rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

Agreed on that too Paul. I also have no idea what some critics were raving about in terms of Donald Glover's Lando. He also didn't convey any of Billy Dee Williams' presence and came off as weak as well.

Honestly I had much more fun watching THE MEG and JURASSIC WORLD - FALLEN KINGDOM than SOLO. Not that they were great, but I felt like I was watching a funeral with SOLO. Interestingly audiences felt the same despite most critics saying the complete opposite.

Also a candidate for the worst looking film of all-time for a major studio release. I struggle to think of any film as dimly shot -- even something like ALIEN was elegantly filmed "in the dark," but there is scant artistry involved with what Howard and his DP did here.

[AndyDursin]

OSCAR
8/10



Underrated comedy was bashed by most critics mainly because of Sylvester Stallone’s participation – and that’s somewhat understandable, since Sly was in the midst of a sluggish period (sandwiched inbetween “Rocky V” and “Stop or My Mom Will Shoot!”) at the time of “Oscar”’s release. That said, director John Landis’ variation on a French farce is disarmingly energetic and packed with terrific performances – yes, even from Stallone himself, playing the unforgettably named “Snaps” Provolone – a Chicago gangster who pledges to his dying father (a Kirk Douglas cameo) that he’ll go straight. Mistaken identities and endless comedic shenanigans, mostly revolving Snaps’ tempestuous daughter (a delightful early role for Marisa Tomei), ensue in one of Landis’ most appealing films from the ‘90s. Everything about the film is fun, from the period costumes and production design (shot in L.A. plus Universal Orlando and Disney MGM in Florida!) down to Elmer Bernstein’s classically-adapted scoring. But it’s mostly the cast that wins you over: Stallone is surprisingly spry working opposite Tomei while Peter Riegert, Tim Curry, Vincent Spano, Ornella Muti, Kurtwood Smith, Chazz Palminteri, Yvonne De Carlo, Don Ameche and Eddie Bracken shine in support.

A movie some critics seemed to ravage for no good reason other than dump on Stallone (Siskel & Ebert at least got it right), “Oscar” makes its Blu-Ray debut in a fine Kino Lorber release. The AVC encoded (1.85) transfer and DTS MA 2.0 stereo sound are above par for Touchstone catalog masters, and an entertaining interview with the always engaging Landis is provided on the supplemental side. Landis divulges that Stallone performed well after the movie’s initial star backed out because of financial demands (I assume he’s talking about Danny DeVito but doesn’t mention him by name), and the perils of moving to Florida after a fire took down the sets on the Universal lot. He also relays the hilarious one-day shooting of Douglas on the lot, and how it brought back bad memories of his work on “First Blood” (Douglas quit after the filmmakers refused to change the ending and have Rambo killed) – which spilled over into Douglas’ physical handling of Stallone, which wasn’t just a “movie slap”!

[Johnmgm]

I liked Solo a lot more than you guys (I think it’s the best of the Disney-era Star Wars movies, which admittedly is not saying much) but I wanted to warn/alert anyone looking into buys the Blu ray to understand that it looks terrible—probably the worst looking studio film I’ve seen in many years. I really didn’t notice Solo looking this crummy at the theater, I must have taken off my glasses.

[AndyDursin]

Didnt see it in theaters but it was universally dumped on by anyone who saw it in 4K for the dim lighting and lack of brightness. Nothing much they can do to fix it, it was how it was shot.

[Monterey Jack]

I've seen Peter Hyams movies with brighter cinematography than Solo.

[AndyDursin]

Yeah I thought exactly that...I can't think of another less appealing looking recent film in my lifetime.

[Monterey Jack]

Yeah I thought exactly that...I can't think of another less appealing looking recent film in my lifetime.

For how strenuously Disney is trying to glom onto the "old-school" magic of the OT (bringing back the original cast, a heavier accent on "practical" creature F/X), it's odd how both of the "spin-off" features to date have been lit so dimly. The images in the OT were bright, crisp and colorful (despite a different DP on each film), so I dunno if it's a concentrated effort to differentiate these films visually from the "episode" movies...?

