Sniffle.
I Need That Record! is a documentary about why record stores are dying and how the music industry has changed over the past several decades. It mainly focuses on people who owned record stores (Electric Records and Trash American Style (both of which were in Connecticut, I believe) in particular) and what they're up to since losing their businesses.
I've always considered the death of record and video stores as the biggest sign that the world is ending, and I have been crying steadily for the past half hour. I don't like the place the world is becoming but I'm trapped in it.
It was a good documentary but it's also quite heartbreaking and I think I may have been better off not watching it. I'm very sad now.
On the other hand, I'm the one who put I Need That Record! in the Movie Lottery bucket, and when that piece of paper came out I said "I am going to cry." So I guess it's my own damn fault.
End of line.
-Sally
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Scanners
Scanners are psychic people who can use their powers for good or for awesome. Or for evil. Or for exploding heads. Cameron Vail has just found out he's a scanner and Doctor Paul Ruth wants to use him to find an evil scanner named Darryl Revok. The doctor (I just can't bring myself to call him Doctor Ruth) thinks Revok is putting together a group of evil scanners hellbent on taking over the world, the jerk. In his quest to find Revok, Cameron meets a good scanner named Kim Oberst and she helps him to solve the mystery of the stuff that's happening. (Ain't I eloquent?)
I don't know how I feel about Scanners. I liked it, I suppose. David Cronenberg is a fine director and his movies tend to have good plots as well as good gore, so I really can't complain there. I guess my problem with the movie is my inability to understand why various characters do what they do. A lot of the movie made me feel like Cameron was about to turn to the dark side, but I also feel like there was never a proper explanation of what and why the dark side is. I understood various characters' alliances for the most part but ... I don't know. The climactic scene conveniently had a villainous monologue that tried to explain things but it came out backwards. I wasn't having trouble following the plot until that scene. Suddenly I'm supposed to think differently of certain characters without much rhyme or reason (I can't explain further than that without giving away a major twist), at least none that was adequate enough for my taste. I think I'd like to watch it again and see if I can figure out some things.
It's kind of too bad that Scanners is best known as "that movie where that guy's head explodes." It's definitely a cool shot and worth the price of admission, but the movie itself is good, too. The head explosion happens within the first fifteen minutes and the movie doesn't have a huge burst of gore like that again, although the climactic scene does get pretty gross. This was actually my second attempt (first successful one) at watching Scanners. The first time I saw it the shock of seeing Patrick McGoohan older and beardy (I'd only ever seen him in The Prisoner at that point) and the fact that the head explosion was over and done with so quickly made me lose interest early on. That and I guess the plot bored me (I think I've grown more patient with slow moving movies since then).
Now, though, I can honestly say I liked Scanners quite a bit. I think. I'll have to try and figure out the plot snarls before I can say for certain.
End of line.
-Sally
I don't know how I feel about Scanners. I liked it, I suppose. David Cronenberg is a fine director and his movies tend to have good plots as well as good gore, so I really can't complain there. I guess my problem with the movie is my inability to understand why various characters do what they do. A lot of the movie made me feel like Cameron was about to turn to the dark side, but I also feel like there was never a proper explanation of what and why the dark side is. I understood various characters' alliances for the most part but ... I don't know. The climactic scene conveniently had a villainous monologue that tried to explain things but it came out backwards. I wasn't having trouble following the plot until that scene. Suddenly I'm supposed to think differently of certain characters without much rhyme or reason (I can't explain further than that without giving away a major twist), at least none that was adequate enough for my taste. I think I'd like to watch it again and see if I can figure out some things.
It's kind of too bad that Scanners is best known as "that movie where that guy's head explodes." It's definitely a cool shot and worth the price of admission, but the movie itself is good, too. The head explosion happens within the first fifteen minutes and the movie doesn't have a huge burst of gore like that again, although the climactic scene does get pretty gross. This was actually my second attempt (first successful one) at watching Scanners. The first time I saw it the shock of seeing Patrick McGoohan older and beardy (I'd only ever seen him in The Prisoner at that point) and the fact that the head explosion was over and done with so quickly made me lose interest early on. That and I guess the plot bored me (I think I've grown more patient with slow moving movies since then).
Now, though, I can honestly say I liked Scanners quite a bit. I think. I'll have to try and figure out the plot snarls before I can say for certain.
End of line.
-Sally
Monday, June 6, 2011
Inside The Marx Brothers
Inside The Marx Brothers is a short documentary which is, thankfully, about the Marx Brothers' movies and other works (and not about their innards).
