DVDizzy Forum

I watched Alien (1979) last night for the first time. I thought it was a pretty good sci-fi film, though the first half hour was kind of slow.

Avatar-

Awesome!

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs- A true masterpiece. The animation is beautiful, the atmosphere and mood is great, The Queen is outstandingly horrible, the dwarfs are cute, and many of the scenes are amazing.

PixarFan2006 wrote:I watched Alien (1979) last night for the first time. I thought it was a pretty good sci-fi film, though the first half hour was kind of slow.

I know it's a classic film, and highly regared by critics and fans alike, but I couldn't help but roll my eyes all the way through it. It's supposed to be an exciting, suspensefull film, but I had to laugh out loud during supposedly 'serious' moments.

Do with my opinion what you want.

I last watched Disney's Home on the Range (2004) for the first time ever.

What a pathetic excuse for a Disney 'Classic'. The studio shouldn't have faulted the medium 2D for disappointing public reception, but the poor script, flat characters, abysmal animation, ridiculous premise etc. It began all-right with the song 'Patch of Heaven', but from there on, it's all downhill. The film is chaotic, over-the-top (and not in a good way), too fast-paced, full of gross jokes (haven't laughed once) and full of annoying, loud-mouthed, boorish characters. I didn't care for any of them, because they're simply underdeveloped and downright irritating.

The villain is a joke (and not in a funny way). When he began yodeling and he got the cows hypnothised, I had to pinch myself to remind me that I wasn't hallucinating. I really was watching a Disney-film about cows getting hypnothised by a yodeling cowboy! It's ludicrous! The dumbest thing I've ever seen! At that point, I began to wonder: who at Disney's had greenlighted this epic failure? Was there really one person who thought this would make for a good movie? The whole film looks like Disney just didn't care anymore what they put out.

I'm glad Walt never had to see this.

I got a whole bunch of movies for Christmas, but decided to settle down last night with a film I haven't watched in a while - Razzle Dazzle. Totally fun, but not a patch on the Christopher Guest movies it tries to emulate.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) - It was better than expected. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law were actually great in their roles, but Rachel McAdams, one of my favorite actresses, seemed bored with what little time she was in it.

Goliath wrote:

PixarFan2006 wrote:I watched Alien (1979) last night for the first time. I thought it was a pretty good sci-fi film, though the first half hour was kind of slow.

I know it's a classic film, and highly regared by critics and fans alike, but I couldn't help but roll my eyes all the way through it. It's supposed to be an exciting, suspensefull film, but I had to laugh out loud during supposedly 'serious' moments.

Could that possibly have anything to do with the terrible Alien costume? The close-ups of just the head look alright but when they show the full body standing straight up like a human, its embarrassing (when he gets launched out the airlock, I swear I can see the zipper). Its as bad as the 76 Kings Kong ape costume, way too cheesy. When the Alien pops out of the chest and looks around, it seriously moves like a stiff sock puppet, and just looses all shock value. This is one movie I wouldn't mind if they went back and fixed the Alien FX (not add/change scenes, just fix the FX). The CG and the puppets in AVP (terrible movie) look way more convincing, so if they could just digitally composite a new puppet or CG alien over the old, it would add a whole level of seriousness to the film that you just don't get with the all too obvious man in costume Alien.

Thats just my opinion. I love the film but the suit just always bothered me and it bothered my dad when he saw it in theaters (so its not just me being used to the new FX).

WHAT A DIFFERENCE a few years make!! I don't know how to say this but, I'm really growing up. Because I used to love certain movies unconditionally and be able to down mainstream comedies from the late 80's and early 90's like I wasn't even watching them. I used to be blissfully unaware of... well, almost anything. In the name of entertainment value, it was all the same to me so long as it was pleasent and nice. But things are changing quickly and now when I look upon old classics and other mainstream movies, I'm starting to see cracks in their walls. Many, many cracks. Take this... well, I can't call it a gem anymore, can I? It's not. Take this movie for example. This used to be one of my all-time favorite comedies. And it's been a few years since I last watched it but, I really can't tell you how much I loved this movie. It made me feel really good. And it was really filling.

