Motion Picture Gems

Video Clip: George Miller talks about the Mad Max Series

2024-05-25T21:33:00.001-05:00

Sharing this clip from Vanity Fair where director George Miller talks about the Mad Max series including the new Furiosa movie that I want to see! Check it out below (7 minutes long)

Tarot (2024), Ghoulies (1985), and Countdown (2019)

2024-05-20T02:30:00.015-05:00

Warning: this review has spoilers of Tarot in it.

The common denominator with all 3 of these movies: they're all "not-so bloody/gory" horror-comedies where a group of young adults dies off one-by-one. It's a cliche, but every now and then a new movie comes out with a new twist.

The most recent is Tarot, which I went to see in the theater and liked. I don't know very much about Tarot cards in general, but I heard they can bring good luck and are not always "evil". In this movie, the cards are cursed and the curse gets placed on a group of young college friends away on a long weekend in an old secluded mansion.

The opening scenes of the movies gave me vibes of Ghoulies from 1985 which I also went to see in the theater and subsequently watched and enjoyed again later on. (also it's a movie I've mentioned a few times here on the blog, too). In that 80s movie, there's also a dark mansion, a ritual, candles, witchcraft...but also very funny moments with puppet creatures attacking and popping out of the toilet. And it also has Mariska Hargitay in it too but no one knew who she was back then.

Tarot also has several young actors I never heard of, making me feel a little out of touch because they have impressive credits. The standout in the group in my opinion is Jacob Batalon (Paxton) who really steals the film as the most down-to-earth and comical (if I had seen more Marvel films I would have remembered him from them). His character ends up surviving at the end, which is satisfying because he's so likeable, but also defies logic. The two lovers end up surviving at the end, which I wasn't sure would happen. Anytime a movie like this keeps me guessing and surprises me, I tend to think better of it overall. If the Paxton character ended up being the last one standing, however, that would have really made the film extra-memorable.

Another relatively recent movie that I was reminded me of was Countdown from 2019. Countdown has a really intriguing premise: a new smartphone app can tell you when you are going to die ---- and it actually works. It could even have been more dark and more sinister but like the others it's a PG-13 and also has comical moments. And there's an element of witchcraft, with an evil force attacking a group of friends until the curse of the app is broken. One of these sequences takes place in a hospital which reminded me that anytime a killer/demon/spirit is let loose in a hospital it's definitely a creepy-as-hell situation. But I liked the comical moments of the movie, too. My two favorite characters were the hacker who tries to dismantle the app and the hippie priest who thinks he knows how to break the curse. Those two were very funny, and worth the watch or rewatch.

Civil War (2024) and Zombieland (2009)

2024-04-21T21:34:00.009-05:00

The new film Civil War is directed by the same director of Ex Machina, a movie I loved and think of as a modern masterpiece. This new film sounded really intriguing to me, and though I liked watching it I was a bit disappointed overall. I like the premise and potential to have a memorable comment on society but I saw it as more of a road trip/relationship movie. The title - in my opinion - is not what I would have titled it. Especially after recently visiting Atlanta and the southern USA and seeing some real 1800s civil war monuments and markers. The American civil war period of history is fresh in my head; I don't know what I would title this film, but not that. Yeah, there's a civil war going on in the background, but it is an ambiguous one, as it's not really clear what each side is for and against.

Nevertheless, the movie's focus is more on the 4 main characters - photojournalists who want to capture and cover what is going on as best they can, and travel together from point A to point B in a car. Hence, a road trip movie. We get to learn a little about each character, and a little about each's motivations, but not as much; more depth to the characters could have been there. It's just an "Okay" movie to me.

A memorable character is played by Cailee Spaeny, who plays a young rookie who looks up to Kristen Dunst's character. Though the characters have potential, I was not always convinced by what was happening and what they were saying; some of the dialogue just didn't seem to feel natural to me. For example, there's a scene early on where Dunst has to carry her luggage up 10 flights of stairs and Cailee meets her at the stairwell and says how much she wants to help. Dunst brushes her off but I would asked them to help me carry up the luggage. Also not once in two hours do we hear any of the characters talk camera tech. For example, no one talks about camera or about what zoom lens they're using or ISO or aperture settings. Not that we need to know, but a few drops of tech knowledge would give a sense of "yeah they really know what they're doing". And at one point Cailee even mentions a need to change film, but in the future - film is still being used?

The movie ended on kind of a sad note, but also placed emphasis on the survival of the Cailee character. I walked away with the idea that this movie is really about the survival and resoluteness of her character, and her relationship with Kristen Dunst. This movie has something to say about staying neutral while documenting what is going on around you, no matter what side you are on. These characters don't have a side; they never talk about politics. Although a little opinion here and there might not have hurt. I did enjoy the music and the soundtrack.

I thought of Zombieland (and it's sequel) while watching this because I remembered it had been awhile since I saw it. I really enjoyed that movie and its sequel, which were also road trips during a dystopian/future era. What more do you need but a group of humans battling zombies and traveling together as a group, exchanging witty banter and cleverly observing their surroundings. After being a bit disappointed by Civil War, I think I may go and revisit those movies again.

The podcast Film Junk recently talked about this movie in detail and had lot of interesting takes on it:
https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/30879823

Another Review from the blog Out There In The Dark:
Out There In The Dark: Thoughts on the Movies: "Civil War"

A review from The Magnificent 60s

Critic After Dark

A review from Deep Focus Lens who also struggled with this film -

If I were a co-screenwriter of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)

2024-03-23T16:57:00.004-05:00

I went to see it in theaters over this past weekend and had a good time watching it! It was hard to keep me from the theaters because I've loved this movie and franchise since I was 8 years old. The movie had some decent effects and made me laugh several times so it was a winner for me. I also really enjoyed the "throwbacks" and "fan service" in there.

The "amateur writer" in me kept thinking of a few more touches that would have made this movie even better and even funnier in my opinion. I know that sounds ridiculous but if I were a co-screenwriter, I would suggest to my colleagues these extra touches: (warning: spoilers)

1. First of all, I love that Slimer, the green ghost, is back. I missed him in the last movie, and even in 1989's sequel, he wasn't used enough. Now, in this new movie, it turns out he's been camping out in an attic in the firehouse for 40 years, eating cheese snacks in a bed made out of snack wrappers. Love that touch. We needed one or two more funny moments, though. In the scene where Paul Rudd is talking to Phoebe (who is not in her room), there is a missed opportunity there. After Rudd finishes his speech, have the door unlock. Cut to a close up of the door unlocking. Show Rudd think Phoebe opens the door. Then a close-up on Slimer tilting his head looking confused like a puppy. Cut to Paul screaming in shocked surprise. Cut to Slimer screaming and shutting the door. That would have been hilarious.

