- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by LilCerberus - Today at 10:15:27 PMTonight's (other) Stinker
Black Angels (1970)
https://youtu.be/57uSnAVOQZk?si=dvAiEcRlPW4x5W5p
Plot? What plot? Oh yeah, so.....
A young black biker plans to become leader of his gang by killing the leader of a white gang, but after a ridiculously long chase, he's killed in a crash.... He takes the boy's "colors" back to the black gang & tries to smooth things out & goes back to his own gang.....
Meanwhile, a stranger shows up posing as a stereotypical southern racist who wants to join the gang... One gang member is suspicious of everything about the guy, while the leader thinks he's okay....
At that same time, a local cop visits each gang & convinces them that the other is about to move in on their territory.....
Amusingly, this movie uses pretty much every cliché I've ever heard of, with lots of long drawn out scenes of rides & bad music.... Only exception, there's a central figure who's not really a protagonist... None of the characters have any redeeming qualities.....
Black Angels (1970)
https://youtu.be/57uSnAVOQZk?si=dvAiEcRlPW4x5W5p
Plot? What plot? Oh yeah, so.....
A young black biker plans to become leader of his gang by killing the leader of a white gang, but after a ridiculously long chase, he's killed in a crash.... He takes the boy's "colors" back to the black gang & tries to smooth things out & goes back to his own gang.....
Meanwhile, a stranger shows up posing as a stereotypical southern racist who wants to join the gang... One gang member is suspicious of everything about the guy, while the leader thinks he's okay....
At that same time, a local cop visits each gang & convinces them that the other is about to move in on their territory.....
Amusingly, this movie uses pretty much every cliché I've ever heard of, with lots of long drawn out scenes of rides & bad music.... Only exception, there's a central figure who's not really a protagonist... None of the characters have any redeeming qualities.....
#2
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by FatFreddysCat - Today at 09:24:53 PM"GoldenEye" (1995)
James Bond and a lovely Russian computer wizard must stop a former double-0 and a rogue Soviet general, who've teamed up to take control of a laser satellite weapon. Lots of stuff explodes in the process.
After two lukewarm entries with Timothy Dalton in the tuxedo, Pierce Brosnan's first spin as 007 brought the Bond franchise back in a big way. Tons of action packed fun from start to finish.
James Bond and a lovely Russian computer wizard must stop a former double-0 and a rogue Soviet general, who've teamed up to take control of a laser satellite weapon. Lots of stuff explodes in the process.
After two lukewarm entries with Timothy Dalton in the tuxedo, Pierce Brosnan's first spin as 007 brought the Bond franchise back in a big way. Tons of action packed fun from start to finish.
#3
Good Movies / Re: Films you are unable to wa...
Last post by Gabriel Knight - Today at 08:17:08 PMBRICK (2005). I had to turn it off because I couldn't understand a single word of what they were saying. Even with subtitles, I find it hard to follow because they talk so damn fast and with the most ridiculous slang you could possibly hear. I have no clue what they were thinking when they came up with that dialog.
#4
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by LilCerberus - Today at 08:12:15 PMTonight's Stinker
Murder by Television (1935)
https://youtu.be/N5RoAznF9cI?si=F_5V2Wjoo-9cCgem
Back when there were only a few TV stations in the world, a scientist invents a way to broadcast around the globe without the need for repeaters & before the invention of satellites.... Of course, businesses & governments everywhere want to get their paws on this new doo-dad, but the scientist wants to keep it....
Then, during a live, worldwide demonstration, he dies, and the movie turns into a head scratching who-done-it...
About an hour long, with choppy editing, and a pair of ethnic house servants who live up to antiquated stereotypes...
Been meaning to watch this for years, & now it's over with...
Gonna try & make it a twofer tonight!
Murder by Television (1935)
https://youtu.be/N5RoAznF9cI?si=F_5V2Wjoo-9cCgem
Back when there were only a few TV stations in the world, a scientist invents a way to broadcast around the globe without the need for repeaters & before the invention of satellites.... Of course, businesses & governments everywhere want to get their paws on this new doo-dad, but the scientist wants to keep it....