Not anymore. Years later, any deep enjoyment I could get from this movie is hampered by quite a list of flaws. In fact, I don't truly know where to begin. The two biggest areas that need to be discussed are- where this lacks the true depth of a film over the shallowness of a television production, and the struggles of traditional wholesomeness versus new 60's attitudes and trends. Let's see if I can't hit both birds with one stone... Since this film is about snarky pranksters with hearts of gold being forced to change their ways since they are now attending a catholic school, you know there is going to be some preachiness. Even that could be handled better than they did in this film. The problem here manifests itself in a number of ways. Starting with the manner in which, following every "scathingly brilliant" prank the girls pull, the girls sit around talking about the nasty way Mother Superior has scolded them. What did she say?! Since we don't hear it, one's natural instinct is to assume it doesn't matter. Alright, so then why are the girls talking about it so much afterward? At one point, the Mary Clancy character even suggests that something the Mother Superior character said was obscene. What kind of role model does that make her?

My big problem is that- I don't feel comfortable picking a side here. Neither one represents how I feel. Neither strike me as all that mature. Mother Superior mostly acts patient but later we hear that she's lost her temper and her stiff but graceful poise. The girls are charismatic comic talents in their acting abilities, but their characters are... well... ninnies, to borrow a 60's slang term. They think everything their parents or the nuns would disapprove of or that seems flashy and shiny is "a blast" - which makes them materialists and conformists. In short- no better than they think the nuns are. They are not good protagonists. And neither is Mother Superior, especially in her scenes dealing with Mr. Petrie and Mr. Gottschalk. I think everyone remembers the crucial scene of her rightfully excoriating Mary for her mocking of Sister Ursula. But, does anyone remember the highly hypocritical moment where she basically fleshpeddles "her girls" by allowing them to parade around in skintight "uniforms" that fit around the pelvis area like bikinis to win the school's marching band competition so the school could get a new boiler? Those things even shocked me! I thought as I sat there last week: there's no way she's going to let them perform wearing those (and I've seen this movie like 4 times already)...

Then, we have a shameless example of someone with an agenda in the writing department bashing liberalism without any tact or responsibility in the way they're doing it. Here, it's in the form of an exclusively-posh private academy called New Trends. Where even before the headmaster shows up, we're given a negative image of him by Rachel. Though her character seemingly means to praise him, she writes him letters and says things we "we were sympatico" (does that mean, in any way, that he flirts with younger girls or - what?) and makes us think that he'll come up and take her away from the school just because the nuns are "stifling her creative flow"... like he's so dumb, he thinks that the academic subjects at a catholic school are dominated by arts. Then, he shows up and is portrayed as a physically weak but stubborn man with a snobby attitude and a stuttering habit. And later, following his "the finest academic minds in the country are on our side" (meaning- they support the academy, not are enrolled in it), Mother Superior in fact states that New Trends has no devotion to academic studies. Meaning- they're just a glorified bank. Or one big lounging area for spoiled rich kids. (So how come Marvel-Ann attends St. Francis'?!)

It's not just the ideas that are seriously flawed here, it's the execution. If things are really so dire and there's a serious message about personal religious fulfillment here, why are the proceedings reduced to so many kooky "those darned girls" scenes- complete with goofy organ music and comic sound effects? Why is the art teacher, Sister Elizabeth, portrayed as the 2nd most oppressive figure at the academy after Mother Superior? Isn't it just a little ridiculous that they picked Sister Leguori - the only nun all the girls like - as the one to die? Does anyone think they're laying it on super thick with the endless parade of sob stories from everyone at the county home for the aged (how many can they fit in 3 minutes? You'd be surprised!)? Why is Mary the only girl who ever feels sorry for having a rotten attitude (notice the scene with Valerie and Marvel-Ann complaining and the box of chocolates comes so soon after Mary freaks out over the woman crying at the county home)? Then- following the scene in which Mother Superior is bent on seeing the girls expelled for calling the fire department for just a pair of cigars, she makes only a passing reference to the fact that she had to call the police to find the girls after they ran away from Sister Elizabeth. I didn't expect her to be very upset either, but she should have been angrier than ever at this. And what aren't we being told about why Mr. Gottschalk is so incredibly nervous, what is he supposed to need her help for, specifically?

