Tuesday, April 14, 2009

I don’t know nuthin’



  • From what I gather, Dario Argento’s Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1971) was never released on VHS or DVD in North America until now. Its fans may rejoice — informed sources give the new disc from Mya Communication/Ryko high marks — but the absence of a Blu-ray edition has me wondering if they plan on getting the suckers to pony up twenty bucks now for the standard DVD and another $30 six months or a year from now for Blu-ray. Who cares? I’m no fan. I fell asleep on this in the theater thirty-odd years ago and things haven’t improved. Back then I blamed the American distributor’s cutting and dubbing (the picture was made in Italy), but this restored print reveals a mess, incoherent, amateurish and boring, with cult icon Mimsy Farmer delivering her lines through clenched teeth. There’s a humorous subplot involving star Michael Brandon’s limitations as a drummer in a terrible rock band, but Argento didn’t get the joke and turned his eye on archaic gay stereotypes instead. Fans applaud the maestro’s style here, making me wonder if I should be writing movie reviews at all.




        …Just as when I read Roger Ebert’s assertion that The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) is “an expensive, good-looking film that is well-made by Scott Derrickson.” Expensive, yes. Good-looking? Marginally. (Gort’s now a cheesy CGI toon.) Well-made? No, I don’t get that. Not one bit. The film — a rethinking of the Edmund H. North screenplay of the 1951 picture of the same title — had me for the first twenty minutes. At that juncture it took a detour down an unadvisable alley, which led to more wrong turns. There’s really no point to this movie at all, other than to get me thinking what a gifted storyteller Robert Wise was when he directed the original. There’s a subplot about a kid with emotional problems, the same shit that made Spielberg’s remake of War of the Worlds unbearable. Since Ebert makes the big bucks, and he believes this is “well-made,” color me clueless.




        Meanwhile, I was watching the Blu-ray of Quantum of Solace (2008) and found that the picture played better at home than it did in the theatre. Among the complaints when it first came out had to do with the blinding flash-cuts and jackhammer editing. A lot of people couldn’t follow what was going on. But on HDTV, it didn’t have the same headache-inducing effect. All those cuts weren’t as intrusive as they were on the big screen. Surely directing through a monitor, director Marc Forster apparently made the movie for that size screen. Olga Kurylenko, unfortunately, didn’t look as hot as she did in the theatre. I also finagled a copy of the new Blu-ray of Never Say Never Again (1983) for $2.50 (don’t ask). The image and sound are good (though the opening notes of Legrand’s theme are wobbly), the film is still uneven (but sporadically fun, especially for $2.50), and Barbara Carrera was never better (and reason enough to see it). There are some interesting but underdeveloped ‘making-of’ bonus features that should have had more info on Kevin McClory and less banter from gilded hack Irvin Kirscher, but at that price I’m not complaining.

  • Labels: , ,

    23 Comments:

    Blogger Jessica R. said...

    Hey Summer Lovers banner! I'd put that film with Never Say Never Again as films that aren't all that good but I stop and watch them in their entirety when they're on tv. It's is definitely worth 2.50 on Blu-ray. And had the Day...remake killed that fucking kid I would have given it a good review too. But it didn't and so I found it as ill advised an idea as when they announced the project ages ago.

    10:04 PM EST  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    The new spin on DAY is something I won't even rent. The 1951 I consider the "best" film ever made (if not necessarily my "favorite", an "honor" saved for an obscure b-movie). Anyway, I'm just glad I'm not a film reviewer, or I'd be stuck. Life's too short to watch films I'm hating. I've been burned already by Spielberg's War of the Worlds, and years ago, Carpenter's The Thing and Kaufman's Body Snatchers, films I walked out on during the first week of theatrical release. (I'd have left after 10 minutes of Burton's Apes film too, but I had company.) Modern films always disappoint me, remakes or not. Ah, the fifties...

    5:27 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Jessica, Summer Lovers is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I've been rethinking hosting a Guilty Pleasures Blogathon after the Chabrol celebration.

    J, I'm kinda embarrassed to ask after all this time, but are any of your film reviews online? I would've asked ages ago if I weren't so self obsessed!

    Anon, not to start fireworks or scuffles, but I've a soft spot for Phil Kaufman's Body Snatchers, perhaps because I was living in San Francisco when it was released and could identify with the alien race the film depicted. As one reviewer pointed out back then, SF is Pod City to begin with.

    6:20 AM EST  
    Blogger Jessica R. said...

    I have a few reviews floating around, but I was still finding my legs as a writer so I'm a bit too embarassed to link to them. I will be providing pieces for the Charbol and Guilty Pleasures blogathons though.

    7:07 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Excellent! I look forward to reading them!

