Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 28, 2023 6:30:53 GMT -5
I had never heard of The Dunwich Horror (1970) until Tubi recommended it. Most Lovecraft-inspired films (or films that just slap Lovecraft's name on the poster) are decidedly underwhelming and have little to do with the source material, but this was a rare and very welcome exception! It suck pretty close to the original short story, and the director resorted to all sorts of clever effects to suggest the horror that is the son of Yog-Sothoth. No lazy CGI in those days, and since a stop-motion monster would quickly look silly, the film resorted to suggesting rather than showing the creature (as was the case in the prose story). It's amazing how a river suddenly flowing too fast or how trees moving furiously in the absence of wind can be scary! Short bursts of psychedelic saturated colours were also used to great effects, as were intense scenes in which images succeeded each other at breakneck speed, creating a believable sensation of panic. All that and the kind of naive overall look one would find in George Pal's War of the Worlds make this one of my favourite Lovecraft films, right up there with the black and white Call of Cthulluh. The only drawback to me was the music... it's not bad, but not all 70s sounds aged gracefully!!! I saw this earlier this year for the first time too. I agree, it's a rather good adaptation and something I rather enjoyed.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Nov 28, 2023 22:40:05 GMT -5
Saturday - Death Proof I’ve seen Death Proof a bunch of times over the years, but I had never seen the others before. That reminds me that I really need to finish watching Death Proof at some point, same with Run Lola Run (I was up to the third act and got distracted by something else. I swear I have the attention span of a gnat) While Tarantino seems to be more partial to the Gangster and Revenge side of Exploitation flicks, Death Proof felt unique among his other films and much less talked about/appreciated
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 29, 2023 0:14:21 GMT -5
I saw Death Proof as part of the original release with the other stories but I just found out that the dvd version is significantly longer - anyone seen that?
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Nov 30, 2023 16:34:40 GMT -5
... The performer that really stood out to me in Suspiria was the actress who played the sort of head-mistress character, Miss Tanner, who was I thought so effective that she should have been given more screen time, even though she did get a good amount for what was no more than an important secondary or supporting character. When I looked it up later I found it was none other than Alida Valli - look her up if you don't recognise the name, as I wouldn't have myself a few months ago. Her best-known movie to English-speaking fans would be The Third Man, in which she was the female lead. I didn't remember her from that, not having seen it for many years, but more recently I had seen her in an Italian film, Il Grido (1957) (very remarkable movie in its own right, highly recommended), in which she made an impression though not having a lot of screen time. Since then I've seen her in a few things, including a long overdue re-watching of The Third Man, and she now strikes me as one of the great actresses of her time. Late to this, but I hope you have seen her in Visconti's Senso (1954)--or that it's on your must-watch list. She gives a haunting and touching performance.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 30, 2023 19:40:31 GMT -5
I saw Death Proof as part of the original release with the other stories but I just found out that the dvd version is significantly longer - anyone seen that? I have the full-length version of Death Proof on DVD, but having never seen the shorter U.S. cinema version, I can't really comment on any specific differences. What I will say though is that Death Proof might be my least favourite of Tarantino's main films -- and I'm a BIG Tarantino fan! For one thing, I think it has a very poor structure. The second half of the movie is essentially just a rehash of the first, with four more beautiful young women coming in and acting exactly like the four we saw in the first half of the movie...only these four are gonna make sure they get even with the bad guy! The film just loops back round on itself and repeats the first half again, with different characters. I've always enjoyed Tarantino when he plays around with traditional film structure, a la Pulp Fiction, but the structural faults in Death Proof just cause the film to drag. It also features some rather unengaging characters and some very bad dialogue – especially the casual "girl talk" – which makes the film's heroines really unlikable. I mean, I get that Death Proof isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously and is a pastiche of those old, '70s, low-budget exploitation movies, bad dialogue and all! But a lot of the script is excruciating in a way that none of Tarantino's other films are. Tarantino also goes out of his way to show the maximum amount of gore and violence in the film – even by his standards! – which gives it a rather unpleasant atmosphere overall. Although, I will say that the car chases and practical stunts are pretty amazing. Still, even mediocre Tarantino is an awful lot more interesting than most modern films and Death Proof is definitely a memorable film, I'll give it that. But it lacks the freewheeling energy of his other films. Perhaps its worst crime is that it's just a bit boring. So, I dunno, maybe the cinematic release's shorter run time might improve things a bit? For my money, the overlooked gem in Tarantino's body of work is The Hateful Eight. That's an amazingly engaging and enjoyable western, even though most of the story takes place in the same room.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 30, 2023 20:03:39 GMT -5
I saw Death Proof as part of the original release with the other stories but I just found out that the dvd version is significantly longer - anyone seen that? I have the full-length version of Death Proof on DVD, but having never seen the shorter U.S. cinema version, I can't really comment on any specific differences. What I will say though is that Death Proof might be my least favourite of Tarantino's main films -- and I'm a BIG Tarantino fan! For one thing, I think it has a very poor structure. The second half of the movie is essentially just a rehash of the first, with four more beautiful young women coming in and acting exactly like the four we saw in the first half of the movie...only these four are gonna make sure they get even with the bad guy! The film just loops back round on itself and repeats the first half again, with different characters. I've always enjoyed Tarantino when he plays around with traditional film structure, a la Pulp Fiction, but the structural faults in Death Proof just cause the film to drag. It also features some rather unengaging characters and some very bad dialogue – especially the casual "girl talk" – which makes the film's heroines really unlikable. I mean, I get that Death Proof isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously and is a pastiche of those old, '70s, low-budget exploitation movies, bad dialogue and all! But a lot of the script is excruciating in a way that none of Tarantino's other films are. Tarantino also goes out of his way to show the maximum amount of gore and violence in the film – even by his standards! – which gives it a rather unpleasant atmosphere overall. Although, I will say that the car chases and practical stunts are pretty amazing. Still, even mediocre Tarantino is an awful lot more interesting than most modern films and Death Proof is definitely a memorable film, I'll give it that. But it lacks the freewheeling energy of his other films. Perhaps its worst crime is that it's just a bit boring. So, I dunno, maybe the cinematic release's shorter run time might improve things a bit? For my money, the overlooked gem in Tarantino's body of work is The Hateful Eight. That's an amazingly engaging and enjoyable western, even though most of the story takes place in the same room.
