Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Histoire d'O (1975)
As erotic as an appointment with the dentist
HISTOIRE D'O is famous and yet few will say they've seen it or admit they've seen it. Just look at the few reviews posted here at IMDb. The main reason is simply because the whole thing is risible! It's beautifully shot but still risible. It's almost like an old Benny Hill sketch : O loves Rene but Rene loves Jacqueline who loves Sir Stephen who loves O who loves Jacqueline who loves the fire hydrant. On and on it goes. I truly wondered what planet they were living on since very little of it made sense. Do they ever buy groceries? Wait in line at the bank? You know, things normal mortals do. The story wants us to believe it's all about love but love has nothing to do with the people inhabiting this baroque soft-core reverie. Love? Hahaha!
Like all "erotic" films of the period, all women are bisexual, or anythingsexual, ready to take off their filmy clothes for the audiences' viewing pleasure. This brings up the main point of the "film" : the focus is only on the women which makes me wonder why they'd bothered with the male characters, who were very boring. Obviously the director, producers, and writer didn't care for them. They are merrily there to serve a purpose. The film would have been much more honest if the entire cast had been female, which during one segment it was. This is probably the best part of the film, not because it's all female but because the lecherous filmmakers could finally show every detail of the females' bodies along with their "tortured" minds.
The only saving grace of this superficial "charnel" nonsense was Corinne Clery. Remove her from the film and there would be nothing left to watch. Corinne was practically naked throughout the film. Her body was perfect back then.
In the end, the entire "complex" story, bogged down by its own pretensions and limitations, was bereft of the one thing they wanted to achieve : true eroticism.
Uchu kara no messeji (1978)
Walnuts from Space!
I saw this film at the movies. Yes, a Japanese film that had a wide release back in 1978. How times have changed. It's something which doesn't happen anymore.
Is this an all 'round successful film? Not really. I'd say 40% is really pure schlock. While the remaining 60% is non-stop explosions and goofiness which I enjoyed back in the day and still today.
- the idea of magical walnuts was cool
- The main villain looks really great
- some of the space fights / dog chases, in the asteroid belt and inside the villain's inner sanctum were amazingly edited and were later seen in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI. Oh the irony.
- the sail-ship in space is fine by me
- great sword fight at the end
- The fantasy / sci-fi elements actually work here
- the tight pants on the two male heroes. Aha the 1970s!
- It was shot in VistaVision!
- the mother in the wheelchair
- the retro 1960s dance and pop music ; outdated even in 1978
- the script is all over the place
- at times, the film's overall grubby look
- the overacting
Today's audiences wouldn't understand this style of filmmaking but I get it and I enjoy it for what it was / is.
Le meraviglie di Aladino (1961)
It's forgotten for a reason : contrived, unfunny and laborious
THE WONDERS OF ALADDIN is an Arabian PEPLUM adventure which makes little sense. The screenplay, by Bava and others, is point blank terrible. I'd like to write a comprehensive review of it but the story is near incomprehensible that I can't review it because I still don't know what the story is about. It meanders here and there with no semblance of a cohesive storyline or logic.
The first thing which stands out is that Aladdin is played by a 35 year old Donald O'Connor. I don't need to say anything more about this.
Aladdin still lives with his mother who one day buys a cheap lamp which 'makes noise'. Now who would buy a lamp or even sell a lamp that makes noise? This 'noisy' lamp is meant to be funny but it's just the beginning of a series of comedic touches or jokes which aren't comical or funny in any way, shape or form.
Now Aladdin accidentally rubs the lamp while scratching himself because he has fleas (!!!). Like the 'noisy' lamp, the scenes featuring fleas go one endlessly and never illicit any laughs. I've never thought of seeing a movie waste 10 minutes of film on stupid fleas. It's overkill.
The film continues on here and there with nary a story. Now the lack of story could be fine if the direction and pacing and dialogue where amusing but it's not. There are aspects of this story which beggars belief: such as Aladdin NEVER knowing how to summon the Genie (played with complete indifference by Vittorio De Sica). Once Aladdin figures he can summon a Genie he never asks for money, love, etc. It never dawns on Aladdin to ask the Genie to grant him all of his wishes. The Genie is simply there like a prop whenever Aladdin is in a predicament. At one point, Aladdin tries to summon the Genie but since he doesn't remember how he did it the first time (see above i.e. fleas) in one scene we have to endure O'Connor goofing around, rubbing his stomach and such. A-ha! Again not funny. Just stupid and forced. This moment happens 30 minutes into the film and we still can't see any semblance of a storyline. Aladdin and his slave (Milton Reid) are stranded in the desert after a battle. The two end up being captured by desert Amazons who want to mate with them and kill them afterwards but Aladdin figures out how to get the Genie to get them out of there and bam they're back in the desert, walking in a chain-gang. The entire scene with the Amazons, who look like Las Vegas showgirls, was pointless. They could cut it out and go from the scene before and then to the chain-gang moment and it wouldn't make any difference. It's inconsistent and padded and nonsensical as that.
O'Connor was a talented and his artistry does shine through from time to time but for the love of God he was totally miscast. Terence Hill is in this and he's wasted in a pointless role. The whole project feels aborted and misconceived. Steve Reeves was supposed to star in this and the European film company LUX changed their minds as Steve was going to star in a couple of other productions, including the much better and more successful THIEF OF BAGHDAD. So they cast O'Connor instead of Reeves. How does one go from Steve Reeves to Donald O'Connor is a total mystery.
