rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

THE APPALOOSA (1966)
7/10



One of Marlon Brando’s lesser-known films, THE APPALOOSA (98 mins., 1966) is a fascinating western. This Universal production stars Brando as a wayward soldier who returns to his home along the Mexican border, only to run into trouble from a bandit (John Saxon) along the way who steals his horse. Vowing to get it back, Brando’s Matt Fletcher travels down to Mexico for a showdown with the villain and his “pistoleros,” ultimately receiving help from his lover (Anjanette Comer) who wants desperately to leave him.

Made at a crossroads between old-fashioned Saturday Matinee genre fare and the blooming Spaghetti Western market, “The Appaloosa” is something different altogether – a stylishly shot picture with distinctive visuals courtesy of director Sidney J. Furie and ace cinematographer Russell Metty. Coming fresh off “The Ipcress File” (and years before his hackneyed ‘80s work on the likes of “Superman IV”), Furie utilizes Metty’s striking widescreen lensing to capture every close-up and detail of what’s an otherwise fairly straightforward story, scripted by James Bridges and Roland Kibbee from a Robert MacLeod novel. This isn’t a Leone-wannabe but rather a moody and interesting attempt to naturally tell a well-worn western story in realistic terms, even within its very traditional genre framework.

Brando has several memorable lines and Saxon and Comer are both superb opposite him. The tuneful Frank Skinner score is also memorable, even if you’d wish the story weren’t so perfunctory (something that could have given the music more opportunity to carry the film) and the pacing occasionally sluggish.

Ultimately, “The Appaloosa” may be “minor Brando” but it’s a film that’s well worth a viewing, and Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray gives viewers the chance to see the picture in a 1080p (2.35) AVC encode that preserves the film’s scope visuals. The Universal master is a bit worn and the colors probably faded from what they ought to be, but this is still a satisfying presentation even if the source elements are aged. The trailer and a new commentary from Cinema Retro’s Lee Pfeiffer and Paul Scrabo round out the release.

[Eric Paddon]

Airport '77 (TV Cut) 7 of 10

-I had my own early 90s recording of it, but because I didn't do a good job with the transfer and because it also was missing one additional scene shown on TV I was looking high and low for another copy of this, as well as the TV cuts of "Earthquake" and a couple other films of this era. Because of the Universal fire, we'll never see them aired on TV again and that's a pity in this instance because "Airport '77" is the one example of an extended TV cut that really improves the film a good deal IMO. It helped that of the three "Airport" follow-ups, '77 is the best, with a more imaginative plot than Airport 1975 (the less said about "The Concorde" the better!). But the TV cut really helps it play out like a well-done fully-fleshed TV miniseries thanks to all the extra scenes of character exposition. I had seen the TV cut so many times growing up that when I first saw the theatrical cut on DVD, it really seemed disjointed and incomplete. I'm just not used to it. I'd add that unlike "Earthquake" and "Two Minute Warning" all of the added footage for TV comes from the original production and it wasn't a case of new actors being brought in to pad things with storylines that weren't part of the original film.

-This is the only time Jack Lemmon was the lead in a popcorn action movie and his more everyman quality actually helps. We don't get goofy types in the ensemble like "Airport 1975" gave us with Sid Caesar, Jerry Stiller and of course as herself, Gloria Swanson. Even Lee Grant in full drunken bitch mode gets some humanizing touches that make you pity her.

-Coming on the heels of the release of Cacavas's score (which in the TV cut is replayed rather endlessly which shows he wasn't working with a full workprint or anything like that), it was nice to upgrade and get a second copy of the TV cut for safekeeping. Someday, I think the full story of what Universal did with these films for TV viewing should be explored further because it is an interestingly forgotten time for those of us who remember when movies on TV were "Big Event Television."

[AndyDursin]

BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE
6.5/10

Though thankfully not just another Tarantino knockoff, Drew Goddard’s overlong ensemble character thriller never justifies its extended build-up. In Goddard’s original script, a group of disparate characters – led by Jeff Bridges’ priest with a fading memory and Cynthia Erivo’s washed-up Motown songstress – find themselves holed up in a kitschy hotel on the Nevada/California border, each “looking for something” (mostly quite literally). Murder and mayhem are on-hand as each character’s backstory is fleshed out via a series of flashbacks before they intersect at the end – yet the protracted set-up is let down by a final act that’s just never as exciting or interesting as it needed to be. Part of the problem is Chris Hemsworth’s late arrival as a ‘60s cult guru, which is supposed to ratchet up the tension, yet the flatly written character is devoid of both menace and humor – two things the film itself needed more of to really score.

