I've always kinda found this one to be floating around sort of under the radar, but well known enough, if only because of its remake, featuring Tom Hanks, which in and of itself isn't talked about much. It's one of those titles people are aware of, but don't really bring to the forefront of any conversation about film. It's been pretty well swept under the rug. We know it's there, but it's out of sight, out of mind. 'The Ladykillers' tells of an innocent old lady named Mrs. Wilberforce (Katie Johnson), who is trying to rent out a room. Along come a gang of five criminals, planning a heist at London's King's Cross Station, and needing a place to stay while they plan it all out, under fake identities. An almost cartoonish band of crooks, they are lead by mastermind Professor Marcus (Alec Guinness). Others include straight-laced Claude Courtney (Cecil Parker), hot-headed Louis Harvey (Herbert Lom), funny man Harry Robinson (Peter Sellers) and slow-witted ex-boxer, "One-Round" Lawson (Danny Green). The namesake of the film comes into play when the heist goes off without a hitch, but the gang is caught by Mrs. Wilberforce. While she intends on making them turn the money in, the gang agrees to do so, while in the meantime, plan on killing her, taking the money and run. Of course, as one might guess, the comedy comes into play when these characters start playing off each other, and the situation at hand just gets worse and worse. If I'm perfectly honest, this one didn't do a hell of a lot for me. It certainly wasn't bad. It made me laugh here and there, it's a solid dark comedy for the late 50's, and it works just fine for what it's trying to do. I get the feeling that it's just one of those titles that isn't for me. But as I mentioned earlier, it does seem to have gotten swept under the rug and forgotten about - save the 2004 remake, which suffered pretty much the same fate. This is a good title for those trying to dip their toes into the subgenre of dark comedy. This could easily be seen as a pioneer for that kind of film making. It was Oscar nominated for Best Original Screenplay in 1957 (losing to 'The Red Balloon'), and its writer, William Rose, went on to work on 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World', and was nominated for 'Genevieve' (preceding 'Ladykillers'), 'The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!' and 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' - odds are you're familiar with one of those old, famous titles. If so, check this out based on the writer's skill more than anything else. It's otherwise just kinda... "meh". 3/5
1 Comment
Some of us who were born in the 80's recognize Anne Ramsey's face very well, most likely from 'The Goonies'. She had a particular gift for playing bitter, angry, irritable old women, and she did it so very well. In fact, she did it so well here, she was even nominated for an Oscar - losing that year to Olympia Dukakis for 'Moonstruck'. Sadly, she missed her chance and passed on later that year. However, us kids from the 80's remember her so very well, and most of us probably can't even put a name to her face. Here, we are introduced to Larry Donner (Billy Crystal); a college professor and tutor for aspiring writers. The only successful book he's ever written was done so under his ex-wife, Margaret's (Kate Mulgrew) name, and she now reaps the benefits while he wallows in misery about it. That is until one of his students, Owen Lift (Danny DeVito), comes up with a proposal. Owen lives at home with his horrible mother (Ramsey), and constantly fantasizes about ways to rid himself of her agonizing nagging once and for all - by the way, the way she nags is just hilarious. Finding out about Larry's situation, Owen makes the criss-cross offer of "I'll kill your ex-wife if you kill my mother". While Larry takes it as a joke, he soon finds out that Owen has carried out his part of the deed, and Larry suddenly becomes the prime suspect. All the while afterward, Owen continues to pressure Larry into carrying out his part of the bargain. I had a lot of fun with this one, and it offers a lot of good, dark laughs, which are always right up my alley. Between DeVito (who also directed this one), Crystal and Ramsey, I'm not sure who got the most laughs from me. It might as well be a three-way tie, all showing their best humour in their own ways. The fact that this is essentially a re-imagining of 'Strangers on a Train' is openly addressed, making the film completely self-aware (much like how 'Happy Death Day' mentions 'Groundhog Day'), which blends nicely with the comedy of it all, especially for a film from 1987. If you're someone like me, and you're really into dark comedies, I can highly recommend this one. Remember, by '87, all the rage was slasher