So to recap:
The bad: unfunny jokes, lame action scenes, terrible meandering script, padded. The complete total lack of any sense of wonder.
The good: locations, great score by Angelo F Lavagnino and a scene or two showcasing O'Connor's talents.
V/H/S/2 is one of the worst films I've seen in some time. Amateurish. Not one story was worth watching. There are so many flaws, plot-holes, crappy acting, repetitious and contrived set ups that the cumulative effect, by the end of the film, is like a cannibal who cannibalized himself over and over again until nothing was left.
There's no point of writing a comprehensive review. It's just not worth it for a film like this. All segments are poorly directed, written, photographed and acted.
The main problem with this film (as in the first one) is the contrived POV set-up which are never credible and the segments' directors themselves cheat this POV set-up repeatedly by showing scenes or shots NOT from any camera source. If the filmmakers can't even sustain the 'gimmick' they're trying to sell these gimmicky films as then it's an epic fail.
The only segment I'll review is the last one SLUMBER PARTY ALIEN ABDUCTION. It is so terrible that it takes the cake. It is so bad I just can't believe anyone thought this was ready for prime time. The whole thing is point blank stupid. For instance, the moronic action during the segment is almost entirely seen from the POV of a dog! Yes, a dog. During bits of conversations the dog actually moves its head back and forth conveniently following the obnoxious characters' painful chit chat...in order for us to see who's talking. I can't believe how stupid that was. As stupid as the infamous 'german shepherd having a flashback' in HILLS HAVE EYES PART 2 (1984). The director of this segment repeatedly distorts the image with video noise and VHS artifacts as a way to edit the "footage" in improbable ways.
The horror genre is really in a bad state when this atrocity generates any interest. Avoid at all cost!
A 90 minute perfume commercial
AMER is all style with absolutely no substance.
It's a collection of over-directed scenes stitched together with overdone editing all about nothing.
Aside from the overdone beginning, which has very little to do with the rest of the film, in tone or anything else, the rest is just 60 minutes of shots pouty lips, of long hair ending up everywhere or of the wind blowing in between a young girl's legs or a middle aged woman's legs, sending her in constant state of near orgasmic frenzy. In this film, the wind is truly powerful!
Every little mundane detail is a sexual catalyst and this is amped to the nth degree, in case we couldn't figure it out after the endless number of close-ups of lips and flesh and sounds of heavy breathing.
For instance, when the middle-aged woman walks through the garden surrounding the mansion, the trees, plants and shrubberies she comes across seem to want to ravish her. This is me rolling on the floor with laughter.
This film has two directors, one of them being a woman but even so the so-called 'male gaze' has never been more omnipresent. I've never seen so many panties/crotch shots outside of a Spice Girls music video.
Its attempt to ape the Giallo style of filmmaking (which includes a cheesy retro poster) falls resolutely flat. Giallo films are first and foremost passionate and this film is as passionate as a dead fish washed up on a deserted beach.
A very shallow cinematic experience.
Belles, blondes et bronzées (1981)
This French "Bronzées" T&A film, a popular genre at the time, is one of the most memorable. Is it great art? No it's not but the goofy (and sexy) story sorta works regardless. It's one of those guilty pleasures you watch any time it's on TV. The story is secondary (something about two buddies who are mistakenly given loads of stolen money and the thieves trying to regain their loot). These kind of films were excuses to show gratuitous nudity: boatloads of shapely girls in bikinis, usually topless, as only the French can get away with and the men, equally wearing skimpy swimsuits or disrobing on a whim, chasing after the girls.
Funny scenes: when the duo are talking on he phone with their boss and following instructions; the newspaper bit at the pool side and the subsequent burning of newspaper in the desert and the two pretending it's cold to the suspicious police. The cast includes Daniel Derval as the flamboyant "folle". Derval made a career playing the same role in several films.
The Opposite Sex (1956)
Pretty much worthless
This glossy musical remake of THE WOMEN, the famous movie which featured a women-only cast, is nothing short of a complete disaster. This film is pretty much toothless and almost completely miscast. June Allyson? Yikes. She looks like a drip throughout the film. Hair, posture, etc, as appealing as a bowl of oatmeal. Granted, Norma Shearer wasn't the scorching beauty in THE WOMEN but she looked, eh, healthy. June looks a bit sick here. In the original, Sylvia was played by Rosalind Russell who almost stole every scene she was in. In this remake, Dolores Gray is Sylvia and looks like an embalmed drag queen-looking mummy. The only good bit of casting was having Joan Collins in the role made famous by Joan Crawford. Whenever Collins is not in the film, the film flat-lines, literally. She's the only spark in this wet firecracker, as clichéd as it is for her to play the conniving man-hungry uber bitch. Remarkably, having men in the film almost added nothing except for handsome Jeff Richards who doesn't have much to do but look good. Leslie Nielsen is wasted and not very convincing. June Allyson and Nielsen as a married couple? Bleech.
Some scenes are lifted directly from THE WOMEN, like the bathtub scene. Some things that sorta worked back in the 1930s simply do not work in 1956. The entire Reno bit is truly tired and should have been re-written for the 1950s.
Oddly enough, this is a musical remake, probably just to accommodate June, and the musical scenes are mostly horrendous. The bit with Dick Shawn is painful to watch. The whole "Now, Baby, Now" with June singing with a bunch of gyrating male dancers is inexplicable. It's so odd it becomes brilliant if viewed as a total curio. You really wonder what they were thinking.
