MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91 > Replies
ebertfan91's Replies
[quote]The film’s director is John Pieplow, whose only other credit was the obscure 1996 made-for-TV movie, Jurassic Women (I know of no one who has seen it so I can’t vouch for its actual existence). Judging by the way Strangeland was shot, it’s not surprising he didn’t get another job after this one. It’s likely that Snider, who gets official credits as the writer and producer, may have been heavily involved in the directing as well. Regardless of who gets the blame, keeping them away from other projects was a public service.
Strangeland was a box office bomb. Although a cadre of Twisted Sister fans showed up, no one else did. The subject matter and word-of-mouth about “upsetting” scenes were probably enough to keep viewers away and those few who did attend were probably less disturbed by the depictions of torture than by the ineptitude of the filmmaking. Like many bad movies with a hardcore group of supporters, Strangeland has been labeled as a “cult classic.” Considering what that term often implies about general quality, it likely applies, but those who aren’t already indoctrinated shouldn’t expect to be converted by Captain Howdy and his array of piercings and tattoos.[/quote]
[quote]Anora has proven to be liked by both critics and everyday movie-goers, at least those that give it a chance. (I saw it on its local opening night and there were only a dozen attendees.) After winning the Golden Palm at Cannes, it went on to capture the Audience Award at Toronto and currently holds a 91 rating (Universal Acclaim) at Metacritic. But marketing the film has proven tricky for distributor NEON. The movie’s essential qualities don’t translate well to a two-minute trailer and the confusing platform release strategy has left some viewers uncertain when it might open at a theater near them. Here’s hoping the movie finds its audience because it’s one of the freshest and most audacious films available in this year’s sparse cinematic landscape.[/quote]
[quote]Heretic is fundamentally more satisfying than the cavalcade of low-budget horror films that Blumhouse churns out because, unlike those movies, this one has ambition. It’s not trying to capture the widest teen audience. It isn’t relying on jump-scares. It hasn’t toned down things to get a PG-13 rating and isn’t awash in fake blood. It gets under the skin and into the mind and does what good psychological horror does best: leaves the viewer unsettled and perhaps a little shaken even after the end credits roll and the lights turn back on.[/quote]
[quote]Here is in no way a sequel to Forrest Gump, but Zemeckis has brought the band back together: himself as director, Eric Roth as screenwriter, cinematographer Don Burgess, composer Alan Silvestri, and actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. The alchemy that made the 1994 film so beloved is almost entirely missing. As for the de-aging technology used to allow the 68-year old Hanks and the 58-year old Wright play younger versions of themselves, I’m not as much of a critic as some. There are times when it lends a “plastic” element to the characters’ features but, with close-ups rarely used, it’s far less distracting than the disjointed narrative approach.
It's hard to imagine any form of Here being a great movie. The story lacks depth and nuance and the filmmakers do it no favor by presenting it in this endlessly frustrating fashion. I kept thinking it would function better as a 15-20-minute short. I appreciate that Zemeckis tried something different – few mainstream directors would have attempted something this offbeat with A-list actors and a major studio providing funding – but, although it’s interesting at times, it’s never fully successful. In the end, I was more letdown by the movie’s inability to draw me in than impressed by its offbeat premise.[/quote]
[quote]When one thinks about film noir, images of dark alleys and long shadows come to mind. Hitchcock flips the pattern by setting Shadow of a Doubt in broad daylight in the heart of a town where people don’t lock their doors and a friendly neighbor (played by Hume Cronyn in his debut) can wander in and chat about detective novels and murder mysteries. But the shadows are there and they eventually come out, heralded by the billowing cloud of black smoke high above the train that brings Uncle Charlie to Santa Rosa and being seen frequently when he’s around.
Despite being the director’s personal favorite, Shadow of a Doubt isn’t among Hitchcock’s most accomplished films. It’s beautifully crafted but the screenplay is creaky and full of holes, some of which are evident even during a first watching. Nevertheless, the suspense is there and Cotten and Wright play off one another wonderfully. For those who enjoy ‘40s movies, this is one to see.
*: Hitchcock coined the term “refrigerator movie” to refer to a film that works in the moment but may fall apart on closer, later inspection. For example, after going home, when opening the refrigerator to get a snack, it hits you: “Wait a minute! That doesn’t make any sense!”[/quote]
[quote]Both leads, Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright, had long and productive careers. At the time when Hitchcock cast them, Wright was something of a fresh face but she was riding a wave of popularity after having been Oscar-nominated for her first three movies (The Little Foxes, Mrs. Miniver, and Pride of the Yankees. She won for Mrs. Miniver.) Despite those accolades, one can make a compelling case that the best work she ever did was in Shadow of a Doubt. Cotten was more of a veteran than his co-star but his career was also on the rise. Often associated with Orson Welles, his biggest breaks came in Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. His work here is often cited as a career-best and it’s not hard to see why. The way he transforms from a seemingly likeable good guy into a monster is spine-chilling.