horror, and the PG-13 rating had recently been introduced via 'Temple of Doom' in '84. This was a title that fit nice and snug into that PG-13 rating, and really helped pave the way for dark comedies to have more intensity to them. Not that anything in here was all that intense, even for the time, but I daresay this one helped to open that door. 4/5 After last week's movie, I'm so incredibly happy that I chose this title to be my next-in-line for this month. It completely made up for things, as this is much more the type of dark comedy that's up my alley - it's well-paced, and reaching with it's dark sense of humour, yet isn't without some dramatic atmosphere, good, likable characters, and a more or less original story. We meet two hit men from London, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson). They have been ordered to lay low in Bruges, Belgium by their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), after a hit gone bad, accidentally killing an innocent bystander. They are further advised to take in the sites of the "magical" city while they await Harry's call with further instructions. Ken takes this advice into consideration, and manages to enjoy himself, but Ray really just doesn't want to be there and mopes about things the entire time. A lot of his attitude is the result of the recent hit; his first job gone wrong, but eventually he runs into Chloe (Clémence Poésy) who becomes the only real charm he sees in this city. Without spoiling too much, the rest of the film develops the relationship between Ray and Chloe, develops the character of Ken, and develops Harry into one of the funniest dry-humour movie villains I've ever seen. These characters are about half the charm of the movie, while the rest of it is largely the scenery of Bruges, itself blended with how the whole story unfolds. This one was nominated for Best Original Screenplay from Martin McDonagh. It didn't manage to win that year, losing to 'Milk', but McDonagh was also responsible for writing/directing 'Three Billboards Over Ebbing, Missouri' and 'Seven Psychopaths'. That might give you some idea of the kind of movie you're looking at here. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you think, and it'll surprise you with some of the turns it takes. I'm not entirely sure what took me so long to see this one, as it's been highly recommended as a movie meant for me for quite some time now - In fact, pretty much since its release in '08. It was just one of those titles I avoided for no good reason, which is something I think we all do with certain titles. I'm glad I finally got around to watching it though, as my friends were all right when they said this was something I'd really enjoy. If you haven't gotten around to seeing this one yet, I can highly recommend it. It was nominated for its screenwriting Oscar with good reason. Some of the language might be a bit dodgy for some, but bear in mind the character development in this, and you'll find yourself feeling both sides of things with pretty much everyone present. It's definitely something I can watch again, and something I feel I'd get more out of the more I saw it. 5/5 First up on June's catching up list of dark comedies is what was recommended to me for a starting point - 1998's 'Very Bad Things'. I dunno if this became some kind of a cult classic over the years, considering I think I know quite a few people who enjoy it. It's generally rated somewhere in the middle. I'm sorry to say that this is one time where I side with the critical end of things, and found myself actually really disliking this movie. Our story includes five dudes, who head to Vegas for a bachelor party. The cast is actually pretty great - The husband to be, Kyle (Jon favreau), Charles (Leland Orser); Adam and Michael Berkow (Daniel Stern and Jeremy Piven, respectively) and Boyd (Christian Slater) who represents the overall testicular fortitude of the film. During the party, something pretty horrible happens, and the film is mostly about the guys trying to keep it covered up, back home. But when some of them start cracking under the pressure, things start to escalate and unravel. Meanwhile, Kyle's wife to be, Laura (Cameron Diaz), is worried beyond belief of her wedding day not going her way. That's unfortunately her whole character here - the bratty, manipulative princess. However, Adam's wife, Lois (Jeanne Tripplehorn) actually came across as a bit of that mixed with the moral compass of the film. She just wants to get to the truth about what happened, and she digs, and it's irritating, but she's still tough enough against these guys that she comes across as a good character for the most part. These guys though. I swear to God, Christian Slater was the only one who didn't just annoy the hell out of me