Watching the film, with the characters trying to be classy and the rich types, moving within the tacky studio sets, the overdone gowns and all that stuff and I sorta realized how Hollywood had a truly warped Waspy vision of the world. The end result makes Hollywood look like a playground for philandering film producers who wanted to be surrounded by what they thought were the beautiful people but in reality it was more on the corny & garishly gay side. Dreadful.
Pretty good once the story settles down but a mess of sorts!
I'm a fan of silent films and try to watch as many as possible when the opportunity arises. I'm also a fan of Sword & Sandal films and I had the chance to see the 1914 version of SALAMBO. Compared to the masterpiece CABIRIA, also made in 1914, this film is a mess of sorts.
The film lasts 75 minutes and for the first 25 minutes or so we *only* see a series of establishing shots with intertitles telling us what's going on. That's it. No close ups. No panning or anything interesting. Only wide static shots of large crowds scenes with the main characters somewhere in there. This wouldn't be so bad if the scenes weren't filmed in such an uninteresting way (angle, composition, etc). Once Matho climbs up the aqueduct of Carthage the action finally starts(this scene is very much like when Maciste and company climb the fortress in CABIRIA). And by action I mean the camera follows the characters and the characters exchange dialogue, not necessarily action as in action-packed stuff. Movies were still in its infancy which might explain the odd and confusing narrative structure of SALAMBO. 25 minutes of mostly static shots to set-up a story is way too long, even for that time.
Once it settles down to a visible storyline, it's pretty good and the magic of silent cinema finally takes hold but it's still a mess of sorts. Unlike CABIRIA, you can't really identify or empathize with any of the characters here. They're more like figures or shadows moving across the screen than characters. There are things that happen to the characters and I'm not quite sure why. No intertitle or dialogue telling us what just happened. There are some close-ups but they are rare. I think the first close-up within the story itself occurs 40 minutes mark. There are some close-ups of the actors at the beginning but those are there just to introduce the name of characters.
The sets are pretty good, the crowd scenes are grand. But these things can't overcome the sloppy editing and the wobbly, unfocused narrative. The one interesting aspect of this film is one of the main characters is black, Spendius, and he's not played as a caricature or as unimportant. He's vital to the story and it's cool to see that in a film made in 1914. When Spendius enters the statue of Tanit, and what happens afterward, it's probably the best moment of the film.
When the film on the DVD starts the words THE PRIESTESS OF TANIT appear, not SALAMBO. But the intertitles have the name SALAMBO on it. It seems the title is missing from this reel which goes straight to the introduction of the characters. The distributor of the DVD used the artwork of the 1925 made-in-France version of SALAMBO, which confused me. By the artwork, I thought I was buying that version but I really got the 1914 made-in-Italy one. The distributor should use different artwork or a photo from this film to sell this version. Oh well.
The music, credited to Lou McMahon, often didn't go with what was happening on screen but this is not uncommon with silent films in general as the original score is lost. A new score or finding the original score would be an improvement over this one. I had to turn off the sound to enjoy it more.
The story was adapted into another version, in 1960 titled SALAMMBO, starring Jacques Sernas and Jeanne Valérie. You can see some similarities between the two but the 1960 version, even with its faults, is more successful than this one.
I giganti della Tessaglia (1960)
Excellent PEPLUM; contains one of the best S&S sequences ever made
THE GIANTS OF THESSALY is one of the better PEPLUM films made during the PEPLUM/Musclemen/Sword & Sandal explosion of the the late 50s/early 60s. The assured hand of Riccardo Freda keeps it going even if there are some weak spots in it, the weak aspects being the acting (there's a scene with an actress tied to a rock and her acting is pitiful) and some cheesy sets and effects. But the bad aspect of this film do not diminish the entire overall effect and it's pretty cool. British actor Roland Carey makes a nice change over the usual Steve Reeves or Mark Forest or Gordon Scott. Physically, Roland is imposing. He looks tall and built but not too built like a body builder. His physique is believable. Roland plays Jason and the story is basically the quest for the Golden Fleece (part of this story was already incorporated in HERCULES(1958) ).
He leads a boat filled a beefy crew and they got through a bunch of great and not so great adventures, culminating with the finding of the Golden Fleece. The scene when Roland Carey gets the fleece is one of the greatest moments ever made in a PEPLUM. From the boat, to climbing up a cliff that leads to the statue where Jason as to climb all the way to the top of the statue to retrieve the fleece is simply amazing. Combined with the rousing score (one of the best and most familiar scores in any Sword & Sandal) and you have a brilliant scene. It makes the movie and Riccardo Freda's direction really shines here.
The DVD available in the US is of terrible quality. I've seen a clear fully widescreen HD version and it's amazing. The US DVD doesn't do it justice.
And to those who think this is nothing more than a weak rip-off of the Ray Harryhausen version of Jason & the Argonauts, well THE GIANTS OF THESSALY was made 3 years before the Harryhausen flick.
CHLOE is the most risible film I've seen since, well, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. The story is totally whacked and one wonders who in their right mind thought this story made any sense: a spoiled rich gynecologist believes her husband is cheating on her. She suddenly feels invisible: her husband is having sex with one of his young students. Friends are dating young chicks. Her son his sleeping with a hot chick in his bedroom. People all around are boinking chicks. The wife suddenly realizes "Heck, I'm missing on all of the hot action" so she decides to hire a hooker, with the idea of seducing her husband to see if he'll sleep with her, but it's all a ruse really because she's the one who ends up having sex with Chloe the Hooker. Chloe invents all these "hot" stories of her sleeping with the husband, to dupe the silly wife; these stories are so hot the wife decides to have sex with the hooker, because the wife feels she's invisible and by having sex with Chloe it's like some transference thingy going on and part of the passion the husband is sharing with the hooker the wife thinks she'll feel it too.
