rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

Well it's an elf...lol. What's funny about it??

As for KRULL -- it certainly has its shortcomings, and I'd agree with a lot of how you felt about the cardboard performances. It's not high art -- but when you put something like that in widescreen with a kick-ass score, I don't really mind the familiarity of the "prince rescuing the princess" storyline.

Still, what I think it boils down to, is how you feel about movies in general today, and that's a broader conversation. For me, a "a crummy 80s fantasy movie" is a lot more fun than sitting through some crummy -- lifeless, bland and boring -- 2018 brand-recycler Disney feeds us 3-4 times a year that has no passion, no filmmaking POV, is packaged by a focus group and rolls off an assembly line to feed either some nerd or kid who doesn't give a ****. I'd never argue KRULL is great, but at least it has some personality and art to its design, plus a fantastic score. I can't say any of those things about most of what's out there today.

That's kind of the thing about movies from the 70s and 80s. At least they're alive. Even when they don't work, they usually have some life to them. You might run into a great score. You could see some actual acting, back when performances really seemed to matter. Cinematography also mattered more than it does now with how prevalent CGI is, even in subtle ways. Nearly everything we get today from studios is marginalized product, with next to nothing that hasn't been packaged by a committee and a slate of studio executives, intended more and more for foreign markets (meaning less and less dialogue and, well, anything that would interest someone over the age of 13). Outside of a handful of things, everything is downright lifeless and bland, and it seldom matters who's making it. Back then, it actually DID matter, and you can tell.

It's not nostalgia either, because going back to films I disliked in the 80s often results in me liking a film more when compared to the prism of today's cinema. It's like HIGHLANDER -- I never liked the movie growing up and found it obnoxious. Now, I embrace its goofiness. It has personality, it has romance, it has humor -- it has over-the-top moments, and man, how many of these films today have any of those things? It's not perfect, it's got flaws, but it's a real movie at least. Nobody writing it sat there worried about what every country and age group and ethnicity was going to feel about every scene.

That's why I'd take a lousy film from 1985 -- at least one that bears the distinctive stamp of the people making it -- over a mediocre one, say SOLO, from 2018 -- that looks, sounds and plays exactly the same as most everything else in the marketplace -- any day of the week.

[Monterey Jack]

You make some good "Then vs. Now" points, Andy, but that kind of nostalgia can become a trap. Yeah, the "trimmings" of genre cinema from thirty years ago were often better than what we'd get today (better music, better photography, actual locations, more humor, etc.), but that's just the icing on the cake, and if the cake itself is stale and crumbly, it doesn't excuse a movie like Krull being Dull. When I went through the Omen trilogy again last month, I was a tad kinder towards The Final Conflict than I had been in the past due solely to the magnificence of Jerry Goldsmith's operatic score, but strip that music out of the film and replace it with a bland, modern-day effort (like Marco Beltrami's Omen remake score, say), and the seams of the storytelling stand out much more. Krull just isn't...very…good, much like The Black Hole isn't very good. That film had a wonderful John Barry soundtrack, fine visual effects and an intriguing premise, and yet, like Krull, it's populated with uninteresting characters and recycled situations. I could sit through either film just for the audiovisual attributes, but that doesn't make them good movies. Willow isn't a good movie, either, and you take nostalgia out of the equation (and Horner's music), and it's even more of a wan Star Wars retread than it was thirty years ago. If that makes me sound like a grump, so be it, but you know nostalgia is a double-edged sword when even movies that no one liked when they were kids (you ever play Krull with other kids on the playground?) are suddenly being re-appraised for what they aren't as opposed to today.

[AndyDursin]

Clearly, a lot of it's subjective, but in my mind, it's not nostalgia -- not when you actually go back and rewatch these films and realize, "****, this movie's actually a lot better than I thought, especially after sitting through the 23rd sequel of 2018!".

