#142-154. A bunch of movies, again!

I've seen a couple of movies from the 1001-list this month so here's a quick list with a brief comment (IMDB-rating High-Low):

142. Brazil (1985): Terry Gilliam's done it again with this hilarious black comedy. Too bad Robert De Niro had so little screen-time. (8/10)

143. Dead Man (1995): It's like watching poetry with a beautiful black and white-photography and great actors.(8/10)

144. Sleuth (1972): A really thrilling picture. Great performances all-in-all and never gets boring even though the whole movie only takes place in a house.

145. San Pietro (1945): This slow and boring propaganda documentary wasn't engaging at all. But, I can see the historical importance of the movie.(5/10) [Short]

146. The Blair Witch Project (1999): Even though this "revolutionized" (it wasn't the first one to use POV but anyways) the horror genre it really doesn't hold up with now. It's not that scary, only creepy some moments, but the gets back to annoying characters. It feels so empty when it's done. (4/10)

147. Roman Holiday (1953): This is a rom-com with a young and at the time newcomer, Audrey Hepburn and also the great actor Gregory Peck. It has fun characters, it's engaging and it's one of the better ones in its genre. (7/10)

148. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948): Finally a Humphrey Bogart-flick I like. It has better (still unnatural dialogue) dialogue and more interesting characters then some of this film noirs but this has changed my mind on Bogart, I might end up liking the guy! It's a solid western with an intriguing story. (7/10)

149. Ikiru (1952): I love this movie! It's a self-reflection on life and what life as all about, and that's usually what I seek in a great movie (not always though, and not ONLY that). It makes everything interesting because you begin to ask yourself that question and you start getting ideas and inspiration. That's what makes a film great, and Kurosawa knew this. Also entertainment of course, but you can see entertainment in seriousness as well.

150. Blonde Cobra (1963): This short film is really boring and a waste of time. I can't get anything from this except weirdness and awkward moments. That's also what saves this from a 1/10-rating, barely. (2/10) [Short]

151. Das Boot (1981): I've finally taken on the task to watch this long movie and I must say, I really liked it. It's very entertaining, almost all the time, and action actually happens. It's not a slow drama. I wanted to see a both-sided film though (allied vs. axis), as it was intended, even though that would've probably made it even longer. (8/10)

152. The Wild  Bunch (1969): If you're in the mood for a great Western (and not a spaghetti-one) this is the right choice. It has likable characters, typical but entertaining story and the charm of its genre. (8/10)

153. Gone with the Wind (1939): Another long movie I've finally gotten around to watch (although seen parts of it before). It's good, it has good performances from both Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh (also she's a beauty) but I must say it's not really my cup of tea. This is indeed a slow romantic drama but in the end it didn't feel like wasted time. It also showed some really nice photography all through the movie. (6/10)

154. Cool Hand Luke (1967): Watching this movie, I realized: I've seen this before! And I probably like it as much as I liked it years ago. It's a solid film with great performances from Paul Newman and the others. I recommend watching it. (7/10)

#141. Slacker (1991)

IMDb-link

I really do like dialogue-based movies, but I must say that I was disappointed here. I really like Richard Linklater's other movies; his Waking Life, Before Sunset and Before Sunrise are all great and his A Scanner Darkly is good too. I seems to me that he's getting better and better at making more interesting and good dialogue. This one though wasn't that good, although it is one of his first movies, so there's that.

It goes from one person or to another and they're all talking about their crazy world views and "theories". So you never really get to know the person, it just moves on and on. This would still be good, if the dialogue was more interesting or more interactive. I'd really like to know what Linklater's view was and this only confused me. Is it his view? Is he open to all of this or is it just stuff his friends are saying? I'd love to have a conversation with Linklater, that would be fun I think.

5/10

#140. Dog Star Man: Part I (1962) [Short]

IMDb-rating

For those that aren't familiar with Stan Brakhage's films, he was an experimental filmmaker. So, no mainstream stuff here, although he has inspired some mainstream films and pop culture during the years.

Anyway, so this is a 30 minute short film from Brakhage. And it's pretty typical the Brakhage I know, fast cuts, zooming, layers, etc. Dog Star Man consists of five parts; Prelude, Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV, and of course, there's no narrative here so you could watch them in any order you want. Oh, and there's no sound, at least not in the original films.

I like the pictures I see in Part I though, which is the best part I think because you we can see this man struggling (or at least that's my interpretation) through the mountains. That gives me something to look at and relate to. Plus that it is mixed with other pictures on top of that. Which are usually nice to watch, but nothing more than that. I must also add that I prefer when he goes totally abstract (The Dante Quartet) or abstract colours layered on some more meaningful pictures (Thigh Line Lyre Triangular).

Either you see it as art and interpret it, or you'll see it as worthless moving pictures with no meaning. I try to see what he's trying to say with his work, he's not making it easy though!

6/10... if a rating is possible.

#139. Total Recall (1990)

IMDb-link

So this is one of those Arnold movies I've seen back in the 90s, but that I've almost totally forgotten about or barely remember. It begins as a serious sci-fi movie (with bad acting) and then pretty quickly turns into something very goofy. And I'd prefer this movie's concept with a more serious tone, it would've worked, instead we get this goofy action flick that we've seen a billion times. I admit, it is a funny movie but it's only because Arnie's saying those bad one liners... otherwise this wouldn't be worth watching.

I can't help to compare it to The Fifth Element, which is also pretty goofy and stupid. Although it has some great scenes with Milla Jovovich, and I love Bruce Willis as an actor, it's still fun and goofy but it's doing it the whole way. Total Recall begins as a serious movie, but after like 20-30 minutes it feels like they realized it's going to be over the top and went with that. I think that's a little bit unfortunate because it would've been interesting to see a sci-fi about people living on Mars and what difficulties there are to that, what new cultures or ideologies have arisen.

Somebody said it's fun action and thought-provoking. Yeah, sure, like five seconds and they do nothing with it. Also, it's pretty much unscientific as well even in it's time. Some examples, "terraforming" of Mars in like 5 minutes (actually only added oxygen to the atmosphere but still, wouldn't go so fast), heads exploding in space/planet with no oxygen, Earth gravity on Mars... these stupid things take me out of the movie.

It's not boring, I'll give it that but very silly and if you like that kind of stuff you'll probably like this movie. I'd recommend watching Predator or Terminator (1 and 2) instead. Or even Commando, that one is in the same league but does it all the way. Or just check Youtube for all the funny one liners, that's even easier.

5/10

#138. Dracula (1931)

IMDb-link

I've finally got around to see the WHOLE classic Dracula with Bela Lugosi and I can tell you that he's really incredible in his portrayal of the Undead Count. I can say that I love the vampire creature, but usually they somehow screw up this cool mythological creature either with annoying characters or just with bad storytelling. Now, this is of course the classic Bram Stoker story so when you start watching it you probably already know what'll happen and you know the story works (if you've read the book or watched the other 100 versions). Also, you could really see why Coppola (in his 1992 version) cast Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, he kinda talks like Edward Van Sloan in this and also you can clearly see that Coppola was hugely inspired by this movie (who isn't?) when creating the interior designs. You could also do a comparison with Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), which is of course great but it needs a rewatch from my part again. Probably better on a second viewing.

The first part, in Dracula's castle, had some pretty impressive set decorations. The only thing that took me out of the movie was the overacting here and there, but of course, that is understandable. The actors came basically from the theater, Lugosi reprised his role here from his plays. Now of course, there's nothing scary about this film, we're so spoiled and used to much scarier stuff today. But the atmosphere that is the combination of Stoker's great story and the music makes it an immortal classic.

+7/10