Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#1227645 2018-11-09 1:22 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



Some of the funniest stuff I've read have been reviews of movies and series that the critics didn't like. Even at their most hyperbolic, they at least give you some idea what the show is about, and even if you like the show, you can enjoy the passion with which the critic you're reading does not.

For openers, I watched an episode of Z Nation, and coming in completely new to the series, looked it up to get a feel for what the general thrust of the story is.

This part was funny:

 Quote:
RECEPTION

The first season of Z Nation received mixed reviews from professional television critics. Its aggregate score on Metacritic is 48/100 based on reviews from 11 critics.[13][14] Rotten Tomatoes gave the show a rating of 53%, based on reviews from 17 critics, with the site's consensus stating "although it's hampered by an overcrowded narrative, Z Nation manages to muster up some fun scares without taking itself too seriously."[15]

Chris Carabott of IGN noted that the show "continues to set itself apart in campy and inventive ways."[16] Brian Moylan of The Guardian called Z Nation scary "in the same vague way as that talking green blob is in the Mucinex commercials" and concluded that viewers would hate all the characters, but that "Citizen Z (DJ Qualls) is especially horrible."[17] Merrill Barr of Forbes magazine said the show had a high entertainment value.[18]

In its first season, Z Nation averaged 1.42 million viewers per episode, including a .48 rating in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic.[19]



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



About the film 300:


 Quote:


Since its world premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 14, 2007, in front of 1,700 audience members, 300 has received generally mixed reviews. While it received a standing ovation at the public premiere,[65] it was panned at a press screening hours earlier, where many attendees left during the showing and those who remained booed at the end.[66] Critics are divided on the film.[67] On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 60% based 228 reviews, with an average rating of 6.1/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "A simple-minded but visually exciting experience, full of blood, violence, and ready-made movie quotes."[68] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating to reviews, the film has an average score of 52 out of 100, based on 42 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[67] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[69]

Some of the most unfavorable reviews came from major American newspapers. A.O. Scott of The New York Times describes 300 as "about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid," while criticizing its color scheme and suggesting that its plot includes racist undertones; Scott also poked fun at the buffed bodies of the actors portraying the Spartans, declaring that the Persian characters are "pioneers in the art of face-piercing", but that the Spartans had access to "superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities".[70] Kenneth Turan writes in the Los Angeles Times that "unless you love violence as much as a Spartan, Quentin Tarantino or a video-game-playing teenage boy, you will not be endlessly fascinated."[71] Roger Ebert, in his review, gave the film a two-star rating, writing, "300 has one-dimensional caricatures who talk like professional wrestlers plugging their next feud."[72] Some critics employed at Greek newspapers have been particularly critical, such as film critic Robby Eksiel, who said that moviegoers would be dazzled by the "digital action" but irritated by the "pompous interpretations and one-dimensional characters."[62][73]

Variety's Todd McCarthy describes the film as "visually arresting" although "bombastic"[74] while Kirk Honeycutt, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, praises the "beauty of its topography, colors and forms."[75] Writing in the Chicago Sun Times, Richard Roeper acclaims 300 as "the Citizen Kane of cinematic graphic novels."[76] Empire gave the film 3 out of 5 having a verdict of "Visually stunning, thoroughly belligerent and as shallow as a pygmy's paddling pool, this is a whole heap of style tinged with just a smidgen of substance." 300 was also warmly received by websites focusing on comics and video games. Comic Book Resources' Mark Cronan found the film compelling, leaving him "with a feeling of power, from having been witness to something grand."[77] IGN's Todd Gilchrist acclaimed Zack Snyder as a cinematic visionary and "a possible redeemer of modern moviemaking."[78]

Wonder Boy #1227787 2018-11-24 11:42 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29

They're having a marathon of the first 6 Star Trek movies today on Starz Encore (Direct TV, channels 535 and 536).

Commentary about the first, Star Trek: The Motion Picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture

 Quote:
James Berardinelli, reviewing the film in 1996, felt that the pace dragged and the plot bore too close a resemblance to the original series episode "The Changeling", but considered the start and end of the film to be strong.[179] Terry Lee Rioux, Kelley's biographer, noted that the film proved "that it was the character-driven play that made all the difference in Star Trek".[180] The slow pacing, extended reaction shots, and lack of action scenes led fans and critics to give the film a variety of nicknames, including The Motionless Picture,[181] The Slow Motion Picture,[7] The Motion Sickness,[182] and Where Nomad [the probe in "The Changeling"] Has Gone Before.[179]



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Dancing


While I like the movie, there are some groanworthy lines, but Jennifer Grey is adorable in the lead role, and Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey have dynamite chemistry onscreen that compensates for a lot of the trite and lowbrow dialogue.