The logic in the story is so whacked, it had me rolling on the floor.
First of all, I can't sympathize/empathize with the wife's pain/grief. She's a wealthy spoiled woman who hires a young woman to trap her husband. Nice character.
Second, the couple is a corny couple. Who cares if they don't make it or anything about their happiness.
Third, the two women, the silly wife and the hooker, are shown as being total nut jobs: the wife is gullible and accepts every little detail the hooker tells her without any proof of what she's claiming is real and the hooker is shown as being mentally unstable in the SINGLE WHITE FEMALE kind of way.
So basically the degrading screenplay portrays these two neurotic women as crazy, conniving, manipulating, narcissistic and out of control with their emotions. They both end-up coning each other while object of the initial target, the boring husband, doesn't even figure in the story. The two scheming women end up looking like two monkeys fellating each other at the zoo. I wanted to throw peanuts at them to make them stop. The ending elevates the level of degradation when Chloe the Hooker sleeps with the son in the parents' bedroom and when they're found out Chloe the Hooker then tries to seduce the wife again, which is seen by her son. The wife, embarrassed, literally pushes Chloe away to her death. Nice.
Though the story hints at Pasolini's brilliant TEOREMA, the storyline is straight out of the 1970s Black Emanuelle trash epics. Well, I would rather watch any Laura Gemser flick than this risible piece of "serious" filmmaking. The sex scenes in CHLOE were not hot for one second. Just unconvincing.
When the wife suddenly realizes the truth with those fake encounters Chloe has been telling her, she tells the clueless husband what she did: that she hired a hooker to entrap him and that she also ended up having sex with her (and in turn became the cheater here), the husband shrugs it off as if it was normal and OK. Again, this is me on the floor laughing my butt off. If I was the husband, I'd ask the wife to seek professional psychiatric help. I mean, the money she spent on the hooker could have been spent on something more important, ya know, like a brand new flat screen TV for that ridiculously overly designed house of theirs.
Even though it's a remake of a French film CHLOE reminded me more of the trashy Italian film called DELERIUM starring Mickey Hargitay. Same insane logic in the storyline with the women being completely crazy and degraded. The excellent Julianne Moore needs to get better projects than this laughable & embarrassing stuff.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
The uneven original is remade into an abysmal, joyless adventure
Remakes these days are almost always terrible and having seen production photos of COTT before its release, photos that didn't inspire much confidence, I decided not to see the remake on the big screen, opting to wait for it on DVD or download. I always had a love/hate approach to the original which I saw at the cinemas when I was a young teen. So take this as someone who's not a fanatic of the original and was going to hate any remake from the get go. With that said the new film is thoroughly awful in almost every way possible. Except for the beginning (which is OK, not great), the action packed but not suspenseful Medusa scene and the clearly OTT ending, there's nothing much else to see. The entire cast of characters is uniformly unpleasant. Not one likable character in the whole thing, including a growling Perseus (played by one-note Aussie actor Sam Worthington). This is difference with the original. I basically liked almost every characters, no matter how cardboard they were.
Here's a breakdown of the film:
- the changes to the story (humans vs gods) doesn't make any sense.
- Adding the religious/cult storyline with the crazy leader was awful. It added nothing and the character was annoying as hell.
- It doesn't really look Greek at all but more Pompeiish than anything else. The design of Argos, though spectacular during the climax, has absolutely nothing to do with Greek design/architecture.
- the look and design of Mount Olympus is tacky. Looks like a cheesy sci-fi movie.
- Like the original, the other Gods do not have much to do.
- In the original, Perseus had to tame Pegasus which made sense, for a Heroic journey. In the remake, Pegasus, who's black, appears to him and, well, that's it. Totally dull. The original was much better in this regard. And the reason they made Pegasus black because the CGI is more forgiving than if it was white.
- the scene with the scorpions doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In the original, the Medusa's blood mutates the scorpions into big monsters but in the remake, Calibos' blood (after his hand was cut off) drips on some sand and the scorpions appear from the ground, killing most of the men from Argos but then Perseus and his men team up with the mysterious beings that use the big scorpions as transportation like nothing had happened! Huh?
- the set for the Medusa scene is pretty good and the Medusa is OK as a superfast slithery creature but the scene is more action than suspense. And Sam wears flesh-colored tights during many shots, which makes it look very silly.
The ending is so over-the-top that it's almost a thing of beauty. Here's a breakdown:
- It takes the Kraken 15 minutes to surface. There's slow and slow, but man, that beast is constipated.
- The Kraken looks like a turtle/octopus/that monster from Return of the Jedi thingy
- The climax occurs during an eclipse. Why?
- The ending or confrontation between the Kraken and Perseus is ridiculously drawn out, extended by having those winged demons snatch the bag with the head of the Medusa (how did they know what was in the bag?)
- the action is often so confusing that the characters have to tell us what's going on such as when the winged demons snatch the bag, Perseus yells that they stole it because we clearly couldn't see what was going on.
- Andromeda, which is not the love interest in this version, hangs from the sacrificial altar hundreds of feet above the sea, strung up by her arms, which she never seems to find painful. Unlike other Sword & Sandal films where people were in extreme pain when hanging from their arms, Andromeda is remarkably calm and nonchalant about it all.
