sullivanradley

Made the hour-and-fifteen-minute-long trip to a city to watch the special high-frame-rate version of THE HOBBIT. At 48 frames per second, it looks like an episode of THE GUIDING LIGHT (or maybe some other soap opera, perhaps one that's still on the air). Or, like a hobbit (never pictured in the film because he's behind the camera) decided to shoot a home movie. That said, it's well crafted, and I think fans of Middle Earth will enjoy the non-HFR version of this movie just fine.

Not being nutters about LOTR (Lord of the Rings) in general, I must confess that I was bored a few times in those three hours. That doesn't change the fact that it must be absolutely nightmarish to make a movie on this scale. I bet, more than once, Peter Jackson (the movie's director) wished he'd shot the whole movie on the set of The Shire, with Bilbo walking around, expounding, spilling the entire bushel of beans to a disinterested, glassy-eyed Frodo. From a CGI standpoint, Gollum has come a long way; I could even see the moisture on his eyeballs this time.

SPOILER ALERT

My favorite character was the wizard (Radagast the Brown) who lived out in the sticks (well, the sticks beyond the stones), with his team of sled-pulling rabbits, housecat-like hedgehogs and nesting birds in his hair that crapped down the side of his face every chance they got.

For the best viewing experience, go into SETUP and toggle 'on' Japanese, with English subtitles. But NOT English for the hearing impaired, or you will get the 'crap' American translation. What you want is a direct translation of the Japanese, not the 'chatty' United-States English.

This atrocious American-language version bombards you with busy, non-stop chatter. And the mother is so whiny, to the point where I wished she'd just drop over dead. Films that Hayao Miyazaki involves himself with are spiritual journeys, where even stillness speaks. Pauses and lulls in story are there for a purpose.

If you go back and watch all of his movies, using the directions that I have given, you will notice that his films are almost deadly serious, his characters dangling by a thread and swinging pendulously close to true peril, with a carefully-measured dash of truly frivolous, heart-warming humor put here and there.

Notice how at the end this movie, things are over-explained in the U.S. version. And, sadly, the verbal end of said version ends after the verbal end of the original, scribbling with black magic-marker all over the touching moment shared by Sho (not Shawn) and Arrietty.

A great film, but only in Japanese, with English subtitles (remember: NOT the hearing-impaired option).

Follow the bag of money for an hour and a half. That's the extent of my spoiler.

Great cast, put to decent use. Promising (and entertaining) for at least the first half-hour.

Jeremy Davies, Rachel Leigh Cook, Michael Lerner, Russell Means, Chris O'Donnell, Keith David, Jon Polito, Bill Pullman, and Michael Rapaport.

Severely padded out (with useless flashbacks) to 93 minutes. Should have been 15 minutes shorter. But then it wouldn't have been a feature-length film.

Could have been a 6 (out of 10), but knee-capped itself to a 4.

There is a world of difference between these two versions -- an hour and twelve minutes to be exact. THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL; WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? The 184-minute version actually has a significantly-different title; when you go to buy it on VHS, it is called SALEM'S LOT: THE FULL-LENGTH MINISERIES. And it's on two tapes; I know because I own it. The 112-minute version on VHS is piece of slop (I WOULD say something worse...): it is incoherent and it feels like you're watching a film-making disaster in-progress (I hate to think of all the people out there who MUST think that THIS is the ORIGINAL -- the one and only -- version of SALEM'S LOT; these people MUST think that SALEM'S LOT is one of the crappiest horror films ever made); you can sense that scenes are missing; the whole thing's choppy, and hard to get into, and impossible to enjoy. HOW CAN YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOTE ON THESE TWO FILMS AS IF THEY WERE ONE? As far as voting goes, I'd give the short version -- which is under 2 hours in length -- a "3." When I voted, I cast it as if I were voting for the good version -- the one that has a running time of 3 hours plus -- and I gave it a "9." The first time I rented that short version from the video store -- about 15 years ago -- I was flabbergasted, and I thought, man, this CAN'T be all of it -- because, you see, 25 years ago, I watched the original version on TV, and IT aired in a four-hour timeslot!

WORKING GIRLS is the farthest thing from a Hollywood film. One of the oddest, most original, and refreshing films I have ever seen. Stimulating, without feeling pornographic. Lizzie Borden handles the subject-matter well -- in her tender, loving woman-hands. I wish I could get MY HANDS on some of her other films -- BORN IN FLAMES was what I had in mind. There is an excellent chapter on her in John Russo's (book) MAKING MOVIES. WORKING GIRLS will embarrass those who are not comfortable with the darker side of their nature -- and will bore those who desire no substance, just the old in-out. WORKING GIRLS doesn't feel the least bit exploitive. I loved the film, and I wish that Lizzie was still making movies -- movies that could find their way to my local cineplex.

I saw SAVAGE DAWN -- for the first, and, sadly, last time -- when I was 14 years old (I'm 32 now); my cousin and I rented it on tape from Southern Star (a cool, now-defunct video store that featured movie rentals and, in the back, a couple of pool tables, a pinball machine, a couple of arcade games, a jukebox, and some tough-looking, pool-playing locals (who were not unlike the bikers in the film) -- and it was a place that turned a blind eye when a horny, gore-obsessed teenager wanted to rent an R-rated picture). SAVAGE DAWN was cheaply made (which was one of the things I liked about), featured lots of guys on motorcycles (another thing I was crazy about) and one bike in particular -- a cool-looking, silver-gray Suzuki GSP1000. I remember a fantastically gory scene -- maybe it wasn't visually gross, but in my mind it was -- where a guy is (taken off his motorcycle, I believe, and) impaled on the teeth of a huge hay-rake. I recall a couple of seedy scenes that really warmed my pubescent loins: (1) where two slutty-looking gals approach a guardhouse (to a trashed-out, post-apocalyptic fenced-in compound) and commence to entertain the guards with very vulgar, yet sexy, forms of distraction; and (2) where the wayward (maybe alcoholic) priest (was this Henriksen?) succumbs to the beautiful, naked upturned breasts of a young temptress. Sadly, I loved it all!

Back in the early-80s, on Saturday mornings, if my dad didn't drag me off to work with him (he was a plumber and electrician) -- I would stay home and watch the Weekend Specials on ABC. I had many favorites: "Land of Og" (about those little green guys who lived under ground); "Zack and the Magic Factory (the beginning was so intriguing -- the boy arriving by taxi at night at the front of this ominous-looking building, and the creepy monster and gadgetry guarding the inside of entranceway -- scared the be-Jesus out of the boy, riveted me to the sofa); and "The Haunted Mansion Mystery" (where the boy and girl are trapped under an old mansion in a secret room, which they think is haunted by the spirit of a rich old man -- who one day, miserly, hauled his money home from the bank in a wheelbarrow and died there, leaving his skeleton to entertain the boy and girl in the secret room). They just don't make programs for children of that quality anymore. I could mention many other shows, but I don't think there is space enough here.