"I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!"
I LOVE that quote. It's spoken by the Nightrider as he evades the police force in post-apocalyptic Australia, and it's delivered perfectly. It's one of the first scenes in the film, and does it ever suck you in. The Nightrider rides in a psychotic joy that is mesmerizing. I was into this movie from that moment right until the end.
I think that the reason I liked this movie was the story. There wasn't anything about the acting, directing, or music that caught my eye. I'm not saying they were bad, and the fact that I did not notice them is a good indication that they were pretty good. After all isn't that the ultimate purpose of a movie, to tell you a story?
I was sucked into this world quite easily, and I could not help but be reminded of the video game Fallout. I'm sure Mad Max had a bit of influence on that.
Talking about influences actually, this movie had a similar feel to The Outlaw Josey Wales.
I don't have a lot to say really. I liked it a lot. I haven't seen the other movies in the trilogy(The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome), I think I'll go give them a watch.
8 fiery car deaths out of 10
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Mad Max(John)
This is a movie I hate saying i've never seen. I've seen Road Warrior quite a few times as well as Beyond Thunderdome. But I have never sat down and watched Mad Max. I'm glad I did.
The big draw for me about this film was the different take on the revenge movie. Almost all of the revenge films I've seen are structured the same way: something happens in the beginning that warrant revenge, then for the next hour to hour-and-a-half is the resolution. Personally, I get tired during these films. Normally, they peak early on and fail to deliver throughout the rest of the movie. Mad Max was not this way. Most of the movie is setup and the last little bit is the resolution which I think worked awesomely.
Mel Gibson did a good job in the lead role. He played very well the role of bad ass with a heart. The other notable character was Toe Cutter. He played a crazy man very well and I had no problem believing he was insane.
I didn't really believe that the story took place in a post apocalyptic Australia. Some set pieces were done very well and the characters were believable but overall, the setting really looked faux. I know the budget was low on this one, so it didn't bother me too much.
Overall, I'm glad I watched this one. I can now say i've seen the entire trilogy and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. The structure is different enough that it doesn't feel like your typical revenge movie and you get to see Mel Gibson in one of his first films.
I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.
- John Murphy
The big draw for me about this film was the different take on the revenge movie. Almost all of the revenge films I've seen are structured the same way: something happens in the beginning that warrant revenge, then for the next hour to hour-and-a-half is the resolution. Personally, I get tired during these films. Normally, they peak early on and fail to deliver throughout the rest of the movie. Mad Max was not this way. Most of the movie is setup and the last little bit is the resolution which I think worked awesomely.
Mel Gibson did a good job in the lead role. He played very well the role of bad ass with a heart. The other notable character was Toe Cutter. He played a crazy man very well and I had no problem believing he was insane.
I didn't really believe that the story took place in a post apocalyptic Australia. Some set pieces were done very well and the characters were believable but overall, the setting really looked faux. I know the budget was low on this one, so it didn't bother me too much.
Overall, I'm glad I watched this one. I can now say i've seen the entire trilogy and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. The structure is different enough that it doesn't feel like your typical revenge movie and you get to see Mel Gibson in one of his first films.
I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Mad Max
Origin: Australia (Crossroads, Kennedy Miller) 1979Length: 93 minutes
Format: Eastmancolor
Director: George Miller
Producer: Byron Kennedy
Screenplay: James McCausland, George Miller
Photography: David Eggby
Music: Brian May
Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward, Lisa Aldenhoven, David Bracks, Bertrand Cadart, David Cameron, Robina Chaffey, Stephen Clark, Mathew Constantine, Jerry Day, Reg Evans
Links: Mad Max Trailer, Mad Max Wiki
Although the 1981 film The Road Warrior - the second installment of writer/director George Miller's postapocalyptic "trilogy" (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome followed, and a fourth film is also in the works)- tends to receive most of the critical acclaim, the jaw-dropping Mad Max, released two years earlie, is where it all started. For it was here that Miller first brought to the screen his hellish vision of a barren, gang ridden Australia, with the aid of a new young actor by the name of Mel Gibson.
Gibson was just 23 years old when he won the role of Max Rockatansky(as legend has it, Gibson auditioned the day after being in a bar fight and his distinctively black-and-blue face stuck in the mind of the casting director), and was such an unknown that when Mad Max was released in America, the preview trailer didn't even feature him but instead focused on the movie's explosions and car crashes. In retrospect, of course, Gibson's portrayal of a leather-jacketed antihero is an essential element of the picture.
Review coming soon...
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Matt)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is truly one of the classics of the horror genre. Most people alive today are familiar with the name of this movie. You can't even go into a haunted house anymore without hearing that infamous chainsaw revving up to come saw you into pieces. It's become a part of our very culture in that regard.