By the time we get to the scene where Rachel severs all ties of her friendship with Mary over her wanting to become a nun - which should be the most eyebrow raising element of the movie - you're just completely numb from the lack of strong logic in the film. Its heart is in the right place, certainly there's no question about that. Snobby people, reckless behavior, passivity, selfishness, gloating pride, and wearing silly, flashy clothing and accessories to get attention are definitely bad things. But again, the movie's lack of a genuinely reliable role model (other than Leguori and the delightfully candid and always-lovable Mary Wickes as Sister Clarissa- who don't get nearly enough screentime) and its' outright hypocrasy are huge problems. In all likelihood, the person who wrote this movie didn't know anything they were talking about. However, the cast still do a remarkable job making you like the characters (enough). The music score is nice (though the constant repetition of the theme song all throughout the movie is yet another trouble spot). There's lots of pretty colors. The dialogue is usually very witty. The acting quality is strong. And though the writing leaves me with some disturbing new reactions to the story, this movie is still a model for all of today's crappy Hollywood waste material to try to be more like. I'd still rather watch this than almost any movie made today. It's far less obnoxious.

We watched La Bamba last night. I really liked it. And AMAZING music in it- I love '50s music, so it was awesome. A

Yesterday, I watched Home Alone and Home Alone 2, Christmas classics! They were my favorite Christmas movies when I was a kid and they still are.

Slumdog Millionaire - Very enjoyable; no wonder it won Best Picture

jpanimation wrote:Could that possibly have anything to do with the terrible Alien costume? The close-ups of just the head look alright but when they show the full body standing straight up like a human, its embarrassing (when he gets launched out the airlock, I swear I can see the zipper). Its as bad as the 76 Kings Kong ape costume, way too cheesy. When the Alien pops out of the chest and looks around, it seriously moves like a stiff sock puppet, and just looses all shock value.

"A stiff sock puppet". That's an apt discription! What really killed what little credit the film still held after that disappointment, was when it was revealed that the doctor was really a robot and his head came off. Supposed to be a scary revelation. I rolled over the floor laughing at how pathetic it looked. And of course the end was sooooo predictable! Of course the creature is going to come back "one more time" after the protagonist though she killed it for good. For a film that is *this* predictable, it sure gets a lot of praise.

However, the social commentary of the film ("the corporation values money over everything else and is readily prepared to sacrifice human lives to obtain it") is something I still appreciate.

I screened Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day for my aunt, and she absolutely loved it. Then last night I watched The World of Henry Orient (a most charming comedy with Angela Lansbury, Paula Prentiss and Peter Sellers); followed by Rachel, Rachel, a fascinating drama directed by Paul Newman and starring his wife Joanne Woodward.

Ballet Shoes - This was really cute, lol. Emma Watson was very good in it, as well as the ensamble cast. I've never read the book or have seen the previous television adaptation, so I can't compare. This was still good, and I recommend it.

<center>Warning: Potential Spoilers!</center>






Still an essential classic, all the years later, and screw what people think of the movie versus the book. Though, some insight from people who aren't so hot on the movie has chipped away at any marveling we might still do over the paradise fantasy of having all the candy you could dream of. The movie makes the gluttony of candy-worship so sickening that even I walked away from this movie going, "I don't" think I "care very much for chocolate." Once you know that the flower-cups are wax and the cola-froth is fire extinguisher foam that gives you a rash, you can only imagine what that red-chocolate river is made of... And it's not a lovely thought. The whole "Candy Man" sequence in the beginning also became a source of unpleasentness for me. Though, it won't make you lose your lunch- like Tim Burton's remake almost did for me. The whole ugliness to the bright side of this movie only adds to the double-sworded satirical fantasy here. It doesn't have to be a true paradise one way or the other to be slyly entertaining. It's still sharp and clever and looks beautiful stylistically. Gene Wilder's performance is still devilish yet completely human, and his singing hits notes no other performer would try in a movie like this. And if you need the illusion that this is a family-friendly parable about how acting like a brat leads you to a bad end, I don't think you'll be disappointed. It is family-friendly. Yet, that doesn't stop me from loving every last frame of Veruca Salt's legendary "I Want it Now!" music number.






