criterionforum.org

It was probably Cold Bishop, who recommended both it and Curse in the Horror thread.

bamwc2 wrote:

RobertAltman wrote:

domino harvey wrote: For those like me who didn't enjoy these films, or even if you did, I strongly recommend National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1, which runs the series over the coals and is probably the best non-ZAZ ZAZ-style film. I revisited recently and was shocked at how funny even its worst gags are.

Good call on Loaded Weapon, a film I always liked. Even the score is funny here, a perfect send-up of the Saxophone scores that dominated so many of the action pics that came out in the wake of Lethal Weapon.

Ugh. I saw this around the time that it first hit home video and remember my teenage self finding it painfully unfunny (and yes, I loved the ZAZ comedies as a kid). I want to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, but I can't imagine it getting any better with age.

I was about 11-12 when I saw it, and liked it. Looking back some of it falls pretty flat, but is made up pretty well in other places. I especially liked Jon Lovitz essentially playing an amalgamation of Joe Pesci's characters from both Lethal Weapon 2 and JFK.

RE: Boxers Omen: I actually think it was YnEoS spotlight title.

RE: Loaded Weapon. Watching it recently, the funniest thing are the little details. The thing I actually may remember the most is when Sam Jackson briefly follows a character for a few seconds, and then inexplicably starts making the most ridiculous face behind her back. Or when he stumbles out of the car during the chase scene, in what has to be an accident retained in the final film.

He doesn't do nearly enough comedy. He's been in a fair share of them, but they either aren't very good or he's the straight man or plays up to his image in action movies.

I made a note to myself at one point to watch something from this Ray Bradbury Theater set during the '80s project, but it's escaping me now which title that might have been. Does anyone have any suggestions from this set?

Shrew wrote:As to Director's Guides, I agree with domino that they're best for little-seen directors or those with large bodies of work that end up obscured under the shadow of a few might peaks (see most studio directors, 70s Fassbinder). I mean, I could do Rohmer, but would that be helpful to anyone? It'd essentially just be the Comedies and Proverbs plus Reinette and Mirabelle. Unless anyone actually knows anything of Catherine de Heilbronn and where it's available.

It's in the big Eric Rohmer box, but it's unsubtitled.

Though I'd assume that subs can be found elsewhere?

Unfortunately, no.

If worst comes to worst, you can always find Kleist's play translated. Themost recent version appears to be this:

http://www.amazon.com/Heinrich-Von-Klei ... 601&sr=1-9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aw poo and thanks respectively.

Viewing Log:

Anguish (Bigas Luna, 1987): Zelda Rubinstein and Michael Lerner star as a mother and son with a psychic and psychotic bond that leads her to send Lerner on a killing spree during which he removes the eyes of his victims to be part of her collection. After awhile we find out that we've been watching a movie named "Mommy" within a movie. The real action takes place off the screen as a group of patrons uncomfortably watch the film. One deranged film goer has seen the movie dozens of times during its engagement and goes on a killing spree within the theater? "Mommy" features some trippy hypnotic sequences. Was it created with the purpose of turning viewers into homicidal murderers? We never learn the answer to this question, but the implication is also never dismissed. The film itself has some very interesting ideas, but the execution isn't always up to snuff. Lerner and Rubinstein can do creepy very well, but the underdeveloped material (and some very poor acting) in the theater never played well enough for me.

The Boxer's Omen (Chih-Hung Kuei, 1983): There is no way to describe this film other than to call it one of the most fun and insane experiences that I've ever had in the Asian horror genre. Phillip Ko stars as Xiong, a Honk Kong kickboxer whose brother was crippled by a cheating Thai fighter. The film opens with him swearing revenge, but before that can happen Xiong gets sidetracked by a reoccurring vision of Buddhist monk. He follows this vision to find out that his twin brother from a past life was a monk there, but is trapped between life and death after losing a duel with an evil sorcerer. That's when the movie becomes weird. Xiong must become a monk to free his past-life brother, while at the same time returning to Hong Kong to avenge his current brother from this life and engage in some of the most gratuitous love scenes ever committed to celluloid. Perhaps nothing I've said here makes this film sound appealing, but trust me this one is good. This one is sooooooooooooooooo good. With some of the most off the wall horror antics that I've ever seen and a fair amount of good comedy to boot, this one is a real winner.