Whatever the reason, it's ugly, and I hope Disney moves away from this if they ever decide to make more spin-off movies.

[Paul MacLean]

Ragtime (7/10)

This is another "classic movie" I never got around to seeing until now. Milos Foreman's picture is one of those films which was highly acclaimed when released, but has since fallen into relative obscurity. However, it remains often-powerful, with an impressive storyline (mostly-impressive anyway -- more on that later). Set in 1917, Ragtime concerns a well-to-do couple (James Olsen and Mary Steenburgen) who take pity on an unwed black woman (Debbie Allen) who has recently given birth and has no place to go. Howard E. Rollins, jr. plays Allen's suitor (and father of the child) -- a professional ragtime pianist who wishes to marry her.

There's much more to the film (which I don't want to spoil) but suffice to say, Ragtime bursts with some of the most dramatically-impressive moments of 1980s cinema, as well as arresting performances from a brilliant cast. In film also features appearances by Moses Gunn (as Booker T. Washington), Brad Dourif (in one of his best roles), Kenneth McMillan (as a thoroughly despicable bigot), as well as brief appearances by then-unknowns like Fran Drescher, Jeff Daniels and Samuel L. Jackson. Most notable however is the presence of none other than James Cagney, in his final film performance (which is also one of his best). Like Foreman's better-remembered Amadeus, Ragtime immerses the viewer into a visceral and believable evocation of a past age -- so-much-so one can virtually feel the texture of the period.

Ragtime is a film which has so much going for it -- so why, you may ask, do I give it only a 7 out of 10? Sadly, because an inordinate amount of screen time is wasted on a concurrent storyline, concerning Elizabeth McGovern as an air-headed chorus girl married to a wealthy (but insane) man. After McGovern's husband is committed to an asylum, she has an affair with Brad Dourif (Steenburgen's brother), then befriends a poor Jewish immigrant (Mandy Patinkin) who eventually becomes a film director, and makes McGovern his leading lady.

The McGovern scenes are not only silly, they are also an annoying tangent that veers away from the the far-more relevant (and serious) storyline -- that of a wealthy white family who are forced to confront rampant bigotry and oppression which they were hitherto unaware of. The McGovern scenes are in contrast just frivolous and pointless. I have not read the book, which I assume is a story of "intersecting lives" (and likely more complex than the screenplay), but other than her brief fling with Dourif, McGovern's life doesn't really connect with anyone else (save for a tacked-on, superfluous scene at the end of the picture). It often feels like a mashup of two different movies, or like watching TV with one of those annoying people who keeps switching between two different channels.

Ragtime could have been a truly great film, had it focused exclusively on the more compelling Rollins / Allen / Olsen element (and its poignant observations about race in the early 20th century). The McGovern scenes could easily have been jettisoned -- leaving no holes in the rest of the story -- but sadly, their presence seriously compromises an otherwise terrific movie. As a result, Ragtime is an often-powerful (and sometimes great) film, but not a fully-satisfying one, and that's a shame.

[Eric Paddon]

Marlowe (1969) 5 of 10

-Despite an interesting cast and the fact that James Garner is basically giving us a preview of Jim Rockford in his take on Philip Marlowe, this film is a giant snooze-fest. Stirling Silliphant's script is muddled that I found it impossible to keep up with the nature of the plot (big mistake is that we get no narration by Garner which is something films like this, even when moved to contemporary settings MUST have). On top of that, the production values are cheap and indistinguishable from that of a TV-movie (save for the gratuitous toplessness of Rita Moreno as a stripper at a key moment) and another big mistake is that while Gayle Hunnicutt is the second billed-name in the production as a TV star being blackmailed because of her affair with a mobster, the filmmakers decided to cast as Garner's occasional lover/Girl Friday an actress named Corinne Camacho who strongly resembles Hunnicutt so much I got lost for a bit trying to figure out who was who. And the final twist of the movie is something that comes straight out of most episodes of "Mannix" where the detective will corner someone who has played an innocuous role and implausibly tell them "It had to be you. I knew it all the time etc." On the big screen, this comes off as forced.

