Starring: Johnny Lee Miller, Angelina Jolie, Jesse Bradford, Matthew Lillard, Laurence Mason, Renoly Santiago, Fisher Stevens, Alberta Watson, Lorraine Bracco, Penn Jillette, Felicity Huffman
Plot: High school computer hackers are blamed for making a virus that will capsize 5 oil tankers.
My rating: 5/10
Will I watch it again? Hell, no.
Maybe if I had seen this in '95 I would have a slightly higher opinion of this but I didn't and this is hilariously bad. I read once that nothing dates a movie more than technology and they must've been thinking about this flick when they came up with that notion. In this case, it's true. The first few minutes are so over the top with the graphics, idiotic bullshit computer crap and computer jargon that I couldn't help but bust out laughing. There are several scenes like that. A lot of people (and I'm not one of them) probably dig this movie because of Angelina Jolie. It's her first movie where she has a starring role. She also shows a little skin...
But then so does this guy...
I was bored for most of the flick. It's so over the top bad in places but dull in others. Plus the movie runs an hour and forty five minutes long. Cut out the boring bits and leave in the bad acting and stupendously corny computer bits and you'd have something to throw on for you and your friends (with lots of booze, of course) to goof on. The MGM DVD has the film in anamorphic widescreen with the trailer in the same format. That's all for extras.
Plot: A concert film in which Bill Cosby discusses weekends, raising children, dentists, and many other situations.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I haven't seen this in over thirty years. It was funnier then when I was a teenager and Cosby was the number one show on TV. It's just not as funny as it once was. His routines are masterfully performed. They always were. His stories are amusing and sometimes I laughed but mostly just enjoyed listening to his rhythm and delivery. That I can admire. The bit about the dentist is still great. His stories are clearly exaggerated and they're often so embellished that you can tell he's full of shit except that he's a comedian and his job is to make people laugh for which he excelled. I was surprised that his closer was as poor as it was which makes me wonder why he chose to end it so abruptly instead of with a calculated bang. Even though I can separate the art from the artist, it was still a little odd watching this with the knowledge that he is a serial rapist. Perhaps subconsciously that affected my viewing but I think that my tastes in humor have changed in places, what I once laughed hysterically at 35 years ago, the magic has waned and it's been downgraded to amusing at best. The 20th Century Fox DVD presents the film in both anamorphic widescreen and fullscreen with the sole extra with the fullscreen theatrical trailer.
Plot: A woman walking home late at night is attacked by an unknown assailant
who knocks her out with chloroform. When she regains consciousness, she
finds herself tied to a bed in a blood- spattered dungeon, at the mercy
of a white-faced man in a samurai helmet who wants to turn her into a
"flower of blood and flesh." He then proceeds to slowly dismember and
disembowel her as the camera records it all.
My rating: 4/10
Will I watch it again? No.
The picture's only a 43 minutes long and in the first 14, a woman is kidnapped off the street, gagged and tied to a bed, the kidnapper severs the head off a chicken onto her, gives her a shot and prepares to get down to business. That's a long time to devote to what little setup is needed and it illustrates part of the problem with this movie. But then again, you don't watch this series for the plot. It's all about the realistic gore effects. Meet your host for the evening...
You should check out his Tinder profile.
Our samurai host talks to the audience and assures us that she's going to dig being dismembered so we shouldn't feel bad about it. Let's dig in, shall we?
Hmmmm. Well that was...that. There's still 9 minutes left. What's left? Spending 6 minutes glimpsing into his trophy room (of sorts) with probably what amounts to stuff from other films by the filmmakers or things cut from them. And it finally wraps with 3 minutes of end credits. So how was it? Boring. If you'd asked me in 1985 when I was 16 I would've told you it was fucking awesome. This uncut version released on DVD by Unearthed Films is the way to go but be warned that quality is that of a dimly lit, shot on video movie. The pictures here convey how dark it is. You don't get a good look at how well done the gore is although you can at least see that it was good enough. That it's slow, not much happens and it's difficult to see the goods is enough to keep me from continuing with any of the other films in the series unless someone gives me a decent recommend on one. I've know about this series for more than twenty years and now that I finally saw one, I'm disappointed to say the least. Sometimes notoriety is best appreciated the closer you are to a film's escape unto the world. The DVD comes with a making of feature which is the exact same length as the movie as well as text interviews with the director, an original F&B manga, gallery, text history of the series and trailers for these two films and for five others in the same vein.
