Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

Registered User

2 weeks ago

Halloween

(2018) - Directed by David Gordon Green
--------------------------------------------
Slasher
-------------------------------------------------
"I would suspect the notion of being a predator or the fear of becoming prey keeps both of them alive."

Yeah, yeah, I'm late for the actual time of the year, yadda yadda. The only reason I'm getting this out of the way now is because I've seen every Halloween movie up to this point, and this one's getting taken off of Netflix soon. Now I've had some interest in seeing this for a while since I love seeing Jamie Lee Curtis being a total bazooka broad. Halloween isn't my choice for best slasher franchise (I'm a Wes Craven guy), but I've gone through a few slasher catalogs and I found myself pretty happy that this got good reviews. So after putting it off for so long, trying to study other scenes in the cinematic world, it's time to begin the final chapters of the Halloween legacy (before that TV series comes out).

This whole new take on the sequels, ignoring everything before, follows the same simple concept as the first. Exactly 40 years on the dot, Michael escapes to look for the survivor of his last killing spree: laurie Strode. And she's been preparing for that... a little too well. Her paranoia has lead her relationship with her daughter Karen to be completely strained, although her granddaughter Allyson wants to rekindle the relationship. At first, Karen doesn't believe that Michael's returned, but the killings become too much, and Laurie's not gonna let this one slide.

Now it's obvious that David Gordon Green is a big fan of Halloween. Look at the way these scenes are directed following Michael around like we're a bystander who's just along for the ride. I guess if you're a fan of the franchise, a part of you must've been waiting for that for quite a while, or maybe it'll feel like "awhile" if you're new and binged the series in a short period of time. Unfortunately, this also means we have a general idea of what to expect. So the only thing in the director's department that separates this sequel from most of the others is the nostalgic homage. But thankfully, the movie's still fairly scary. I suppose what helped the film be a bit scarier than most of the sequels is the total aura of awareness that Green exudes, being the awareness of the film's original aura as well as awareness of the bad case of sequelitis. This movie is so much less about the gore in your face (beside a couple instances, one of which I didn't care for), and more about the idea of being stalked. THAT is Halloween, although by this point it's a bit late to save the franchise forever.

Now the story once again tackles the simplicity of the concept and does little to go beyond it. The plot is largely the same as the first with generally minor fluctuations. This semes to be a movie for fan nostalgia more than anything. However, there is one thing to take into consideration: Curtis, more demanding in canon and onscreen than ever. Scenes involving the teenagers will often be generically written and just detailed enough to get by, like a storebought potato salad you "don't hate." But then we get to the legacy characters, and things take a "superfan who reads the wiki" turn for the fans. She's essentially become a mini-Batman who I'd like to see slaying some effing Deadites with Bruce Campbell (lookin' forward to Evil Dead Burn). And of course, our new superfan successor to the late Loomis has a couple little surprises of his own, but I'm not spoiling that.

There are only so many justifiable Halloween additions that can be made. The simple concept has been done before, and unless you get the one right person for the job, there may never be a better Halloween movie than the first. But Jamie once again proves that the reason to watch REAL slashers isn't for the killings... it's for the bad-a bitches. I really enjoyed Curtis in this one, and was more or less satisfied with the results throughout. I WAS, however, hoping to like it a bit more, but I suppose the simplicity of Halloween's concept is still pretty much that to me: simplicity, kinda like some section of Laughing Stock by Talk Talk, which I would rate the same as the first Halloween.

= 67.5

David Gordon Green needs 2 more films to qualify for a directorial score. Totally gonna watch those soon.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

1 week ago

Tarzan the Ape Man

(1981) - Directed by John Derek
--------------------------------------------
Erotica / Jungle Adventure
-------------------------------------------------

"I don't dislike men. I envy them. I envy your freedom. I resent not having the same."

It's finally time for me to get to this apparent travesty. I never had any good expectations for this one, not since I discovered its existence on the early days of Netflix when the "best guess on how much you'll like it" star ratings put this under two stars. I looked it up: turns out, that guess might've been right. I put it off for over a decade because I wanted to get more invested in the history of Tarzan in cinema, and now I can say I'm educated enough to tackle this one.

Much like the first of the Weissmuller series, this movie centers more around Jane than Tarzan. Bo Derek takes the role of Jane Parker in yet another collab with her director husband, John. Jane goes in search of her estranged father, who's more interested in finding an elephant grave full of ivory rather than building a connection with his daughter, although he still misses her. On their way through the jungles, they encounter a mythical being said to be a great white ape over ten feet tall: Tarzan, who's apparently just a hunky guy raised in the jungle.

When I first heard about this, my prediction for its bad rating was that it was a slow-burner with unconvincing animal interactions, minimal action due to budgeting issues of the time, and increased sexual content. And I hadn't even seen any jungle movies that operated that way before. Turns out I was totally right. Even the chimps look bored to be there.