It doesn't go particularly in depth into anything and focuses more on Groucho than any of the other brothers (which is kinda frustrating for a girl who's always liked Harpo best) but it's interesting and entertaining.
There are a lot of old clips from various television programs and trailers for their movies and behind the scenes photos.
The part I really geeked out over, though, was near the end when they played a clip of one of the audio tapes Harpo made while he was writing Harpo Speaks.
I heard Harpo speak. For reals. That makes me very happy.
And now I kinda wish I owned every Marx Brothers movie so I could watch them all. Even Humorisk (which doesn't exist anymore because Groucho hated it and had every copy destroyed). Even the ones from after Zeppo left (Zeppo's my second favorite Marx Brother). Even Love Happy (which I've heard is terrible). This is the sort of mood that happens when a compulsive collector feels nostalgic.
I grew up watching Marx Brothers movies. I'm sad there'll never be a comedy team like them again.
End of line.
-Sally
It doesn't go particularly in depth into anything and focuses more on Groucho than any of the other brothers (which is kinda frustrating for a girl who's always liked Harpo best) but it's interesting and entertaining.
There are a lot of old clips from various television programs and trailers for their movies and behind the scenes photos.
The part I really geeked out over, though, was near the end when they played a clip of one of the audio tapes Harpo made while he was writing Harpo Speaks.
I heard Harpo speak. For reals. That makes me very happy.
And now I kinda wish I owned every Marx Brothers movie so I could watch them all. Even Humorisk (which doesn't exist anymore because Groucho hated it and had every copy destroyed). Even the ones from after Zeppo left (Zeppo's my second favorite Marx Brother). Even Love Happy (which I've heard is terrible). This is the sort of mood that happens when a compulsive collector feels nostalgic.
I grew up watching Marx Brothers movies. I'm sad there'll never be a comedy team like them again.
End of line.
-Sally
Oscar
You know what kind of movies give me a good, good feeling? Farcical movies with ensemble casts. Especially if they're murder mysteries or take place in the first half of the twentieth century (bonus points for both!). Oscar isn't a murder mystery, but three out of four is a home run as far as I'm concerned.
Snaps Provolone's dad has passed away and his dying wish was that Snaps give up his mobster life and go straight. The day he begins his life as an honest man, though, everything comes crashing down at once. Without giving too much away the plot involves Snaps' two daughters (only one of whom is his), a pregnancy, three fiances, two tailors, three black leather duffel bags, four bankers, a police officer determined to find out what Snaps is up to, a thieving accountant and an Irish maid.
This is officially my favorite Sylvester Stallone movie. All those Rockys and Rambos can go to hell. I had no idea how funny the guy is; he's got great timing. Everybody in the cast does, really. The cast is mostly made up of every familiar-looking mook guy who was acting in the 1990s. And they're all hilarious.
It's interesting to me that John Landis is considered one of the Masters Of Horror when I can only name one horror movie he directed (An American Werewolf In London). I suppose The Twilight Zone movie kind of counts, but his segment is more horriffic because of what happened during shooting than what's on the screen (and the less said about that, the better). I can name quite a few comedies he's directed, though, and he's great with it. I don't remember much of Animal House but it's considered a classic by many, and I can say without question Oscar is hilarious.
What I really like about it is that a lot of the jokes are played over the top (Marisa Tomei's childish tantrums for instance) but just as much of the comedy is treated completely naturally, like this is just how people talk. The lines would be funny if the actors punched it but it's actually funnier when they almost toss the lines aside as if obviously that's what anyone would say in this situation. It's the same bit of praise I had for Russell Brand in the Arthur remake; it's funnier when you pretend it isn't.
Oscar is a lot of fun and totally worth seeing. I'm not sure why I don't hear about it more often. It deserves more recognition.
End of line.
-Sally
Snaps Provolone's dad has passed away and his dying wish was that Snaps give up his mobster life and go straight. The day he begins his life as an honest man, though, everything comes crashing down at once. Without giving too much away the plot involves Snaps' two daughters (only one of whom is his), a pregnancy, three fiances, two tailors, three black leather duffel bags, four bankers, a police officer determined to find out what Snaps is up to, a thieving accountant and an Irish maid.
This is officially my favorite Sylvester Stallone movie. All those Rockys and Rambos can go to hell. I had no idea how funny the guy is; he's got great timing. Everybody in the cast does, really. The cast is mostly made up of every familiar-looking mook guy who was acting in the 1990s. And they're all hilarious.