Starring: Danny Glover, Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker, Alfre Woodard, Jeremy Sisto, Tina Lifford, Patrick Malone, Randle Mell, Sarah Trigger
Tagline: In a city on the edge, six people are about to discover something extraordinary...each other.
Plot: Grand Canyon revolved around six residents from different backgrounds
whose lives intertwine in modern-day Los Angeles. At the center of the
film is the unlikely friendship of two men from different races and
classes brought together when one finds himself in jeopardy in the
other's rough neighborhood.
My rating: 6.5/10
Will I watch it again? No.
The cast is great. You can't go wrong with Glover, Kline, Martin, etc.. Kasdan's direction is good as are the other technical aspects but there's no getting around how the picture feels from the story's standpoint and how it's handled. Now the opening 17 minutes that takes up through the end of Mack's (Kline) car breaking down in a rough part of L.A. where he meets Simon (Glover) has some good tension and it's a great way for these two characters to meet and it makes it easy to see why Mack needs to get to know Simon on a personal level. The story goes places that aren't so bad but when I was finished with the film I didn't feel the emotional punch the picture was going for. Then it hit me. This is a film about race from a rich, white man's perspective living in Hollywood and it's written and directed by a white man who works and (probably) lives in Hollywood. So I gathered that the target audience for this, where it would play most effectively, is rich, white people living in Hollywood (or more simply, rich, white people). Then it made perfect sense. That's not to say that you have to be in that demographic to enjoy it but I think that you'd largely have to be in order to get the most from this picture. The 20th Century Fox DVD presents the film in anamorphic widescreen and the extras you get are the theatrical trailer (also anamorphic widescreen), a 6 minute featurette (fullscreen) and trailer for five other films that you might like since you're watching this movie.
Plot: Set in the near-future, technology controls nearly all aspects of life.
But when Grey, a self-identified technophobe, has his world turned
upside down, his only hope for revenge is an experimental computer chip
implant called Stem.
My rating: 9/10
Will I watch it again? YES!
WOW! I knew nothing except the basic plot and that's it. I didn't even see the trailer. I'm blown away. It's smart science fiction that feels real enough to buy into hook, line and sinker but it's also hilarious in strange, sometimes dark ways. But then it also has plenty of action. And the ending? Holy fucking shit was I strangely emotionally wrapped up in it. It's brilliant. I was so worried throughout the film that the ending was going to let me down but there's a point in the last act where I had the confidence of the filmmaker that it wouldn't and it delivered in spades. There is so much about this picture that I love and I can't wait to see it again. And it was a rare theater experience, too, as there were only about ten people there but not one person said a word the entire time. That was just icing on the cake. There are several scenes where the score was absent which gave the visuals room to breathe and let you take in the atmosphere. I was so excited that as soon as I was home I was looking up the cast and crew on IMDb and I was surprised to see that this was the writer/director's second film (as director) with INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3 (2015) being his first. Of all movies. I haven't seen that one but it seems like a massive leap from that one to this one. He's been a busy writer starting with the first three SAW films and later the four INSIDIOUS pictures. I'm looking forward to seeing what he makes next and I'm also looking forward to owning UPGRADE so I can show it to all my friends.