 Quote:
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a rating of 70% based on reviews from 61 critics and a rating average of 6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Like its winsome characters, Dirty Dancing uses impressive choreography and the power of song to surmount a series of formidable obstacles."[15] Metacritic, another review aggregator, assigned the film a weighted average score of 65 out of 100, based on 20 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[16] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[17]

For the film's opening, The New York Times published a review titled "Dirty Dancing Rocks to an Innocent Beat". The Times reviewer called the film "a metaphor for America in the summer of 1963 – orderly, prosperous, bursting with good intentions, a sort of Yiddish-inflected Camelot."[18] Other reviews were more mixed: Gene Siskel gave the film a "marginal Thumbs Up" as he liked Jennifer Grey's acting and development of her character, while Roger Ebert gave it "Thumbs Down" due to its "idiot plot",[19] calling it a "tired and relentlessly predictable story of love between kids from different backgrounds."[20] TIME magazine was lukewarm, saying, "If the ending of Eleanor Bergstein's script is too neat and inspirational, the rough energy of the film's song and dance does carry one along, past the whispered doubts of better judgment."[21] In a retrospective review, Jezebel's Irin Carmon called the film "the greatest movie of all time" as "a great, brave movie for women" with "some subtle, retrospectively sharp-eyed critiques of class and gender."[22]

Abortion rights advocates have called the film the "gold standard" for cinematic portrayals of abortion,[23] which author Yannis Tzioumakis described as offering a "compassionate depiction of abortion in which the woman seeking an abortion was not demonized with the primary concerns being her health and preserving her capacity to bear children at a future time rather than the ethical dilemma that might or might not inform her decision, a portrayal that is not necessarily available in current films."[24]

The film drew adult audiences instead of the expected teens, with viewers rating the film highly.[13] Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went right back into the theater to watch it a second time.[13] Word-of-mouth promotion took the film to the number one position in the United States, and in 10 days it had broken the $10 million mark. By November, it was also achieving international fame. Within seven months of release, it had brought in $63 million in the US and boosted attendance in dance classes across America.[11] It was one of the highest-grossing films of 1987, earning $170 million worldwide.[25][26]

The film's popularity continued to grow after its initial release. It was the number one video rental of 1988[27] and became the first film to sell a million copies on video. When the film was re-released in 1997, ten years after its original release, Swayze received his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame,[28] and videos were still selling at the rate of over 40,000 per month.[28] As of 2005, it was selling a million DVDs per year,[29] with over ten million copies sold as of 2007.[30]

A May 2007 survey by Britain's Sky Movies listed Dirty Dancing as number one on "Women's most-watched films", above the Star Wars trilogy, Grease, The Sound of Music, and Pretty Woman.[31] The film's popularity has also caused it to be called "the Star Wars for girls."[6][32][33] An April 2008 article in Britain's Daily Mail listed Dirty Dancing as number one on a list of "most romantic movie quotes ever", for Baby's line: "I'm scared of walking out of this room and never feeling the rest of my whole life the way I feel when I'm with you."[34]

The film's music has also had considerable impact. The closing song, "(I've Had) The Time of My Life", has been listed as the "third most popular song played at funerals" in the UK.



The "Star Wars for girls" assessment made me laugh.

I pretty much agree with all the things said about the movie, good and bad. But for whatever flaws, it was a very enjoyable movie.
It was a bit of a surprise to me that it was met with equal enthusiasm in the U.K.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



The truly savage reviews were for its sequel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Dancing:_Havana_Nights

 Quote:
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 23% rating based on 108 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 4.2/10. The website provides a brief critical consensus: "Cheesy, unnecessary remake."[5] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 39 out of 100, based on 32 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[6]

Robert Denerstein of the Denver Rocky Mountain News gave it a D+, saying: "Tries to add Cuban flavor to a familiar plot but comes up with nothing more than a bubbling stew of cliches." Peter Howell of the Toronto Star thought it to be "Charmless, clumsy and culturally offensive all at the same time" and merited it 1 out of 5 stars. Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe awarded it 2 out of 4 stars, saying: "As you might expect, the movie is as square as a sock hop." A more favorable review came from Philip Martin of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who rated it B-, because "aside from the triteness of the dialogue, the mathematical predictability of the script and the muddling of numbskulled politics, DD: HN is a fairly enjoyable experience." According to Louis Hobson of Jam! Magazine, who thought the movie was worth 3.5 out of 5 stars, the main redeeming factor was the choreography: "You may have problems with the obvious, cliched story, but the dancing is incredible." That didn't convince everyone; Philip Wuntch of the Dallas Morning News thought the movie was worth no more than a C, stating that "both the dance numbers and the personal drama are largely listless." [7]


But despite not having the emotional highs of its predecessor, I think this sequel got a bad rap. Some movies or actors it's just fashionable to trash. I thought the movie's couple had good onscreen energy, the sequel has nicer cinematography and location scenery, more palatable dialogue, and overall a better looking and likeable cast. I thought the dialogue was more sharp and clever, particularly regarding the barely restrained tension between Cubans and Americans on the cusp of the 1959 revolution, and the music and dancing a well-played undercurrent of the political tension in the film.

