Change Your Image
crakatoot
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Batman: The Animated Series: The Lion and the Unicorn (1995)
God Save the Queen
The Lion and The Unicorn was the last episode of the Batman the Animated Series that was aired. It's fitting in a way that the last episode finally revealed Alfred Pennyworth's back story and that it would bring back the villain Red Claw. The plot is as follows. In the middle of Alfred's buttling he gets a call from one of his "cousins". There is apparently some sort of problem in the UK that needs Alfred's attention. He races back to England, Batman and Robin follow and pretty soon the three of them are caught up in Red Claw's evil scheme. This time she is extorting England for a million pounds with the threat of dropping a nuclear bomb on London. Alfred has been a part of the show since On Leather Wings. He is one of the most prolific characters after Batman/Bruce. He's not a sidekick like Robin or an ally like Commissioner Gordon. Just a loyal well trained Butler. And this is the first episode we get a hint of his life before Bruce. Apparently Alfred was a Secret Agent, James Bond style. The Cousin who called him was a fellow agent and Alfred gets pulled back to England thanks to an old Government secret they shared. A secret that involves the nuclear bomb that Red Claw wants to get her hands on. We finally get to see Alfred in action. Frankly it's a shame we didn't get more of it but I do appreciate the little we got. We also get to see Batman and Robin in a different country and a different city. The Dynamic Duo get to tangle with henchmen on a double decker bus and argue with the Prime Minister. The whole thing caps off in a Scottish Castle. Plus we get the long awaited return of Red Claw. She is not one of the more well known villains from BTAS. Actually she is probably one of the most obscure, but I still enjoy her. A ruthless international terrorist and one of the only female villains that is totally ruthless and evil.
All and All a terrific episode.
Lolita (1962)
Kurbrick's Underrated Masterpiece
Kurbrick was one of the greatest film makers of all time. His attention to detail and his meticulous style is rarely seen in films today. It was rarely seen in his day too. The down side of his perfectionist nature thought, was that he didn't make many films. Still he did make a few classics in his day. Films like A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove and The Shinning. One film that often gets overlooked though, is Lolita.
This film is
different. The tagline is "How Did they Ever Make a Movie Out of Lolita." The plot is this, Prof. Humbert Humbert comes to America, rents a house, meets the landlady's young nymphet daughter, falls instantly in love and purses her, rather relentlessly. So yes the plot of this story is rather unconventional. Kubrick has gone on record saying, that if he knew the kind of limitations there would be, that he wouldn't have even bothered making the movie. Basically with the censors of the day, the relationship between Humbert and Lolita couldn't be shown or talked about in any real way. Now this movie came out in 1962 and to keep things in context, you should remember that in the 1950's married couples on TV and movies were shown sleeping in separate beds at night. So the idea of showing a man in his 50's sleeping with a young girl (the actress who played Lolita, Sue Lyon was only 14 at the time) was pretty much out of the question. And while some might see this as a major problem, it really isn't. The relationship, while never out right admitted, is alluded to, a lot. They say it without actually saying it.
The real strength of this movie though, is the actors. James Mason plays Humbert perfectly. His character oozes aristocratic disdain and disgust for everything around him. Especially Shelly Winters, that's the landlady. That is, until he sees Lolita. Once he sets his eyes on her, that's it. While his intentions are a little repulsive, he pursues them with such a dogged genuine determination, you do sympathize with him a bit.
And Sue Lyon was absolutely perfect as Lolita. The way she carries herself, the way she talks, the way she teases Humbert. On the one hand it seems like she knows exactly what she is doing. She knows the effect she has on him and she seems to love toying with him. Although, on the other hand, she might just be a teenager fooling around. With her character it is very hard to tell. One scene, she seems wise beyond on her age and in the next she is carrying on like petulant child.
And of course we have Shelly Winters, one of the most underrated actress of all time. And yes her character, Lolita's mother, is very shrill and annoying. That was kind of Shelly Winters bread and butter, but she was supposed to be shrill an annoying. An obstacle for Humbert to get past. Still, Shelly Winters brought such a wounded vulnerability to her character. This is a woman who lost her husband, is not very bright and her new tenant Humbert is uh
kind of problematic. There is one scene where she breaks down and it is truly heartbreaking.
This film is also filled with Kubrick's usual cinematic flair. There are so many little things hidden in the visuals that you don't notice at first but make the film much richer on repeat viewings.
This film is not without its flaws however. It does drag a bit in the middle. And there is way, way to much of Peter Sellers. Kubrick was such a meticulous director with his shot and his sets and especially his actors. But for whatever reason, he gave Sellers way to much leeway. Now this did work in Dr. Strangelove, where Sellers had to play all these different characters, but here, where he just plays the character Clare Quilty, all these different voices and mannerisms he keeps using, it's just distracting. And a little annoying. Kurbrick definitely should have rained Sellers in.
Besides those few flaws, this film is truly a classic. It deserves to be ranked right alongside all of Kubrick's other classic films. It's the kind of film, where one scene your laughing, the next scene your skin is crawling.
