Whatever this is true or not, I don't know, but according to IMDB.com, SUDDEN DEATH supposedly came as a result of a Warner Bros. survey around the time of the last Sean Connery 007 flick NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, asking people to name an actor and a famous part that he/she had played. Despite 7 years since his last adventure, Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" Callahan apparently scored so high, Warner Bros. asked Eastwood if he was interested in returning for a 4th movie. He agreed, but only if he was also both producer and director.
I think the reason behind the eternal popularity of Dirty Harry is that he's a contemporary fantasy throwback to the outlaw law enforcers of the American Wild West in "Wild" Bill Hickok and Wyatt Earp, a guy ready and willing to whip out his canon of a gun in the name of justice. Such a guy doesn't exist, nor really last long in our world, which is fitting considering how the real Hickok and Earp were nowhere as outlandish or awesomely cool as their myths state them to be.
What intrigues me with the Dirty Harry franchise, of which few have commented upon, is how that several entries have dealt with that vigilantism. In the original DIRTY HARRY, Callahan throws down his badge to take down once and for all the Scorpio Killer, then MAGNUM FORCE and it's platoon of cops going rogue to "clean the streets," and with SUDDEN IMPACT, it's about a victim trying to enact blood revenge.
The strange thing about SUDDEN IMPACT is that for a Dirty Harry movie, Eastwood is almost a sideline observer, arguably not even involved directly with the plot, and affect the fate of the principles until the finale. Perhaps what really intrigued Eastwood as a filmmaker was to shoot a classy Hitchcock-inspired atmospheric if blunt take on the revenge exploitation genre of action cinema that was quite popular in the 1970s and 80s. If guns have typically been seen as an extension or metaphor for the exertion of masculinity, then with Sondra Locke as an artist who with her sister got gangraped a decade earlier, she goes biblical in her retribution by castrating her perpetrators with a firearm, thus cancelling their manhood. Then with a woman involved with that brood, she gets shot in the breast, thus symbolically taking away her feminity.
Think of all this as like a non-martial arts, down to Earth grounded KILL BILL for the Reagan Decade.
Of course this is still a Dirty Harry movie, and you know what that means. He thwarts a cafe robbery while spouting one of the greatest one-liners in all of American cinema (which was then quoted in a speech by the then-U.S. President), giving the look that yeah today would be Christmas for him if he could just blast away that one last criminal. Though quite honestly, the most awesome badass scene in IMPACT is when he crashes the wedding of a mobster's granddaughter. Harry blackmails him with "confessional" letters written by his dead mistress, which promptly gives the guy a fatal heart attack, and Harry leaves...throwing away the papers revealed to be blank. Poor girl, imagine that her wedding anniversary for now on will coincide when her gramps kicked the bucket.
The department bureaucrats, forever placing him on suspension or threatening jail time, are here again and they get angry at him defending himself after some henchmen of the dead gangster jump him. Look, I can understand at times their problems with his lack of disregard for civil rights and pragmatism, but in this instance, they're being ridiculous. Still, we get a cool Eastwood's exchange with his superior:
Captain Briggs:"Don't you lecture me, you son of a bitch! Do you know who I am? Do you know my record?" Harry:"Yeah... you're a legend in your own mind."
Now that's a verbal bitchslap!
Another touch from Eastwood I liked is when he's sent down to the city where Locke is avenging, and he goes into a bar doing his usual policework, there is something shocking in how everyone there just laughs at him. Is Eastwood trying to make a point of how what seems serious in San Francisco seems ludicrous outside city limits, i.e. if people acted like movie cops in reality, or was Eastwood wanting a startling turn of events, twisting upon our expectations of what will happen in a Dirty Harry picture?
Yet I think there is something clunky in how two seperate movies got sewn together, and many moments not feeling like either are a natural progression or a consequence of the other. Then you have this whole sequence where Eastwood is target practicing his new "toy," which was a pointless commercial for the .44 Automag. It's a super cannon pistol, but it just lacks the iconic and powerful lure of his legendary Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum Revolver. Notice that the Automag, unless my memory fails me, didn't return for the last Dirty Harry flick in THE DEAD POOL. I also don't care for the ole stereotypical middle-aged hag lesbian villain, or Locke's sister still catatonic from the sexual assault (sexist?) and Harry getting a sidekick in a farting bulldog that urinates everywhere (though I must admit, I laughed. Sorry).