It's interesting to me that John Landis is considered one of the Masters Of Horror when I can only name one horror movie he directed (An American Werewolf In London). I suppose The Twilight Zone movie kind of counts, but his segment is more horriffic because of what happened during shooting than what's on the screen (and the less said about that, the better). I can name quite a few comedies he's directed, though, and he's great with it. I don't remember much of Animal House but it's considered a classic by many, and I can say without question Oscar is hilarious.
What I really like about it is that a lot of the jokes are played over the top (Marisa Tomei's childish tantrums for instance) but just as much of the comedy is treated completely naturally, like this is just how people talk. The lines would be funny if the actors punched it but it's actually funnier when they almost toss the lines aside as if obviously that's what anyone would say in this situation. It's the same bit of praise I had for Russell Brand in the Arthur remake; it's funnier when you pretend it isn't.
Oscar is a lot of fun and totally worth seeing. I'm not sure why I don't hear about it more often. It deserves more recognition.
End of line.
-Sally
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Prowler
In 1945 Rosemary broke up with her soldier boyfriend in a letter. Then at her college's graduation dance Rosemary and her new boyfriend were pitchforked to death, which caused the college to not have another graduation dance for thirty five years. The year they bring it back, though, a bunch of people get killed (some by pitchfork).
The Prowler is fast paced, the blood is copious and the plot is simple. I liked it quite a lot. Maybe there were fewer deaths than some slasher movies have, but to include more kills would have made the movie longer than it needed to be. I appreciate its conciseness, if for no other reason than I have to get up at five o'clock in the morning tomorrow and should be getting to bed around now.
The Prowler = good watchin'. Highly recommended. Good night!
End of line.
-Sally
The Prowler is fast paced, the blood is copious and the plot is simple. I liked it quite a lot. Maybe there were fewer deaths than some slasher movies have, but to include more kills would have made the movie longer than it needed to be. I appreciate its conciseness, if for no other reason than I have to get up at five o'clock in the morning tomorrow and should be getting to bed around now.
The Prowler = good watchin'. Highly recommended. Good night!
End of line.
-Sally
Casino Royale
I haven't watched a James Bond movie in years. The last one I saw was You Only Live Twice and I was maybe ten or eleven at the time, so it's been over a decade. Much like how I feel about Star Wars, I'm glad James Bond movies are a thing and I'm a fan of their existence but not really of the movies themselves. I don't want to watch them but I'm glad they're there.
That being said, the Casino Royale I just watched is likely not the version you're thinking of. Of course I'm not a mind reader and I don't know who you are so it could very well be exactly the one you're thinking of. It's certainly not the new Casino Royale, though, and it's not the comedy starring David Niven.
This was, as far as I know, the first onscreen version of James Bond. It was an episode of the television show Climax! and good ol' Jimmy Bond was played by American actor Barry Nelson (who I'm going to start telling people is my favorite James Bond, just to be contrary).
The reason I watched the movie (the reason I heard of the movie and, according to IMDB, the reason Barry Nelson took the role) is Peter Lorre, who plays the villain. I love Peter Lorre.
The movie's pretty straightforward: a Soviet spy gambled away all of his country's money and now he has to win it back. Jimmy Bond has to play against him and make sure he doesn't get that money. Thrown into the mix is Bond's ex-girlfriend who works for the Soviets (or does she?) and ... actually, that's about it.
There's almost no action (a few poorly-thrown stage punches, a couple offscreen gunshots and it's implied that Peter Lorre pulls out a couple of Bond's toenails with pliers) and a lot of talking. And a rather long scene of Bond and the villain playing baccarat.
It was entertaining enough, a good way to spend about an hour, but it was nothing like what society's general consensus of how James Bond goes. I'm cool with that, though. In fact, it makes me very happy that the first James Bond movie was a poorly-received television episode with a schlumpy American of a Bond (well, maybe not schlumpy but he's definitely not suave nor badass) and almost no action.
End of line.
-Sally
That being said, the Casino Royale I just watched is likely not the version you're thinking of. Of course I'm not a mind reader and I don't know who you are so it could very well be exactly the one you're thinking of. It's certainly not the new Casino Royale, though, and it's not the comedy starring David Niven.
This was, as far as I know, the first onscreen version of James Bond. It was an episode of the television show Climax! and good ol' Jimmy Bond was played by American actor Barry Nelson (who I'm going to start telling people is my favorite James Bond, just to be contrary).
The reason I watched the movie (the reason I heard of the movie and, according to IMDB, the reason Barry Nelson took the role) is Peter Lorre, who plays the villain. I love Peter Lorre.
The movie's pretty straightforward: a Soviet spy gambled away all of his country's money and now he has to win it back. Jimmy Bond has to play against him and make sure he doesn't get that money. Thrown into the mix is Bond's ex-girlfriend who works for the Soviets (or does she?) and ... actually, that's about it.