Now, I certainly don't like all of those movies you mention. WILLOW I've never cared for, ever -- and I still don't like it! (I actually don't care for that score very much, either). THE BLACK HOLE is a pretty bad film, and the score can't help it very much. The OMEN movies are what they are -- but in spite of THE FINAL CONFLICT's flaws, it's still very watchable and well made with several strong sequences. I find it easier to accept on repeat viewing when I know how disappointing the climax is. Besides, how many studio-made horror films have ever attempted to string together a running story line like that series did, with the budgets they had, and the scores they got? It's a unique trilogy in many ways.

I'm also not reappraising KRULL as a classic. I just find it to be a lot more entertaining than you do is all, and I find it a lot more fun to watch than its contemporary counterparts. After hearing about how bad it was, I got around to seeing it on laserdisc in the 90s and was very pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it, even then (sorry!). I've never believed that it deserved the bad rap that it got. It's silly Saturday matinee stuff -- but I could say the same exact thing about 99.9% of every summer movie released over the last 10 years. KRULL didn't do anything special but recycle parts as you say -- but nobody is doing anything but recycling in 2018 so that's a wash. At least with KRULL I've got a fantastic score, and today we've got....s---t. lol

In general, though, I definitely do believe films on balance from 30-40 years ago -- even the mediocre ones -- have a lot more to offer than the general blockbusters we see today do. There is a craftsmanship in them, and in other attributes like scoring, that makes even the weaker ones worth revisiting. That doesn't mean I think WILLOW is a great movie (never have), but it's just a general feeling I have. I also don't see many people coming back to most of the "Hits of 2018" in the future and caring about the likes of a half-dozen Marvel/DC movies, SOLO, VENOM, JURASSIC WORLD, THE MEG, and the remake machine Hollywood is feeding us today. We are living in a very sad time for theatrical product and I personally think history is going to bear that out.

[Eric Paddon]

Silent Running (1973) ZERO of 10.

-For only the second time in my life I got so pissed off with what I was seeing on-screen I shut off the film and decided I wasn't going to finish it. The first time was "Superman Returns" which was in the boxed set of the whole series of films. This one I got as a $9 freebie on Amazon with my points and boy what a mistake. The novelty of seeing for the first time the footage of what was later recycled as the "agro-ships" on "Battlestar Galactica" wore off for me when I saw a one-note "story" with one of the dumbest plots I have ever seen in my life and a focal point character played by Bruce Dern who is as psychotically deranged as the character he would later play in "Black Sunday". Like in "Black Sunday" he is an unstable person who will commit murder in the name of his alleged high-minded "principle" but whereas there was some actual nuance in his "Black Sunday" character this one is just a lunatic that I suppose the audience was supposed to like just because he's a noble enviro-freak. At the 30 minute mark, off the film went never to be finished. I just read the summary on Wikipedia to see the rest of the film's summary and at least I saved an hour of my life in the process!

[Paul MacLean]

Some of my own thoughts on Krull...

Krull didn't impress me much when I first saw it, nor when I saw it again a year later. But over time it has grown on me, and I consider it a much, much better movie than a lot of people give it credit for.

It has got its problems -- heroes wielding swords against henchmen armed with ray guns most notably. In fact the whole idea of the Black Fortress being a spaceship, and that Colwyn and Lyssa's son will one day "rule the galaxy" (when their culture obviously has a pre-medieval level of technology) should have been written out.

Krull is not a masterpiece, or classic -- it's not Star Wars or Excalibur or even The Dark Crystal -- but it still has a lot going for it, and some fairly original touches. Most fantasy stories draw on the "hero's journey" paradigm, but Krull cleaves this idea to Beauty and the Beast, and on top of that throws-in The Dirty Dozen for good measure!

There is the character arc of Colwyn -- a brash, arrogant (albeit well-intentioned) young prince who wallows in defeat when his father is slain and Lyssa taken captive. I find it very compelling to watch this green, naive boy (who is left with no army, and no kingdom) pull himself together and transform into a brave, noble king -- and assault the Black Fortress with what is essentially a commando strike team (recruited from a band of cutthroats).