But there is a crowd-cheering moment in the climax when Eastwood shows up ready to kick some ass, a black shadowry figure representing a hero's tendency for violence, yet surrounded with the white borderline of righteousness. Also, you gotta dig where one of the rapists gets impaled, i.e. he gets penetrated back by Locke. Nice subtlety, Clint.
Still, it's worth noting that the original DIRTY HARRY from the early 70s was all about the legal system being inherently broken by giving the bad guys too many rights, but by SUDDEN IMPACT we learn of a cop who had covered up Locke's rape. I mean, if that act of law enforcement corruption had not taken place, justice would have been served at the courts, and she wouldn't have to go around and giving gory vascectomies. Is it possible that as a character, Dirty Harry had evolved from simplicity that George Wallace had campaigned about, to a more complex interesting archetype?
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: chopper]
#507255 08/31/0809:16 PM08/31/0809:16 PM
Let Sleeping Corpses Lie aka The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue Jorge Grau 1974 Spain / Italy An experimental radar machine used by farmers as a pesticide alternative also wakens the dead who terrorize the town. After the first killing, a man and woman traveling together through the countryside are suspected by the police and are not allowed to leave. This is one of the best zombie movies I've seen in a long time. I might even rank it as my second favorite right after Night of the Living Dead. It's too bad that this movie followed the success of Night of the Living Dead along with so many others because it is a good movie that was lost in the mix. With a very strong environmental message taking place in England it is a bit slower than most zombie movies which works great because Grau builds the atmosphere so well. There aren't even that many zombies but when you see them they are frightening and, unlike most other movies in it's genre, the zombies don't seem to be completely brain dead, holding grudges and even working together to kill their targets.
Aside from an overly dramatic police detective (which didn't bother me) the acting was very good. The cinematography was well done including beautiful green English hills and streams as well as interesting camera angles of the zombies attacking.
The gore is there and disturbing as one might expect from a zombie film, but it is relatively minimal and used effectively. The horror is mostly in the atmosphere.
My only criticism is that there is a sound issue where the voices don't seem to always match up with the actors mouth movement giving it a dubbed foreign language feel. My guess is that the actors re-recorded their own voices in a studio later on to cut down on outside noise. Maybe someone here who has more technical knowledge could explain why the sound might be a little off at times. The sound issue wasn't that bad though and I highly recommend this to anyone who is a fan of zombie films.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want." -Calvin and Hobbes
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Blibbleblabble]
#507425 09/01/0807:20 PM09/01/0807:20 PM
Although I've seen it hundreds of times, while I was flipping through the channels, I came across Shawshank Redemption on Cinemax. I can't NOT watch it. The acting, the script, everything is just perfect in this movie.
Although they've both had other great roles, Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman were superb together in this film and played their parts so wonderfully. The friendship they shared, the life lessons their characters taught one another. The film is just magical.
President Emeritus of the Neal Pulcawer Fan Club
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Sicilian Babe]
#507432 09/01/0807:52 PM09/01/0807:52 PM
That's why it is #1 on IMDB just above The Godfather. It's one of those movies that you can't pass up on T.V. and everyone likes it (even thought it's not a better movie than The Godfather).
It's overall appeal is what makes The Shawshank Redemption so great.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want." -Calvin and Hobbes
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Sicilian Babe]
#507485 09/02/0808:28 AM09/02/0808:28 AM
I'm with you SB. I never saw SR on the big screen and saw it in the tv listings in recent years and always wondered what the heck is a Shawshank? Seriously, I'd skip over it for a while not really knowing what it was about. One day I read the description and also heard from a oouple people how good it was, so finally watched it......and loved it.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I'd be up for watching again. One of my favorites actually.
TIS
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
Underboss
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,924 United States
1) I just watched Insomnia on dvd with Al Pacino. Robin Williams is excellent as the villain. The dvd also had an interview with Al and a host of other extras.
2)Alien vs predator-requiem was a dud. The biggest problem is the movie is shot entirely in such a dark way that one needs night vision goggles to view it.
3) The recruit with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell is also another great work. Pacino shows that he still has it.
blu-ray/dvd/vhs/more. 1449 + titles. PRICE DROP ON ALL TITLES + 30 percent off all titles, free shipping, one bus day handling time, and guest checkout available- membership not required to make a purchase. 52 SALES to date. verified seller. BATMAN52 IS THE CODE THAT MUST BE ENTERED AT CHECKOUT TO GET THE DISCOUNT.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Paul Pisano]
#507594 09/02/0807:33 PM09/02/0807:33 PM
1) I just watched Insomnia on dvd with Al Pacino. Robin Williams is excellent as the villain. The dvd also had an interview with Al and a host of other extras.