Then, during a live, worldwide demonstration, he dies, and the movie turns into a head scratching who-done-it...
About an hour long, with choppy editing, and a pair of ethnic house servants who live up to antiquated stereotypes...
Been meaning to watch this for years, & now it's over with...
Gonna try & make it a twofer tonight!
#5
What Was That Film? / Episode from an anthology seri...
Last post by Gabriel Knight - Today at 08:06:06 PMHi friends. I'm looking for an episode of an anthology series, probably from the 90s or mid-2000s. Here are some scenes from it:
* The protagonist is an adult woman.
* She has a recurring nightmare where she's floating in outer space, and next to her is an astronaut.
* She's deeply affected by these nightmares, and I believe she was in therapy.
* At one point, she remembers having an astronaut doll/toy as a child that she accidentally threw away.
* There's a scene where the woman rummages through the trash (even the garbage truck's garbage), trying to retrieve the toy. When she finds it, the nightmares seemingly disappear.
* The tone was serious, slow-paced, and somewhat surreal.
Let me know if something shakes up from this. Thanks!
* The protagonist is an adult woman.
* She has a recurring nightmare where she's floating in outer space, and next to her is an astronaut.
* She's deeply affected by these nightmares, and I believe she was in therapy.
* At one point, she remembers having an astronaut doll/toy as a child that she accidentally threw away.
* There's a scene where the woman rummages through the trash (even the garbage truck's garbage), trying to retrieve the toy. When she finds it, the nightmares seemingly disappear.
* The tone was serious, slow-paced, and somewhat surreal.
Let me know if something shakes up from this. Thanks!
#6
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 07:35:58 PMDOCTOR X (1932):
Another one I watched because someone here reviewed it recently (quote-unquote?) but I couldn't find it w/ the Search function.
From the director who later gave the world CASABLANCA (ahem), DOCTOR X is a lot of fun for a while but ultimately its many inherent flaws catch up with it. The titular Doctor (Lionel Atwill, naturally) seems promisingly sinister or capable but ultimately accomplishes nothing except getting some people murdered (unintentionally!). The alluring central murder mystery (lunacy! brain surgery! cannibalism!) has to cheat to deliver a twist. Entirely too much time is invested in a nonsensical and irritating romantic subplot (siiiiiiigh) involving the incredibly off-putting pencil-necked male lead Lee Tracy. I've seen him in other early 30s flicks but once Spencer Tracy and Jimmy Cagney arrived on the scene, Hollywood thankfully showed Lee the door.
In spite of all these shortcomings, DOCTOR X was worth a watch as an historical document and (aesthetically) as a museum piece. Throw a brick at the screen at any time during DOCTOR X and you'll hit an influence on THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Obviously there's Fay Wray (fetching here as a brunette), and Doctor X himself is name-checked in "Science Fiction Double Feature". I guess we could cite the casual cannibalism, too. But how 'bout the Doctor Scott-lookin' scientist in the wheelchair who (inevitably we learn) isn't actually paralyzed?
And, most pervasively, there's the look of the film, one of the earliest (four-)color features. Atwill's eccentric estate is unquestionably appointed by the same Transsexual Transylvanian interior decorator that did Frank's mansion... and that extends even to the decadent use of gels on every light source.
I don't think I was even aware that DOCTOR X was shot and initially released in Technicolor until I started watching it and read the title card about Industrial Light & Magic's work to restore the original visuals. Heck, DOCTOR X is so saturated with lurid color (mostly green), it might as well be the first Argento-style giallo! I turned off my brain after a while and just enjoyed looking at it.
3/5
Okay, SPOILER: The killer is the most interesting suspect who is quickly eliminated from being a suspect for reasons which are later defeated by some of the most confounding anti-science rhetoric this side of RFK JR's DHHS. But mildly attentive viewers will have already spotted this suspect throwing himself through a glass door, midway through the film, then immediately thereafter telling other characters he was pushed, when quite obviously he wasn't. Between this bizarre narrative oversight and the climactic revelation that he somehow has fine-motor control over a hollow rubber hand placed over his stump.......
...well, Michael Curtiz was good at putting his budget onscreen, anyway.