-There is an inspired moment when Garner confronts Sharon Farrell at a lunch counter in a railroad station and they start shouting at each other about a murder that has just taken place etc. and there is a female customer sitting in between them placidly saying nothing and trying to ignore what's being said. It's a moment of humor that does land but they're far and few in this tedious mess of a movie. Bruce Lee has a small part as a mob boss henchman who trashes Garner's office with his karate kicks and then when he tries to corner Garner on a rooftop ends up unintentionally leaping 40 floors to his death! (and yet amazingly Garner never gets questioned about this!)

[Paul MacLean]

Danton (8.5/10)

Riveting, chilling 1982 depiction of the power struggle between Georges Danton (Gerard Depardieu) and Maximilien Robespierre during the "Reign of Terror" in 1790s France. Depardieu is at the top of his game (though when is he ever not?) in the title role, that of an impassioned revolutionary and man of the people, who runs afoul of his compatriots by publicly opposing the slaughter of "enemies of the revolution". Recommended. (Timely too.)

[Eric Paddon]

Donovan's Brain (1953) 6 of 10

-I'd listened to the Orson Welles radio version from "Suspense" several times but this was my first time with the film version. It's an okay B-movie but nothing overly distinctive IMO. They clearly softened the scientist character, played by Lew Ayres to make him more noble but this sets up the dynamic of him opting to remove the unscrupulous Donovan's brain on the spur of the moment which came off as a bit forced. The climax also wasn't too well plotted I felt.

-The future First Lady is a bit flat I felt, not as good as she was in "The Next Voice You Hear" but frankly Nancy Reagan I felt had a presence that would have been better suited to television. Some of her last acting roles which were guest shots on shows like "87th Precinct" shows her to better effect than a big screen role.

-Ironically, there is another woman in this film with a connection to politics most are not aware of but which has been making a big splash this year. The director's then-wife, Lisa Howard has a small part as Donovan's daughter. Howard would go on to become a soap opera performer and then abruptly quit acting in 1960 to become a journalist getting hired by ABC. She had her own news program on ABC and there have been some startling new revelations this year about how she developed a relationship with Fidel Castro in 1963 (which likely included an affair) and was being used as a White House go-between with Castro for a period until the JFK and LBJ administrations dropped interest in what she was doing. This was the subject of a major profile in Politico earlier this year with the discovery of declassified materials showing her Castro connections. Ultimately, after working herself into this position of power and influence, Howard's career crashed as she was fired by ABC in late 1964 when she openly joined a group of Democrats opposed to Bobby Kennedy's election to the Senate and then suffered a miscarriage in early 1965. She committed suicide from a drug overdose. Unfortunately, the commentary on "Donovan's Brain" (which was recorded before the Politico story emerged) tries to push a stupid theory of her being done in by the CIA because of her liberalism (suddenly the CIA which we are told did in JFK goes after someone whose career ended because she opposed Bobby??).

-Amazingly, Gal Godot wants to do a movie about Howard's Castro romance and treat it as a noble subject when it is anything but.

[mkaroly]

Going through the Universal Horror movies box set right now. Some "quickie" comments:

DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936) was the sequel to DRACULA; I cannot imagine how audiences reacted to this at the time, but I found it to be a little chilling but mostly campy fun. Dr. Jeffrey Garth (played by Otto Kruger) comes off to me as a Bing Crosby type (I was waiting for him to burst into song). The title sequence has the credits appear amidst various gothic archways that look very vaginal (I laughed). Countess Zaleska's attack on Lili had very clear lesbian overtones/undertones and was pretty creepy. Gloria Holden's attempt to use her eyes a la Bela Lugosi isn't really as creepy or effective as Lugosi's Dracula, and the story overall is pretty uncompelling to me. It just comes off as a weird "quickie" film that doesn't really take the time to develop plot or characters to a reasonable degree. (2/10).