Starring: Jodie Foster, Sterling K. Brown, Sofia Boutelia, Jeff Goldblum, Brian Tyree Henry, Jenny Slate, Zachary Quinto, Charlie Day, Dave Bautista, Kenneth Choi
Tagline: No Guns, No Cops, No Killing The Other Patients
Plot: Set in riot-torn, near-future Los Angeles, 'Hotel Artemis' follows the
Nurse, who runs a secret, members-only emergency room for criminals.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? Probably not.
This follows the likes of JOHN WICK (2014) in that it kind of has that criminal underworld world-building going on with a society of criminals who pay for the privilege of being cared for in an exclusive off the radar hospital. And like JOHN WICK, the hospital has strict rules that go against what criminals are used to like giving up your weapons at the door, be nice to the staff and guests and so on. Nearly the entire picture is set in the hotel which is an Art Deco style one hundred year old joint that looks lived in and the lighting and decor give it a nice film noir vibe which also elicits a BLADE RUNNER (1982) vibe. In fact there were times when we got to see the city scape at night and I so wanted to hear some of that delicious Vangelis score or see some Spinners flying around. The cast does a wonderful job and first time director (who also wrote this picture) Drew Pearce comes out with a great debut film. I was a little tickled to see that he produced a fun British TV comedy favorite of mine, NO HEROICS (2008).
The story works nicely with a little something for all of the main characters. For some you get some back story bits and for others they fill their position to serve the story but not in a cheap way that insults the audience. The only thing I found lacking was the final act when the shit goes down and things move more quickly to get us to the finish line. The Nurse thread wraps up a bit heavy-handed and I didn't feel any tension or rush up to that moment. There is room for a sequel (and I will be there front and center to see if that happens) even though this film doesn't set up for one (which was nice).
Plot: A film inspired by the true story of Ed Kemper, a serial killer who
murdered ten in Santa Cruz, CA during the late sixties and early
seventies.
My rating: 4/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Woof. If you know anything about the man, Kemper, then you won't recognize much from this direct to video movie. "Inspired by" is to be used very loosely. That's the first disappointment. The second is the acting and the seemingly lack of locations. A lot of locations get used enough to draw attention to themselves. I get there are budget restraints but geez. OK, so that's three disappointments. The acting, especially from Stapleton, is lacking and that's being kind. This picture has a few big problems but at least there's some good gore effects. Fans of true crime will be very disappointed in how far the filmmakers stray from the actual and much more interesting story of Ed Kemper. This picture isn't even set in the 60s through the early 70s when the crimes took place. The only reason the title and character in this picture exists is for name recognition. Give this one a pass. There's so little to like that it's not worth your time. The Lionsgate DVD offers the film in anamorphic widescreen with the only extras with the non-anamorphic widescreen trailer for this film and n-a trailers for other like-minded Lionsgate films.
Plot: During an adventure into the criminal underworld, Han Solo meets his
future copilot Chewbacca and encounters Lando Calrissian years before
joining the Rebellion.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? Maybe.
SPOILERS ABOUND!!! YARRRRRR!!!
Halfway through it occurred to me that I was bored and that mostly continued until the end. I kept waiting for it to get better and it didn't. I don't think the problem was with the actors. Ehrenreich was good enough, especially given that he's got the thankless job of trying to fill Harrison Ford's shoes. Harrelson was fun, Clarke was fine despite her character wasn't that interesting to begin with, Glover did a great Billy Dee Williams impersonation but Lando wasn't much more than window dressing and comic relief and Bettany was rather good as the big baddie despite never leaving HIS FUCKING OFFICE! (at least I can't recall a scene where he does). Lando's droid, L3, was funny at times and annoying at others. She suffered from too much screen time and too many jokes. The action was OK as was the pacing but the biggest problem is with the story and dialogue. "Look me up sometime. I'm going to Tatooine. Some big shot gangster's putting together a crew." That was pretty clunky. Also clunky was the dialogue that happened right after Han shoots first. As if we the fan wouldn't have figured that out.