To add insult to the injury of the original film's decision NOT to make Tarzan the clever genius he was in the book, they stick too faithfully to the movie's decision and waste these 110 minutes never once truly going into Tarzan's backstory. The vast majority of this movie is an unnecessary slog that degrades the legend into a hunky guy on the beach too stupid to speak properly, and is only there to watch a skinny blonde be hot. Honestly, I'm surprised the guy plating Tarzan, Miles O'Keeffe,isn't saying "bro." Actually, no I'm not, considering that Tarzan has NO development, NO personality and NO real skills to show off. There's no real stuntsmanship going on at all. Honestly, I remember this one surfer dork from the jungle cartoon Tak and the Power of Juju TV show who was more entertaining than him. He's there to be muscled up and make panties wet. When I saw how much beefier he is than ol' Johnny, I thought he might do something more impressive, but no.

Now let's go over the general John Derek movie flaws. This movie is absolutely no exception. Bo Derek might be expected to play an independent woman with money, but she certainly can't convince herself to scream in front of a prop snake. Her inability to get into character astounds me sometimes, given her fame, but then I just think back to her body, and as impressive as it is, instead of getting turned on, my brain just feels numbed by other people's inability to think. This ironically makes her a perfect wife for such a poor director. How slow does each scene really need to be? The whole psychedelic segment with the images of Bo Derek and snakes overlapping each other for like three minutes feels like the dumbest eternity a god could spend in any reality. It feels like the wrong kind of slow cinema.

There is one thing that's good about this movie: as one would expect, Richard Harris, playing the father, is a show-stealer, not that there was much if a show to steel. But eventually his dialogue and actions just get more and more confusing and ridiculous, like they were just finding something for him to act well during the climax. And one final "maybe ok" aspect is the occasional chuckle due to the poor delivery of some scenes.

Well, John Derek is so utterly bad that he completely ruined one of the greatest novels of all time (or at least made an overrated adaptation worse). What was even the point of making this a nearly two-hour movie? Even much of the erotica fails at maximizing that much. Other than Guido Malatesta's Tarzana movie which might not even count, this is easily the worst Tarzan movie I've seen so far.

= 15

John Derek's Directorial Score (0 Good vs. 5 Bad)

Fantasies: 4
Tarzan the Ape Man: 15
Ghosts Can't Do It: 15
Once Before I Die: 16.5
Bolero: 27

Average Score: 15.5 / 5

John Derek's position on my Worst Director's List does not change. He remains at #25 between Tony Zarindast and Robert F. Slatzer.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

1 week ago

Nosferatu: The Vampire

(1979) - Directed by Werner Herzog
--------------------------------------------
Vampire
-------------------------------------------------

"Death is not the worst. There are things more horrible than death."

I have two movies I absolutely need to see before I go to the 2024 Nosferatu: the 70's one and The Northman because the director is Robert Eggers. On top of which, I wanna experience many more Herzog films very soon because I've always had a curiosity about his relevance to modern cinema. I can't watch TOO many horror movies at once right now so I can keep the genres in my log more balanced, so that I can make sure I'm educating myself in every genre, but I will make room for these two Nosferatu reboots. It should also be noted that this is my 3,200th film.

This Nosferatu reboot uses the names from the original Dracula novel as opposed to the new names from the original 20's film. Jonathan Harker is sent to Transylvania to- OK, do I really need to recap this?

Just so everyone knows, I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to adapting classic literature, especially the constantly screwed-up Dracula. Pretty much every time I see a Dracula movie, I find one thing wrong with it. Usually it's something super major, like pacing. Even the 1992 Coppola version couldn't get that 100 because Keanu was so out of his league.

Werner Herzog's film is no exception. This is the slowest of the Dracula movies I've seen so far. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Everywhere you look, there are either dusty, steamy or just plain Gothic touches with perfect lighting. The real issue, however, is that the movie is so damn slow. Herzog spent more time admiring his pretty little shots that he spent very little time actually developing a thorough plot. Halfway through the movie, we finally get a taste of blood. HALFWAY. That's 50 minutes. And it remains slow even in the second half, as very little is truly developed, plot or character-wise. There's only enough of it to get by, but the whole time I'm just WAITING and WAITING for something important to get done. There were even times where the movie had too much silence. They got musical legends Popol Vuh to make the soundtrack, but they were totally underused. In fact, the ending was actually kind of stupid when you think about it, adding the way Dracula is defeated onto the fact that Van Helsing is doing practically NOTHING throughout the whole movie.