Another one I watched because someone here reviewed it recently (quote-unquote?) but I couldn't find it w/ the Search function.
From the director who later gave the world CASABLANCA (ahem), DOCTOR X is a lot of fun for a while but ultimately its many inherent flaws catch up with it. The titular Doctor (Lionel Atwill, naturally) seems promisingly sinister or capable but ultimately accomplishes nothing except getting some people murdered (unintentionally!). The alluring central murder mystery (lunacy! brain surgery! cannibalism!) has to cheat to deliver a twist. Entirely too much time is invested in a nonsensical and irritating romantic subplot (siiiiiiigh) involving the incredibly off-putting pencil-necked male lead Lee Tracy. I've seen him in other early 30s flicks but once Spencer Tracy and Jimmy Cagney arrived on the scene, Hollywood thankfully showed Lee the door. In spite of all these shortcomings, DOCTOR X was worth a watch as an historical document and (aesthetically) as a museum piece. Throw a brick at the screen at any time during DOCTOR X and you'll hit an influence on THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Obviously there's Fay Wray (fetching here as a brunette), and Doctor X himself is name-checked in "Science Fiction Double Feature". I guess we could cite the casual cannibalism, too. But how 'bout the Doctor Scott-lookin' scientist in the wheelchair who (inevitably we learn) isn't actually paralyzed?
And, most pervasively, there's the look of the film, one of the earliest (four-)color features. Atwill's eccentric estate is unquestionably appointed by the same Transsexual Transylvanian interior decorator that did Frank's mansion... and that extends even to the decadent use of gels on every light source.
I don't think I was even aware that DOCTOR X was shot and initially released in Technicolor until I started watching it and read the title card about Industrial Light & Magic's work to restore the original visuals. Heck, DOCTOR X is so saturated with lurid color (mostly green), it might as well be the first Argento-style giallo! I turned off my brain after a while and just enjoyed looking at it.3/5
Okay, SPOILER: The killer is the most interesting suspect who is quickly eliminated from being a suspect for reasons which are later defeated by some of the most confounding anti-science rhetoric this side of RFK JR's DHHS. But mildly attentive viewers will have already spotted this suspect throwing himself through a glass door, midway through the film, then immediately thereafter telling other characters he was pushed, when quite obviously he wasn't. Between this bizarre narrative oversight and the climactic revelation that he somehow has fine-motor control over a hollow rubber hand placed over his stump.......
...well, Michael Curtiz was good at putting his budget onscreen, anyway. #7
Bad Movies / Re: Boop (Public domain Betty ...
Last post by Alex - Today at 02:34:56 PMI watched one of the Micky Mouse horror movies. All the way through I kept thinking "This is a Brown Jenkins film directed by Stuart Gordon". It was passable as a slasher, and I can't imagine the Betty Boop one being much different. I suspect I'll end up watching it when I am bored on nights though.
#8
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Picture of the day, part I...
Last post by claws - Today at 01:13:14 PMAI generated this image. It said there's a hidden message in there somewhere.
#10
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 10:31:58 AMWEST OF ZANZIBAR (1928):
I thought someone else reviewed this recently but I can't find it (as often is the case when I try to use the search function). It's a Tod Browning "horror" movie that requires the same caveat as FREAKS, another Tod Browning horror movie I've never been able to enjoy. I'm aware that some people will defend FREAKS by suggesting it's actually empowering and not exploitative of its differently-abled stars. Likewise, I've read the argument that WEST OF ZANZIBAR employed 200 black actors (at Lon Cnaney's insistence) rather than putting 200 white guys in blackface. I agree, that is commendable!