2 There were quite a few scenes down in the basement with the containment unit. I liked those scenes, but we needed to see a Twinkie. Either on a plate, or someone eating a Ding Dong or Cupcake or something!

3. The scenes with Kumail Nanjiani were really funny. But there was one part where I was waiting for something really funny...in the part where he's learning how to light a candle, the young character Podcast moves the lighted candle closer to the unlighted one and says "he's just a beginner...he needs it closer" or something like that. At that very moment Kumail should have retorted by saying, "No...I can do it!" and immediately made the candle light up, then look at his fingers in amazement. That would have been hilarious.

4. There was a scene in the diner with Melody the ghost sitting at a booth. The ghostbusters fire their weapons and cause some major damage from what I remember (windows break, booth explodes). There should have been one extra scene showing the owners say "Great. Thank you. Now you're going to pay for the damage, right?" Add a few "cameos" in there by some younger comedians or something playing waitstaff and/or an owner. That would have a been a funny extra touch.

5. At the end of the movie when Melody makes one final appearance to Phoebe, the two should have kissed! Or at least tried to. To make the scene humorously light, start playing the theme to the 1990 Ghost in the background (Unchained Melody). Not only would have added the extra romantic touch but it's a throwback to the classic "ghost" movie where the hetero characters do the same thing. To make it even funnier, show Slimer playing "DJ" and playing the song using an old cassette tape in a boom box. The place was filled with gadgets from the 80s and 90s so there must be tapes, records and boom boxes in there. Then have the music fade out and distort due to the slime that creeped into the radio, then cut away to Melody fading out. That would have left me feeling satisfied, and then think about wanting to watch the movie "Ghost" again. And not only that, it shows how mischievous Slimer could be and would be a set up for his coming back in the next movie.

6. We have a missed opportunity at the end for some comeuppance for the Mayor. We loved how he got gushed with a marshmallow tidal wave in the first movie. Bring back that little round ballish ghost creature that we saw several times in the movie....he'd be perfect at the end, and could give one last spew of vomit at the Mayor. You don't even need to show the vomit; just show the little round dude standing there tugging at the Mayor's leg, we'd know what's coming, and that would have been hilarious.

Oh well. That's just what came to my head as I watched the movie. Am really hoping to see more of Slimer in the next movie! Signing off for now.

Trailer for "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is out

2024-03-04T12:34:00.004-06:00

Below is a video from DoubleToasted; they review the new trailer for the new Ghostbusters movie and I really agree with their points on pretty much everything, and they have a funny take on some things in the trailer.

The last movie, "Afterlife" was just "OK", I thought.

This new movie looks like it might be a bit better, with a new story and new ghosts. And a return of "Slimer", the green ghost who I thought should have been in "Ghostbusters II" alot more.

Oppenheimer (2023), Inception (2010), and Interstellar (2014)

2023-07-31T02:00:00.008-05:00

I went to go see Oppenheimer and did not like it! Too, too long. I think that means I'm ready to conclude that I am not a fan of the director, Christopher Nolan. Not that he isn't a talented filmmaker, it's just that I haven't seen any film of his (so far) that I enjoyed/liked.

Inception impressed me with its special effects, but I found it confusing and ended up not caring about the characters. Same with Interstellar. And now with Oppenheimer, which I struggled with enjoying. I suppose it's the director's style that doesn't do it for me.

I remember the movie Fat Man and Little Boy from 1989 (my review here) being really good and told this story of Oppenheimer in a better way in my opinion.

Oppenheimer reviews by other bloggers:

I'm always open to give movies another chance one day, but for now, I'm going to watch something else!

Barbie (2023), Lars and The Real Girl (2007), and Megan (2023)

2023-07-24T20:37:00.002-05:00

Barbie is the movie of 2023! No doubt about it. I went to see it and really liked it. It is funny on a way that satires our society and felt very much like the great movies that Mel Brooks made in the 1970s. Greta Gerwig's comedic touch is certainly in this and the only thing missing is her doing a supporting role somehow in some scene; I think she's really funny as noted before in other reviews here. But Margot Robbie as Barbie is really good, and worth of some awards for her performance.

Ryan Gosling is very good too, as "Ken". It reminded me that he was in another movie about a doll, Lars and the Real Girl, which is a really great and underrated gem. Ryan is so good in this film as a man who develops a serious attachment to his new plastic friend. It's a quirky movie but it's profound as well and is really worth seeing.

Barbie reviews by other bloggers:

Another movie about a doll that came out earlier this year is Megan. I really loved this one! It's a horror-comedy about a killer doll, sort of like Child's Play/Chucky but not as violent/bloody. One of the new twists of this movie's doll is that it's programmed with an ability to attach with it's owner, and ultimately becomes possessive and needless to say, creepy. But very fun to watch, and ultimately satisfying.

Deep Focus Lens review of Barbie and the film's dance sequences, choreography, and sets

Fast X (2023) and The Killing Fields (1984)

2023-06-05T20:07:00.005-05:00

I recently watched these two movies in the last month (The Killing Fields was actually a re-watch for the third time; it goes without saying that it's a great classic film that I highly recommend!).

These two movies have almost nothing in common except for one scene where the main characters find themselves needing to create a passport in a desperate situation.

If you've seen The Killing Fields, based on a true story, then you may remember the heartbreaking scene where the American journalists (including Sam Waterson and John Malkovich) rush to create a passport for their endangered Cambodian colleague Dith Prahn (Haing S. Ngnor) so he can escape imprisonment by the rebelling militia. Sadly, the journalists can't develop a decent photograph / passport fast enough and can't help him escape, leading to Prahn's four years of enslavement in the death camps of Cambodia.

In Fast X, the young son of Dom and his uncle (John Cena) escape the bad guys by creating a passport using digital photos and a printer in a matter of seconds in the trunk of their car. I couldn't help but think of how people 50 years ago would or could use the technology we have today.

