An American science fiction directed by J. A. Bayona, starring Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The island that Jurassic park was built on has become an erupting volcano. The heroes from the previous installment are hired, along with some military dudes, to go grab some dinosaurs before they're gone. Everyone goes back to this rich dude's house to tangle: heroes, rich people, military dudes and dinosaurs.
This is what happens when you make a big budget B movie. Clocking in at just over 2 hours, this is a bit longer than standard running time. I appreciated that for reasons that will come up later. The plot was a shambles. It was like some of the lowest budget film plots I've ever seen: full of holes and stuff is happening that doesn't make sense. The characters were literally regurgitated from the last film. The leading male and female roles were even in the same type of relationship. Owen's relationship with the dinosaurs is deepened and given back-story, but he is no further along with Claire. Dialogue and acting were extremely professional, this being a big budget film and all. I think that the granddaughter, Maisle did a great job of providing contrast to the super-dinosaur and I really liked seeing the rich, bald guys being afraid of that same monster. Sets and costumes were amazing. That's what money can buy. Camera-work was what I would expect from the series and from modern Hollywood in general. Editing was fast, but there were some times when showing off special effects overpowered close-ups and quick editing pace. Yeah, my image spoils the climax. What are you going to do about it? It was in the trailer that spoiled the whole film! Now we come to special effects: the whole reason for this film to exist. I went to the theater to see digital dinosaurs on the big screen. Unfortunately, it was not being shown in 3D where and when I went. Needless to say, I got what I wanted. If you watch this film to look at the cool dinosaurs, you may have as much fun as I did. If you are looking for a good movie by other standards, look somewhere else. Audio at the theater is a whole new story. I thought their setup was treble-heavy and didn't bring enough bass rumble. It was just a little short on mid-range as well. They don't use a normalizer, but I could hear characters whispering. Maybe if I turned my system up as loud as at the theater, I could hear whispering characters without a normalizer. IMDb lists a rating of 6.5/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 51% Tomatometer with 55% audience score for an average of 57% not even passing. I think people are expecting hobos to shit glitter here, flogging a dead horse. The series is 28 years old and was lucky to do blockbusters as long as it did. I liked watching this because I like B movies, series films, dinosaurs and digital effects. Also, it got me into an air conditioned theater and away from my parents for a few hours. If that is not your reason for watching this film, you may agree with everyone else and dislike it. I rate this adequate because it did it's job.
A Chinese kung fu directed by John Woo, starring Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung.
A military leader has destroyed Shaolin and some various fighters team up to defeat him.
Yet another standard kung fu. If you're looking to see what old school fu was like, it was like this. If you're looking to watch a good movie, steer clear. How many revenge plots involving the destruction of Shaolin by a singular villain can there be? The shallow characters did not do it for me. They were like every other fighter in any of the hundreds of kung fu films I've seen. Dialogue could have been copied and pasted from other films and I seriously doubt that anyone would notice. You probably wouldn't even have to change the names. Acting was the same. Same, same, same. There was lots of fighting with weapons and hand to hand as well as discussion of different styles. I swear the filmmakers all used the same sets and costumes. They were like community property for anyone in China who wanted to make a kung fu flick. There was some shot variety in the camera-work and editing. Two that I noticed were an actor seen from between the feet of a horse and a flashback to training during the final fight. Special effects were the same as every other kung fu and so was audio. IMDb lists a rating of 6/10, AllMovie lists 2/5 AllMovie rating with 3.5/5 user ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 44% audience score for an average of 53.5%. That sounds right to me because it was so dull and could not be differentiated from any other fu flick. I rate this tolerable because it was not painful to watch.
I might be taking a break from this soon. School taught me too much about movies and I've watched too many. 2500 and something reviews over 8 years is not a bad run if that's all I do with my film blog.
An American documentary directed by Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper and Eleanor Coppola, starring Francis Ford Coppola.
Francis Ford Coppola is making Apocalypse Now.
This was extremely similar to other "making of" film documentaries that I've seen. Information density was a little bit sparse because (as always) there were problems while filming, the director was going nuts and the cast and crew were working too hard. Most of the narration came from the Coppola couple, with Francis being interviewed and Eleanor speaking about the filming years later. There was a good mix of interviews and on-set footage. All of the interviewees were filmed in different locations, which helped lots. The subject matter is kind of stale to me now and has lost it's original charm. The version that I watched was in 4:3 aspect ratio and it seemed like the bottom was cropped off even then. Lots of the "on-set making of" footage was very grainy and exposures were off in anything but the best sunlight conditions. Apparently, Eleanor Coppola did not have a cinematography team working for her like her husband did. Audio was a little bit low, but mixed correctly. IMDb lists a rating of 8.2/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 94% audience score for an average of 92%. I think that's a little bit high because of how many other films have similar documentaries about them. I rate this o.k.