However, let's also acknowledge that WEST OF ZANZIBAR is only classified as a Horror movie because it generates 100% of its horror from the presence of those 200 black actors (dressed in tribal drag) and from the threat that the screenplay would have viewers believe they represent. That threat is entirely central to the plot: the antihero utilizes that threat in his elaborate revenge scheme, hopes to punish his enemies with that threat, and ultimately is endangered when that threat is redirected towards him. Now, if the 200 black actors were merely playing "cannibals", WOZ would be no more objectionable than any other cannibal movie of the pre-Italian era (there's no animal cruelty, anyway) because let's face it, there have been places on Earth where people eat the flesh of other people. But like the mindboggling Fake documentaries of Jacopetti and Prosperi, WEST OF ZANZIBAR can't just rest at plausible cannibalism - it is has to contrive a melodramatic premise of its African tribe, one that feels made-up because it almost certainly is made-up just to upset sheltered white audiences. Yes, these 200 black actors aren't interested in eating human flesh - they are just single-mindedly and dogmatically committed to burning people alive under a highly specific set of circumstances from which they staunchly refuse to permit any exception. Again, the entire plot focuses on this hysterical contrivance and all of the film's "horror" depends upon it. So, that's pretty racist and silly.
But besides that... the film opens in the Civilized World with Lon Chaney Sr. as an illusionist performing a magic show. Chaney looks absurd and acts bizarrely but after only about 5 or so minutes he is betrayed and performs a jaw-dropping stunt (irl, not in his magic show) that will compel his character's complete transformation and move the plot forward about 20 years. When we meet Chaney again, he's hanging out deep in the jungle of the Congo, he looks completely different, and - most significantly - he's now giving the most convincing, grounded, dramatically compelling performance of his career. I guess you could think of him as Prof. Charles Xavier's other evil twin - not Cassandra Nova but another bald paraplegic who has now committed his life to venting his spleen on humanity instead of striving for equality or something. The Phantom of the Opera is cool and all, but this is Chaney's keynote role, no question.
The other leads are up to Chaney's challenge. Lionel Barrymore is the target of Chaney's ire. In the long build-up to their inevitable confrontation, one is certain there's no way Barrymore will be any match for Chaney's insane cruelty, but happily that expectation is upended terrifically. (Barrymore is "mean old Mister Potter", after all.) Generic cute blonde Mary Nolan plays the young woman caught in these maniacs' game of brinksmanship, and (also surprisingly) she delivers several highly specific, moving moments of pathos amidst the pitched madness. Browning's direction is so solid and cogent - by sound-era standards - that one almost suspects they tried to record sync dialogue and then scrapped it in favor of some odd sound FX and ambient tracks (mostly of chanting natives, oy). There are lengthy shots of Chaney or Nolan or Barrymore moving their lips that are unaccompanied by any intertitles, but I pretty much received the gist of their lines nonetheless, just based on their crystalline intentions and the strength of Browning's visual storytelling. (Of course if we'd gotten full dialogue here, Chaney's bonkers plot with the pyromaniacal African tribe might have seemed even more ludicrous than it does.)
I don't want to overstate the problematic nature of WEST OF ZANZIBAR, but there are a handful of iconic - okay, brilliant - moments in this film. It's easy to imagine Orson Welles, Werner Herzog, Nicolas Roeg, John Milius, Paul Thomas Anderson, and others seeing this film and having some big lightbulbs sparked in their noggins. It's also entirely plausible to envision an adolescent Daniel Day Lewis watching this and deciding he wanted to be Lon Chaney Sr. when he grew up. Several reviews also speculate an influence on OLDBOY. I dunno, OLDBOY is just "Oedipus Rex" inverted, and there are clear distinctions between OLDBOY's revenge plot and the one here. But - I will allow - Barrymore does respond to Chaney's big Revenge Reveal in exactly the same way I wanted Josh Brolin to respond to the Reveal at the end of Spike Lee's OB remake.
4/5
I really wanted to give this a 3.5 to punish the bizarre racism but - man, the racism aside - Chaney's final scene with the tribe is so next-level nutzo it should have already become a perennial gif/meme. This is quite a movie.
I thought someone else reviewed this recently but I can't find it (as often is the case when I try to use the search function). It's a Tod Browning "horror" movie that requires the same caveat as FREAKS, another Tod Browning horror movie I've never been able to enjoy. I'm aware that some people will defend FREAKS by suggesting it's actually empowering and not exploitative of its differently-abled stars. Likewise, I've read the argument that WEST OF ZANZIBAR employed 200 black actors (at Lon Cnaney's insistence) rather than putting 200 white guys in blackface. I agree, that is commendable!