Check the original INSOMNIA from Scandanavia sometime. It's better, but Nolan's remake is pretty good.
Originally Posted By: Paul Pisano
2)Alien vs predator-requiem was a dud. The biggest problem is the movie is shot entirely in such a dark way that one needs night vision goggles to view it.
The fact that it sucked a golfball through a waterhose didn't help either.
Originally Posted By: Paul Pisano
3) The recruit with Al Pacino and Colin Farril[sp] is also another great work. Pacino shows that he still has it.
Not seen that one.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#507659 09/03/0807:47 AM09/03/0807:47 AM
Where do I start? This film is one of the most underrated films of the 70s, maybe ever. And not just because it's set in the Fordham section of the Bronx, where Pizzaboy grew up. It's just that good.
THE WANDERERS is many things...an urban gang drama, juvenile comedy, changing of the times study and more. It works on all these levels and has become a certified cult classic. At it's core, the Wanderers is about the final death of the innocence of the 1950's. The Wanderers are an Italian gang in NY, still clinging to the last vestiges of the 1950's with their matching satin jackets and grease-backed hair. Early on several members run afoul of another gang, the notorious Baldies (Baldies footnote---They were a real gang; Dion DiMucci, of Dion and the Belmonts fame was a member, but chickened out of shaving his head, so he was thrown out). The Wanderers find themselves trapped until a newcomer, the huge Perry saves them and is immediately welcomed into the gang by their leader Richie (Ken Wahl).
The various members of the Wanderers have problems to deal with on their own. Richie has gotten his girlfriend, Despie, pregnant, Perry's mother is an Alcoholic, Turkey wants to join the Baldies and Joey has an abusive father who thinks his son doesn't measure up. The Wanderers have a verbal war with a black gang, the Del Bombers, in school and decide to settle things with an old-fashioned rumble.
When the Wanderers cannot get any other gangs to back them up, Despie's father (Dolph Sweet) a neighborhood mob boss steps in and decides to stop the rumble and have the gangs settle their differences with a football game instead...with a lot of mob money riding on the outcome. The game climaxes when the two gangs, along with the rest in attendance, must join together to fight The Ducky Boys, a group of vicious, seemingly Irish homosexuals (although their ethnicity is never mentioned), who have crashed the game with hundreds of members. The location filming of the football game, at French Charlie's field on Webster Avenue is fantastic. I played ball there religiously when I was growing up.
Mixed in with the drama and action is a liberal amount of juvenile buddy comedy as the Wanderers "accidentally" bump into women on the street in order to touch their breasts. This is how the meet Nina (Karen Allen) a bohemian girl who Richie becomes infatuated with. There there are drunken parties, games of strip poker, etc. In one memorable scene, the drunken Baldies join the marines.
Through all of this is the theme of the changing of the times. The doo-wop of the 1950's is now being replaced by folk music. A poignant scene has Richie following Nina until she enters a club where (in sound anyway) Bob Dylan is playing. Richie doesn't enter as he seems to know that it's just not his world. The film also covers the assasination of John Kennedy as the symbolic death of innocence. It is this moment the galvanizes the strained relationship between Despie and Richie.
One wishes that the Ducky Boys had been better explained. They are a creepy group of men..older than the other gangs...who never speak and were actually seen taking Holy Communion in one part where Turkey enters their turf by mistake and his killed. What were the Ducky Boys representing? It's the one mystery of the film.
THE WANDERERS has a fantastic soundtrack of early 1960's hits including "Soldier Boy", "Walk Like a Man", "Runaround Sue", "Shout", "Big Girls don't Cry" and of course the title track.
This is a movie that holds up still after 25 years because it works well on so many different levels. This was mostly a cast of unknowns with Karen Allen perhaps being the most notable star a year after she did ANIMAL HOUSE. An enjoyable movie from beginning to end.
DON'T FUCK WITH THE WONGS!
LEAVE THE KID ALONE!
Don't know what the hell Pizzaboy is talking about?
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#507660 09/03/0807:47 AM09/03/0807:47 AM
There once was a kingdom ruled over by a fair and righteous king. One day, an evil witch descended upon the well from which the people drank, and poisoned the water. The very next day everyone but the righteous king drank the poisoned water. And they all went insane. All but the king that is. For several days after, the people wondered aloud, "What happened to our king," they shouted in the streets, "Has he gone insane?" So the king went and drank from the poisoned water, and everything was well again.
