Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DeMilleBuff32

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DeMilleBuff32

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Penelope Spheeris is one of the most versatile filmmakers to ever leave her mark in Hollywood. Her documentary, THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION shed light on the LA punk scene of the late 70's/early 80's, and carved a colorful path that would lead her to direct WAYNE'S WORLD, THE LITTLE RASCALS and BLACK SHEEP. I sat down with Spheeris and her daughter, Anna Fox, at the beautiful Texas Theatre, to discuss the DECLINE series... and ended up with the funniest episode of BACKSEAT FILMMAKER, yet.
  2. Just a reminder, tomorrow is Walter Huston's birthday, and TCM is celebrating by showing KONGO in the morning.
  3. Like he's from India? Jesus probably didn't look like Jeffrey Hunter, but people forget that even then, there was a mixture of different ethnic groups and cultures during that time, thanks to, in no small part, the Roman Empire. I'm sure he looked Middle Eastern, but that's not the same as looking South Asian.
  4. We're getting straight-up sacrilegious on this week's episode of Backseat Filmmaker; Joey Monroy and Connor Quade join forces with me to compare the works of two of cinema's greatest artists. The Easter holiday means many things to many different people. Chocolate rabbits, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and cascarones, those hollow egg shells, filled with confetti, that Mexican kids use to break on each other’s heads. But for me, Easter is a celebration of one of my favorite film genres: The Biblical Epic. In 1927, Hollywood titan Cecil B. DeMille directed The King of Kings, a larger than life, sprawling spectacle which presented a very reverent, if traditional, take on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Decades later, Martin Scorsese offered moviegoers a much more polarizing look at Jesus’ mission in 1988’s The Last Temptation of Christ. The film was immediately condemned by religious audiences and caused rioting and protesting across the world. While Jesus has been the basis for many films made in between, and since, today’s episode will examine why DeMille and Scorsese’s versions are the ones to top. Tune in Sunday night to see DeMille's take on TCM. https://bigjohncreations.wordpress.com
  5. https://bigjohncreations.wordpress.com In 1932, the American Horror Film came into its own as a viable genre. Dracula and Frankenstein had blown the doors off the industry the year before, making overnight stars of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, and paving the way for a variety of imitators. Paramount responded with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (starring Fredric March in the roles that would land him an Oscar,) and the similarly literate Island of Lost Souls, which cast Charles Laughton as HG Wells’ overly ambitious Dr. Moreau. Not to be outdone, MGM turned to their silent master of the macabre, Tod Browning, hot of the success of Dracula, to put his carnival background to use. Freaks was an unmitigated disaster and was met with as much disgust from its audiences as the studio that wrought it. But Freaks wasn’t MGM’s only contribution to the genre that year. Director William J. Cowen’s Kongo stars future Academy Award-winner, Walter Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,) as Dead Legs Flint, a cruel paraplegic living deep in the African jungle. He attains great power among the natives by performing magic tricks and pretending to be a God. 18 years earlier, Flint was crippled by his wife’s lover and has spent everyday since plotting an elaborate revenge. Released just before the production code would cast a damp towel on Hollywood, Kongo features some particularly grim scenes, and even more politically-incorrect dialogue. Originally a play on Broadway starring Huston himself, Kongo was previously made into a silent film called West of Zanzibar. This version starred Man of a Thousand Faces, Lon Chaney and was directed by none other than Chaney’s longtime collaborator, Tod Browning. Everything’s relative. For this episode of Backseat Filmmaker, I have the pleasure of discussing both versions of the story with film historian and writer, Michael H. Price. Price is the author of such works as Human Monsters: The Bizarre Psychology of Movie Villains (with George E. Turner,) and the Forgotten Horrors series, which has just seen the release of its seventh installment, Famished Monsters of Filmland.
  6. As far as the finished film goes, there's a lot to like in it, but it feels very much like there's chunks missing. If you watch our discussion, we talk about all those factors and try to be as fair as we can to this much-maligned, often overlooked, film.