There's a number of movies that use music and dancing as symbolic of expression for reppressed ambitions, speech and freedom, including Flashdance, Footloose, Dirty Dancing and Swing Kids. Swing dancing was pretty big in the early/mid 1990's, I think the latter movie is what sparked its popularity. One night club I went to at the time had a weekly "swing night" where that was the only music they played.

I realized about 2 months ago that the songs in Flashdance and Dirty Dancing are ones I still hear pretty much every day on the radio while driving, over 30 years after their initial release. That's some remarkably enduring popularity.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings_(1961_film)#Reception

 Quote:
At the time of its release, the film received negative reviews from major publications such as Time magazine[5] and New York Times' Bosley Crowther. The latter felt that the movie had "the nature of an illustrated lecture" and was a "peculiarly impersonal film that constructs a great deal of random action around Jesus and does very little to construct a living personality for Him."[6]

However, its reputation has since improved, with such critics as Leonard Maltin giving the film three-and-a-half stars out of four. Musicians such as Grammy Award-winning Art Greenhaw have cited the movie as being an influence in their work and even their favorite film of all time.[7] The film holds a "fresh" 86% on Rotten Tomatoes.[8]

King of Kings is also memorable for the music score by composer Miklós Rózsa, which was nominated for a Golden Globe Award.


and especially:

 Quote:
Most films at the time, except for the 1935 French film Golgotha, did not show Jesus' face, preferring to do shots of his hands (as in Ben-Hur) or over-the-shoulder views. King of Kings was the first large-budget, major-studio sound film in English to actually show Christ's face. Jeffrey Hunter's youthful, matinee idol appearance (although he was 33 when cast) caused some to nickname the film "I Was a Teenage Jesus",[10] a parodic reference to the 1957 horror film I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:
2005: AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores – Nominated[11]
2006: AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers – Nominated[12]



I think of Jeffrey Hunter as the messiah of two religions, Christianity, and Star Trek. Star Trek having a cult status that almost qualifies as a religion. It was only by rejecting the offer to do a second Star Trek pilot episode that the leading role went to William Shatner.



Wonder Boy #1229340 2019-08-04 11:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Out of curiosity, I looked up a Shirley Temple movie that's about to begin in a few minutes on TCM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Hagen_Girl

 Quote:
CRITICAL RECEPTION

In one scene [in the film], Temple attempts suicide. A critic wrote that it was too bad the attempt failed.[7]

The New York Times thought the script amateurish and of Reagan and Temple wrote, "Ronald Reagan keeps as straight a face as he can while doing what must have struck him as the silliest job of his career [...] [b]ut it is poor, little put-upon Shirley who looks most ridiculous through it all. She acts with the mopish dejection of a school-child who has just been robbed of a two-scoop ice cream cone."[8]

The film was included in the popular 1978 book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.[4]


Ouch!

Shirley Temple, while a superstar child actor up till 1941, was less than successful when she emerged as a young adult actress in 1947-1949.
But starting in 1967 she began a political/diplomatic career, and held foreign diplomat positions under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and G.H.W. Bush.



Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
In his autobiography "Where's the Rest of Me?", Ronald Reagan wrote that he attempted to persuade director Peter Godfrey to have the ending rewritten, arguing that audiences wouldn't approve of a romantic pairing between Reagan and the 17-years-younger Shirley Temple. According to Reagan, Godfrey pointed out that his own wife, Renee Godfrey, was 20 years younger than himself, and Reagan decided it would be unwise to press the matter.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039892/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
I watched it, it was actually not a horrible movie. And while Shirley Temple's character pursued him and he fronted there was a romantic spark between them to deliberately foment small town gossip, Reagan's character in the end turned out to be more paternal and fatherly. It wasn't high art, but it was a pleasant movie.


Reagan for me will always be most charming for me in this movie:





I have a great 8 X 10 movie still I purchased about 25 years ago and for a long time had displayed on the wall. Better than any I saw online now, I'm glad I got it when I did.
Here's the one I have.