at least once. The worst culprit, for me, was Daniel Stern. When he got going, he just wouldn't stop. It was enough to give you a headache. The rest of them break down and buckle under the pressure in very pathetic looking ways. I totally get it, they're supposed to be average people undergoing something very traumatic. But this was mostly done for comedic effect, and it just comes off as sad... but like, not the kind of "sad" you might think. For my money, Christian Slater was the only really likable character here. He's the rebellious one of the group, wanting to party hard, get his friends messed up, etc. But most importantly, he was the only one to stay cool through about 90% of the movie. The rest of them - the dialogue is just a bunch of screaming and yelling and noise and it's just plain irritating. One word that perfectly describes this movie, to me, is "obnoxious". I'll give the movie credit for probably being the overall inspiration (or one thing to inspire) 'The Hangover', which I liked MUCH better (the first one, anyway). I'll also give it that I laughed a couple of times, and I appreciated how they managed to film what being high might look like... but not a whole lot more. For the most part, I really just thought this was an awful, noisy mess, full of unlikable characters who you just don't care much about by the time it's all over. But again, reviews for these seem to meet in the middle, so maybe it just wasn't for me in the same way Dane Cook just isn't for me. I mean, if you get a laugh out of a lot of screaming and yelling and crying and people losing their shit, you might get something from it. 1/5 Man, talk about a movie that's absolutely entertaining in all the worst ways. This certainly falls under the "so bad it's good" category with a rather hilarious combination of bad dialogue, impossible action sequences, and some of the funniest kills you might ever see. It's a lot more fun if you watch this as a straight up action cliche movie. Just think of Frank Castle (Dolph Lundgren) as McBain from 'The Simpsons'. Of course, Punisher is one of those Marvel heroes along with Spidey, Fantastic Four or Hulk, where we really don't need one of those origin story movies. To be perfectly fair, this actually does manage to pull that off. We get that his family has been killed, that turned him into The Punisher, and he runs around New York, "punishing" the guilty. Here, he's mostly seen as a vigilante with a high body count, and the whole moral aspect of his life's mission ends up being brought into question. In an amazing twist, even though the film's execution is extremely weak and clumsy, they kinda had the right idea about things here. For the most part, here, Frank's just out for revenge, and his main target is the mob family who murdered his family. Again, we all know how it goes. The big difference is, in the '04 version, Frank worked cleverly and behind the scenes, manipulating his enemies into harming each other, keeping his hands clean. In this, it's just balls to the wall guns blazing, and he might as well be a Terminator with how senseless he is with it. Of course, that's about where it gets hilarious. The overkill in this is actually kinda lovable in a weird way. Back to the main plot, head mob boss, Gianni Franco (Jeroen Krabbé) plans to unite several mob families, which attracts the attention of Asian crime syndicate, the Yakuza, lead by Lady Tanaka (Kim Miyori), who kidnaps the mobsters' children in an effort to make them see reason to the Yakuza taking over the crime scene. The whole mess makes Frank's friend, Shake (Barry Otto) plead Frank to rescue these kids, trying to show Frank that family exists on either side of good and bad. Shake is perhaps the most interesting character in here, speaking in rhyme all the time for no good reason that comes to mind. I guess he's here to play the moral compass, making sure Frank doesn't get too out of hand (which is hard to say with a straight face). I mentioned that a lot of the dialogue was funny, but none of it seems to be intentional (save a few scenes that are just straight up cheesy). Although Dolph delivers a lot of these lines, no one made me laugh more than the boss man, himself, Gianni Franco. This is a Dutch dude with a Dutch accent, playing an Italian mob boss, just for the record. It's mostly in his delivery of his lines. It's just impossible to take seriously. Anyway, if you're on the lookout for one of the best bad superhero movies, I'd say look no further than here. So far, on this list, this is the one that has entertained me the most, and I'd happily watch again and again as I introduce people to its terrible-ness. Just a bit of senseless fun that I might recommend to anyone having a particularly bad day. 2/5 Carrying on with Mother's