  7. “Rev-o-lution… a word. Spoke everywhere.” Some epics are released and receive the immediate admiration and laurels they deserve. Ben-Hur. Lawrence of Arabia. Amadeus. Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then you have those masterpieces so ahead of their time, they're shredded by the critics of their day, and fail to find their proper footing. The Night of the Hunter (1955) director Charles Laughton was so disheartened by the reaction to his first directorial work, he never got behind a camera again. The film is now considered one of the all-time essential thrillers. Revolution (1985) was British director Hugh Hudson's third feature film after the Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire (1981), and the well-received Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984). Hot off his iconic turn as Tony Montana, Al Pacino was cast as the everyman hero of this Revolutionary War story, while art house-darling Natassja Kinski was given the female lead. Revolution was destined for success... until the Universe decided to take a sharp left turn. The expensive, $28,000,000 film was pulled away from the filmmakers months before completion and rushed into theaters, resulting in a mammoth bomb (it grossed about $350,000, domestically.) Is Revolution an essential cult classic? Or does it live up to its soiled reputation? Check out my in-depth, 30 Years Later conversation with writer and real filmmaker, Joey Monroy on this week's Backseat Filmmaker.
  8. If you're a fan of classic Universal and Hammer Horror, or just love anything related to Gaston Leroux's *Phantom of the Opera*, you won't want to miss this thrilling new independent film told from the Phantom's perspective: http://www.youtube.com/user/GastonLerouxsErik http://www.facebook.com/ErikMovie Thank you for your time! Edited by: DeMilleBuff32 on Aug 2, 2011 2:19 AM
  9. If you guys are interested in anything vampire, Dracula or classic horror related, please check out, "I Was a Pre-Teen Dracula!" Part I on YouTube: Starring Adrian Haas, and Ryan Jeri. Directed by Ryan B. Jeri. This is the recently re-edited first installment to a crappy no-budget "Dracula" movie I made with a friend back in middle school. It was originally edited on VHS, but the original tape was lost, so I am currently re-editing the movie on my PC, for posterity. My friend and I had set out to make a serious adaptation of Stoker's novel, but that obviously wasn't going to happen. Think of it as a modern silent film with dialogue. The music mostly consists of notable tracks from famous Dracula flicks. I was obviously no Coppola (and still aren't), or even Ed Wood, however, it was a fun project to work on. It was my very first experiment with video, so please don't be too harsh on it. You might even find it worth a laugh or two! Please stay posted for future installments.
  10. I saw it twice. Here is my first review, followed by my second: For months, I had been pumped to see CR. This past week I read the book, and rewatched most of the films. I just got back from my first viewing and have really mixed feelings. I love the grittiness, and felt it was a very good drama-thriller. I loved the action scenes, especially the first fifteen minutes, and the Kleinman titles were great, if a little slow. However, something dissapointed me in the film. I don't know if it was the hype and the preparation for me that let me down a bit, but somethings did. First off, listening to the awesome score too much kind of ruined it's use in the film for me (my fault.) Some of Fleming's best scenes and dialogue were ruined for the film (I know it is 2006 and the archaic parts had to be updated however they butchered the classic final line of novel, and slightly changed the context.) The final scene seems rushed and tacked on just to build anticipation for a sequel. And yes, unfortunately my biggest problem was with Craig. I had seen him in other roles, and thought he was a good actor, however, after actually seeing him in action in the film, I was let down. He was badass in the action scenes, however, his scenes with dialogue and actual acting seemed to be lacking. It also doesn't help that the whole time I am staring at him on a fifty foot screen, and cannot see James Bond: Not Ian Fleming's, and not the Bond of previous films. One other thing that bothered me was the tacky overuse of product placement, and minor technology. It seemed every five minutes somebody was using a cell-phone, text messaging somebody on a Sony Ericsson, or typing on a Sony VAIO computer. I understand it is 2006, but they could have toned it down a bit. And perhaps my biggest nit pick was