Search
Search results
Bela Balazs: Early Film Theory: Visible Man and The Spirit of Film
Bela Balazs, Erica Carter and Rodney Livingstone
Book
"[The book is] part of the Film Europa: German Cinema in an International Context series. [It] has...
CS
Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes, and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film and Television
R. Barton Palmer and Amanda Ann Klein
Book
With sequels, prequels, remakes, spin-offs, or copies of successful films or franchises dominating...
Going to the Palais: A Social and Cultural History of Dancing and Dance Halls in Britain, 1918-1960
Book
From the mid-1920s, the dance hall occupied a pivotal place in the culture of working- and...
Jonas Carpignano recommended Paisan (Paisà) (1948) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Near Dark (1987) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Bill Paxton (1 more)
Lance Henrikson
Finger-Lickin' Good!
Near Dark- is a great neo-western horror film about vampires. It was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, it was also her debut film.
The plot: Cowboy Caleb Colton (Adrian Pasdar) meets gorgeous Mae (Jenny Wright) at a bar, and the two have an immediate attraction. But when Mae turns out to be a vampire and bites Caleb on the neck, their relationship gets complicated. Wracked with a craving for human blood, Caleb is forced to leave his family and ride with Mae and her gang of vampires, including the evil Severen. Along the way Caleb must decide between his new love of Mae and the love of his family.
Vampire films had become "trendy" by the time of Near Dark's production, with the success of Fright Night (1985) and The Lost Boys (1987), the latter released two months before Near Dark and grossing $32 million. Kathryn Bigelow wanted to film a Western movie that departed from cinematic convention.
The combination of the genres had been visited at least twice before on the big screen, with Curse of the Undead (1959) and Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966).
Bigelow knew (and later married) director James Cameron, who directed Aliens (1986), a film that shares three cast members (Paxton, Goldstein and Henriksen) with Near Dark. Actor Michael Biehn was offered the role of Jesse Hooker, but he rejected the role because he found the script confusing. Lance Henriksen took over the role. A cinema seen in the background early in the film has Aliens on its marquee and Cameron played the man who "flips off" Severen.
Its a classic and a cult film.
The plot: Cowboy Caleb Colton (Adrian Pasdar) meets gorgeous Mae (Jenny Wright) at a bar, and the two have an immediate attraction. But when Mae turns out to be a vampire and bites Caleb on the neck, their relationship gets complicated. Wracked with a craving for human blood, Caleb is forced to leave his family and ride with Mae and her gang of vampires, including the evil Severen. Along the way Caleb must decide between his new love of Mae and the love of his family.
Vampire films had become "trendy" by the time of Near Dark's production, with the success of Fright Night (1985) and The Lost Boys (1987), the latter released two months before Near Dark and grossing $32 million. Kathryn Bigelow wanted to film a Western movie that departed from cinematic convention.
The combination of the genres had been visited at least twice before on the big screen, with Curse of the Undead (1959) and Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966).
Bigelow knew (and later married) director James Cameron, who directed Aliens (1986), a film that shares three cast members (Paxton, Goldstein and Henriksen) with Near Dark. Actor Michael Biehn was offered the role of Jesse Hooker, but he rejected the role because he found the script confusing. Lance Henriksen took over the role. A cinema seen in the background early in the film has Aliens on its marquee and Cameron played the man who "flips off" Severen.
Its a classic and a cult film.
Timothy Spall recommended Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Identity (2003) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
"𝘈 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘪𝘦?! 𝘈 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘪𝘦!"
*or*
"𝘓𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦, 𝘥𝘶𝘥𝘦, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥-𝘶𝘱, 𝘸𝘦𝘵, 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘺."
True "What the fuck is going on? Huh? What..? Who?? ... wait what the fuck is that I- um, did they just? What the hell, but...where? Why? Uh, how?" cinema. This sort of exasperatingly looney, balls-planted-firmly-to-the-wall thriller with like 60 twists is sort of played these days - but I'd imagine that in its day it was quite revelatory. This was honestly a hoot and a holler but sadly its greatness is sunk by James Mangold - for the most part - being a hack who has no clue how to dramatize, have any definable mark as a director, or make inherently compelling things at all very compelling unless the studio has a firm grip on the project. His films mostly look like flat TV movies and play like no one behind the camera has much of a clue on what they're doing beyond maybe an introductory film guide on the back of a cereal box. This one isn't all that different either, but material with *this* low of a regard for any sense of subtlety or earthly realism and with a gleeful eagerness to throw all of its cards violently onto the table any chance it gets has a pass from me - especially when it's acted by a banging troupe of crackerjack character actors and reliable leads like this one. Really, really fun and sincerely manic - Agatha Christie meets a line of coke at a gas station bathroom. Plus the uninterrupted, heaping downpour is a helluva gimmick and it works where Mangold doesn't.
*or*
"𝘓𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦, 𝘥𝘶𝘥𝘦, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥-𝘶𝘱, 𝘸𝘦𝘵, 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘺."