An American horror slasher directed by Armand Mastroianni.
A killer is murdering girls who are about to get married. One girl is questioning the decision of her groom and there is a police detective on the case.
The plot was cheesy and seemed incomplete, but what was there made sense. The girl questioning her choice of grooms had a better man than her chosen as a friend, but the police detective was just kind of there. This brings us to characters. The bride to be and her man waiting in the wings were developed, but the supposed groom and police detective were left out to dry. The dialogue and acting seemed right. I actually wanted to know more about the characters that were undeveloped because the developed characters were "in" their roles. They played it right, nothing seemed forced and it made sense with them. Sets and costumes were very mundane, except for the jogging trail and the amusement park. Lack of costume earned female anatomy points in the shower scene (image). Camera-work was dead-on. If a moving shot was appropriate (like on the spinning park ride), it was used. If a longer shot was necessary to tell the story (like when Marvin is visiting the bride in the morning), that was used too. Framing was all done to tell the story as well. Audio was only slightly off. The dialogue was right, but sound effects and music were just a touch too loud. IMDb lists a rating of 4.9/10, AllMovie lists 3/5 AllMovie rating with 2.5/5 user ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 25% Tomatometer with 30% audience score for an average of 42.8%. I completely disagree. The people rating these must have never taken video or script writing classes. I rate this adequate because it had some plot and character issues, but what was there made sense and made me want to see the filmmakers fix it.
A Chinese action comedy directed by Wong Jing, starring Chow Yun-fat and Andy Lau.
An extremely skilled gambler accidentally falls into a trap laid by a small-time and his friend, hitting his head multiple times and losing his memory. The friends pick him up and soon find out that he can gamble well if they feed him a certain kind of chocolate that reawakens part of his memory. Gambling debts of the unskilled gambler, a bodyguard from the high level gamblers and a team of Triad assassins all converge in a parking garage and the skilled gambler is injured again, restoring his memory. He then goes to one final game before leaving the country.
2 hours of this was a little bit too much. The complex plot had too many sub-plots (as always). There were lots of characters and even more extras, but the few main characters stood out quite well. Their dialogue was written well enough to identify them and their acting was pretty good. Sets and costumes were slightly varied. There were rich people and places as well as poor, seedy ones. My favorite set was the bamboo scaffolding. Camera-work was done very well. Not only was there a variety of shot distances, but a good mix of shot lengths. It was a little heavier on short takes and close-ups, but there were enough medium and long takes and framings mixed in. I think there was something wrong with the version that I got because white items at night had halos around them. This may have been true of the original, but probably not. Special effects were pretty standard of the time and genre: a few shootings, a knifing, some falls and high altitude acrobatics. I watched a version dubbed into Thai with English subtitles, but everything sounded to be mixed correctly. IMDb lists a rating of 7.4/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 87% audience score for an average of 80.5%. I rate this o.k. It would have been better if it were shorter and fewer sub-plots.
A British adventure directed by Lewis Gilbert, starring Alec Guinness, Dirk Bogarde and Maurice Denham.
The captain of a British ship brings his 12 year old son as a midshipman on a voyage to Corsica. The first officer likes to punish everyone, so the sailors plan a mutiny.
An hour and 40 minutes sure felt like a long time. I think it took 3 tries with turn-offs to get through this. Not because it was that bad, just boring and slow paced. The plot absolutely failed to hold my interest even though sailors were being flogged between arguments. Characters were a major issue. The only one developed was the first officer antagonist. Dialogue and acting all seemed fine. There were lots of rough sailors and at least 2 dickhead officers. The only other character worth mentioning was a "gentleman" who thought he was in the wrong place and acted his part very well. Sets and costumes seemed to be no fakes. There were real ships, real naval wear of multiple hierachical levels and possibly even real cannons. Camera-work was another problem. The color balance was way off. It may have been the cameras in use in the early '60s or how the file was processed to make it digital, but it looked all gritty and the colors looked oversaturated. Special effects included people getting stabbed, cannon fire, smoke and ships on fire. The audio also played a role in how I disliked this. It sounded just as gritty as the video looked. The levels were correct, but it just sounded plain dirty. IMDb lists a rating of 7.1/10, AllMovie lists 3/5 AllMovie rating with 4/5 user ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 60% audience score for an average of 74.2%. I think that's a little high with all of the issues that I tried to explain. I rate this poor for being boring and irksome.
