Jump to content

Return Of The Film Corner Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Cheesy Movie Circus Tour came to town last night, so I got to see Joel and the new bots riff on this awful film:

circus%20of%20horrors%20poster4.jpg

This was a suitable flick for the MST3K treatment because it is a really bad movie.  A plastic surgeon on the lam (perhaps a former Nazi?) comes into control of a third rate traveling circus.  Over the years, he meets a series of deformed young women and uses his surgical abilities to make them beautiful.  Then he makes them perform in his circus.  His circus becomes famous and successful and when any of beautiful his young patients/performers threaten to leave, he has them killed in an unfortunate performance "accident".

This was billed as Joel Hodgson's last MST3K tour, so I'm glad I was able to attend.  The jokes around the movie were really good; the stage bits they did in between the film riffing was kind of weak.

(Really disappointing to see The Avengers -- not those ones, the real ones -- producer and man who brought us Emma Peel, Julian Wintle, associated with this film.)

 

Edited by duaneiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlhoots said:

Les Miserables - not the musical, the new French film.

I have no desire to see a movie like that, just as I found a modern version of Great Expectations repellent. I enjoy watching movies based on books as the author intended, not something to suit modern sensibilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

According to the review I heard, it's not intended to be a modern version of Les Miserables. The filmmakers chose the title to highlight the similiarities between then and now.

I just read the review in the Times. It appears the only thing the two have in common is the name of the movie, Montfermeil, where some of the book took place and the emphasis on the neglected parts of society, which I assume is why the title was chosen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/01/2020 at 3:59 AM, Brad said:

1917. While it was well made, the story wasn’t very good. Pales in comparison to classics like Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Westfront 1918 and so forth.  

I saw it last night and thought it was stunning. The cinematography was out of this world and some of the scenes I thought took your breath away. It was far from the typical war movie but reminded me a bit of Apocalypse Now in the dreamlike feel of some of the scenes and the way that the set pieces transitioned. That burning French town sequence through to the waterfalls was unreal ! People have accused this film of being unemotional but I thought it packed, in its way, a considerable punch. Like the lack of forced sentimentality too.

I thought that there was a sort of very familiar look to the scenery around that ruined farmhouse then read that it was actually filmed on the chalk downs North of Salisbury, Wilts !  Ironic, as the WW1 army used to practice around there before being sent into action across the channel. Much of the scenery seems to have made use of the UK - even the white water rapids.

Obviously influenced by Tolkien’s books too, in the use of repeating motifs/allegories, ‘way station’ helpers such as the various army officers en route and the ‘mission’ focussing on command instructions in place of the ring. So - a mix of the real and the mythic.

Definitely one to see on a large cinema screen with a good sound system.

Edited by sidewinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2020 at 7:59 PM, Brad said:

1917. While it was well made, the story wasn’t very good. Pales in comparison to classics like Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Westfront 1918 and so forth.  

I don't think you're giving it enough credit.  Not only from the standpoint of its "one long shot" premise, but from the context of reality.  The films you mention, especially, "Paths Of Glory", are all well done, but they don't begin to deal with the ugliness of war.  It's like comparing "Sands of Iwo Jima" with the Russian film "Come and See "  At its core, "1917" is an openly anti-war film.  Because it gives you no breaks over its two unrelenting hours, it forces you to confront the palpable brutality of total war.  It's an unpleasant film, but one that is trying to make a point and it does so with room to spare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave James said:

I don't think you're giving it enough credit.  Not only from the standpoint of its "one long shot" premise, but from the context of reality.  The films you mention, especially, "Paths Of Glory", are all well done, but they don't begin to deal with the ugliness of war.  It's like comparing "Sands of Iwo Jima" with the Russian film "Come and See "  At its core, "1917" is an openly anti-war film.  Because it gives you no breaks over its two unrelenting hours, it forces you to confront the palpable brutality of total war.  It's an unpleasant film, but one that is trying to make a point and it does so with room to spare.

Paths of Glory doesn’t begin to deal with the ugliness of war. Guess we are watching different movies. Sorry, but the script in 1917 is weak. It’s just not that great a movie. The so called one long shot was gimmicky. Frankly, I was bored. 

Edited by Brad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brad said:

This is excellent, a semi fictional look at the collapse of Lehman Brothers.  Just as good as The Big Short, which was a tremendous movie. 

3A0DA860-8824-4BC2-8BC5-92AD6D0ED8EF.jpeg

:tup

2 hours ago, Brad said:

Paths of Glory doesn’t begin to deal with the ugliness of war. Guess we are watching different movies. Sorry, but the script in 1917 is weak. It’s just not that great a movie. The so called one long shot was gimmicky. Frankly, I was bored. 

Anthony Mann's "Men in War"

Sam Fuller's "Steel Helmet"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

:tup

Anthony Mann's "Men in War"

Sam Fuller's "Steel Helmet"

Thanks for the recs. Perhaps I need to re-see 1917, give it another chance. I mentioned Westfront 1918. This is a great movie, showing the War from the German point of view.  Speaking of which, Schlump by Hans Herbert Grimm, reissued in 2016 by New York Review of Books Classics, is a terrific book about the War from the German side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, both of those films were set in the then present-day conflict, the Korean War, which gives them much immediacy.

A good deal more lurid is Robert Aldrich's "Attack!" (1957), set in World War II. Great performance by Eddie Albert as a cowardly commanding officer. It's the movie to see if you want to watch a German tank run over Jack Palance's arm. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JSngry said:

Are there no other options?

Options for what? I mentioned that scene because it is iconically powerful in itself and leads to the film's shocking conclusion.

If you do see "Attack!" you'll know why the Defense Department refused to cooperate in the making of the film.

(Below) Palance versus (actually) two German tanks:
 

And there's a good deal more after this.

BTW, "Men in War" is the ultimate Aldo Ray movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...