I had never seen the original movie before this viewing. I saw the re-make some months ago, but that's hardly the same movie and it was just ok. I have heard from a multitude of sources that the new one is a piece of crap compared to the original. I went in with high hopes and I have to say that this movie did not disappoint me much.
Let me start with my favorite part of the movie, its direction. In terms of actual story and characters this movie wasn't all that scary. The acting was actually terrible. It was so bad, in fact, that I found myself laughing a lot at some parts that I believe were intended to be scary. That said however, I found several parts of this film to be pretty intense, and this tension was the direct responsibility of the director's work. One scene that comes to mind as an example is when a character finds herself in a room littered with feathers and bones. The camera takes several minutes and just films closeups of these objects. That's it, just a few minutes of footage of stationary objects with creepy music/sound effects. However the way the camera is positioned, the timing of the music, the gentle swaying of the feathers or the bones hanging from strings. It freaked the heck out of me. Had I been in the right mood it would have been downright terrifying. It had the same effect on me that The Shining did years ago, and it's freaking creepy.
The music, if you can call it that, is another aspect of this movie that I thought was well done. It very dissonant (is that the right word?) and it causes you to be uncomfortable in a lot of situations that would not normally be scary at all. The music is awful, but it fits perfectly into the context of this movie. It's a little insane, just like the characters that are out here to scare you.
I also really like the idea that this family of cannibals regarded human life in the same way that the average human regards livestock. They don't hate people, but they don't mind killing them either. They need to eat, and to do that they have to kill people. It was interesting to me to see this philosophy applied to human life.
The movie isn't all happy times. There is basically no plot at all. We never find out why these teenagers are driving around. There is a lack of motive that makes it harder to feel sorry for these people getting killed. The acting is horrible. As I mentioned above it's so bad that it would pull me out of the movie and actually turn horror into comedy. There is also the general disposition of the characters towards making bad decisions that seems to be so prevalent in horror movies. Going to the creepy house looking for gasoline, running up stairs to get away, staying in the creepy feather and bone room for 5 minutes, etc.
I give this movie 8 chainsaw dances out of 10.
I had never seen the original movie before this viewing. I saw the re-make some months ago, but that's hardly the same movie and it was just ok. I have heard from a multitude of sources that the new one is a piece of crap compared to the original. I went in with high hopes and I have to say that this movie did not disappoint me much.
Let me start with my favorite part of the movie, its direction. In terms of actual story and characters this movie wasn't all that scary. The acting was actually terrible. It was so bad, in fact, that I found myself laughing a lot at some parts that I believe were intended to be scary. That said however, I found several parts of this film to be pretty intense, and this tension was the direct responsibility of the director's work. One scene that comes to mind as an example is when a character finds herself in a room littered with feathers and bones. The camera takes several minutes and just films closeups of these objects. That's it, just a few minutes of footage of stationary objects with creepy music/sound effects. However the way the camera is positioned, the timing of the music, the gentle swaying of the feathers or the bones hanging from strings. It freaked the heck out of me. Had I been in the right mood it would have been downright terrifying. It had the same effect on me that The Shining did years ago, and it's freaking creepy.
The music, if you can call it that, is another aspect of this movie that I thought was well done. It very dissonant (is that the right word?) and it causes you to be uncomfortable in a lot of situations that would not normally be scary at all. The music is awful, but it fits perfectly into the context of this movie. It's a little insane, just like the characters that are out here to scare you.
I also really like the idea that this family of cannibals regarded human life in the same way that the average human regards livestock. They don't hate people, but they don't mind killing them either. They need to eat, and to do that they have to kill people. It was interesting to me to see this philosophy applied to human life.
The movie isn't all happy times. There is basically no plot at all. We never find out why these teenagers are driving around. There is a lack of motive that makes it harder to feel sorry for these people getting killed. The acting is horrible. As I mentioned above it's so bad that it would pull me out of the movie and actually turn horror into comedy. There is also the general disposition of the characters towards making bad decisions that seems to be so prevalent in horror movies. Going to the creepy house looking for gasoline, running up stairs to get away, staying in the creepy feather and bone room for 5 minutes, etc.
I give this movie 8 chainsaw dances out of 10.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre(John)
This was a pretty freaky movie. I say this even after the movie was basically ruined by a friend of mine who thought it was the funniest thing since Bill Cosby. I can definitely see where basically every horror film since then has borrowed at least one thing from this film. Heck, House of 1000 Corpses could almost be considered a remake of this film.
The acting was subpar. Of course, there was no real need for Oscar winning performances anyway. However, I have to say, the leader of the cannibals definitely made me think he was insane. And Leatherface was pretty terrifying. The teenagers were the stereotypical travelers who you know are going to die before the film is over except maybe one.
The visuals were creepy. Skeletons laying all over the place, Leatherface's human skin mask, grandpa. And the fact that this film was made with only $60,000 makes the visuals and camera work even more impressive.
