyes, etc. Nothing revealing. There is also no sound. No music. It is focusing on the small, minute details that only someone who's never experienced it would focus on. Great camerawork.
For me, this movie started off a little slowly, but once I figured out that Susan and Mike are having this emotional dance with each other, I realized where it was going, and I paid attention to the layers of the story. I recommend this movie, but to get it all, one must really watch the emotional interactions between Mike and Susan.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for it. But I found a scene with Mike and Susan, where Susan is toying with Mike, and this is before he realized he really wants her - and more importantly, that he could probably have her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhMKqwfqVw
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 2
The second Jaws movie was released in 1978, and was not based on a novel. In fact, Peter Benchley had nothing to do with it. It is a bit of a departure from the first: no more Matt Hooper (although they tried to call him, but he was on the Aurora which mentioned in the first Jaws), more Ellen Brody than the first, it’s no longer the summer season filled with tourists, and the style of the story is different too. A new director (Jeannot Szwarc) adds a completely new style to this movie.
Most people don’t like the second Jaws movie because it’s not as good as the first. And they would be partially correct: it isn’t as good as the first, but not much really can be. The first one (by accident or on purpose) was very much in the style of Hitchcock. The second one on the other hand went about from the beginning to show you the shark. You know it’s going to be a shark movie before it starts, so why hide it from you. The difference is that first time you see the shark, it is burned from an attack on a small boat and its skier. This gives the shark a menacing profile for the rest of the movie. But, on the other hand, this movie begins the series’ break with science too. Would a shark actually speed along, stalking a water skier? Then attack the boat? Probably not. But would a shark investigate a crashed helicopter? Probably. Would it attack the helicopter? Probably not. The movie has its moments with and without science.
This movie follows two storylines: Chief Brody and the high school kids. I find the Brody story to be very interesting. Brody knows right away when a dead killer whale washes on shore that a great white had attacked it, but not even the marine biologist agrees. He becomes obsessed with trying to prove that another shark is back. He fights hard against the city board of elders to prove it. A great scene is where he shoots at a shadow in the water that turns out to be a school of bluefish; however, the beach is filled with families. Mayor Vaughn and the elders revoke his title and fire him, leaving Hendricks to be in charge. The other story is the high school kids. In this community, instead of cruising in their cars, kids go out on their boats to cruise. One day, Brody’s oldest (Michael) goes out with the crew (against his father’s wishes). Sean (Brody’s younger son) persuades Michael to take him along. They decide to sail out to Cable Junction, which is the farthest east one can sail before the open Atlantic Ocean. En route, the shark attacks the sailors and they are set adrift, floating on the wreckage of their boats. They tie the wrecks together to stay safe. Meanwhile, Brody learns that a bunch of kids are out sailing and takes the police boat to find them. After the initial attack on the kids, Michael is injured and the only sailable boat takes him back in for medical attention and to get help. Brody finds this boat and they tell him that his other son is out there. Brody goes on a crusade to find the floating wreck. The kids finally float to Cable Junction and get stuck, which is where Brody finds them. A showdown with the shark ensues.
This movie is obviously not the first, but the story has some very strong parts. The direction isn’t too bad. It is not Steven Spielberg direction, but that’s okay. Szwarc does a good job with what he has. Carl Gottlieb and Howard Sackler return to write this movie, and the ties to the first are very close. I always thought of this movie as being “the next day” even though it is a few years after the first. Unlike the first which used the theme to signify when the shark was present, this movie does not stick with that theme, which makes the viewer wonder where the shark really is. It toys with the viewer a little bit. The scare tactics in this movie are a little clichéd and the whole notions of using teens in trouble is a bit overused (although in 1978, it wasn’t).
But for all it is, it doesn’t scare as much as the first. The first seemed to set up rules, then change them in the third act. This movie just skips all over the place with its rules, which takes the reality out of it. The method of killing the shark was more outlandish than the explosion in the first movie. The acting is questionable with some of the teens.
All in all, it’s a perfectly okay movie. I like it as a second Jaws movie, but as a standalone, it’s not so good. I think it’s worth a viewing though. But most people will say “it’s not good” or “it’s stupid”. But have you really watched it? There were some really good moments.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXd34wdcZkQ
Most people don’t like the second Jaws movie because it’s not as good as the first. And they would be partially correct: it isn’t as good as the first, but not much really can be. The first one (by accident or on purpose) was very much in the style of Hitchcock. The second one on the other hand went about from the beginning to show you the shark. You know it’s going to be a shark movie before it starts, so why hide it from you. The difference is that first time you see the shark, it is burned from an attack on a small boat and its skier. This gives the shark a menacing profile for the rest of the movie. But, on the other hand, this movie begins the series’ break with science too. Would a shark actually speed along, stalking a water skier? Then attack the boat? Probably not. But would a shark investigate a crashed helicopter? Probably. Would it attack the helicopter? Probably not. The movie has its moments with and without science.
This movie follows two storylines: Chief Brody and the high school kids. I find the Brody story to be very interesting. Brody knows right away when a dead killer whale washes on shore that a great white had attacked it, but not even the marine biologist agrees. He becomes obsessed with trying to prove that another shark is back. He fights hard against the city board of elders to prove it. A great scene is where he shoots at a shadow in the water that turns out to be a school of bluefish; however, the beach is filled with families. Mayor Vaughn and the elders revoke his title and fire him, leaving Hendricks to be in charge. The other story is the high school kids. In this community, instead of cruising in their cars, kids go out on their boats to cruise. One day, Brody’s oldest (Michael) goes out with the crew (against his father’s wishes). Sean (Brody’s younger son) persuades Michael to take him along. They decide to sail out to Cable Junction, which is the farthest east one can sail before the open Atlantic Ocean. En route, the shark attacks the sailors and they are set adrift, floating on the wreckage of their boats. They tie the wrecks together to stay safe. Meanwhile, Brody learns that a bunch of kids are out sailing and takes the police boat to find them. After the initial attack on the kids, Michael is injured and the only sailable boat takes him back in for medical attention and to get help. Brody finds this boat and they tell him that his other son is out there. Brody goes on a crusade to find the floating wreck. The kids finally float to Cable Junction and get stuck, which is where Brody finds them. A showdown with the shark ensues.
This movie is obviously not the first, but the story has some very strong parts. The direction isn’t too bad. It is not Steven Spielberg direction, but that’s okay. Szwarc does a good job with what he has. Carl Gottlieb and Howard Sackler return to write this movie, and the ties to the first are very close. I always thought of this movie as being “the next day” even though it is a few years after the first. Unlike the first which used the theme to signify when the shark was present, this movie does not stick with that theme, which makes the viewer wonder where the shark really is. It toys with the viewer a little bit. The scare tactics in this movie are a little clichéd and the whole notions of using teens in trouble is a bit overused (although in 1978, it wasn’t).
