EricJ
-
Posts
4,879 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EricJ
-
-
49 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
In The Psychotronic Video Guide, author Michael Weldon names The Most Dangerous Game as the "most copied feature".
Granted, the book is 25 years old, so I'm sure the list would be different now.
Namely, to be updated with "Groundhog Day" in the top ten, if we're counting Hallmark movies.
-
4 hours ago, TopBilled said:
THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1932) was remade twice.
The first remake by RKO occurred in 1945, with Robert Wise directing. It was retitled A GAME OF DEATH (1945) and the villain was turned into a Nazi. Otherwise, it's almost a shot-for-shot remake, with updated sets. According to MovieCollector's database, this version has never aired on TCM but it sometimes turns up on YouTube.
A decade later Jane Russell expressed interest in the property. It was her intention to star in another remake, but she ended up having scheduling conflicts so Jane Greer stepped in (Russell's company still produced it). That time it was called RUN FOR THE SUN (1956). But RKO was on the verge of closing, so it was distributed through United Artists. TCM has aired the 1956 version, most recently in 2018.
And now they're remaking it AGAIN. For streaming: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10580064/
(Because both the story and '32 version are public domain. Also, it violates EricJ Rules of Movies #34, "Beware of any title that's lacking a proper article, as that's a sign it's been through too many rewrites/negotiations.)
-
7 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
And CNN ran the headline "EXORCIST ACTOR PASSES AWAY," as their 12th listed news story on their website, don't even know if its still up.
Pretty disappointing.
It's the "Bad Memory" factor--Richard Harris was identified in almost every one of his obituaries as "Harry Potter actor", so Von Sydow will be remembered for "Game of Thrones". (Although, thankfully, not Judge Dredd or Strange Brew.)
But as to remembering him for Ming the Merciless, I say....why NOT?
5 minutes ago, Hibi said:Who under 40 knows who Ingmar Bergman is?
Anyone under 24. Who lives in terror that if you tell him to see more "great movies", the first one you're going to show him is that "chess" thing where Death talks like the Swedish Chef.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Maserati said:
Here's my question. Why is it in glorious pan and scan. Why is it not in wide screen and why was this never mentioned during the screening? Seems like an obvious point to address.
Don't think it ever HAD been remastered for modern times, until Warner Archive took a bash at it only recently. And TCM doesn't always have access to the Archive.
-
1 hour ago, Hibi said:
Yeah, beware when the author's name is in the title! SIDNEY SHELDON'S BLOODLINE!
"Stephen King's 'Silver Bullet'"
"Nicholas Sparks 'The Notebook'"
"Tim Burton's 'The Nightmare Before Christmas'"
(Okay, so TNBC wasn't bad, but what the heck did he do on it, if he didn't direct?)
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, David Guercio said:
That’s Mel Brooks.
Well, gotta admit, you nailed that one...Tell him what he's won, Johnny Olson!
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:
Hate it when movies with such an impressive cast turns out to be such a horror.
Having said that I also didn't find THE SWARM all that terrible. It's not a classic by any means, but there's something about it, its' corniness, the ridiculous scenarios, the overacting that somehow puts it in my view in the 'so bad it's good' category.
I read one fan review that thought the completely unexplained subplot of traumatized survivors seeing big-bee hallucinations was, quote, "A plot thread about survivors having a psychic link with the bees was sadly underexplored..."
That's definitely what you'd call overthinking the movie.
-
3 hours ago, David Guercio said:
Did Alfred Hitchcock have an accent?
Have you tried WATCHING him, and seeing for sure?
-
6 minutes ago, Hibi said:
I cannot understand why a picture like Pepe would run OVER 3 HOURS. No wonder it bombed!
With all the American cameo stars, it was pitched as "Around the World in Eighty Days II: JUST Cantinflas, But Then, He Was All You Liked In the First One, Anyway!"
Unfortunately, it could have used some David Niven. And some locations. And a balloon. And a Jules Verne book.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Hibi said:
Did anyone catch The SWARM on Sat?. I was curious to see the costume design (No Big Deal) and how bad it really was. And it REALLY WAS BAD! I didn't make it till the end. Bailed around the Hour and a Half Mark. Bad Acting; Bad Dialog; Script; Special Effects AND SO BORING.