There's almost no action (a few poorly-thrown stage punches, a couple offscreen gunshots and it's implied that Peter Lorre pulls out a couple of Bond's toenails with pliers) and a lot of talking. And a rather long scene of Bond and the villain playing baccarat.
It was entertaining enough, a good way to spend about an hour, but it was nothing like what society's general consensus of how James Bond goes. I'm cool with that, though. In fact, it makes me very happy that the first James Bond movie was a poorly-received television episode with a schlumpy American of a Bond (well, maybe not schlumpy but he's definitely not suave nor badass) and almost no action.
End of line.
-Sally
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The New York Ripper
This is the most straightforward Lucio Fulci movie I've ever seen. It's a lot like any number of "cops chasing serial killers" thrillers, except way bloodier. And, because it's Fulci, there are scenes that come off as creepier than you'd expect them to. The hand gag in the first scene and the phone booth, for instance.
The New York Ripper is about a murderer wandering around New York (clearly), murdering women and quacking. I have seen a lot of movie reference guides and magazine articles that make fun of the duck voice but I found it genuinely unsettling.
I've seen four other Lucio Fulci movies (The Beyond, City Of The Living Dead, Don't Torture A Duckling and Lizard In A Woman's Skin) and this is the first one I had no trouble following. I think it may also have the saddest ending of the five, but it's been so long since I've seen a few of those others (I barely remember Lizard In A Woman's Skin at all) so I could be wrong.
A lot of people hate this movie (and, I guess, all of Fulci's work) because they find it sexist. I don't think that's really true. The killer might be sexist but it's perfectly clear we're not supposed to be taking the killer's side (what with the fact that the killer is, you know, killing people and all).
And blaming the existence of naked ladies and gratuitous sex scenes doesn't work as a valid argument as far as I'm concerned either, if for no other reason than New York Ripper was made in the early '80s. Most movies back then had pointless sex and nudity (and over the top violence) because filmmakers were still on a bit of a "no more Hayes Code" high (not as much as in the '70s, but it's still there). Maybe as an Italian Fulci didn't have Hayes Code problems but he was still making and trying to get people to see his movies in a time where other filmmakers were throwing off their Hayes Code shackles by showing audiences as many naked ladies they could convince to show up on screen.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I don't know. I'm just saying what it seems like to me. (It could also just be that I'm difficult to offend. Who knows?)
Overall it's a really cool thriller. Good plot twists, lots of creepy moments, a good tenacious cop guy, a quirky villain and a professor who has to explaini the killer's psychosis (which is maybe kinda corny but a lot of thrillers like to do that). And then there are gallons of blood to keep the horror fans happy.
You've done a fine job, Mr. Fulci.
End of line.
-Sally
The New York Ripper is about a murderer wandering around New York (clearly), murdering women and quacking. I have seen a lot of movie reference guides and magazine articles that make fun of the duck voice but I found it genuinely unsettling.
I've seen four other Lucio Fulci movies (The Beyond, City Of The Living Dead, Don't Torture A Duckling and Lizard In A Woman's Skin) and this is the first one I had no trouble following. I think it may also have the saddest ending of the five, but it's been so long since I've seen a few of those others (I barely remember Lizard In A Woman's Skin at all) so I could be wrong.
A lot of people hate this movie (and, I guess, all of Fulci's work) because they find it sexist. I don't think that's really true. The killer might be sexist but it's perfectly clear we're not supposed to be taking the killer's side (what with the fact that the killer is, you know, killing people and all).
And blaming the existence of naked ladies and gratuitous sex scenes doesn't work as a valid argument as far as I'm concerned either, if for no other reason than New York Ripper was made in the early '80s. Most movies back then had pointless sex and nudity (and over the top violence) because filmmakers were still on a bit of a "no more Hayes Code" high (not as much as in the '70s, but it's still there). Maybe as an Italian Fulci didn't have Hayes Code problems but he was still making and trying to get people to see his movies in a time where other filmmakers were throwing off their Hayes Code shackles by showing audiences as many naked ladies they could convince to show up on screen.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I don't know. I'm just saying what it seems like to me. (It could also just be that I'm difficult to offend. Who knows?)
Overall it's a really cool thriller. Good plot twists, lots of creepy moments, a good tenacious cop guy, a quirky villain and a professor who has to explaini the killer's psychosis (which is maybe kinda corny but a lot of thrillers like to do that). And then there are gallons of blood to keep the horror fans happy.
You've done a fine job, Mr. Fulci.
End of line.
-Sally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