Fast X is what I'd call a "dumb fun" / guilty pleasure movie. Almost every situation is pretty ridiculous, especially the ending (spoiler alert). The writers have a challenge to explain how Giselle (Gal Gadot) is back; was she hiding all these years by Mr. Nobody? Did she not die at the end of Fast 6, falling out of that plane? If she survived with bone fractures, paralysis, or loss of limbs, it would make a little more sense, and an action hero with a disability is something we haven't seen in this series yet. Or is she Giselle's long lost twin sister? Two years is a long time to wait for the answer! But they have me hooked!

I liked Rita Moreno's cameo in the beginning, but why was she all by herself visiting? When an abuela (grandma) comes to visit doesn't she normally come with at least a caregiver / sister / aunt / cousin or two? How about bringing in some additional characters/cameos? Gina Rodriguez could play cousin Myra. Or Bad Bunny could play Cousin Jaime.

By the way, when the bad guys come breaking down the walls and doors of the house to attack Dom's family, I was hoping Rita Moreno wasn't still in the house. I must have missed the scene where she left because I thought she was still in there. Bad / choppy editing in my opinion.

I liked that Dom's young son has a bigger part now that's a little older, and is able to take part in the action some more himself. I think this series is going in the right direction by setting up the next generation of heroes!

Also, Laura from Laura's Misc Musing also enjoyed this movie, too! Read her review at her blog here.

Sad news - Netflix discontinuing DVDs by mail

2023-04-21T10:20:00.004-05:00

Was sad to hear that Netflix is discontinuing their DVD-by-mail service. I guess it was just a matter of when, not if, but I didn't want to think about it because I have over 200 movies in my Netflix DVD queue!

Article Sources:

What I really like about the service - and why I still subscribed to it - is the selection of movies, including lots of hard-to-find stuff. And the convenience - all I had to do was open the app, search for the movie, and add it to my queue and let it stay there when I'm ready to watch, even if it's weeks or months away.

I'm hoping to look for and find another service similar to it; I heard GameFly has a pretty good selection of 4Ks and BluRays and I might start a trial subscription.

One of my favorite YouTubers and a champion of physical media - Films At Home - published a good video summary of the situation; you can check it out below.

Ok...now to get busy on watching 200 movies before Netflix discontinues the service in September of this year! Can I do it???

Do you still subscribe to Netflix DVDs? If so what are your thoughts? How many movies do you have in your queue, and will you continue to subscribe to Netflix streaming?

Sight and Sound's Top 100 Films

2023-01-09T13:02:00.005-06:00

Sight and Sound is a British magazine that compiles a Top 10 movies list every 10 years (based on a critics poll).

https://100films.co.uk/2022/12/02/sight-and-sound-100-greatest-films-2022/

There are alot of great movies on the list, and of course many I haven't seen. And some I hadn't heard of or are not familiar with at all, including the number one pick Jeanne Dielman 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975), an experimental film.

At 3 hours, Jeanne Dielman is not a movie I think most Americans have seen or know about. I haven't ever seen it or knew about it myself. I wonder if the film had more of a reemergence in the UK or Europe in the past decade or so to earn it's respectability from poll responders. From what I understand, the movie is more "quieter" and slower-paced than 2022's Babylon, also a 3-hour epic that may make the list one day - who knows?

Also it's interesting that movies such as The Seventh Seal, Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia were dropped out of the Top 100, and others like The Apartment, Rear Window, and Searchers are there, which I wouldn't expect to be so high on the list.

Some "newish" movies on the list: Moonlight, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and Parasite are movies I saw and really loved and think are modern-day classics so am glad they made the list.

Regarding Vertigo, I don't understand why it is regarded as so great! I've never liked it and don't get why critics love it. Maybe I'll need to try to watch it again and try to see why.

The vlogger Dan Murrell has a good video assessment of the poll (an American perspective):

Archive clip from 2004 - Brittany Murph]y in Blockbuster

2023-01-08T22:57:00.005-06:00

The MTV Youtube channel recently uploaded this cool short film they created almost 20 years ago with the late Brittany Murphy in Blockbuster picking her favorite movies. I never saw this but found it to be a gem and shows how cool a person she was. My favorite movie with her in it is Uptown Girls, a modern classic in my opinion.

Babylon (2022)

2023-01-01T22:44:00.014-06:00

Fair warning: some spoilers in this review.

My friend and I went to see Babylon today at a local theater. Before the movie, two of its stars - Margot Robbie and Diego Calvas who plays "Manny" - introduce the movie and assure us - the audience - that we're watching the film "the way it was meant to be seen - on the big screen and then they say "we hope you enjoy Babylon".

I hoped so too since it's a 3 hour long movie. But really was curious about it since it was about old Hollywood and the seedy world behind the scenes, from the same director who made La La Land. I didn't love that movie because it ended on such a depressing note. It made me never want to watch it again, even though I liked some of the dancing scenes and set pieces. That was 6 years ago.

After watching Babylon, I never want to watch the movie again, except for maybe a few scenes that I really liked. For example, I really liked the scenes where the outdoor silent movie scenes were filmed. There's a camera pan sequence that shows all of the different movies that were being made on the same outdoor lot - a bar scene, a jungle scene, a battle scene, etc. There was a similar scene in Peter Bogdonovich's Nickelodeon (1976) which also was about silent filmmaking.

In the first 5 minutes of Babylon, there's a scene in the desert showing how an elephant is being pushed up a hill to be an attraction at a Hollywood party. And then we see it's anus shoot out a gush of wet dung and squirting all over two people pushing the truck uphill. Am I enjoying the movie yet?

What I thought might be a true ensemble film (like a Robert Altman film) really isn't. It focuses primarily on 3 characters and how they react to the transition from silents to talkies.

The character of Manny, a Mexican immigrant who becomes a servant to one of the studio heads and later works his way up to an executive, is one of the three major stories told.

The other prominent stories are of white actors played by Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie. Their characters are very similar to those of Jean Dujardin in The Artist (2011 ) and Jean Hagen in Singin In the Rain (1952), respectively. In The Artist, the lead character thinks of killing himself, and even points a gun to his head (before his dog saves him). But in Babylon, Brad Pitt actually uses it on himself. Tragic. But not unheard of for actors to do that. George Sanders and George Reeves were two examples. In Babylon, we sort of get a sense of what let the Pitt character to pull the trigger.

There were two other very interesting characters that were in the movie that I wished had gotten more to do in the film. In fact, both of their stories would make for a great feature film, I think.