I remember reading the Medveds' Golden Turkey Awards about the helicopter pilot at the beginning, who radios back "OMG, they're all around me, millions of them! Bees!...Bees!", and expecting this would be the minor actor's big William Shatner moment of hysterical overacting. Not that he would deliver the line rather like the helicopter traffic pilot on a morning radio show.
As for more detailed opinions, I already weighed in on a recent Amazon viewing. (In widescreen, no less):
(...Hey, neat, we can do those now! 😄 Just click the little arrow-thingy in the corner.)
44 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:Also, this flop is the reason Irwin Allen wasn't permitted to direct the 1980 disaster movie "WHEN TIME RAN OUT . . . " (aka: "Earth's Final Fury, The"). James Goldstone helmed it. I reckon it's easy to pile on "When Time Ran Out . . . " but it seems positively decent compared to THE SWARM.
It does, actually--It returns the Irwin Allen genre back from his self-indulgent episode of hubris back to the classic disaster-movie tropes:
- Something good (like the world's biggest ocean liner, tallest skyscraper, town's founders-day festival, or newest paradise resort opening) has to be interrupted,
- The owner has to be a ruthless greedy baddie who thinks it's too expensive to listen to the warnings of the crisis/structure analyst,
- ...Who happens to be our hero,
- The climax will involve the cast crossing some risky gauntlet over the Bridge of Peril, one by one, while we take bets who will survive, based on their moral worthiness of subplot.
The fact that Allen got back to crossing the bridge in Beyond the Poseidon Adventure a year later shows that the therapy was helpful. Another one that's positively decent compared to The Swarm, but again, I go easy on the genre. Heck, even Airport '79: the Concorde is positively decent by comparison, and that wasn't even Allen's.
-
54 minutes ago, David Guercio said:
I think I might see it. I saw the original when it was on Essentials Jr and the first remake with Chevy Chase and Darrel Hannah. Those were great. So I think this one will be great too. When is it coming out again or is it already out?
Oh, Dave...Never, ever change. 😆 No, on second thought, please do.
Seriously, how determined IS the new female fangirl audience of "The Invisible Toxic Ex-Boyfriend Who's Got It Coming" to righteously and wishfully defend this film to the last battlements?: Now, even Variety columnists are trying to spin "Gee, wasn't it brilliant of Universal to try and rescue its Dark Universe by selling them off to cheap companies?":
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/invisible-man-box-office-dark-universe-1203520281/
-
7 hours ago, LiamCasey said:
Strangely enough, the initial key to the success of this movie may be the fact that neither Dracula Untold (2014) nor The Mummy (2017) were able to kick-off Universal's Dark Universe cinematic universe.
Dracula Untold was basically a freak one-off, an attempt for Universal to try and leap on the "Iconic Villains' misunderstood origins" bandwagon after Disney's first Maleficent movie. The machinery to create the "Dark Universe" in Marvel's image wasn't in place yet, and it didn't look like anything that happened in that movie would fit, so it was de-historized faster than you can say "Ang Lee's 'Hulk'".
While The Mummy tried so faithfully, with fourth-grade test-copying diligence, to DNA-replicate everything Marvel had taken five films to strategize, transcribed it carefully by hand, jammed it into one film, and left in so many planted Easter-eggs for the next six films, they didn't have time left to tell, y'know, any coherent story.
QuotePersonally, after this one, I would now like to see what Blumhouse Productions could do with a Dracula, a Frankenstein, a Werewolf of London. And why limit them to Universal? I would like to see what Blumhouse Productions could do with a Count Yorga, a Dr. Phibes, a Blacula.
Blumhouse doesn't know how to make "quick, cheap, profitable horror films", so much as how, like Universal, to make them into Marketable Franchises, where you make the second Paranormal or Purge movie look just like the first one, only with a new story gimmick. Even worse, they've picked up on another idea that was clearly over their cheap, narcissistic, misogynistic lil' fanboy heads--Not only has their "Halloween" reboot gone to their heads and led them to think they actually CAN "reboot" every classic fanboy horror film from Dr. Phibes to Blacula, they've now put out their shingle for buying up every other studio's failed Franchise product, producing it on their own quick, cheap, why-pay-more assembly lines, handing it back to their proud clients, and showing them how to deliver a franchise when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.
