Change Your Image
jbirtel-1
Reviews
The Walking Dead: Pretty Much Dead Already (2011)
Sophia Shows Where Romero Lost Track !
Wow!
Mid Season finale of Season 2 caught me off guard. This ranks with the best moments of the entire Living Dead Mythos that George Romero began with 67's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
It also debates why the original Ghoul Maestro's scare meter kinda loses it after the brilliant DAWN OF THE DEAD.
Why discuss Romero's films on a review for this episode of WALKING DEAD? Because it further emphasizes Frank Durabant's attraction to the graphic novels that first and foremost; it's character, character, character that must dominate the drama, to elevate the horror and the tragedy, that will ultimately carry the most impact.
I love DAY OF THE DEAD. But I didn't like it as much at the theater in 1985. The reason was the zombie character 'Bub'. Even though actor Howard Sherman's excellent portrayal of Bub may arguably stand proudly along side Boris Karloff's performance of the Frankenstein Monster, the bottom line is this:
I don't want to understand the social development of zombies.
I want to be scared of zombies! I want to be horrified by them! I want to s#*t my pants at the thought I could be ripped apart and eaten by them. And I want to be justifiably sickened and saddened when a living character is turned into one of...THEM.
That's It !!!
Beginning with DAY', continuing with LAND, and ending with SURVIVAL; Romero stayed committed with character; but lost it with the Zombies; that peaked with LAND'S unbelievable, roaring ghoul leader: Big Daddy.
WALKING DEAD returns the mythos back to Romero's orgins where it should have remained all along. For an AMC TV series; of course there's going to be slow spots as the story unravels. But that only makes the segments such as the barn door incident; and what emerges forth; having a gut punching impact, that stays with the viewer, long after the episode ends.
Nicely edited, with music swelling to an appropriate sadness, this mid season episode ends on a powerful high note. February can't come soon enough.
The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)
Stick With The DVD: Bluray's Color Transfer SUCKS!!
Refund!!! Even though this film is great, it's transfer sinks it.
Here's proof positive that there are some titles that receive an improper high def transfer. So improper, that the DVD becomes the preferred choice for viewing. Now THAT ain't the way it's supposed to be.
The problem?
By going back to the negative film stock, in which the color chemical compound has deteriorated since the last transfer to DVD, Sony/Columbia has elected to use an outdated technology for color correction. This process has had movie lovers bitching for the past couple of decades. What's baffling is that other studios have been using updated methods for film restoration for several years. It looks like the newer method was used for the DVD release...so why wasn't it used again?
What's now gone are the rich, vibrant colors that made the DVD release such a joy to watch. And before you can shout 'Harryhausen' ten times and claim his filming technique for his creature puppets creates a generation loss of color and detail (when effects are sandwiched with the live action); we're not talking about THOSE scenes. But now that they're mentioned; THOSE spectacular scenes, that didn't look super great to begin with, now look worse than ever. In all the rest of the scenes, proper flesh tones are gone, the vistas look cheap; and a movie that's already over 50 years old...looks even older. For lack of better terms that sums it up; the colors look grayish, dirty and just plain wrong to the point of distraction.
What high def does is allow for greater detail that an audience may not have been exposed to previously. So what does it do to a 1958 film like this? It creates a greater contrast between the special effects and live action that is now, more than ever, distracting the viewer's focus away from the story.
THAT WOULD ALL BE FORGIVABLE HAD THE COLOR QUALITY REMAINED ON PAR WITH THE DVD. This is; after all, a Harryhausen classic, seams and all, that deserves a tender, loving transfer. Whoever supervised this one, took off for lunch and never came back.
And whoever (in the 'External Reviews', and the Bluray packaging) are claiming we are watching the best pristine transfer of 'Sinbad'. You kidding? With all their tech-no gobbledygook about deep black tones and edge enhancements, some bodies simply didn't do their homework. All that needed to be done was do a side-by-side comparison between the DVD & Bluray. Hell...it doesn't even need to be side-by-side. Just stick the DVD in first and after several minutes, switch to the Bluray. You'll be amazed at how good your memory is; and how appalling the new color transfer looks.