The movie plays like the screenwriters had a checklist they had to tick off one by one, a list of references from the OT. And they handle some of them so clumsily that you'd think they were writing this for the most dimwitted movie goer. It was insulting. If they absolutely must include them, which they don't, then why not let things happen organically instead of making a big show of it. Hell, there were a couple that would've only been worse if the character burst suddenly into song about it. I did thoroughly enjoy Han and Chewie's introduction to each other. That was one of the few things the movie got right. But there were so many dumb choices in this picture. I'm mildly OK with Darth Maul showing up but why the fuck did he have to force pull his lightsaber into the hologram and ignite it? If you're that dim that you didn't recognize him from THE PHANTOM MENACE, is seeing the dual lightsaber going to be the thing that makes that work for you? Jesus, the more I talk about this the more I don't like it. The lighting of most the film was very dim. I thought this was a problem with the projector until I read online that this was a widespread problem despite what Lucasfilm/Disney says. It was awful. Maybe they'll fix that for the home release and I'll someday catch it for free when I borrow it from someone because I'll never buy it. Now that I think of it I haven't bought any of the Disney Star Wars movies on Blu-ray. I'm just not that interested. I have enough friends that own them that I'll probably never need to buy them and I'm OK with that. Look, I'm not a hater by any stretch. I wanted this to be good just like I want every movie I see to be good. This one wasn't up to snuff as an action sci-fi movie much less one that shows the early days of one of screen history's most iconic heroes. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just OK which is apparently not OK for moviegoers judging by the disappointing box office numbers (as initially projected by Disney). Come on, people. Spend some quality time writing a good movie. That's all anyone cares about.
Plot: I think it's got something to do with Frankenstein's Monster raping lots of chicks but the movie doesn't get that across well.
My rating: 3/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Have you ever wondered if you could get bored watching an 85 minute movie with 75 minutes of nudity? I didn't either but there's a first time for everything I reckon.
Starring: Mr. Bill, Walter Williams, Wayne Newton, Jenna Elfman, The Smothers Brothers, Bobcat Goldthwait, Father Guido Sarducci, Smokey Robinson, Jack Lemon, Joe Theisman, Bud Friedman, Richard Jeni
Plot: Mr. Bill talks to famous comedians on his way to reviving his stand-up comedy career with opening up for Wayne Newton in Vegas.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
My first exposure to Mr. Bill was in the mid 70s on Saturday Night Live when I was all of 6 or 7 years old. That's about the right age to fall in love with this character. Now, all these decades later, it's not all that funny. Well, I should say that this twenty minute film isn't all that funny but it's great to see a lot of the stars like Sarducci, Goldthwait, Jeni and others. They provide some of the funny. Mr. Bill's voice is a lot more annoying than I remember. My favorite moment was when Sluggo tears through a golf sand trap in his dune buggy and runs Mr. Bill over. That's good stuff. Fortunately they knew this was better at keeping it shorter than longer. At least there's that.
Starring: Lee Montgomery, Joseph Campanella, Arthur O'Connell, Rosemary Murphy, Meredith Baxter, Kaz Garas, Paul Carr, Richard Van Fleet, Kenneth Tobey, James Luisi
Tagline: Where "WILLARD" ended... BEN begins. And this time, he's not alone!
Plot: A lonely boy befriends Ben, the leader of a violent pack of killer rats.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Fucking hell! If you have a problem with the sound of squealing rats then this will drive you batshit crazy. It's an assault on your ears. OK, that's the worst offense this flick committed. The first film, WILLARD (1971), was by no means a masterpiece (the R. Lee Ermy/Crispin Glover remake was better). It had its problems, too, but it was mostly with how the two leads were handled. This picture is a small step down from WILLARD but it doesn't have much to recommend. It's just OK. The abundance of squeaks started getting on my nerves by the halfway mark and the ending was so bad I had to lower the volume. The one bright spot is the kid. He's great. The last couple of minutes with him and Ben (when the title song, sung by Michael Jackson, starts) about had me in tears. WTF? I know! Seeing Meredith Baxter so young is wild. Watch the movie for the kid's performance. Don't expect any great rat kills or anything cool like that.