That's the power of Lolita
Power Rangers (2017)
I'm not sure what the critics were expecting but this was pretty good
I remember watching the premiere back when I was six years old, and... I thought it was idiotic. The original show was always to goofy for me, even as a little boy. But I had nothing to do and I had some movie passes so I decided to check it out. It's actually pretty good. A lot of critics are going into this expecting to hate it and their reviews reflect that. In the reviews I've read or seen, I keep hearing things like "Well its not as stupid as it could have been" or "Some of it wasn't so terrible" or other equally back handed compliments. The reality is, the Power Rangers is an inherently silly idea. But once you get past that, this is a pretty fun movie. You know the drill, five kids get together in Angel Grove, a much grittier Angel Grove than I remember. They get their hands on some power coins, Rita Repulsa shows up and some over the top action ensues. So yes, it is just a bigger version of what we saw on the show, but still effective. It takes itself more seriously than the show did and it is much darker. But it doesn't go to far, it still feels close to the original and it does have its lighter moments. Its biggest strength though was the chemistry between the leads. The five kids really worked well with each other. And they did spend time developing each of them. They definitely worked well as a team. And Elizabeth Banks killed it as Rita. I've heard some reviewers complain that she was to over the top, but no way. Rita is supposed to be over the top. You can tell Banks was having a lot of fun. She had a particularly brutal scene with the Trini the Yellow Ranger.
And needles to say, the climax was awesome. The new Zords, the new costumes, they looked great.
If I had one complaint, and it is a bit odd, the two girls are a little to similar. The three boys are all distinct. But the two girls, they even look way to much alike. Once the costume are on, then it's easy to tell.
And if your a big fan of the series, pay attention, there are a few references here and there.
It Follows (2014)
So Much Wasted Potential
I showed this movie to my teenage niece. She's becoming a horror fan and I've shown her a few films, The Shining, Scream etc. We watched this together. I asked her what she thought. Now I've taken film criticism classes and television criticism classes and anyone who has taken those classes knows, sometimes you end up way over analyzing things. She was only fourteen at the times, so I figured she would have a some what less clouded view of the movie. And ... she hated it. I asked her why. She thought it over for a second and finally answered "That girl stunk, she spent the whole movie looking bored or confused." And that pretty much summed it up. Now I love horror films and this film really did have a great premise. This thing doesn't run or appear in your dreams or call you on the phone, but it just never stops. And I liked the visuals also. I loved the whole throw back 70's vibe. But the characters, they are just not there. They have no real development, personality or characterization. Mostly they just stare off into space and look sad. And that, is really lame. This is a problem a lot of movie have nowadays. They adopt that Terrence Malick style, where all emotions and feelings are kept at an arms length. Movies like Foxcatcher or the Master have the same problem. I'm not saying everything in a movie should be spelt out in black and white but everything shouldn't be vague and ambiguous as well.
Its not very engaging.
And the main character Jay, she is just so meh. Look at Halloween, the character of Laurie Strode wasn't exactly Hamlet but she did have a personality and she was likable and in the end you wanted to see her save the children and escape Michael Myers. Same thing with Kirsty Cotton in Hellraiser or Sidney Prescott in Scream and a ton of other movies.
This movie is trying to emulate so many other horror and while it has some elements down pat, others it's missing entirely. At the end of the movie did anyone really care what happened to the Jay character. No, of course not.
I know the critics liked it, but no, just no.
King Kong (1976)
Don't Listen to the Critics. This is a Fun Remake....
Now its impossible to talk about this movie without talking the other ones. The original 1933 film, is of course a classic. A seminal film. But at its heart it is just trying to be a fun adventure movie. And that's what this film is trying to recapture, that adventurous spirit. But in a modern context. Well modern for the 70's anyway. And this film did that beautifully. The buildup, the stories about the island. That big ass wall. Of course we know what's behind the wall but it's still good build up. And come on seeing Kong climb the Twin Towers. That was pretty cool. Especially when he jumped from one to the other. And of all the Kong films, this one had the most brutal ending. Kong's death was surprisingly graphic. The 2005 King Kong, for all its melodrama was totally bloodless. Not this film though, it really drove home the tragedy. Still, this film kept a light tone. Again one of the biggest problems with the 2005 film was how heavy handed and maudlin the whole thing was. King Kong is a silly idea and the 70's film acknowledged that and had fun with it. Did it go a little to goofy at moments "You Goddamn chauvinist pig ape!" oh yeah. And yes the Dwan character is supposed to be an air head. But come on, every character in every movie can't be a strong tough bad ass And I do think this film handled the Kong, girl relationship best. With Fay, she was just terrified of Kong. With Naomi they went way over board with their connection, Christ they went ice skating. But here, they had a good balance. Dwan was clearly scared of Kong but still she didn't want to see him get hurt. The film is not flawless of course, again some of it is a little too goofy. And of all the Kong films, this one does the least with Skull Island. We do get to see Kong fight a giant snake but that's about it. Don't listen to the critics though. This a terrific remake and a great 70's era disaster film. It has some good commentary about environmentalism. And Jessica Lange looked damn good. Especially in her short shorts.
Batman: The Animated Series: Sideshow (1994)
. Batman vs The Wild
A fine episode of Batman. In this episode Batman chases the Killer Croc. He escapes into the woods and finds shelter with a group of retired side show freaks. It's great to see Batman in the woods, you don't get much of that in this show. And I always liked Killer Croc. Unlike most Batman villains, he's not crazy and he has no grand scheme for world domination. He is just an evil ruthless criminal. In a way that makes him one of the Batman's most dangerous foes. This show also has my favorite line in the whole series. By the Croc himself after some one tells him to be humane, he snaps "Who you calling human!" Brilliant. The side show freaks were also a nice touch. This is definitely one of the strangest episodes, had kind of a Tod Browning "Freaks" quality to it. But I guess that was the point. The writers tried something different with this episode and it certainly paid off.