But for all it is, it doesn’t scare as much as the first. The first seemed to set up rules, then change them in the third act. This movie just skips all over the place with its rules, which takes the reality out of it. The method of killing the shark was more outlandish than the explosion in the first movie. The acting is questionable with some of the teens.
All in all, it’s a perfectly okay movie. I like it as a second Jaws movie, but as a standalone, it’s not so good. I think it’s worth a viewing though. But most people will say “it’s not good” or “it’s stupid”. But have you really watched it? There were some really good moments.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXd34wdcZkQ
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Mountain of the Cannibal God
**Spoilers Included**
In 1978, a movie called Mountain of the Cannibal God was released, directed by Sergio Martino, written by Sergio Martino and Cesare Frugoni, and starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach. This is a movie of the "cannibal movie set in exotic locations with violence that doesn't add to the plot" type of movie.
This movie is an obscure movie from the Italian gore style of movie. The plot follows a woman (Ursula Andress) and her brother who recruit an adventurer (Stacy Keach) to help them find her lost husband in the jungle. The consensus is that the husband went into an island that is legendary for its cannibal islanders. As the story moves along, we find out that the adventurer had been abducted by the cannibal tribe and assimilated, but he had escaped and had watched the village be destroyed. They lose their help, but recruit another adventurer. The first adventurer starts to go crazy at the idea that the cannibals are not all dead, but actually following them. He ends up dying, but the remaining three find an area that is rich in uranium. It is revealed that the husband was going to exploit the mountain for its rich uranium and leave out the wife and her brother, but since they know where the uranium is, they can get rich on their own. One problem: that is the home of the cannibals, who kill the brother, take the second adventurer captive, and make the wife a queen. Why? Because her dead husband has been disfigured by the radioactivity and now has a Geiger reader in his chest that keeps bouncing, so they think he is eternal, and she will reign over them with the corpse. Naturally, the two remaining do escape.
So, now you don't have to watch the movie. And you have to be in a strange mood to even want to watch this movie. The violence against people is almost comical. The blood and the guts do not look real at all. When the first adventurer falls off the waterfall, it is obvious that it's a dummy. The human flesh the cannibals eat doesn't even look like meat, nor do the lizards they eat. But this movie has fills of animal violence which is real, and rather disturbing. They shot footage of animal violence while shooting the movie. There is a bird of prey against a snake, a crocodile against a large turtle, and most infamously a monkey against a python. The director claims the python had been following them during the shoot, and there were monkeys around and they happened to get the footage, but if you slow the movie, you can see the monkey is pushed toward the python who eats it alive slowly.
This movie is not for the faint of heart because the animal violence is real, but with all movies of this type the story is hollow and flimsy. There was no real reason for two adventurers unless they are starting out together, which they don't. A big problem I have is when the wife tells the second adventurer that she and her brother used him to find the uranium, he then rescues her from the cannibals instead of just escaping. Also, I find it odd that Stacy Keach's character dies about halfway through the movie. But my biggest complaint is the use of animal violence all the way through. It adds nothing to the plot and only shocks the audience. I thought the plot with its cannibals and human violence should do that, but of course those effects are crappy, so I guess they couldn't. The only good thing about it is you get to see the beautiful Ursula Andress naked.
Either way, this is a bad movie that could have been so much better. I don't recommend this for viewing unless you want to punish yourself.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMJyNvQGRA
In 1978, a movie called Mountain of the Cannibal God was released, directed by Sergio Martino, written by Sergio Martino and Cesare Frugoni, and starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach. This is a movie of the "cannibal movie set in exotic locations with violence that doesn't add to the plot" type of movie.
This movie is an obscure movie from the Italian gore style of movie. The plot follows a woman (Ursula Andress) and her brother who recruit an adventurer (Stacy Keach) to help them find her lost husband in the jungle. The consensus is that the husband went into an island that is legendary for its cannibal islanders. As the story moves along, we find out that the adventurer had been abducted by the cannibal tribe and assimilated, but he had escaped and had watched the village be destroyed. They lose their help, but recruit another adventurer. The first adventurer starts to go crazy at the idea that the cannibals are not all dead, but actually following them. He ends up dying, but the remaining three find an area that is rich in uranium. It is revealed that the husband was going to exploit the mountain for its rich uranium and leave out the wife and her brother, but since they know where the uranium is, they can get rich on their own. One problem: that is the home of the cannibals, who kill the brother, take the second adventurer captive, and make the wife a queen. Why? Because her dead husband has been disfigured by the radioactivity and now has a Geiger reader in his chest that keeps bouncing, so they think he is eternal, and she will reign over them with the corpse. Naturally, the two remaining do escape.
So, now you don't have to watch the movie. And you have to be in a strange mood to even want to watch this movie. The violence against people is almost comical. The blood and the guts do not look real at all. When the first adventurer falls off the waterfall, it is obvious that it's a dummy. The human flesh the cannibals eat doesn't even look like meat, nor do the lizards they eat. But this movie has fills of animal violence which is real, and rather disturbing. They shot footage of animal violence while shooting the movie. There is a bird of prey against a snake, a crocodile against a large turtle, and most infamously a monkey against a python. The director claims the python had been following them during the shoot, and there were monkeys around and they happened to get the footage, but if you slow the movie, you can see the monkey is pushed toward the python who eats it alive slowly.
This movie is not for the faint of heart because the animal violence is real, but with all movies of this type the story is hollow and flimsy. There was no real reason for two adventurers unless they are starting out together, which they don't. A big problem I have is when the wife tells the second adventurer that she and her brother used him to find the uranium, he then rescues her from the cannibals instead of just escaping. Also, I find it odd that Stacy Keach's character dies about halfway through the movie. But my biggest complaint is the use of animal violence all the way through. It adds nothing to the plot and only shocks the audience. I thought the plot with its cannibals and human violence should do that, but of course those effects are crappy, so I guess they couldn't. The only good thing about it is you get to see the beautiful Ursula Andress naked.
Either way, this is a bad movie that could have been so much better. I don't recommend this for viewing unless you want to punish yourself.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMJyNvQGRA
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 1
So, a lot of people have seen the movie Jaws. Released in 1975, this movie quickly entered pop culture with a band and will not leave anytime soon. Since I've been trying to keep these posts relegated to movies that most people haven't seen, I'm not here to critique Jaws and tell you things that you already know. Instead, I'm going to compare the book to the movie.
