rate the last movie you saw

[mkaroly]

Thanks Andy! I am trying to watch the rest of the movies in the Universal Monster's Blu-Ray set that I bought a couple or few (or several) years ago. It is time to get through them...lol...one more Invisible Man movie followed by the Creature from the Black Lagoon films and Phantom of the Opera. They all have a certain charm to them, even the ones I didn't like much.

[mkaroly]

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951). 5/10. Bud and Lou, having recently graduated from detective school, open up shop in the hopes of making a name for themselves. Suddenly a mysterious man runs into their office, asking them to take on a case on his behalf. The man is none other than Tommy Nelson (Arthur Franz), a star boxer who is wanted by the police for murder. Nelson claims he is innocent, but Bud and Lou want to capture him for the reward. The three end up at the home of Nelson's girlfriend Helen Gray (Nancy Guild) whose father Philip (Gavin Muir) is a doctor who can make Tommy invisible to escape from the police. Tommy injects himself with the drug and enlists Bud and Lou to help him infiltrate the boxing world to find the identity of the real killer.

Abbott and Costello were a huge draw back in the day. They were great comedians, and their chemistry, timing, and charm are undeniable. They weren't my faborite, but I have a lot of respect for them! There are a couple of really great comdledic set piece moments in this film; Lou's workout on the punching bag (with the invisible Tommy at his side doing all the work) made me laugh; the dinner sequence with the celery, spaghetti/steak was really good, and the scene toward the end where the two confront the real killers and clear Tommy's name is well done. There is also a recurring gag with a psychiatrist and hypnotism that works well. Although I have not seen all their cross-over movies, the one I like best is ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (I gave it an 8/10 in a previous post) from the ones I have seen. Sometimes their comedy routines get a bit weird for me, like the bit at the end of this movie where Lou gets to experience invisibility for a short time. And the boxing ring gags go on a bit too long for me. Of the three films included in the Universal Monsters box set, this one would be my least favorite. However, I should note that watching these Abbott and Costello films gave me a new found appreciation for how good they were as a comedy act.

Edit: I don't think I ever reviewed ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY...I would probably give it a 6/10 at most. I don't think I reviewed many of the Mummy films either...lol...I didn't lile them much, but the original with Katloff is effectively creepy and scary. Thinking about it now, the original THE MUMMY would get high marks...maybe an 8/10 or thereabouts.

[Eric Paddon]

As I recall "Invisible Man" has a call-back to the original where the scientist warns Tommy that the serum could drive him mad like its inventor John Griffin and then we see a photo of Claude Rains on the desk.

[AndyDursin]

The vintage Universal MUMMY sequels are actually kind of interesting Michael -- especially in that they try (at least I think the last 3) to tell a story that actually interconnects. One film picks up at the end of the previous sequel, etc. They may not always make sense but they're a little interesting, and certainly better than the INVISIBLE MAN sequels! Plus they're all an hour long.

[mkaroly]

As I recall "Invisible Man" has a call-back to the original where the scientist warns Tommy that the serum could drive him mad like its inventor John Griffin and then we see a photo of Claude Rains on the desk.

That is correct! It also lifts and recycles some footage early on from THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS.

[mkaroly]

The vintage Universal MUMMY sequels are actually kind of interesting Michael -- especially in that they try (at least I think the last 3) to tell a story that actually interconnects. One film picks up at the end of the previous sequel, etc. They may not always make sense but they're a little interesting, and certainly better than the INVISIBLE MAN sequels! Plus they're all an hour long.

I did watch all those film some time ago...I meant to write up some blurbs on them but never got around to doing it.

[BobaMike]

Jungle Cruise (2021) 5 out of 10

If you are looking for an overly busy, CGI-filled homage to Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Mummy, and the African Queen, yet isn't as good as any of those, this is the action adventure for you!

