Month: May 2014

Alfred Hitchcock Presents – Episode 35 (The Legacy)

Yes, I’m still watching them.  Yes, I’m still trying to review them.  But precious little since 27 has interested me.

This one is particularly wretched, worse than the worst soap opera you’ve ever seen.  Included as an update, and a warning.

The ending is worthy of a 50’s prop short or ultra-cheezy MST flick that might make Joel Hodgson say: “Think about it, won’t you?”

Thoughts While Watching The Very End Of ‘NHL Top 10: Goalies’

Well, they got number one right.

It’s obviously Hasek, if you go by the only stat that really matters for a goalie (Save Percentage).

Admittedly, even that stat can be misleading (some shots are harder to stop, some defenses lead to more of these, etc) but here’s a stat that immediately convinced me (and yes, I’ve seen Hasek play in his prime, and LOTS of other goalies in their primes…and without stats I’d say he’s the best.  The stats confirm, not make):

Dominik Hasek was born in 1965.  Career save percentage: .922

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but even a BACKUP goalie in today’s game has to have at least a .900 save percentage to be considered good.  There are lots of arguments about the reason for that, but consider this:

Going by the FACT that save percentages have gotten better and better in recent years (and even not THAT recent years), to have a high SV% is more impressive for Hasek’s era.

And, if the stats I looked at are correct, Hasek has the highest save percentage in the history of the NHL.

And here’s the sealer: NO OTHER GOALIE born before 1970 is in the TOP THIRTY-TWO all time in save percentage.

The closest?  Patrick Roy, born in 1965: 33rd all-time at .910

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

I was afraid to watch this again.  The first time (a LONG time ago) I really liked it, and I was quite concerned that it would be a huge disappointment now, for some nagging reason…

It wasn’t a huge disappointment.  But that’s mostly because I went in expecting it to be a huge disappointment, and it was ok.

The script is…ok.

The acting is decent, not great…Kline probably being the best.

The “drama” attempts fall short, and while it has some amusing moments certainly, it’s rarely “funny”.

Definitely dated.

Off NF Streaming 6/1/14.

Grade: D+

Birth Of The Living Dead (2013)

A documentary on the making of ‘Night Of The Living Dead’, with four sources of info: George Romero himself (dun dun DUN!), a voiceover guy and stock footage (Oh, the pretension…), various voices talking over scenes/stills of the movie itself, and lastly (and leastly) some “experts” giving their opinions on various subjects (OHHH, the pretension).

Before proceeding further let me be clear: this is a DOCUMENTARY.  It’s not a ‘Dead’ movie.  It’s not about a new ‘Dead’ movie.  There is NOTHING new here in terms of actual “movie”.  So if you’re looking for that, stop right here and look someplace else.

If you’re up for a ‘Night’ documentary, this is in some ways unique (quotes, stills) and in some ways lacking; leaving out important behind-the-scenes bits that I’ve seen in other documentaries on the subject.

If you think you might be up for it, here goes…

The Sources:

1: Romero – talks about himself, talks about the making, talks about the travails, makes some jokes, laughs, grins, smiles, rakes in the dough.  Hell, I’d be smiling.  “Screw you, copyright laws!” he may well have been thinking.  He also confirms some theories:
-The ending was, from the beginning of the script, intentionally as dark as possible – something they fought to keep, actually.
-The cause of the “zombies” is never given on purpose (I believe George could have concocted something solid if he really wanted to): “God changed the rules, no more room in Hell…” or whatever else you can think of.
-By what he says AND doesn’t say: there was no Vietnam message, no civil rights message, etc etc etc…(see the IQ below for George’s overall take on making the film).  The closest he comes to validating any of these (or any other) theories is to acknowledge that the fictional inspiration for ‘Night’ was about “revolution”. 

From his own commentary, he may have used little bits here and there of what he saw/heard/experienced of the times, but only in the same way that he used the already-dented car: it was there (physically or in his head), so it came out. 