I wasn't scared watching the film. But, as I said, that portion was ruined for me. However, I don't think I would've been scared anyway. I think the scaryness has faded since the release. If i'd watched this in the 70s, I probably would've crapped my pants and left the theater. Today, however, we as movie watchers have been subjected to much more frightening things. Even so, I would definitely recommend watching this film just to see where some of the greats got their ideas.
I'll give it a 7 out of 10.
- John Murphy
The acting was subpar. Of course, there was no real need for Oscar winning performances anyway. However, I have to say, the leader of the cannibals definitely made me think he was insane. And Leatherface was pretty terrifying. The teenagers were the stereotypical travelers who you know are going to die before the film is over except maybe one.
The visuals were creepy. Skeletons laying all over the place, Leatherface's human skin mask, grandpa. And the fact that this film was made with only $60,000 makes the visuals and camera work even more impressive.
I wasn't scared watching the film. But, as I said, that portion was ruined for me. However, I don't think I would've been scared anyway. I think the scaryness has faded since the release. If i'd watched this in the 70s, I probably would've crapped my pants and left the theater. Today, however, we as movie watchers have been subjected to much more frightening things. Even so, I would definitely recommend watching this film just to see where some of the greats got their ideas.
I'll give it a 7 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Origin: U.S (Vortex) 1974Length: 83 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Tobe Hooper
Producer: Tobe Hooper, Lou Peraino
Screenplay: Kim Henkel, Tobe Hooper
Photography: Daniel Pearl
Music: Wayne Bell, Tobe Hooper, John Lennon
Cast: Marilyn Burns, Allen Danziger, Paul A. Partain, William Vail, Teri McMinn, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen, John Dugan, Robert Courtin, William Creamer, John Henry Faulk, Jerry Green, Ed Guinn, Joe Bill Hogan
Links: Texas Chain Saw Massacre Trailer, Texas Chain Saw Massacre Wiki, Ed Gein Wiki
Loosely inspired by the real-life story of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein - as was Psycho(1960) before it and The Silence of The Lambs(1991) after it - Tobe Hooper's ultra-low-budget shock-horror classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre opened to a firestorm of controversy, and since then has continued to generate heated debate over its aesthetic merits and potentially damaging effects on viewers.
It's been called one of the most frightening movies ever made.
It is one of the most profitable independent films in motion picture history.
The Maltese Falcon (Matt)
I was excited going into this movie. I watched the trailer and it looked mysterious and fun.
I was let down however when we started watching it. The movie started strong, I was into it and really enjoying the mood that the old film created, however by the end I had dozed off several times. This could be due to the fact that I was really full of homemade tamales, but even so if it was interesting enough I would not have been falling asleep.
The characters in the movie were the biggest selling point, and they were the reason for most of the interest that the movie got from me. I loved watching all the characters interact. They all had their own motives, and all of them had somewhat exaggerated personalities.
The story just wasn't interesting enough to keep me entertained. I tried, but I failed. It makes me sad too because I wanted very much to enjoy this movie. Alas I have to face facts though, I just wasn't all that into it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it either.
4 fat men out of 10
I was let down however when we started watching it. The movie started strong, I was into it and really enjoying the mood that the old film created, however by the end I had dozed off several times. This could be due to the fact that I was really full of homemade tamales, but even so if it was interesting enough I would not have been falling asleep.
The characters in the movie were the biggest selling point, and they were the reason for most of the interest that the movie got from me. I loved watching all the characters interact. They all had their own motives, and all of them had somewhat exaggerated personalities.
The story just wasn't interesting enough to keep me entertained. I tried, but I failed. It makes me sad too because I wanted very much to enjoy this movie. Alas I have to face facts though, I just wasn't all that into it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it either.
4 fat men out of 10
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Maltese Falcon(John)
This movie was surprisingly good. The Maltese Falcon came out in that 1940s so I was expecting a campy tale about a woman in distress and the man who was going to take care of it. Instead, I was treated with a very enjoyable story with little to no campy-ness.
The acting was good overall. Humphrey Bogart was definitely the shining star in this film. He gave a stellar performance as Sam Spade. A lot of the things he did in this film reminds me of Batman. Spade always seemed to be planned for any eventuality. The scene where he seems to get mad at the Fatman and storms out only to walk away smiling was really awesome. Peter Lorre was another memorable character to me. A lot of this was from watching Looney Toons as a kid. Lorre has a very unmistakable face and voice.
There were limited set pieces in this movie. I believe there were only a handful of different settings throughout the entire film. Of course, I understand that this movie was made 70 years ago so I wasn't too bothered by it. The combination of black and white film mixed with the Noir story were very enjoyable.
The music was pretty good. I wasn't moved by it but I also didn't hate it. It fit well with the story that was being told and nothing that I heard took me out of the story.