- When the Kraken becomes a statue, the whole thing is beyond silly. It looks like the monster has a sudden rash. It crumbles from its own weight and Andromeda falls in the ocean and yet Perseus is able to find her underwater amidst the whole chaos. He must have a heat seeking device on him.
- Sam Worthington's Aussie accent can be heard throughout the movie. Plus the fact that his hair is not in style with the times, the less time Sam is on screen, the better it is.
The score is totally forgettable, unlike the Laurence Rosenthal score for the original, which is beautiful and soaring.
All in all, this remake is at times so bad that in its own way becomes a thing of beauty. I mean, how can a film get it so wrong on so many levels? Even the brief cameo of Bubo, which was a sight for soar eyes, was mishandled. The film was a huge success and even though the Kraken is dead and the Medusa is headless, Warner has already greenlighted a sequel!
Because of this remake, I have to re-evaluate the original, which, after watching this suddenly comes out as brilliant on almost every level, including the fact that its more in tune with Greek mythology than this unpleasant version. Well, I still find the original uneven at best but it's also more enjoyable, memorable and far sexier too.
Happy Birthday to Me (1981)
red herrings everywhere but still fun
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME will never be mistaken as great filmmaking but for what it's supposed to accomplish and certainly considering the time it was made, during the slasher explosion of the late 70s/early 1980s, this one clearly stands out from the crowded pack of gory thrillers. Though a bit too relaxed at times, with a plethora of crazy red herrings throughout and the level of acting sporadic and/or all over the place, the great things about this thriller are the quasi-Gothic atmosphere, certainly during the climax, the not-so-average murders, the beautiful location filming (in and around Montreal) and a strong score. If a horror/thriller/slasher have all these qualities than it's thumbs up for me.
The red herrings in this film are mind-boggling. Practically every scene is a set-up for a red herring. This creates a padded feeling that extends the film's running time for no purpose at all, with many scenes stretched to the point of tedium. Thankfully the good stuff keeps those scenes from destroying the film's structure.
The killings are often creative with the dumbbell death being the film's most memorable death. Ouch. The killing at the beginning was at times unintentionally hilarious. The girl was really dumb but the spirit of the scene reminded me of Italian thrillers called Giallo so I give it a pass.
The denouement is over the top and many dislike it because it's not credible enough but I love OTT endings and this one is certainly a head scratcher. IMO, the ending actually makes the movie. It's a perfect ending to the sad/Gothic/gory story of our confused heroine who believes she's losing her mind after undergoing some (graphic but not too realistic) brain surgery which left her vulnerable to terrifying memory lapses.
One bit during the climax, the flashback scenes showing a hand chloroforming someone, had me rolling on the floor. Once was enough but three times was silly.
The cast is above average for a slasher. Sure, there are the prerequisite types in these kind of films: the babe, good looking jock, the shifty nerd, all played by unknowns but Melissa Sue Anderson is surprisingly effective here and anchors the film's spotty level of acting. Glenn Ford is OK but is role is almost negligible. I'm surprised Melissa Sue Anderson's career didn't go anywhere after this. Her role was demanding and she didn't embarrass herself.
If you're a fan of slashers make sure to check this one out.
Green Dolphin Street (1947)
One of the wackiest films I've seen in a long long time
When I decided to watch GREEN DOLPHIN STREET on TCM recently I didn't expect much. A standard period drama starring Lana Turner, Donna Reed and Frank Morgan (the wizard in WIZARD OF OZ). It started nicely enough: beautiful cinematography, nice sets and location. But then things got more, eh, odd and then even more odd and yes, it morphed into something that was full-stop wacky. I mean seriously jaw-on-the-floor wacky. On one hand, the film didn't work at all but then the whole thing is so incredibly and spectacularly over-the-top that I was pleasantly surprised by this unexpected outcome. It wasn't the thoughtful period drama I expected but more an over-the-top ultra camp thingamajig that confounded me nonstop.
The story is nearly impossible to describe because it goes here and there with no rhyme or reason, baffling the viewers with its overwrought drama that makes very little sense. If you saw TOP SECRET, the comedy from the 1980s starring Val Kilmer with all the incongruous elements (spy movie/beach movie/elvis movie/great escape etc) in it, well, GDS is like that but treated with a straight face. It's a combo of a Jane Austin period piece/swashbuckler/KING KONG/disaster epic/PEYTON PLACE all rolled into one. 3/4s into the movie, I thought nothing would top what had happened previously and the there's the scene when Donna Reed is caught in the rising tide and has to climb a well-like cave, that scene sent me over the edge. The well/cave is not something like 30 feet high but more like "Empire State Building" high. What happens to Reed's character after this scene is so priceless (certainly when you think of the story-line) that I was wondering "how come this film is not a camp classic?" That scene is so striking that it alone deserves to be remembered as one of the most brilliantly overwrought "symbolic" scenes of all time. It actually outdoes BLACK NARCISSUS (there's also a nunnery on top of a hill/cliff waiting at the end of the well) which was also released in 1947, several months before GDS! GREEN DOLPHIN STREET is like BLACK NARCISSUS' illegitimate child no one wants to talk about. In the film's many OTT scene, there's also an earthquake AND a roaring river tsunami (it won the Oscar for special effects over BLACK NARCISSUS which is something the other more famous film cannot claim), all of this over two sisters fighting for the love of one clueless man.