According to Romero’s own words, they DO NOT explore the “racial issue” AT ALL…the script remains as it is despite the concerns of  (you guessed it) Duane Jones. 

A black man as a hero is great, and Duane Jones is a real actor…and the retroactive commentary is fun to think about/look at…but Romero didn’t cast Jones because he was black.  He wasn’t making a message.  He was hiring an actor.  So let’s not turn this into some great, brave revelation by Romero.  It simply was as it happened.

2: Voiceover guy and stock footage – lots of commentary about the 60’s, the civil rights movement, riots, unrest, violence, politics, Vietnam…none of which, I believe, had anything to do with ‘Night’.  I mean, was Romero AWARE of these events?  Sure.  Did they inspire him to make a movie?  Did they have ANYTHING to do with the movie?  No.  He just wanted to make a flippin’ movie.  Again, see the IQ below.  Trudging through this is often painful since it’s so obviously cr@p and it’s not even NEW cr@p…I’ve heard most of it before.

3: Various voices + scenes/stills – Often interesting, mostly because of the movie supplying the footage, but occasionally due to some commentary that rises above mediocre/redundant (usually from George).  Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be able to decide on whether it wants to be THIS (an actual analysis of creation/scenes/etc) or an over-analysis of extremely debatable “motivations”/”themes”/”messages”…ultimately the latter wins out, which is too bad.

4: The only names I recall are Fessenden and Ebert, because everything else was just so unremarkable.  You’ve got George himself talking about it…who the fck cares what some random unrelated guy THINKS George was “trying to say”?  You’ve got the man himself there.  And the man himself seems to say, for the most part, “I was just trying to make a horror film”.  But for the good and the bad:
– Larry Fessenden tries to cast the movie as a willful defiance of Hollywood as a form of “critique” of “Hollywood” films…but that’s bullsh1t.  Romero shot it on a really worn shoestring because he
HAD to, not cuz he would have minded getting a few thousand from “mainstream cinema”.  So Fessenden stars as the guy that gets the most pretentious about the whole thing.
– As Roger Ebert (among others) attested to, and is quoted rather hauntingly around 1:02:00 as saying, this was NOT your typical B-grade 60’s cheezy “horror” flick – something which children found out rather painfully after going in expecting to see one.  His quote, as per usual with him and R.C., says it better than I ever could.

Other notes: Some good background info on the many contributors to the film that you may not have seen/heard/known before, some interesting little factoids in general, a completely unexplainable venture into Sidney Poitier films that makes me think they needed to pad out the length or were just REALLY stretching the whole (non-existent, IMPO) “civil rights” angle to the film, and LOTS and LOTS of over-analysis.

I think Romero himself summed up ‘Night’ and dismissed all the brouhaha surrounding it simultaneously with the best line of the doc.

Inspirational Quote: “It was no big thing, man.”

Grade: D

Christgau’s Consumer Guide: Albums Of The ’90s (2000)

I don’t like the change in format, which strikes me as lazy.

I also don’t like the further long-windedness, which strikes me as showboating.

It’s more love/hate than the previous two volumes, with entries that I could read over and over for eternity nestled amongst those that never cease to bore me.

But there’s too much good stuff for this not to be a good read.

Grade: B

Rock Albums Of The ’70s: A Critical Guide (1990)

Material originally published in 1981, but my version for review purposes was 1990.  I’d recognize that cover anywhere.

Here, as always, Robert Christgau states his opinions as facts and moves easily between fiercely positive and fiercely negative – with a vast rainbow of variations between the two.

He also writes better than most novelists.  He can laud beauty as well as he can rip trash, and he can make at least one person’s answer to “What do you wanna be when you grow up?” become “I wanna be a rock critic!”.

In general, it IS far easier to destroy than to create.  But Christgau’s reviews are often creations in themselves – tiny little blurbs of inspired yet seemingly offhand wonderfulness, even when they lay waste to more time-consuming “creative” efforts.

Some of the time I think he doesn’t have the slightest fcken idea what he’s talking about, but it’s telling that my reaction then is irritation instead of boredom.