Month, she has recommended one from acclaimed 'It's a Wonderful Life' director, Frank Capra. This one ends up being much more of a dark comedy, though, and probably about the furthest back the idea of dark comedy goes. The concept is dated as being some time in the 60s, but this is a 1944 movie, which leads me to believe this kind of movie was very rare back then. We meet a couple of newly weds - a drama critic who has written several books on the idea of marriage being a bad thing, Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant), and his childhood girl-next-door love interest, Elaine Harper (Priscilla Lane). The couple head back to their hometown of Brooklyn, where Elaine heads to her father's house to pack for the honeymoon. In the meantime, Mortimer drops in on his two aunts, Abby (Josephine Hull) and Martha (Jean Adair), along with his brother, Teddy (John Alexander) who is convinced he's Theodore Roosevelt. The visit begins innocently enough, but soon enough Mortimer discovers a dead body in the window seat, soon discovering that his aunts are murderers who believe they are doing a service for lonely old bachelors. To make things even more complicated, Mortimer's brother, Jonathan (Raymond Massey) drops in with his accomplice, Dr. Einstein (Peter Lorre). A killer on the run, he's looking for a place to lay low, and needless to say, it's just one of those disaster after disaster piling up kind of movies where the humor is well in the forefront of an otherwise dire situation. I think what's to be admired the most about this movie is everyone's performance. Grant is hilarious, being the innocent victim of his surroundings, Hull and Adair are very convincing as sweet little old ladies who believe they are doing some good in the world, Massey is really quite comically intense, and Lorre... well, he's Lorre. For those unfamiliar, he was one of the more typically parodied classic actors, often portrayed in Warner Bros. cartoons, or here, as Boo Berry. When all said and done, it's still not quite as dark as some of the stuff we have around today, but for 1944 I'd have to say that's pretty understandable. It certainly still has its moments, but it's mostly a light comedy for a dark comedy, if that makes any sense. It's one I'd recommend for someone looking for something classic, funny, but somewhat morbid all at once. I had fun with it. 4/5 Up next for Mother's Month, I checked out the Terrence Young '67 thriller, 'Wait Until Dark'. In case that name might be ringing a bell, but you're not quite sure about it, he'd probably be best recognized as a 'Bond' director, with titles like 'Dr. No', 'Thunderball' and 'From Russia With Love'. Furthermore, Audrey Hepburn was nominated for an Oscar for her role of Susy here. She was recently blinded in an accident along with becoming recently married. Her husband, Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) is followed home by a group of criminals, lead by a man named Roat (Alan Arkin), after acquiring a random doll from a random woman. The criminals wait until Sam leaves for business before making their move, attempting to get their hands on the doll, only to find the blind Susy in the apartment alone. The whole thing eventually leads to a pretty intense climax, featuring a life-threatening game of cat and mouse between a blind woman and these crooks. Think 'Home Alone' if it was more of a to-be-taken-seriously thriller. Much like 'Rear Window', this is sort of a bottle movie, and plenty of comparisons can be drawn between the two. However, with two like movies, one usually picks a favorite, and mine has to be 'Rear Window' over 'Wait Until Dark'. While this was still perfectly fine, I just didn't find it offered up as much. And despite her Oscar nomination, Susy sadly wasn't particularly likable to me. But hear me out. She's a lovely character and all, and her overall personality is very likable, but this is a 1967 version of an independent woman, which, let's just say wasn't exactly fleshed out yet. In my mind, not quite until Lori Strode starts battling Michael Myers in '78. But please, if there's someone before that, feel free to educate me on the matter. Susy here is a fighter, but also a trope. For example, she falls over, cries and begs a lot while she's fighting. That said, there should be a level of fairness offered to the fact that she's supposed to be recently blind and not quite used to it, and your average everyday girl next door. Still though, personally, I didn't quite feel it. Perhaps a good way to compare my feelings on it would be to compare it to an escort mission in your favorite game. Yeah, you're having a lot of fun with it, but this person in trouble can be such a pain. All that aside, I have to admit that the movie still did a good job at