Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register
edt4
member since 01/14/2005
I'm a guy
User Votes: 11614 Helpful / 596 Funny / 1436 Agree / 219 Disagree
RSS Icon

Activity for edt4

13 hours ago

This film has grown on me over the years, ever since I first saw it on TV at 3am, even though its filled with endless talk, improbable characters and situations, and one of the sillier-looking "mutants" to come out of low-budget 1950's cinema.

Nuclear War has struck, and an assorted collection of survivors gather in what looks like a comfortable home in the San Fernando Valley. Paul Birch ("Not Of This Earth") attempts to keep order, and ensure their survival. His daughter is pretty Lori Nelson ("Revenge of the Creature"), who quickly bonds with Richard Denning, a blond, Aryan looking actor originally from Poughkeepsie, NY, that you just know is going to represent decency and the post-apocalyptic forces of morality. Needless to say, the bad guy is dark, swarthy Mike "Touch" Connors (as far from "Mannix" as you can get!). His girlfriend is dance-hall floozie Adele Jergens, who was always great in anything I ever saw her in, and sexy too (she was married in real life to Glenn Langan, who played the bald, whiny giant in "The Amazing Colossal Man"). There's also an old guy with a donkey who enjoys making moonshine and sharing it with his "pal", the donkey--- Nuclear War or no Nuclear War! Obviously, gritty realism isn't this film's strong suit.

There's a lot of talking, and more talking, and an occasional fist-fight. There's also Paul Blaisdell as the "mutant", who may or may not be all that's left of Lori Nelson's former "main squeeze". Blaisdell did the costumes and performed in them for a great many of these 1950's horror films. They were pretty hokey and fake looking, but as a kid, I loved them, and still get a kick out of seeing them. I mean, let's put it this way--- I'll always prefer low-budget nonsense...but fun nonsense...with one of these rubber-suit wearing "monsters" in it from the 1950's over the computer-generated snore-fests they're routinely churning out today.

This isn't one of Corman's more inspired productions, but...like I've said...I've grown fonder of it as the years pass, and it does have its fair share of entertainment value. If for nothing else, catch it for the sexy Lori Nelson (she couldn't really act, but she was sexy), or the sexier Adele Jergens (she could act, and was very sexy, even if "Touch" Connors's character doesn't think so), of if you've always wanted to see the guy who played "Mannix" portray a slimy, murderous gutter rat (and where did the nickname "Touch" come from, by the way?). It won't be a film to everyone's taste, but I'll still take it any day over "Independence Day" or "Transformers" or whatever multi-million dollar junk Hollywood is currently foisting on the sheep-like public as "entertainment".
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

yesterday

Sorry...I was never a big fan. Certainly funnier than SNL people like Adam Sandler or David Spade...they never made me laugh, and Farley sometimes did...but it was based primarily on the way he looked, not because he was any great comedic talent. It was sort of comparable to the fat, funny-looking guy you sometimes see in a bar or at a party who gets way too drunk, and starts acting like a spastic maniac. You laugh, but there's always a guilty tinge to the laughter. That's how it always was with me when it came to Farley. I'm sorry he had a sad life and died way too young, but the world didn't lose a comedic giant when he died.

John Belushi was funny-looking too, but he had the talent. Farley didn't.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

2 days ago

2 days ago

I'm a great fan of David Cronenberg, but I've found some of the films that he's done in recent years to be uneven. All of them worthwhile, but occasionally weak in spots, and ultimately unconvincing. Until this one, which may well be his most seamlessly contructed film ever. As always, Cronenberg's theme is about that darkenss which lies deep beneath the placid exterior of "normal" life. This may be his darkest film yet, as Cronenberg is dealing not with sexual monstrosities or mutants, but with all-too-plausible real life situations. Viggo Mortensen plays a Midwestern shop owner suddenly thrust into the unwanted position of public 'hero" after he kills 2 murderers attempting to hold-up his place of business (one of the murderers is played by Stephen MacHattie, who was once talked about as one of the 70's "rising young stars"...I remember seeing him in a TV movie where he played James Dean...his career may not have risen as anticipated, but he's still capable of an unsettling performance, even though he isn't on the screen long).

Mortensen is a savvy enough actor to appreciate the wisdom that displaying less oftentimes conveys more when it comes to playing a part. His character here doesn't seem particularly introspective and we never get a clear idea how he feels internally about all that suddenly threatens the life he has established with his wife and family, or perhaps threatens what might only be a carefully constructed facade. He seems a decent, good-natured guy, but is that image an attempt to fool his family and the residents of his Indiana town? Is it an attempt to fool himself? A lot of what happens in the film will reverberate with you later as you think over what you've seen. How the past can exert its influence on us and those innocents around us whether we want it to or not. How certain elements of "character" that were ingrained into us long ago are there forever, no matter how ardently we'd like to pretend that they're not, no matter how intently we'd like to believe that we've transformed ourselves, redeemed ourselves.

One of the strongest scenes in the movie is when Mortensen's heretefore timid son (played well by Ashton Holmes) saves his life with a sudden act of violence, and the 2 exchange a meaningful look of recognition, horror, maybe even unexpected admiration. Not a word is spoken, but it doesn't have to be. This is what great directing, acting, and screenwriting are all about.

The cast is uniformly strong, with old reliables like scary Ed Harris and William Hurt creating unforgettable characters, and newcomers like sexy Maria Bello (there's a sexual scene between her and Mortensen where she demonstrates that sometimes that which repels us can simultaneously attract and excite us at the same time, which is sure to make some viewers very uncomfortable) and Homes acquitting themselves well.