And unless you wanna plunk $25 for a group commentary headed by Ray; and a long overdue 30 minute appreciation to composer Bernard Herrmann; save your cash and don't throw that DVD away. Better yet, if you don't have it already, it's well worth including in your movie library. And speaking of Herrmann...where's his isolated music track? Even the laser disc release from the mid 90's had his score separate on an alternate track.
And where's the other Harryhausen trailers? This is, after all, a momentous, major Ray Harryhausen release. Instead we get 'Casino Royale' and 'Men in Black' trailers. Why? Because they also share a similar Bluray release date. That's why!
At least the Bluray of 'Jason and the Argonauts' is a release to be celebrated. Color is brilliant, the transfer is excellent; and the claim that THIS represents the best transfer is all true. Problem is; I had purchased 'the Argonauts' first and assumed the same quality care had been bequeathed upon the 7th.
After all, isn't a Bluray investment supposed to 'wow' the viewer on how much its improved over DVD. I have several DVD's and Blurays of the same titles and many times, Bluray 'wows' me. With 7th Voyage; that concept took a ten story nosedive right out the window. If you haven't seen the DVD, prior, you may wonder what the big deal is. Slip the DVD in 1st; and it becomes crystal.
Oh! A review of the film? It's great! Arguably the best Arabian Nights film ever made...not that there's a long list to begin with...and that includes the classic 'Thief of Bagdad' (which took a couple of attempts cuz I kept falling asleep) and the other two Sinbad followups. If 'best' sounds arrogant, I'll recant and say, 'my favorite'.
Still thinking Bluray? Well...you've been warned.
PS(2 Days Later: I was able to exchange 7th for another Bluray title)
Star Trek (2009)
Wear A Bib!! You're About To Be Nose Pinched, Spoon Fed & Burped !
Here's a text book case of a movie that requires no acting skills...just re-acting skills. A famous actor once stated that the reason there were so few acting challenges in sci-fi films was because the characters were reduced to saying things like: "Wow...look at THAT"; or "RUN...Here it comes again!".
That statement was made just before the TV Star Trek original, before 1968's 'Planet of the Apes', before '2001: A Space Odyssey' and before Science Fiction in films tallied up the big bucks. So if we knew that over 45 years ago, how come, in 2009, we get lame-brain, 6th grade dribble dialog that, from the 1st scene (Kirk's birth), rarely rises above...6th grade dribble dialog? But maybe I'm being a bit harsh. By comparing, I wouldn't want to insult the intelligence of the millions of 6th graders out there who are certainly smarter than what this script presented. I was just surprised that Kirk didn't tell Mom to "give the kid a 'Koochie, Koochie Koo' for me! OOOPs ! Gotta crash, gotta go!"
I don't know where to begin. The title's CALLED 'Star Trek'. The credits SAYS there's characters called Spock, Kirk, McCoy...etc. But at no point do you feel that the characters are the younger versions of their original counterparts. The cast was a bullseye, so it wasn't their fault. But was it necessary to reduce them to the ridiculous?
Both Gene Roddenberry and William Shatner rightfully agreed that the literary classic Captain Horatio Hornblower (an early 19th century British Sea Captain) was the inspiration for Kirk's heroic Commander. So why was the new Kirk based upon INDIANA JONES? That Lucas/Spielberg creation was a throwback to the 10 part cliffhanging serials from the 1940s. Jones was reckless, a loner that got himself out of scrapes in ways that only a movie producer can provide (often, just dumb luck & bravado). But Jones was rarely a Leader and certainly never a Commander responsible for 400+ crew members and the many 'planetary populace in peril'.