Wonder Boy #1230062 2019-10-26 10:11 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordello_of_Blood

 Quote:
Upon release, the film was poorly received by critics.[9] Leonard Maltin gave the film two stars, calling it a "fitfully amusing juvenile horror comedy".[3] Chicago Tribune reviewer Mark Caro wrote, "The Crypt tradition is ghoulish irreverence, but here it seems merely a hip excuse to stoop low."[25] The Deseret News wrote, "For a horror-comedy film to work, it's got to be both funny and scary. Tales From the Crypt Presents Bordello of Blood is neither. Instead, it's only a bath of blood and bare skin, with some lame wisecracks thrown in for bad measure."[2] Writing for The Washington Post, Richard Harrington said, "Triple the length of its cable television inspiration, Tales From the Crypt Presents Bordello of Blood is triple the gore, triple the naked women, but not, alas, triple the fun."[26] Variety panned the film, writing, "another cheesy goulash of smart-alecky humor and full-bore gore, spiced with more shots of topless lovelies than you'd find in a '60s sexploitation flick. Adolescent boys might groove to the mix, but most other ticketbuyers will avoid this tawdry opus like the plague."[27] TV Guide gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, writing, "Miller is the best thing about the film, but a little of him goes a long way, and he's on screen a lot. [...] This is a travesty, and if Tales From the Crypt publisher Bill Gaines isn't spinning in his grave, it can only be because someone's already put a stake through his heart."[28] Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "Bordello of Blood, ... easily could have been called 'Bore-dello of Blood.' This gory vampire spoof is remarkably free of jolts, hardly registering as a fright film, with a series of weak special effects involving many globs of guts."[29]

The New York Times critic Lawrence Gelder wrote, "Vampires aren't the only things in Bordello of Blood that can't stand up to daylight. Neither can the plot."[30] Austin Chronicle critic Marc Savlov gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, calling it "The Dennis Miller Show… with nekkid vampire-vixens."[31] Exclaim! writer Robert Bell gave the film 4 out of 10, writing, "Tales from the Crypt was known for its twist endings, morality parables and askew sensibility; this feature shared none of those traits, and wouldn't be recognizable as a part of the series without the presence of the Cryptkeeper bookending the film."[16] Dread Central gave the film a score of 2 out of 5, writing, "If you told me the screenwriters dug through Miller’s trash and inserted his discarded one-liners into the script, I would have no problem believing it. Not a single one of his lines works, and every time he opens his mouth it only further reinforces the fact he was so very, very wrong for this role."[9] Allmovie also gave the film a score of two stars out of five, writing, "Even with its obligatory Crypt Keeper bookends, the 87-minute Bordello of Blood seems as inflated as the many surgically enhanced breasts on display."[4]

However, not all reviews were negative. The Los Angeles Times writer Jack Matthews gave the film a favorable review, calling it a "bloody good vehicle for Dennis Miller", writing, "What it lacks in irony and suspense, Gilbert Adler's Tales From the Crypt Presents Bordello of Blood makes up for in whimsy and cheeky self-assurance. [...] This is the version of Dracula that Bram Stoker would have written with the collaboration of Mel Brooks and the Marquis de Sade over drinks at Hooters."[32] Arrow in the Head also reviewed the film favorably, giving it a score of 6 out of 10, writing, "this second entry in the Tales From The Crypt big screen series doesn’t fully measure up to its predecessor, but sill manages to deliver a mindless fun ride".[33] ComingSoon.net wrote that "Bordello is in many ways a superior Tales from the Crypt entry. Adler had previously directed episodes of the show and the film feels like an amplified episode, brightly lit, garish and tricked out with even more sleaze, sex, blood and general luridness".[6] The Digital Bits wrote, "Despite itself, Bordello of Blood is a fun movie. It’s not the best in the Tales from the Crypt series, but it’s miles above [Ritual]. [...] Sure there are plenty of eye-rolling moments, [...] but it’s worth a couple of watches... especially to see William Sadler as a mummy."[10]

The film holds a 12% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 33 reviews, and the average rating is 3.2/10. The consensus states: "Bordello of Blood is not as scary or funny as it thinks it is (or should've been), and all of Dennis Miller's lines sound like castoffs from his stand-up material".[34]



I knew this movie was no prize when it came out, but for the fun schlock factor and Dennis Miller, I always wanted to see it, and last night I finally got around to it.

I didn't really love or hate it, it was fun in parts, but just didn't hold my attention. I think everything it tried to do was done better in From Dusk Till Dawn.