Cotten’s signature monologue, a rant delivered to Young Charlie in a restaurant where he first loses control, is an example of the actor going to the edge without tumbling into campiness. “The cities are full of women, middle-aged widows, husbands dead, husbands who’ve spent their lives making fortunes, working and working. Then they die and leave their money to their wives. Their silly wives. And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best hotels, every day by the thousands, drinking the money, eating the money, losing the money at bridge, playing all day and all night, smelling of money. Proud of their jewelry but of nothing else. Horrible, faded, fat, greedy women.” The litany of bile and misogyny completes Young Charlie’s change in perception of her uncle. She knows what he is. And he knows she knows. What will she do about it? What will he do about it? Therein lies the root of the suspense.[/quote]
[quote]If Ghost Story has one thing going for it, it’s the film’s ability to develop and sustain a powerful and compelling atmosphere. Unfortunately, the rushed screenplay disallows viewers the opportunity to fully absorb it. As for the acting… the cast may be populated by notable names but few are in peak form. Fred Astaire, despite having the most screen time, lacks presence, reminding the audience that, although he was beloved as a song-and-dance man, his dramatic skills were middling. Melvyn Douglas, who was dying in real life at the time (he didn’t survive long enough to see Ghost Story’s release) is credible in the role of a sick old man. Douglas Fairbanks Jr. retains an element of his legendary charisma but he’s only around for a few scenes. John Houseman, whose career had experienced a boost as a result of appearing in The Paper Chase, is in top form. Of the younger actors, Alice Krige leaves a decisive impression while Craig Wasson leaves none whatsoever.
Ghost Story never achieved the success its producers envisioned. The nostalgia angle wasn’t as potent as expected and younger viewers weren’t impressed by the mangled storyline. Although the reappearance of silver screen icons in combination with the strong, spooky atmosphere was sufficient to satisfy a minority of critics, most were disappointed by the film’s mediocrity. And fans of Straub, like the author himself, were turned off by the various deviations from the source material. Ghost Story hasn’t improved with age. It remains an early ‘80s curiosity but there’s little reason to revisit it 40 years later unless one is intrigued to see the final performances of three venerated stars or to be bewitched by Krige in her signature role.[/quote]
[quote]I don’t know that Smile 2 is likely to expand the fanbase developed by the original (which is sizeable – Smile made over $100M domestic) but it will almost certainly please those familiar with Finn’s breakthrough effort. The relentless pace, which flags only occasionally, and entrancing storytelling make this follow-up an even more satisfying experience than the one provided by the 2022 production.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious represented a second collaboration for Hitchcock with screenwriter Ben Hecht, one of Hollywood’s most in-demand authors. Following a positive working relationship developed with Spellbound, they were able to assemble the script for Notorious quickly and with minimal drama. The movie was successful upon release and became a foundational block in the reputations of Bergman and Grant. Their chemistry in combination with Hitchcock’s unerring sense of how to manipulate the audience allows this movie to work for modern audiences far better than many of its contemporary releases. Notorious has stood the test of time and deserves the labels of both a classic and one of Hitchcock’s most formidable early American productions.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious becomes increasingly tense as it races toward a climax in which Alicia’s life hangs in the balance. At this point, Devlin ceases to be a bystander and jumps into action. Although there’s suspense aplenty during the final 10 minutes, there are no fights or shoot-outs. (In fact, the movie is noteworthy for its almost complete lack of on-screen violence.) Devlin springs a meticulously thought-out trap that results in a bittersweet ending.
When it comes to visual presentation, Hitchcock enjoyed pushing the envelope throughout his career, whether toying with the “single-shot” approach of Rope, the voyeur’s p-o-v in Rear Window, the spinning vortex in Vertigo, or the seemingly bloody shower scene in Psycho. Here, there are two notable sequences. The first is the painstakingly choreographed kiss. The second is a brilliant tracking shot that starts high above a ballroom and dives down to a key grasped in Alicia’s hand. It’s ostentatious to the extent that it calls attention to itself but is effective nonetheless.