The Funeral (Jûzô Itami, 1984): I suppose that it's fitting that my first Itami was also his first film. This dramedy begins with the sudden death of family's 69 year old patriarch. Soon his widow, her adult children, and their extended family have gathered in her house for a three day long Buddhist funeral that culminates in the cremation of the corpse. Although it's a comedy, there are no real jokes here. Instead, the good natured humor flows organically from the maddening situation that the family finds themselves in and the little frustrations that accompany every damned thing that goes wrong. The insanity of ritual is also open for ridicule here, as the family finds themselves oftentimes more interested in projecting the image that society tells them they must express rather than anything truly heartfelt. Managing to walk the lie between humor and poignancy this is another great film!

Love Unto Death (Alain Resnais, 1984): The movie begins with Simon (Pierre Arditi) suffering from a seizure in his house. A doctor declares him dead, devastating his widow Elisabeth (Sabine Azéma). Within minutes of the diagnosis, Simon strolls down the stairs very much alive and unaware of what transpired around him. Indeed, his doctor runs a battery of exams and declares Simon to be in perfect health. Buts still he is not right, and his experience sends Elisabeth down a spiral of depression that lead to some important questions about self-ownership and end of life decisions. While it's far from his best, Resnais's work from this period is always fascinating to me and this is no exception. It's a very easy recommendation.

The Terrorizers (Edward Yang, 1986): Prior to this one, Yi Yi was the only film that I had seen by Yang and I have to admit that my opinion of it always fell out of the mainstream. Now, after seeing Yang's debut (and Zedz's spotlight), I'm ready to hunt down anything he's touch (which will definitely include a HD revisit with Yi Yi. As this masterpiece opens, a shooter holds a city under siege, firing at random people from his apartment. After the seeming resolution of the situation, which will have a profound impact on everything that follows, the film charts the course of several lonely and desperate characters as they make their way to an open, but intriguing ending. How does the film actually end? What is real throughout it and what is fantasy? These are questions that we never get an answer, to but we're better off for having asked. Thanks, Zeds, this one is guaranteed a very high spot on my list!

bamwc2 wrote:Anguish (Bigas Luna, 1987): the execution isn't always up to snuff.

And that's a pretty low quality bar for a horror film to meet!

The Terrorizers (Edward Yang, 1986): Prior to this one, Yi Yi was the only film that I had seen by Yang and I have to admit that my opinion of it always fell out of the mainstream. Now, after seeing Yang's debut (and Zedz's spotlight), I'm ready to hunt down anything he's touch (which will definitely include a HD revisit with Yi Yi. As this masterpiece opens, a shooter holds a city under siege, firing at random people from his apartment. After the seeming resolution of the situation, which will have a profound impact on everything that follows, the film charts the course of several lonely and desperate characters as they make their way to an open, but intriguing ending. How does the film actually end? What is real throughout it and what is fantasy? These are questions that we never get an answer, to but we're better off for having asked. Thanks, Zeds, this one is guaranteed a very high spot on my list!

I'm glad you enjoyed this. A couple of things: it's not Yang's debut: there's an even more inaccessible masterpiece immediately before it (Taipei Story), which will also be in my top ten. Hell, it could even be number two. And Yang's actual debut, That Day, on the Beach, is probably his least successful feature but it's still brilliant and wildly ambitious. It kicked off the Taiwanese New Wave and was also the first film shot by Chris Doyle (who is already Chris Doyle in a handful of sequences).

As for the ending, I think all the clues are there for a decisive call:

Spoiler

The initial 'killing spree' ending - which is the first section of the film that doesn't meticulously follow logical cause and effect (you're going to have a lot of fun rewatching the film and discovering just how beautifully plotted it is) - is actually a close reproduction of the new book the writer has written (which is itself a pretty funny piece of revenge on her hapless husband). Whether this sequence is the husband's revenge fantasy (if so, the poor guy even lacks the imagination to come up with his own revenge fantasy) or the wife's dream (she wakes up at the end of the film) is up for grabs, but the stark reality, based on the established geography of the cop's flat (and Yang uses the geography of internal spaces as a central storytelling device - you're expected to recognize spaces and know how they interact with one another throughout - the window-washing gag earlier in the film is a little masterclass in this that cautions us to pay attention) seems to be that the husband wakes up after his drunken night, grabs the cop's gun, goes out the door, turns left and goes down the hall to the bathroom, and blows his brains out. The sound of the shot alerts the cop and, in the film's sole heightening of reality, the wife, who's shaken from her sleep by something that disturbs her, and pukes.

bamwc2 wrote: While it's far from his best, Resnais's work from this period is always fascinating to me and this is no exception.