An American slasher horror directed by Herb Freed, starring Carmen Argenziano and Vanna White.
A girl dies from exhaustion at a school track race and then the whole track team goes missing. There is a killer loose just before high school graduation.
This did not hold my attention at all. The pacing was a little slower than most horror films, which I liked. The plot was not communicated very clearly. Even if I'm distracted by changing mandolin strings, I should have some idea of what's going on. The characters were not very identifiable. I liked the security guard. There was a scene in which he finds kids smoking a joint in a forest. He chases them away and proceeds to light up his own joint. The dialogue was unoriginal and the acting half-assed. Sets and costumes were mundane, but there was a locker room scene with female anatomy points from lack of costume. Camera-work was actually not bad. Their shot compositions looked good and there were lots of B-roll style close-ups of items. Audio was not the best. It sounded kind of gritty, but the mix was not too far off. IMDb lists a rating of 4.6/10, AllMovie lists an AllMovie Rating of 1/5 with User Ratings of 2/5 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 57% Tomatometer with 19% Audience Score for an average of 36.4%. I rate this poor because I've seen much worse.
An American music documentary directed by James Keach.
Glen Campbell, the aging country music star, has Alzheimer's and does a last tour.
Old Glen was a riot. His sense of humor made the film. With this type of piece, we're talking low information density and more of a "slice of life" approach. This was done quite well. We saw him at home, performing and at the doctor's office. He was always joking or playing music when he wasn't totally disoriented. I would have liked more single interviews with Glen himself and not as many with his daughter and wife. I think that would have communicated the point and the subject matter better. The subject matter of him having Alzheimer's and doing the tour was fine. A documentary about an aging country music star is a noble cause and it's passable that they plugged the Alzheimer's cause, but it didn't need to be emphasized as much as was done. Getting old Glen on camera to joke, shoot the breeze and reminisce about his career would have been the strategy to go for. Without fail, old men like to tell stories. Camera-work was hit and miss. Lots of it was professionally filmed and there was some TV footage of multiple dates thrown in. There were also some scenes that looked more raw and handheld that really didn't need to be there. Who cares if dude thinks someone stole his golf clubs when he has one in his hand? The audio followed the quality level of camera-work. On the pro stuff, we had pro audio. The raw, handheld stuff was probably shot on a cell phone because it looked and sounded that way. For guitarists, he played that blue strat through most of his gigs. I find the split pickups kind of odd. Also, maple fretboards look cheap to me, but I know his guitar must be expensive. IMDb lists a rating of 8/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 88% Audience Score for an average of 89.3%. A B+ seems like an appropriate grade for this. It was decently entertaining and showed a good cross section of what Glen Campbell's life was like at the time. I rate it adequate.
An American slasher horror directed by Robert Deubel, starring Hal Holbrook and Rutanya Alda.
A student went crazy at college many years ago and has recently hung himself in a mental institution. Students are being killed at the same college and someone is making phone calls, pretending to be the dead guy from the mental institution.
Just flat-out horrid. The plot was unoriginal and barely held my attention. There were too many secondary characters, but no main protagonist. Dialogue and acting seemed like an afterthought. It all seemed poorly written and unconvincing. Sets and costumes were mundane, looking like normal students at a normal college of the '80s. Camera-work was uncreative, but I could see everything that was happening. Audio was poorly mixed. Dialogue was low and music was high. It seemed like the filmmakers were following a recipe to make a crappy horror flick. IMDb lists a rating of 4.4/10, AllMovie lists 2/5 AllMovie Rating with 1.5/5 User Ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 24% Audience Score for an average of 34.5%. Finally, something that I agree with internet consensus on. I rate this bad because it is. DO NOT WATCH!
A French Italian thriller directed by Dario Argento, starring Jean-Pierre Marielle.
A drummer from a psychedelic rock band accidentally kills a man and is photographed doing so. The photographer stalks him, so he hires bums and a crappy detective to solve the case.
Dario Argento is a cocksucker. There are no two ways about it. The plot failed to hold my interest even enough to finish watching this. The only main character was the drummer and he seemed like just some hippie that Argento found on the street. There was a serious lack of dialogue and the acting was unconvincing to say the least. Sets and costumes were ultra-mundane. Camera-work was good. I've said before that Argento should have been a still photographer because his shot composition is awesome. Audio is where this really bit it. The dialogue was mixed at barely audible levels, but all of the sound effects and music were clipping like an old kung fu film. Stylistically, you can tell it's Dario Argento's work by turning it on at any point. Being identifiable is not always good though. IMDb lists a rating of 6.7/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 75% Tomatometer with 60% Audience Score for an average of 67.3%. Even that seems high for this pile of horse dung. In accordance with my turn off policy, I rate this shit. DO NOT WATCH!
