RonellSowes

The Killers is based on the Ernest Hemingway story but it's mostly just an inspiration. The film is split into a non linear plot consisting of a two hitmem searching for the truth behind the job they did in the opening minutes of the movie. When Lee Marvin is on the screen this movie moves. However, it's more than just the undeniable force Marvin has, the scenes themselves have more of a punch and are better than the flashback storyline with Cassavetes. Unfortunately this weaker part is the majority of the movie and were a lack because of it. As they say the saddest words are what might have been.

If there's one thing John Boorman did at the start his career, it's push the boundaries of cinema shocking viewers in the process, as he did with Deliverance and even before that Point Blank. What does the film have going for it? It's not an overblown extravaganza, it has weight and an edge but most of all it has Lee Marvin. Marvin can do these types of ruthless tough guy roles better than the majority of actors and it's his presence that keeps this movie going and probably its only consistent factor. Point Blank is a display of all the experimental techniques of the late 60s and it's intentionally dysfunctional.

Road House is one of the most intentionally dimwitted movies you're likely to have seen foe awhile unless you make a regular habit out of watching very dumb movies. I try not too. Any law that governs our world either natural or legal doesn't appear to exist in whatever realm this movie does. And even mild intelligence appears to be a thoroughly foreign concept. It's clear this movie doesn't take itself, to sat the least, and it borders the edge of comedy. Even if it may be senseless, it starts off with some cohesion however a bad case of third act troubles sends it to pieces. It's also very clumsily directed and written film technically and contains some genuinely poor acting(least perhaps Connor McGregor). One exception is Jake Gyllenhaal who probably is the reason this movie is watchable.

Journey to the Center of the Earth adapts the novel into a plot that is pretty much the same and fully aware of it and in the modern world. I guess it's ment to take place over a longer period of time but it feels like the whole thing happens in an afternoon. A fun little romp to the Earth's core and back. Even if it's more than an afternoon the latter description remains relevant. There's any feeling of danger and every obstacle is merely a launching pad into the next sequence for excitement-or so it tries. They scream like they're on a roller coaster and make their little quips the whole time.

Humanoids from the Deep is classic Corman. All the lowest forms of entertainment packed together in a sloppy monster flick. The movie is a collage of cliches and scenes that have been repeated in other movies of this type. And of course only treated with a highest of skill, as we would expect from as fine a work of cinema as this. Though the general quality was consistently terrible, the major difference between the 50's Corman and the New World 80's Corman is that you saw thr monster. Here it wasn't just an image on a poster and a brief glimpse in the final 5 minutes. No here we fortunately get our hearts content (or more) of these Salmon Men creatures.

Seraphim Falls definetly capitalizes on the concept of opening a film in media res. Brosnan is camped out in the woods when he's suddenly ambushed by a posse led by Liam Neeson. This flows into a cat and mouse hunt not too dissimilar from First Blood. And then into a chase across the frontier. The movie moves from episodes of Brosnan having to escape from Neeson and his team or other dangers. To its credit its in constant movement and doesn't worry with dumping a load of exposition on us out of the gate. However, as is later revealed, the motives and morals of these two characters might be a bit more complicated than it initially appears. But like so many of these sort of action thrillers it descends from a solid first act to a wavering second one to a third that spirals out of control.

You could call Bride of Frankenstein one of the first major Hollywood sequels and 3ven one of those select few that surpass their predecessor. Though a cinematic classic any fan of the novel is likely to be disappointed in the original adaptation. Since this movie is built off of the previous film it holds really no ties to the boon other than the characters. Dr (changed to Henry) Frankenstein and his monster, which most of us colloquially refer to as Frankenstein, make up the two storylines of this movie. One is theatrical, stilted and largely blase the other an incredibly ageless and human story.

There was a time if you remember, and if not you can see here, where Hollywood like Picasso went through its blue period. I'm not sure why but so many movies made in the early 2000s have a blue tint to them including Dead Silence. Why do I bring this up? Frankly, because there's hardly a more interesting point you can discuss about this movie. Its a montage of tropes, a stale supply of horror, an intrigueless mystery and the perfect way to waste 90min or 2hrs or however long it is. Ventriloquist dummies, like clowns, are just creepy so we keep getting a horror movie with them every couple of years but you can see it done better with Magic or the original Dead of Night.

To state the obvious, Pale Rider is a remake of the 50's western Shane. It also shares a plot less directly with a great many other westerns-the greedy businessman afflicting the working folk and the shining or not so shining cowboy comes to their aid. Since all westerns seem to draw the same stories, characters and scenarios from the same well, we're very aware and familiar with what we see here. The one aspect that sets it apart is, as you likely expect, Clint Eastwood. He's what we call came to see and doesn't disappoint as a character that similar to High Plains Drifter has a mysterious almost supernatural aura to him, thats only lightly hinted at.