Is this my favorite Cronenberg film? Probaby not. My personal favorites remain "They Came From Within" (also known as "Shivers") and maybe "Scanners" or "Rabid". Still, "A History of Violence" may well be Cronenberg's best film, his most flawless and unsettling. Considering Cronenberg's immense talent, that's a telling statement indeed.
votes 9 Helpful / 0 Funny / 6 Agree / 0 Disagree

3 days ago

Review Icon edt4 reviewed Blood Feast in Classics:
A "classic" of its kind, I suppose--- the first bona fide "splatter" movie ever. I remember seeing it for the first time at a drunken party when I was in my early 20's, and being astounded by how much blood and gore there was in this Herschell Gordon Lewis production from 1963. I still don't quite believe that any movie from 1963 could be this graphic. I enjoyed the film for its idiocy when I was young; re-watching it recently, I enjoyed it much less and realized that it really is badly and ineptly made, but there were still moments that caused me to cringe in revulsion or laugh out loud. From what I understand, this film played at a lot of Southern drive-ins during its initial release.

In some ways, Herschell Gordon Lewis was like Ed Wood, only gorier. His actors were awful, his cinematic "technique" bludgeon like, and the never ending blood and sadism could appeal only to incipient serial killers. There's no way to sugar-coat that fact; HGL movies were...and are...a form of torture porn, and the only thing that makes them watchable is the hilarious incompetence of the actors.

The plot...such as it is...concerns a homicidal Egyptian caterer known as "Fuad Ramses", played by Mal Arnold, who looks like a Jewish accountant with talcum powder sprinkled in his hair. Arnold has all the subtlety of Theda Bara; when attempting to convey menace, he raises his heavily painted eyebrows and bugs his eyes out of his head like Eddie Cantor on acid. And he's probably the best actor in the movie (which should give you an idea of what you're in store for...). Ramses worships the Goddess Ishtar...a department store mannequin painted gold...and kills various women for their body parts, as part of some ancient ritual designed to "worship" the Goddess. At least that's how I understood it.

William Kerwin and Scott Hall are the lead investigators, and they make Mike the Cop from the old "Abbott and Costello" TV show look like Sherlock Holmes. When told of still another brutal homicide, Kerwin burps up some Bourbon and slurs, "Well, Frank...looks like this is going to be one of those long, hard ones..." He's dating a beautiful young blonde, played by Playmate Connie Mason (I remember reading in an interview that Lewis couldn't stand her). In common with the rest of the cast, Mason can't act her way out of a paper bag, but at least she's pretty. Her mother knows of her interest in Egyptian culture, and has hired Fuad Ramses to cater a special "Egyptian feast" for her daughter and friends....And...hopefully, you don't need to be Nostradamus or Kreskin to see where this is all leading.

As I've said, the actors are pretty hilarious in their incompetence, and that saves the picture. Of special note is Gene Courtier, who plays "Tony". Ramses kills his girlfriend while they're "making out" and "Tony" has a breakdown that is as magnificently awful and overblown as anything I've ever seen on the screen, and that includes Ed Wood. A bandage wrapped around his head, he shivers in the arms of Hall's Detective and bellows, "IT"S ALLLL MY FA-FA-FA-FA-AUUULLLTT!!!!" And the final scene, which takes place in the back portion of a garbage truck, is equally memorable, and "classic", in its own ridiculous way.

So, if you can take the blood and guts, it does have its moments of pure, unintentional comedy, which is often the funniest kind of comedy. And if this just isn't your idea of comedy or horror...and I can certainly understand that...it at least is mercifully short (clocking in at 67 minutes).
votes 7 Helpful / 2 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

3 days ago

4 days ago

Your sarcasm aside, I think you misread me. I've never claimed to be without bigotry. In some of my exchanges here in the past, I've cast aspersions against Southerners, and apologized for it. Initially, I resorted to it for comic effect, but it was insulting not only to the people for whom the insult was intended, but for others perfectly innocent, decent people. I'm as susceptible to the same bullshit as anyone else is, being as I'm a fallible human being, just like you and all other "sinners". You can read into my personality whatever you want, but the "All Knowing One" crack is just plain silly. But I'll stand by what I said...if you call someone a "rag head" or a "Sand nigger" or a "greaseball" or whatever, you're a bigot. I would have more respect for someone (not that they care about my respect one way or the other) if they stopped all the "political correctness" whiny bullshit and just came out and said, "Yeah, I'm a bigot. I don't like this group, and I'm not comfortable with the other group, and that's just the way that I am."

4 days ago

In common with many films from that era, it has a gorgeous, sumptuous look about it, but the storyline is so implausibly idiotic that I can't imagine even naive audiences of the 1920's (when it was first made as a silent film) buying the premise. Still, it was remade several times over the decades, up to and including the present era, and the premise...silly as it might have been...obviously resonates with people on some basic level.

This version benefits greatly from the cast. Stewart Granger is the lead, and he's handsome, likeable, and athletic. Louis Calhern conveys an avuncular authority. Deborah Kerr is both sexy and vulnerable. And...last but not least...James Mason is as slimy and repulsive as ever.

Generally speaking, the action breezes along (although there were points where I found my eyelids getting heavy). There's a climactic swordfight that I never found convincing, but enjoyed nonetheless.

If for nothing else, it can be viewed as a prime example of the kind of romantic Hollywood escapism that appealed to audiences of past generations.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

4 days ago

Yeah, it makes one a bigot. I heard the term "Raghead" being used by bigots long before 9/11, by the way. I hold no brief for religious or cultural fanaticism of any kind, but I recognize that there are countless numbers of peaceful, civilized Muslims in this country, just as there are countless numbers of peaceful, civilized Protestants, Catholics and Jews (and atheists, etc.). As far as "political correctness" making us a nation of pussies, I'm more concerned in determining what has made us a nation of dumb, compliant, conformist sheep.

6 days ago

Better to be in RIA's record book than Ripley's!
By the Numbers