Ironically, I had no problem with the shaky camera work in 'Cloverfield' because the nature of the story demanded it and (more importantly) the length of the shots were long that allowed the special effect laden scenes to unfold and the actors to act. I felt none of that in the new Star Trek that felt more like the camera operator went out for a smoke and left the camera on wheels with the auto focus turned on (even though the camera movement was way less jittery). With the editing 'quick cuts' overused, you're supposed to feel thrilled. I just felt numb.
CGI is still in its infancy which means technology will constantly be improving it. It's unavoidable that some special effects will look outdated as time passes. What will never become outdated is a great story, smart dialog, good directing & acting, and sharp editing. If the film has those qualities, the special effects for their day, can be forgiven because the strength of the story carries it through. The imploding planets in Star Trek doesn't even hold up by yesterday's standards. They looked like lap-top downloads. And with the characters simply re-acting to action, in a sitcom generic way; the quality acting and quality dialog are out catching a smoke right along with the camera operator.
The only satisfaction I derived from Leonard Nimoy's presence was updating the current score to: William Shatner; 7 Star Trek Movies. Leonard Nimoy; 7 Star Trek Movies. Seven Movies each! Seven Paychecks each! Score's even-steven. Hah !! Take that, Bill Shatner !
About one third of the original TV show represents TV's finest from the mid-1960s. The Star Trek movies 2, 4 & 6 are bonafide classics. Aside from a few hiccups, the originals had major qualities and, when captured on film, just plain soared. Given that, the best of Star Trek always represented intelligent fun, smart drama, quotable character interactions; and their disciplined reactions to their military & fantasy challenges.
What a shame that the franchise reboot resorted to clichéd scenarios we've already seen more than 20 times in 20 years that jettisons the audience intelligence into the proverbial warp factor. The first scene between Spock and his mother was so gaggingly excruciating, that it almost seemed a blessing that her demise means we won't be tortured by Winona Ryder portraying...'Winona Ryder' in plastic putty make-up in any future installments. I realize that 'gaggingly' is not a real word, but I couldn't think of a real word that describes it better. Did ALL respectable, talented middle age actresses turn the role down?
William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and the rest of the originals had the goods on what made their characters tick. These actors brought a wealth of background stage training. When they clicked, they were spot on. The new version just looked like the actors were going thru the MTV motions without any real substance. That blame should be right at the decision makers (by committee) to not only Reboot, but Revamp the entire structure of what defined Star Trek. What ended up emerging was this: a slam-bang; quick cut; just react, don't act; noisy; say-it-simple and keep-it-simple for our global market audience; a dumbed-down product that will undoubtedly fatten the studio's financial coffers.
And never did I expect "Live Long and Prosper" to be turned into a cheap 'kiss-off'. Looks like the Star Trek Dignity has a nicotine thing going too (right outside with the camera operator). But the camera operator is only allowed to do what the director tells them.
I walked out of Star Trek 5. I walked out of this one too (with a refund). Several months later, I rented this on Blu-Ray and tortured myself for 2 hours. After that, I couldn't wait to get back to doing the dishes, raking the leaves and going to the dentist for my root canal.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)
The Unrated Version! A Major Conquest !
36 years Later: Fox Studio FINALLY unveils the long awaited preview version on Blu-Ray.
Was it worth it? Absolutely!
Just be patient! The final 30 minutes restores enough gore that should satisfy many hard core Ape fans. It's a dark, apocalyptic doom for mankind that negates the entire final entry of 'BATTLE FOR THE POTA'.
The ALWAYS reliable Roddy McDowall turns in another commanding and brilliant performance; along with Severn Darden's evil, slimy Inspector; and Ricardo Montalban's limited reprisal of "Armando". Unfortunately, Don Murray chews enough scenery to require 10 trips to the dentist; and the speaking extras are pretty lame.
McDowall's "Caesar" now represents how hate begets hate causes one's fall from innocence. Taylor's arrival in 3978 is all but certain.
Director J. Lee Thompson's challenge to the film's low budget is slightly redeemed for ending with its darker, more thought-provoking & disturbing images that somehow stay with you a little longer after the credits roll.