The foolish words of a man who obviously hasn't seen La vie est un roman! I've seen Love Unto Death and remember little more than it registering at the level of a shrug, but it's Muriel next to La vie est un roman. Hell, Buddy with Rene Russo would be Muriel next to La vie est un roman!

Domino, as if you needed another reason to doubt my taste in film...I actually kinda like Life is a Bed of Roses!

Like the Fonz and "wrong," I can't read those words

Splash
Rewatched this on Dom's rec. I wouldn't call this great cinema or anything, but it is much more compelling a relationship than I remember from childhood. It plays its silly premise with a earnest face which builds both characters into believable people. Even the last act breakup while pushing the gun a bit (marriage in under a week?) works organically for who these characters are. In short while this doesn't reinvent the wheel it redecorates it in an insanely likable way. Hell even Eugene Levy's not threatening antagonist is a pleasant spin with its totally benign motivation. Won't list it, but glad to have watched itagain.

Dune
I'm disappointed this wasn't weirder or at least a little more interesting especially given the film's reputation as an overreaching failure. Instead the movie seems rather afraid to succumb to its own strange qualities mostly be making every second exposition. Beautifully filmed exposition, but really dull and blatant exposition all the same. Though the crazy boil guy who is Sting's boss is able to deliver his exposition very entertainingly. It is no great movie, but I think The Dark Crystal is a far better variation of this totally secure in its bizarreness, stripped to its barest points of narrative, and willing to just look pretty. Honestly if you were to erase all of the dialogue and just have the score play over images of these sets and effects you'd probably have a pretty great film. And of course those two qualities really are amazing. When that weird vagina egg monster popped up the film instantly got more exciting by virtue of the film reveling in its effort. If the film had more scenes like that it could have at least been an interesting failure.

Swimming to Cambodia
This is probably a better monologue than Gray's Anatomy and Gray's performance is more lively. That said the experience is less great for what might be a lot of different reasons. I don't think the monologue needed to be opened up with the additional footage and music especially since the mis-en-scene itself could be done to be improved. There's some nice theater techniques on this account, but the camera, lighting, ect never really tries to achieve Gray's tone. This works, of course, because Gray works, but I wish it was more than a way to preserve the theater.

The Good Mother
Spock directing the most milquetoast porno ever is an interesting proposition though sadly the film decides to go full milquetoast instead. It even manages to run with the most generic of modern romance scenes: the wacky laundromat. Yet it doesn't even have the chutzpah to commit fully to that leaving things to meet cute. The one thing about the film that even threatens to be interesting is how thin Neeson is and how different (though still regional) his accent is which I guess really says everything. Every frame after the prologue goes exactly how you expect with the only thing keeping attention is being able to guess what "that guy" will occupy the next role demanded by convention (my favorite is Katey Sagal as the sassy friend). That it randomly becomes this court thing is pretty awful and random, but I suppose relatively unexpected which I guess is a positive.

Victor/Victoria
I'm a bit mixed on this because this is a very heterosexual view of reality, yet as a movie it is really great. Easily Edwards best I'd even say. Despite being set in '30s Paris everything about the film screams Wiemar cinema and perfectly so at that. I've never taken Edwards to be a great director, nor really even a writer, yet here all of his ticks toward story and away from pure comedy work even if at times it seems like the movie is ever extending itself. Perhaps the best way of looking at this is not as a drag comedy (or whatever) but a classic farce with Myrna Loy might be married traded for Julie Andrews might be a man. On that front I have no reservations especially with Andrews who is so amazing here it almost goes beyond words. She looks like the most beautiful fusion of Conrad Veidt and David Bowie and commands the screen in a way that is really unlike a star even as she plays star so well. James Gardner's pretty genius too as this Burt Reynolds type guy being totally effacing yet handling the drama realistically. I guess in short the reason I liked this so much is it feels like a Bogdanovich film. Speaking of someone known for fucking his stars, I had no clue Edwards had it in him to do anything like the musical numbers here. That's a camera so in love with Andrews it practically fucks her whether male or female. The fucking doesn't carry over to Preston's number, but I guess that makes sense in context.