Speaking of Tim Burton, here's one of his finest hours. A delicious orgasm for satire fans masquerading as your typical mainstream FX family-adventure film. This is so far from a family film, it's awe-inspiring. The fact that it scored a PG rating yet contains at least 2 direct references to masturbation, big-boobed hussies in tight busty ho-clothes, the "F" word, references to homosexuality and suicide, and graphic depictions of death via slashed throats and slit wrists - and even got itself played on The Disney Channel... is a huggable sign of the cluelessness of the times and how easy it is to be subversive within the mainstream: because so many people are so damn gullible. Tim Burton used to be an artist of cutting edge relevance. And here, his amazing style fits this movie's eccentric and ruthlessly original screenplay like a glove! From bringing a genuine empathy to Lydia's tortured isolation to giving fiery goddess of the sharp-tongue, the underrated Catherine O'Hara, a grand stage to let loose with a barrage of wicked one-liners and responses that still make me stand up and cheer.

We've already had films that explored the American way of wanting to ignore death (Phantasm, Re-Animator) and the ultra-sensitivity people have to anything related to dead bodies. This movie goes a step further and destroys the fantasy people have about death bringing peace. After awhile, you get the distinct impression that life is the only gift we get, spiritually- a cheery thought to be sure. The writing quality on display here is impressive. Especially since the targets of disdain are the same sort of arty and trendy jerks that are often parodied on sitcoms with a traditionalist agenda. Look no further than here to see it done right, with a clever flair for intelligent low-brow observations. Delia and Otho are the terrorists who have invaded Adam and Barbara's simple, relaxed home and seek to destroy all that is recognizable. For the comedy of it, they make hilariously spot-on jokes for their characters at the expense of the audience who sympathize with the good and decent main couple. Though, neither Burton nor the screenwriters abuse the intelligence of the audience. They just challenge traditional notions of how to handle snobby villains in film.

And then... there's the dialogue. Wit has never tasted so good in a film before! Burton has a way of making the nastiest things appealing and mainstream. Like taking the most obscure thing and delivering it with the forcefulness of action. I'm not even referring to visual gags like the snake and the sandworm planet. But where before in a highly visible mainstream comedy could you see a gay man dressed like a mortician mocking the ultimate American-Dream lifestyle and be able to truly laugh at it? This is the kind of movie where watching it, it's incredibly hard to be uptight. Burton had that gift as a filmmaker. To bring audiences who wanted to watch dark and strange things but who may come from different walks of life together, to make them easy to look at with his fun yet creepy style and have them be marketable. The whole of Batman Returns being the best example- it's so depressing, it's even more shocking that that film was sold as-is by a major studio than this one. The opening of the movie is jarring and the pacing is too frantic. But when the Deetzes show up, you get used to it. From there, it's hellish fun every step of the way. "Troubled by the living?" Aren't we all...






If most people here were to watch this movie right now, they would scoff at my low rating. I admit, for its' type, this is a very impressive slasher film. It looks amazing (though on all VHS prints, the infamous chase scene in the dark rooms of the high school was too dark to see anything that was happening). The characters are smart, even the nasty ones. The drama is well-handled. The terror and tension are palpable. The violence is sadistic but in an arty way. The music is kinky. The sexual content is adult without being overly insulting. And hey- a chubby guy gets laid without being too obnoxious about it, before or after. Compared to shit like Maniac and The Prowler- this movie would sweep the Academy Awards. With Jamie Lee Curtis a shoe-in for Best Actress, she KILLS in this movie. Not to knock a classic, and a film I totally respect, but her performance here blows away anything intented or accomplished for her and her character in Carpenter's Halloween.

And yet, I was consistently distracted throughout the running time by several things. One is how completely irrelevant - and completely boring - the police investigation was to the plot of the movie. I get it, it's like tongue-in-cheek and "Halloween did it, so why can't we?" But if this is a commentary on movie police- I don't think we care. And if this is a commentary on real police investigations of murders, what are you proving by having them guess the little girl died because of an attempted rape? Which we know is completely off the beaten track. There is no evidence of anything like that at the crime scene. And the way they handle it here isn't funny or disturbing (beyond what you'd guess is going on inside the writer's head), so I don't see the reasoning for it. The police stuff here eats up almost 10 complete minutes of screentime, so feel free to just step out and make something to eat. Trust me, you won't miss anything.