entertaining me. I may not have loved it, but I liked it enough to be able to say I might very well revisit it some time to see if I get more out of it. There's great atmosphere here, it still feels like something different (or at least not-heavily explored) to have a blind person fight off criminals, and it's actually pretty intense at times. It certainly meets the standards of what a thriller was back then, so I can't be too critical about things. I'd say it's just a bit dated. But worth checking out if you're on the lookout for a classic thriller you can have a fun time with. 3/5 What Marijuana Month movie would be complete without a 'Cheech & Chong' movie? Lucky for my Catching Up list, there is was two yet for me to see. I landed on 'Nice Dreams', though, deciding to save 'Get Out of My Room' as an Under the Radar review later on. Cheech & Chong are something of an acquired taste when it comes to their humor. A lot of it is really strange and out there, and this particular title kind of takes the cake on the matter. But as a fan, I can't deny that it offered a lot of laughs, and I'm happy to say that I was able to just enjoy it for what it was - a stoner flick featuring the most famous pair of stoners in cinematic history. You just have to take these movies with a grain of salt. To give some idea of their fan base, their most famous movie, 'Up in Smoke' has a mere 38% on Rotten Tomatoes according to the critics, but the audience gives it a shiny 83%. These movies could be lumped in with 'Lebowski' in the sense that to the right audience, it's a great time, but some people just don't understand the appeal. And that's fine, to each their own. I guess I'm just trying to say, don't be shocked that I'm about to give this a good rating. I'm looking at this as a fan of the duo, and not just another critic. Onto the actual review, a quick explanation of the plot. Cheech & Chong start a new business, selling their product from an Ice Cream truck. The herb they're selling is stolen from their friend Weird Jimmy, who experiments with his plantation, creating strange strands. Meanwhile, Sgt. Stedanko (Stacy Keach, reprising his role from 'Up in Smoke') is hot on their tails again. The pair is tricked into selling some of their product to Stedanko's team, and upon Stedanjo sampling it behind everyone's back, a very strange side effect begins to occur, and that's where the movie gets super weird. But for as weird as it gets, it doesn't suck out the enjoyment of the film. For my money, I would place this one on the higher end of their movies. It gets goofy, but I can't deny that it offered me up a few genuine laughs, a lot of the time due to it's overall randomness. For example, one of the funniest things in this movie is Paul Reubens making a cameo as a mentally disturbed coke addict. And that scene's not the last you see of him, either. So, if you like these two everlasting stoners and haven't checked out this title yet, I recommend it. All I'd say is just to be forewarned that this is about as warped as it gets with a 'Cheech & Chong' title, which is saying a lot. 4/5 "What in the hell IS A Clockwork Orange, anyway?" was the question I had to ask before going into this. Surely, there had to be some explaination within the film, but there really wasn't. I finally Googled it after watching, and came across something to suggest that the term has to do with a person who bears the appearance on a lively and colorful organism, but is really a "clockwork" toy to be wound up by "God, the Devil or the Almighty State". Upon viewing the film and figuring out what the title actually meant, things made a lot more sense. Our story follows young Alex (Malcolm McDowell) who spends his free time with his "droogs", Georgie, Dim and Pete (James Marcus, Warren Clarke and Michael Tarn, respectively) as they go around living life on the edge, primarily getting their kicks from putting others in danger, be it by driving way too fast on a narrow road, or simply breaking and entering to perform some... shall we say... harsh and disturbing musical montages? Alex also leads with a sort of iron fist, making things go his way, whether his droogs like it or not. At some point, Alex gets caught and sentenced to 14 years of prison for murder, as his friends double-cross him. While in prison, Alex learns about a new method of rehabilitation that would cure him of his own mind, and ensure that he wouldn't come back to prison ever again. However, after being subjected to the procedure and set free, Alex finds life on the outside not entirely welcoming. By the way, yes, the process is the famous scene involving Alex's eyes being forced open to watch horrible things on a movie screen - a scene that has been parodied in a number of different things. So, how did I like