He’ll teach you some useful words and phrases, he’ll piss you off, and (most importantly) he’ll make you grin devilishly at the perfect choice of words and phrasing that tears down X; which you knew was total sh1t all along but never could fully explain why.

Til now.

Grade: A

Good For Her

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/24/worlds-ugliest-woman-pursues-anti-bullying-film/20891976/?icid=maing-grid7|maing11|dl9|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D480287

For a quick summary on how I feel about bullying, see ‘Bullying – A Short Commentary’ and the guest review for ‘Fight Club’.

A bully in his natural environment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YVyLLKRHw

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Typical of this movie, this is a good clip surrounded by a lot of mediocrity. (housekeeping)

Doomsday Book (2012)

Three Asian (Korean) short films: one “zombie” and then two artsy.

If you’re not in the mood to have (at least attempted) deeeeeep thoughts presented for your analysis/approval/disapproval/mockery, best to steer clear.

But generally not being a fan of pretentious artsy cr@p, I find the second and third films somewhat interesting and worth a view.  I don’t think they’re as “deep” as they want to be, but they don’t annoy me and they do, to an extent, intrigue me.

First: Zombie-ish outbreak film.  A few darkly humorous touches, otherwise totally generic at best and terrible (in dialogue and acting) at worst.  And more the latter.

Second: A robot appears to have achieved “Consciousness” – a sense of identity and a pattern of “thought” beyond what was programmed into it.  Some revere it, some want it destroyed.

The dialogue and acting are generally decent, and it’s at least somewhat thought-provoking; with a definite Buddhist leaning to its philosophizing.  Parts are dull, but parts are interesting…and I was surprised and pleased (quality-wise) by the ending.

Third: After an online order, everyone prepares for the end of the world via a meteor collision.  Like the first, a few darkly humorous touches…more, probably; and better.  More in line with
the second in terms of the acting and dialogue being relatively decent.  A hell of a lot better than ‘Melancholia’, and less fcken gloomy.

Grade: D+

Unreviewed Series Episodes – An Explanation

Similar to a post I made about a year and a half ago, an explanation on why some episodes of television programs I review are skipped:

Basically those skipped are by default reviewed as “Not worth your time”.  I’m at least somewhat of a fan of every series I review…if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t bother reviewing it (unlike movies). 

So it’s not someone that doesn’t like ‘Star Trek’ or ‘The Twilight Zone’ saying “it stinks”…it’s a FAN saying “I like X…but this particular episode of X sucks, skip it”.

Yes, I watch them all.  If I’ve reviewed up to episode 50 that means I’ve watched all 50 episodes, even if I’ve only reviewed 20-25.  An effort to save fellow fans time by avoiding dulllights.  And if it’s borderline I usually include it just in case you might feel differently.

As for programs that I review completely, it’s either because I REALLY like them (‘Flying Circus’), they’re REALLY short-lived (‘The Vacant Lot’) or I just felt like it.  But the only difference between an episode that I review as “This sucks” and one that I skip is that I saved keystrokes, basically.

It’s sh1tty work, but somebody’s gotta do it.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

The Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983)

Having read this version, the 1979 edition, and the 1992 ‘Album Guide’ from cover to cover (literally) more than once I can say with educated, informed certainty (well, as far as subjectivity
goes) that this is the superior version.

As for the 2004 edition, it either was too boring to remember or I gave up hope after reading 92’s reviews.

Of course, in terms of music reviews, this book – and indeed all printed review guides – is irrelevant; made so by the internet and the “age of information”.

But to me, it holds more than a nostalgic charm.  I don’t even care about MANY of the musicians/groups reviewed, but the reviews themselves are often, to me, works of art in themselves.  They are written, much like R. Christgau’s printed guides, with REAL feeling; very subjective and very opinionated. 

Why is that better than a completely objective approach?  Because an “objective” approach to music is sterile.  It is clean, logical, unemotional…everything that most music is NOT.

Music is about feeling, and so is this.  Something that many people need to be reminded of.