Not a great film by any means but I give it 10 stars because it's pure ultra camp. It's a must see if you like camp and the unexpected. It's a totally hidden gem (what kind of gem it's hard to say).
Who knew such a benign title (which is totally pointless vis a vis the story) could hide so much good stuff.
Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)
With a sergeant like Stryker, who needs enemies?
A ridiculous propaganda war movie with a hot-headed sergeant who enjoys nothing but to fight, clobber, duke it out with his soldiers whenever he feels like it without any repercussions.
I was actually into the movie but after the 4 or 5th fight between Stryker and one of his subordinates, I couldn't get into it anymore. Certainly after Stryker (John Wayne) fights with Thomas (Forrest Tucker) and Thomas is fine with it, the two men talking to each other as if nothing had happened. The film's credibility, already stretched to the limit with the typical Hollywood war-time propaganda, was thrown out the window with that fight. Yes, Wayne is a manly man and I'm sure soldiers fight with each other but this was ridiculous, veering into the realm of fetish.
I mean if your sergeant drags you in the middle of the forest and starts pummeling your face just because of some disagreement but then once the fight is over, the man at the receiving end doesn't complain and is fine and dandy with it, well, the homoerotic subtext suddenly becomes clear. The fighting, btw, is not shown as horseplay.
Who cares about fighting the enemy with a sergeant like Stryker? This kind of behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in reality but because this a John Wayne fantasy based on some real characters/events, well the machismo has be flowing in order to keep audiences entertained and what's more entertaining than seeing John Wayne getting his kicks and showing who's on, eh, top?
Seriously underwhelmed by this so-called classic.
Love in the Afternoon (1957)
Wildly improbable storyline
The story for LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON goes like this: a private detective (Chevalier) is hired by British man who suspects wife is cheating in Paris with another man. Daughter of detective (Hepburn) overhears this. The wronged Husband vows to kill Wife. The Daughter, a romantic at heart, decides to warn Wife and her lover about this set of events. When the Daughter arrives at the Ritz, the angry Husband is staking the hotel room where the Wife is, with visible gun in hand. Fortunately, the Daughter is able to sneak in the hotel room next door and walks on the ledge outside of the hotel to the room where the lovers are and warns them about the Husband outside. When the Husband finally enters the lovers' room, he finds the Lover (Cooper) in the arms of the Daughter, who, incidentally, is wearing a chic givency black dress (the Daughter was performing at a concert just before going to the Ritz).
From there, the sleazy Lover starts a romantic affair with the Daughter, who knows well that the man is not to be trusted. How's that for a romance?
The story could have worked if the tone had been sorta goofy fun but it wasn't, the credibility of the story is stretched to the max that I just couldn't get into it. The set up I just explained takes a big chunk of the movie and by the time we finally see the Lover, I didn't care for anything. The set-up was the most convoluted set-up I've ever seen in a movie, with not a single laugh in it. But the set-up is filled with so many improbabilities that once the story finally got going, I didn't buy.
1 - The Husband staking the room at the Ritz with gun in hand. What hotel would leave a man staking a room for minutes on end without rousing any suspicion? What kind of security was there at the Ritz?
2 - The woman with the dog leaving the key to her hotel room. Amazing coincidence.
3 - The Daughter who happens to wear the same kind of dress as the cheating Wife. Couldn't they have Audrey and the Wife swap dress before the Husband entered the room? It would have made more sense than having the Daughter walk the ledge in that dress. Just ludicrous.
4 - Even though set in Paris, almost everyone is English: the couple is British, the Lover is American and the Daughter who also sounds British, why set the story in Paris? Only Chevalier was authentic to the setting. Couldn't the Lover had been at least French and not American? As much as I like Cooper, hiring him for the Lover was wrong. They should have gotten someone who was not only younger but also French, like Louis Jourdan?
5 - The age disparity between Cooper and Hepburn was ridiculous.
A definite misfire by everyone concerned.
As a fan of Sword & Sandal films, with over 250 films in my collection, I have to say how disappointing BARABBAS is. It's overproduced baroque nonsense that takes a real character from history and then creates a wildly speculative story, which is an overlong and cluttered symbolic one at that, and for what?
The film's first big mistake was casting Quinn who was all wrong as the titular character. At 46, he was too old for the character. How many 46 year old gladiators would survive in the arena? As incredulous as that was, the combination of the busy cast of known and unknown actors populating the landscape, most of them overacting as if their lives depended on it, the episodic story, of Barabbas stumbling from one forgettable clichéd roman storyline after another, within its numerous big, elaborate sets, with almost all of them not even remotely believable, looking like massive papier mache monstrosities (the uninspired lighting and camera-work don't help them look more than sets), gave the film a needless baroque atmosphere. The film was less biblical, more spaghetti western. In many instances this would actually be a plus but in this case, the baroque quality simply overwhelmed everything to a point of being gag inducing. The overwrought sulfur mine moment is a perfect example of it being too much.
Director Richard Fleischer was obviously not interested in any of it, probably thinking that if one could keep the fake story busy no one would notice that not much of it makes any sense. Of all the biblical/Sword & Sandal/Peplum epics, this one is as bad as SODOM & GOMORRAH.
As a side note, for fans of S&S flicks, you'll enjoy spotting many familiar faces, including Joe Robinson (from the Thor/Taur movies), Vittorio Gassman and Salvatore Borghese (the mute from the Ten Gladiators films) and many others.
woefully bad on every level with some truly effective moments!