The astute viewer might note The Last Voyage of the Demeter tells a piece of a story we already know the end to. The even more astute one might be aware of the types of loopholes movies like these can make to circumvent the obvious result. Now even if we all have a good idea how this movie will turn out, perhaps it could make something out of the in-between. Except it doesn't. Its probably the most action oriented Dracula we've seen but just as tedious as the worst of them. It had a chance to generate a claustrophobic tension like Carpenter's The Thing. Instead it just alternates from a night sequence of the creature leaping out to rip someone apart and in the day where everyone argues and does frankly nothing. We are also treated to the boringest host of characters you can imagine and scenes that seek to go above 'merely horror'-that are amusingly strained. The movie is completely inorganic, forced and flat.

The power of The Innocents much like the novella its adapted from, The Turn of the Screw, lies in how understated the ghost story is. This is close to how Henry James originally crafted it but the movie takes it almost further or should I say down. The majority is done through suggestions and inferences, planting the seeds of horror in the mind of its viewer and allowing them to grow. Before highlighting them with a few precisely placed confrontations. However, even these are done in a brief and understated way.

Two names that should definetly be mentioned when discussing this film are Deborah Kerr whos front, center and everything about this film and DP Freddie Francis without whom the affect of this movie wouldn't have been possible.

There's two types of ways of doing a biopic of a historical figure. One the sweeping story covering episodes of their life. The other is focusing on one somewhat defining moment. Invictus falls under the latter, the subject of its interest being Nelson Mandela. Morgan Freeman stars as the South African icon and does more than a fine job with it. He's captivating and authentic even when he's being ushered between giving sagacious speeches to everyone around him so the movie can promote its message. Or when he is a conduit for exposition; for instance in one scene he states "So beating Australia is important?" These types of moments are the running flaw with this movie. Its predictable, clichéd and everything is just means to a goal. Ironically it spends the whole movie hyping the significance of the match yet by the end it still seems to struggle to believe in it itself.

Devil Doll takes one those hypnotist/mentalist/ventriloquist and all around man of mystery, that were especially popular during that time, and takes them a little too seriously. Of course, it's not just a thriller but also a scifi horror depending on how you want to classify it. Whichever genre you prefer, it also belongs to the larger category of boring. The movie is on an obviously tight budget and though it's not even 90 minutes it drags across them, making you feel each one. However, when the doll is one screen it's actually somewhat interesting or at least amusing. Except theres a lot of chatter in between.

Among many other things, the 70s were probably the golden age of tv movies. And during that period there was hardly one writer who made better use of the medium than Richard Matheson. With credits including The Night Stalker, Trilogy of Terror and Duel. The latter most also marking the directirual debut of Steven Spielberg. Its plot is fairly straightforward, a man on a trip becomes the target of an unhinged truck driver. Its starts of small but over the course of the movie the scale gets steadily larger as this game of cat and mouse or shall I say, tanker and car, becomes increasingly deadly.

Before anything else, we should first discuss the title of this movie, The Fugitive Kind. It's adapted from Tennessee William's play Orpheus Descending. Which is a more esoteric title but a superior one. Fugitive Kind is a bit more plain and perhaps easier to understand however it lacks the evocativeness of Williams' original one. This is pretty far from Williams best work however it's sort of an example of his drama in it's most typical form. Tormented character living desperate lives struggling against their fate. But most of them aren't especially interesting and it ranges between overly dramatic or not at all and rarely anything in between. Brando gives an arresting, lethargic performance however (if I'm to speculate) it's because that's what fits this character, not like most of his later ones that he just sleepwalked through. Joanne Woodward makes a splash and alters the whole nature of this film when she's on screen, too bad it's not very often. Instead we get Ann Magnani who brings as much life to role as one of the mannequins found in her character's shop.

Granted in the overwhelming majority of action movies the hero gets all the bad days and lives happily etc. However, there can at least be a little, unlikely bit of jeopardy if they're not superhuman-like Robert McCall. If you've seen the previous movies you know what you're getting into here, but either way the fiona demonstrates his omnipotence at the very start. Opening on the carnage of some dozen henchman he's just killed before he disposes of the last few from a chair with guns pointed right at him; all in a matter of precisely timed seconds. This guy obviously has nothing to worry about with the small town goons he deals with the rest if the movie. The action is hard hitting though far fetched and just because it uses a lot of blood doesnt make it realistic. Pretty much everything about only works if you think about it as little as these filmmakers did. The lulls in between the action, perhaps to flesh the movie out, only serve as a halt. And this movie adds all the usual trivialities to increase our care but as always, ultimately the only reason we're interested is Denzel Washington.