That is the story Al Pacino's girlfriend tells him late in SERPICO, Sidney Lumet's celebrated 1973 true-life tale about police corruption and one's man's obstinate stand against it. Apart from Pacino's performance as Frank Serpico, that film was a compromised moral drama, thrown haphazardly together to fit a commercial running time. The success of DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975) and NETWORK (1976) then allowed Lumet to make PRINCE OF THE CITY, unquestionably his greatest work, and worthy of the story of the king. As a piece of narrative it ignores all the established rules: There are no acts (first, second or third). There are no heroes, and no villains. There are no gun battles or showdowns. This, for its entire three hour running time, is an account of a cop who decides to blow the whistle on corruption, and the legal repercussions that ensue. Unlike Serpico, Det. Daniel Ciello (Treat Williams) is no saint. He does what, in his view, needs to be done. And given the nature of power, a lot more. On his own accord, he heads to the Chase commission, where he decides to "do the right thing", and confess. His one condition? He won't rat on his partners. He knows them to be good men. We see them at his luxurious two-story house. They are cordial, pleasant, brotherly. When he states his condition to the government lawyers, he says, "I sleep with my wife. But I live with my partners."
Except the forces that be don't see things the way he does. Ciello and his partners are the Special Investigative Unit for Narcotics, the "Princes of the city". They have citywide jurisdiction and are virtually unsupervised. When they make a bust they A) Keep the drug dealer's money. B) Sell the drug dealer his freedom. Or C) Arrest him and take his money. They have reasons too. You see, a drug dealer without money would never be able to buy another cop, a DA or a judge. And if they don't have enough evidence to convict anyway, they may as well have the money. This group of cops, as they have no doubt explained to themselves, tens if not hundreds of times, have a moral right to scam the dealers. They have a moral imperative to keep their junkie stoolies (snitches) supplied with Heroin. Yes they do this for the information, but also because, "a junkie will break your heart." The practice of giving Heroin, according to the government lawyers, is exactly the same as dealing. Legally, they are as culpable as drug dealers. And the moral haze thickens.
No one joins the police force to become a bad guy. That is why Lumet, whose films are basically about the subjectivity of right and wrong, is fascinated with cops. They are not gangsters, who, as depicted in Scorsese's GOODFELLAS, are more about the money and "the life" than a mythical code of honor. For cops (even those who beat protestors or torture prisoners around the world) there has been, in most cases, a point where they justified their actions. In PRINCE OF THE CITY, Lumet affords all his characters, including the tens of government lawyers, an unfeigned authenticity that makes every scene in the film riveting. For every odious act performed against, or by a cop (or even a lawyer), there's an underlying moral position. The moral complexity of Lumet's best work lies in the assumption that pure evil does not exist.
What sets PRINCE OF THE CITY apart (and what earns it comparisons to the films of Martin Scorsese) is the unusual strength of its characters. Lumet, who co-wrote the screenplay, something he does not do often, employs a strangely effective technique. Instead of a narration, there are regular grim stills of the ID Cards of the characters involved accompanied by quotations such as "nobody cares about you but your partners", and "I'll be telling lies for the rest of my life". The whole film then takes a feel of a postmortem documentary. The stills are there because the characters involved, probably for calamitous reasons, need to be identified. The quotations are the leads character's regrets. And as Ciello, Treat Williams gives a forceful performance that requires him to be in every scene. His character's quest for absolution closely resembles that of Charlie in Scorsese's MEAN STREETS. Why did this successful "Prince of the City" decide to voluntarily confess his trespasses, throwing all his riches away? Maybe the sight of starved junkie, shivering in abandoned warehouse, begging him for drugs didn't seem like much of a kingdom.
In my opinion, this is the second best cop movie ever---after THE FRENCH CONNECTION. And I almost forgot, if you think that Lenny Briscoe was Jerry Orbach's best cop role, think again.
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#507661 09/03/0807:47 AM09/03/0807:47 AM
I caught this highly overlooked film last night on basic cable.
It's a very personal project for Billy Crystal, who directs and stars as Buddy Young, Jr., an aging, bitter comedian whose life throughout four decades is explored in this picture.
Starting with some terrific lines about the mountains of not-particularly-healthy food that awaited them at dinnertime, Buddy and his brother, Stan (David Paymer) entertain for the family. Years pass and Buddy's brother is now his manager. The film bounces back and forth throughout the years, occasionally returning to the present, where Buddy is now entertaining senior centers and not getting the same sort of reaction he got years prior. His brother believes that it's finally time to close the curtain on his career.