A Chinese wuxia directed by Tsui Hark, starring Jet Li and Zhou Xun.
Continuing the adventures at Dragon Gate Inn, a royal servant has become pregnant and escaped from the palace. A rebel swordsman is attacking east and west government officials. A fake, copycat swords-woman is impersonating this man and saves the servant from the government. Again, opposing groups meet at the ill-fated Dragon Gate Inn right before a sandstorm. The inn owner and her tattooed thugs are hanging around because the sandstorm will uncover a lost city full of gold.
This probably looked better in 3D at the theater. It looked fake and too CG on my computer screen. The plot was as convoluted as most new wuxia flicks. I think that too much stuff and too many people were written in. There was definitely no shortage of extras. Some of the scenes showed armies and gangs that looked real. The few main characters were a little difficult to keep track of. I watched this half last night and half this morning, so that may have something to do with it. Again, I liked the inn owner most. This time she had face tattoos and came onto a shy man. Coming in as second favorite character was her monster giant warrior dude. Both of these characters were acted very expressively. The dialogue seemed standard. There was some type of riddle password about the steeles which are the namesake of Dragon Gate. Different groups knew different information about this and about the mazes and traps of the lost city. I was disappointed in how little time was spent at this set. One would think that the lost city would get some serious screen time, but no. All of the sets costumes and locations looked amazing (as expected of the genre and date). The pacing felt rushed all the way through. The only scene that really felt on time was people arriving at the inn. Camera-work was as expected: fast cuts, lots of camera movement. I think that there were more extreme long shots in this to make use of 3D camera/projector technologies. Composition on the slower shots looked very professional. There were too many special effects. I'm good with Hong Kong wire flying, green screen, digital magic spells being cast, etc. When I say it's too much special effects, you really know it's over the top. The audio seemed to be mixed a little bit low, but proportionally well. IMDb lists a rating of 6/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 69% Tomatometer with 48% Audience Score for an average of 59%. Even though the pacing was too quick and there were too many special effects, I think that score is a little low. I rate it adequate. If you're watching Dragon Gate films, you might as well see them all, right?
A Mexican comedy directed by Luis Bunuel, starring Luis Alcoriza.
A rich man is drunk all the time, spends too much money and doesn't care about anything. His family all sit around and do nothing. When his brother hears of the problems going on, he convinces the family to move into a poor neighborhood while Spendy McSloshster is passed out. He eventually figures out that he is being lied to and plays the same joke on his family, saying that he really did lose all of his money.
What a unique plot! That was the best part. I've seen revenge, quests, oh no there are monsters, the Fern Gully/Avatar nature deal, check out my super powers, but joke reversal is not done often. We even had dynamic characters! Pretty much everyone changed from the beginning to the end, except the fat, offended extra woman who got called a man. I can't really say too much about dialogue because of the language difference, but acting was spot-on and convincing. As with most Bunuel films, the costumes and sets/locations were nothing special. What I did like about sets was the window washer's platform where the main character tries to jump off a building. Camera-work and editing were pretty straight forward and old fashioned. Lots of medium and long shots with a few close-ups for variety and heightened emotion. The camera coming into focus when the main character wakes up was very appropriate. Audio was a little on the rough side. All of the dialogue was clipping like the sound effects in an old kung fu movie. IMDb lists a rating of 7.3/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists an Audience Score of 75% for an average (if you couldn't figure this out) of 74%. Yeah, the Bunuel flick that I like gets a C and all the rest get As. Great. I'm rating this good for being unique instead of the same old horse puckey that gets recycled by every other film and it's sequels. Eventually, people might realize that good movies are not the same as other movies. Being different is what makes them good.
A Chinese wuxia directed by Tsui Hark, starring Andy Lau, Carina Lau and Tony Leung Ka-fai.
Government officials are spontaneously combusting. The empress brings a former detective out of prison to solve the case.