Wonder Boy #1230063 2019-10-26 10:25 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dusk_till_Dawn


 Quote:
Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 63% of 48 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating was 6/10. The site's consensus reads: "A pulpy crime drama/vampire film hybrid, From Dusk till Dawn is an uneven but often deliriously enjoyable B-movie."[17] Metacritic rated it 52/100 based on 14 reviews.[18] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.[19]

Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars and described it as "a skillful meat-and-potatoes action extravaganza with some added neat touches".[20] In her review for The New York Times, Janet Maslin wrote, "The latter part of From Dusk till Dawn is so relentless that it's as if a spigot has been turned on and then broken. Though some of the tricks are entertainingly staged, the film loses its clever edge when its action heats up so gruesomely and exploitatively that there's no time for talk".[21] Entertainment Weekly gave the film a "B" rating and Owen Gleiberman wrote, "Rodriguez and Tarantino have taken the let-'em-eat-trash cynicism of modern corporate moviemaking and repackaged it as junk-conscious 'attitude.' In From Dusk till Dawn, they put on such a show of cooking up popcorn that they make pandering to the audience seem hip".[22] However, in his review for The Washington Post, Desson Howe wrote, "The movie, which treats you with contempt for even watching it, is a monument to its own lack of imagination. It's a triumph of vile over content; mindless nihilism posing as hipness".[23] Cinefantastique magazine's Steve Biodrowski wrote, "Whereas one might reasonably have expected that the combo of Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez would yield a critical mass of nuclear proportions, instead of an atomic fireball's worth of entertainment, we get a long fuse, quite a bit of fizzle, and a rather minor blast".[24] In his review for the San Francisco Chronicle, Mick LaSalle called the film, "an ugly, unpleasant criminals-on-the-lam film that midway turns into a boring and completely repellent vampire 'comedy'. If it's not one of the worst films of 1996 it will have been one miserable year".[25] In Marc Savlov's review for the Austin Chronicle, he wrote, "Fans of Merchant-Ivory will do well to steer clear of Rodriguez's newest opus, but both action and horror film fans have cause for celebration after what seems like a particularly long splatter-drought. This is horror with a wink and a nod to drive-in theatres and sweaty back seats. This is how it's done".[26]


I think From Dusk Till Dawn remains one of the perfect mindless fun Halloween thrillers, up there with the original 1978 Halloween from John Carpenter.

It makes no pretense about aesthetic or literary merit. It's just pure fun, what you came to watch when you select a horror flick. And the scene with Salma Hayek... "now that's what I call a fuckin' show!"




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



I just finished re-watching The Island(2005). Despite that it's flawed and less than it could be, I still enjoyed watching it, even a second time.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_(2005_film)

 Quote:
The Island drew mixed reviews from critics.[9][10] The review-agreggation website Rotten Tomatoes gives a score of 40%, with a weighted average of 5.35 out of 10 based on reviews from 200 critics. The website's "Critics Consensus" calls the film "[a] clone of THX 1138, Coma, and Logan's Run" and describes it as "another loud and bombastic Michael Bay movie where explosions and chases matter more than characters, dialogue, or plot."[11] On Metacritic, the film received "[m]ixed or average reviews," with a weighted average of 50 out of 100 based on 38 critics.[12]

Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert said, "[the first half] is a spare, creepy science fiction parable, and then it shifts into a high-tech action picture. Both halves work. Whether they work together is a good question."[13] He gave the film three out of four stars and praised the performances of the actors, in particular Michael Clarke Duncan: "[He] has only three or four scenes, but they're of central importance, and he brings true horror to them." On the critical side, he said the film "never satisfactorily comes full circle" and missed the opportunity "to do what the best science fiction does, and use the future as a way to critique the present."

Variety's Justin Chang called the film an "exercise in sensory overkill" and said that Bay took on "the weighty moral conundrums of human cloning, resolving them in a storm of bullets, car chases and more explosions than you can shake a syringe at."[14] He noted McGregor and Buscemi as highlights of the film, along with Nigel Phelps' production design. However, he felt the story lacked in surprises and blamed "attention-deficit editing by Paul Rubell and Christian Wagner" for action sequences that he thought lacked tension and were "joltingly repetitive".

Salon's Stephanie Zacharek also praised the actors but felt that when the film "[gets] really interesting, Bay thinks he needs to throw in a car crash or a round of gunfire to keep our attention." She felt the film had enough surprises "to make you wish it were better."[15] Similarly, The New York Times' reviewer A.O. Scott said, "[the] film is smarter than you might expect, and at the same time dumber than it could be."[16]

Reviewers were critical of the excessive product placement in the film.[17][18][19]


That perfectly gels with my own impressions of the movie. Particularly the clonal Logan's Run elements.
And the tossing in of action where exploring concept was called for.