Starring: Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Michael Rogers, Royston Starr, Jake Kavanagh, Dermot Kelly, Gordon Heath, Cathleen Nesbitt, Avril Angers, Neil Wilson, Shelagh Fraser, Gwen Nelson, Pat Heywood, Beatrix Lehmann, Stephen Lewis, Katya Wyeth
Plot: Charles Dyer and Harry Leeds are a couple that have been living together
for nearly 20 years. Both earn a living as hairdressers in the West End
of London and both care deeply for their mothers, but not each other as
time apart takes its toll on their relationship when Harry has to care
for his invalid mother who snips at him every chance she gets.
My rating: 4.5/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I thought having Harrison & Burton together in one movie camping it up queer eye for the Shakespeare guy style would be amusing to say the least. Nope. I was bored for most of the picture. I can kind of see what would've attracted these two acting powerhouse to do this picture but it just falls flat from start to finish. The pair have a little chemistry at times but it's mostly so harsh and bland that I wanted them to break up and see other people. Harrison looks to be having more fun with it. It's based on Dyer's play so there's a stagey-ness about it but that's not the problem, at least I don't think. The pacing is slow and that's to be expected in a slice of life kind of film this is but the thing is, I didn't much care about either of these two because they didn't show much love for each other and they're just so mean-spirited. That kind of behavior gets old and real fast. Add to that the longish running time of 96 minutes and you're going to be one bored cat. WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF (1966) this ain't. You'd think watching two aging queens going at each other for an hour and a half would be fun but this picture proves it can be painful and depressing and not that fun kind of depressing, either.
Starring: Chris Rea, Felicity Kendal, John Cleese, Bob Hoskins, Diana Rigg, Ben Kingsley, Joanna Lumley, Oliver Reed, Gareth Hunt, Nicholas Gecks, Patrick Ryecart, Peter Davison
Tagline: When Harry found out he had six weeks to live, something snapped...and it wasn't his camera.
Plot: After learning he is dying of cancer, a failed photographer illegally
buys a pistol and decides to go vigilante and get his revenge on all
those who have made his life a misery.
My rating: 6.5/10
Will I watch it again? Probably not.
I'm a fan of so many of the people involved in this that it's hard for me not to like this but it is an often hilarious movie trapped in a boring one and that I can't deny. Just look at the massive, talented cast and just pull the trigger and watch it. Maybe fifteen minutes in you'll see what I mean. It drags often and hard. The cast is fantastic. Initially I wasn't sure if non-actor/pop star Chris Rea was going to hurt the picture or help it but eventually I settled into his relaxed style and I loved him by the end of it. It doesn't help that the always adorable and fun Felicity Kendal is with him for much of it. Besides Winner's oddly poor pacing problems, the score has moments of being just plain bad. Even if you're not a film score nutter like me you're likely to come to the same conclusion if you notice the music at all. Woof, it's off. Story-wise it's a better film than what we're left with on screen, and considering the tremendous cast and how funny they are in this, it's a damn shame that it's not an overall better picture. With the right handling I can see this up there with the likes of A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988).
Plot: This is the Night of the Tentacles! In this obscene Faustian tale a
young artists sells his soul to Satan for the new heart he so
desperately needs. The only catch is that the heart is a tentacled
monstrosity with a hunger for human flesh! Will Dave get the girl of his
dreams? Will he run out of neighbors to feed his infernal heart? Will
Delilah ever finish urinating? Find out in NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES!!!