Based on the Disneyland ride, this movie started out well, but got worse as it dragged on. There are 2 competing villains (one in a u-boat that can travel up the Amazon(!)), the other a rip-off of the cursed pirates from POTC and the character design is out of Jumanji. Emily Blunt has fun with the Rock (yet somehow never gets dirty while in the jungle), and Paul Giamatti has 5 minutes of screen time and is wasted.

The action scenes are both too dark to understand, while also too teal & orange. The camera NEVER stops moving, which is always a sure sign that everything you see is fake.

James Newton Howard's score chugs along, but only in a few quiet scenes does it matter. A song by Mettalica (Nothing Else Matters) comes off pretty well.

I was really looking forward to this movie, as I enjoy all of the ones mentioned above, but it was just...meh.

[AndyDursin]

So it plays exactly like its trailer then? Ugh. PASS

I'm also tired of "The Rock" just doing his repetitive hamming-it-up shtick. He's clearly not much of an actor, or he's just not trying to do anything other than cash checks to deliver the same performance he's given 100 times already. He's not as suave or funny as he thinks he is.

[mkaroly]

CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954). 9/10. After a fossil of a creature's hand is discovered in the Amazon, a group of scientists embark on a journey to the site in the hopes of finding the rest of the fossil. Among the group are Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), his love interest and fellow scientist Kay Lawrence (the beautiful Julie Adams), and the irresponsible, glory-seeking adventurer Mark Williams (Richard Denning). Upon returning to the site they find the original camp site destroyed and two members of the earlier team dead. They venture into the mysterious Black Lagoon where they discover the Creature. Mark wants him as a trophy while David wants to study it. And the Creature has eyes for the beautiful Kay...

Maybe I am rating this film higher than I should, but despite being a B movie of sorts I think this is incredibly entertaining and moving. Like Frankenstein (but in a different way), the Creature is a tragic figure that almost immediately gets the viewer's sympathy. His first appearance underwater while Mark and David are exploring results in a nice scare moment (well done!), but afterward you realize that the humans are intruding into his world and upsetting his environment. The swimming sequence between Kay and the Creature right below her (all subtext aside) is both balletic and creepy...and HAD to be in Spielberg's mind for Chrissy's swimming sequence in JAWS. The team's treatment of the Creature results in thier being trapped in the Black Lagoon by the monster's hand, resulting in a tragic ending that is sad and kind of haunting, like KING KONG (which was definitely an influence on the story of this film!).

The underwater sequences are well shot and add to the thought that we know so little about what lurks beneath the waters of the planet. The score credited to Hans J. Slater, Herman Stein, and Henry Mancini (!) is very effective, with a three note motif for the Creature that sounds like it could have belonged in a Star Trek episode or even the Batman TV series. I think one of the reasons why this movie endures is that one can get something out of it everytime one watches it, or maybe pick up on something or some deeper subtext that you missed before. It is a smart movie. The first time I saw this movie was as a kid - it was on TV in 3-D, so I watched it through those red and blue glasses. It was pretty creepy back then! Watching it now as an adult, I see an environmental message in it, and am sensitive to the mistreatment of the Creature by humans. At any rate, in my opinion this film truly deserves to be remembered as one of the best classic Universal monster movies ever made.

[Eric Paddon]

I've enjoyed the original too because I really like how the film's B/W cinematography really manages to sell the illusion that this is an isolated lagoon somewhere deep in the middle of nowhere in South America and consequently that makes you believe in the premise of the creature in a way you can't when you get a "creature runs amuck in civilized world" type film.

The Creature score was used heavily in the Americanized version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla".

[mkaroly]

INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU (1968). 0/10. Yes, a 0/10. This is the most ridiculously unfunny movie I have ever seen. I did not laugh once through the whole thing. Alan Arkin plays Inspector Clouseau, who is brought in by the British government to catch the crooks who stole a bunch of money in a great train robbery. They are planning an even bigger crime, and Scotland Yard is stumped. Clouseau bumbles his way through his investigation on the way to eventually disrupting and spoiling the gang's plans.