SON OF DRACULA (1943) is pretty bizarre, though I felt that the look of the film was much more creepy than DRACULA'S DAUGHTER. A Count Alucard (Lon Chaney, Jr) comes over to America at the invitation of the lovely but occult loving Kate (Louise Allbritton) in order to marry her though she is betrothed to Frank (Robert Paige). As it turns out, Kate's plan was to become a vampire so she could make Frank a vampire and kill off Count Alucard. That way she and Frank could have an eternal marriage. Chaney's Dracula is an ominous presence but very clumsy and awkward, IMO. He just doesn't look the part. Harry Brewster (Frank Craven) is the Van Helsing character, and I enjoyed his performance. While the special effects (Dracula transforming into a bat and the bat transforming into Dracula) were much improved from DRACULA, SON OF DRACULA plays more like a B-science fiction film than a horror film. Slightly better than DRACULA'S DAUGHTER but not anywhere near the greatness of 1931 DRACULA. (2.5/10).

[Monterey Jack]

-Krull (1983): 5/10



Okay...maybe I was a little harsh on this film in the past, but a fresh viewing on this film on the Mill Creek Blu-Ray (recently reissued with a nifty new slipcover that evokes the look of a beaten-up old VHS rental case) made me realize it's only slightly less bad than I originally groused about. In the "plus" column, the location footage is often breathtaking (especially in the era where fantasy epics are 100% greenscreen affairs), some of the set design inside the "Black Fortress" (oooo, how original...!) is innovative, and, of course, James Horner's hysterical, go-for-broke score practically gives the London Symphony Orchestra a hernia attempting to pump levels of excitement and romance into a film that desperately needs it. And yet the film is just so dull. It's a ploddingly generic mix of post-Star Wars sci-fi elements grafted onto a sterile costume epic as stilted and leaden as one of those lesser Biblical epics from the 1950s, all dressed up with some admittedly impressive miniature work from Derek Meddings. We're barely introduced to the film's main characters before they're torn apart by fate, so we're not emotionally invested in anything,and the plot plays out like the screenwriter was adapting the third or fourth installment of a series of fantasy books, and only threw in a handful of references to earlier chapters. George Lucas could get away with that with Star Wars because the characters were vivid and endearing and we were given enough time with them interacting with each other to make the eventual stakes of the story matter, but here it's generic Blow-Dried Fantasy Hunk leading his Fellowship of interchangeable ruffians (it's fun to see young Liam Neeson and Robbie Coltrane in the background, though) to save his generic Ethereal Princess (who does nothing but wander around gormlessly whenever we cut back to her. Where's the feisty, take-charge charisma of Carrie Fisher in A New Hope?), facing the usual barrage of 80s fantasy tropes (yes, the obligatory quicksand pit makes a weary appearance). I'll admit this viewing, once I had acclimated myself to the fact that there was not a single original thing about the movie, was painless enough, and Horner's magnificent music makes it easy to just ignore the plot and appreciate the film as a well-shot F/X demo reel, and yet, if I'm gonna sit through a crummy 80's fantasy movie, I'd rather it be something that's endearingly bad, like Ridley Scott's laugh-out-loud hilarious Legend or Tobe Hooper's Looney Tunes Lifeforce. This film just lays there, an indifferent collection of spare parts from far-better genre cinema of the period, with only Horner's music to buoy it up.

[AndyDursin]

I get not liking LEGEND but cant imagine anyone finding it unintentionally funny. I dont get that at all sorry lol

[Monterey Jack]

I get not liking LEGEND but cant imagine anyone finding it unintentionally funny. I dont get that at all sorry lol