Tempest
This is another one of Mazursky's autobiographical larks and while the Shakespeare hook does provide some new things it doesn't really stand up to his other such films. This is mostly because the memory structure of the film doesn't allow for the languid smallness he does best. The film though has so many quietly genius moments with regards to Cassavetes interactions with others that it can't help but comes across as great in the moment. It lags a lot when the film deals with his problems, the scenes of anguish on whether to exile himself are pretty bad in their overwrought nature, which isn't good for a two and half hour monstrosity. Maybe this goes back to the title, but basically the film is too at odds with itself that despite having so many charming and delightful quality it just doesn't sustain itself. I will give the film this though. Don McAlpine does amazing work with each colour popping in a way that suits all of the contradictory aspects of the material as to synthesize it if just a little.

Things Change
I was a bit surprised to see Shel Silverstein credited for this film, but it makes perfect sense even when regarding what a musical writer Mamet is on his own. This is just an absolutely hilarious film in this bizarre little dead pan way. It's also a bit surprising just how much Mamet's grown as a director since House of Games given how little talked about this one seems to be. The cinematography seems more film like, the framing and movement of the camera seems more fluid and effective, even the acting seems to appreciate how staccato fits to cinema better. Mamet even gets in a few gags that seem only possible in movies which is nice. Joe Mantegna especially lights up the film in ways I didn't expect. He's always a great actor, but here he plays with delivery in a way that is amazing inflecting a million little tones in a single line. Definitely worth the film in and of himself.

The plot is fairly generic though easily the best of these post Godfather gangster comedies I've seen. The fish out of water mechanics are dealt with in a fairly innocent and pleasant way so while nothing revolutionary occurs it's hard not to get at least a little charmed by Don Ameche dealing with things in such a wide eyed fashion. Even when he plays to being used to this world there's something funny and off about this piece of borscht belt. It also seems to be one with House of Games for how it deals with class as assimilation and the fun of being part of the underbelly.

Farewell to the King (John Milius, 1989): Milius's sensibility seems to come out of old Hollywood adventure films like Gunga Din or The Four Feathers as well as the more psychological adventures of Conrad and Kipling. I think his ethos is captured by the last sentence of the prologue to Conan the Barbarian: "let me tell you of the days of high adventure!" This film is very much in the spirit of Conrad's Lord Jim and Kipling's The Man Who Would be King, told with the technique of those older action films. It's one of those stories about a man in an extraordinary situation who becomes something mythical and wins the sympathies of an outside recorder. It's an adventure of the human spirit in extremis more than a movie about people being violent, tho' there's certainly that. It doesn't pursue its psychological adventure far enough, but Nick Nolte is so convincing in the role that you almost don't notice. It's a fun movie.

Conan the Destroyer (Richard Fleischer, 1984): I'm still fond of the first Conan film. I saw it on tv one afternoon as a kid, and have seen it several times since then. It had an atmosphere of grim, toughened pulp about it that I still like despite its glaring flaws. I'd avoided the sequel because everything I read said that it was a goofier, more child-oriented film. And that's exactly what it is. I think knives said it perfectly: the movie's just limp. The humour is lame, the narrative without momentum, the action scenes rote. Basil Poledouris' variation on his rousing score to the original (responsible for half that film's success) is flat and unimpressive. Even the prologue, almost word-for-word the same as its predecessor, has no vitality. This one lacks the thing that made the first one work as well as it did: conviction; an honest belief in the material.

48 Hrs. (Walter Hill, 1982): Another one I saw on tv a long time ago. I still kind of like it, Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy have chemistry, but I'd entirely forgotten about all the casual racism. Every other word from Nolte's mouth is a racial epithet. You know it's not meant, that Nolte is deliberately being offensive towards Murphy for kicks, but it's still unpleasant to hear one lead character call the other "darky" repeatedly, among other things. The movie isn't outstanding as an action film (it's moderately exciting) or a detective film (there isn't much of that), but it works as a buddy movie.