The other performances – Bridges and Erivo in particular – are assured and Seamus Garvey’s widescreen lensing is elegantly designed, making the film’s failure to click doubly disappointing. What’s worse is the languid pace the picture moves at – at an unmanageable 2½ hours, there’s not enough here story-wise to justify the length, with Goddard lingering way, way too long on Erivo’s singing, making the picture at times feel like it’s been designed as a demo reel for the British newcomer.

[AndyDursin]

SCREAMERS
7/10



Resourceful little Canadian sci-fi thriller stars Peter Weller as a commander on a barren, bombed-out planet whose side takes advantage of high-tech military weaponry – subterranean robots dubbed Screamers – during an intergalactic feud…at least until the Screamers begin to take on human form, carrying on the war despite the fact that it’s already over.

As explained by screenwriter Miguel Tejada-Flores in one of Scream Factory’s new Blu-Ray interviews, “Screamers” – or more specifically, a Philip K. Dick story named “Second Variety” -- had been developed into a feature in the 1980s by none other than “Alien” scribe Dan O’Bannon. O’Bannon’s bleak vision was supposedly a heavy-handed Cold War tale that went unmade until producer Charles Fries ultimately sold the rights to a Canadian company that reworked O’Bannon’s concept against the backdrop of an intergalactic civil war. Tejada-Flores (“Revenge of the Nerds,” “Fright Night Part II”) then added humor and levity to O’Bannon’s original script, with director Christian Duguay shooting the film in wintry Montreal with a mostly Canadian cast and crew.

Despite its low budget, “Screamers” is a very watchable and entertaining film for sci-fi buffs. I saw the film theatrically back when I was in college, and was surprised at the movie’s strong character development and measured pace. Though lacking in overall production scale, Duguay and the cast were still able to believably convey a compelling story with effective (mostly mechanical) special effects on a modest scale. If you haven’t seen the picture, it’s definitely worth a look, especially now in Shout Factory’s Blu-Ray edition.

New, insightful interviews with producer Tom Berry, actress Jennifer Rubin, Tejada-Flores and Duguay comprise a robust supplemental section, even though a few of the conversations are on the short side. The trailer is also included while the Sony-licensed 1080p (1.85) transfer and 2.0 DTS MA stereo soundtrack are both attractively conveyed.

[Paul MacLean]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (8/10)

For a movie that only tells half of a story, The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 works extremely well, and it is overall a considerable improvement on the last two pictures — particularly in the realm of character development, plus it boasts several highly effective action sequences.

That said, it is at times a static film, considering it is the story of three fugitives who are constantly on the run. Though it is never actually boring, it doesn’t exactly move at a breakneck pace either (the Ministry sequence could have used some trimming, and Harry’s and Hermione’s dance wasn’t necessary). The main reason this movie works is due to J.K. Rowling’s brilliantly imaginative and complex plotting (along with her believable characters — and the wonderful cast who play them). Moreover, this story offers a genuine Hitchcockian “McGuffin” — in this case the multiple “horcruxes”, each of which contains a piece of Volemort’s spirit or “life energy”, and all of which must be found and destroyed, in order that he be vanquished. This is no easy task as all of them are hidden — and none of the can be destroyed with a hammer, wand or other (by wizarding standards) “conventional tool”. It is obstacles such as these — and the protagonists’ resolve, invention and bravery — that lift this story above the usual “just killing the bad guy” solution (and the reason Rowling’s final book is also her best).

In a sharp contrast with films 5 and 6, Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 is a much more exterior picture, with a more epic scale. It is also a darker story, and includes a scene where a Hogwarts professor is tortured and killed while begging for mercy — and then fed to a snake! Toward the end of the film, there is an even more disturbing scene in which Hermione Grainger screams in agony as she is tortured by Belatrix Lestrange. A palpable sense of doom pervades this film, as the power of the Voldemort grows and the days of the protagonists seem numbered.

This is also a better-photographed film than Half-Blood Prince, though it still has that “desaturated” color grading. David Yates’ again doesn’t bring much stylistic originality to the table, following the lead of the previous directors, as well as looking to other popular movies of the time for inspiration. In particular there is a distinct “Twilight” look and feel to much of this movie — which doesn’t spoil the film, but it was kind of lame for a series as popular and acclaimed as Harry Potter movie to be imitating something like Twilight in order to “look current”.