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
Mirrors
In 2008, a movie called Mirrors was released, directed by Alexandre Aja, written by Alexandre Aja and Gregory Lavasseur, and starring Kiefer Sutherland and Amy Smart. This is the first horror movie that I've posted on here, and I'm posting it for good reason. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Mirrors is a remake of a Korean horror movie called Geoul Sokeuro (Into the Mirror). I have not seen the original, but I have read that it scarier than this one (imagine that, the original being better). This movie follows an out of work New York cop named Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland) who is staying with his sister and separated from his wife and two children. He gets an overnight job as security officer at a department store that had burned some years earlier. Beginning on his first night, he begins seeing strange things in the mirrors of the store. He then goes on a quest to unlock the mysteries of the mirrors and uncover the horrors that lie behind them. He finds out that the store used to be a psychiatric hospital years earlier that used mirrors to treat schizophrenia. Carson finds a woman who was "cured" of her schizophrenia, but then explains that what was in her was a demon that collects the souls of whomever it kills. The demon wants the woman back, and the price is his family's lives.
What makes this movie interesting is the fact that any mirrored surface works. It takes some times before you find that out. At first it's just the mirrors in the store. Then it's the mirrors at home. Then it's the mirrors in the car. Then it's reflective surfaces such as in a morgue or windows or water. Water is perhaps the most terrifying since it travels. The only plot hole I can think of at this time is when Carson removes the rearview mirror in the car, one would think he would remove the side mirrors too, but he doesn't. Not sure why not, and it isn't explained either.
This movie is based on the psychological idea that mirrors do not reflect, but instead they show an opposite reality. For people that lose touch with reality, they look at the person in the mirror (their reflection) is someone else, and therefore is able to do things without their knowledge. This idea leads to the notion of multiple personalities, which not many psychologists agree with anymore. Either way, this movie does a good job of terrifying the viewer into looking at mirrors in a different way. No longer is it safe to look at your reflection, even in water. And the ending, I thought was brilliant. There are certain aspects that most will look at as typical horror, but I thought the concept was strong, and the ideas were strong. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92QxxgeCO8
Mirrors is a remake of a Korean horror movie called Geoul Sokeuro (Into the Mirror). I have not seen the original, but I have read that it scarier than this one (imagine that, the original being better). This movie follows an out of work New York cop named Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland) who is staying with his sister and separated from his wife and two children. He gets an overnight job as security officer at a department store that had burned some years earlier. Beginning on his first night, he begins seeing strange things in the mirrors of the store. He then goes on a quest to unlock the mysteries of the mirrors and uncover the horrors that lie behind them. He finds out that the store used to be a psychiatric hospital years earlier that used mirrors to treat schizophrenia. Carson finds a woman who was "cured" of her schizophrenia, but then explains that what was in her was a demon that collects the souls of whomever it kills. The demon wants the woman back, and the price is his family's lives.
What makes this movie interesting is the fact that any mirrored surface works. It takes some times before you find that out. At first it's just the mirrors in the store. Then it's the mirrors at home. Then it's the mirrors in the car. Then it's reflective surfaces such as in a morgue or windows or water. Water is perhaps the most terrifying since it travels. The only plot hole I can think of at this time is when Carson removes the rearview mirror in the car, one would think he would remove the side mirrors too, but he doesn't. Not sure why not, and it isn't explained either.
This movie is based on the psychological idea that mirrors do not reflect, but instead they show an opposite reality. For people that lose touch with reality, they look at the person in the mirror (their reflection) is someone else, and therefore is able to do things without their knowledge. This idea leads to the notion of multiple personalities, which not many psychologists agree with anymore. Either way, this movie does a good job of terrifying the viewer into looking at mirrors in a different way. No longer is it safe to look at your reflection, even in water. And the ending, I thought was brilliant. There are certain aspects that most will look at as typical horror, but I thought the concept was strong, and the ideas were strong. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92QxxgeCO8
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Habit
In 1997, the movie Habit was released, written and directed and starred in by Larry Fessenden. This is an independent movie with no major stars. If you have to see one vampire movie, this is the one you cannot miss.
This movie is one of those simple movies that is gritty and realistic in such a way that it seems it could be real. The people in the movie are not overly attractive and the places are not overly lavish. The story is about Sam, a guy who is down on his luck: his girlfriend is separating from him, his father has just died, work is hectic. But he has some friends that are really close, and when two of his best friends host a Halloween party, he meets Anna. Anna becomes his companion and lover, but we soon learn (as does Sam) that she's really vampire slowly sucking him dry. The story builds to a confrontation between Sam and Anna which will lead you breathless.
The interesting thing about this movie is the slow introduction of the vampire traits. Immediately, we notice that Anna seems to appear and disappear out of thin air. She never eats or drinks either. We see her bite his lip at one point early on, but each encounter seems to be a little more intense. The introduction of the vampire traits are so subtle that they are hardly noticeable most of the time. And if you really look, you will references to classic vampire lore. Lenny is a reference to Lucy from Dracula. The old professor (I believe he was Mr. Lyons?) was like Van Helsing. Even the boat at the beginning and end was like the abandoned ship that arrives at port in Dracula. The most obscure vampire reference is the fact that vampires are entranced by knobby ornate lacy things, which is shown when Anna gets enthralled by Rae's grandmother's dress. Also, the old references of the crucifix, garlic, and being invited inside are all present. Either way, this movie is filled with vampire references that most won't catch, and even less will recognize.
I highly recommend this movie. For a vampire movie, it's not scary and not meant to be. It is basically a love story between a man and a succubus. I believe that like all vampire movies, this movie is a metaphor, and I believe the metaphor in this movie is about love. There is a great scene between Sam and Anna where they are talking about love, and he says that love always ends in pain, at least that his experience. And Anna tells him that men like to fall in love, but they don't like to stay in love. There is a lot of nudity and sex in this movie, which only points to two things: love and vulnerability. Both of which are portrayed perfectly. If you want to see the most realistic vampire movie ever made, check this one out.
ps - an interesting tidbit is that this is actually a remake. Larry Fessenden made Habit in 1980 for a film class, then remade it as an independent feature in 1997, and claims he isn't opposed to making it again.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for you. You'll just have to find the movie!
This movie is one of those simple movies that is gritty and realistic in such a way that it seems it could be real. The people in the movie are not overly attractive and the places are not overly lavish. The story is about Sam, a guy who is down on his luck: his girlfriend is separating from him, his father has just died, work is hectic. But he has some friends that are really close, and when two of his best friends host a Halloween party, he meets Anna. Anna becomes his companion and lover, but we soon learn (as does Sam) that she's really vampire slowly sucking him dry. The story builds to a confrontation between Sam and Anna which will lead you breathless.
The interesting thing about this movie is the slow introduction of the vampire traits. Immediately, we notice that Anna seems to appear and disappear out of thin air. She never eats or drinks either. We see her bite his lip at one point early on, but each encounter seems to be a little more intense. The introduction of the vampire traits are so subtle that they are hardly noticeable most of the time. And if you really look, you will references to classic vampire lore. Lenny is a reference to Lucy from Dracula. The old professor (I believe he was Mr. Lyons?) was like Van Helsing. Even the boat at the beginning and end was like the abandoned ship that arrives at port in Dracula. The most obscure vampire reference is the fact that vampires are entranced by knobby ornate lacy things, which is shown when Anna gets enthralled by Rae's grandmother's dress. Also, the old references of the crucifix, garlic, and being invited inside are all present. Either way, this movie is filled with vampire references that most won't catch, and even less will recognize.