The Delta Force (Menahem Golan, 1986): not a cast you expect to see in a Chuck Norris film: Lee Marvin, Hanna Schygulla, Shelley Winters, Martin Balsam, Robert Forster, Robert Vaughn, George Kennedy. I guess that's because it's really two films: the first half is a hijacking story, with two Lebanese terrorists hijacking a plane full of the above actors. A lot of the incidents are drawn from real life, including a moment where the German flight attendant is asked to go through passports and identify Jewish names. This gives us a scene where she screams "I can't! I'm German! Don't you understand?!" She does it anyway, unlike her real life counterpart. We also get scenes of concentration camp survivors screaming "not again!" It's harrowing for a while, but just goes on for too long and at such a high pitch. At one point a little girl goes sobbing up to her dad as he's being led away and begs him to take her stuffed animal. The second half of the movie is a dull Chuck Norris action film, where he rides around Lebanon on a motorcycle with rocket launchers mounted on it shooting everybody. There's half of a good movie buried in here. Unfortunately it, too, is carried along by a musical score of incredible awfulness.

Interesting Freudian slip on the director of Conan the Destroyer. For that I think the weakest joke on the audience is the ending which really is just cutting out the epilogue of the first and randomly attaching it. It's the perfect way to say nothing.

You seen The Wind and the Lion yet, M. Sausage? Because if any film bears the Rudyard Kipling comparison it's that one.

knives wrote:Interesting Freudian slip on the director of Conan the Destroyer. For that I think the weakest joke on the audience is the ending which really is just cutting out the epilogue of the first and randomly attaching it. It's the perfect way to say nothing.

Whoops. Fixed. I think I just took the first Germanic name that popped into my head.

Cold Bishop wrote:You seen The Wind and the Lion yet, M. Sausage? Because if any film bears the Rudyard Kipling comparison it's that one.

Not yet, but soon, if I ever decide to stop watching bad action films for this project.

More like Yid name. I'll second The Wind and The Lion given your old school adventure love. It's a fun movie that revels in its elements which aren't fun in a way that still captures their inventiveness. Which I guess is to say quality Kipling.

the Boost (Harold Becker 1988) Casting James Woods as a coke addict sounds like a good idea-- he's already got the nervous, mile-a-minute demeanor of one, after all. But by taking a character who's already starting at such high-pitched mania and then making him a coke addict halfway through this cautionary 80s tale, the end result can only be disappointing, and likewise the whole film's as message-y and unsubtle as you'd expect a late 80s anti-coke PSA to be. Even the seemingly large number of you with Sean Young crushes can probably safely skip this one, unless you need to see her hit every rote Lifetime movie note. And despite the swears and nudity, this is just MOTW stuff through and through.

Legend (Director's Cut) (Ridley Scott 1986) Unlike my negative reaction to the world Scott created in Blade Runner, I can merrily concede that he captures a fascinating visual realization of a dozen fantasy novel paperback covers with this odd project. In addition to its sumptuous look, I appreciated its pacing and sound design, and was surprised at how morbid and creepy it often became-- I know the 80s are the decade of intense kids films, but Jesus this thing is nightmare inducing at-times. And yet, on the whole, the machinations of the film never gelled into any cohesive or satisfying whole. So, it's the best kind of failure, but still a miss. (So, for those keeping track at home, below Ladyhawke and above Labyrinth)

the Long Riders (Walter Hill 1980) A mediocre post-studio system western? Why I never!

domino harvey wrote: the Long Riders (Walter Hill 1980) A mediocre post-studio system western? Why I never!

I always liked it. And I know a real old-timer (even older than me) who (unlike me) is a big fan of classic westerns -- and he liked it too (one of the only modern westerns he did like). Possibly I was biased by the Ry Cooder score, but I doubt my friend was. ;~}

Finally got to watch 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. I'd like to think I'll find a place for it in my 50, as it should be good enough to make a Top 50 of any decade in the past 4, at least.

The dialogue occasionally grated ; I kept asking myself what was the point of Harvey Keitel's hair colour and style; and perhaps there was just a tad over-indulgence in Scorsese bravura film-making techniques that the subject-matter didn't quite require, but if there was any doubt about Scorsese being more than just the guru for Hong Kong action cinema 'Young Turks', then this film eliminated them.

I think film-making wise it probably most closely resembles Pasolini - both 'Gospel According to Saint Matthew', and 'Arabian Nights' - but I also thought I saw some similarities with Bunuel, such as 'Simon of the Desert', and even 'Nazarin', although that was probably unavoidable.
But the power - and uniqueness - of the film was in the 'temptation' sequence, not least in its beautifully-controlled resolution.

It's not an easy watch, and perhaps not a film that I look forward to revisiting - although I like to think that I will - but its a hugely impressive one