This version is a bit shorter, but don't be discouraged. The amended music score, along with the film's quick shots of carnage, brutality and blood-splattered images against the cold white city-scape of mankind's supposed supremacy creates a haunting aftermath.
At 15 yrs old, I loved this movie. As an adult, the budget made it pretty tacky & sloppy; that doesn't hold up to the quality of the original POTA.
Which film is better? You decide!
Almost a 6 out of 10.
With RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; this hopelessly dated, but still entertaining movie may fall further down the monkey chain.
But who cares! This still remains nostalgia-ape-addict-pleasure!
All in the Family (1971)
A Landmark Series That Just Gets Better! And Better!
A time capsule that reflects the turbulence of the late 60's and mid 70's ...and made us laugh all the way through. On one hand, the situations seem dated; on the other hand, they're just as timely as ever. But few can argue that the one thing that never ages is its laugh-out-loud comedy delivered by a perfect, brilliant ensemble cast.
We are forever indebted to Sally Struthers, Rob Reiner, Jean Stapleton and Carroll O'Conner for breathing 3 dimensional life into their character counterparts. They made us laugh, cheer, cry and endear. Their characters kept growing and developing with each passing season. When we looked hard enough, we saw Archie as a bigot with a heart of gold. Edith; whose 'dingbat' exterior masked a deep, profound wisdom that would surface at the most crucial of times. Mike; whose intelligent liberal and literate views would every so often backfire. And Gloria; sweet, sometimes fragile, sometimes tough, always lovable. It was these 4 actors, no matter how they were paired, gathered and integrated, that gave this show its heart and soul.
From the 1st episode of the 2nd season, the show hit the ground running. The actors knew every facet of their characters by then and that high quality in their performance kept sustaining and improving right up until Mike & Gloria said their farewell at the end of season 8. For millions of people (me included), that was the end of 'All In The Family' as we knew it.
Comedy has certain guidelines it needs to follow for it to be truly classic; whether it's stand-up, routine or situation. What made 'All In The Family' work so well and defy some of those guidelines was how richly textured the characters were. When Edith made a 'dingbat' remark and Archie does a delayed reaction, the audience is in hysterics. The reason why is...Edith's remark is funny all by itself and the audience laughs. Now the camera cuts to Archie and Carroll O'Conner doesn't have to twitch a muscle. The audience begins to laugh harder. Archie is wearing his 'Lord, Help Me!' look. But we know his character so well that we can practically see the gears in his mind working toward its inevitable conclusion. We're laughing in anticipation to his retort. And Carroll O'Conner knew just how far to time his delay before he delivers his zinger. And that zinger far surpasses anything we could have imagined. This is one small sample of this show's trademark comic timing that works so beautifully.
(On one of the most popular episodes when Sammy Davis Jr. (a huge fan) guest starred, Archie comes home from his cab driving duties with sustained excitement because he had an important cab fare and wants the other family members to play 'guess who'. Edith by now is bubbling with school girl enthusiasm says, "Let me go first. Living or Dead??" Camera cuts to Archie who looks like he just got shot with novocaine. A full 8 seconds count off before his reply. Mind you, the audience's (and us viewer's) laughter has been building while the camera stays on Archie until he finally replies...)
NAAWW!!! I CAN'T REVEAL IT. YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO WATCH THE EPISODE!! But it's a gem!
This entertainment will forever remain timeless whether you are 7 years old or a 107. Many other reviews have said so much more and so much better that it's redundant to be repetitive. Bottom line is: for anyone who loves well written and well structured comedy (with a little pathos thrown in for measure) then 'All In The Family' is a must for your collection. It deserves repeat viewings. It's a show that opened our eyes a little wider on the fallacy and repercussions of traditional backward opinions, the strength gained from learning life's (sometimes) harsh lessons and the gift of laughing at (and with) Archie, Edith, Mike & Gloria.
And maybe, just maybe, we can have the wisdom that allows us to laugh at ourselves.