The film really walks a fine line between being too sentimental and genuinely heartbreaking. There's a particular quality about David Paymer's terrific performance that allows him to be intelligent, hurt and sympathetic; after years of withstanding Buddy's sarcastic comments and insults, he realizes that when he says that "he can't do this anymore" this time, he really means it. This takes place in an early scene in a diner - Buddy's gotten older, but there's finally a flicker of recognition after all these years that he may have hurt or neglected those who have loved him.
Crystal's performance is the best of a series of fine efforts contained in the film. You get the feeling that he knows a wealth comedians similar to Buddy Young, Jr. He has the timing down, he connects with the sort of arc that some of these entertainers must face, going with the lows and highs of the great years until they finally find themselves fading. As previously noted, Paymer's performance is a delight; the two work off one another believably and really seem like brothers. Julie Warner is sweet and engaging as Crystal's wife, while Helen Hunt is fine in an early performance as a possible new agent for Buddy.
If anything, Crystal could have even made the film even better had some editing been done. At a run time of around two hours, there are a few scenes that could have been deleted to help the pace of the film. As is, it's not a groundbreaking or hugely memorable picture, but there's some really poignant and sharply funny moments, as well as strong performances.
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#507719 09/03/0812:02 PM09/03/0812:02 PM
Underboss
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,924 United States
Originally Posted By: ronnierocketAGO
Originally Posted By: Paul Pisano
1) I just watched Insomnia on dvd with Al Pacino. Robin Williams is excellent as the villain. The dvd also had an interview with Al and a host of other extras.
Check the original INSOMNIA from Scandanavia sometime. It's better, but Nolan's remake is pretty good.
Originally Posted By: Paul Pisano
2)Alien vs predator-requiem was a dud. The biggest problem is the movie is shot entirely in such a dark way that one needs night vision goggles to view it.
The fact that it sucked a golfball through a waterhose didn't help either.
Originally Posted By: Paul Pisano
3) The recruit with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell is also another great work. Pacino shows that he still has it.
blu-ray/dvd/vhs/more. 1449 + titles. PRICE DROP ON ALL TITLES + 30 percent off all titles, free shipping, one bus day handling time, and guest checkout available- membership not required to make a purchase. 52 SALES to date. verified seller. BATMAN52 IS THE CODE THAT MUST BE ENTERED AT CHECKOUT TO GET THE DISCOUNT.
I encourage PB to defend himself, if he can, but would otherwise like to remind people to please do not post any materials claiming or implying that they are your own! Always provide the source of the material, and a link to the material.
According to the rules, everyone is responsible for their own actions. I'm sure the last thing you need would be to get into trouble for attributing others' work as your own.
I studied Italian for 2 semesters. Not once was a "C" pronounced as a "G", and never was a trailing "I" ignored! And I'm from Jersey! lol
Whaddaya want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy?--Peter Griffin
...Not as good as Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels
Long as I remember The rain been coming down. Clouds of Mystery pouring Confusion on the ground. Good men through the ages, Trying to find the sun; And I wonder, Still I wonder, Who'll stop the rain.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Longneck]
#508293 09/05/0810:46 PM09/05/0810:46 PM
And I liked the Pikey character Brad Pitt played, but I don't know. It was just missing something that was in the other film.
Long as I remember The rain been coming down. Clouds of Mystery pouring Confusion on the ground. Good men through the ages, Trying to find the sun; And I wonder, Still I wonder, Who'll stop the rain.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: Longneck]
#508300 09/05/0811:58 PM09/05/0811:58 PM
The Mafia Is Not Primarily An Organisation Of Murderers. First And Foremost,The Mafia Is Made Up Of Thieves. It Is Driven By Greed And Controlled By Fear.
Between The Law And The Mafia, The Law Is Not The Most To Be Feared
"What if the Mafia were not an organization but a widespread Sicilian attitude of hostility towards the law?"
"Make Love Not War" John Lennon
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: DE NIRO]
#508366 09/06/0802:40 PM09/06/0802:40 PM
In the future nine years ago, the gang violence at American high schools as seen in Mark Lester's original CLASS OF 1984 apparently escalate to the point that the police has pretty much abandoned the regions around the schools and refuse to venture into such teen-punk controlled "free-fire zones." The newly-formed Department of Educational Defense(!) are taking the anarchy-ruled schools back using the help of cyborg teachers, starting with Kennedy High in Seattle. With such a premise, you know this movie will have the bots go haywire and start killing everyone, instead of operating smoothly and reforming the joint successfully, turning all the gangbangers into good students.
