squeaky pete's film journal
11 posts • Page 1 of 1
squeaky pete's film journal
by squeaky pete » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:13 am Hello!!! I have decided to start a film journal. 
Here's some shit I watched during the past few days...
Videodrome (1983, David Cronenberg, REWATCH): B
It had been 4 years since I last saw this one and I absolutely hated it at the time. Upon rewatch I find myself extremely confused as to why I hated it so much. It's certainly not the most digestible film, but it's definitely more accessible and easy to take in than a ton of other shit I've seen. Anyway, not earth-shattering but pretty good. I don't think I've seen a single earth-shattering film from Cronenberg, but he was a consistent filmmaker in his prime and most of his films are very solid. And James Woods is just the greatest.
Savage Streets (1984, Danny Steinnman, REWATCH): A-
Watched this one a few nights ago, stoned/drunk and it was hilarious! I laughed to the point of crying at the "hide the salami" and "go fuck an iceberg" lines. This one's got that rich 80s urban atmosphere with a vibrant neon-lit streets-type thing going for it. And the coke-fuelled, giggling thug rapists (called The Scars) were hysterical and very likable. I could easily see myself burning one with em, threatening school principals, and having general reckless behavior.
No Man's Land (1987, Peter Werner): C/C+
Undercover cop flick with Charley Sheen as the hell raising car thief ace and D.B. Sweeny as his pussy, unlikely-partner-in-crime and guilt-ridden undercover cop. It was OK, nothing great.
Radioactive Dreams (1986, Albert Pyun): C+/B-
I saw this because Sue Saad did the soundtrack and I loved her theme for the film LOOKER. This wasn't the best movie in the world but luckily there is a LOT of Sue Saad musical interludes of the 80s "pump your fist and feel the power" variety a la Streets of Fire. In fact, this is basically a 90 minute long Sue Saad music video, which is a good thing! Get me out of this wasteland, man.
Panic in the Streets (1950, Elia Kazan): C+
Richard Widmark and Jack Palance are champs. Love those guys. Kinda middle of the road noir for me. Nothing particularly memorable or interesting happens but it was never boring. I liked the premise, had the potential to do some interesting shit with that but ultimately this was just mildly satisfactory for me.
La Vie Nouvelle (2002, Philippe Grandrieux): Meh
It was late, I was a little stoned, I had just jerked off and wasn't tired. So I was flipping thru some local channels and this shit was playing on TBS or something and I was like, "sure, whatever". I wouldn't say I necessarily disliked it, but I was definitely completely indifferent to it. When the credits rolled I was like, "Well, that was a movie". Pretty forgettable, Saturday afternoon 'do-some-chores-while-watching-this-in-your-peripherals' type faire but it's OK for what it is. I liked it better than that Sombre, I guess.
Here's some shit I watched during the past few days...Videodrome (1983, David Cronenberg, REWATCH): B
It had been 4 years since I last saw this one and I absolutely hated it at the time. Upon rewatch I find myself extremely confused as to why I hated it so much. It's certainly not the most digestible film, but it's definitely more accessible and easy to take in than a ton of other shit I've seen. Anyway, not earth-shattering but pretty good. I don't think I've seen a single earth-shattering film from Cronenberg, but he was a consistent filmmaker in his prime and most of his films are very solid. And James Woods is just the greatest.
Savage Streets (1984, Danny Steinnman, REWATCH): A-
Watched this one a few nights ago, stoned/drunk and it was hilarious! I laughed to the point of crying at the "hide the salami" and "go fuck an iceberg" lines. This one's got that rich 80s urban atmosphere with a vibrant neon-lit streets-type thing going for it. And the coke-fuelled, giggling thug rapists (called The Scars) were hysterical and very likable. I could easily see myself burning one with em, threatening school principals, and having general reckless behavior.
No Man's Land (1987, Peter Werner): C/C+
Undercover cop flick with Charley Sheen as the hell raising car thief ace and D.B. Sweeny as his pussy, unlikely-partner-in-crime and guilt-ridden undercover cop. It was OK, nothing great.
