movie: Mad Max
starring: Mel Gibson, Hugh Keays-Byrne
genre: Action, Crime, Drama,
year:1979
format: TV Edit
plot: After a member of a biker gang is accidentally killed in a high speed chase, a feud begins between the gang and the local highway patrol.
So if I wasn't crazy about the other two in the series, why'd I bother? Cause I'm one of those people that once I see any part of a series I need to finish the whole thing.
I was bored. I don't know what I was expecting, but a basic cop revenge story wasn't it. I see where the basic cop revenge dramas sort of got their momentum, and I see where the whole Fast and Furious lets do everything on the road genre came from. I don't know how long the original movie was, but watching it on tv, it was more commercials than movie.
So the dog wanders off at one point and no one mentions him again. The kid is there for one scene in the beginning, then not mentioned for half of it till he pops up conveniently in the car during the vacation. And the dude who gets arse jacked is running without issues thirty seconds after a gang has all taken a turn on him. I give you plot holes.
I felt like it was missing something, and it might have been given it was a tv edit? It was almost like nothing really happened till the last ten minutes, as if the first hour and 45 minutes were the intro.
what did I learn? The average tv commercial gets replayed 10 times per show.
Showing posts with label 1979. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1979. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
year 5 Day 102
movie: Meatballs
starring: Bill Murray, Jack Blum
genre:Comedy
year: 1979
format: Hollywood Suites Channel
plot: A group of camp counselors deal with their relationships, while getting their kids ready for the big sports event.
I know this is one of the movies that started the summer camp comedy genre, but I was expecting something more. I've seen the other three movies in the series, which I like, but this one left me bored.
Murray's character feels like not enough was put into it, you don't feel Bill Murray's in the room so to speak until the last fifteen minutes of the film. I get that movies done in that decade were little more serious, but this is a dry movie. There's nothing funny about this comedy.
At one point you are teased with the idea of a love triangle when two of the male counselors are talking about this one female counselor that they both like, and she come up in a speed boat confessing who she's crushing on, but that's sort of all you get out of it. One of the campers starts running in the mornings in order to be part of something, which hints at the big pay off in this movie. The big pay off is suppose to be the big sporting event against the rival camp. But, not enough time is actually spent on that idea.
what did I learn? Part 2 is the best in the series
starring: Bill Murray, Jack Blum
genre:Comedy
year: 1979
format: Hollywood Suites Channel
plot: A group of camp counselors deal with their relationships, while getting their kids ready for the big sports event.
I know this is one of the movies that started the summer camp comedy genre, but I was expecting something more. I've seen the other three movies in the series, which I like, but this one left me bored.
Murray's character feels like not enough was put into it, you don't feel Bill Murray's in the room so to speak until the last fifteen minutes of the film. I get that movies done in that decade were little more serious, but this is a dry movie. There's nothing funny about this comedy.
At one point you are teased with the idea of a love triangle when two of the male counselors are talking about this one female counselor that they both like, and she come up in a speed boat confessing who she's crushing on, but that's sort of all you get out of it. One of the campers starts running in the mornings in order to be part of something, which hints at the big pay off in this movie. The big pay off is suppose to be the big sporting event against the rival camp. But, not enough time is actually spent on that idea.
what did I learn? Part 2 is the best in the series
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Year 3 Day 77
movie: Thirst (1979)
starring: Chantal Contouri, Max Phipps
genre: Thriller
year: 1979
format: DVD
plot: A woman is kidnapped and taken to a compound run by a cult of vampires. They keep prisoners like cattle, draining them of their blood in order to live. Kate is told repeatedly that she is from the Bathory bloodline, and that it's her duty to take her place among them.
It plays like a bad drug induced nightmare, never really giving up what's real and what's in the character's head. The end scene I found, lends itself to having you wonder if the lead character was "a vampire" all along, or a prisoner who desperately wants to be?
The vampires in this use a set of fake steel fangs, (right away thought of Triple H in Blade 3 Trinity) and seem to be more human then non.
The big theme seems to be paranoia and insanity. Are the things happening to the character because she's a suppressed vampire, or just a victim of a cult of sadists?
This is also one of those 1970's vampire movies that seemed obsessed with the Bathory story, adding it almost as an excuse to make the movie than any real purpose to advance the story.
Okay, I was like just giddy when I found this in one of my boxes of movies, cause this is one that I didn't even remember having. (bottom of the box, kicked up a lot of dust which I'm still tasting) But, as I started to watch it, it seemed a bit familiar. I have something like five vampire movies with the same title "Thirst" and almost all of them either have blood dripping lips/fangs on the cover or the generic Blockbuster covers from when I bought them in the clearance sale the year Blockbuster Canada closed. Forgetting about this film, was understandable, and after watching it again, explainable.
For a 1979 film, this could have been a lot worse, the editing seemed to be jump cuts, and there wasn't a lot of dialog to really explain the plot. You spend half the movie listening to the score, and having to decode the odd looks the actors give the camera.
starring: Chantal Contouri, Max Phipps
genre: Thriller
year: 1979
format: DVD
plot: A woman is kidnapped and taken to a compound run by a cult of vampires. They keep prisoners like cattle, draining them of their blood in order to live. Kate is told repeatedly that she is from the Bathory bloodline, and that it's her duty to take her place among them.