This is what one would expect from a modern wuxia film. The plot was slightly convoluted, but that may have come from presentation rather than writing. The few main characters stood out and I think Detective Dee came across correctly. The dialogue and acting were very much what I would expect from the date and genre. There really weren't any surprises. Obviously, the sets looked expensive and authentic. There were also some CG shots of large portions of the city. I could tell because they looked too clean and repetitive. The camera-work and editing follow in the same style as New Dragon Gate Inn. Lots of close-ups, quick editing cuts and lots of camera movement. Fighting and special effects may as well be commented on as the same item. What sticks in my memory most is the underground fight in the water area where logs came up out of the water and were used as ground to walk on as well as for weapons. This is another film in which there were lots of impossible jumps and acrobatics, but no real flying. The audio was in Chinese and the version that I got had hard-coded English subtitles. Dialogue, music and sound effects were mixed correctly. IMDb lists a rating of 6.6/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 80% Tomatometer with 62% Audience Score for an average of 69.3%. I rate it o.k. because it was predictable. I knew exactly what it would be before watching it.
A French Spanish romance directed by Luis Bunuel, starring Fernando Rey, Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina.
An older man tells the story of his relationship with a younger woman to passengers on a train. The woman has lead him on, only to turn him away multiple times.
Slightly odd and inconclusive, but interesting. The plot held my attention mostly because Conchita treated the main character so poorly. He was also always getting robbed by her male friends. I did care about what happened to the characters, but I can't decide whether I liked Conchita or not. There were some very funny lines of dialogue that were spoken by the butler. He was a master of Stephen Chow style deadpan delivery humor. Seeing that it was a story told in flashbacks, some narration would have been cool. Some people hate narration, but I tend to like it. The costumes and sets were pretty mundane, except the back room dance show (image and female anatomy points). Camera-work and editing were very smooth and stable. I think the style that Bunuel was going for was seamless and it worked correctly. Most of the audio was in French and I found English subtitles that worked when adjusted correctly. There was also some Spanish spoken with no subtitles or subtitles in Spanish. IMDb lists a rating of 8/10, AllMovie lists 4/5 AllMovie Rating with 4.5/5 User Ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 90% Audience Score for an average of 88%. I think that's a little high, but internet consensus indicates that if I think a film is mundane, most people will like it. I rate this o.k. because there are much better things to watch, but it held my interest.
An American documentary directed by Chris Moukarbell, starring Lady Gaga.
Gaga's PR firm made her a promotional documentary.
What a farce! An hour and a half, of course. The "plot" follows Gaga as she finishes an album and gets ready for the super bowl. During this time, she films 2 music videos and goes to the doctor because of physical pain. I cared not for the characters. Gaga is possessed by demons and is paying the price for fame with physical and emotional pain. The bitch hits her record producer's car with her jeep in a parking lot and shows only superficial remorse. They're both rich and can buy new vehicles, so they don't care. The dialogue seemed scripted or stoned. Pick one and you're probably right. Sets looked like rich bitch paradise "Oh, I'll take my bikini top off now for no real reason". Camera-work was atrocious. hand held with vertical format cell phone footage mixed in every once in a while. The only positive aspect was a short shot of some serious female anatomy points. Audio was not bad, except "her" music. As if anyone would believe that she writes songs! It was laughable. She's there in the studio, holding guitars and pretending to play piano. IMDb lists a rating of 7.1/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 74% Tomatometer with 80% Audience Score for an average of 75%. Apparently, people like being lied to. I watched it to the end, but I rate it shit anyway. Oh, poor demon-possessed pop star has to do work. Poor, poor Gaga with her millions of dollars, rich bitch mansion and Mercedes-smashing jeep. Go cry to your personal chiropractor.
A Mexican drama directed by Luis Bunuel, starring Ernesto Alonso and Rita Macedo.
A man believes that a music box gives him the power to wish people dead.
Boring. Again, Bunuel made an hour and a half long episode of The Twilight Zone. The plot would have fit nicely in 20 minutes if his lack of success in romance and a few deaths were skipped. As is, it took too long to communicate too little. There were 3 characters: Archibaldo, "the woman" and "her husband/father". These latter 2 roles were filled multiple times by different people. I found the dialogue a little dry and dull for a movie about supposed murder. The acting was all done very professionally though. It is very rare for me to watch a film with sets and costumes as mundane as the ones used in this. It was just regular clothes and regular places, nothing out of the ordinary. The camera-work, staging and shot composition were exceptional. I think that may be the only reason to watch this. There was a good variety of long and close shots, with most being somewhere in the middle. There were also some creative low angle shots and shots of items that the main character is looking at. That was the thing to do at the time: Character looks and we see what he is looking at. There was a botched special effect of the main character remembering the death of his governess in which blood is coming from off-screen instead of from the governess. Audio was in Spanish and I got good English subtitles, so it was another situation of half-understanding the spoken dialogue while also reading it. IMDb lists a rating of 7.9/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 93% Audience Score for an average of 90.6%. I disagree. People love it and I don't see what all the fuss is about. I rate this poor because I think it was too mundane and boring to be worth filming in the first place.