I highly recommend this movie. For a vampire movie, it's not scary and not meant to be. It is basically a love story between a man and a succubus. I believe that like all vampire movies, this movie is a metaphor, and I believe the metaphor in this movie is about love. There is a great scene between Sam and Anna where they are talking about love, and he says that love always ends in pain, at least that his experience. And Anna tells him that men like to fall in love, but they don't like to stay in love. There is a lot of nudity and sex in this movie, which only points to two things: love and vulnerability. Both of which are portrayed perfectly. If you want to see the most realistic vampire movie ever made, check this one out.
ps - an interesting tidbit is that this is actually a remake. Larry Fessenden made Habit in 1980 for a film class, then remade it as an independent feature in 1997, and claims he isn't opposed to making it again.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for you. You'll just have to find the movie!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
61*
In 2001, HBO aired the movie 61*, directed by Billy Crystal, written by Hank Steinberg, and starring Barry Pepper, Thomas Jane, Anthony Michael Hall, Christopher McDonald, and Bruce McGill. This is another made for TV movie from HBO that is one of the best sports movies ever made.
Set in the backdrop of the night in 1998 when Mark McGwire broke Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season, this story is about the 1961 baseball season when Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle vie for breaking Babe Ruth's single season record of 60 home runs. The story goes that Mantle and Maris were rivals playing for the same team (the Yankees) and nobody liked Maris. The truth is that Mantle and Maris were great friends and even roommates. Maris is from the Midwest, so his family and baseball are first in his life. Mantle is partier, great at baseball, but loves to party. Maris calms down Mantle's partying and drinking, but injuries get the better of Mantle eventually. But then there's the media and what the public saw. Mantle was good with the writers and the journalists, but Maris was quieter and more reserved which the journalists mistook for arrogance. The media frenzy took hold of Maris and squeezed him. This movie shows the behind the scenes of this baseball legend. His death threats, the fans throwing chairs at him in the field, the nervous breakdown: it's all here in this amazing movie.
Class is one of those things that is talked about in sports, as in how classy one player is over others. Maris was a class act, and Pepper's performance shows that. Jane's performance of Mantle was spot on: good with the media, and good with the girls, but when on the field, he's all about baseball. Class act also fits with Joe Dimaggio who wasn't the nicest guy and isn't shown to be. Neither was Babe Ruth's widow. But when it comes home to 1998, and McGwire goes into the stands to the Maris family, what a classy move. Just like Maris was, McGwire showed what class was in that moment.
The title comes from the statistic in the baseball lore. It obviously stands for the number of home runs hit in that 1961 season by Maris, but the asterisk is one of the most vile exploits in sports. Because the 1961 season was a few games longer than the season that Ruth had, Ford Frick (the commissioner of baseball, and non-lover of Maris) announced that there would be two records: Ruth's of 60, and Maris' of 61* which denotes that he didn't hit 61 in the same amount of time. This of course is a baseball controversy ever since 1961.
This is baseball history movie that I think is not only one of the best baseball movies, but one of the best sports movies of all time. It is definitely a movie worth watching, even if you're not a baseball fan. It shows the triumph (or as much as he could have) of one man against the world that hated him for no good reason. Being born in the St. Louis area, and a diehard Cardinals fan, I also like this movie for the 1998 Cardinals' sequences, and for Maris himself, who left the Yankees, and found himself a Cardinal a few years later. He never really recovered from that 1961 season, and even regretted hitting all those home runs. But he serves as an inspiration to not give up or give in to pressure.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1po8PgfJU_Q
As a bonus, here is a link to a news short showing Maris' 61st homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJnhHdjs0DI&feature=related
Set in the backdrop of the night in 1998 when Mark McGwire broke Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season, this story is about the 1961 baseball season when Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle vie for breaking Babe Ruth's single season record of 60 home runs. The story goes that Mantle and Maris were rivals playing for the same team (the Yankees) and nobody liked Maris. The truth is that Mantle and Maris were great friends and even roommates. Maris is from the Midwest, so his family and baseball are first in his life. Mantle is partier, great at baseball, but loves to party. Maris calms down Mantle's partying and drinking, but injuries get the better of Mantle eventually. But then there's the media and what the public saw. Mantle was good with the writers and the journalists, but Maris was quieter and more reserved which the journalists mistook for arrogance. The media frenzy took hold of Maris and squeezed him. This movie shows the behind the scenes of this baseball legend. His death threats, the fans throwing chairs at him in the field, the nervous breakdown: it's all here in this amazing movie.
Class is one of those things that is talked about in sports, as in how classy one player is over others. Maris was a class act, and Pepper's performance shows that. Jane's performance of Mantle was spot on: good with the media, and good with the girls, but when on the field, he's all about baseball. Class act also fits with Joe Dimaggio who wasn't the nicest guy and isn't shown to be. Neither was Babe Ruth's widow. But when it comes home to 1998, and McGwire goes into the stands to the Maris family, what a classy move. Just like Maris was, McGwire showed what class was in that moment.
The title comes from the statistic in the baseball lore. It obviously stands for the number of home runs hit in that 1961 season by Maris, but the asterisk is one of the most vile exploits in sports. Because the 1961 season was a few games longer than the season that Ruth had, Ford Frick (the commissioner of baseball, and non-lover of Maris) announced that there would be two records: Ruth's of 60, and Maris' of 61* which denotes that he didn't hit 61 in the same amount of time. This of course is a baseball controversy ever since 1961.
This is baseball history movie that I think is not only one of the best baseball movies, but one of the best sports movies of all time. It is definitely a movie worth watching, even if you're not a baseball fan. It shows the triumph (or as much as he could have) of one man against the world that hated him for no good reason. Being born in the St. Louis area, and a diehard Cardinals fan, I also like this movie for the 1998 Cardinals' sequences, and for Maris himself, who left the Yankees, and found himself a Cardinal a few years later. He never really recovered from that 1961 season, and even regretted hitting all those home runs. But he serves as an inspiration to not give up or give in to pressure.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1po8PgfJU_Q
As a bonus, here is a link to a news short showing Maris' 61st homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJnhHdjs0DI&feature=related
Zombies of Mass Destruction
In 2009, as part of the After Dark Horror series, Zombies of Mass Destruction was released, directed by Kevin Hamedani, written by Kevin Hamedani and Ramon Isao, with no major stars. This movie is a steaming pile of epic proportions.