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
When it comes to low budget, makin' lots of movies mother fuckers, I dig Dustin Mills...to a point. His movies have some good and some bad (compared to a lot of filmmakers in the same situation who just churn out crap). Usually the good can outweigh the bad and that's what happens here. The story feels familiar but Mills has some good dialogue at times and there are the occasional jokes that land and have me laughing out loud. Now considering this is what it is, the acting is serviceable and Salkil does a pretty good job in the lead as Dave. Film buffs will appreciate some of the humor more than others. There's a little bit of nudity (nice) and there are some kills and gore (nice). The movie's only an hour and a half long but it feels longer. Part of the problem is being stuck in Dave's apartment except for a few scant minutes of shots in another tenant's apartment. What's worse than that is the color grading given to most of the film. It'd be nice to see some natural light to break up the reds, greens, blues and so on. Was that done on purpose to cover up something? Maybe the lighting was shit from the beginning and this was a way to salvage it? Beats me. But the other worst thing about the flick is the voice of the heart/monster (Flynn). It's partly a horrendous British accent by someone who thinks Crocodile Dundee is a Brit and it's partly laughable because it's so bad and the accent is all over the place from British, Australian and American (did I miss any?). It's painful to listen to at times. Despite all of that there is enough to like in Mills' third film to warrant checking out. I've now seen his first four features. I should skip ahead to something more recent. This guy's a work horse. He's made twenty features since 2010 with another one in post. I don't care if his were the worst movies out there (which they are far from it)...that's impressive and I'm envious.
Tagline: When you want a car repossessed hire a pro!
Plot: Two highway patrolmen think they are working on the side repossessing
cars. But eventually, they realize that they have been tricked and are
actually stealing the cars.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I'm not into cars so much but I'm totally into 1970s drive-in car flicks. Jack Vacek (the cinematographer on GONE IN 60 SECONDS (1974)) wrote and directed this picture. On movies like this the only thing you expect to be good are the car chases and stunts and he delivers. The rest of the movie is OK, though, and not so bad that you're cringing every few minutes in between naps. It's not a boring movie but it does drag sometimes. The chases are pretty good and long (yay!). There's one that has a cop chasing one of our main guys down a series of concrete stairs. I was freaking out concerned about the muscle car not getting beat up. I got a little into it for that scene. It was cool. The acting is alright, all things considered. It kind of helped that a lot of these people weren't professional actors. It added a little something real to the picture. There were a bunch of these types of flicks during the decade and a lot of them get swept under the rug because they were too dumb. This one has a decent story with all the trimmings for a fun night at the drive-in...except for nudity. There isn't any and that's just sad.
Plot: Stephen Neale has just been released from an asylum during World War 2
in England when he stumbles on a deadly Nazi spy plot by accident, and
tries to stop it.
My rating: 7.5/10
Will I watch it again? Yes.
There's at least one thing you can count on with Fritz Lang and that's a quality product. I'd say the same thing for Ray Milland. He's always delivering the goods no matter how bad the picture might be. Once Stephen is cut loose from the asylum into the war-torn world, things get interesting to say the least. The fair scene where he sees the "psychic" and gets the cake is where the intrigue starts and it doesn't let go until the all too happy tag at the end which brings the cake back into it. That joke was awful and it had no place in the picture. It should've ended just before that and with ominous music. Anyway, the acting is very good as is everything else. It's a smaller spy intrigue picture but it works wonderfully well. Lang does a great job delivering the suspense. He's so good at it that I would love to see how much different this would've been if Hitchcock had directed it. It's the kind of picture that he would've done anyway. My only minor gripe is the lack of outdoor filming. Everything is filmed on a set including the outdoor shots. Being outside for a little while here and there would've added something welcome.
Starring: Tom Savini, Lia Savini, John Russo, Everett Burrell, Greg Funk, Jerry Gergely, Will Huff, Nancy Savini, John Vulich
More info: ???
Plot: John Russo interviews frequent collaborator and fellow Pittsburgh horror
movie maker, Tom Savini, in this low-budget shot-on-video documentary.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? No.