A Chinese wuxia directed by Raymond Lee, starring Brigitte Lin, Tony Leung Ka-fai, Maggie Cheung and Donnie Yen.
Opposing groups meet at an inn run by a woman. One of the groups is lead by a woman with a flute and they want to rescue children who are political prisoners. Another group is military from the organization that was holding the children prisoner. A lone swordsman also shows up who was the flute woman's boyfriend, but he becomes entangled with the inn owner.
Pretty standard for the genre. The plot was full of holes. The biggest being: where did all those guys on horses go at the end? The main characters were mostly identifiable. I liked the inn owner most, but she tended to get mixed up with sword boy's ex. The reason that I liked the inn owner was that her dialogue and acting were most expressive. The head chef from the kitchen was comic relief and he was acted well too. The sets and costumes looked great, as they should in wuxia films. Camera-work and editing were not to my liking quite so much, though. The style of editing was like a new, American action film. There were lots of close shots and very quick editing cuts. It's possible that early '90s Chinese action films started the style that post-2000s American action films lifted from them. When things slowed down, I could tell that everything was staged and composed correctly. The special effects consisted of impossible jumps with rope rather than real flying. There was also blood and a goat cutting scene with item replacement across an editing cut. Audio was in Chinese, but I found good English subtitles. Dialogue was mixed correctly and the sound effects didn't repeat as much as in older Chinese action films. There were multiple sword sounds to vary the sonic landscape. IMDb lists a rating of 7.3/10, AllMovie lists 0 AllMovie rating with 3.5/5 User Ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 78% Audience Score for an average of 55.25%. It looks low because AllMovie possibly did not rate it? Without the zero, it would be 73.6% which I agree with. I rate this adequate. You might want to watch it, mostly if you've seen the original Dragon Gate Inn (1967).
An Italian exploitation directed by Joe D'Amato, starring Donald O'Brien.
A journalist is covering a psych ward to get a story when a girl with a bad case of cannibalism comes in. The journalist befriends an archaeologist who knows about South American cannibals and they go to find the flesh eaters.
Mostly soft-core porn. The plot seemed disjointed, desultory and secondary to sex scenes. Character development? Playboys and sluts. Oh, and cannibals (intentionally an afterthought). The acting didn't seem too bad. Folks knew their lines, but what they said was basic, plot-driven and flat like Stephen Chow deadpan delivery jokes flat. My favorite line was Emanuelle saying "I have a plan and I think it will work." Oh good. I didn't want to hear about a plan that you don't think will work. The city looked like a city, but the jungle looked a little northern. I know one of these cannibal flicks was shot in a park in England and it might be this one. Of course, I appreciated some lack of costumes (female anatomy points). The camera-work looked like the same first year film student or TROMA employee shot it that shot Contamination (1980). There was also clearly second-hand alligator/crocodile footage that looked totally different from the rest of the movie. The special effect that stood out was a dude getting cut in half. When the camera showed his upper torso hanging, his arms are still posed like he's standing (image). The audio was a little gritty, a little clippy and the music was too loud. I was unsurprised by this. IMDb lists a rating of 5.3/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists a 25% Audience Score for an average of 39%. That seems about right. Sometimes consensus is correct. I rate this bad. DO NOT WATCH!
An Italian horror directed by Umberto Lenzi.
A woman's sister is missing and video tape surfaces which shows her participating in a purification ceremony in the jungle. The woman hires a rough guy to help find her sister. They find the sister living in a religious cult near a cannibal tribe. They are saved from the cannibals by the cult, but must escape the insane leader and his brainwashed followers.
Total gore-fest. I love it! The plot was not what kept me interested, but having the Jim Jones cult right next to the cannibals was brilliant. The main character's Alabama accent came and went through the film and her whisky-swilling tough guy was an extremely shallow and static character. All of the women had great breasts on display, so female anatomy points apply. This was not about dialogue. Hence, it was basic, plot-driven and shallow. The jungle looked like every other cannibal movie jungle I've seen, but I obviously liked some of the (lack of) costumes. Camera-work was not bad. There were lots of medium and full shots of the characters, but close-ups of gore. The close-ups of cannibals eating people amused me a great deal. The people getting chopped up was obviously special effects, but I think the animal mutilation was all real in this one. I'm not for the senseless slaughter of innocent beasts, but since they did it, I'm glad I got to see it. I'll probably watch it a few more times so the animals won't have died for nothing. Audio was uneven. The music was really loud, but dialogue was mixed correctly. IMDb lists a 5.3/10 rating, AllMovie lists 1.5/5 AllMovie rating with 3.5/5 User Ratings and Rotten Tomatoes lists 38% Audience Score for an average of 47.75%. People are crazy not to see the value in this. Who could rate gore and tits so low? I rate it awesome. This is a keeper!