As the movie starts, I was intrigued by the music. It reminded me of a 60's/70's zombie movie, you know, where they take themselves seriously. But within the first few minutes I was disappointed, and I realized I was in for a long ride. My first problem is that the movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is typical for zombie movies today, but when dealing with heavy themes such as racism and racial profiling, one would hope they'd take at least that seriously. The idea for this movie came up after a discussion about how after 9/11 people of Middle Eastern descent were looked at differently. The idea of this movie is that the zombie disease is actually a weapon from a Muslim terrorist. Throw in some old fashioned rednecks and some religious nuts, and you've got this movie.
Not one moment of this movie can be taken seriously except for when the rednecks are blaming the one girl of Iranian descent of being a terrorist, and the religious nuts who are torturing the two gay guys for fear of turning into zombies. The fact that it selectively points out which groups it's going to be sympathetic to really bothers me. There is no real character development in a normal sense since all the people are caricatures and not real people. The gays, the American-Middle Easterners, and the liberals are the good; and the rednecks, the religious conservatives, and the in-between types are the bad. As much as I enjoy teaching rednecks and religious conservatives a lesson, at least if you're making a movie, try to mix it up a bit. This movie makes the race card a little too obvious. But then again, there's a message about racism in there, but without a serious movie backdrop, how can anyone take it seriously?
Many have compared this movie to Shaun of the Dead. There are similarities, for sure. But Shaun of the Dead is an all out comedy, and meant to be so. This movie isn't sure what it's supposed to be. Comparing it to Shaun of the Dead, in my opinion, is an assault on Shaun of the Dead. In this movie, the acting is poor, the special effects are marginal, and the blood factor is over the top. Is it really necessary to see a face ripped off? Does that really add to the movie? And once again, my least favorite act in a horror movie: why do people go into the dark scary place? They will just die. It's too obvious that you're just trying to get rid of the character. I find it much more interesting if the dumb are enlightened, then die in a noble manner - like trying to save the others. I like it to be a no way out kind of scenario. I don't like my movies predictable... which is all this was.
Survey says: skip this movie if you want to avoid a steaming pile of crap. If you want to torture yourself, then have at it. Seriously, with a tagline like "They're just like you ... only dead", how good could it be?
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFjHjU0bK8
As the movie starts, I was intrigued by the music. It reminded me of a 60's/70's zombie movie, you know, where they take themselves seriously. But within the first few minutes I was disappointed, and I realized I was in for a long ride. My first problem is that the movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is typical for zombie movies today, but when dealing with heavy themes such as racism and racial profiling, one would hope they'd take at least that seriously. The idea for this movie came up after a discussion about how after 9/11 people of Middle Eastern descent were looked at differently. The idea of this movie is that the zombie disease is actually a weapon from a Muslim terrorist. Throw in some old fashioned rednecks and some religious nuts, and you've got this movie.
Not one moment of this movie can be taken seriously except for when the rednecks are blaming the one girl of Iranian descent of being a terrorist, and the religious nuts who are torturing the two gay guys for fear of turning into zombies. The fact that it selectively points out which groups it's going to be sympathetic to really bothers me. There is no real character development in a normal sense since all the people are caricatures and not real people. The gays, the American-Middle Easterners, and the liberals are the good; and the rednecks, the religious conservatives, and the in-between types are the bad. As much as I enjoy teaching rednecks and religious conservatives a lesson, at least if you're making a movie, try to mix it up a bit. This movie makes the race card a little too obvious. But then again, there's a message about racism in there, but without a serious movie backdrop, how can anyone take it seriously?
Many have compared this movie to Shaun of the Dead. There are similarities, for sure. But Shaun of the Dead is an all out comedy, and meant to be so. This movie isn't sure what it's supposed to be. Comparing it to Shaun of the Dead, in my opinion, is an assault on Shaun of the Dead. In this movie, the acting is poor, the special effects are marginal, and the blood factor is over the top. Is it really necessary to see a face ripped off? Does that really add to the movie? And once again, my least favorite act in a horror movie: why do people go into the dark scary place? They will just die. It's too obvious that you're just trying to get rid of the character. I find it much more interesting if the dumb are enlightened, then die in a noble manner - like trying to save the others. I like it to be a no way out kind of scenario. I don't like my movies predictable... which is all this was.
Survey says: skip this movie if you want to avoid a steaming pile of crap. If you want to torture yourself, then have at it. Seriously, with a tagline like "They're just like you ... only dead", how good could it be?
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFjHjU0bK8
RKO 281
In 1999, HBO aired RKO 281, directed by Benjamin Ross, written by John Logan, based on the documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane, and starring Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, Melanie Griffith, John Malkovich, and Roy Scheider. This is a short made for HBO movie that will stand the test of time, just like Kane has.
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Prime Gig
CAUTION!! SPOILERS ENCLOSED!!
In 2001, a movie called The Prime Gig was released, directed by Gregory Mosher, written by William Wheeler, and starring Vince Vaughn, Julia Ormond, Ed Harris, Rory Cochrane, and small roles for Wallace Shawn, Stephen Tobolowsky, George Wendt, and Amber Benson. This is a movie that some hate and some love. I love this movie!
This independent movie has received much criticism for trying to be a David Mamet type of movie. It is similar to Glengarry Glen Ross in that they are salesmen, and there is a con. But that’s about it. This is a story about a man (Penny, played by Vince Vaughn) who is letting his friend Joel (Rory Cochrane) stay with him. Penny’s job is in jeopardy, and finally implodes. He is recruited to sell gold investment tracts to people by Kelly Grant (Ed Harris) and his assistant Caitlyn (Julia Ormond). Penny isn’t stupid, so he requests his commissions to be cash. Caitlyn then gets a little too close to Penny and convinces him to be her lover, then convinces him to marry her so she can become a US citizen. It is obvious at some point that she feels guilt for what she’s about to do, but not to Penny. Then one day, Penny goes into work and the warehouse they have been calling from is empty, and Grant and Caitlyn are gone, and the commissions of the other callers never go through. Penny goes to check on his bank account where he’s been keeping his cash commissions, and “his wife” cleared it out. The movie ends without music, and a shocked Penny walks out of his apartment and down the street while the credits roll.
This movie I like for many reasons. It’s a simple story, but it’s done well. The dialogue is very good (when Penny hears Caitlyn’s British accent for the first time, he asks “Why do you sound like Monty Python all of a sudden?”) The acting is very good also. For some, the ending may be predictable when Penny requests his commissions in cash, but for most, we just wonder where the story is going. The other thing I like is the opposites of Penny and Joel. When Penny is doing well, Joel is in the gutter, but when Penny has been screwed out of his life savings, Joel wears a dress shirt and tie and is doing well for himself. The interaction between the triangle of Grant, Caitlyn, and Penny is very interesting. What I liked most about the movie is that it doesn’t end on a happy note. Although there are funny moments here and there, this is definitely not a comedy. This ends sadly, and is a sadder type of movie all the way through. Refreshing I think.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about this movie. I’ve seen it several times, and I think it just keeps getting better. Each time I think that Penny will make it out all right, but it doesn’t happen. I feel bad for him and watching this movie is like watching a train about to wreck. But it’s so worth it.