The first is a Black trumpet player who first starts out as a musician on the studio set and playing at lavish parties. He then works his way up to be an early film star like Dizzy Gillespe or Cab Calloway (their names are not mentioned, but the movie heavily implies this could be part of their story). The other is a singer / supporting film player and studio staff member that is a characterization of Anna May Wong. A different name is used but we get the idea that this is partly her story, too.

Great idea here - how about a long overdue biopic of Anna May Wong for a change? I think we're ready for her story in 2023! And lets see more films about the early Black films of the early 1930s. Let's see a movie about The Nicholas Brothers, for example.

There's even a female director on the silent movie set, which I suspect is a tribute to Alice Guy-Blaché, who did make silent films. At one point in Babylon, the director character even utters Alice's trademark line "Be Natural", which is the same name of the great documentary on Alice's life. But no biopic of hers has ever been made either.

In the final analysis, my friend and I both felt that the character types played by Robbie and Pitt have been told many times in other movies.

This film focuses on the tragic stories behind the transition from silents to talkies, but it's so long, and the gross-out humor is over the top. At the same time it is self-indulgent tribute to old Hollywood. Unfortunately, what's left out are the other stories of actors who succeeded the transition like Lilian Gish who lived to be almost 100 and had great acclaim in the "talkie" era and beyond.

Sigh. I really wanted to completely enjoy this movie, and even love it. But in my opinion, it's unfocused, it's way overly sentimental at the end, and it's missing so much. Another blogger, Self Styled Siren, also did not like it.

This new blog post from Bobby Rivers talks about Babylon and I agree with his assessment of the film, too. (I tend to agree with Bobby most of the time in his movie assessments)

Another perspective by Surrender to the Void.

Another vlogger that I usually agree with is Deep Focus Lens, who loves musicals more than I do. In their video review of Bablylon they use the phrase "thematically muddled", and also they emphasize how the characters "don't exist in the times they live in", and compare it to Boogie Nights and Casino where some parts they don't like (and are "awkwardly inserted") and some they do. Check out the revie below:

What always confuses me in Dick Tracy (1990)

2022-12-31T18:07:00.007-06:00

Fair warning: this post contains spoilers about the movie.

I recently re-watched this movie for maybe the 10th time. I really love watching it; it's one of the coolest looking movies ever. Every scene is made up to look like a comic strip and everything visually about it is incredible. I first saw it when I was 14 years old in the theaters when it came out and was impressed by it so much I probably rented the VHS and DVD copies 2 or 3 more times, and later bought the DVD and then upgraded to blu ray where the picture quality looks fantastic. It's also a good movie to watch near or around New Year's Eve since the big climax of the film takes place on New Year' Eve.

If you've seen the movie you know it contains numerous storylines, including the orphan "The Kid" who wants to be on the police force, Tracy's relationship with his girlfriend, the new crime lord of the city (Al Pacino) and the corrupt district attorney (Dick Van Dyke) - a part that is too small; I think it could have been larger.

Another subplot involves the rival crime lord "The Blank" - these sequences always confuse me when I think about them. At first, the Blank wants to obtain a percent of Big Boy's profits in exchange for immunity, but then the Blank changes his tune and wants to frame both Tracy and Big Boy. Alot of these details went over my head when I was 14 years old and to this day I still have trouble following The Blank's part of the story as it is told in the movie.

If you've seen the movie, you know that Madonna/Breathless is revealed to be The Blank.

But every time I rewatch the movie with that knowledge, the subplot is still puzzling.

This is either brilliance on the part of the screenwriters and director Warren Beatty.....or it's choppy editing that leaves out some details. I don't know which.

The movie as it plays out gives the viewer the impression that The Blank is a mysterious rival villain who wants control over Big Boy and his criminal empire, when in reality The Blank is Breathless' way of protecting herself.....or maybe becoming a criminal crime kingpin of her own. In my opinion I think the film should have revealed Madonna to be the Blank much earlier in the film. For example, show a scene of her putting on the mask, and dressing up. I think that would make the film much more interesting and less confusing. The first time we see the Blank, the Blank wants 10 percent of Big Boy's profits. Ok I think I follow the motive there - Breathless hates Big Boy and that is made clear. So why not give Breathless' character some extra weight--make her true identity known to the viewer, but not to Big Boy and Tracy.

As the movie plays out, The Blank promised that Big Boy would be off the hook as a suspect in anything that would happen to Tracy if BigBoy makes the deal. But he doesn't make the deal. So what was The Blank planning to do with the money? Leave town? And what was Breathless planning to do if she successfully seduced Tracy? Testify and/or let Tracy in on the Blanks's scheme?

Once Breathless/the Blank is rejected by Tracy, I can see why she wants both of them out of the way. And with the money she's made as the Blank, she could leave town. That would be one way to explain it. So here's what ends up happening - The Blank frames Big Boy by kidnapping Tracy's girlfriend and placing her in the attic of the club, making it look like he kidnapped her. And she frames Tracy by killing the District Attorney and making it look like Tracy did it, but also making it look like Big Boy framed Tracy. If it worked, she would take the money and run? It's a brilliant scheme, but it was really confusing to pick up on the first watch.

What do you think? Is this how you understand The Blank?

Steve Martin movies I don't like

2022-12-18T00:21:00.004-06:00

Lately I've been on a Steve Martin kick and watched a number of his films for the first time (or on a re-watch),

Sadly, I enjoyed almost none of them.

Bringing Down The House
This movie I didn't like at all. The first 10 minutes seemed somewhat tolerable. We see Martin (playing a stiff attorney) perusing an old-fashioned online dating site. He manages a date with Queen Latifah's character but doesn't know she's Black and when he first sees her his jaw drops and my jaw dropped at how cringy the scene was. Turns out she's also a felon and wants to live in his house. Meanwhile he's embarrassed by her manners and tries to hide her from his racist next door neighbor (not-funny Betty White) and racist client (Joan Plowright, a role that made me dislike her!). The movie's plot was uninteresting to me and I was distracted by all the scenes where Steve Martin tries to enjoy hip-hop. Doesn't hold up.

Verdict: "Thumbs Down"

My Blue Heaven
I hated this movie when it first came out; I didn't find anything funny about it. So I thought I would give it another re-watch, now that I know more about the history of the film --- it was written by Nora Ephron who partially based it on the life of Henry Hill when he was in witness protection. Apparently she knew him because her husband wrote the book "Wiseguy" which was made into Goodfellas.