However, let's also acknowledge that WEST OF ZANZIBAR is only classified as a Horror movie because it generates 100% of its horror from the presence of those 200 black actors (dressed in tribal drag) and from the threat that the screenplay would have viewers believe they represent. That threat is entirely central to the plot: the antihero utilizes that threat in his elaborate revenge scheme, hopes to punish his enemies with that threat, and ultimately is endangered when that threat is redirected towards him. Now, if the 200 black actors were merely
playing "cannibals", WOZ would be no more objectionable than any other cannibal movie of the pre-Italian era (there's no animal cruelty, anyway) because let's face it, there have been places on Earth where people eat the flesh of other people. But like the mindboggling Fake documentaries of Jacopetti and Prosperi, WEST OF ZANZIBAR can't just rest at plausible cannibalism - it is has to contrive a melodramatic premise of its African tribe, one that feels made-up because it almost certainly is made-up just to upset sheltered white audiences. Yes, these 200 black actors aren't interested in eating human flesh - they are just single-mindedly and dogmatically committed to burning people alive under a highly specific set of circumstances from which they staunchly refuse to permit any exception. Again, the entire plot focuses on this hysterical contrivance and all of the film's "horror" depends upon it. So, that's pretty racist and silly.But besides that... the film opens in the Civilized World
with Lon Chaney Sr. as an illusionist performing a magic show. Chaney looks absurd and acts bizarrely but after only about 5 or so minutes he is betrayed and performs a jaw-dropping stunt (irl, not in his magic show) that will compel his character's complete transformation and move the plot forward about 20 years. When we meet Chaney again, he's hanging out deep in the jungle of the Congo, he looks completely different, and - most significantly - he's now giving the most convincing, grounded, dramatically compelling performance of his career. I guess you could think of him as Prof. Charles Xavier's other evil twin - not Cassandra Nova but another bald paraplegic who has now committed his life to venting his spleen on humanity instead of striving for equality or something. The Phantom of the Opera is cool and all, but this is Chaney's keynote role, no question. The other leads are up to Chaney's challenge. Lionel Barrymore is the target of Chaney's ire. In the long build-up to their inevitable confrontation, one is certain there's no way Barrymore will be any match for Chaney's insane cruelty, but happily that expectation is upended terrifically. (Barrymore is "mean old Mister Potter", after all.) Generic cute blonde Mary Nolan plays the young woman caught in these maniacs' game of brinksmanship, and (also surprisingly) she delivers several highly specific, moving moments of pathos amidst the pitched madness. Browning's direction is so solid and cogent - by sound-era standards - that one almost suspects they tried to record sync dialogue and then scrapped it in favor of some odd sound FX and ambient tracks (mostly of chanting natives, oy). There are lengthy shots of Chaney or Nolan or Barrymore moving their lips that are unaccompanied by any intertitles, but I pretty much received the gist of their lines nonetheless, just based on their crystalline intentions and the strength of Browning's visual storytelling. (Of course if we'd gotten full dialogue here, Chaney's bonkers plot with the pyromaniacal African tribe might have seemed even more ludicrous than it does.)
I don't want to overstate the problematic nature of WEST OF ZANZIBAR, but there are a handful of iconic - okay, brilliant - moments in this film. It's easy to imagine Orson Welles, Werner Herzog, Nicolas Roeg, John Milius, Paul Thomas Anderson, and others seeing this film and having some big lightbulbs sparked in their noggins. It's also entirely plausible to envision an adolescent Daniel Day Lewis watching this and deciding he wanted to be Lon Chaney Sr. when he grew up. Several reviews also speculate an influence on OLDBOY. I dunno, OLDBOY is just "Oedipus Rex" inverted, and there are clear distinctions between OLDBOY's revenge plot and the one here. But - I will allow - Barrymore does respond to Chaney's big Revenge Reveal in exactly the same way I wanted Josh Brolin to respond to the Reveal at the end of Spike Lee's OB remake.
4/5
I really wanted to give this a 3.5 to punish the bizarre racism but - man, the racism aside - Chaney's final scene with the tribe is so next-level nutzo it should have already become a perennial gif/meme. This is quite a movie.