Radioactive Dreams (1986, Albert Pyun): C+/B-
I saw this because Sue Saad did the soundtrack and I loved her theme for the film LOOKER. This wasn't the best movie in the world but luckily there is a LOT of Sue Saad musical interludes of the 80s "pump your fist and feel the power" variety a la Streets of Fire. In fact, this is basically a 90 minute long Sue Saad music video, which is a good thing! Get me out of this wasteland, man.
Panic in the Streets (1950, Elia Kazan): C+
Richard Widmark and Jack Palance are champs. Love those guys. Kinda middle of the road noir for me. Nothing particularly memorable or interesting happens but it was never boring. I liked the premise, had the potential to do some interesting shit with that but ultimately this was just mildly satisfactory for me.
La Vie Nouvelle (2002, Philippe Grandrieux): Meh
It was late, I was a little stoned, I had just jerked off and wasn't tired. So I was flipping thru some local channels and this shit was playing on TBS or something and I was like, "sure, whatever". I wouldn't say I necessarily disliked it, but I was definitely completely indifferent to it. When the credits rolled I was like, "Well, that was a movie". Pretty forgettable, Saturday afternoon 'do-some-chores-while-watching-this-in-your-peripherals' type faire but it's OK for what it is. I liked it better than that Sombre, I guess.
squeaky pete- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:31 am
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by Jos » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:18 pm 
squeaky pete wrote:La Vie Nouvelle (2002, Philippe Grandrieux): Meh
Saturday afternoon 'do-some-chores-while-watching-this-in-your-peripherals' type faire
That's exactly what it's not. It's a film that really takes you in there, if you let it. If you Ally-watch it, it's a complete waste.
Jos- THE buddy of TLC
- Posts: 8750
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:35 pm
- Location: Leiden, Netherlands
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by wet snake jackson » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:24 pm surprised to discover, halfway through the book, that it's a really terrible piece of pretentious writing. I felt no empathy with the main character -- a really spoiled, pretentiously "eccentric" kid with an Asian fetish trying to revel in the black aethetic of his free-fall into poverty.
wet snake jackson- Posts: 21431
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:32 am
- Location: empire of dirt
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by squeaky pete » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:58 pm Jos wrote::wave:
squeaky pete wrote:La Vie Nouvelle (2002, Philippe Grandrieux): Meh
Saturday afternoon 'do-some-chores-while-watching-this-in-your-peripherals' type faire
That's exactly what it's not. It's a film that really takes you in there, if you let it. If you Ally-watch it, it's a complete waste.
I'm not saying I did this when I watched it, but I wish I did. It's ho hum, run-of-the-mill, all-too-familiar kinda shit.
Not saying it's bad though, just a bit typical I guess.TO EACH HIS OWN
hello olof
squeaky pete- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:31 am
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by squeaky pete » Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:46 am Lisa, Lisa AKA Axe (1974, Frederick R. Friedel): D
Pretty all-around terrible. Low budget 70s horror or something? Emphasis on low budget. Very amateur stuff. Luckily it was only 68 minutes long.
Touch of Death (1988, Lucio Fulci): C
Tried too hard to be a dark comedy. Look, he's listening to classical music while he chops up a corpse with a chainsaw! It's funny cuz you associate classical music with sophistication and refinement but like... he's a serial killer. Pretty clever. Just a blah Fulci flick, he made a lot like this. He's a-OK in my book for the few masterpieces he did make.
Opening Night (1977, John Cassavetes): D
Gena Rowlands is such an unlikable hag here. I could not sympathize with her woes in the slightest. I also couldn't get into this one at all.
Buffalo Bill and the Indians (1975, Robert Altman): C+
A bit too reverent towards the Indians, the usual cliches of making them appear wise and saintly, but otherwise this was good stuff. Pretty big slap in the face to U.S. history, blind patriotism, and just Americans in general. Paul Newman's character is showcased in all his petty glory.
St. Ives (1976, J. Lee Thompson): B
Very un-Bronson for a Bronson flick, which made it interesting. Some of its plot points were lost on me but I enjoyed the 70s atmosphere and Lalo Schifrin score. Plus Bronson's character is named Ray St. Ives, which is a pretty rad name.