Pretty much if CLASS OF 1984 was a very good exercise in revenge action exploitation about a persecuted teacher having to stand up to some kids, then 1999 is pure science fiction shoot-em-up, mostly brain-less, action cinema junk where the teachers are now the villains, or think of this as like when Arnold Schwarzenegger switched sides in TERMINATOR 2
Really, I shouldn't have enjoyed CLASS OF 1999 as much as I did, and if I had subscribed to the so-called guilty pleasure theory, this would be such a title. But I don't believe in that nonsense, either you dig a movie or you don't. That "guilty pleasure" label is a pussy-proof term for people who fear that their friends may turn their noses up at them. Screw that, I liked CLASS OF 1999 and I apologize to absolutely no one for it. Kiss my ass.
You know, that wouldn't be a bad epitaph on my tombstone.
Anyway, the only way I can describe CLASS is that like your weekly Sci-Fi Channel Original Movie of the Week, at least 95% of this very low budget film is a rehash of better films from ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK to THE TERMINATOR to ROBOCOP and I lost count afterwards. This also one of those silly B-picture from the late 1980s/early 90s where the "futuristic" art direction is neon and purple, the computer technology never advanced beyond the Macintosh, a cheesy score and of course the obligatory robotic voice-over and the cheap primitive graphics of the time.
But what works is that unlike most such Sci-Fi Channel dreck, CLASS has an engaging-enough premise to hook ya in, and actually pays off as much as possible on it. You have this school that's been transformed into a secured fortress where paramilitary guards with automatics patrol, making the students check their guns in at the entrance, and taken back and forth by armored buses. The new professors initially go all medieval on the unruly gangsters in a satisfying ubermensh fantasy, including bringing back spanking to discipline in a scene so ridiculously good, you have to see it for yourself:
For what it is, 1999 is solid trash matinee entertainment but it's inferior to the earlier CLASS if simply because while 1984 was raised above-average by the terrific acting from Timothy Van Patten and Perry King, the cast here is lackluster. Mind you, 1999 has a terrific B-movie talented cast with Stacey Keach, Malcolm McDowell, Pam Grier, and Z-genre favorite Pat Kilpatrick, but damn the actors playing the gangster kids are just dullard. Bradley Gregg as the anti-hero badboy teenager is like a poor man's Michael Pare in his gruff mean tough tone of voice, and Pare is impoverished as he is.
Still, how many movies you know of that begin with the protagonist being released from jail, and the condition of his parole is that he must attend high school? I mean I can understand him, but why does every other kid at Kennedy High go? Is it like part of a deal between the police and these punks in exchange for the gangs to retain rule of their free-fire zone? How does that gun-check actually work? Why is there a forklift in the high school basement at the climax? Why does Principal McDowell let his daughter attend this school from hell, instead of some private institution far far away, in spite of the nasty gangs roaming around? Can a robot really be strangled to death? Why are the cyborgs given folders for "data on the worst offenders" when it could have been simply booted directly into their main-frame? Why is it that every movie with cybernetic creatures always have a shot where there skin either fully or partially burns off to reveal the steel body underneath?
Why am I putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did?
Still, I liked the early scene when Gregg returns home and it seems like he had accidentally driven into rival turf, but then it's revealed that he only did this so to annoy his old alpha-male adversary and wreck his wheels. Even later, this rare serious moment when you see Gregg's little brother fighting their mother over drugs, and it's quite an effectively sad dramatic moment.
CLASS OF 1999 may kill a braincell or two of yours if you dare check it out when it finally goes to school on DVD this September, but it's worth it, if simply to hear this awesome line that I'll re-use if I ever get to script a movie for real: "Yeah I trust him.....like a vampire giving me a blowjob!"
Last edited by ronnierocketAGO; 09/07/0812:26 PM.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#509362 09/13/0805:05 PM09/13/0805:05 PM
Remember ten years ago how after getting major Oscar nominations for FARGO, the critics either hated or simply dismissed THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Yeah now everyone and their mothers claim to love that one, but it got trashed in theatres like The Dude's carpet. Now I'm not accusing some of you of lying about always being there for it from the beginning, but my fuzzy math calculations here just don't add up.