A French Italian drama directed by Luis Bunuel, starring Catherine Deneuve and Jean Sorel.
A married woman goes to work at a brothel in order to realize her sexual fantasies. She gets involved with a gangster client who follows her home to start trouble if she doesn't comply with his wishes.
For a film about prostitution, I would have expected more nudity like Jesus Franco would have done. The plot was extremely simple and predictable. The characters developed along similarly predictable paths. I found it appropriate that this was in French because France has a reputation as "the city of love" ...even if you have to pay for it. As with the Chinese films, I think that there was something lost in communication as far as the dialogue goes when it got subtitled. The acting seemed pretty decent though. I really believed the young gangster's acting as #1 bad boy. Locations made sense and costumes were plain, but the prostitutes wore the correct lingerie and the gangsters wore the right suits. The camera-work that stood out to me most was the main character's feet going up stairs to the brothel. The dreams looked amazing too and I actually got what they meant. Audio was mixed right, nothing too loud or too quiet. This won 4/5 awards that it was nominated for in the late '60s. IMDb has a 7.8/10 rating listed and Rotten Tomatoes lists 96% Tomatometer with 85% Audience Score for an average of 86.33%. I think that's a little too high. Sure, it looked good, but it takes more than a pretty face to win me over. If I can figure out what the dreams mean, it's too simple. It's also missing some nudity. I rate it o.k. Maybe you should watch it and see if you agree with consensus that it's amazing or with me that Jesus Franco would have done it better.
An Italian West German science fiction directed by Luigi Cozzi, starring Marino Mase.
A pair of astronauts who went to mars brought back alien life. The eggs of the aliens are being trafficked by a coffee company. One of the astronauts, a female colonel and a police detective travel to the coffee company in an effort to stop the trafficking of eggs.
So cheesy. The plot seemed like something a first year film student would aspire to. It seemed disjointed and I could clearly tell where tension was being built by "film language construction signs". When the woman was trapped in her hotel bathroom with an egg, the guys outside really went out of their way to milk it for time before rescuing her. The shallow and stereotypical characters really fit the Luigi Cozzi mold. Dialogue and acting were amateurish at best. Lots of the sets actually looked good. There was a government laboratory in the beginning, a Martian egg cave and the final set that I won't spoil. Camera-work looked like a first year film student or TROMA employee did their best, but it just wasn't good enough. The special effects reeked of B horror/sci-fi in the most wonderful way. There were exploding things and the eggs breathed. There was also lots of slime and gore. Again, I won't spoil the special effects in the climax at the final set. Audio was not bad. Dialogue was at correct levels, but the music was way too loud. IMDb lists a rating of 5.3/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists a 30% Audience Score for an average of 41.5%. I think that's a little low, but this film's infantile charm is not for everyone. I rate it poor because it was not without cheap and cheesy thrills.
A British documentary directed by Martin Scorsese and Michael Henry Wilson.
The famous film director, Martin Scorsese narrates his perspective on the history of American films.
This seemed very professional and cohesive. I just wish he had included the period of his career and his contemporaries in the timeline. Clocking in somewhere between 3 and 4 hours, it's engineered for those with a deep interest in movies and filmmaking.The information density was just about right. He spoke on each topic and showed clips for enough time that the viewer could digest the information without getting tired of it. There was the main interview with Scorsese himself and this was supplemented by possibly second hand footage of interviews with other directors who further illustrate the points that Scorsese is making. The whole "documentaries about movies" genre interests me a great deal. The interviewees on this type of film are talking about their job, but there's a meta level at which they are speaking about what is happening right then and what they are currently a part of, like standing between 2 mirrors or like Russian dolls. The camera-work for the main interview was as dull as it gets. He was always in the center of the frame, looking at the unmoving camera on a tripod. There was some zoom or cropping used, but that was all. Showing clips from the films that he spoke of was the best part. It illustrated his point while adding interest. I thought the audio all sounded right. Even switching between the main interview, secondary interviews and film clips, there were not noticeable volume differences. IMDb has an 8.6/10 rating listed and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 96% Audience Score for an average of 94%. That's one of the best scores I've seen on any consensus average. I thought it was a fine documentary and very professionally made, but a solid A grade seems a little high to me. I rate this adequate. I'll be keeping it with the rest of my "films about films" and would recommend it to anyone who is interested enough in the subject to watch something over 3 hours long.
