...For some reason, this is not available on streaming services anywhere, although the sequel is.
And for this reason, the DVD / Blu-rays are the only place to get this reasonably popular movie
(It's quite good too! :)
...And as such, although not really "rare" in the true sense for a physical copy, it does carry a slightly higher price on ebay and Amazon (although not much).
Reasonably sought after therefore, although I wonder if it would be so if readily available on streaming services?
(If I may borrow an apt title from an Echobelly song)
As this, quite cheap, TV looking production by one of the masters of the wholesome family horror movie: Joe Dante (Who I consider in this vein along with Tim Burton), sets out as a fairly standard new family of mum and two sons moving into new house with something not altogether natural in the basement... But towards the end becomes more of an exercise in therapy for those brought up in a home with an abusive parent.
,,,After all, where's "dad" in this family equation?...hmmmmmm...
As I said, the production looks more TV than cinema, like an episode of a creepy Twilight Zone type series, but that's not to say it doesn't look good by that standard... just lower budget.
However, everyone here klnows exactly how to get the most out of what they've got to work with, and the story is spot on, the script tight, light and lively, and the visuals are in the best tradition of Tim Burton style weirdness, appropriate for the subconscious dreamscape themes, brilliantly designed and executed, so as to have an almost archetypical power.
Without offering any further info for those who want to watch it, which I recommend, all I'll say is that one of the features of this experience is of a small toy jester / clown, which may be one of the most creepy things I've seen in recent years :), and an almost Ringu style little girl ghostie, so a couple of elements which are going to give younger viewers night horrors (perhaps a couple of adults too!).
But I thought this was a great little film, which I'd made a mental note of to see when it came out, but forgot about it until I found the DVD the other week, and it exceeded my expectations.
ReviewIf you enjoyed the riddle that was Cronenberg's "Crash" you should get the same sort of enjoyment from Poor Things. Everything seems to be some kind of a metaphor, around the nature of love, control, and ageing. As in Crash there is a lot of "strong sex" throughout the story but non is pornographic, it is there to serve some intellectual purpose.
No spoilers, but the final dénouement is amusing enough, though probably not worth sitting through the previous two hours for.
Well this is a sticky one for physical media / home video...
...I found the original theatrical version on DVD the other week, and it's one of those: "Flip the disc" issues, where only a little over half the movie is on one side, with the remainder on the other side (1hr 38 on side one - 58 mins side two) - what a pain in the crack!
...And it gets worse:
A more recent issue has the whole movie on one side, but from this point on, only the "Director's cut" is available this way, and even - form what I can find - the blu ray etc. are "director's cuts" editions.
The director's cut, in my opinion, kills the dramatic impact of the movie, by disrupting the "flow" of the film, and only serves to make the film drag, spoiling all the, um... cinematic poetry of the experience.
So it seems the only way to get the theatrical version of the movie all in one go (on one side of any media format) is to seek out the original VHS, which is now a goal I've set myself.
(Sometimes, although you'd, on the whole, prefer the studio to butt out, and let the director give us the intended experience, I'm finding, ever more frequently, that actually, the studio / powers that be, are in the right to give the director a light metaphorical slap, when such requests are made, and say: "No! - you'll kill the thing!").
...They don't come much more overly acted, hammy and lovey than this wildly melodramatic cringe-fest.
Not seen it since way back when, and had only a vague memory, or impression of it, and it has aged very badly indeed.
A good idea at heart, of a man inviting his old school type friends to his mansion over new years, having not seen them in ten years, and seeing how all their lives have changed - mostly for worse, each with their own brand of baggage...
...But the acting, script, and characters are all obnoxious in the extreme, as they portray a ludicrous series of scenes as this "drama" unfolds.
The excessive use of pop songs of the time is grating, especially through the first two thirds of the film, and the only saving graces are the (almost) good-ish final ten minutes, when everybody dials it down a little, and the peripheral character of Vera, the housemaid / cook, who is the only solid character, played with the only solid acting in this movie.
Finally, after all these years, I got around to watching this...
...And several things struck me about it, that were opposed to the idea of what I thought this movie was going to be:
Firstly, I thought it was just going to a straight up meat and potatoes western, shot, and presented in the usual fashion - sweeping scores, dramatic / epic set piece hero shots, and the kind of bore-fest I expect from the genre (A lot of these bore me to tears, so this explains why I avoided this...
...Then the story, I thought was just a fun buddy movie with lots of laughs and capers and such... fluff.