What can be said about THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS? Well, it's NOT a quality film. Everything about it is bad: acting, dialogue, script, cast, cinematography, etc, are all way below average. It's a truly wretched film of cataclysmic proportions. For instance, take the dialogue: Cameron Mitchell says at one point, "I see swastikas swimming in my oatmeal!' which had me rolling on the floor. It's my new all time favorite line of dialogue. In another scene, a vigilante sorts named Papini wants the Nazi war criminal killed. He's been stalking a doctor (played by Faith Clift) and wants her to kill the criminal. One day, Papini storms in her office without her permission and asks her why she didn't kill him when she had the chance. So how does she answer? "I'm a doctor, I cannot kill." That's it. No anger or anything. It's priceless. Faith Clift is the worst actress of all time.
With that being said, the film is totally unforgettable, not just because it's so wonderfully bad but because there are some truly effective moments in it. Yes, even with its staggeringly inept quality there are several moments that elicit real horror or shock. More so than any horror film made these days. The state of horror films today is truly sad when a disaster like this is more effective than 90% of all horrors films made today.
The effective moments come out of nowhere: when someone takes his shoe off...didn't expect that! A nightmare inducing scene; the nightmare sequences are so bizarre and weirdly shot that they're oddly effective; the discotheque is...eh, weird. It makes me more uncomfortable than anything else in the film; the actor who plays the Nazi war criminal is just weird; and last but not least the ending which has to be seen to be believed. My jaw was on the floor.
Needless to say even with those effective moments the film is still crap. Well worth watching if you're a fan of obscure horror flicks or "so bad it's good" movies. Everyone else should abstain.
Speed Racer (2008)
120 minutes of annoying transitions
I saw SPEED RACER on a movie channel and the film was barely watchable. Anyone who says this film is good is seriously delusional, knows nothing about movies or needs to see a psychiatrist.
This "film" had two major flaws (three if you count the script):
The first major flaw is the way it was filmed. It wants to be an live action version of the classic Japanese animated series, which was mainly flat renditions of the animated characters in simple color schemes and yet for the film the actors and sets were filmed with deep shadows, gradients, etc. The cinematography should have been simple with a minimal of details. Such as it was though it overloaded every inch of the screen with gaudy effects or color with the humans lost in all of it. Visually, it's a disaster from start to finish.
The second major error was the extreme overuse of transitions throughout the 2 hour running time. Practically every second (yes, SECOND) the Wachowskis used fade ins, fade outs, overlaps, cross dissolve, etc, not to go from one scene to another but from one shot to another within the same scene. For two whole hours. It's mind boggling bad, boneheaded and really makes me question if the brothers even know how to direct. Transitions are cool and fun from time to time but supremely annoying if overused and in SPEED RACER they don't overuse it, they ABUSE it which makes for a painful viewing experience.
It's no wonder the film bombed. It's simply impossible to get into it with those two major flaws.
Rambo of Rome
As a fan of Peplum films (or Sword & Sandal) and having enjoyed previous films from Ridley Scott, I was surprised by how disappointing GLADIATOR was.
The first thing that stood out is how badly shot it was. The DP (and Scott) missed the boat on this one. The film's constant greyish tone was off putting and uninspired. It tries to give the film a realistic look but comes across as forced and in the end more fake than anything else. Because the look of the film wasn't believable, the film's other weaknesses stood out even more, like the acting. Except for Joaquin and the veteran cast, the acting was sub-par. Crowe is monotonous, almost sleepwalking through the entire epic. He can't really be blamed as his character is as one dimensional as possible. He acts like a robot, an unstoppable robot who kills everyone in sight. In one scene, Maximus enters the stadium grounds and proceeds to kill a dozen other gladiators, one after the other, in a single run. The scene is so ludicrous that the reality of the film flew out the window and couldn't get into the predictable story with Maximus reduced to a Roman version of Rambo.
The monotonous look of the film also can't camouflage the obvious CGI which today looks even more cardboady than it did 9 years ago.
To make things even more tedious, the entire film is a direct rip-off of Anthony Mann's THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which, albeit wasn't great but at least it respected the intelligence of its audience, unlike GLADIATOR which is the fast food version of history. All of this could have been overlooked had the film been entertaining on some level but the slow pace, ponderous tone and predictable story killed all possibilities for it being entertaining. It's not a fun film at all.
In the end, GLADIATOR, which won the Oscar for best picture (it must have been a really bad year), is not even remotely memorable in any way shape or form. Give me a vintage Italian Sword & Sandal flick, like THE REBEL GLADIATORS, before this inert Hollywood production.
Kiss Me, Stupid (1964)
Unpleasant characters played by miscast actors in an improbable story make for painful viewing
Not every old movie is a classic. Case in point KISS ME, STUPID. This overdone B&W comedy directed by Billy Wilder is an aborted effort. The actors are entirely miscast including, oddly enough, Dean Martin who plays a Las Vegas lounge singer. Ray Walston is not a leading man and this movie painfully proves it. Cliff Osmond is a terribly hammy actor and Kim Novak is not credible as a waitress. The characters are all unpleasant or annoying and the story is something kinda icky and very improbable.
The biggest liability of the film is Kim Novak's ugly hairdo. Kim's head is already large in size compared to the rest of the cast but with that god awful bouffant hairdo she has, her head is beyond ginormous. Just look at the DVD cover. It dwarfs everything that's at close proximity to it, including Dean Martin's head which looks positively puny next to her Easter Island statue cranium. Everything appears out of proportion because of it. It's truly distracting.