(NOTE: I stand by my 7 to 107 because this provided an opportunity for an excellent educational awareness to sit and prepare both of my children (then 7) before they watched any episode. My daughter's still 7, my son's 14. I was pleased they asked intelligent questions for their age and were able to laugh just as hard. It worked for us and I'm not advocating that it can work for every family .There's no denying that most kids are more exposed today than 30 years ago to life's realities. Parental discretion will obviously vary...as for all in MY family...we all love it! Bring on DVD's Season 6 this February 2007; and grandson Joey's "Why doesn't he have any hair yet" debut. Just may qualify as my favorite comedy of all time. So There!)
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)
Superman Returns! So Does Brando, John Williams, Tom Mankiewicz And Of Course; Richard Donner!
December 1978 and 'Superman The Movie' just premiered worldwide. It's that rare epic that's humorous and fun! It honors the legend and offers a refreshing take on our first encounter with a super flying hero. When the end credits cap with..."Next Year Superman II", it was met with thunderous cheers and applause.
'Superman The Movie' may not be perfect. But with so much heart and a quality 'tongue-in-cheek' approach that it made for perfect entertainment!
"Good news", the film makers say, "the best is yet to come with Part 2. Most of it's already in the can". That WAS good news!
Unfortunately, months later...Bad News strikes!
First: Director Richard Donner gets nixed!? Some of his scenes are to be replaced?!?
Then: Marlon Brando Is OUT!!
BRANDO?? THE LEGENDARY ACTOR ICON OF THE 50'S AND 70'S! "Financial Reasons"(?). But since he's already been paid his salary, his percentage of the gross for Part 2 is contractually guaranteed. His name attached to any movie at that time spells big bucks! And he's essential to the plot!! Go Figure!! But the producers didn't see it that way; a similar renege they attempted in their all-star opus "The Three..." and "Four Musketeers" in the early 70's.
So Brando's out! Brando sues! And Brando wins! He's reimbursed and he's upset!! (Wouldn't you be after receiving a couple of mil'?!)
Most of Donner's scenes are re-filmed. Without Donner, the heart of the saga is jettisoned. Several actors and crew members are understandably outraged. Even the very professional Christopher Reeve makes a negative statement that it's shameful the world will be deprived of a performance by an actor of Brando's stature.
SPOILERS: When "Superman II" was released in 1980/81, it got great reviews. For me; a was a mixed bag! The movie opens on Krypton...and Brando's absence becomes painfully obvious.
The music swells! But where's the rich textured motifs that composer John Williams had firmly established from Part 1 (less musicians = less money)? Themes get carelessly substituted. Even Otis' musical cue continues long after Ned Beatty's early exit. And where's that dramatic, epic feel. Proof positive?? Compare "Zod's Phantom Zone Release" in both the 'Theatrical' and 'Donner Cut' versions. There's no arguing the difference in dramatic impact.
And Margot Kidder! Her performance under Lester's direction is heartbreakingly noticeable. Under Donner's direction, she's spunky, energized, spontaneous. And beautiful! (Courtesy of Director of Photography Geoffrey Unsworth who's name is (finally) properly re-instated into the opening titles).
A Comic book continuation on a grand scale is forever lost!!
So...how does "The Donner Cut" cut it?? Depends on how much you know on Part II's troubled history and your level of enjoyment of the theatrical version.
For me...and I ain't apologizing! It's the most near satisfying movie I've seen this year. Almost like time traveling 25 years back and you're hoping the press made some sort of mistake about Brando not being in it; and Donner not directing the little bit left to film and;...and whatever!
So now Donner's version opens with an ominous score by John Williams, followed by a heartfelt tribute!
Then! And finally! The 1st voice you now hear is...Brando. You can't help feel that this is the way it should've always been!
An alternate universe that most lovers of Superman lore will embrace. The joy ride is in the number of alternate and extended scenes; and those crappier ones left out. Is this a definitive version? Of coarse not! Poor decisions canceled out any definitive version from ever existing a long time ago.