    7:52 AM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    Carpenter's The Thing and Kaufman's Body Snatchers, films I walked out on during the first week of theatrical release....

    What the hell? The Thing is a fairly taut remake and the Invasion remake is downright excellent! Okay, the new ones may suck (Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds) but those other two are good, especially Invasion which is terrific.

    8:10 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Greg, there’s a vast constituency who believe that ‘older’ automatically designates a film as ‘better.’ Of course I don’t subscribe to this, because it’s limiting and shortsighted. Plus, there are instances when new versions are obviously superior to old ones: a comparison of the 1935 and 1992 versions of Enchanted April should prove that rather decisively. Personal taste also comes into account, as I prefer the 1958 Horror of Dracula over the Lugosi original, as I find the ‘31 film a bore after its dazzling twenty minute opening.

    When the Kaufman Body Snatchers was released in 1979, the ‘director’s cut’ of Siegel’s 1956 version was put in limited theatrical release. This is the version that didn’t have Kevin McCarthy’s narration, nor the Whit Bissell-Mel Cooley framing device. It was an interesting curio — but Siegel’s original intentions could never be fully appreciated by anyone familiar with the original studio cut, as there simply was no way for the viewer to block out those added, memorized elements.

    Seeing Siegel’s picture in ‘79, however, revealed how dated it had become, just twenty-three years after it opened. In those two-plus decades, film language had changed dramatically, thanks to the influence of the nouvelle vague, Bonnie & Clyde, Robert Altman and more. Significantly, the Kaufman version, now thirty years old, hasn’t really dated cinematically at all.

    When Kevin McCarthy asks for the opinion of his psychiatrist friends at the restaurant in the ‘56 version, they attribute the town’s supposed hysteria on “problems in the world,” a blanket covering the threats of communism and atomic war. I recall people in the audience laughing at this line, the simplicity of the statement and the archaic notion that ‘normal’ people (re: white middle class Americans) all felt and thought the same way. (Pods.)

    In Kaufman’s version, Sutherland consoles Brooke Adams whose husband has changed overnight: “Maybe he’s become a Republican.”

    Like I said, it’s not really dated at all.

    10:48 AM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    The Kaufman version performs an incredible balancing act between comedy and menace throughout. I watched it again after posting the opening credits to it during October and loved it just as much as ever.

    The 31 version of Dracula is based on that awful stage play which is why it sucks so bad after the opening. I saw the play about twenty years ago and it's better on stage but even there it's only servicable. The play begins in London, not in Transylvania so that great opening sequence with the village and the Borgo pass and the castle was written specifically for the movie version. Once the opening is finished, it reverts to the play, which is pretty badly written.

    What always galled me about that version is that it was pre-code, everyone from Griffith to DeMille had shown people being impaled and body parts lopped off (Intolerance, Ten Commandments (1926 version)) and yet they cut away as Van Helsin goes to kill Dracula. I've explained to folks who use the excuse that it's 1931 about the pre-code world and so on because there's really no excuse except that it was thought it might be too scary. Yeah, we wouldn't want a horror movie to have a scary scene now would we?

    12:43 PM EST  
    Blogger bill r. said...

    I love Kaufman's Body Snatchers, and I really like Siegel's, too, which I finally saw recently. I thought it was a very tight and suspenseful little movie. And I must admit that, shoe-horned in as it may be, I'm not even bothered by the optimistic, studio-imposed ending, because damn it, Kevin McCarthy had just been through so much! Plus, I don't like Communists.

    I might as well also mention right here that I like Spielberg's War of the Worlds. It's not perfect, but there's good stuff in that movie. I'm not prepared to launch a full-scale defense right now, but I feel that if I failed to admit to it here, I would be lying to everybody.

    3:27 PM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    What killed Spielberg's War of the Worlds for me was the father-and-son thing. Had he simply remade the original without the post-New Age familial bullshit, I doubt I would've found it offensive. But ever since American movies began portraying children as entitled arbiters of reason with thousand-yard stares and blank expressions (figure it began around 1985), I've grown weary of this kind of product.

    4:00 PM EST  
    Blogger bill r. said...

    But ever since American movies began portraying children as entitled arbiters of reason with thousand-yard stares and blank expressions (figure it began around 1985), I've grown weary of this kind of product...

    Okay, but I don't think the son in Spielberg's film is an arbiter of reason. He's just initially fed up with his dad's BS, which, given his dad, is fair. And though it's been a while since I've watched it, I think the son eventually can be seen as pretty unreasonable.

    Anyway, there's so much else that the film gets right, I don't know why the son becomes the focus, not just of everyone's ire, but of everyone's review.

    8:18 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    The son may be singled out in reviews (and ire) because he's a character who has nothing to do with the story (the end of the world) but is rewarded a great deal of screen time.