There are some wonderfully touching -- and moving -- moments in Krull. The hardened band of thieves are afraid to join Colwyn's quest, yet a teenage kid exhibits true valor when he says "I have no sons, but I'll go with you." That gets me every time. The character of Ergo is a hoot, and the relationship he forms with Titch is among the most touching aspects of the film. Another wonderful moment comes when Titch (now orphaned) reflects the Seer "was my only family", to which Colwyn responds "We're you family now." And that's really what is at the heart of Krull. It is the story of people who couldn't be more different -- a young, defeated king, a gang of cutthroats, an old hermit, a cowardly, self-serving magician (who is lousy at magic) -- all thrown together in a common cause which transforms them into a family, and through which they all find redemption.

Criticisms that Princess Lyssa should have been more like Princess Leia don't hold water as far as I'm concerned. Lyssa's character is based on the old fashioned "damsel in distress" -- which may be "sexist" today, but it's nevertheless a tradition. Besides, the point of the story is that Colwyn must rescue Lyssa from the Black Fortress -- there wouldn't be much of a story of Lyssa could take up arms against the Beast herself!

Some of the best people worked on Krull -- Peter Suschitsky (who shot TESB), Ray Lovejoy (Kubrick's editor), Derek Meddings, and of course James Horner. The supporting cast is phenomenal too -- Robbie Coltrane, Liam Neeson, Alun Armstrong (who later played Mornay in Braveheart), Freddie Jones, etc.

Oh, and I don't see what is funny about that clip from Legend.

[Paul MacLean]

Silent Running (1973) ZERO of 10.

-For only the second time in my life I got so pissed off with what I was seeing on-screen I shut off the film and decided I wasn't going to finish it. The first time was "Superman Returns" which was in the boxed set of the whole series of films. This one I got as a $9 freebie on Amazon with my points and boy what a mistake. The novelty of seeing for the first time the footage of what was later recycled as the "agro-ships" on "Battlestar Galactica" wore off for me when I saw a one-note "story" with one of the dumbest plots I have ever seen in my life and a focal point character played by Bruce Dern who is as psychotically deranged as the character he would later play in "Black Sunday". Like in "Black Sunday" he is an unstable person who will commit murder in the name of his alleged high-minded "principle" but whereas there was some actual nuance in his "Black Sunday" character this one is just a lunatic that I suppose the audience was supposed to like just because he's a noble enviro-freak. At the 30 minute mark, off the film went never to be finished. I just read the summary on Wikipedia to see the rest of the film's summary and at least I saved an hour of my life in the process!

I have to be honest, I think it's a little unfair to review a movie you quit on after only half an hour.

And one has to be cognizant of the time in which Silent Running was made. It was the early 1970s, when pollution -- particularly air pollution -- was horrendous. Gasoline (and the exhaust from combustion engines) contained lead, and the threat to our future from pollution was taken very seriously -- by everyone.

Silent Running certainly does have flaws. I think it is a little padded, and it isn't entirely plausible -- even if the world had been defoliated, the remains of its original ecosystems would be housed in terrestrial greenhouses (not cargo ships millions of miles from Earth).

But I agree with its fundamental message, which is sincere, and remains an important cautionary tale about losing our connection to nature and preserving our resources (even if environmentalism today has, sadly, been exploited by misinformed and opportunistic people). The Peter Schickele / Joan Baez songs are nicely nostalgic and capture, for me, the optimism and "back to nature" attitude which was prevalent (though sadly short-lived) in the 70s.

[Eric Paddon]

The film lost me when I saw that the star or its hero was a murderer because that is what he is when he decides his "principle" justifies murdering his three colleagues who are simply doing their jobs and presumably trying to live normal lives. I don't think the context of the time applies in this case because "Soylent Green" is a film that is also devoted to enviro/eco themes of the 70s but it at least has a story I can sink my teeth into and characters I can like. This is a case where F/X and "message" trumped all forms of a story and that is my chief objection. Once I saw what Dern was doing and had done, I wasn't interested in seeing the rest of the film because this character was irredeemable on all levels.

[AndyDursin]

STEPHEN KING'S SLEEPWALKERS
3/10



Being in high school during the early ‘90s, my friends and I basically gobbled up every Stephen King movie that came our way – and most of them were awful. This wasn’t the heyday of King flicks, coming after the glut of assorted ‘80s adaptations that climaxed with “Misery” and during a period in which the TV mini-series became a preferred forum for more faithful renderings of the author’s novels.