This 37 minute documentary is only going to be fun for Savini fans or fans of makeup and creature effects. Tom touches on how he got started and moments in his career showing us some behind the scenes footage of some of his pictures and test footage of his creations. That's the neat part. He's such an easy interview and I dig this cat's enthusiasm. It's all too short but it's a gas spending a half hour with the guy and hearing stories behind some of his most famous work of the 80s.
Plot: Fred Martin, a taxi driver who is a reformed convict, is used by the
police to go undercover in order to help catch a gang of safe robbers.
However things start to go wrong when the police stake out the wrong
bank and Fred finds himself alone with the crooks.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? Probably not.
This nice little crime thriller is enjoyable enough to give it a go but not so much that it's by no means a classic. The acting is solid and the technical aspects are good but, for as good as the story is in parts, it lacks oomph. That sounds like a dig but it's not. It's a pretty well told story but in the spots you want tension the most, it fails. It's most noticeable in the sequence in the final act when things are most dire for Fred (Hanley) and the chase is on between the good guys and the bad guys. There's a lot of back and forth with the good guys and dispatch. I understand that we need some of that but it goes on and on and on. It doesn't ruin the sequence by any means but, if tightened up, it would've made it more exciting. I take an extraordinary amount of chances on movies and this is an example of why. Movies like this are worth sifting through the garbage for.
Plot: A documentary following a family in turmoil. Seven years ago, they were
the happiest, perfect family. A loving husband and wife with two
beautiful boys. When the children were 17 and 10 the oldest son, Henry
discovered his mother half dead in the garden. She was unrecognizable
because there was so much blood and his father just stood there watching
her try to crawl to safety. His father had blindfolded his mother and
walked her out to the garden where he hit her in the head with the back
of an ax, fracturing her skull in three places and leaving her to die.
He only served 5 months in prison and then tried to return to the family
as if nothing had happened. The family hid the whole tragedy from the
youngest son, Felix. Now that Felix is 17 yrs. old Henry decides to tell
him the whole story, while trying to heal himself.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
How about that subject for a documentary? It sounds wild as hell and interesting as shit. But it's not nearly as compelling as I thought it would be. The story is told calmly and rather bland. Now I wasn't expecting tension-filled scenes surrounded by grisly re-enactments but it boils down to a simple story of how this family was ripped apart and re-formed in about as smoothly and quietly as possible. That's the strange part. If you're looking for a gripping drama, this isn't it. You'll probably find more of that about the real story on Wikipedia. The story sounds more interesting than this film and I don't necessarily fault the filmmakers for that as I'm sure that was their vision from the beginning.
Starring: Fred Williamson, Julius Harris, Gloria Hendry, Margaret Avery, D'Urville Martin, Tony King, Gerald Gordon, Bobby Ramsen, James Dixon, Esther Sutherland, Charles MacGuire, Mindi Miller, Al Kirk, Janelle Webb
Tagline: Black Godfather is back...and there's gonna be Hell up in Harlem.
Plot: A gangster in Harlem must rescue his ex-wife, who has been kidnapped by the Mafia.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
BLACK CAESAR (1973) was an instant hit and the producer went to it's writer/director Larry Cohen to make the sequel ASAP. This sequel hit theaters that same year, ten months later. It was a rush job beyond belief and it shows. There are a lot of inserts where it's obvious the actors aren't in the room with the others. There's one really bad one that has Williamson, Harris and Hendry sharing a scene but each actor was filmed at a different time. It's awful. But we don't watch these movies for the quality of the acting, dialogue, beautiful locations and Oscar-bait monologues. These were cheap action pictures made to make money, warts and all. So in that sense I kind of dug it. D'Urville Martin isn't given much to do and his time is short and not funny at all, in one of his few dramatic turns. Williamson is alright but he's not here to pour on that charm that he often showed. I really liked how the story brought in Tommy's (Williamson) dad, Papa (Harris). Julian Harris is always a treat to watch and Cohen had a stroke of genius adding Papa to the story and having him go from nothing to running the operation (like son, like father but without the violent and drawn out trek from rags to riches). Overall it's not a bad watch and it's a little less entertaining than CAESAR but it's still mandatory viewing for fans of the genre.