Another movie that I think is more intelligently done and comes to a more satisfying conclusion, following similar themes is Gattaca.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
.
A 1979 gang-war-themed movie I hadn't seen in many years, The Warriors, directed by Walter Hill, despite being fairly popular when it came out, is one I never saw until recently on television, in roughly 40 years since its release.
But now...
It seems to run several times a year across multiple channels. AMC ran it twice in the last 2 days. And it also ran on BBC America a day before that. The costumed gangs and the street-tough silly lines, and 1979-era music scoring (along the same lines as the eerie synthsizer music scoring in John Carpenter movies like the Halloween early films, John Carpenter's The Thing, and maybe Escape From New York) make this movie, while often silly, fun to watch. There are also two popular songs in the movie. Particularly "In the City" by Joe Walsh, that was included in The Eagles' The Long Run album, out later the same year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_(film)

Quote
The Warriors received negative reviews from contemporary critics, who derided its lack of realism and found its dialogue stilted.[22] In his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert gave it two out of four stars and wrote that, despite Hill's cinematic skill, the film is implausible in a mannerist style that deprives the characters of depth and spontaneity: "No matter what impression the ads give, this isn't even remotely intended as an action film. It's a set piece. It's a ballet of stylized male violence."[23]

However, Ebert later wrote during a review of Hill's film Southern Comfort that he felt he overlooked some positive qualities in The Warriors out of his dislike for Hill's general approach to broad characterizations.[24] Gene Siskel gave the film one star out of four, likening the dialogue to that of "Harvey Lembeck in those silly '60s motorcycle pictures" and concluding, "You would think after watching 'The Warriors' that gang membership was a victimless crime, save for the occasional sadist who pops up as comic relief. This entire film is a romantic lie."[25]

Linda Gross of the Los Angeles Times called the film "an insightful, stylized and shallow portrayal of gang warfare that panders to angry youthful audiences."[26]
Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote, "None of Hill's dynamism will save The Warriors from impressing most neutral observers as a ghastly folly."[27]
In his review for Newsweek, David Ansen wrote, "Another problem arises when the gang members open their mouths: their banal dialogue is jarringly at odds with Hill's hyperbolic visual scheme."[28]

Frank Rich of Time wrote, "unfortunately, sheer visual zip is not enough to carry the film; it drags from one scuffle to the next ... The Warriors is not lively enough to be cheap fun or thoughtful enough to be serious."[29]
[Sol] Yurick [writer of the original 1965 novel version] expressed his disappointment and speculated that it scared some people because "it appeals to the fear of a demonic uprising by lumpen youth", appealing to many teenagers because it "hits a series of collective fantasies."[15]
President Ronald Reagan was a fan of the film, even calling lead actor Michael Beck to tell him he had screened it at Camp David and enjoyed it.[18]

However...

Quote
CULT STATUS

The Warriors has become a cult film, and some film critics have since re-examined it. As of August 2022, the film garnered an 88% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 48 reviews. The critical consensus reads: "As violent as it is stylish, The Warriors is a thrilling piece of pulp filmmaking."[30]

In 2003, The New York Times placed the film on its "Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made".[31] Entertainment Weekly named it the 16th-greatest cult film on its 2003 "Top 50 Greatest Cult Films" list,[32] and ranked it 14th in its 2008 list of the "25 Most Controversial Movies Ever".[33]

Hill reflected in 2016:
"I love the fact that people still enjoy something I did what, 37 years ago? It makes an old man happy. I'm surprised by it. But I loved working with my cameraman Andy Laszlo in shooting it, and I loved working with my cast, who were incredibly trusting of this crazy old fucker that was making the movie. They didn't get it, I don't think—costumed gangs running around New York?—but they just went with it." [21]

I don't agree with all the reviews. I thought is was lowbrow and cheap, but still fun to watch.
And I like just about every movie that showcases New York City as the backdrop for its story.

Compare this movie also to another Walter Hill directed movie Streets of Fire, out 5 years later in 1984, with similar themes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streets_of_Fire
Deborah Van Valkenberg has lead roles in both movies.