On both of these counts, I was wholly wrong, as this rather glacial "modern" western is, but for the Bacharach song, and another piece over the ingenious segment of a narrative sequence sepia stills showing the pair's transitional phase between their American life and that in Bolivia, is devoid of music altogether, having only the ambient sounds of what's in frame at any given time...
...And what cinematography!
Possibly some of the best I've ever seen.
Rather than the sun drenched romantic western-scapes I'd predicted, the washed out, "thin" colour palettes, the sepia / murky brown segment at the beginning, and the woodland scenes are nothing short of art.
And all to tell the story of two, only superficially breezy and sparky individuals' deeper tragic nature, and sense of fate, as the world is changing, and there ain't no place for them anymore.
It occurred to me also - that is struck me quite a lot, actually, that most of my preconceptions came from the fact that whenever scenes from this are shown in any videos, discussions of great movies etc. it's only ever the scene with the bicycle and Bacharach song, or their jump of the cliff into the river... no other scenes that I can recall ever get shown, or talked about, and so I think this gave me a very false notion of what to expect.
You'd think I'd learn by now not to go by what others say about a movie, but take the time to sit and experience these things for myself... lesson learnt! :)
I have been searching for this film for years. All I had, was two guys find a Jeep with a skeleton and a bag of money. Brilliant film If you have never seen It. Image from the Movie added. H.
I got around to watching my VHS of this last night, and was actually blown away by it!
...Not so much for any great acting performances, or dialogue especially, although it's very good on these points... No, the thing that got me was just how prescient this work is - point for point, beat for beat, it's almost uncanny how accurately this predicts the world we live in now, the problems we face, and in particular, the obstacles to solving them, politically, socially, and economically.
Steve McQueen's Dr. Stockmann is the local doctor / general science bod on a small aspiring township, and he has noticed that a new local business is causing the water to be contaminated, which could be, or soon will, poisoning the local population, and so, after sending samples off to a University for testing, and receiving the results confirming his suspicions, compiles a report for the local council to consider, along with his strong advocacy that changes, at least, be made to how this business interacts with the local water supply, and that the whole water pipe system needs to be ripped out and replaced.
...And all for the public good.
Unfortunately, his brother, The Mayor, sees only the expense, and is put out by the bad publicity this would cause, and the effects on the local economy (as well as other vested interests) and very rapidly turns on him, using political power and position to denounce him, and turn the public against him, which they duly do.
...To add to his woes, the local "radicals" / revolutionaries (code word for Socialists), who run a newspaper, seek to exploit him by weaponizing by him, and his report for political advantage over the establishment, as represented by the local council, and it's Mayor (his brother).
Of course, this all blows back on him, as he is now trapped between the denouncements and persecutions of the establishment, on the one hand, the exploitations of radical revolutionaries on the other, both of whom are using the populist opinions of a largely scientifically ignorant public as the instruments of his persecution.
As the doctor tries to maintain his integrity, in the face of this, advocating only the facts, from a scientific standpoint, his nobility, and scientific attitude stand as a profound disadvantage, as it is this, that makes him breathtakingly naïve, and therefore ill equipped to deal with those aspects of social life he knows not of: Political and social snakery, in using "democracy" itself
as a weapon of denunciation, to marginalise him, and push him in to the long grass, as the townsfolk do not want to hear what he has to say - not if it costs them materially, even if it could save their lives.
On his own, the Doctor could well weather the storm, but he has a home, and family to think of too, who have to live here, among the townsfolk.
I thought, while watching this, of the Ecological issues of recent years, as reflected in the public debate, I thought of a certain Dr. David Kelly with regards to WMDs (look him up), as well as a recent phrase from UK politics, to the effect of: "People are tired of experts".
"We're doomed!" :)
Ibsen Schmibsen
This is, of course, an adaptation of an Ibsen play (always meant to get around to reading some his work, and this has only made me want to read him more!) by Arthur Miller, and this is the strength of the whole movie - all the actors are good, and even Monotone McQueen gives a solid performance under all that hair and spectacles (Steve McQueen was never really required to act in reality, after all, just be Steve McQueen - and that's enough, I suppose)).
Perhaps it is either fitting, or Ironic, that the absolute failure and disappearance of this most relevant (certainly now, more than ever) movie is almost an exact replica of the plot.
This movie needs to be seen again, by as many modern eyes as can be laid upon it, and has a claim to be considered one that ought to be regarded alongside the likes of 12 Angry Men, as more than just a movie... It's a treatise, and an education.