So I tried to keep an open mind and enjoy the movie as a satire. But still, I didn't find much to like about it. I could probably find 5-10 minutes of Martin doing an Italian accent tolerable for a comedy sketch, but after two hours, it's too much. By the end of the movie I wasn't believing he was Italian anymore. And all those stereotypical Italian/gangster jokes don't really hold up after 30 years.

Verdict: "Thumbs Down"

All of Me
I didn't like this movie much at all either. Lily Tomlin's character inhabits Steve Martin's body, and there's only one funny joke in the whole movie and that's when Martin has to go pee. The whole movie seemed to be made for that joke. The rest of it was really dull and dated.

Verdict: "Thumbs Down"

Grand Canyon
I liked this movie better the others, but this one is heavy on the drama and lighter on comedy. There's almost no comedic moments, actually. The main characters are Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, and they both deal with their own family issues. Kline's wife wants to adopt an orphan baby, while Glover's family and home is targeted by drive-by shootings. Martin plays a film producer who gets shot in the leg and is a cast for most of the film. His character wants to make less violent films as a result, which I didn't find convincing, honestly.

Verdict: "Thumbs Down"

Mixed Nuts
In my opinion, this is a really crappy ensemble dark comedy that is probably one of the worst "Christmas Movies" out there. This film was based on a play and an obscure French film, taking place inside a suicide hotline clinic on Christmas Eve. Honestly, there's not much funny about people who are depressed and need help. But somehow the film tries to make the situations funny - Martin and his co-worker Rita Wilson have crushes on each other, and Madeline Kahn gets stuck in the elevator for half the movie and it's not very funny. Adam Sandler plays a janitor who doesn't have any funny lines except a ridiculous serenade during a dinner meal. Then there are two ghastly subplots - one involves Juliet Lewis who is pregnant and her fiancé who brandishes a gun for most of the film. And finally - and worst of all - is a transgender character who is played for laughs and is the butt of everyone's jokes and it's painfully unfunny. It's really a shame that this was written by Nora Ephron who wrote a couple movies that everyone seems to love - Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally - about cisgender and hetero couples. It's a shame that the only queer character in the movie appears to only be there to provide homophobic slapstick comedy, when the character could have more profundity. But that would be asking for the impossible in a film where all the other characters are basically unlikeable and none of them have any soul or any heart.

Verdict: "Thumbs WAYYYY Down"

A Simple Twist of Fate
So unlike the other movies, Martin wrote and co-produced this one, so it's his "baby". It's meant to be an inspirational story of how this single guy takes care of an orphan girl whose biological father is a corrupt politician (played by Gabriel Bryne) who wants to gain custody of her when she grows up.

This movie could have had some real potential and have been a classic, but today, the movie isn't considered a classic, or a great movie, or even a cult classic.

When I first watched the movie in 1994, I hated it. It was dull and boring. No laugh-out-loud moments that I remembered. So for almost 30 years I never watched it again.

But recently I gave it another shot. It's still not very funny, but more amusingly funny in an old-fashioned sort of way.

And there's a few moments in the film that are kind of disturbing to watch in 2022.

One scene involves Anne Heche's character (a very minor character) getting involved in a car crash, which is sad because she just died in a terrible crash earlier this year.

Another scene involves Martin and his adopted girl singing an old-fashioned song about an "Indian Maiden" and wearing Native American makeup and feathers. On one hand, it's meant to be a harmless "father-daughter bonding" scene, but on the other hand, it's so unfortunate that this is the only mention of Native Americans in the whole movie and a cringy reminder that the rest of the cast is all-white. I'm sure Steve Martin would probably not include that scene if this film was made today out of respect.

So what about the rest of the movie? Well I really like the music score and premise that the Steve Martin character wants to adopt the child. However I'm not sure he's right for the part. I wonder if someone else should have played it. I really like Gabriel Bryne; he's a fantastic actor. Maybe his role and Martin's should have been switched. Martin could play the snobby, snooty politician and Byrne the dad. That would have been inspired casting! And might have made things more interesting and memorable; today, it's a forgotten vehicle in Martin's filmography that I'm not sure deserves to be proudly resurrected.

Verdict: "Thumbs Half-Way Up/Down"

The Karate Kid Parts 1-3 (1984-89)

2022-12-16T19:36:00.001-06:00

I watched all of the first 3 movies and really enjoyed them! I hadn't seen the first in over 30 years so it was an enjoyable rewatch. The movie holds up pretty decently. I think one of the secrets to not make a film look dated is to avoid showing alot of technology like phones, camera, radios and tvs. There's not much of that in this movie so it appears more timeless. I really liked Part II and their trip to Okinawa. The scenery and music were great and I liked the love stories in the movie and the storm at the end that causes the corrupt landowner to have a change of heart. Part III spotlighted Miyagi's bonsai tree store and the "secret tree' he had hidden at the bottom of a steep cliff. That was a pretty amazing development. He also reveals something that he hadn't said before in the movies, that his heart would be empty without the young Daniel character. It was fate that they met, like many great friendships.

I got a better sense of how merciless the "kobra kai" students and their teachers are. And now I know why the TV show has been popular using the same characters. I never saw the show but my friend was telling me that it's basically a new generation of students doing the same thing. I'm not sure I'm really that interested in it, and the drama. I guess I don't really care for the characters that much. They're a bunch of racist assholes in the movies and don't really care to spend more time with them. I asked my friend if Ralph Macchio's character Daniel still has the car that Miyagi gave him, and learned that he does, and that the Daniel character is now teaching his son the ways of the master. That's about all I really care about in the saga.

The Man In The Chair (2007) starring Christohper Plummer

2022-12-10T13:27:00.000-06:00

I knew I would enjoy this movie from the first few moments it begins. We see an old man (Christopher Plummer) in a theater by himself enjoying a bottle of booze and watching His Girl Friday with Cary Grant. Then as the credits roll, he's watching another classic in the darkened theater, this time The Last Time I Saw Paris and the argument scene with Elizabeth Taylor and Van Johnson, where Van throws his writings/manuscripts in a fireplace, giving up on his dreams. Immediately, Plummer's character gets up and yells at the screen; we don't hear what he's saying but we can tell he's emotionally affected by the drama (and dashed dreams), and in love with classic movies.

Then the credits montage continues with scenes of him riding the bus at night, and walking down a darkened street, eating lunch outside, or sitting/reading on a bench - suggesting he likes to get out of wherever he's living for a while. He goes to see more films, and the cycle repeats.