True "What the fuck is going on? Huh? What..? Who?? ... wait what the fuck is that I- um, did they just? What the hell, but...where? Why? Uh, how?" cinema. This sort of exasperatingly looney, balls-planted-firmly-to-the-wall thriller with like 60 twists is sort of played these days - but I'd imagine that in its day it was quite revelatory. This was honestly a hoot and a holler but sadly its greatness is sunk by James Mangold - for the most part - being a hack who has no clue how to dramatize, have any definable mark as a director, or make inherently compelling things at all very compelling unless the studio has a firm grip on the project. His films mostly look like flat TV movies and play like no one behind the camera has much of a clue on what they're doing beyond maybe an introductory film guide on the back of a cereal box. This one isn't all that different either, but material with *this* low of a regard for any sense of subtlety or earthly realism and with a gleeful eagerness to throw all of its cards violently onto the table any chance it gets has a pass from me - especially when it's acted by a banging troupe of crackerjack character actors and reliable leads like this one. Really, really fun and sincerely manic - Agatha Christie meets a line of coke at a gas station bathroom. Plus the uninterrupted, heaping downpour is a helluva gimmick and it works where Mangold doesn't.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Sherlock, Jr. (1924) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have seen and very much enjoyed the work of Buster Keaton in the past, most notably The General, which knocked me sideways by how inventive and genuinely funny it was. My main movie love for the silent era is Charlie Chaplin, and much like it is possible to like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but only truly love one, Keaton will always be second best for me. But what a second best. Genius is an overused word, of course, but pioneer says it better anyway. The sheer volume of invention per minute is magnificent – from the technical editing techniques that were created just for this film, to the forms of visual comedy that broke the mould and raised the bar in every scene.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated M (Movie) (1931) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
The maestro of dark shadows, Fritz Lang already had 14 feature films under his belt by 1931, including the much loved and much borrowed from Metropolis in 1927. It is said that he was such a slave driver with cast and crew alike that he had very few friends and was detested as a man. His work spoke for itself, however, and was always miles ahead of anything happening at the same time in Hollywood. Take the dark, sinister and serious M as an example. It tackles the subject of child abduction and murder, homelessness, crime in general and the punishment of a mob – subjects American cinema would never have touched in 1931, let alone done with such an exquisite non- melodramatic feel.
Peter Lorre as the killer compelled by his own weakness and madness gives an unfeasably nuanced performance for the era also. He is mesmerically creepy and unforgettable. Images and motifs (such as the whistle that indicates the murderer is lurking) abound, creating a landscape of pure mood and disease. As a morality tale it touches on issues of vigilantism and true justice that still has some relevance today. It also works as an entertaining thriller, and there wasn’t a minute I felt bored or distracted. The only jarring element are the scenes where Lang cuts the sound entirely to create tension and focus – they feel like technical mistakes, not deliberate choices. Otherwise, I could not have been more impressed and pleasantly surprised by this Euro classic for all time. If I were making a list of the best films ever made that disregarded the limitations of the age, then M would definitely make the cut.
Peter Lorre as the killer compelled by his own weakness and madness gives an unfeasably nuanced performance for the era also. He is mesmerically creepy and unforgettable. Images and motifs (such as the whistle that indicates the murderer is lurking) abound, creating a landscape of pure mood and disease. As a morality tale it touches on issues of vigilantism and true justice that still has some relevance today. It also works as an entertaining thriller, and there wasn’t a minute I felt bored or distracted. The only jarring element are the scenes where Lang cuts the sound entirely to create tension and focus – they feel like technical mistakes, not deliberate choices. Otherwise, I could not have been more impressed and pleasantly surprised by this Euro classic for all time. If I were making a list of the best films ever made that disregarded the limitations of the age, then M would definitely make the cut.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated High and Low (1963) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
This movie is often touted as one of the finest non-American crime thrillers out there. It appears on many top 10 lists from renowned directors, and stands untouchable in the pantheon of post WWII Japanese cinema dealing with 20th century issues rather than samurai or traditional religious concepts. Kurasawa is known for masterpieces in both genres, and in this sphere is very much the Hitchcock of the East. The story sees self made entrepreneur Kingo Gondo, played by the ubiquitous Toshirô Mifune, being blackmailed by a kidnapper who believes he has his son, but has taken his chauffeur’s son by mistake. Cue huge moral intrigue and dilemma, leading to a chase and an unexpectedly symbolical climax and resolution.
It plays like two films for the price of one, the first a claustrophobic mood piece with a staged feel, reminding me of Hitchcock’s Rope, and the second a frantic chase movie where the forensic evidence is picked apart in intricate detail, like a less graphic Seven. The print on BFI is not great, so it actually feels older than it is. It is also pretty long at 143 minutes, and feels like it takes an age to get going. Therefore, although some moments and key images have stayed with me, I can’t honestly say I felt gripped or tense in any way. The stakes didn’t feel as high as I would have hoped for, and tonally it is a little uneven. In conclusion, it has much to offer and details in isolation are very impressive, but for me it was something of a let down.
It plays like two films for the price of one, the first a claustrophobic mood piece with a staged feel, reminding me of Hitchcock’s Rope, and the second a frantic chase movie where the forensic evidence is picked apart in intricate detail, like a less graphic Seven. The print on BFI is not great, so it actually feels older than it is. It is also pretty long at 143 minutes, and feels like it takes an age to get going. Therefore, although some moments and key images have stayed with me, I can’t honestly say I felt gripped or tense in any way. The stakes didn’t feel as high as I would have hoped for, and tonally it is a little uneven. In conclusion, it has much to offer and details in isolation are very impressive, but for me it was something of a let down.