I haven't re-watched it since it first came out but my memory coincides more or less with all this. Sounds like the extra length didn't help any but perhaps I'll try seeing both one of these days to make my own comparison.
As far as his best and worst go, I'd agree that this is probably his weakest. His installment in the anthology film Four Rooms was below his usual standard as well, if I remember. So many people, including myself, have cited Jackie Brown as his underappreciated gem that it now seems questionable whether it can be accurately described as such, but that has been the one I usually placed under that heading.
I definitely thought Hateful Eight was the better of his two westerns, but neither is up there with my favourites of his; thus, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the one I thought was a true return to his very best form, though there are tons of good things to see in all his movies and I wouldn't miss any of them. I really hope he doesn't stick to this plan of quitting after his tenth feature-length film.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 30, 2023 20:04:33 GMT -5
I saw Death Proof as part of the original release with the other stories but I just found out that the dvd version is significantly longer - anyone seen that? I have the full-length version of Death Proof on DVD, but having never seen the shorter U.S. cinema version, I can't really comment on any specific differences. What I will say though is that Death Proof might be my least favourite of Tarantino's main films -- and I'm a BIG Tarantino fan! I don't think that this is really much of a hot take (which isn't anything against your take). I think it's generally considered his weakest film. It absolutely doesn't help when it's divorced from the broader Grindhouse which is how it was really meant to be viewed.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 30, 2023 20:08:51 GMT -5
... The performer that really stood out to me in Suspiria was the actress who played the sort of head-mistress character, Miss Tanner, who was I thought so effective that she should have been given more screen time, even though she did get a good amount for what was no more than an important secondary or supporting character. When I looked it up later I found it was none other than Alida Valli - look her up if you don't recognise the name, as I wouldn't have myself a few months ago. Her best-known movie to English-speaking fans would be The Third Man, in which she was the female lead. I didn't remember her from that, not having seen it for many years, but more recently I had seen her in an Italian film, Il Grido (1957) (very remarkable movie in its own right, highly recommended), in which she made an impression though not having a lot of screen time. Since then I've seen her in a few things, including a long overdue re-watching of The Third Man, and she now strikes me as one of the great actresses of her time. Late to this, but I hope you have seen her in Visconti's Senso (1954)--or that it's on your must-watch list. She gives a haunting and touching performance.
I did watch that recently and yes, an amazing performance. She has huge screen presence, a true star in that respect, but also a highly accomplished actress, which not all stars are or were. I hope to see as many of her films as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Rags on Dec 1, 2023 15:45:48 GMT -5
An '80s horror I never get tired of....Fright Night. The remake was ok but not as fun as the original.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 1, 2023 20:20:31 GMT -5
An '80s horror I never get tired of....Fright Night. The remake was ok but not as fun as the original. I actually watched it recently for the first time on AMC's "Countdown To Fear Fest", it's now one of my favorite movies. Kind of reminded me of Terrorvision in a way with the horror host being asked for help
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 1, 2023 20:48:01 GMT -5
An '80s horror I never get tired of....Fright Night. The remake was ok but not as fun as the original. I actually watched it recently for the first time on AMC's "Countdown To Fear Fest", it's now one of my favorite movies. Kind of reminded me of Terrorvision in a way with the horror host being asked for help
I still haven't seen it either. It played at the local movie theatre here in October and I had meant to go see it but missed my chance. Maybe they'll bring it back some time.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 2, 2023 0:30:22 GMT -5
Thanks largely to Slam's Favourite Movie of Year XXXX thread and in particular Hoosier X's recommendations, I've been watching a ton of early-30s movies the last few months and the entertainment they've provided has been remarkably consistent - partly I suppose because like anyone I know my own tastes and naturally try to pick things I think I'll like, but even so I think the average has been surprisingly high - I haven't been tempted to quit anything, even if it hasn't been 100% to my liking.