(Can't pretend I'm not proud of myself for that review headline :)
Sometimes, whether you think a movie is good or bad can simply be a question of timing...
...And so it was, and is, for me with this movie, as back at the time of release, my friends and I are into action / martial arts / superhero fans, getting into Bruce Lee and Jean Claude Van Damme and all that... maybe a dash of Batman etc.
So I, for one, was more than a little disappointed with this, as it is less a martial arts action movie, more a gothic / romantic revenge thriller / drama / mood piece.
(My soft little brain at the time could not compute this for what it was)
...And certainly, I'd take issue with the concept of this being a "Superhero" movie, as "The Crow" is not one, he is more a vengeful zombie angel out to avenge the wrongs done to him and his fiancé by a gang of mega-turds before the film even has begun.
Rather, this is a supernatural revenge movie, framed in the brilliantly conceived concept of a wronged soul being ferried back from the dead to balance the books by a crow, his constant companion once back in the land of the living, and darkness of the city night; This is an idea that taps directly into the finest traditions of folklore and supernatural tales people may be familiar with from time immemorial.
"The Crow" himself, seems, now that I rewatch after all these years, and finally "get it", to be what you would get if you smashed together The Joker and Batman into one coherent unity of character...
(Maybe this is the nineties, post-Tim Burton Batman movie we should have got instead?)
... and all centred around the pangs of grief, and tragic, gothic romance worthy of a vampire movie.
So it seems I now see the light (or maybe the dark?) with this one.
All that remains is to mention both the brilliant score, and even more astonishing Soundtrack, featuring, among others: The Cure, Stone Temple Pilots, Rage Against The Machine etc.
...Not to mention this absolutely breathtaking show-stopper, over the end credits:
Having been totally absorbed by this one, I shall be seeking out house of the devil, for a similar experience...
Oddly, not as concerned with if it's a great movie or not, so much as finding a movie that puts me in a particular time and place, by way of it's mood and tone.
Some of my favourite movies are the shittiest :)
(Indeed, if I had the talent to be a great director, it would be my ambition to one day make a deliberately shit movie - " keep the big bucks boss, I want less budget than it takes to hire a hand cranked hundred year old camera and a couple of bags of potato chips... The rest we'll leave to pure invention and ingenuity!"
@Magic Marmalade
I also recommend Ti West's House of the Devil for capturing 70s slasher and witchcraft films; sadly it gets a bit silly near the end. I've not seen The Love Witch, but would like to.
Rated 10/10"I like New York in June... How about you?"
(Nope, never been to New York myself, but that tune certainly gets stuck in your head, especially when sung by a chorus of the homeless, or the mentally ill :)
This is one for all the romantic crazies out there... a zany, magical tale of homelessness, mental illness, guilt, forgiveness, redemption, and profoundly socially awkward romance.
Imagine, if you will, a man who makes his living at the top of the social tree by mindlessly saying the most provocative, shocking and awful things, not because they are necessarily true, but because they provoke a shocked fascination with what he says, like observing a car crash, and that keeps him in his position of power and splendour...
...Imagine then, there are consequences; Someone takes what he says to heart, and commits an atrocity on the strength of it, walking into a bar one night with a shotgun, and opening fire.
No... this man is not a "politician".
This man is Jeff Bridges' "shock-jock" Radio DJ: Jack, who's life crashes after this opening event, and he finds himself taken in by the wonderful Anne (Played breathtakingly well by Mercedes Ruehl, who justly, won just about everything in sight for this role), and making acquaintance with a very disturbed homeless man played by Robin Williams: Parry, who saves Bridges one night form having wandered into the wrong area of town in a drunken stupor and getting beaten and almost set on fire by local "kids" who hate the homeless.
Jack is grateful, and guilt ridden, and in profound need of redemption, so luckily, Parry, being a knight, tasks him with a quest that may redeem him:
Recover the "Holy Grail".
Once the nature of Jack and Parry's relationship is discovered, Jack further tries to help Parry, by match-making with the hilariously socially awkward object of his affection: Lydia, who Parry has admired from afar (In a totally non-stalker-ish way, of course! :)
In this, the help of both Anne, and the truly singular Michael Jeter (Who steals every scene he's in) is required, and so they set about helping Parry to woo her.