Non's unnecessary comic schtick is mercifully dusted. The evil Kryptonians are now leaner and meaner. Gone too, are the annoying comic spectator reactions to the battle of the titans.
Top billed Gene Hackman's limited screen time nearly doubles and you can't help wonder why they got cut to begin with. His stand-in double and silly voice-over one liners (by a mimic) are minimized. Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine also get more screen time and I'm probably one of the few who appreciated the flushing pay-off.
What's baffling is why did all that great footage get originally scrapped?
The alternate Lois attempt (in the new opening scene) to reveal Clark's alter ego is a SCREAM!!! The film's resolution is more poignant, if illogical. The main thing is: it's different! Why repeat what already exists in the theatrical version when a Donner alternate is available that showcases his original intent. And Lois & Clark are back at their teeny, tiny desks along with all the other office riffraff and background mayhem, as opposed to Lester's (more accurately, the producers') cost-cutting version of Lois secluded into her own office.
The awe from 'Superman The Movie' is somehow recaptured. It's obvious from the DVD's documentaries and interviews that Donner loves working with actors. From the cast interviews; it's obvious the affection is mutual. On screen; it obviously shows!
Donner should be commended for his courage on revisiting this painful period in his past. This is a new and exciting vision with a whole different feel. Also, I doubt he could maintain a dry eye whenever Christopher Reeve was on screen.
This is a must see and a 1st in movie history! Never before has an internet campaign been so successful in making an impossible dream became possible.
The legacy of Christopher Reeve & Marlon Brando demands that their 'lost' footage be celebrated. Their solo scene where they 'connect' is worth the price of admission.
It's unavoidable that fan's opinions will split! Which version is better? You decide! I don't have the arrogance to state which is better. I can only say which version I enjoyed more.
And there's no way to conclude a 'Superman II' review without saluting Michael Thau.
Alien (1979)
Theatrical Or "Alternate Cut" !!
1979! ...Guess it was pure luck being among hundreds of thousands of ignorant attendees standing in that long line on opening weekend.
Ignorance Sure Was Bliss! The morning paper's rave review gives only tiny tid-bits away. "20th Century Fox opens 'ALIEN' on 'Star Wars' two year opening day anniversary." (The 1st hour of the movie is vaguely summarized). "Then the Alien emerges in a most powerful and bloody scene", states the article; "...and who will survive?" That night, the audience had no clue what was about to burst forth. Powerful! Bloody! Horrifying beyond anyone's imagination. Horror hasn't been the same since.
No household name actors...at that time.
First movie where I heard guys screaming as loud (if not louder) than the girls. And that was at least 30 minutes before the Alien emerges. After that; the screams only got louder! That weekend; the one scene everyone gave away was...the One Scene!! Nobody had ever seen anything like it before. So who can blame the screams!! And unfortunately...the give-a-way.
Top Notch Horror/SciFi! If not THE Top Notch of that combined genre! An opinion that's strictly an opinion. The original version seems to hold up better as a "docu-thriller". Maybe that makes it scarier. The editing flows easier. The scenes have a better opportunity to play out. As a result, the tension seems to tighten as the story progresses. Director Ridley Scott, in the DVD intro pamphlet (but not in the DVD itself), admits he prefers the original version better. I gotta agree! But the new scenes ARE great scenes.
Maybe I'm biased. The earlier laser disc edition included those deleted scenes separately from the movie. So it's impossible feeling the same excitement of discovering this new footage for the first time edited into story form. Personally, I would have loved to see the deleted scenes added without losing any theatrical footage. Why? Great film making! Great story! And Great characters! Might have been more enriching.
But the 2003 version is still fun! No wonder there's legions of fans for 'Alien' and 'Aliens'.
Makes one of the best double features. Grab that popcorn and crank up that DTS and Dolby volume.
Well done, low key and flawless acting. Unique directorial style! The Sound! The Editing! And Geiger's other-worldly symbolic design! This groundbreaker is an absolute must-see.
9 out of 10.