This website that covers the characters in The Warriors, and the actors who played them, hilariously discusses all these elements in the movie, and often playfully taunts the aactors with their own lines of dialogue from the movie :
http://www.fringeunderground.com/thewarriors.html

Wonder Boy #1237704 2023-07-22 12:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
I just watched a film-noir comedy called Peeper ("peeper" apparently being a 1940's slang expression for private detective) staring Michael Caine and Natalie Wood, and directed by Peter Hyams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeper_(film)

Quote
Peeper is a 1975 American mystery comedy film directed by Peter Hyams and starring Michael Caine as Leslie C. Tucker, a bungling private investigator.[5] It was a send-up of 1940s film noir. Peeper was a box-office failure that jeopardized Hyams's career and almost prevented him from obtaining funding to produce Capricorn One.

Hyams said he "managed to combine critical and commercial failure. And that made me colder than ice. Nobody wanted me."

I'm glad it didn't ruin Hyams' career, because he went on to do a number of movies I've really enjoyed, such as Telefon, Outland, 2010: Odyssey Two, Timecop, and End of Days.
Outland in particular is one I felt it was visually gorgeous, realistic, with well-played politics and humor throughout. And outstanding performances by Sean Connery, Peter Boyle and many others.
Hyams' self-deprecating remarks were particularly funny. John Carpenter took a more permanent hit to his career after his 1982 new version of The Thing, that I thought was a great movie, I've re-watched many times, and never understood why it was so panned at the time. But critics have come around and now acclaim The Thing as a great movie, but not soon enough to repair the permanent damage to John Carpenter's career.

Wonder Boy #1238990 2024-03-17 11:14 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
.
I re-watched Highlander over the weekend and got a laugh out of this review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_(film)

Quote
On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 71% based on 38 reviews, with an average rating of 6.30/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "People hate Highlander because it's cheesy, bombastic, and absurd.

lol
I loved it, but am amused by the comments of those who don't share my opinion. I like the historical epic aspect of the movie, that spans centuries and landscapes worldwide, with a fantasy aspect of swordfight batltes to claim immortal souls, beautiful both in the highlands of Scotland, and the night-lit cityscapes of 1986 New York City. One man's "cheesy" is another's well-played comedy relief, but y'know, whatever.

Also great from start to finish is the high-energy Queen soundtrack.On re-watching, the number of great sons well incorporated into the movie was many more than I remembered.


The rest of the reviews...

Quote
And people love it for the same reasons."[43] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 24 out of 100 based on 7 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[44] Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade "C+" on scale of A to F.[45]

In 1998, Halliwell's Film Guide described Highlander as a "muddled, violent and noisy fantasy" and stated that "the explanation doesn't come until most people will have given up."[31]

In 2000, Matt Ford of the BBC gave the film three stars out of five, writing, "From the moody, rain-soaked, noir-ish streets of late 20th century America to the wild open spaces of medieval Scotland, Mulcahy plunders movie history to set off his visceral fight scenes with suitably rugged locations. ... What the film loses through ham acting, weak narrative, and pompous macho posturing it more than compensates with in sheer fiery bravado, pace, and larger than life action."[46]
Also in 2000, IGN, awarding it eight out of ten, wrote, "This 80s classic has a lot going for it. The hardcore MTV manner in which it was filmed is common these days, but was groundbreaking then. This movie features some of the best scene transitions committed to celluloid. ... To this is added some fun performances by Connery and especially Clancy Brown."[36]

In 2000, Christopher Null of FilmCritic.com gave the film four-and-a-half stars out of five, writing, "Highlander has no equal among sword-and-sorcery flicks."[47] Null later called Highlander "the greatest action film ever made," saying that it features "awesome swordfights, an awesome score, and a time-bending plotline that only a philistine could dislike".[48]

In 2002, giving the film three stars out of five, Adam Tyner of DVD Talk wrote, "The screenplay spots a number of intelligent, creative ideas, and I find the very concept of displacing the sword-and-sorcery genre to then-modern-day New York City to be fairly inventive. The dialogue and performances don't quite match many of the film's concepts, though. The tone seems somewhat uneven as if Highlander is unsure if it wants to be seen as a straight adventure epic or if it's a campy action flick."[49]
In his 2009 Movie Guide, Leonard Maltin gave the film one-and-a-half stars out of four, describing it as an "interesting notion made silly and boring", but acknowledged that "Connery, at least, shows some style." He added that "former rock video director Mulcahy's relentlessly showy camera moves may cause you to reach for the Dramamine."[50]

Tom Hutchinson of Radio Times awarded it three stars out of five, calling it "so confused as to be hilariously watchable". Hutchinson praised "some great sword-lunging duels — the best of which is set in a Madison Square Garden garage — but the story is never that engaging."[51]

Wonder Boy #1238991 2024-03-17 11:30 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
.