Well fast forward to now, and while the reviews in general seem to be overall positive, you still have a few folks using some rather silly logic in deriding BURN AFTER READING. There are those who whine about how the Coen Brothers have strayed from the "serious drama" path of last year's NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, or how READING isn't dramatic enough, or whatever the hell. I guess if you win an Oscar, people have their bitch-sniper laser-sights on you and will execute over the most trivial stuff. And you thought Dubya could be trigger happy. Then again, maybe some of them are disgruntled Oscar poolers who were foolish enough to bet some hard cash early on BURN as an awards contender, I just don't know.
Speaking for the majority, I hate to break it to some of you, but BURN AFTER READING is a typical Coen Brothers effort. I mean for John Ford, it was cowboys. For Kurosawa, it was samurai. For Scorsese, mobsters, and so forth. With Joel and Ethan Coen, this is once again about foolish misfits being involved in something, usually a criminal enterprise, completely way over their heads, and for a few of them, they are absolutely screwed.
So for the very complicated plot, if you want to argue that there was one, is that John Malkovich, not seen by my eyes since the cinematic war crime ERAGON, is a CIA agent who gets demoted because he's an alcoholic. He gives us a great Coen-esque line to his Mormon co-worker ("Compared to you, everyone has a drinking problem!") and promptly quits to write his memoirs. His wife in Tilda Swinton plans to divorce him, so he transfers all his computer files onto a disc, which promptly is dropped at a gym by the law firm secretary, and found by fitness trainers Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand. That shallow numbskull champion tag team try to blackmail Malkovich, which I would think would be a mistake but that's only because I've seen IN THE LINE OF FIRE. Meanwhile, McDormand is internet dating Treasury agent Clooney, who himself is also banging Swinton on the side. Why he's having an affair with his enemy from MICHAEL CLAYTON who tried to carbomb him, I have no idea. I do know that their make-up sex must have been awesome.
Still with me?
As I expected, the cast was terrific and everyone has the right timing and chemistry with each other, from poor Malkovich as the Ivy League professional with a mediocre career duller than dishwater to McDormand as the sweet but purely unpractical walking mid-life crisis, everyone seems to have genuine fun with their parts. Swinton is pretty good as the authoratative stern bitch, which makes a scene revealing her profession even more hilarious, but I fear she may unfortunately get herself typecasted by Hollywood into more such roles, especially since she won an Oscar for acting such a similar character in MICHAEL CLAYTON. Still, something subtly sexy about her wearing a jewel necklace while nude in the bed with Clooney.
Clooney is of course terrific, as the charming manwhore, to which he's so good at one, I wonder if he at times is pretty much playing his tabloid reputation. I know he's good buddies with the Coens and all, but with him flirting with McDormand in front of the camera, I wonder if her husband in Joel didn't keep a gun around just in case. I mean you gotta defend your territory sometimes, even from a friendly veteran explorer of the female body like Batman.
Anyway, the word on the Internet is right, Brad Pitt does steal the movie. I've whined before of how Pitt can be a great actor when he wasn't coasting with disinterest like in SPY GAME or THE MEXICAN and so on, as if he is still trying to beat out Will Smith in taking over the fallen Tom Cruise's throne as King-Star of Hollywood. But here he's special as that guy we all know, the best friend you could ever have, but you wouldn't want to trust your life in his hands. When he meets Malkovich, I thought it was strange. Consider that Pitt once was the legendary badass Tyler Durden, he tries as this clueless dipshit to act tough here by trying to mimic Clint Eastwood as if he saw a DIRTY HARRY movie the night before, and I laugh as he tremendously fails.
Hey Brad, I forgive you finally for MR. & MRS. SMITH. I still have MEET JOE BLACK as a strike on my books, but you're doing fine so far so don't worry about. Keep up the good work mate, don't let those Paparazzi assholes get you down. Who knows, if he had just a few more sequences, he could have been a serious candidate for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Oh well, someone else will get the lucky honor of losing to Heath Ledger.
But I must give mention to Richard Jenkins. Seemingly the only major player of this farce to not get top-billing on the memorable retro-fluffy poster, he's probably the only sane logical realistic person stuck in this mess over the MacGuffin disc. Yeah some will say that he didn't have as much material to work with as the others, but he deserves some worthy attention, of which I've found lacking so far.
I believe it was filmmaker William Friedkin on his commentary track for TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. who complained about redundancy in movies in terms of excessive coverage of the plot. What that means is, take for example when in READING, Pitt explains to McDormand how he found out Malkovich's identity because of some throwaway dialogue junk of knowing a computer hacker. Every other picture would have some useless scene, usually in action cinema, showing us this encounter, but the Coens don't bother, and Thank God. I would apply this as well to the ending, which some have criticized as being too abrupt and anticlimatic. I argue instead that it's a perfect sterile and very calm bookend to a lively chaotic storyline.