And again, placing the wizarding world in mundane, “real world” costumes helps compromise the “sense of wonder” (which the first four pictures had in spades). Rowling’s books describe purple and green cloaks, robes and conical hats, but the employees of the Ministry of Magic dress more like used car sale salesmen (while the “fascist”-style uniforms of the Ministry’s security forces are a bit on the nose).

While the use of locations like Glen Coe and Malham Cove is quite striking, most of the the other locations are rather nondescript, particularly the interchangeable forest locations. I would think, with the kind of budget Warners gave this movie, they could taken the trouble to shoot in the Lake District or Wales.

Alexandre Desplat’s score remains a total disappointment — and I never had high expectations for it to begin with. It’s just baffling to me that the filmmakers’ idea of going all out and springing for a “top composer” for the grand finale was to turn to him. His scoring of the opening scenes doesn’t express any real subtext, repetitiously smearing over the images like white sound. His music actually harms the chase sequence early in the film, and his approach to the sequence (intentionally or not) actually gives it the tone of a comedy.

Still, The Deathly Hallows has considerably more emotional resonance than The Half-Blood Prince did. Dobby’s death scene in particular is quite devastating — far more so than that of Professor Dumbledore’s in the previous film. Despite this film’s issues, Rowling’s story and characters (and the foundation established by the previous directors) hold this movie in good stead, allowing its considerable strengths overcome its weaknesses.

[mkaroly]

Quick reviews in one lump...

I watched a few of the Frankenstein movies in the Universal box set:

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN: 3/10
GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN: 2/10
FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN: 1.5/10

SON is a goofy movie...it has the feel and look of a horror movie (with great sets and shadows), but Rathbone's manic characterization of Frankenstein was really over the top...why did he even participate in making this film? I totally get why Karloff signed off after this movie; Frankenstein lost some of his appeal as a monster in this film as Igor and Frankenstein himself were more monstrous than ol' Flat Top.

GHOST was pretty dopey...the character of Igor again takes more of a center stage than Frankenstein himself who is just a lumbering "thing;" he has no character or depth at all.

And FMWM is just laughable...I appreciate Lugosi bringing his all to the role of the Monster, but his portrayal of him is so rigid and awful. Only at the end when Dr. Mannering gives the Monster full power does Lugosi bring life to him, albeit with facial gestures (eyes and a sly smile). Ilona Massey as Baroness Elsa Frankenstein is a joke...horrible acting there. The musical number in the middle of the film is completely out of place. However, Lon Chaney is great as the Wolf Man; Lawrence Talbot is a sympathetic character and tragic (I find his desire for death in the face of a monstrous "disease" to be very poignant and disturbing). He is the only reason I gave the film the 1.5 points I did.

All in all, it is interesting to see how Universal took Karloff's portrayal of the Monster in the first two films...one filled with pathos, depth, and dimension...and make the character a lumbering idiot devoid of personality, depth, and character as the film series progressed. It is a shame; these films are in their own way fun to watch but such a far cry from FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN in their thematic depth and level of entertainment.

[AndyDursin]

There are only a few "A" grade Universal Monster movies, and it's a steep drop off from BRIDE to the rest of the Frankenstein movies. Admittedly there are a lot of critics and fans who do include SON alongside the Whale films but IMO it lacks a certain magic and drags on much too long. By the time you get into the 1940s, they are clearly B pictures, but I do enjoy ..MEETS THE WOLFMAN a lot more than GHOST, which is just a pale imitation of its predecessors. The HOUSE movies are fun for what they are, and at least the last installment gives Larry Talbot a happy ending!

Don't forget to finish them off with ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN! (You can't miss it, it's on every Blu-Ray in existence lol)

[AndyDursin]

NOTORIOUS
10/10



Some classics hold up to the test of time – and a few seem to get better with age. That’s the feeling I had while watching Alfred Hitchcock’s NOTORIOUS (101 mins., 1946) in Criterion’s highly-anticipated new Blu-Ray, which delivers the expected technical benefits from a newly remastered 4K transfer and enhances a suspenseful, romantic, thrilling film that may just be Hitchcock’s finest.

The luminous Ingrid Bergman and a brittle Cary Grant – mostly playing against type here – are just sensational opposite one another in Ben Hecht’s original screenplay, which pairs Bergman’s daughter of a Nazi spy with Grant’s government agent. He can’t help but fall in love with her, even while adhering to the rules and letting her fall for a former acquaintance – a Nazi collaborator living in Rio who’s up to something. What that something is requires Bergman’s Alicia to infiltrate the industrialist’s (Claude Rains) mansion, one where secret meetings with his associates are held behind closed doors and his mother dances about, knowing – and suspecting – more than she’s letting on.