it? First, I wanna just talk about McDowell in this. His performance consists of so much range here, it's actually kind of amazing. There are strangely enough a few times one may even sympathize with the character, even though society sees him as the worst kind of monster. His psychopathic look (like he gives in the corresponding picture there) is very reminiscent of Anthony Perkins' look from 'Psycho', and that's the character you pretty much end up taking away from the film. But there are moments he engages in rather serious conversation, cries, even shows tremendous fear. In my opinion, he was very overlooked for the Oscars that year. The film was still nominated for 4 Academy Awards, which included Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay and Film Editing, but sadly never managed to carry home a single one. Nowadays, the film stands as a sort of cult symbol of film, with its fans mostly appreciating what I appreciated about it - Alex, himself. He has this sort of sadistic charm that can't really be explained. You like him for the same reasons you like The Joker, or perhaps a better comparison, Hannibal Lecter. The only real problem I had with it was a bit of the language barrier. I thought I was pretty good at determining old slang, but this takes things to a whole new level with "Nadsat", which is composed of Slavic (mainly Russian), English and Cockney rhyming slang. He narrates the story with this, and I was often found trying to figure out just what some of the words meant - not the least of which was "droogs". In the end, I have to admit to enjoying this enough to know that I'll be revisiting it one day. For as uncomfortable as it can get, there's just this certain intrigue that comes from following the mind of a psychopath. Further to that point, it's intriguing to see the mind of a psychopath at it's most vulnerable as well. On top of that, it's just visually well filmed with an interesting score of synthesizers and Beethoven, setting a mood as only Kubrick can. It's the kind of movie I enjoyed, but could grow on me with multiple viewings. Also, Alex is now probably somewhere in my Top 10 all-time movie villains list now. So there's that. I give the following rating with great enthusiasm. 4/5 This one has actually been on my "to-see" list for quite some time. I mean, it's a heist movie featuring magicians, so it was always this different and cool concept I enjoyed the looks of. A "right up my alley" kinda thing. The movie opens with four separate magicians, Danny Atlas (Jess Eisenberg), Merrit McKinney (Woody Harrelson), Henly Reeves (Isla Fisher) and Jack Wilder (Dave Franco). They each show off their unique skill sets to the audience, and each receive a mysterious tarot card, calling them to meet at a specific spot. Upon meeting up, they come to realize that they have been lured together in order to team up, and deliver a grand performance one year later in which they "rob a bank" as part of the act. This sets an FBI agent named Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), and Interpol agent named Alma Dray (Mélanie Laurent) on their tracks. Also joining the cast is the man funding the Four Horsemen (as they call themselves), Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) and a fomer magician who now reveals secrets of the trade on his YouTube channel, Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman). Each of them seem to serve as sort of neutral parties, going at each other, while there's a whole bigger picture to be seen. If I'm honest, the movie managed to confuse me in places. Often times, I found it moved a bit fast or got a bit convoluted with the varying characters to keep track of. It all leads up to a pretty good twist in the end, though, so that likely has a lit to do with the few "what the hell just happened" moments. That likely has a lot to do with it. And even the ending itself is something that'll either blow your mind, or that you predict from the get-go. When all said and done, the twist could feel like a total cop-out to some. Negative aspects aside, however, there's a lot to enjoy about the film as well. The Four Horsemen's stage presence is pretty convincing as professional magicians as opposed to just being the actors playing these guys. I thought the coolest thing in the movie was probably Eisenberg's first magic trick, in which he totally got me. Yes, there is an explaination for it, I'm sure, but it was still really neat to think that a movie would go to those lengths of illusion for its audience. All in all, I have to say I enjoyed it. But its definitely on that long list of movies that I'll need to go back and watch a second time at least. It's the type of movie where you'll no doubt pick up various clues along the way upon re-watching it. 4/5 |