Case in point: Sony, still searching for a House Icon, wanted another try at rebooting their classic Screen Gems TV icons for bigscreen features (remember that weird Nicole Kidman "Bewitched" thing?)--They'd already tried rebooting Charlie's Angels again earlier this year with, um...mixed success, but the one stumbling block Sony was never able to get past in the 00's was that movie adaptation of "Fantasy Island" that had been floating around since the 90's...And which they hadn't touched since Eddie Murphy wanted to do an 00's black-comedy version (where he would play both Mr. Roarke and Tattoo, yuk yuk). "Oh, that," Blumhouse quickly stepped in to say--"Sure, we can give you one of those...That show was supposed to be creepy and scary, right?"
And so, earlier this month--No, this is NOT an SNL parody sketch. This is the actual theatrical version of "Fantasy Island" that Blumhouse delivered back to Sony, because...they just never learned how to make any other kind of film:
And if you support Blumhouse, or Invisible Man's "new approach", you not only support Universal's Dark Universe, you support this movie as well. Ask yourself if it's worth it.
(And if that's not enough, I can show you their Black Christmas, quote-fingers, "classic remake" trailer from last December. Don't make me, I'll do it.)
-
6 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
I vaguely remember hearing about "Hollow Man" at the time it came out, but never got around to seeing it. I do like the cast, they're all talented actors. Maybe I'll check it out sometime; might be fun to go see "The Invisible Man" and then come home and watch "Hollow Man" .
You would watch a Blumhouse quickie of a Universal post-Tom Cruise Dark Universe movie, and then follow it with a late-90's Paul Verhoeven film?
Here, here's a foot-thick brick wall, it might be fun to hammer your head against it for an hour while snapping mousetraps on your toes... 🤔
-
1
-
-
Or, you could watch it on PlutoTV's Buzzr channel, along with "I've Got a Secret", and the various decade incarnations of "To Tell the Truth":
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-My-Line-55-Episode/dp/B076NZ1F49/
Seeing Alfred Hitchcock trying to do a "Mystery Guest" voice is amusing:
-
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:
So in my mind, this new "Invisible Man" is not so much a "remake" or even a reinterpretation of the Wells novel, it's just a new iteration of the concept of what could happen if a vengeful man was able to become invisible. There the similarity ends.
In other words, "Hollow Man 2".
(Actually, "Hollow Man 3" - There was a direct-video sequel, but you probably didn't notice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI7iEs0UMBc .)
-
Not so much "No", as "(pfft!)...NO. " With an added, "What, did you go see that 'Fantasy Island' thing two weeks ago? 😄"
Thing is, this is the worst of two worlds: First, Universal wants to have it both ways, shut their ears and say "Lalala, Tom Cruise's Mummy wasn't one of the most catastrophic theatrical flops of the decade, we've still got a Franchise!", and then backslide and sell all their old "Dark Universe" projects off on a garage sale to any el-cheapo companies that will salvage them (yes, they've found a buyer for that "Bride of Frankenstein" they didn't get to make next, apparently the Charlie's Angels actress/director wants to do it)...And THEN, we have Blumhouse Pictures, the studio that figured out how to turn one horror movie into a dozen, now getting into the former Emmerich & Devlin "salvage" business of buying up any studio's failed "reboot" project, claiming "We can remake anything...Check out our '19 'Halloween' remake!" (Yeah, and how about that "Black Christmas" name-only-remake that cratered face-first into the pavement last December?)
If there was ever a movie that deserved to die a horrible, gruesome, embarrassing, forgotten death at the box office for the better sake of the industry...it would still be that "Fantasy Island" one. But this would be second.
On 2/27/2020 at 4:31 PM, Det Jim McLeod said:I have seen the trailer and I will not see it. It looks like a Lifetime movie version of the HG Wells classic.
It's a female director--And when you discuss horror movies with a female viewer, you know the first, last, and constant thing that will always be mentioned.
Fortunately, the heroine doesn't trip in this movie. That often.