On the big-screen, though, audiences were subjected to everything from Tobe Hooper’s terrible “The Mangler” to the wretched “Lawnmower Man,” “Pet Sematary 2” and George Romero’s disappointing “The Dark Half.” At the bottom of the barrel, though, is SLEEPWALKERS (89 mins., 1992, R), surprising since this one originated from a major studio (Columbia) and King himself, who wrote an original screenplay.

A howlingly lousy film that misfires on nearly every level, “Sleepwalkers” makes the strange choice off the bat to make its villains – a pair of ancient, incestuous shapeshifters (Alice Krige and son Brian Krause) – also its lead characters. This bizarre concept robs the film of basically any suspense and horror altogether, with King and director Mick Garris telling the audience all they need to know about this vagabond pair – looking for young virgin blood in the form of high schooler Madchen Amick – in the first 10 minutes! From there, “Sleepwalkers” plays out in a completely uninspired manner as Amick finds out about her would-be boyfriend’s vampiric tendencies (he can also make his car change color!) while killing time for a totally underwhelming climax involving a number of ally cats – and a tepid song by Enya.

Shot mostly in broad daylight, “Sleepwalkers” is ridiculous but sadly stuck in a neutral ground that’s just not campy enough to work as comedy, nor is it anywhere close to being horrific. Garris throws in a few makeup jolts by Tony Gardner but it’s utterly amazing how pedestrian the film is in terms of its story and visuals – it’s nearly as frightening as a marathon of “Punky Brewster” episodes. While Garris and King would later collaborate, far more successfully, on several mini-series (like “The Stand” and “The Shining”), “Sleepwalkers” unquestionably stands as one of the all-time worst King cinematic endeavors.

Shout Factory’s Blu-Ray of “Sleepwalkers” includes a new commentary with Garris, Krause and Amick, plus a bevy of recent interviews, behind the scenes footage, and the trailer. The Sony-licensed 1080p (1.85) transfer is strong, both 5.1 and 2.0 DTS MA sound offerings are decent (though there’s not much stereo activity within), but this one is strictly cinematic kitty litter.

[Paul MacLean]

The film lost me when I saw that the star or its hero was a murderer because that is what he is when he decides his "principle" justifies murdering his three colleagues who are simply doing their jobs and presumably trying to live normal lives.

To me it was more than a principle. He had to chose between the destruction of Earth's last forest vs. and killing a couple of sadistic, self-serving douchebags. I felt sorry for that one crew member which Lowell killed in the fight, but if I was given the same choice, I'd do exactly the same thing!

Also, he wasn't completely heartless. A later scene depicts Lowell's tearful burial of his crew mate, and eulogizing of all three. In an even later scene he adopts their pastime of racing around the cargo deck in one of the little cars, then has a traumatic flashback to their murder.

[Monterey Jack]

Sleepwalkers is hilariously bad, up (or down) there with Dreamcatcher in the annals of "What was he THINKING?!" King adaptations. "Cop-kabob...!"

Disagree about the "tepid" Enya song, though..."Boadicea" is a haunting piece, easily the classiest thing attached to the film. That, and Madchen Amick is damn cute in it.

[AndyDursin]

Oh she's great (Madchen that is).

DREAMCATCHER is bat-bleep off-the-wall but it's well-produced -- it's sort of like an American "Lifeforce" of crazy. IMO it's a different kind of zany than SLEEPWALKERS, which frankly, I think is just a flat-out awful film. But Amick is always cute, too bad her career never quite took off (though she still looks great on the likes of "Riverdale").