There are a few aspects of the story that seem dated and/or rushed. The romance between Alicia and Devlin develops too quickly and Alex, despite being involved in a dangerous and risky endeavor requiring great secrecy, is too trusting of his old/new love, especially with Devlin hanging around. Notorious also introduces a recurring theme in Hitchcock movies about the controlling influence of a mother figure. Although she’s no Mrs. Bates, Alex’s mother (Leopoldine Konstantin), has a less-than-benign influence on her son’s politics and actions.[/quote]
[quote]Even those approaching Megalopolis with an open mind and fully expecting to see an expensive and expansive art film may be disappointed by the result. The more I reflect on the movie, the more convinced I become that the things Coppola does well are dwarfed by missed opportunities and outright missteps. Like many filmmakers in the twilight of a great and productive career, Coppola deserves to make the film he wants to make. He has apparently been kicking Megalopolis around for about 40 years and appears to be satisfied with the end result. But what works for him may not work for many of those who go to see it and I’m in that group.[/quote]
[quote]Although Burton’s sensibilities are offbeat and his humor verges on the macabre, this outing is not inaccessible to the mainstream. There’s an oddball charm to the proceedings and Burton’s low-tech special effects (the film was made prior to the advent of CGI) add to the allure. Beetlejuice is never scary (not even a little bit) but it’s not intended to be. The MPAA gave the film a PG rating, indicating that, despite the “horror” elements, the film arrived with family-friendly sensibilities. Decades later, it has stood the test of time and is just as weirdly amusing as on the day it opened in theaters.[/quote]
[quote]Is Alien: Romulus the Alien film fans have been craving since Ripley, Hicks, and Newt entered their cryo-sleep in 1986? Perhaps. It contains most of the requisite elements and, if it doesn’t measure up to the high standard established by Scott (who has a producer credit) and Cameron (who provided suggestions to Alvarez), that’s only to be expected. It’s a good showcase for the xenomorph in its various permutations and a solid horror/suspense movie in its own right. The open question is whether it will reinvigorate the franchise after numerous misfires and cash-grabs. Only time (and the box office) will tell.[/quote]
[quote]It’s always a surprise to discover a blasted crater in place of movie when such a strong cast is involved. Blanchett exists in a pantheon of actors occupied by only a few other multiple-Oscar winners, Hart is a (mostly) beloved figure, and Jamie Lee Curtis has become arguably as well-known (and respected) as her parents. But a cursory review of the film’s troubled production history, coupled with Roth’s inexperience working in the genre, offers some clues as to what went wrong. Regardless of the reason, Borderlands arrives as a legitimate contender not only for worst film of 2024 but one of the worst videogame movies ever released.[/quote]
[quote]Trap is a house of cards built on a bed of sand in the middle of a hurricane. It flies apart and collapses almost immediately and the various plot threads are so thoroughly ripped to shreds that there’s nothing left at the end but the wreckage of a movie and the recognition that 105 precious minutes have been stolen. The film’s clever marketing is the trap. Don’t fall into it.[/quote]
[quote]One could argue that the greatest pleasure to be found in Deadpool & Wolverine comes from the avalanche of cameos and surprise appearances. Not being a devotee of the Marvel streaming series, I likely missed a few of the “lesser” ones. Overall, they tend to dry up in the second half, presumably to avoid distracting viewers from the development of the half-assed story.
Shawn Levy becomes the third director to work with Reynolds on the franchise, following in the footsteps of Tim Miller and David Leitch. Levy developed a working relationship with Reynolds during the making of The Adam Project and Free Guy, so he became the natural choice. About the best thing that can be said about Levy is that the transition from Leitch’s approach is seamless (much as was the case when the mantle passed from Miller to Leitch). That’s essentially because all the creative energy and juices come from Reynolds.
It seems inevitable that there will be a follow-up, although the narrative doesn’t demand one. An argument can be made that, alongside Spider-Man, Deadpool is the most popular active live-action Marvel character and pairing him with Wolverine, a mainstay for Fox’s X-Men universe for more than 20 years, creates an immediate must-see need for every comic book fan, regardless of age. (The deserved R-rating won’t stop younger teenagers for finding their way into theaters, be it by accompanying their parents or using various age-old methods of sneaking in). Demand for the movie is high and, although it’s not the be-all/end-all of superhero movies, its anarchic and rambunctious approach to the genre results in an entertaining hybrid of comic book action and straightforward satire.[/quote]
[quote]Visual appeal is a big part of any Sidaris film. That means beautiful women, hunky men, and some nice non-human scenery. Hawaii is shown at its best here, although it was considerably less spoiled during the 1980s than it is today. Cinematographer Howard Wexler, whose career has included nearly 200 titles (most of the no-budget to low-budget variety, focused on exploitation and horror movies) gets some pretty shots of the babes and the beaches.
Sidaris intended Hard Ticket to Hawaii to be a low-budget, high-energy action thriller designed for college-age kids (old enough to watch R-rated movies but young enough not to care about their quality). It works best, however, when viewed as a pure parody; indeed, seen some 40 years after its release, that’s probably the only way one could experience this. Sidaris’ best movies are his early ones, when he was still toying with the format and everyone seemed to be having fun. By the early 1990s, the movies had become cookie-cutter productions, each indistinguishable from the next. Hard Ticket to Hawaii remains the boldest of Sidaris’ oeuvre and, considering his goals and objectives, that’s not a bad legacy to have.[/quote]
[quote]Sequels often feel redundant but that’s more the case with Twisters than many. Taken on its own merits, it’s not terrible and it avoids the overt campiness that overtakes most tornado-based disaster films. (The screenwriters, for example, avoid what must have been an overwhelming temptation to create a fictional “EF-6” category.) But, by placing itself in the shadow of Twister and relying so much on story beats of the original, it feels like the most unnecessary of films. The opening sequence/prologue is gripping but that’s the only aspect of Twisters that works on its intended level. I was not blown away.[/quote]
[quote]The early word is that Murphy and director Mark Molloy are already working on a fifth Beverly Hills Cop movie. Although the business case might be there, I’m skeptical about the project considering the degree of regurgitation evident in Axel F. This franchise has lived past its sell-by date. The fourth movie is in many ways better than it has a right to be and it’s certainly a worthy way to dispose of a couple of hours lying on the couch at home, but this is hardly a triumphant return for Axel or Murphy.[/quote]