Superior to the ’79 version because it’s more expansive and references changes in reviews from 79-83.

Superior to the ’92 version because it has spirit, spark.  You know…soul.

As I’ve said to/about more than one entity, if you want a camp follower’s A+++ for every recording, best to get a camp follower to write it…not a critic.  And if you want a sterile, objective “analysis”…you have my pity. 

And, to paraphrase R. Christgau: Why are you reading this blog?

Grade: A

A Strong Argument Against Poetry

Just imagine if this came to be the norm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAobK3fyGDI

And, as a bonus, an argument against ballet PLUS inspiration for the classic ‘Maximum Overdrive’:

(Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “Killer Cars”)

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip from one of the best episodes of a great show. (housekeeping)

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 60)

This Would Make A REALLY Cool Concoction, If Done Properly…

This song: (X)

Plus sampling the words and perhaps sound FX from this: (Y)

Just the first minute or so, the “deserve” lines, maybe the others, the sound of the gunshot at the end perhaps?

Great contrast, the words fit, could be epic.

If you do it, at least give me a heads up, huh?

Make sure it’s legal first too.

4/22/16: Linksdead. A great idea forever lost.

The Soulforge (1985)

Interesting Choose-Your-Own-Adventure type book written by Terry Phillips.  You don’t have to know anything about Dragonlance (the original six, not the piles of cheap cr@p that followed) to enjoy it, but it helps.

It’s a little different than the Fighting Fantasy Gamebook series, but if you liked that setup you’ll probably like this.

Very well written for a book of this kind, by the man behind the character of Raistlin.  Preferable to any other source for this “info”, because it was written by the character’s creator when the character was still fresh in his mind; not someone else years later.

Ranks alongside the FF ‘Essential’ group.

Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night (2010)

Attempt to cash in on the current (then; hopefully fading) undead craze (mostly zombies, but still).

Tries to be a witty dark comedy, a drama, and an action film.

Fails at the first except for a couple of (brief) moments and completely (and somewhat embarrassingly) fails at the second.

As for action, it’s just boring since the movie is so completely and utterly shallow that you don’t care at all about any of the “characters”.

I had little hope to start, and never gained any.

Inspirational Quote: “I look like a dead hooker!”

Grade: F

Alfred Hitchcock Presents – Episode 5 (Into Thin Air)

So far, these aren’t nearly as good as I remembered them.

This is about the same as a mediocre TZ episode: interesting buildup, disappointing twist.  Slightly better than 1, perhaps.

The sad thing (so far) is, these are the best of the lot.

Good, as always: Hitchcock’s little segments.

Recurring Bits Off This Website Soon – 5/16/14

Well, all the old ones that seem to have run their course…excepting DPT, of course, and perhaps others if my interest is re-sparked.

And most notably the “Off NF Streaming Soon” posts.

These shall be replaced, where applicable and if I spot it in time, by a little note in a movie that’s actually WORTH mentioning.  So…probably not very often.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

The opening is cheezy and grandiose, and just plain bad.

And, for the most part, so is the rest of the movie.

I could (and did) write a page of notes on its flaws, but in editing mode they have been whittled down (and tidied up).

The positives: Gary Oldman (good and creepy as usual) as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins (just as good) as Van Helsing.  And some guy I don’t recognize as Renfield, though his part is small.

The negatives: Every single thing Keanu Reeves says and does (the accent is laughable and the acting follows suit), Winona Ryder (not nearly as bad but still mediocre and unconvincing), often cheezy FX, bordering-on-silly grandiosity, and parts of the script which even Oldman can’t save.

On a more visceral (my new favorite word) note, I find myself feeling sympathy for Oldman’s Dracula (as is intended) because his love is true, as he demonstrates at several points; and also because of the very real sense of doom he must exist with.

Van Helsing draws my sympathies from discipline, bravery, and (most importantly by far) the belief that he does what he does because he believes and cares, not because he enjoys.  Hopkins’ acting makes this clear well before the quote below does so.