Dogville (2003, Lars Von Trier): B!
I almost turned this off at the beginning because of the ridiculous chalkboard gimmick masquerading as a town. But I gave it a chance and it pulled me in. A very fascinating and layered indictment on human nature, even if it's completely unsubtle in its delivery. And it's pretty mean-spirited, which I must admit, I like in my films. It's long but it never drags (at least for me). A great film.
…All the Marbles (1980, Robert Aldrich): B+/A-
Holy fucking shit! Robert Aldrich is a genius.
This is cinema!!! Peter Falk is a sleazy, two-bit manager for a female wrestling team called The California Dolls and they raise all kinds of hell as they make their mark in female wrestling history. This is basically a really hilarious, uplifting, and inspiring big budget exploitation film a la Showgirls and I found myself cheering and shouting. I really respect Aldrich for being such a well-rounded filmmaker.
QUIET ON THE SET!!!!
Pretty all-around terrible. Low budget 70s horror or something? Emphasis on low budget. Very amateur stuff. Luckily it was only 68 minutes long.
Touch of Death (1988, Lucio Fulci): C
Tried too hard to be a dark comedy. Look, he's listening to classical music while he chops up a corpse with a chainsaw! It's funny cuz you associate classical music with sophistication and refinement but like... he's a serial killer. Pretty clever. Just a blah Fulci flick, he made a lot like this. He's a-OK in my book for the few masterpieces he did make.
Opening Night (1977, John Cassavetes): D
Gena Rowlands is such an unlikable hag here. I could not sympathize with her woes in the slightest. I also couldn't get into this one at all.
Buffalo Bill and the Indians (1975, Robert Altman): C+
A bit too reverent towards the Indians, the usual cliches of making them appear wise and saintly, but otherwise this was good stuff. Pretty big slap in the face to U.S. history, blind patriotism, and just Americans in general. Paul Newman's character is showcased in all his petty glory.
St. Ives (1976, J. Lee Thompson): B
Very un-Bronson for a Bronson flick, which made it interesting. Some of its plot points were lost on me but I enjoyed the 70s atmosphere and Lalo Schifrin score. Plus Bronson's character is named Ray St. Ives, which is a pretty rad name.
Dogville (2003, Lars Von Trier): B!
I almost turned this off at the beginning because of the ridiculous chalkboard gimmick masquerading as a town. But I gave it a chance and it pulled me in. A very fascinating and layered indictment on human nature, even if it's completely unsubtle in its delivery. And it's pretty mean-spirited, which I must admit, I like in my films. It's long but it never drags (at least for me). A great film.
…All the Marbles (1980, Robert Aldrich): B+/A-
Holy fucking shit! Robert Aldrich is a genius.
This is cinema!!! Peter Falk is a sleazy, two-bit manager for a female wrestling team called The California Dolls and they raise all kinds of hell as they make their mark in female wrestling history. This is basically a really hilarious, uplifting, and inspiring big budget exploitation film a la Showgirls and I found myself cheering and shouting. I really respect Aldrich for being such a well-rounded filmmaker.QUIET ON THE SET!!!!
squeaky pete- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:31 am
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by wet snake jackson » Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:07 am squeaky pete wrote:
good screenshots there
surprised to discover, halfway through the book, that it's a really terrible piece of pretentious writing. I felt no empathy with the main character -- a really spoiled, pretentiously "eccentric" kid with an Asian fetish trying to revel in the black aethetic of his free-fall into poverty.
wet snake jackson- Posts: 21431
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:32 am
- Location: empire of dirt
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by squeaky pete » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:36 pm Carmelo wrote:Fucking fulci......
Chaco, language!!!!
squeaky pete- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:31 am
Re: squeaky pete's film journal
by AgentKnight » Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:20 am oh no. cronenberg fails and so does von trier. you fail.
AgentKnight- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:35 am
- Location: Australia
wigwam- Pussy, King of the Pirates
- Posts: 19007
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: Junius Heights
11 posts • Page 1 of 1
Return to Film Journals
No comments:
Post a Comment