It's a bit mysterious at first, but as the film continues and unravels, we learn more about the grouchy old character. He lives in a home for retired film/tv veterans, and has a past career working on classic Hollywood films.

Meanwhile, we're introduced to another character with a troubled past, a young high school cinephile and aspiring filmmaker, who wants to make a short student action film, but struggles with writing and can't pronounce "Nietzsche". The kid - when he's not stealing cars - spends his free time going to classic film screenings; at a screening of Touch of Evil, he meets Plummer.

The rest of the movie is about their relationship, and about they work together making the short film which they are both passionate about. It's a charming buddy film about a young movie lover and the old Hollywood vet. As the kid gets to know the old man and his friends, you can sense his inner growth, and begins to consider making a documentary instead. He also teaches an elder to use Google and introduces him to blogging.

Christopher Plummer is very believable playing a cranky old Hollywood film crew member. His character is filled with loneliness and bitterness at the start of the film, but his life changes when he meets the kid; you can sense the spark of life coming back to him. I love the scene where Plummer talks and reminisces with his old, forgotten writer friend whom he encourages to help with the film. And I love how his character imparts his wisdom on the kid as they take the bus around town; he points out landmarks of classic cinema history and tells him stories about knowing Orson Welles.

Special appearances by M. Emmet Walsh who plays a fellow resident of the home and Robert Wagner as a rich, retired Hollywood producer - and adversary - of Plummer's.

Filmed on location in Los Angeles/Hollywood.

Written and directed by Michael Schroeder. Unfortunately, I don't know much else about what else the director has made other than some low-budget horror films in the 80s and 90s. But if I had to guess, I would say that this is a dream project of the director's and subsequently went on to pursue other endeavors. I applaud his efforts making this film; I found it enjoyable and very memorable.

Film Critic Roger Ebert didn't like the movie when it came out (see his review here), but I really liked it. I consider it a great tribute to not only the elderly, but also aging movie stars who are often forgotten in their twilight years.

This is an entry in the Charismatic Christopher Plummer Blogathon, hosted by Realweegiemidget Reviews and Pale Writer. December 10-12, 2022

Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)

2022-11-20T01:36:00.006-06:00

I love this movie - it has emotion, heart, and smart writing/dialogue (by husband-and-wife team of Jerry Leichtling and Arlene Sarner, who unfortunately didn't write many other screenplays, per IMDB).

If you haven't seen this movie, it focuses on Katheleen Turner's character (Peggy), who at the start of the movie plays a 42 year old at her high school's 25th Anniversary Reunion, where she wishes what we all do - "if only I knew then what I know now". Then - for the rest of the movie - she plays 17 and her character relives her high-school senior days in the spring of 1960.

I don't think it's really a spoiler or a surprise if I say that the film (in my opinion) is very "Capra-esque", especially the ending...was her experience in 1960 all a dream, or did she actually time-travel back to 1960? Hmmmm. I still have fun thinking about that idea. You'll have to see it to fully understand what I mean. But there's profundity to it, too, as Peggy's relationships and fate may change as a result.

So now it's time to shine a spotlight on the entire cast who make this movie so good - most of the main actors have the challenging task of playing two ages, 42 and 17, and they are all great - including Nicolas Cage, who plays Peggy's high school sweetheart of 2 years.

I won't list the age of each actor, but all of them are either in their mid/late 20s or early 30s, and really convincing in both roles.

First I'll start with Kathleen Turner, course playing Peggy, a character with an adult mindset from 1985. Of course, she plays both 42 and 17 fantastically. She was about 30 at the time when the movie was made/set, but when she plays both roles and delivers.

Her scenes at school with Nicolas Cage are really great especially when she gets to say things to him she wished she would have said at 17; one of the best lines comes when Cage (who years later will cheat on Peggy) is expressing his jealously and says "when I imagine you going out with other guys, I feel...." and he can't find the words. Peggy says as an adult would...."rejected, worthless, and miserable? Good!".

After awhile, Peggy realizes she is "trapped" in her predicament - is she dreaming or dead, she wonders. Then she does the most sensible thing anyone would do - reaches out to her school's high school expert on science (Barry Miller) and asks him if time travel is possible. She then begins to disclose some "future facts" she knows of (often humorously), such as heart transplants, man walking on the moon, televisions that get smaller, and radios "that get bigger" (referring to the boom boxes). Had the movie been made today, no doubt her character would reference the internet, smartphones, and Twitter for sure, but watching this movie reminded me that there were some pretty impressive achievements between 1960 and 1985.

I enjoy seeing Peggy go directly to all the "forbidden" spots - her dad's liquor cabinet, the cigarettes hidden under the stairs. She argues with her dad and she humorously exclaims "I'm an adult --- I can do what I want!" and "I'm going to go to Liverpool and discover The Beatles!"

Another great scene is when Peggy sees her younger sister in 1960; her sister is a few years younger, perhaps 14 (played by Sofia Coppola - the only real teenager in the whole movie). The way Peggy responds to her is touching and convincing, she's almost in tears when she sees her. The details are not explained, but it makes me wonder if her sister had died tragically....or something bad happened to her where they became estranged or something and so therefore seeing her again would brought back alot of joy for Peggy.

The movie has a number of nice moments like that, especially when Peggy decides to visit her parents and grandparents -- both of whom have died years prior to 1985. Sequences like these can make us think of our own relatives who passed and who we miss. Haven't we all dreamed about long-gone relatives or friends at one time or another?

This is a really great performance by Kathleen Turner in one of her best movie roles in my opinion, and deserving on her Oscar nomination that year.

Next up, I wanted to write about Nicolas Cage in one of his first movie roles. At the start of the movie he's 42 and looks the age and is made up to look generally down-and-out and gruff, having made some questionable decisions in his life. Then, when the movie shifts to 1960, he's 17 and looks the age again, but this time he's optimistic and full of life and in love with Peggy, passionate about music, singing in a band, and his hair and wardrobe is made up to make him look like Fabian, who is his celebrity idol. (Full disclosure - I had to Google and look up Fabian to learn a little more about him LOL). It's an amazing transformation, and even transforms his 1960 voice and mannerisms to match a teenager's. He's really good in this role.

Jim Carrey is also in a small role, also playing 42 and 17. His character is meant to be something of a class clown and he really is - at both ages. His character only appears in few scenes, but I think it's just enough in my opinion - if he were in any more scenes, I think he would have unnecessarily stolen (or ruined) a good part of the movie with his comic antics.