with the opening titles. This is the first Bond film in nearly 20 years to be directly based on a Fleming story, and they chose to bill Craig "AS IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND-007 IN CASINO ROYALE," when it would have been nice to see DANIEL CRAIG AS JAMES BOND-007 IN IAN FLEMING's CASINO ROYALE." Sure it wasn't 100% Fleming, but neither was MOONRAKER. Perhaps this is me being dissapointed since it was my first viewing. I was feeling uncomfortable in the theater due to a stuffy nose and a sore throat, so maybe that was affecting my perception of the film. Overall I thought it wasn't bad and the story was good, and I definitely have plans to see it again, under more comfortable circumstances. Hopefully this will be like OHMSS and it will improve upon each viewing. Anyone else feel similarly? Review 2: UPDATE I saw it again last night. This really was a BRILLIANT film. Definitely one of the best and most different Bond films yet. This wasn't just a good 007 film, this was a good movie period. Great story, great dialogue, David Arnold's best score, and some of the best action scenes on film. However, the one thing keeping this from being the best Bond film ever is Craig. Like I said, he was phenomenal in the action scenes, but his interacting with other characters was too wooden, and he seemed to mumble too much. He did an okay job in a few scenes, but he really had none of the charisma, coolness or charm of the previous Bonds or even the Bond of the novel. It also doesn't help that he didn't have the look. Craig would be great as a furture Terminator star, however his first effort as Bond was weak. I felt like I was watching a great James Bond film WITHOUT James Bond. Had someone like Hugh Jackman (a very good actor in his own right, who has the Bond charm and look) been cast, or the script been tweaked and Pierce starred, it could have been THE best Bond film ever. That being said, it was still better than all four Brosnan films combined, and the best 007 adventure since Licence to Kill.
  11. hahahaha thats so funny, and so true! I can't wait to see both movies. Even though this is a little off topic of happy feet (sorry bobhopefan1940) what do you think of james bond having blonde hair and blue eyes? I am really excited for Casino Royale tomorrow, and can't wait. I think the movie I going to be great and as an actor, Daniel Craig will do a great job. However, I feel he really doesn't have that traditional Bond look. The blue eyes are fine, since that is how Fleming described him, yet Fleming also frequently refers to Bond having jet black hair. Roger Moore DID have light brown hair, however he was playing a lighter-spirited Bond, and matched most of Ian Fleming's other traits for the character. If only Craig slightly grew out, and darkened his hair, I would accept him alot easier as 007. He is supposed to be playing a darker Bond, yet he LOOKS like a lighter one. Personally, I think dark hair looks more masculine and intimidating, especially on James Bond. Now, he just seems like a Borne/24 rip off.
  12. Frankly, I'm pumped! I am a huge Bond fan and became one around the time of DIE ANOTHER DAY (The first 007 film I saw in theaters.) I think the film is going to be great,and I can't wait to see it on Friday. However, I'm still not sold on Craig. he may be the greatest actor in the world, but he still doesn't have that Bond look. Sorry to sound like a troll, but alot of it has to do with the hair. Anyway, I've just finished reading the original Fleming novel, and I'm getting myself warmed up by rewatching most of the 007 films throught the week. This weekend I watched DR.NO, FRWL, GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL (the last time I'm sitting through that entire film again) decided to skip YOLT, then I watched OHMSS, and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Tonight it's LIVE AND LET DIE, and TMWTGG. Too bad TCM has never shown the good Bond films uncut and commercial free. They only seem to love to show that piece of crap CASINO ROYALE spoof.
  13. I don't know about that, but I do know James Bond will kill those Penguins with his bare hands!
  14. With it's cool look, and late-night time slot, I wonder if TCM could get away with showing more Hammer films, and later horror classics like the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), HALLOWEEN (1978) and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984.) Normally, I wouldn't care for these later slasher flicks on TCM, but they are important cinematic films, and would go great with the format of TCM Underground.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...