Unfortunately, I can’t find any working links to the trailer.
In 2001, a movie called The Prime Gig was released, directed by Gregory Mosher, written by William Wheeler, and starring Vince Vaughn, Julia Ormond, Ed Harris, Rory Cochrane, and small roles for Wallace Shawn, Stephen Tobolowsky, George Wendt, and Amber Benson. This is a movie that some hate and some love. I love this movie!
This independent movie has received much criticism for trying to be a David Mamet type of movie. It is similar to Glengarry Glen Ross in that they are salesmen, and there is a con. But that’s about it. This is a story about a man (Penny, played by Vince Vaughn) who is letting his friend Joel (Rory Cochrane) stay with him. Penny’s job is in jeopardy, and finally implodes. He is recruited to sell gold investment tracts to people by Kelly Grant (Ed Harris) and his assistant Caitlyn (Julia Ormond). Penny isn’t stupid, so he requests his commissions to be cash. Caitlyn then gets a little too close to Penny and convinces him to be her lover, then convinces him to marry her so she can become a US citizen. It is obvious at some point that she feels guilt for what she’s about to do, but not to Penny. Then one day, Penny goes into work and the warehouse they have been calling from is empty, and Grant and Caitlyn are gone, and the commissions of the other callers never go through. Penny goes to check on his bank account where he’s been keeping his cash commissions, and “his wife” cleared it out. The movie ends without music, and a shocked Penny walks out of his apartment and down the street while the credits roll.
This movie I like for many reasons. It’s a simple story, but it’s done well. The dialogue is very good (when Penny hears Caitlyn’s British accent for the first time, he asks “Why do you sound like Monty Python all of a sudden?”) The acting is very good also. For some, the ending may be predictable when Penny requests his commissions in cash, but for most, we just wonder where the story is going. The other thing I like is the opposites of Penny and Joel. When Penny is doing well, Joel is in the gutter, but when Penny has been screwed out of his life savings, Joel wears a dress shirt and tie and is doing well for himself. The interaction between the triangle of Grant, Caitlyn, and Penny is very interesting. What I liked most about the movie is that it doesn’t end on a happy note. Although there are funny moments here and there, this is definitely not a comedy. This ends sadly, and is a sadder type of movie all the way through. Refreshing I think.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about this movie. I’ve seen it several times, and I think it just keeps getting better. Each time I think that Penny will make it out all right, but it doesn’t happen. I feel bad for him and watching this movie is like watching a train about to wreck. But it’s so worth it.
Unfortunately, I can’t find any working links to the trailer.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The TV Set
In 2006, a movie called The TV Set was released, written and directed by Jake Kasdan, and starring David Duchovny and Sigourney Weaver. This is in my opinion, just a movie. Nothing more or less.
This movie is a comedy without much laughs. This movie is spoofed on a recent episode of Family Guy where Brian gets a pilot made, but gives in and they change it. This movie is the story of how TV shows are made, from the audition process to being picked up for primetime. The story follows Mike (David Duchovny) who writes a pilot, mostly from personal experience, about a man who comes home for the funeral of his brother who's committed suicide. Yet it's a comedy. The network execs, mostly Lenny (Sigourney Weaver), change his show from the beginning. They cast the wrong person for the lead role; they want to change the brother's suicide to the mother's death; they want to make it more slapstick; they want to change the title. None of the changes are good changes, and we see Mike's expressions along the way cluing us into that fact. However, at first, we don't understand what's the right choice, except by Mike's reactions. In the end, the network will only pick up the series if Mike goes with the stupid network version, and if they change the name. He goes along with it, and the network plan it to be a huge success of the lineup.
For a comedy, I could count the number of times I laughed on one hand, but to not leave any fingers out, I'd have to be missing some. The best line comes when they are discussing the brother's suicide, and Lenny says: "Ok, get ready for this... what if.. he's not." Other than that, it's not that funny of a movie, it's only creative for it's use of behind the scenes of TV networks, and it's very plain with ordinary dialogue with only brief moments of clever dialogue.
Overall, I'm glad that it's only 88 minutes long, because I don't think I could sit through anything longer like this. There are useless characters that aren't needed, and whole situations that aren't interesting, nor do they add to the story. The premise isn't a bad one, it just wasn't executed that well. The best part was the last shot: Mike staring, sullen, at the recognition that the bastardized version of his script was loved by the network.. everyone laughing and patting him on the back as he shows no emotion.
Basically, I'd say not to waste your time with this one.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://matttrailer.com/the_tv_set_2006
This movie is a comedy without much laughs. This movie is spoofed on a recent episode of Family Guy where Brian gets a pilot made, but gives in and they change it. This movie is the story of how TV shows are made, from the audition process to being picked up for primetime. The story follows Mike (David Duchovny) who writes a pilot, mostly from personal experience, about a man who comes home for the funeral of his brother who's committed suicide. Yet it's a comedy. The network execs, mostly Lenny (Sigourney Weaver), change his show from the beginning. They cast the wrong person for the lead role; they want to change the brother's suicide to the mother's death; they want to make it more slapstick; they want to change the title. None of the changes are good changes, and we see Mike's expressions along the way cluing us into that fact. However, at first, we don't understand what's the right choice, except by Mike's reactions. In the end, the network will only pick up the series if Mike goes with the stupid network version, and if they change the name. He goes along with it, and the network plan it to be a huge success of the lineup.
For a comedy, I could count the number of times I laughed on one hand, but to not leave any fingers out, I'd have to be missing some. The best line comes when they are discussing the brother's suicide, and Lenny says: "Ok, get ready for this... what if.. he's not." Other than that, it's not that funny of a movie, it's only creative for it's use of behind the scenes of TV networks, and it's very plain with ordinary dialogue with only brief moments of clever dialogue.
Overall, I'm glad that it's only 88 minutes long, because I don't think I could sit through anything longer like this. There are useless characters that aren't needed, and whole situations that aren't interesting, nor do they add to the story. The premise isn't a bad one, it just wasn't executed that well. The best part was the last shot: Mike staring, sullen, at the recognition that the bastardized version of his script was loved by the network.. everyone laughing and patting him on the back as he shows no emotion.
Basically, I'd say not to waste your time with this one.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://matttrailer.com/the_tv_set_2006
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Primer
In 2004, a movie called Primer was released, written and directed by Shane Carruth, and no notable stars (except for one of the lead characters being Shane). This is an absolutely fascinating movie that you must see if you are in the mood to escape and think a little. This is not a simple movie to watch, yet it's very short - 77 minutes. I think this is a truly amazing movie.