It plays like a bad drug induced nightmare, never really giving up what's real and what's in the character's head. The end scene I found, lends itself to having you wonder if the lead character was "a vampire" all along, or a prisoner who desperately wants to be?
The vampires in this use a set of fake steel fangs, (right away thought of Triple H in Blade 3 Trinity) and seem to be more human then non.
The big theme seems to be paranoia and insanity. Are the things happening to the character because she's a suppressed vampire, or just a victim of a cult of sadists?
This is also one of those 1970's vampire movies that seemed obsessed with the Bathory story, adding it almost as an excuse to make the movie than any real purpose to advance the story.
Okay, I was like just giddy when I found this in one of my boxes of movies, cause this is one that I didn't even remember having. (bottom of the box, kicked up a lot of dust which I'm still tasting) But, as I started to watch it, it seemed a bit familiar. I have something like five vampire movies with the same title "Thirst" and almost all of them either have blood dripping lips/fangs on the cover or the generic Blockbuster covers from when I bought them in the clearance sale the year Blockbuster Canada closed. Forgetting about this film, was understandable, and after watching it again, explainable.
For a 1979 film, this could have been a lot worse, the editing seemed to be jump cuts, and there wasn't a lot of dialog to really explain the plot. You spend half the movie listening to the score, and having to decode the odd looks the actors give the camera.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Day 348
movie: Star Trek the Motion Picture
starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy
genre: Sci-fi, Drama
year: 1979
format: online
plot: Kirk takes command of the Enterprise in order to help stop a machine based threat from destroying Earth. But after one of his crew is taken and replaced by a robot, another makes the ultimate sacrifice.
You can pretty much say, this was the beginning of the Borg that would show up throughout all the other series and films.
Two characters who were introduced in this film only to end up dying as they become part of the machine. It's creepy and brilliant all at the same time.
We're talking 1979 here. The story is confusing and thin, while the effects are comical now, they were the best in the world at that time. The downfall of the film is the amount of effects that were used.
There are these scenes of rich dialogue that though were sparse, showed the fact the film was character driven. Then you're given these long pieces of effects for the sake of the effects which I found broke the story for me. I would rather be carried away by a really great scene of witty dialogue then by effects.
There has been so much said good, bad, mediocre about the first ST movie, that I'll keep my post fairly short. BUT, I did like the idea that there needed to be a duel element of "god and goddess" to create something new. One of the final scenes had the crew talking about a new lifeform, which could not have happened if the male and female crew members hadn't agreed to give themselves over to the machine.
This gives the seemingly odd comment by the character of Ilia when she's introduced in the beginning about her vow of celibacy a purpose. Total foreshadowing for her role in things.
what do i think i learned from this film?
Resistance is futile.
starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy
genre: Sci-fi, Drama
year: 1979
format: online
You can pretty much say, this was the beginning of the Borg that would show up throughout all the other series and films.
Two characters who were introduced in this film only to end up dying as they become part of the machine. It's creepy and brilliant all at the same time.
We're talking 1979 here. The story is confusing and thin, while the effects are comical now, they were the best in the world at that time. The downfall of the film is the amount of effects that were used.
There are these scenes of rich dialogue that though were sparse, showed the fact the film was character driven. Then you're given these long pieces of effects for the sake of the effects which I found broke the story for me. I would rather be carried away by a really great scene of witty dialogue then by effects.
There has been so much said good, bad, mediocre about the first ST movie, that I'll keep my post fairly short. BUT, I did like the idea that there needed to be a duel element of "god and goddess" to create something new. One of the final scenes had the crew talking about a new lifeform, which could not have happened if the male and female crew members hadn't agreed to give themselves over to the machine.
This gives the seemingly odd comment by the character of Ilia when she's introduced in the beginning about her vow of celibacy a purpose. Total foreshadowing for her role in things.
what do i think i learned from this film?
Resistance is futile.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Day 29
Movie: Love at First Bite
Starring: George Hamilton, Arte Johnson
Genre: Comedy,
Year: 1979
Format: DVD
Plot: Dracula is forced out of the castle and decides to move to New York and find the woman of his dreams; a hip New York model.
This film has some of the funniest one liners like "I'm not even a bat anymore just a big black chicken"
Arte Johnson does an impression of Dwight Frye's laugh from his version of Renfield to perfection.
This is one of those movies that is rooted in the generation and decade it was made in, there is no mistaking this as anything but a 1970's film. There are cameos from cast members of the old television show The Jeffersons, and much of the jokes reference the disco era.
No matter how famous you might be, at the end of the night you have to be able to just be you. And you have to know for sure if you're dealing with a vampire or a werewolf otherwise don't bring the silver bullets to the club.
Starring: George Hamilton, Arte Johnson
Genre: Comedy,
Year: 1979
Format: DVD
Plot: Dracula is forced out of the castle and decides to move to New York and find the woman of his dreams; a hip New York model.
This film has some of the funniest one liners like "I'm not even a bat anymore just a big black chicken"
Arte Johnson does an impression of Dwight Frye's laugh from his version of Renfield to perfection.
This is one of those movies that is rooted in the generation and decade it was made in, there is no mistaking this as anything but a 1970's film. There are cameos from cast members of the old television show The Jeffersons, and much of the jokes reference the disco era.
What do I think I learned from this film?
No matter how famous you might be, at the end of the night you have to be able to just be you. And you have to know for sure if you're dealing with a vampire or a werewolf otherwise don't bring the silver bullets to the club.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)