Also, he Frank Miller-direced version of The Spirit also calls out for menion here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_(2008_film)


Quote
On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes the film holds an approval rating of 14% based on 114 reviews, with an average rating of 3.6/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Though its visuals are unique, The Spirit's plot is almost incomprehensible, the dialogue is ludicrously mannered, and the characters are unmemorable."[36] Metacritic gave it an aggregate score of 30 out of 100, based on 24 critics, indicating "generally negative reviews".[37] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "C?" on an A+ to F scale.[38]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film one out of four stars and said, "There is not a trace of human emotion in it. To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material".[39]

In a positive review, Ricky Bentley of the Miami Herald said, "Macht manages to meld macho with melodrama to make the Spirit come to life."[40]

Frank Lovece of Newsday, a one-time comic-book writer, found that "gorgeous cinematography and design can't mask the hollow core and bizarre ugliness of this mishandled comics adaptation", and noted that while Eisner's own Spirit was "an average-Joe [...] in a rumpled suit—a vulnerable but insouciant everyman in humanist fables", Miller's Spirit "now has a superpower—a healing factor. Eisner's own spirit must be spinning in its grave".[41]

Chris Barsanti of Filmcritic.com stated, "It's a frankly gorgeous effect, liberated by the fact that Miller adapted freely from Eisner's panels—the two were longtime friends—to create an organic story instead of slavishly following the master's work", and calling it "one of the year's most refreshingly fun films."[42]

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, found the movie a "ludicrously knowing and mannered noir pastiche, full of burnt-end romance and 'style', but robotic at its core".[43]

Ken Hanke of Mountain Xpress observed, "The film may not move smoothly—Miller's too fond of 'just damn weird' digressions for that—but it does move and isn't hard to follow. Its screwiness is deliberate and it's all a matter of taste."[44]

A. O. Scott in The New York Times summed up, "To ask why anything happens in Frank Miller's sludgy, hyper-stylized adaptation of a fabled comic book series by Will Eisner may be an exercise in futility. The only halfway interesting question is why the thing exists at all."[45]

In 2010, Empire magazine listed the film at No. 32 on their "Top 50 Worst Movies of All Time" list.[46]

Wonder Boy #1238993 2024-03-17 11:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
.


Another I wached a few minuess of on TCM when I came in last night, a 1980 slasher thriller film called He Knows You're Alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Knows_You%27re_Alone


Quote
The film received mixed-to-negative reviews, including one by Tom Buckley of The New York Times, cited "uncertain pacing, halting performances and innumerable technical flaws", while praising the performance of male lead Don Scardino.[18]

The Boston Globe's Michael Blowen faulted the film's script and direction as "slow and strictly second rate", adding "the production values are only slightly better than those in my uncle's home movies".[19]

lol

Quote
Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times deemed the film a "standard grisly rampaging killer fare... there are the usual bows to Hitchcock... but He Knows You're Alone is really no more than just another by-the-numbers piece of sickening trash".[20]

In their October 23, 1980, edition of Sneak Previews, critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert lambasted the film as "gruesome and despicable", likening it to similar slasher films, such as Friday the 13th, Prom Night and Terror Train, all released the same year.[13]

Jack Mathews of the Detroit Free Press wrote, "Rarely has a horror movie worked so hard for so little. There are so many cinematic shock tactics employed—tacky eerie music announcing the killer's presence, shadowy forms in the foreground and background, slamming doors, blown light fuses, hands on shoulders etc.—that you're numb by the sixth killing."[21]

Jimmy Summers of BoxOffice magazine gave the film a negative review, noting, "He Knows You're Alone is another one of those low-budget thrillers that should carry in the credits line: "Based on characters and ideas developed by John Carpenter."[22] Additionally, Summers noted the lack of on-screen violence as leaving the "more blood-thirsty horror fans feeling cheated".[22]

John Dodd of the Edmonton Journal similarly deemed the film "unoriginal and unnecessary", and a "bloody, boring walk down the aisle".[23]

John Herzfeld of The Courier-Journal, however, praised the film's opening film-within-a-film sequence as a "wry twist", concluding, "Despite the incompetent script and some irregular pacing, He Knows You're Alone does deliver a few surprises and some suspense".[24]

As of September 2023, the film holds a 30% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 10 reviews.[17]

I got through about the first 30 minutes, and then only came back to it after that on commercial breaks from another movie I started watching instead. Aside from very early roles by Tom Hanks, Paul Gleason (the high school Dean in The Breakfast Club, and the bone-headed detective making Bruce Willis' mission far more difficult in Die Hard), and a few good looking B- and C-list actresses, several of whom debuted in this movie, there wasn't a lot to hold he attention in the film.

Some of the one-liners in the savage reviews of it are both funny and appropriately brutal.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5