The movie deals with the issue of time travel, but in the glorified sense that Back to the Future does. This deals with the nitty gritty of traveling backwards in time less than a day. It starts out with four friends who are working on projects in a garage in their free time. Two of the friends (Aaron and Abe)discover a way to interrupt the flow of time inside their machine, and even cause the contents to go backwards. It starts out simple enough: they have their vehicle outside, they set the machine at the point where they want to arrive, then they go about their day, at first, holed up in a hotel room avoiding the world but soon checking out which stocks had grown. At some point in the day, they would go back to the machine and enter it, and after about six hours in the machine, they were back at 8:30 am. Having the knowledge of that day, they would buy stocks, bet on sports games, and in some fashion profit off the knowledge.
Where this movie will lose people is that at some point, we learn that they have been experimenting with the machine individually, without the other's knowledge. Because of this, there are unforeseen consequences. At the end, you finally realize that you've been not seeing a straightforward plot, but you've actually seen doubles and triples of each of the characters. Aaron's character in particular becomes an unstoppable monster, going back in time and hiding his past counterpart in closets and attics, causing there to be multiple Aarons at the same time. The moment of truth in the movie is when Abe realizes the full of what Aaron has been doing and he finally separates himself. This is important because you can count on one hand the number of times you see Aaron or Abe in a scene by himself.
All in all, I think it's a fantastic movie that should be seen. It is hard to understand the first time, and maybe the second and third, but it's a wonderful film. The only real bad thing is the acting. It isn't exactly great, but it gives the movie more of an independent feel (and since it is an indie, it fits) and it gives realness to the characters. This isn't exactly a movie that fits in one genre. One can call it scifi if they want, or they can call it mystery, but either way, it's very good.
Here is a link to the trailer (which does the movie no justice):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE&feature=related
The movie deals with the issue of time travel, but in the glorified sense that Back to the Future does. This deals with the nitty gritty of traveling backwards in time less than a day. It starts out with four friends who are working on projects in a garage in their free time. Two of the friends (Aaron and Abe)discover a way to interrupt the flow of time inside their machine, and even cause the contents to go backwards. It starts out simple enough: they have their vehicle outside, they set the machine at the point where they want to arrive, then they go about their day, at first, holed up in a hotel room avoiding the world but soon checking out which stocks had grown. At some point in the day, they would go back to the machine and enter it, and after about six hours in the machine, they were back at 8:30 am. Having the knowledge of that day, they would buy stocks, bet on sports games, and in some fashion profit off the knowledge.
Where this movie will lose people is that at some point, we learn that they have been experimenting with the machine individually, without the other's knowledge. Because of this, there are unforeseen consequences. At the end, you finally realize that you've been not seeing a straightforward plot, but you've actually seen doubles and triples of each of the characters. Aaron's character in particular becomes an unstoppable monster, going back in time and hiding his past counterpart in closets and attics, causing there to be multiple Aarons at the same time. The moment of truth in the movie is when Abe realizes the full of what Aaron has been doing and he finally separates himself. This is important because you can count on one hand the number of times you see Aaron or Abe in a scene by himself.
All in all, I think it's a fantastic movie that should be seen. It is hard to understand the first time, and maybe the second and third, but it's a wonderful film. The only real bad thing is the acting. It isn't exactly great, but it gives the movie more of an independent feel (and since it is an indie, it fits) and it gives realness to the characters. This isn't exactly a movie that fits in one genre. One can call it scifi if they want, or they can call it mystery, but either way, it's very good.
Here is a link to the trailer (which does the movie no justice):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE&feature=related
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Chain Reaction
In 1996, a movie called Chain Reaction was released, directed by Andrew Davis, written by at least 5 people, principle stars are Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Morgan Freeman, Fred Ward, Brian Cox, and some minor characters that would be recognized. This is a movie that for a long time was a feel good movie for me, but having revisited it, I still like it.I'm not a big fan of action movies, mostly because of the cliches. There's always going to be explosions, chase scenes, murder, low character development, and a kiss at the end. Well, Chain Reaction is an action movie that has some of these cliches, but not all. There are two big explosions (one that takes up half of Chicago) and the whole movie is a chase. There is murder, there is low character development, but there is no kiss at the end. For once, something is broken!
This movie is the story of a group of scientists and students who are creating a cheap clean energy fuel source from hydrogen. They get it to work, and the party begins, but danger is soon afoot when Keanu's character Eddie returns to the site to get his motorcycle. He discovers someone has killed his mentor and set the hydrogen furnace to meltdown. He escapes just in time for it to blow up half of Chicago. What follows is a non-stop chase from Chicago to rural Wisconsin, to Washington DC, to rural Virginia. Rachel Weisz plays as Keanu's associate on the project; Fred Ward plays as the FBI agent tracking Keanu; Brian Cox plays as the leader of C Systems and the head antagonist of the movie; and then there's Morgan Freeman, who is part of the research team, but he's also with C Systems, and he's kind of good, and kind of bad. The main idea behind this story is ecology. In trying to find a cheap source of renewable energy, the research team is trying to help the world become cleaner. Of course, capitalism won't let something go free, so a corporation tries to suppress the technology by killing off it's members and abducting the rest to show them how it works. The idea was that since America is so dependent on fossil fuels, such a technology would put a lot of people out of business and create a national recession. They would instead introduce the technology slowly, and get rich off it.
I find this movie very interesting for it's message hidden in an action movie. There is a lot more to this movie than just a silly action flick. I believe that if this movie was released today, it would have been more popular than it was in the mid-90's. In fact, this movie bombed upon release. I think it's not a bad flick that's worth checking out. The dialogue alone I think it worth checking out, especially Morgan Freeman's. In fact, the best thing about this movie is Morgan Freeman. I think this movie was a little ahead of it's time for its message not only about ecology, but about the suppression of free energy and hidden government installations that even the lawmakers don't know about. It all adds up to a rather good action movie with an actual meaning.
Of course, it's not all good. The character development is very poor, but that's what action is about. And there are murders, yes, but no more than necessary. There are explosions, but hardly any. And best of all, there is no kiss at the end. Sometimes with action movies, there is this kiss at the end, which is the cliche of cliches. After such a crazy adventure, they have to end it on a kiss, which presumably starts a post-movie romance. But notice in the sequels, the woman is rarely still around. Well, this movie had no sequels, but at the end, there was no kiss, and in my opinion, logically, there couldn't have been one. They were friends, and just associates, so there was no romance there; just a friendship. A kiss at the end would have made this whole movie for me seem unbelievable.
Overall, I recommend this movie. An action movie, but an action movie that's believable (take note Michael Bay!) One thing to check out is the music score by Jerry Goldsmith; at times, it's reminiscent of Thunderball (James Bond movie from 1965). This is a movie with a message, and a movie that one can sit back and be entertained by. A hidden movie from the mid-90's.
(One last note: it's been said that Keanu Reeves elected not to make Speed 2: Cruise Control, and instead chose to make Chain Reaction. It's also been said that he chose not to make Speed 2 because of his band. Either way, I think it was a good choice not to make Speed 2.. cliche heaven!)