The actors felt a bit all over the place for me. Now Klaus Kinski rocked his roll with ease, although his roll only really had one or two emotions throughout, so I can't really compare this to Oldman's counterpart. Speaking of the 1992 film, let's head right to Renfield's actor: Roland Topor. There are those who can make cartoons real, like Tom Waits, and there are those who only make realism look like a cartoon. The difference between these two is much like the difference between the difference between the original and live-action Cowboy Bebop's. Lucy's actress, Isabelle Adjani , does a good job at her role but still seems to feel outdone by Kinski, and I was not entertained by Bruno Ganz as Harker at all. On top of which, Helsing's whole character is extraordinarily lacking.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see how this is considered a classic. There are good things about it, and bad things, and both come on strong. The 1970's Nosferatu is mostly visual, and is no different to me than a CGI blockbuster as a result. It was very chilling, but hardly scary. I am actually extremely disappointed not just in this movie, but about the standards for horror classics from the 70's that the public seems to have. I honestly thought this would be better than the original because of the original's simplicity, but I was wrong. This is much more simple. We get it, Herzog. You like cinematography. Now learn to write. Bring back the tension and character of Aguirre.

= 54

Werner Herzog's Directorial Score (4 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Aguirre: 95
Grizzly Man: 92
The Flying Doctors of Easy Africa: 66
Nosferatu: 54

Score: 76.75 / 4

Werner Herzog lowers on my Top Director's List from #125 to #166 between Chuck Russell and Doug Liman.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

1 week ago

The Whale

(2022) - Directed by Darren Aronofsky
--------------------------------------------
Psycho-Drama / Family Drama / Chamber Film
-------------------------------------------------

"Do you find me disgusting?"

When I saw the films Sleuth and Autumn Sonata, two films that only required a couple of actors and a room to tell the bulk of its story, I grew a deep appreciation for how it takes a small scope and turns it into a grand emotional scale. Interested in other films like this, I was going to look up films of the genre after having fleshed out the last touches of my Top 100 Directors List. Of course, deciding to work on that later, I looked through my list and grew a bit tired of having put off more Aronofsky films for so long, other than Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan and Noah.

In The Whale, Brendan Fraser plays Charlie, a morbidly obese online teacher who's being taken care of by a nurse, and refuses to go to the hospital. One day, his rebellious daughter shows up, and he tries to reconnect with her, and even help her in her schooling. Passing by his house is a religious zealot desperate for self-acceptance, and once he comes back, shadows of Charlie's late ex-boyfriend whom he left his family for come back.

Now I am not a guy who makes fun of weight. I understand that this movie has come under some fire fore its portrayal of a morbidly obese man. Uh, nobody's perfect. It's not the fat that makes him a jerk, doi. I've got a fat grandmother who passed away this year, and she was the one person I loved more than anyone. But it's not like I've either only loved or only hated every fat person I've me, and I see nothing in this film that somehow says, "all fat people are evil" or some shit like that. Nothing. The man's struggling to get his health and life together, he's one guy, end of story.

While I can admit that seeing a guy that obese isn't what I would call a "pretty sight," My biggest hype film for 2026 is the next Evil ****ing Dead. I can stomach this, and I don't ever look at a morbidly obese guy as "lesser than others." Every one of us has something potentially disgusting about us. We're ******* humans. So every time we have something disgusting about us, in fact, even if it's only a tiny little problem, we as humans should be helping each other overcome our flaws.

This is literally the point and the message of The Whale. The movie is about a plethora of characters who have one practically out-of-control flaw: there's the daughter's terrible attitude, there's the mother's terrible negativity and drinking problem, there's the missionary who's obsessed with feeling good about himself, there's the nurse who doesn't trust anyone, and the point is easily forced onto us because every cast member in this film is SO FREAKING PERFECT. It's like having flashbacks to watching Ingrid Bergman's performance in Autumn Sonata. Lemme tell you, movies like The Whale prove that the home is the perfect place for both the chamber film and the family drama. This seems almost obvious to me.

And not just that. When I'm watching Fraser have his dramatic moments, it's like watching everything that happened when my dad passed away in 2017, even when it's not at all like that. The setting, the realism, the perspectives, it all hurts. God. There are scenes here which can go from humorous in a realistic light to dark and grim at the first sign of a wheez or cough, because that's the fear we all have for close friends and family in dire health. We can laugh with our families just as easily as we can cry with them.

Now there is one serious thing that I can't relate to very well. I'm no atheist, and I've never had these specific types of religious dealings with friends or family. But considering the leading aspect of my current praise of the film: the household tension that arises between connected people, I don't really think I can criticize the movie for anything pertaining to that. And I'm the kind of easy-goer who prays and accepts sin as something unavoidable. This is why I don't "ostracize" anything, and even listen to Slayer. Much of what I think about is how people, including myself, need to overcome problems and oftentimes need others to do so. I can't really relate to Thomas's opinions on homophobes either, as a long time ago, I felt like I was supposed to be against it due to a common interpretation of the bible, but I understand that zealously is Thomas's flaw just as much as Charlie's flaw is an inability to get his life straightened out.