    The Wells novel is the invasion without maudlin family drama. The '50s movie version throws in a romantic subplot, but it works because it's discreet and economical.

    In the Spielberg film, it seems the Tom Cruise character merely tempers the alien invasion (the end of the world) as it forces him to learn how to be "A Dad."

    Feh!

    My beef isn't with this film alone, it's with the mindset that came of age after the 70s, when "grown-ups" started giving their kids far more attention and credit than they deserve. Such wrong thinking has contaminated movies for too long.

    The child character in the 50s Day the Earth Stood Still is calm, well mannered, trying to be adult. The kid in last year's remake is sullen and disrespectful -- a model of the Ritalin Generation. He and the son in War of the Worlds could use a beating, for sure.

    3:26 PM EST  
    Blogger bill r. said...

    I don't really disagree with your larger point, but I don't honestly think it comes into play, at least not as you describe, in Spielberg's film. My biggest problem with his War of the Worlds is, ironically, that he didn't kill the son, which I'm sure is a complaint you share, although maybe for different reasons.

    Incidentally, my favorite SF movie kid is Danny Martin from the original The Blob.

    7:54 AM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    I have friends I scold for their wet noodle parenting constantly. It's fun when you have kids because then you can get away with doing that. I am not harsh, I promise you, and would never and have never hit my kids, but the kids ask their Mom to ask me stuff and I am rarely challenged. I am the law and I have made that clear over the years. And the law doesn't like being questioned. Kids really do need to know that the world doesn't revolve around them and too many parents make them believe it does. I think this sets them up for a pychiatric shock when they enter the real world.

    Anywho, my favorites are Timmie from The Invisible Boy - if you haven't seen it you are missing one of the most gloriously bad sci-fi films ever made - and David from Invaders from Mars.

    9:52 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    One good thing about Danny Martin: he'll gawd you!

    1:31 PM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Greg, I remember setting my alarm clock for 3am to see The Invisible Boy on New York's CBS-TV's "Late, Late Show" sometime in the late 60s. Figure I was about 11 or 12. I knew of the movie from the pages of Famous Monsters which had shots of Robbie. Boy, was I disappointed! I saw it about twenty years later and, well, kinda failed to grasp the surreal aspects of it.

    1:35 PM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    I'm trying to think if I have a favorite SF kid character, but my mind's a mess. I keep thinking about Clint Howard in that Star Trek episode where he plays the man-child, dubbed and laughing like a lunatic. Whew! That's a disturbing image...

    1:37 PM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    I saw it about twenty years later and, well, kinda failed to grasp the surreal aspects of it.Maybe that's because it's awful - in every possible way. My wife and I watched it again on TCM about a month or so ago and laughed at its badness throughout. It's pretty close to Ed Wood bad.

    6:47 PM EST  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I was living in the Bay Area at the time of INVASION too. I have seen the film twice since, and my opinion hasn't changed. And it's just my opinion, not an attack.

    What the hell?I see nothing limiting or shortsighted about preferring certain films over other films. It's opinions and individuality that make us human, instead of automatons (or "pod people" if you wish). I don't happen to like THE THING or INVASION. I didn't belabor it or chastise anyone.

    If you say you hate Lima Beans, I couldn't expect you to love them just to satisfy me or *my* idea of what foods taste good, now could I? And I sure as hell wouldn't.

    Viva, contrarian film buffs! Now go home!

    6:29 AM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    You like Lima beans? WTF? Who in the hell do you... just kidding. I wasn't accusing you of attacking, I was just writing what Flickhead told me to write. He pretty much made me do it, like he always does. He's a very bad influence on me. For instance, he's always trying to get me to set things on fire.

    7:49 AM EST  
    Anonymous Jonathan said...

    "Greg"... have you no shame?

    8:35 AM EST  
    Blogger Greg said...

    None.

    9:42 PM EST  
    Blogger Campaspe said...

    "Greg, there’s a vast constituency who believe that ‘older’ automatically designates a film as ‘better.’"

    You rang? :D

    No, seriously, there is definite era snobbery even between silent and talkies and 1930s vs 1940s. But of course some remakes are better than the originals. Last year I saw Outward Bound and Between Two Worlds almost back-to-back and the 1944 version was vastly superior. I also prefer the Frank Langella Dracula to Lugosi's and the later version of The Fly with Jeff Goldblum. The 92 Enchanted April is charming although I haven't seen the old one.

    Surely it isn't coincidence that horror and sci-fi often seem to remake well, as tastes change, technology improves and we find ourselves needing new ways to be terrified. The flip side of that is that I am always extra impressed when an older movie still frightens me, like Eyes Without a Face or Curse of the Demon.

    12:43 PM EST  

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home