>The scene with the Grand Central Station waltz may be the most magical moment in cinema history!<
So this is a Terry Gilliam film, with Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges, Mercedes Ruehl, Amanda Plummer, Michael Jeter, Tom Waits, and the Holy Grail...
...And yes, it is as good as that sentence suggests.
Agreed, not a fun-fest, mainly, I think due to two reasons... Anglade's character being a nasty, damaged Psycho (which would be ok, if not for the other reason), and Stoltz, say times looks disinterested in the whole thing, like he thought: "Tarantino + arty European bank job movie... Great!", then got on set, saw what it was, and felt like a fish out of water..."well, I'm committed now, and this is still a payday".
(In fairness, that could just be the character he was playing, as much as anything, but it doesn't offset, or contrast well with Anglade).
Still, for all it's faults, and still in great need of a recut and restructure though it is, it has fared a little better in by mind since watching it, so I might keep this one for a little while, and watch it again sometime, this time, going in with no preconceptions... See what that does for it :)
@Magic Marmalade I bought this on DVD back in the day. A huge disappointment, but not necessarily a bad film. What struck me most is just humorless it is.
This is a film that must be seen. If I attempted to describe or review it.... well, I would fail to do justice to it or you would fail to believe it. Instead, let me quote from Roger Ebert's review from October 1975:
"Ken Russell's "Lisztomania" has little, if anything, to do with the life and music of Franz Liszt - or of Wagner, Beethoven, Chopin and the other unfortunates it tramples on the way to its manic conclusion. No, this isn't a biography, not even in the sense that Russell ravaged poor Tchaikovsky in "The Music Lovers." It's a berserk exercise of demented genius, and on that level (I want to make my praise explicit) it functions and sometimes even works. Most people will probably despise. it."
Rated 6/10The strength of a good story is in the telling...
...And this is a potentially great story, told badly.
I remember this being a movie with a lot of buzz around it at the time of release, Mainly, due the "involvement" of Quentin Tarantino - of which much is made on the DVD cover and poster, but is in reality only a production credit, being written and directed instead, by Roger Avary.
That buzz being a mixed bag of good to bad reviews. I never got around to seeing it then, as it was also one of those "mayfly" movies, that appear to be everywhere for a short spell, before evidently disappearing entirely from public consciousness - in short, I forgot it existed.
But now I can see why the reviews are mixed, and why this isn't thought more of, as well as the movie within it, which could have been every bit the equal of a Tarantino "proper" movie, had one key decision been made differently:
Specifically, if this had been restructured in the narrative, cut and edited differently so as the actual bank robbery was the centre of the story, and the two key relationships given in pre-amble were told in flashback from key moments in the robbery, rather than in linear fashion as it is, this would have been an altogether different animal.
As it is, Stoltz (Zed) arrives in France (this has a very contemporary European movie look and feel - as opposed to a Hollywood, or Tarantino one) to meet with Anglade (Eric), in order to embark on this bank robbery with him, but while waiting for Eric, he hooks up with Delpy (Zoe), call girl / student in his hotel room, and a relationship develops, before Eric bursts in and boots her out (before it turns out she is present at the bank they rob).
All of this, and the next two thirds of the film of Zed and Eric doing the town in Paris, is very languid on it's own, even draggy, and boring, and even the beginning of the robbery is somewhat underwhelming, due to a lack of pace you might have expected from this movie...
...But really, that's the real story here, The relationship between Stoltz and Anglade, versus the relationship between him and Delpy, which puts Stoltz in a bind.
If we had come in cold straight into the robbery, then at key points, flashed back, or told those other snippets of story as reveals, the nature of his relationship with each would have unfolded the nature of these, as well as unfolding to the audience the nature of the circumstances, changing our perception of the scenario as we go towards the climax.
This, so rendered, would possibly have been a 9 or a 10 rating for me, but getting to the bank job in linear narrative fashion takes an eternity, and I found I didn't have much interest / energy for the last twenty minutes.
So it's another one, that I wonder, if some talented individual out there were to take this existing material, and "re-cut" it, or reorder and restructure the narrative through this means (maybe making it available to view somewhere - ahem :) - everyone would see what a great film was actually here all along, and even the critics may reappraise it to a much higher degree.
Rated 7/10One of those I'd been hearing a lot about, and usually such movies don't disappoint...
(As with the "Before" movies)
...But this one lacked the magic for me.
That said, it's the last ten to fifteen minutes that kicks it up a few notches in terms of wrenching the tears from my head; Those last few minutes between James Garner and Gena Rowlands a straight up square kick in the guts.