To borrow and modify one of the best lines in RUTHLESS PEOPLE: "This may very well be the stupidest movie ever made on the face of the earth." I don't really blame Alan Arkin even though he is incredibly annoying with his high, shrill voice and accent; Sellers and Edwards were offered the opportunity to make the film but they didn't want to do it, so Arkin and Bud Yorkin were brought in to act out Tom and Frank Waldman's script. I guess Arkin could have said 'no' but he didn't, and the result was this disaster of a movie. The problem for me is simply this: Arkin is imitating Sellers while trying to do his own thing. Sellers developed this character from scratch - he embodied and created the character of Clouseau in THE PINK PANTHER and A SHOT IN THE DARK in his performances. As far as I know Clouseau was not an established literary character (such as James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, among others); I don't mind different actors portraying an established literary character and adding their own spin to it. But trying to imitate Sellers and a character he created is a losing game. The physical and verbal comedy in this film seems, looks, and sounds forced and awkward. It is no wonder why this film did so poorly at the box office and received many bad reviews. That is a testament to Sellers and what he brought to the franchise. Although I refuse to watch them, I imagine the Steve Martin films are even worse and are a grave insult to the memory of Sellers' performances. Epic failure all around!

The Kino Lorber Blu-Ray, I am sad to report, has a terrible commentary by William Patrick Maynard. Although he starts out okay with some background information about the film, his commentary lapses into long sections where he says nothing, or makes a comment about the action on the screen that is obvious and does not need to be made. Either he was paid very little and didn't do his homework or there just isn't much information about this film in the archives. Brutally disappointing - he had an opportunity to give the viewer a ton of information but failed. The one good thing about the commentary track is that it points out the many places in which the Waldmans would use bits and pieces found in INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU in other Pink Panther films. Some are really obvious though.

[Eric Paddon]

I hate the film too (2 of 10 if I were to judge) but I listened to the commentary last night and thought it was okay for the most part. Pointing out how this film influenced similar scenes in later Panther films was something I was unaware of and I found that helpful. He also refreshingly highlighted the shortcomings of the film and why certain scenes fell flat and pointed out some continuity gaps caused by scenes that were cut after the initial previews.

One thing that wasn't brought up that I can't help but wonder in terms of the film's failure. Not only was Sellers already well-entrenched in the public's mind in this part, but considering that this was Arkin's first film after "Wait Until Dark" I'm not sure audiences were ready to feel comfortable with him as a comic lead at this point.

[AndyDursin]

I actually loved Maynard's commentaries on the Panther films he worked on, and he had contacted me over Facebook and write a nice note after I reviewed them all back in 2017 and singled out his work.

To me these are some of the better, more valuable commentaries I've heard by anyone in recent years in terms of research and general information. The one he did for Trail in the Shout box was especially excellent because it identified where all the deleted scenes came from and where that material should've gone originally. It's much more interesting than watching the actual film, and he had to have done a lot of work to figure that out because it's not something I had really seen discussed elsewhere over the years.

Clouseau the movie has a similarly good commentary by him and Eric is right that he did a strong job talking about the movie's shortcomings (which is the case in his other commentaries), which these studios don't always let people do. The movie obviously doesn't function but I thought it was much more watchable than you guys in terms of being a curiosity item. It's like watching a bizarre alternate universe version of these movies in more of a Bondian type of manner, and it's just so odd that I find it interesting even if it's unsuccessful. Personally I found Arkin kind of appealing when taking his performance on its own terms, which understandably audiences could not do. And I enjoyed Ken Thorne's score also.

[Eric Paddon]

He did a good job on "Trail" as you say. By contrast, the guy who did the commentaries on Return and Strikes Again was *really* bad. I wish there'd been a "Curse" commentary because honestly I could handle that more than watching the film again. Maybe I should get "Son" just to hear his commentary on that.

[AndyDursin]

Sadly SON has a commentary by the same "Peter Sellers Appreciation Society" guy and its as useless as his other commentaries