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abl-kJfDI58
This movie is the story of a group of scientists and students who are creating a cheap clean energy fuel source from hydrogen. They get it to work, and the party begins, but danger is soon afoot when Keanu's character Eddie returns to the site to get his motorcycle. He discovers someone has killed his mentor and set the hydrogen furnace to meltdown. He escapes just in time for it to blow up half of Chicago. What follows is a non-stop chase from Chicago to rural Wisconsin, to Washington DC, to rural Virginia. Rachel Weisz plays as Keanu's associate on the project; Fred Ward plays as the FBI agent tracking Keanu; Brian Cox plays as the leader of C Systems and the head antagonist of the movie; and then there's Morgan Freeman, who is part of the research team, but he's also with C Systems, and he's kind of good, and kind of bad. The main idea behind this story is ecology. In trying to find a cheap source of renewable energy, the research team is trying to help the world become cleaner. Of course, capitalism won't let something go free, so a corporation tries to suppress the technology by killing off it's members and abducting the rest to show them how it works. The idea was that since America is so dependent on fossil fuels, such a technology would put a lot of people out of business and create a national recession. They would instead introduce the technology slowly, and get rich off it.
I find this movie very interesting for it's message hidden in an action movie. There is a lot more to this movie than just a silly action flick. I believe that if this movie was released today, it would have been more popular than it was in the mid-90's. In fact, this movie bombed upon release. I think it's not a bad flick that's worth checking out. The dialogue alone I think it worth checking out, especially Morgan Freeman's. In fact, the best thing about this movie is Morgan Freeman. I think this movie was a little ahead of it's time for its message not only about ecology, but about the suppression of free energy and hidden government installations that even the lawmakers don't know about. It all adds up to a rather good action movie with an actual meaning.
Of course, it's not all good. The character development is very poor, but that's what action is about. And there are murders, yes, but no more than necessary. There are explosions, but hardly any. And best of all, there is no kiss at the end. Sometimes with action movies, there is this kiss at the end, which is the cliche of cliches. After such a crazy adventure, they have to end it on a kiss, which presumably starts a post-movie romance. But notice in the sequels, the woman is rarely still around. Well, this movie had no sequels, but at the end, there was no kiss, and in my opinion, logically, there couldn't have been one. They were friends, and just associates, so there was no romance there; just a friendship. A kiss at the end would have made this whole movie for me seem unbelievable.
Overall, I recommend this movie. An action movie, but an action movie that's believable (take note Michael Bay!) One thing to check out is the music score by Jerry Goldsmith; at times, it's reminiscent of Thunderball (James Bond movie from 1965). This is a movie with a message, and a movie that one can sit back and be entertained by. A hidden movie from the mid-90's.
(One last note: it's been said that Keanu Reeves elected not to make Speed 2: Cruise Control, and instead chose to make Chain Reaction. It's also been said that he chose not to make Speed 2 because of his band. Either way, I think it was a good choice not to make Speed 2.. cliche heaven!)
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abl-kJfDI58
Sunday, March 21, 2010
11:14
In 2003, a movie simply called 11:14 was released, written and directed by Greg Marcks. Most notable stars are Hilary Swank and Patrick Swayze. This is a wannabe interesting film, but it only has one exception to all others like it, and I'm not saying that it's an improvement.
In the last twenty years, a small niche of films have decided to take the rigid structure of a typical movie and turn it on its head. These movies take several story lines that seem to have nothing in common and connect them by the slimmest of margins to complete the film. The most popular of these include Magnolia and Crash. 11:14 is the same style of movie. Everybody in the movie is connected, even if some of the main characters never see most of the others. This particular type of movie can be very effective in some cases, but at its worst can just be repetitive. I for one love noir movies if they are done well, and this is a type of style that has a small following tracing it too. Noir lasted just shy of twenty years before it became completely cliche and out of vogue with audiences. This style, I believe, is already out of vogue, even though very few have been made.
There is no reason for me to try to explain the plot. I'd just end up retelling the movie. Instead, all I'll say is like all other movies of this type, there involves dead bodies (usually the same one or two that keep popping up, which makes it seem like more), all the events happen around 11:14 pm, and there are moments that make the viewer go "Oh!! I've seen that before! I think I know what's about to happen!" And I find that sad. Once you get into the rhythm of the movie, then it starts to get predictable. Another element which could be positive or negative is the dark humor. I love dark humor as much as the next person (well, maybe more), but I find the dark humor in this movie forced and not natural. It seems to me that this movie isn't sure if it's trying to be a serious movie with all the coincidental factors coming into play or if it's trying to be a satire of that type of movie style.
On the whole, I wasn't a big fan of this one, even though I was really excited about it. I just couldn't like it as much as I wanted to. But that's just me. Unlike Magnolia, or even Memento, this movie doesn't mess with your mind. It's rather straight-forward. In fact, just when I thought "I wonder what happened to the guy from the beginning?".... he showed back up, which neatly wraps it all together with a little bow on it. It may be worth a viewing, but I don't recommend putting too much effort in finding it.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-g6uIyFvow
In the last twenty years, a small niche of films have decided to take the rigid structure of a typical movie and turn it on its head. These movies take several story lines that seem to have nothing in common and connect them by the slimmest of margins to complete the film. The most popular of these include Magnolia and Crash. 11:14 is the same style of movie. Everybody in the movie is connected, even if some of the main characters never see most of the others. This particular type of movie can be very effective in some cases, but at its worst can just be repetitive. I for one love noir movies if they are done well, and this is a type of style that has a small following tracing it too. Noir lasted just shy of twenty years before it became completely cliche and out of vogue with audiences. This style, I believe, is already out of vogue, even though very few have been made.
There is no reason for me to try to explain the plot. I'd just end up retelling the movie. Instead, all I'll say is like all other movies of this type, there involves dead bodies (usually the same one or two that keep popping up, which makes it seem like more), all the events happen around 11:14 pm, and there are moments that make the viewer go "Oh!! I've seen that before! I think I know what's about to happen!" And I find that sad. Once you get into the rhythm of the movie, then it starts to get predictable. Another element which could be positive or negative is the dark humor. I love dark humor as much as the next person (well, maybe more), but I find the dark humor in this movie forced and not natural. It seems to me that this movie isn't sure if it's trying to be a serious movie with all the coincidental factors coming into play or if it's trying to be a satire of that type of movie style.
On the whole, I wasn't a big fan of this one, even though I was really excited about it. I just couldn't like it as much as I wanted to. But that's just me. Unlike Magnolia, or even Memento, this movie doesn't mess with your mind. It's rather straight-forward. In fact, just when I thought "I wonder what happened to the guy from the beginning?".... he showed back up, which neatly wraps it all together with a little bow on it. It may be worth a viewing, but I don't recommend putting too much effort in finding it.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-g6uIyFvow
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)