When you hear Carol for Another Christmas, there's two words in there that are famously linked together by Charles Dickens. And here they are just rescrambled. That's sort of what this movie is. A scrambled take on Dickens' A Christmas Carol. However, it rides on the original material but with a different journey in mind. While the story of Scrooge is one more about charity and goodness and story of one man's soul, Serling uses this movie as a lecture about global politics. Where the first is sincere and truthful the latter, though Serling laces his sermonizing with his usual flair, is forced and preachy. You might wonder how a film with all these famous names attached could be almost entirely forgotten-frankly, because it deserves to be.

Crazy Joe takes the life of the real life mobster and tries to give us a survey of all the intresting and important moments of it. It flips through them in a pretty jumpy way and for the most part it's done shoddily. The movie has just a few scenes that are done decently enough that it might hold your attention-as long as you don't demand too much. Peter Boyle is the type of actor you usually see in side roles but he always does them well. Its nice to see him in the lead for once and he doesnt do a bad job here either. If a little more thought or perhaps skill was given to this story you might have a more compelling one than this Dino De Laurentiis production.

Even in 1962 The War Lover is a movie that was made too late. Take off some of the more cynical edge, and this is would have fit perfectly in the post-war era or even wartime. Its dramas, characters and sensibilities feel a bit dated even in the sixties. Steve McQueen plays the titular role of a cocky, bold tiebreaking pilot (is there any other in Hollywood?) who might like his job a little too much. However, like most of these war set melodramas the fighting sequences come at the predictable intervals to underline or highlight whatever is going on in the main storyline-in this case a love triangle.

It may not be quite fair to call it a knockoff, but Michael Kohlhass is really a secondrate Braveheart. However, if it is inferior in many ways its leading actor is not one of them. Mads Mikkelson is just as captivating as he always is and unquestionably the driving force behind any interest you can have in this movie. Like a lot of these types of films that come from across the pond, it leans heavy on authenticity but it's also sedated. It moves through this story but at the slowest pace and it takes nuanced into indiscernible along the way. Everything is done so 'subtly', that's it's a strain to just to keep up with it.

Who can play a completely ordinary manager of a bank convincingly and still be interesting? I dont think anyone could do so better than Philip Seymour Hoffman. However, while his individual performance is intriguing I cant say the rest for this movie. The character this movie is based on was obviously involved in a pretty complicated scheme. It's a considerable amount of exposition and hard to handle in a subtle yet coherent as well as entertaining way. Unfortunately Owning Mahowney isnt up to the task. It gets bogged down in all the details and tramps through them without much thought. It doesnt even shoot the casinos with usual glamour most films do.

Slither is a comedy but its the type that never clearly announces that it is one. You just better pick up on the humor in this series of bizarre events. James Caan plays a recently released prisoner who gets drawn into a crosscountry search for embezelled money. Which is made up of a number of strange episodes and all the while a mysterious black van follows. Some of it is amusing and it never stays in one place for too long. It's also a movie you'll find yourself asking "what's going on?" constantly. Not just because of what's intentionally obscured in the plot but even what directly happens is so strange.

Naked Alibi is a B grade crime movie that's in part a neat little thriller but also a shoddy lower grade flick. Outside of Sterling Hayden and Gloria Grahame its largely unremarkable. Hayden plays a police who goes rogue to track down a criminal hes been unable to pin down for a couple of murders. The jealous, crazed criminal being played by Gene Barry who does it effectively however it's a role about as cliched as the drunk doctor. The movie has that convenient little runtime that means everything happens pretty quickly regardless of how good or bad it is. Demonstrating the rule that you can get away with almost anything if you're brief enough.

Leave the World Behind is a prime example of a hollow, meaningless modernist movie that's all flair and gestures. All style and no subdtance as the old cliche goes. However, I cant even give this movie that. Sure its director thinks he has style with all the overhead shots and screwing movements but this is the most unmotivated, obnoxious type of filmmaking you'll find just about anywhere. Which the same can be said about the plot or shall we just say, what happens. It expects to intrigue you with this enigmatic mystery but all it is is a constant procession of bizarre events and most dont even make any sense. The film is the product of creativeless, stale minds that know nothing and believe in nothing. Somewhere mixed in all this is a message about misanthropy, well after watching this I hate them too; certainly those who make this sort of junk.

There's an old saying that says there are many ways for a film to take towards a low rating. Well, at least as old as this review. Journey's End isn't bad like a lot of movies are, it's not the kind that slams you right in the face with its glaring atrocity. However, it doesnt get off to a good start and it only goes downhill. It has that heavy handedly serious tone that just about every modern war movie suffers from. In terms of plot, it concentrates on a young officer who arrives to the frontline trenches and a group of weary officers who are at various stages breaking. Paul Bettany is the most notable cast member, and interesting, but many of the other actors are type you'll probably recognize by face even if not from name.