On top of which, can I take a moment to just detail how well Aronofsky's sense of direction and music has come? After nine movies, he has a perfect set of eyes and ears for capturing scenarios and expressions through music and motion. It's tame, slow, careful and powerful in meaningful bursts.

Sin isn't something you "hate." It's something you grow from and help others grow from. The Whale is not a movie about fat, and there's certainly none of it in the movie. There is meat to it throughout, and every bit of it says, "this is about giving into your flaws. This is about your addictions and your life." That's all it is. Think about your own life. This is a reversed version of Requiem for a Dream, allowing all of the characters to bleed out the poison from their scars and have even the faintest attempt at connecting. Even if you don't die perfect, you still have the chance to be better and grow from your mistakes. This is all I ever think about. I wrote a debut novel with two teens devoted to their own conflicting beliefs joining together to take down an even greater evil than contradiction. There may even be a part of me that wished for this movie to be written. This brilliant cast of perfectly fleshed-out characters will stand as another polarized entry in Aronofsky's career, but I'll stick with the positives.

This is the first film in about a decade that has made me cry.

Darren Aronofsky's Directorial Score (4 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Requiem for a Dream: 100
The Whale: 100
Black Swan: 97
Noah: 58

Score: 88.75 / 4

Darren Aronofsky's position on my Best Director's List raises from #121 to #97 between Don Bluth and David Zucker. I'll remedy this tomorrow with another Aronofsky film.

Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 1 week ago at 04:10 PM.

KeyserCorleone

Registered User

1 week ago

Moses and Aaron

(1975) - Directed by Jean-Marie Straub, Dani�le Huillet
--------------------------------------------
Religious Film /Opera
-------------------------------------------------

"Strong is Pharaoh! Weak are we!"

Recently I went on a classical albums binge. I would even take whole opera recordings and listen to them over a couple days. I've heard at least six versions of Mozart's Requiem and have heard three versions of Tristan and Isolde by Wagner. So to find out about an opera based on Schoenberg's unfinished project, Moses and Aaron, sounded pretty cool at first. The Moses story is my favorite story in the Bible so I was reasonably excited for this when I put it on. But it left me completely disappointed.

The movie tells only select parts of the story of Moses and Aaron, unfortunately mirroring the opera's unfinished status. As a result, many of these scenes draw out the quick two-minute chapters of the story to 15-20 minutes, infuriatingly making the actors all stand in place for the majority of the movie. The movie even had the audacity to spend a good thirty seconds on a static shot of a cow cut in half right after we finally had some action in a sacrificial dance and another cow getting cut in half (whether these were fake or real I don't know, but concerning the lacking production values, I'm gonna assume they were real.

Also, don't walk into this actually expecting a story about Moses and Aaron. They're practically side characters because so much effort is put into the choir instead. It seems to mostly center on people rejecting Gods rather than working on the relationship between Moses and Aaron, so we don't ever get to see them in action. No plagues, only one or two miracles, nothing's really going on. I mean, honestly. If Cecil B. DeMille can recreate the ten plagues twenty years earlier, then I think these two could've waited to expand their experience in the filmmaking field before heading right into the one Bible story that requires the most SFX. There are other Biblical operas for them to direct.

And lemme go on about the horrible direction. Why are there so many scenes that center on one thing for thirty seconds or more while playing dramatic music? The story is about the people, so I wanna see more about the people! On top of that, WHAT THE HELL IS WITH ALL THE LENGTHY SHOTS OF TOTAL BLACK!? Is this really what the two directors were thinking when they thought �movie?� What movies are they watching!? Who's making the movies they're watching? Where do I find the directors of the movies they're watching? What manner of death is most fitting for them!?

I'm just gonna say it: if Sussmayr can get away with finishing Mozart's Requiem after Mozart's death, then someone can finish this opera. THEN you can make a movie out of this. As it currently stands, there are too many missing scenes to really call this an enjoyable story. This isn't the same thing as Fellini's Satyricon where there were only occasionally a few pages missing from the source material. This opera that doesn't even realize it's slow cinema is a major disappointment to me as an opera fan, Bible reader and a movie buff. And people have the audacity to call this one of the better Biblical adaptations just because it features good Schoenberg music? I've seen cheesy Biblical dramas where the bad actors were more enjoyable! I've seen bad Biblical cartoons were the talking animals were more enjoyable! They compare this movie to Agnes Varda's works just because a woman directed it? I'd rather go back to The Seven Magnificent Gladiators!

If there was gonna be practically no action, why did they bother making a movie of this? If there's nothing good onscreen, just listen to the album while you're doing other things. The music and singing might be good, but the filmmaking is a total bust.

Jean-Marie Straub and Dani�le Huillet need 2 more films to qualify for Directorial Scores.

KeyserCorleone