Other notes: 40 minutes in my only real hope was that Hopkins would save it…Dracula’s come-on to Ryder hovers just above Torgo-ish in nature.

There are a few moving moments in the movie, but overall the intended majestic gestures are an exercise in “gothic” pomposity.

Without Hopkins, indeed, I would find it virtually unwatchable.

Inspirational Quote: “He was in life a most remarkable man, and his mind was great and powerful…but greater is the necessity to stamp him out and destroy him utterly.”

Grade: D

Silent House (2011)

Some decently acted family interaction leads off, broken up only by a vaguely odd visitor plot point.

Fairly quickly turns into the female lead vs. weird/unexplained events as the other characters are absent for a long stretch of house-creeping, with the camerawork as ragged as her emotional state.

But it’s basically just consistent suspense/spookiness and very little else – broken briefly by what seems a silly fx moment getting near the end.  There’s no unexpected (and necessary) “payoff” to all the creeping about.

The lead is fairly convincing, but there’s so little to the movie that it’s really not enough.  The ending certainly isn’t worth it.

Grade: D-

Hockey – A Clarification

Just to be clear, I stand by my previous post, but at the same time…

Doesn’t the whole thing seem just a bit fcken silly?

Every team in the NHL pulls dirty/cheap sh1t at one time or another.  This annoying back-and-forth whining nonsense about “Who is worse than Who” is just sad.  I mean, I could post a lengthy list of dirty sh1t Canadiens players have done in the past.  I could probably post a lengthy list for EVERY TEAM (including the Bruins)…so enough with the self-righteous cr@p already.

Every team plays dirty.  Sometimes.  No, your team is not the exception.  Sorry.

Accept…get over…move on.

Oh, to end, a guest prediction for game seven (an encore, like the Canadiens’ opening Deja Vu):

*DING* “Round One!” – Carla Tortelli

Oh, P.S. – The same goes for football, baseball, basketball, and every other sport ever played.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Thoughts While Watching The Bruins – 5/12/14

I’m a big fan of “Bruins” hockey.  To me, that’s playing hard, tough, hitting but staying clean, sticking up for your teammates, and never quitting on the game.

It is NOT getting frustrated at the end of a game and punching another team’s players in the face repeatedly (Lucic, Krug, Iginla from what I saw).

The guy whacked Chara, Chara shoved him, another guy shoved Chara, he shoved back.

End.

Even in the sense of “evening things up”, it was over.  It was even.  Chara didn’t need any help.

So I guess my reaction, as a Bruins fan, is most accurately described as shock.  I mean, it wasn’t a two-way brawl like you sometimes see.  It was Lucic, Krug, and Iginla just punching Canadiens over and over while the Canadiens were covering up, doing nothing, or skating away.

And the looks on their faces pretty much mirrored my reaction – I think they just couldn’t believe what the Bruins were doing.  Whether they were intimidated or not, set up for game seven, whatever…I really don’t know or care.

Just win or lose with class, guys.  Like a Bruins team should.

P.S. – WIN with class!!!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 59)

It’s too bad Cannibal Corpse didn’t put out an album about ‘Ravenous’, then the morons could have dedicated it to another fcken lunatic.  I mean, D@MN…

Simply amazing how many of those that worship the ultra-macabre/evil never do anything remotely macabre/evil in their pathetic little lives.  Pathetic because of the worship, not the lack of action. 

The lack of action just makes them laughable posers rather than influenced scumbags.

This is about how smart they are…the fakes are the ones that run, the “true” follower is the one left with Samuel:

(Linkdead)

Further Site Reading: ‘Gore Film…’, Vampirefreaks, VF, etc…

4/22/16: I have no idea what this is talking about at the end.

Ravenous (1999)

Love the intro.

To sum up without giving away, it’s about cannibalism and a mythology of “gaining another’s” strength through it.  It’s also about morality vs. self-preservation and decadence.

First act: a bit creepy (moreso as it nears the end), and darkly humorous at points (in line with the intro, but under rather adverse conditions).  It works fairly well, for me at least; the creepiness
and dark humor mesh together and don’t cancel each other out at all.  Even the music and camerawork seem to be in on it.