I would also add how READING could be seen as commentary on how a brood get into so much trouble over something irrelevant, which in itself is an allegory for us invading Iraq over those WMDs, which disapeared magically this side of Amelia Earhart and the government then claimed overnight that we were there to spread freedom like butter and herpes, but I'm tired of pompous critics who randomly inject politics into their reviews so thankfully I dodged that bullet. Plus, notice how the sexes fare ultimately in BURN. The women here haven't gotten the better end of their male mates since they dragged them to watch that SEX AND THE CITY movie earlier this year.
All I'm trying to say is that BURN AFTER READING isn't as good as say other Coen comedies like THE BIG LEBOWSKI or RAISING ARIZONA or O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?, but its still an utterly satisfying popcorn package that is smarter, wittier, and more memorable exercise than most genre efforts we get these days. Oh and it's cool that unlike American horror, the Coens know how to weave superb gore into their narrative, and none of that CGI headshot goofyness. Unfortunately to a few, that's not enough itself considering they came off a contemporary classic masterpiece like NO COUNTRY.
Well fuck them and let me end this review by briefly talking about the audience at my screening. They hollered, they giggled, and totally dug the shit out of Pitt. They were horribly shocked in a good way when Clooney's device is revealed and in a bad way when the unexpected plot twist occurs. Unlike years ago with INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and THE LADYKILLERS, afterwards I felt a good buzz from the exiting crowd, and this may in fact probably end up as the #1 movie this weekend.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#509422 09/14/0801:41 AM09/14/0801:41 AM
And is THIS really fucking necessary?? A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (pre-production) The original was great. The sequels, well, they are what they are like most others. NEW NIGHTMARE *is* a nightmare, scarier (that they made it, not its content) than any Craven film. But now the need for a REMAKE?? Gimme a fucking break already...! Hollywood sucks fat dick. Oh good! Cody Banks 2 is on! Infinitely better than this shit.
I studied Italian for 2 semesters. Not once was a "C" pronounced as a "G", and never was a trailing "I" ignored! And I'm from Jersey! lol
Whaddaya want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy?--Peter Griffin
And is THIS really fucking necessary?? A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (pre-production) The original was great. The sequels, well, they are what they are like most others. NEW NIGHTMARE *is* a nightmare, scarier (that they made it, not its content) than any Craven film. But now the need for a REMAKE?? Gimme a fucking break already...! Hollywood sucks fat dick. Oh good! Cody Banks 2 is on! Infinitely better than this shit.
And yet I ask, are you really surprised?
Unless I'm mistaken, Billy Bob Thornton is now Krueger in this (pointless) remake, and you know Thornton is a good presence at times, but fuck Robert Englund is Krueger.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#509432 09/14/0802:17 AM09/14/0802:17 AM
After the HALLOWEEN remake, we should have seen these coming. The Michael Bay produced remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH hits theaters this coming February. I read that it makes Jason out to be a bit more sympathetic a character, having been the nerdy outcast in school, blah, blah, blah . . .
After the HALLOWEEN remake, we should have seen these coming. The Michael Bay produced remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH hits theaters this coming February. I read that it makes Jason out to be a bit more sympathetic a character, having been the nerdy outcast in school, blah, blah, blah . . .
That doesn't make me sympathize with the guy at all. I mean can we quit this emo-bullying bullshit? I'm fucking tired of it.
Also, to be honest, I thought his origin was just fine as it was....the poor retarded kid who drowns because some people were too busy fucking around and not doing their jobs.
I mean think about it, many people have horribly died because of the curse set by those two...
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#509547 09/14/0810:22 PM09/14/0810:22 PM
After the HALLOWEEN remake, we should have seen these coming. The Michael Bay produced remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH hits theaters this coming February. I read that it makes Jason out to be a bit more sympathetic a character, having been the nerdy outcast in school, blah, blah, blah . . .
Seriously, I'd skip over it for a while not really knowing what it was about. One day I read the description and also heard from a oouple people how good it was, so finally watched it......and loved it. 
The original was great. The sequels, well, they are what they are like most others. NEW NIGHTMARE *is* a nightmare, scarier (that they made it, not its content) than any Craven film. But now the need for a REMAKE?? Gimme a fucking break already...! Hollywood sucks fat dick. 