A Mexican drama directed by Luis Bunuel, starring Jorge Mistral.
Two young women are living with a rich insect collector. One of them is his wife. Her long lost lover returns from a journey and this causes problems. The other problem is the drunken man from whom the insect collector got so much money. When not putting pins through moths, rich boy goes to terrorize this poor sod and try to take his home, causing Mr. Drinky to get violent.
It's really weird to half-understand the spoken language of a film while reading subtitles. The plot started out really weak and prissy, but it got way more interesting and gritty as it went. Obviously, I don't remember the characters' names, but I could identify them very easily. Even the butt-ugly maid and silent boy were identifiable characters. Dialogue flew by at an alarming pace. English speakers think Spanish sounds fast, but the subtitles were almost flickering they changed so quickly. Add to that understanding about half of the spoken Spanish and it's clear why I forgot names. The sets and costumes seemed like a mishmash of whatever European clothing and buildings could be found in Mexico at the time. I'm not saying they looked bad, just a little desultory. The video quality is what looked bad. It was grainy, noisy, blurry and dark. The shots seemed to be composed thoughtfully though. Speaking in the audio department, dialogue seemed to be at the correct level, but sound effects were more towards '70s kung fu style clipping. IMDb lists a rating of 6.8/10, AllMovie lists an AllMovie Rating of 2.5/5 with 4/5 User Rating and Rotten Tomatoes lists 67% Audience Score for an average of 66.25%. I would argue for a little bit higher grade just for ease of character identification. There are lots of films that could learn much from this! I rate it poor. This is what happens when I watch a movie, work, and then try to write about it. If you really need to see Mr. Drinky get tormented by the bug collector, go ahead and watch it.
An American documentary directed by Jon Fauer.
Cinematographers are interviewed about their jobs.
This was a little bit of a special interest piece. You need to be really into how movies are made to see value in it. I watched the extended/extras version with 2 full hour long interviews added to the hour and a half feature duration for a total of 3 and a half hours because I'm really into how movies are made. Information density was there if you know what they're talking about. Each interviewee explains some of the aspects of what a cinematographer does and how the quality of this work is determined. There were tons of interviewees: 110 of them! Given my high level of interest in the subject matter, even I found this a little on the dry side and was easily distracted while watching it. My mind tended to wander some while these folks were talking. Too bad the cinematography on this documentary was so poor. Each interviewee was filmed from only one camera on a tripod. If you watch the extras, you find out that the camera operator was moving the camera around as well as zooming in and out while they were filming. To be clear, more cameras or shot positions with less movement would have been better. The audio all sounded great to me. I could hear the monologues very clearly and there was not much dynamic range of volume. IMDb has a rating of 7.1/10 listed, Apple iTunes has 3.6/5 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 61% Audience Score for an average of 68%. I think that I agree with the barely passing grade. I rate it poor.
An American science fiction directed by Denis Villeneuve, starring Harrison Ford, Robin Wright and Jared Leto.
It is discovered that a replicant (android) has reproduced and the government has their best replicant-killer on the case.
This sucked. It sucked for 2 and a half hours! I didn't care about the plot because it didn't make me care. I even watched it twice because I thought I missed something important. The main characters were far too shallow to care about either. Most of the acting seemed fine, but the woman recruiting for the replicant army really blew it. I was trying to figure out if the government had put her up to asking the main character to join so they could bust him. It seemed like she was reading the script for the first time right then. Sets and costumes were really the only redeeming feature. Stuff looked great. Sure, it was probably mostly CG anyway. I was not impressed by the costumes though. Camera-work looked like a new, mainstream Hollywood film. There were lots of quick cuts and close-ups, without much else. I think there may have been a drone shot or few as well. Special effects looked like any kid with After Effects and enough time could have done them. It was like 90% layering and compositing. I did watch the original before I started this blog and the physical effects with real sets, props and models looked better. The orange filter when the main character meets Harrison ford was really annoying and the exaggerated waves on the wall at government headquarters looked cheesy. Audio actually seemed fine, but I have a compressor on, so it was probably standard of current trends in augmented dynamic volume levels. I'm not counting awards won/nominated because the list is too long. IMDb has an 8.1/10 rating listed and Rotten Tomatoes has 87% Tomatometer with 81% Audience Score for an average of 83%. I do not agree at all. For being a mainstream pile of CG that didn't come close to even trying to make me care about it, I rate this bad. DO NOT WATCH!