Then, there's the bad acting. There are so many bad line readings here, it's painful. From blown lines to facial expressions not matching up with the dialogue to the little blonde girl's amazingly bad 'dramatic' stuttering. Some people are trying a lot harder than others. It's the back-and-forth between the acceptable and the excrutiating that turned me off. It takes you out of the mood (set wonderfully by the very unique look of the film) completely. The rest of my complaints are all just a bunch of bad signs. Like- the casting of Cronenberg regular Robert A. Silverman in a non-speaking role (see him in The Brood and you'll understand why that's a bad decision). Or the utter childishness of the tennis flashing scene. Or the predictable behavior of the Nick character, becoming jealous over ex-girlfriend and troublemaker Wendy when she shows up at the dance looking (much) better than his date. Or the incredibly stupid choice of a victim to leave their place of safety in a chase scene just because they see a dead body.

Worth checking out, but don't say I didn't warn you if you walk away feeling like I did.

Goliath wrote:

jpanimation wrote:Could that possibly have anything to do with the terrible Alien costume? The close-ups of just the head look alright but when they show the full body standing straight up like a human, its embarrassing (when he gets launched out the airlock, I swear I can see the zipper). Its as bad as the 76 Kings Kong ape costume, way too cheesy. When the Alien pops out of the chest and looks around, it seriously moves like a stiff sock puppet, and just looses all shock value.

"A stiff sock puppet". That's an apt discription! What really killed what little credit the film still held after that disappointment, was when it was revealed that the doctor was really a robot and his head came off. Supposed to be a scary revelation. I rolled over the floor laughing at how pathetic it looked.

After he brutally attacked Ripley, you laughed? Did ya miss the fact that he was beating the shit out of a human being?

Goliath wrote:And of course the end was sooooo predictable! Of course the creature is going to come back "one more time" after the protagonist though she killed it for good. For a film that is *this* predictable, it sure gets a lot of praise.

I take a few points off it myself because of the slow start and the science-fiction fanciness of the many scenes dealing with the tech of the Nostromo ship. Not only am I not a real fan of science fiction, but I'm also not all that compelled by the truck drivers-thing. Nothing personal, I just haven't met one yet who cared to get my attention. We're like two worlds never aware of the others' existence, we go right through each other. So, it took a long time for the movie to get going. Which means it seems like it was made for someone else- not my kind of thing. But once it does finally get going, it doesn't stop. It's cold, scary, and very vivid. Very much inspired by the seminal Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Ridley Scott wanted the audience to feel the space and the air and the moisture. When Dallas touches a pile of goo, I could feel it! It's a truly sensory film and a very rich one at that. And why should that get a lot of praise? Maybe because there are very few films like that out there. And because it impresses very many people for different reasons. It's won me over. And as you can probably tell- that's not an easy thing.

Goliath wrote:However, the social commentary of the film ("the corporation values money over everything else and is readily prepared to sacrifice human lives to obtain it") is something I still appreciate.

I think in this case, they were probably thinking more along the lines of a "military weapon" kind of thing. And the fact that Ash the robot was the science officer, means that they were also probably trying to slip in a little message about: in the wrong hands, used for the wrong purposes- science is a force for evil too. Someone had to program this robot to know science- so we know there was an evil scientist in the corporation or government behind Ash.

Night and Day - the squeaky-clean 1946 "biography" of Cole Porter.

Critic's Choice - the final 1963 screen pairing of Bob Hope and Lucille Ball.

The Geisha Boy - underrated Jerry Lewis comedy.

Disney's Tarzan (1999)

Hated it upon seeing it in the cinema, loving it more every time I watch the DVD. Of course it's the songs by Phil Collins that carry the film, but there's more to enjoy. Like the wild chase-scene, when Tarzan and Jane are being chased by a group of monkeys. The animation and pacing there was flawless. Also, the first interaction between Tarzan and Jane is priceless! I think Jane is one of the best and most underrated Disney heroines. She seems more real and sincere than the other '90s female protagonists. There's something in her eyes that makes you adore her from the start. Also, Minnie Driver's voice work is excellent. I think she and Tarzan make a good couple; on of the best (if not *the* best) of the 1990's films. The emotional moments were never overdone, and were sincere. Oh, I love it all!

District 9 - Great, great movie! Finally an original sci-fi story was released, not a remake or re-imagining. Saw it in theaters in August, and this was my 2nd time seeing it, when I picked up the DVD.

12 Men Of Christmas. Very cute movie, I really enjoyed it as did my dad.

Lazario wrote:After he brutally attacked Ripley, you laughed? Did ya miss the fact that he was beating the shit out of a human being?

Yes, after that! It was SO totally ridiculous! His head comes off and all I could do was roll my eyes. It was SO bad.