Last night I saw one I found slightly disappointing - Platinum Blonde. Still a good movie with lots of nice moments from the male lead, Robert Williams, and the main two actresses, Jean Harlow and Loretta Young, but Williams's character sometimes came across more as callously egocentric and bullying rather than the lovable underdog I think he was meant to be. I put it down to the way certain lines and scenes were written rather than the actor's performance, because most of the time he was quite likable. Also, Jean Harlow wasn't given much to work with in her character - a rich girl who has a romance with Williams's low-class (by her standards) reporter.
Tonight I saw Speak Easily (1932), with Buster Keaton and Jimmy Durante, and it was totally fun and comical all the way through. I won't say Keaton is as effective in this talkie as he is in his classic silents but he's pretty damn good. Durante is Durante, more amusing here than in his later years, but with the same basic stage persona - I thought he worked better as a character than as someone meant to be funny on his own. The nice girl character played by Ruth Selwyn (new to me) is very likeable and Thelma Todd is really funny playing the bad girl. The only disappointment for me, since the story is about a travelling theatrical troupe that gets a Broadway show, was that there weren't any real songs, just a few jokey things with Durante - which were mostly funny, though.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 11, 2023 17:29:09 GMT -5
So I watched Bambi this weekend. I was looking for a film from 1942 to watch and it was the only one that was readily available on the streaming platforms I have (without paying extra). And I didn't want to have to try to find the remote for the blue-ray player. I haven't seen this one in a very very long time. I know that we did have it on VHS when my boys were little, but it wasn't a favorite of theirs. It's a gorgeous film. And it's interesting in that there are a ton of differences between it and the other Disney films surrounding it. There are no humans in the movie. "Man" is always off-scene and is definitely the villain of the movie. It's also the only Disney animated film until Tarzan where none of the songs are sung within the film, but only in the background. While it's not in pantomime, there are only about 1000 words spoken in the entire movie. I was also not aware that Bambi's father's antlers were rotoscoped on to the film because they were too hard to animate properly. The movie was a box-office failure when it was released. Not because of anything intrinsically wrong with the movie, but because World War II cut the number of screens available (it wasn't released in Japan until the mid 50s).
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Dec 11, 2023 17:47:05 GMT -5
So I watched Bambi this weekend. I was looking for a film from 1942 to watch and it was the only one that was readily available on the streaming platforms I have (without paying extra). And I didn't want to have to try to find the remote for the blue-ray player. I haven't seen this one in a very very long time. I know that we did have it on VHS when my boys were little, but it wasn't a favorite of theirs. It's a gorgeous film. And it's interesting in that there are a ton of differences between it and the other Disney films surrounding it. There are no humans in the movie. "Man" is always off-scene and is definitely the villain of the movie. It's also the only Disney animated film until Tarzan where none of the songs are sung within the film, but only in the background. While it's not in pantomime, there are only about 1000 words spoken in the entire movie. I was also not aware that Bambi's father's antlers were rotoscoped on to the film because they were too hard to animate properly. The movie was a box-office failure when it was released. Not because of anything intrinsically wrong with the movie, but because World War II cut the number of screens available (it wasn't released in Japan until the mid 50s).
Judging by his reaction, it looks like Bambi is pushing Thumper toward this month's "New Releases from Marvel and DC" section of the comic shop.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 11, 2023 21:53:23 GMT -5
So I watched Bambi this weekend. I was looking for a film from 1942 to watch and it was the only one that was readily available on the streaming platforms I have (without paying extra). And I didn't want to have to try to find the remote for the blue-ray player. I haven't seen this one in a very very long time. I know that we did have it on VHS when my boys were little, but it wasn't a favorite of theirs. It's a gorgeous film. And it's interesting in that there are a ton of differences between it and the other Disney films surrounding it. There are no humans in the movie. "Man" is always off-scene and is definitely the villain of the movie. It's also the only Disney animated film until Tarzan where none of the songs are sung within the film, but only in the background. While it's not in pantomime, there are only about 1000 words spoken in the entire movie. I was also not aware that Bambi's father's antlers were rotoscoped on to the film because they were too hard to animate properly. The movie was a box-office failure when it was released. Not because of anything intrinsically wrong with the movie, but because World War II cut the number of screens available (it wasn't released in Japan until the mid 50s). That release in Japan led to a major shift in both the manga industry and the developing anime, in the form of Osamu Tezuka, who was greatly inspired by the expressiveness of Bambi's eyes which he then used in his own work, for heroic characters. His work became massively popular and everyone began to imitating it, leading to what modern manga readers believe is traditional manga styling, rather than Tezuka's idiosyncratic stylings.
|
|