From the cinematography – which includes several indelible shots, including a full 360 of the couple when they are reunited at the end – to the performances, “Notorious” has been, and remains, an exhilarating viewing experience. The often abrasive relationship between Bergman and Grant will likely come as a surprise to first-time viewers, and Grant’s overall portrayal is especially striking – as Peter Bogdanovich explains in an interview contained on the disc, the actor was seldom as “unlikeable” as he was in this film. Bergman, on the other end, is gorgeous, at the height of her on-screen appeal and deftly mixes sexiness with her character’s “experience.” Alicia wants to be “saved,” yet Devlin, out of both duty and spite, allows her to be roped into an espionage assignment that nearly claims her life. It all culminates in one of Hitchcock’s most nail-biting, and satisfying, ending sequences.

“Notorious” was previously a Criterion title on DVD and, later, an MGM Blu-Ray release with a different roster of supplements. Criterion’s new Blu-Ray is sourced from a fresh 4K restoration (1.37) that’s much more consistent in its appearance and detail than MGM’s release, while extras – as is often the case with the label’s releases – reprise older supplements with newly produced interviews. Among the latter are conversations with historian David Bordwell (providing an astute half-hour analysis of the film), Hitch biographer Donald Spoto and cinematographer John Bailey, while a 15-minute segment by Daniel Raim highlights Hitchcock’s storyboarding and pre-production processes. Among archival extras are commentaries from both laserdisc (Rudy Behlmer) and DVD (Marian Keane); the Lux Radio Theatre adaptation with Bergman and Joseph Cotten; and the welcome inclusion of an hour-long 2009 French documentary on the film, offering interviews with the likes of Bogdanovich, Bergman’s daughter Isabella Rossellini, historians and others. The mono sound is clearly conveyed with Roy Webb’s music providing the picture with an effective dramatic underscore that doesn’t call attention to itself.

[Eric Paddon]

And FMWM is just laughable...I appreciate Lugosi bringing his all to the role of the Monster, but his portrayal of him is so rigid and awful. Only at the end when Dr. Mannering gives the Monster full power does Lugosi bring life to him, albeit with facial gestures (eyes and a sly smile). Ilona Massey as Baroness Elsa Frankenstein is a joke...horrible acting there. The musical number in the middle of the film is completely out of place. However, Lon Chaney is great as the Wolf Man; Lawrence Talbot is a sympathetic character and tragic (I find his desire for death in the face of a monstrous "disease" to be very poignant and disturbing). He is the only reason I gave the film the 1.5 points I did.

If I remember right, Lugosi filmed his scenes with the monster talking and then all of those scenes got cut.

[AndyDursin]

COBRA
5/10



When Sylvester Stallone signed on for a pair of movies with the Cannon Group, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus had to seek out the involvement of Warner Bros. to help pay for Sly’s astronomical salary. The first film of their two-picture deal, “Cobra,” followed the blockbuster success of “Rambo II” in 1985, but didn’t become the hit any of its producers intended.

It’s not hard to see why: this drab, dreary cop thriller that Stallone himself scripted – from the same Paula Gosling novel, “Fair Game,” that later became Cindy Crawford’s one and only action movie – offers Sly in arguably the most somnambulant performance of his entire career. Lt. Cobretti is a one-man wrecking crew here tasked with protecting a witness (Stallone’s then-wife, Brigitte “Red Sonja” Nielsen) from a gang of vile killers who like to pound axes around and…well, your guess is as good as anyone else’s in terms of their overall motivation. Helmed with all the efficiency of a tire commercial by George Cosmatos – more or less – “Cobra” is sleekly shot by Ric Waite but humorless and unappealing, barely stopping to develop its characters while Stallone looks like he’d have rather been anywhere else.

Not even as much fun as its basic concept of dropping an ‘80s superstar into a typical, low-grade genre exercise (“Death Wish 3” is far more entertaining), “Cobra” racked up enough bucks worldwide to be profitable but scarcely made good on Stallone’s then-blockbuster contract.

The movie’s apathetic feel is confirmed in Shout Factory’s terrific new Collector’s Edition Blu-Ray of the picture, which sports interviews with supporting cast members Brian Thompson, Marco Rodriguez, Andy Robinson, Lee Garlington and Art LaFleur. These character actors are quite engaging in some 80-minutes of interviews which detail an unhappy set with a seemingly disengaged Stallone and dictatorial Cosmatos, who only calmed down whenever the star was around (and apparently directed the film himself when he was).