Of course, romance = tragedy (otherwise, it's a fairy-tale, or misplaced optimism :), and it's easy to see where this is going from the off, but the majority of the narrative being centred around Gosling and McAdams in what is little more than a pretty standard Hallmark romance tale of hoity-toity (haven't heard that expression in a while, I bet !?!! :) well-to -do girl meets boy from wrong side of the tracks whom family do not approve didn't exactly blow my bolts to be honest, and it doesn't really prepare you for just how affecting those last minutes are.
Straight up tragedy I'd say, more than romantic , movie, of the kind to settle in with and enjoy.
Difficult not to forewarn of spoilers here, but anyone who has dementia in the family needs to have a heads up on this, as it might just knock you sideways a bit, in a way you were not expecting from a romantic movie.
Gosling's good, McAdams is excellent, Garner and Rowlands are better still.
Pretty good movie overall, just not sure it is all that reputation would have you believe though, with regards to the common standard of romantic / rom - com movies.
Rated 8/10Unfortunately, nobody can be told what Mulholland Drive is... You have to see it for yourself.
...Oh, sorry, that's the Matrix, isn't it?!!
(That said, that line in The Matrix always bugged me - clever marketing though it was - as you decidedly can tell someone what it is, if you sit down for five minutes and explain to poor Neo, rather than making him jump straight in... not to mention the fact that Morpheus then proceeds to spend fifteen minutes or so of the movie doing just that.. after Neo has committed. Bastard!)
((But I digress! :))
Actually, that is certainly applicable tot his movie, as the reputation it has is a mix of: It's the greatest movie ever made, or conversely: It's the worst movie ever made... A streaming pile of incoherent sh.....
The truth is, it's both, and deliberately so, I divined, from watching it the other day for the first time, and that is what may make this a work of genius.
To explain:
Although, exactly what this film is about, and the meaning of it may be open to many an interpretation, and perhaps no definitive point can be arrived at (I have my own thoughts, for later :), how it does it... goes about telling this story, whatever it is, is a little clearer on reflection.
For, from the opening, this is reeking with Twin Peaks look and feel, like it was made for TV in the early nineties (I had to check the date of the movie to remind myself of the real date because of this)... only worse.
Shonky, jittery soft-ish focus, amateurish camera work with a forced, contrived script, with forced, contrived dialogue, played by the most wooden, artificial performances from a collection of the most wooden, artificial actors Lynch could find.
It feels like a cross between low budget 70s porn acting and staging, and early nineties television pilots with ridiculous melodramatic plotting and absurd coincidental events.
You think, from the off: man, "this is the most shit movie I have ever seen!" (And what a shame it's Lynch too!)
I can see this movie losing 90% of it's audience in the first ten minutes, because of this.. who could just take no more, and would in reality, or metaphorically, stand up, and walk out of the theatre (Or change channels).
But this is a mistake!
As this is purposely done, and in a key scene, where Watts "character" as a young, freshly arrived starlet in Hollywood seeking fame and stardom, auditions for a role in a soap, you get the most real, and naturalistic acting from her you could get.
"Aha!... I get it now, this is about perception in media versus reality to some extent"
(thinks I)
People are more real in fictions than in their "real lives", seems what this story says.
And from here, the camera, imperceptibly, and by degrees, straightens up, the production gradually acquiring cinema quality, as does the acting, and the script, and you, the audience member, doesn't consciously perceive it happening. You see the earlier style was a deliberate choice, that says something about.... something.
I spite of the Noir-ish ("neo", or otherwise) style and themes (mystery, hallucinatory, oblique symbol heavy, metaphorical affair) I think this actually transcends this, and should rather be regarded as a kind of art installation, or a work of art of some description.
I would personally hazard a guess that this is a kind of subconscious, poetic eulogy of sorts to the kind of tragic figure that an Amalgam of Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana would represent to David Lynch, set against obscure, dark, and sinister, background forces that controls her fate.
This hall of mirrors, has at least a couple of characters who may well be the same person, (maybe more!), but is captivating, and quite brilliant if you can persevere through the opening half, so then you later see the brilliance of what you thought, at the beginning, was shit.
Not sure I'd hurry back to watch it again immediately - for fun - but once it's rattled about at the back of my brain a while, I think I'd like to revisit it... Meantime, I'll file it away as an impenetrable piece of possible genius right next to 2001: A Space Odyssey, where it belongs :)