Unfunny, overdone and implausible, this is not one of Billy Wilder's shining moments.
Boogeyman 3 (2008)
Terrible combo of 3 classic horror films for 12 year boys only
I happen to watch BOOGEYMAN 3 on a movie channel and right off the bat I realized that I was watching a terrible combo of 3 classic horror films: SUSPIRIA, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 (1986). The film starts with a hysterical girl who stays at a friend's room. Like the beginning of SUSPIRIA, the hysterical girl is terrified of everything around her, feels she's being pursued and eventually is confronted by a malefic being. The entire scene was so reminiscent of SUSPIRIA (minus the style of course) that I was having a severe case of deja vu. But as it went along, the tormented girl is attacked by the boogeyman while talking on a live radio show with her cell phone, which is identical to the plot point in Tobe Hooper's underrated Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2. And this was just the set-up at the beginning, so it was downhill after that as it followed the very familiar horror template set up by A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The entire film was terrible. Clichéd to the nth degree: the few male actors are dispatched quickly and then the rest of the film is spent on tormenting the bad actresses, huh, the female characters for our viewing pleasure. The girls are often in state of undress and such juvenile moments that will get 12 year olds excited. The film even ends with two anonymous girls stripping down to their underwear in their dorm room before the silly looking boogeyman makes a predictable appearance.
No style, no shocks, no suspense, no originality, no logic. There's even a "horror" scene which takes place in the laundromat room, which we've have seen a million times in films like PULSE. With films like this, the horror genre is all but dead.
Glossy nonsense with one great scene
I gave ROCKNROLLA 5 stars mainly because of the fumbled robbery/chase scene which was well made, funny and memorable. The rest of the film is just a collage of beautifully lit handsome actors talking nonsense, all coordinated by the director who obviously has an eye for his all male cast (that includes the bare-chested waiters during the party scene). There is one sexy woman in it, played by Thandie Newton, but her character is more of an afterthought than anything else certainly compared to the attention the director focused his lens on the male cast.
Speaking of lenses, the cinematography/lighting was so glossy it became more harsh than something pleasing to the eye. Everything and I mean everything looked like a glossy magazine spread, which quickly got boring to watch.
Not awful by any means, the film's biggest liability is how generic the whole thing was. By the end of the movie, you go "meh". If it wasn't for the epic chase scene and the interesting all male cast I would have forgotten about it hours after seeing it.
Slightly better than OCEAN'S 13, which is identical on many aspects.
The Fast & the Poutine
NITRO is a French Canadian wannabe action in the FAST & FURIOUS kind that fails on all levels: action, story, acting, believability. It's one groaner after another. The story is totally silly and because the main star is about 5 feet tall, it's simply impossible to be impressed by any of the over-compensating machismo going on. The night racing scene, with the ugly woman in cut-offs, is priceless. Watching everyone act ghetto during what was supposed to be the film's highlight was truly embarrassing. The strip club scene was hot & compelling thanks to those quick edits which told us that it was supposed to be hot & compelling because the lack of acting abilities from its main star wasn't helping the director. The characters were all one dimensional and uninteresting. Only the cinematography was OK.
Seriously, this film is to be avoided at all cost.
The Boy Next Door (2008)
The Dina Meyer show
Watch Dina Meyer walk.
Watch Dina Meyer work on her laptop.
Watch Dina Meyer talk on the phone.
Watch Dina Meyer driving.
Watch Dina Meyer crossing the street.
Watch Dina Meyer sneaking into a house.
Watch Dina Meyer talking to police officer.
Watch Dina Meyer look like Michelle Pfeiffer.
Watching Dina Meyer is basically what this film is. It had such a low budget that the only thing you see is a solo Dina Meyer doing mundane things.
It's basically a one woman show.
On one hand, it's the pits but on the other hand, if you're a fan of Dina Meyer you'll LOVE this film. It actually sorta fascinating on how the writers and director thought up this film vis a vis the film's budget. It sorta works as a minimalistic experience.
Crime of Passion (1957)
Cool little film
This seldom seen film is one of the best Noirs from the 1950s. It never looks down on the audience which is refreshingly different than most films made during that decade. What makes this so good is the believability of the dialogue and the settings. Nothing too glam or too dreary. It's just right.
The actors are all good, with Barbara Stanwyck, Sterling Hayden and Raymond Burr all in top form. The Stanwyck - Hayden pairing is fascinating and it works beautifully. One of the more interesting couples I've seen on screen. Hayden is a great overlooked actor who has amazing screen presence. Always believable in all his roles. Stanwyck is equally good, with this being one of her most fascinating roles. Many have said that Stanwyck was too old for this role but I disagree. Her age/look is what makes her role interesting. Had her role been played by an average 1950s screen beauty, it wouldn't have worked. Stanwyck's dilemma is greatly accentuated by the "possible" age difference. It's brilliant casting. But what's really interesting in this film is Raymond Burr. He's surprisingly good here. So believable in his slimy contemptible character that one feels sorry that Burr's career ended up playing the same character over and over again on TV for the rest of his life.
The story is grounded and never becomes ludicrous. Some of the police stuff is actually fascinating to watch. But the threesome between Stanwyck - Hayden - Burr is what makes the movie so cool. Watching Stanwyck and Burr pining for each other is great, on so many levels! Arf.
Crime of Passion is a film I enjoy watching over and over again. Check it out.