Overall, I'd have to say I was surprised that I liked this one even though I enjoy most noir films that i've seen. The acting was good and the movie kept me entertained throughout. I'll give it a 7 out of 10.
- John Murphy
The acting was good overall. Humphrey Bogart was definitely the shining star in this film. He gave a stellar performance as Sam Spade. A lot of the things he did in this film reminds me of Batman. Spade always seemed to be planned for any eventuality. The scene where he seems to get mad at the Fatman and storms out only to walk away smiling was really awesome. Peter Lorre was another memorable character to me. A lot of this was from watching Looney Toons as a kid. Lorre has a very unmistakable face and voice.
There were limited set pieces in this movie. I believe there were only a handful of different settings throughout the entire film. Of course, I understand that this movie was made 70 years ago so I wasn't too bothered by it. The combination of black and white film mixed with the Noir story were very enjoyable.
The music was pretty good. I wasn't moved by it but I also didn't hate it. It fit well with the story that was being told and nothing that I heard took me out of the story.
Overall, I'd have to say I was surprised that I liked this one even though I enjoy most noir films that i've seen. The acting was good and the movie kept me entertained throughout. I'll give it a 7 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Maltese Falcon
Origin: U.S (First National, Warner Bros.) 1941Length: 101 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: John Huston
Producer: Henry Blanke, Hal B. Wallis
Screenplay: John Huston, from novel by Dashiell Hammett
Photography: Arthur Edeson
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Sydney Greenstreet, Ward Bond, Jerome Cowan, Elisha Cook Jr., James Burke, Murray Alper, John Hamilton
Oscar Nominations: Hal B. Wallis(best picture), John Huston(screenplay), Sydney Greenstreet(actor in supporting role)
Links: The Maltese Falcon Trailer, The Maltese Falcon Movie Wiki, The Maltese Falcon Novel Wiki
By 1941, Dashiell Hammett's great private eye novel had been acceptably filmed twice, under its own title in 1931 with Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade and as Satan Met A Lady in 1935 with Warren William as the Spade character(and the falcon McGuffin turned into the Horn of Roland). John Huston, having served an apprenticeship as a writer, selected the book from Warner Brothers' catalogue of properties and was so confident in the strength of his material that his script consists essentially of a transcription of Hammett's dialogue. He was fortunate enough to have a letter-perfect cast down to the smallest bit parts, and the restraint not to go over the top. This debut feature has little of the razzle-dazzle of the same year's Citizen Kane, announcing the arrival not of an enfant terrible but of a consummate professional.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Ghostbusters (Matt)
Ok well here we go. Ghostbusters. This movie is one of the reasons that I love movies today. In fact, this was the very first movie that I ever saw in a movie theater (is that weird?). My home town at one time had an old movie theater. It was closed before I was born, however one night when I was somewhere between 3 and 5 years old it opened for a single night to show... Ghostbusters. I vaguely remember screaming in terror at the librarian ghost in the opening scene. Ahh the memories...
So anyway back to the movie. This movie is gold. I love every minute of it. This is one of a very few movies that I never get tired of watching. It's anybody's guess how many times I've seen it and every time I enjoy it. That really says something about the quality of a movie, although to be fair nostalgia most likely has a hand in that.
The comedy/action mix is what keeps me coming back for more. They pace the movie perfectly, giving us plenty of both in ample amounts. Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd and just flawless. The way they carry theirselves on the screen just makes their characters become alive. Try and imagine any other actor as either of these two characters, it just doesn't work. They OWN these characters, and I'm glad they do.
Something else I want to mention is the special effects. These ghost effects still hold up today. That really is amazing. Think about the advancements that the movie industry has had in terms of special effects since that movie was made. The ghosts weren't made with computers, they were done the old fashioned way, and they look spectatular. They still look spectacular. That's pretty neat dang it.
10 scary librarian ghosts out of 10
~Matt
So anyway back to the movie. This movie is gold. I love every minute of it. This is one of a very few movies that I never get tired of watching. It's anybody's guess how many times I've seen it and every time I enjoy it. That really says something about the quality of a movie, although to be fair nostalgia most likely has a hand in that.
The comedy/action mix is what keeps me coming back for more. They pace the movie perfectly, giving us plenty of both in ample amounts. Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd and just flawless. The way they carry theirselves on the screen just makes their characters become alive. Try and imagine any other actor as either of these two characters, it just doesn't work. They OWN these characters, and I'm glad they do.
Something else I want to mention is the special effects. These ghost effects still hold up today. That really is amazing. Think about the advancements that the movie industry has had in terms of special effects since that movie was made. The ghosts weren't made with computers, they were done the old fashioned way, and they look spectatular. They still look spectacular. That's pretty neat dang it.
10 scary librarian ghosts out of 10
~Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