[mkaroly]

More "quickies" from the Universal Monsters set:

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) - I was never a huge fan of Abbott and Costello even though I did enjoy some of their radio show performances. When it came to film I always kind of preferred Laurel and Hardy. I have never watched A&C's monster films, but after watching this one I have to admit that maybe I have been missing out on something all these years. The film isn't rip-roaring hilarious, but I did laugh hard a few times. I also have to respect the comic timing of A&C, and I have to give props to Costello's physical performance in the film - while his voice gets a little annoying at times his energy is so noticeable and "maniacal" in a good way. I was also shocked to realize that Woody Allen's physical comedic schtick owes a great deal to Lou Costello's performances. I like vaudevillian-type comedy (generally speaking), and A&C did it really well. The film itself is a fun romp in which A&C get to meet and "do battle" with Frankenstein (Glenn Strange), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.) and Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi). I was shocked to learn that Lugosi only played Dracula twice - here in this film and the 1931 original (that just seems wrong on so many levels...lol...). Even 17 years later Lugosi infused the character with charisma and authority. I am looking forward to listening to the commentary later this week. For what it is, I would give it an 8/10.

I watched the remaining two films on the Dracula set of the collection, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). The former was, I guess, a sequel to FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN which I have not seen yet. And I believe it is something of prequel to HOUSE OF DRACULA which was released the following year. A couple of comments:

HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a creepy film, due in large part to Boris Karloff's portrayal as vengeful Dr. Niemann. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man/Larry Talbot who desperately searches for a cure, and John Carradine plays Count Dracula. His Dracula is much older than those who previously played the Count, but he is hardly in the film for very long. There is a subplot involving Dr. Niemann's hunchbacked servant Daniel (J. Carrol Naish) who falls in love with a gypsy woman. Dr. Niemann makes promises he cannot be trusted to keep, and everyone gets their come-uppance in the end.

HOUSE OF DRACULA is the much more creepy of the two, where Dr. Edlemann (Onslow Stevens) tries to cure both Dracula (John Carradine) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.) of their conditions by using a mysterious plant. Dracula double-crosses Dr. Edlemann though when he desires to make Milizia (Martha O'Driscoll) into a vampire. Infused with Dracula's blood, the good doctor goes back and forth between being sane and a murderous madman. He also ends up trying to bring Frankenstein (Glenn Strange) back to life. There is more Dracula in this film, but he is dispatched too quickly. There is a great scene between Milizia and Dracula when she is playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata at the piano and then goes on to "improvise" other music related to Dracula's homeland while in a trance. Very effective.

The Dracula collection in this box set is somewhat depressing; the studio had an interesting character with Dracula but really didn't develop him much. The HOUSE films reminded me of the AVENGER films now...lol...one day Disney (if it were a better studio) might put out a Disney Superheroes Box Set like this one with all the films in it, including the Avenger films. Of all the actors who played Dracula in this set (Lugosi, Carradine, and Chaney), none matched Lugosi's performance, and it is a shame he didn't get to play the part more (whether he was the one to turn the studio down or they were the ones to turn him down).

[Eric Paddon]

Elena Verdugo, the gypsy woman in "House Of Frankenstein" was better-known to a later generation as Robert Young's faithful nurse on "Marcus Welby, M.D."

Abbott and Costello movies were a staple for me every Sunday morning on Channel 11-WPIX at 11:30. It was part of my routine of growing up! As a result I'm more familiar with their work than Laurel and Hardy.

I got the Monster set too but have only watched Creature From The Black Lagoon which is a classic and the first sequel which after the novelty of seeing Clint Eastwood's awkward uncredited film debut scene, largely put me to sleep.

[mkaroly]

I am a slightly disappointed with the collection as a few movies are repeated across the discs: HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA, and A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN are repeated in the Dracula, Wolf Man, and Frankenstein sets. FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN is duplicated on both the Frankenstein and Wolf Man sets. Universal would have been better putting those films in the set once and then putting a few bonus discs in there with other Universal horror and monster films (A&C MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, THE BLACK CAT [Lugosi and Karloff], etc.). As it stands you still get the 30 films total but it would have been nice to have some of those extras, especially THE BLACK CAT (which I find to be one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen...really dark). I guess this is more of a missed opportunity and a minor complaint.

[AndyDursin]

The reason for the duplication is that all Universal did with that set was combine their individual Monster box sets (which they sell separately) into one package. So they're the same sets you can buy individually and there is some natural overlap with the later Monster "rallies" so to speak. At this point A&C Meet Frankenstein has to be the most released movie in the format!!