Personally I think the first act goes on a little bit too long – it’s setup, I welcome and understand, but perhaps a bit too much of it at a bit too slow of a pace.

Then a foreboding interlude after the very important plot point.

Second act: the humor fades (with a brief return near the end) and it becomes, for the most part, a dark drama.  Much more consistently tense and creepy, somewhat philosophical, more thought-provoking, and more compelling in general.

The ending is decent in more ways than one.

I particularly like the way in which the film portrays those who dismiss morality and quote against it as a “weakness” as being themselves weak, unable to keep in check the most base impulses, slaves to their own dangerous yet pathetic ethos because they have become the embodiment of it, not because they believe in it.  For the most part, that is…there are always exceptions, rare though they may be.

Self-preservation is the opiate of the masses, as I am ultra fond of saying.

Grade: B-

Bartleby (2001)

An altered, “modern” take on Herman Melville’s short story.

It’s got David Paymer co-starring, if you care.

Weird and quirky right from the beginning; and while the supporting cast’s contributions are fine (decently acted) the draw is Bartleby (played by Crispin Glover) and Paymer’s boss character – their actions and interactions.

I find it promising from shortly in ’til the “punchline”…the delivery, the riddle answered, in the vein of ‘The Twilight Zone’.  DECENT, not great ‘Twilight Zone’, since while I found some enjoyment in the buildup I was a bit let down by the ending.

It does get a bit artsy, but I wasn’t put off by that in this case.  You, on the other hand, may think it’s a load of pretentious cr@p.  It’s really hard to say without watching.  I guess TZ is the closest thing I can think of to gauge your interest.  Or if you’ve read the short story.

Bad points: a little (totally out of place) slapstick, some dull moments, not as creepy as it could have been.

Inspirational Quote: “I would prefer not to.”

Grade: C-

7/14/18: The Great Grade Update. Grade: C

Airborne (2012)

The beginning shows the promise of a generic flight disaster film (zombies, infected, snakes, etc…) with predictable and eminently forgettable characters.

It turns out to be more of a bad Whodunit, with nothing of the zombie/infected/mystical/supernatural sort until about 20 minutes left.  And even then it’s pretty tedious.

A really old Mark Hamill gives it semi-star power, and makes me actually feel really sad for the guy.

Re: old Mark Hamill – the FX are not quite ‘Star Wars’ (the cheezy original) quality.

Great cinematic moment: Foreboding “complimentary drink” music.

Grade: F

The Dead One (2007)

Un-promising cartoon intro.

Then there’s a live-action continuation of some really questionable mythology and a car crash which leaves the lead somewhere between this world and the next (sort of like ‘The Crow’, face paint and all).

But that’s the only thing in common with ‘The Crow’.

This movie features a lead who isn’t a very good actor, a bunch of other people that aren’t very good actors, some really bad dialogue points, lots of weird but not very interesting scenes,
somewhat silly FX, and lots of rain. (Oops…two things).

I did not enjoy this at any point, and was quite thankful when it ended.  Recommended to lovers of pretentious, grandiose quasi-goth cinema.

Really bad ending, too.

Grade: F

Movies Off Netflix Streaming Soon

By no means an extensive list, just of the large amount of stuff on MY list.

I’ll review them ASAP, since if you care about my reviews you might find it helpful when deciding to watch them or just let them go…putting off ‘Ravenous’ briefly for these, although I remember liking it  
The things I do for my craft…

Oh well, I’ll get to it.

Off NF Streaming 5/15:

The Dead One
Airborne
Bartleby

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Headline: US Airways flight diverted after crew falls ill.

Hmmm…I guess they all had the fish.

It’s a good thing I hate fish (as food), because it’s EXTREMELY dangerous.  Vis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRmVW1x3hTk

Reading some comments about the article, I realized other people came to the same conclusion.  What does that show?  That I have my fingers on the pulse of the internet.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip from a great movie. (housekeeping)