Shout’s disc also carries over Cosmatos’ DVD commentary, trailer and EPK featurette, while adding an additional trailer, still gallery, and a nicely nuanced new 2K scan (1.85) of original film elements. With a wider color gamut and sleeker presentation (not to mention higher bit-rate), this 1080p AVC encode bests Warner’s early-format catalog disc, while both 2.0 and 5.1 DTS MA stereo options represent a gratingly loud soundtrack sporting ample songs and Sylvester Levay’s original score.

[Paul MacLean]

Helmed with all the efficiency of a tire commercial by George Cosmatos – more or less – “Cobra” is sleekly shot by Ric Waite but humorless and unappealing, barely stopping to develop its characters while Stallone looks like he’d have rather been anywhere else.

I strongly suspect Cosmatos was hired to "keep things moving" and Stallone was the creative overseer of the production. I know that Jerry Goldsmith said it was Stallone who hired him for First Blood, and oversaw all the post-production of the Rambo movies.

[Paul MacLean]

Casino Royale (1967) (1/10)

I had seen the last half hour of this movie on TV as a kid, and recall finding it very entertaining -- at least at the age of 10. As it was included on Amazon Prime I thought I'd finally watch the whole thing (in widescreen and color this time!).

But...

Oh my gosh -- talk about a consummate misfire. It is astonishing how thoroughly inept and poorly conceived this movie is. Obviously it went into production with the script unfinished, and it doesn't seem like much effort was made to "save it in the editing" either. Tangents and dull stretches abound, and there is no consistent storyline, and no real main character. At the outset David Niven's stuffy, elderly James Bond seems to the be the protagonist, but then Ursula Andress takes over the film, then Peter Sellers, then Bond's daughter, then Bond again etc. The humor is completely stillborn, and it is baffling that a movie can feature appearances by Ronnie Corbet, Bernard Cribbins, Woody Allen, Peter O'Toole, and still be not only unfunny, but totally boring as well. The film is very silly, it's just never actually funny.

Well, almost never funny. Woody Allen is actually very amusing (I suspect he was improvising his own dialog and shtick). Unfortunately he doesn't have much of a part until the final half hour of the movie. I did like the scenery in the early Scottish sequence -- to say nothing of all those scantily-clad lassies! If nothing else, this movie's relaxed attitudes about feminine beauty and sex appeal is a refreshing contrast to the angry, prudish "everything is sexist" attitude which pervades our culture today. This, and Burt Bachrach's catchy music (another rarity these days) are its only saving grace. It's probably just as well Ian Fleming never lived to see it.

[AndyDursin]

There's nothing like the end of the movie too, which was necessitated because Sellers quit and walked away without finishing all of his scenes!

I totally agree it's a lousy film, and isnt funny at all. Bacharach's score is phenomenal but that's it. I will listen to the Quartet CD again tonight but refrain from seeing the movie again!

[AndyDursin]

THE PRIZE (1963)
5/10

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The great screenwriter Ernest Lehman adapted Irving Wallace’s bestselling novel THE PRIZE (135 mins.) for MGM in 1963, repurposing some elements from his Hitchcock work – “North By Northwest” especially – for this tale of intrigue and dastardly goings-on at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm. Paul Newman stars as an American author receiving the Literature prize who eventually uncovers a plot involving the kidnapping and swapping out of a German scientist who defected to the U.S. (Edward G. Robinson), only to have the authorities fail to believe him due to both his drinking and womanizing ways.

Elke Sommer, Diane Baker, and Kevin McCarthy co-star in “The Prize,” which offers an early – and quite punchy – Jerry Goldsmith score and nice Panavision cinematography. It also dates from a very different time, as director Mark Robson fails to bring any Hitchcockian visual flourishes to a static and slow-going “thriller” that’s often too light on its feet, preferring comedic touches to suspenseful moments that, once they do arrive, feel like afterthoughts. I didn’t really care for Newman’s affected accent and posturing here either, making “The Prize” best recommended for Golden Age fans who may be more willing to overlook its lethargic direction and lack of urgency.

Warner Archive’s Blu-Ray, at least, has no such issues, thanks to a healthy, nicely detailed 1080p (2.41) AVC encoded transfer and clear DTS MA mono sound. The trailer is the lone extra.

[Monterey Jack]

I remember recording The Prize off of TCM six or seven years back, wanting to watch it mainly for the Goldsmith score (great release by FSM)...and my DVR cut off the last minute or so of the film! Eh, no great loss, as I found the film as ponderous as Andy did, albeit well-produced.