On 2/27/2020 at 4:33 PM, LawrenceA said:I thought it looked awful, and that the trailer basically outlined the entire film
Hey, I have an idea! Maybe she could fight back if she spilled milk on him!
Me, I'm still waiting for an avenging-feminist reboot of Son of the Invisible Man:
-
1
-
-
Freddie Jones, during his brief early-80's renaissance of character roles (Elephant Man, Krull, Dune)--
Leave it to the Welsh to redefine the boundaries of King Arthur's "What an eccentric performance..."
-
It could of course have also been ***** or ******* or **** or ********* or even ******.
(...not to mention ******* or **** TOO, ya know!)
"Could I look up 'Turnip' in the dictionary?"
"'Turnip's not a dirty word, Baldrick."
"It is if you sit on one."- Blackadder III
-
1
-
-
On 2/24/2020 at 8:12 PM, Arsan404 said:
One day last week, just before we opened, I said to the staff "It's showtime, folks!". They liked the phrase, but had no idea where it came from.
"Tell them about the movie, Frank:"
"'Iiiiit's SHOW--'"
"Don't even think about it, Frank!"(walks off sobbing dejectedly) "'--ti-i-ime...'. 😢 "
- MST3K
-
17 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:
Its not just what they do what can determine who is whom but, why they do it. Their motivations. Like the old analogy of a person stealing food to feed their starving family. Are they the hero or the villain ? I would say a little bit of both.
Everyone wants money. But not everyone robs a bank (Although Sean Connery said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMNUcNokvkU )
Everyone wants the girl. But not everyone carries her off.
And let's be honest, who doesn't want the hero to shut up and lose once in a while?--Out of the entire hot, steaming mess that was Mission: Impossible 2, you had to admire the Dougray Scott villain taunting Tom Cruise for "Grinning like an idiot", unquote.
-
1
-
-
On 2/22/2020 at 6:58 AM, TikiSoo said:
My film group regularly shows Scandanavian played Charlie Chan movies which I find offensive. The only decent character is his "modern" son, often played by Keye Luke.
Although I like the parody we get in Murder By Death (to Peter Sellers' Chan):
"Gee, pop, something fishy about this whole setup...Perfect setting for a murder."
"Son conversation, like television on honeymoon: Not necessary!"😄
-
8 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
Since we're talking about Patricia Neal, I think it's interesting that no one has as yet brought up the fact that she was married to children's author Roald Dahl. (She met him a couple of years or so after her affair with Cooper.) She experienced more than her share of tragedy in her life (things that happened to her children, for one.)
I remember a TV-movie bio with Glenda Jackson as Neal and Dirk Bogarde as Dahl, detailing Dahl's contentiously tough-love program for Neal's recovery after brain surgery/stroke in the late 60's: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082887/
I had heard that the Willy Wonka author was not the warmest or most likable individual in person, back then, but knew little of the details.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, TikiSoo said:
Or imagining what it would be like to live in a radiator.
In heaven, everything is fine...
-
4 hours ago, speedracer5 said:
I agree re: Breakfast at Tiffany’s. By 1961, in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, somebody should have known better.
It was Blake Edwards, so "Knowing better" was off the table.
And in that context, I didn't mind Rooney, but Hepburn's Golightly can get a little....trying.
Films that should/should not be preserved
in General Discussions
Posted
HELL. YES. 😎
We don't criticize "Swing Time" for being "too 30's", "Going My Way" for being "too 40's", or "Taxi Driver" for being "too 70's", why do Footloose, Back to the Future, Karate Kid or even Xanadu somehow get giggled at for being "Too 80's"?...Why, just because they're closer to our own childhood/recent-history experiences, that we neurotically want to run away from and disassociate ourselves from in public, lest we share their fate in being publicly giggled at? If we said Forrest Gump, T2, Jurassic Park or Titanic were "Too 90's", would that be serious or a punchline?
To say "What movie DOESN'T need to be preserved?" is basically to play Kodos the Executioner, and ask which film needs to be sentenced to the death-penalty of being expunged from our culture for now and all time..IOW, a question you don't get the personal privilege to ask. Everything needs to be preserved, it's just a matter of time to see the context for why.