Plot: Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.
My rating: 6.5/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I digs me some Oliver Stone and it feels like ages since I saw one of his pictures I hadn't seen before. This one is hit and miss. There are a couple of great suspense scenes that show off how good he can be. He's also good at producing some trippy shit. Technically it's very good but there are some issues that are unavoidable. I didn't care for Blake Lively. She's OK part of the time but her performance is pretty bland which includes all of her narration. It's Dullsville. On top of that, some of the narration dialogue is just awful, especially how she delivers it. For example, [about fucking her 'hard to concentrate because of the war' ex-military boyfriend] "He gave me an orgasm and I gave him a wargasm". Ugh. For the most part the performances are fine. I had the 'rental' Blu-ray so my only option was the theatrical version but it's got some great moments of hard violence. I'm not convinced I liked the ending although I can easily see why Stone went that way by trying to have his cake and eat it, too. You get to a point then everything takes a hard left and throws some fuckery at the audience. I guess I'm OK with it but fucking hell does Lively under deliver. Where she fails, Hayek delivers. She's great as the tough as nails drug kingpin. I'd like to see a movie all about her character. It's nice seeing Travolta in a role I dig him in. Del Toro plays a great no-nonsense badass except it was tough accepting that mullet he was sportin'. And I always get a kick out of watching Shea Whigham. It's one of those pictures that probably had the potential to be a great movie but not with this story as it was and the casting of Lively. I think Stone was the right choice but it was undercooked and left me wanting something more satisfying.
Starring: Jack Hawkins, Nigel Patrick, Roger Livesey, Richard Attenborough, Bryan Forbes, Kieron Moore, Terence Alexander, Norman Bird, Robert Coote, Nigel Green, Oliver Reed
Tagline: What is the league ... Who are the gentlemen?
Plot: A disgruntled veteran recruits a group of disgraced colleagues to perform a bank robbery with military precision.
My rating: 7.5/10
Will I watch it again? Yes.
Well this was an interesting picture. The setup to bring all of these characters together was fun. Along the way we meet each of them and get a sense of who they are and, for some, their motivation on why they would want in on this scheme. Once the team is assembled the picture moves onto preparing for the caper and then the aftermath. This isn't a laugh out loud comedy but there is some good funny. It's more lighthearted. Oliver Reed has a brief walk-on bit and he's hilarious.
I about lost my shit at that. I miss him. Anyway, I won't spoil anything but the post-heist ending is unconventional. I'm not sure I liked how things turn out. I'm not used to this kind of thing coming out of England in this era. It feels like it belongs more firmly in the mid-70s. Maybe it'll sit better with me the next time I see it. It's a good picture but don't expect a laugh out loud comedy caper.
I almost forgot, the second biggest laugh is right here. Fucking classic!
Plot: Shrewd and evasive ex-Nazi and top assassin Oscar Snell is determined to
rub out the King of Kafiristan. Snell's sole weakness is his sweet
tooth; he leaves candy wrappers at the scene of his every crime. It's up
to no-nonsense CIA agent Mark Stone to find Snell and stop him before
it's too late.
My rating: 4.5/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Ugh. This is yet another boring Eurospy with barely anything memorable or positive to talk about. The story is passable, the acting (the version I saw was dubbed in English) isn't all that bad but the dub acting choice on one of the main characters was strange, and the action is ho-hum. Gordon Mitchell's not in it that much which hurts the picture I think. But the one thing that excels is Gianni Marchetti's wild and often fun score. Watch the video above for a little taste. Maybe the picture bored me and the music was different enough to keep me awake or at least pull me back in. That much I enjoyed. Everything else is hanging out on the wrong side of OK. This is for Eurospy completeists (like myself) only. For everyone else I'd say get the soundtrack for your next groovin' 60s dance party.
Director: Iain Softley
Posts