Also playing classmates are Joan Allen (The Crucible) and Catherine Hicks (Child's Play), and their costumes and makeup really convince you that they are teens, especially when they drive Peggy Sue home from school while "Tequilla" by the Champs plays on the radio.

Kevin J. O'Connor was 22 but played 17, and played one of the "outcasts" of the school that Peggy reaches out to in 1960 and cheats on Nicolas Cage (who subsequently throws a jealous tantrum, but still professes his love for Peggy in the end).

John Barry's score, the costumers, set designers, and cinematographer deserve much credit for re-creating a very memorable and dream-like film. And it is superbly directed by Francis Coppola; in real-life, he is the same age and generation as the adult Peggy character so handles this film with a great sensibility for that late 50's/early 60s era. And of course, amazing job by the screenwriters who also have a great sensibility for the era and write some pretty funny, clever, and satirical dialogue without going over-the-top.

I recommended the movie if you haven't seen it!

This post is part of the Fake Teenagers Blogathon!

Hosted by Taking Up Room (November 18-20, 2022)

P.S: Realweegiemidget Reviews has a great post on this movie from a few years back!
It's a great post that features MORE about this awesome movie and its amazing cast!

Check out the post here!

The Addams Family (1991), Addams Family Values (1993), and The Addams Family (2019)

2022-10-29T01:52:00.001-05:00

I watched both when they first came out 30 years ago, but didn't like them very much.

And then just the other day I watched it again, and enjoyed it more than ever. It's funny how this is a rare movie that gets better for me each time I watch it.

The entire cast is so good! I love the design of the castle, and the hidden "fortune" and the lore behind the Addams lineage. Such good stuff!

I didn't like the sequel (Part 2) very much when I first saw it, but rather enjoyed it on a rewatch. Much of the subtle humor was lost on me years ago.

Part 2 really belongs to Joan Cusack! She really steals the whole movie as Fester's nefarious girlfriend who wants a piece of the Addams fortune. And I liked the summer camp sequences with the crazy hyper-positive-attitude counselors. The ending was bad, though. The whole electrocution deal....doesn't hold up well, and don't love the movie as much as the first one.

I tried giving the 2019 animated movie a try, since I hadn't seen it yet. Surprisingly, it had a number of the same jokes from the 1991 movie and didn't capture my attention enough to watch the whole thing.

Going to stick with the 1991 version again if I ever am in an Addams Family mood again!

Read another review of Addams Family Values from:

Reel Weedgie Midget here

Five Questions I Had Re-Watching The Exorcist (1973)

2022-10-23T14:35:00.000-05:00

Nashville, TN showing in 1973

I've never blogged about 1973's The Exorcist before, but it's a movie that I rewatch every few years, usually around Halloween time or in October. Recently, I watched it on a big screen in a theater for the first time, along with an audience/crowd. I felt less frightened with a crowd around, but I'm sure viewers in the 70s were horrified; I always remember the accounts I read about of "around-the-block" lines and how people walked out of the theater out of fear, disgust, or physical sickness/illness. I was hoping to re-live or re-capture that feeling in 2022 somewhat, but was a little distracted by the numerous cell phones flashing by enthusiastic millennials/Gen Z'ers taking pictures at key moments. And after several viewings of the movie, I guess I'm not as frightened as I once was of this film. However, I still think it's a great piece of filmmaking with great writing, directing, and performances.5 lingering questions that came to mind after this last re-watch.

1. If the mom character (Ellen Burstyn) is such a big movie star, and the British director "Burt" is fairly well known, wouldn't the murders and strange phenomena happening near the set attract and create extensive media and tabloid attention? This wasn't addressed in the film and not sure if it was mentioned in the book (I never read it). A minor issue, but it seems like it would be a big deal for a movie director's horrendous death to be national/world news. But there were no media reporters or crews outside the house at any time.

2. The alcoholic director "Burt" uses a profane adjective several times in the film and it's strange because I never heard it used by anyone in any film or real life. Is this a phrase unique to this director or something? Like when everyone says "broomhead" on the TV show Degrassi but no one else in world uses that term? Or was "c---ing" a common slang term in the 70s? Seriously, it's so bizarre.

3. I don't quite understand the relationship between the live-in workers in the house. Are the German workers there full time, and attend to each new renter? Is Reagan's mom only renting the house? Are the Germans the owners? This still remains fuzzy. I don't get who the lady with the typewriter is either - is she Ellen Burstyn's personal assistant? Is she the older daughter (like the older daughter in Poltergeist?) Update: According to the commentary by William Friedkin, they are Ellen Burstyn's assistants that travel with her (but I don't think it's explicitly stated in the movie)

4. When the detective (Lee J. Cobb) inspects the stairs for the first time, he picks up a small sculpture off the ground...I never noticed that before. Apparently, it's one that was made by Reagan and is suspiciously at the bottom of the stairs. Did Burt pick it up which prompted Reagan to throw him out the window? Was it a sculpture of a demon?

5. Who put the crucifix under Reagan's pillow? Everyone in the house say they didn't, so I wonder if someone at the hospital gave it to Reagan (maybe a priest) and she kept it in the blanket with her as she came home, and put it under her pillow herself. That's my interpretation.

What do you think?

Fright Night (1985) and The Lost Boys (1987)

2022-10-22T15:12:00.001-05:00

Watched these movies for the first time recently; In the late 80s, I guess I just wasn't interested in vampires or vampire movies all that much.

In Fright Night, a teen discovers that his suave new neighbor (Chris Sarandon - maybe his most famous role) is a vampire, but no one believes him. When the vampire starts to stalk the kid, he turns to a has-been horror actor and late-night horror TV host "Peter Vincent" (Roddy McDowell) to help him slay the vampire. The movie has alot of grisly makeup and visual effects which - at the time - were no doubt pretty impressive.

I liked the story element where the old has-been actor gets involved, and that his name is an amalgamation of Vincent Price and Peter Cushing. Vincent has a funny line where he says (paraphrasing) "the only horror your generation is interested in has to do with a guy in a ski mask slaughtering virgins". I suppose it was kind of true at the time, but ironically, I think movies like Fright Night helped to revive the vampire movie.

The Lost Boys was something of a cult vampire hit but I was never interested in it. Watching it in 2021, I can see how appealing it could have been, with a cast that includes Cory Haim, Cory Feldman, Keifer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, and Jason Patric, who plays the older brother in a family that just moved into town.

The marketing buzz I remember about this movie showcased the vampires hanging out and flying about in the night with their new "recruit", and that was my impression of the movie for years. However I didn't realize that there was more to this movie, including a few other rather entraining subplots that add to the suspense. The first one involves the two Coreys getting together to become vampire busters, and it's pretty interesting to see them get close to and eventually break into the vampire's lair.

The other subplot involves the single-mom character (Diane Weist) who dates a mild-mannered gentleman in town played by Edward Hermann who steals the movie at the end in a twist I did not see coming. You have to see it to believe it.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World (1963)

2022-10-15T18:45:00.014-05:00

I don't know alot about the story behind the making of this film, but I'm guessing that Stanley Kramer, who normally directed dramas, wanted to do an all-star slapstick comedy. I've seen parts of the movie when I was younger but recently watched the whole movie. Watching the movie in 2022, 60 years after it was first released, it feels like a product of its time. Dialogue and jokes seem very old fashioned and dated, such as when Buddy Hacket calls the mother-in-law character (Ethel Merman) an old bag and various other names. Mickey Rooney is cast as Hacket's best friend, but he seems really miscast among the other comedians. It was nice to see a couple of Black comedians such as Eddie Anderson but when they appear they only appear for a few seconds, sadly.

As I watched the movie I kept thinking of a better title. I thought "Greedy" might be good, since all the characters are rushing to find a stash of hidden cash before the other does.

This movie reminded me of another film I enjoyed watching on tv as a kid years ago - "Scavenger Hunt". I remember enjoying it at the time but maybe it doesn't hold up, either; will have to look for it one day.

Another review from:
Confessions of a Film Philistine

Goodfellas (1990), and State of Grace (1990)

2022-10-15T10:50:00.035-05:00

I recently watched Goodfellas in its entirety (not just bits and pieces) and enjoyed it. When I first tried watching it, I thought it was really boring, but now I find great appeal to it because it shows how an "outsider" like Ray Liotta's character, who is Irish, finds community and respect with the Italian mobsters. Speaking of mob films, I still haven't seen Martin Scorcese's 2019 movie The Irishman yet; it was nominated for several Oscars a few years ago, but didn't win any.

State of Grace (also from 1990) also features an Irish-Italian mob theme. I've known about it for years, but never watched it until recently. It's about an Irish cop (Sean Penn) who goes undercover and gets caught up with an Italian mob, who fight against the Irish mob including his friends. It's really suspenseful and makes you wonder how Sean Penn is going to get out of the predicament he's in. Ed Harris and Gary Oldman are in it and they are great as well. I liked the scenes showing New York. One day I want to go there, I keep saying that.

Nuit #1 (2011)

2022-10-12T12:56:00.000-05:00

This account of a one-night stand and the subsequent night is very realistic portrayal that seemed very authentic, unlike other similar themed movies that inject a ton of comedy and humor. Made in France, it is relatable to people (especially young singles) from across the world. Clara, a teacher, and Nikolai meet at a club, then go back to Nikoai's flat to fuck. When Clara tries to leave unnoticed, Nik stops her and pulls her back to the apartment. I didn't like how pushy he was and its a bit disturbing. She goes back to the apartment and pretty much bares her soul to him, opening up about her innermost feelings of regret, shame, and despair. And they end up sleeping together on the roof, where Clara looks down at the street and we're unsure what she is going to do. The film was written and directed by a woman (Anne Émond), not a man, important to emphasize that the film is from a woman's perspective, so many films with characters like these are directed by a man.

At the end of the film, we see Clara's students, but we're unsure if this takes place the next day, the next year, or prior to Nuit 1 (the first night). I liked how the film left me wondering about that.

Candy (1968)

2022-09-27T22:15:00.002-05:00

I first heard about this movie from a post from the blog Mike's Take On The Movies which featured a newspaper ad for this movie from December of 1968, almost 55 years ago. Check it out at the link below-

https://mikestakeonthemovies.com/2019/03/25/now-playing-december-28th-1968-at-a-theater-near-you/

The movie came out around the same time as The Odd Couple, Hellfighters, and The Lion in Winter.

Also I Love You Alice B Toklas and Skiddoo, which were comic satires about the current drug and hippy cultures that I enjoyed and found humorous.

With its all star cast that includes James Coburn, John Huston (believe it or not), and Charles Aznavour, I thought this movie might be a fun watch like those other movies.

But it's not. It's horrible.

This movie is so bad. I doesn't hold up well. If I were anyone involved in it, I would be embarrassed. Ringo Starr is in it, which is cool, but he plays a Mexican gardener in brownface and a bad accent, which is not cool. Marlon Brando also appears in brownface playing an Indian love guru, similar to a character that Mike Myers created in the 2008 movie The Love Guru. It's supposed to be funny, but it's not.

It seems like very Hollywood actor wanted to appear in a comedy that lampoons the modern culture of hippies but this movie, which makes sex the main focus, falls flat. Buck Henry wrote it, and I guess I was expecting for it to be better. But I don't know what he's trying to say in this movie - that all adult men are sex crazed, or is there something about authority figures (doctors, gurus, soldiers) that he finds ridiculous and wants to criticize? I didn't get it.

Every adult male character in this movie is awestruck by Candy, who is a pretty blonde white girl who wears short skirts, has pretty eyes, and is rather naive. Is the character's naivete supposed to be the gag? Or the fact that she's so sexually attractive that every adult man who meets her wants to have sex with her? It gets really cringy and creepy at times. There are even some creepy incest jokes involving the dad (John Astin) And it's really bizarre to see a military general (Walter Matthau) order her to undress for him in the cockpit of a plane, and him trying to screw her. It's also super-creepy to see a middle aged poet (Richard Burton) want to sleep with her too after he visits her school to give a poetry reading. I did like Burton's chauffeur played by Sugar Ray Robinson who winks at the camera and is in on the joke that Burton is a buffoon. That was inspired comedy. But Candy just doesn't work in a modern era. I don't think it was funny back in 1968, either. What were they thinking?

Read another review from The Magnificent 60s

Interesting article about mid-budget movies

2022-09-26T12:19:00.001-05:00

CNN.com recently had an interesting article about mid-budget movies which includes thoughts about why we don't see them in theaters as much anymore:

Mid-budget movies as we knew them are in decline. What does that mean for cinema? - CNN