Change Your Image
charlesmckay-99542
Reviews
Deadly Invitations (2024)
Not TOO Shabby
... for Tubi that is. Felt like scrolling through my favorite streaming service, and came upon this gem. In all expectancy, I watched assuming any minute to be berated by horrible acting, middle-school theatre esque lighting, and all around dreadful plot lines. I was pleasantly surprised. The acting, especially on part of the young lead actress, was pretty good. I didn't feel as if I were watching a cheap soap opera, despite the dramatic tendencies the script leaned into.
It's a story of conspiracy and subversion with only a main cast of about five people. Generally such a small cast for a mystery film is a terrible idea as most audience members will have been able to figure out everything well before the final act. To be fair (Tubi fair) I did figure out most every twist the film through at us, but that's not to say I didn't find it surprising or uninteresting. Part of the fun was seeing how the filmmakers were going to get from point A to point B, which while that doesn't make much for an impactful or introspective film, it does make for an entertaining watching experience.
I'd recommend watching with friends.
A Stranger's Child (2024)
I'm So Glad Tubi Original Films Exist
Okay, first off it's not good. No surprise there. It's an original film for a free streaming service that still isn't that popular YET. If more movies of this caliber are made for Tubi, and of course if the there's an occasionally pretty good film made for it then we might yet live to see Tubi become the Streaming Empire we all know it deserves. Back to the film-it's not that great. It has about as much directorial skill and acting as a Hallmark Movies and Mystery original made for TV movie would have. However, the story itself is kinda interesting. The first forty minutes did have me trying to figure out the ins and outs of the plot, and frankly I didn't see all of it coming. I just saw MOST of it coming.
Overall, kinda entertaining, kinda likable, but not much else, and who really expected it to be.
Long Live Tubi.
Mickey's Mouse Trap (2024)
If You're Hopeful, You Shan't Be Disappointed
Honestly, if your interested are piqued by the idea of this film, or you have any hope that you'll enjoy this-you probably will love this. It has exactly what one would expect of a slasher film starring teenagers being hunted by Mickey Mouse. In fact I would say this has more than you could hope for in terms of quality.
Sure, it's not a quality film in terms of cinematography or any conventional criteria, but for a cheap entertaining film with no attempt at leaving any redeeming qualities it isn't bad at all.
It's well worth a small fee to rent the film for an 80 minute flick to watch with friends and have a good time. Enjoy.
The Innocents (1961)
One of the Few that Truly Hold Up
As a lover of old films, when trying to convey the greatness of cinema to a friend, I find horror films to be a bane in my side. Most people when they think 'old movies' think instantly of bad acting and visual effects present in most old school horror films. I describe how great this one drama or epic is, and they inevitably say something along the lines of "oh, but it's old, so it's cheesy." Sadness. Humans have been putting on plays and operas for millennia, assuming that somehow in the last few decades we have perfected through film is absurd. While true, the visuals have gotten better, acting, cinematography, and storytelling are the same.
War films back then, though they lacked gore and most swearing more than compensated for being filmed around WWII when many directors and actors actually had served in the military. Dramas fixated much more on a larger group of people and their interactions with each other, which lended to extremely believable and entertaining storylines. Comedy films, especially screwball comedies, did not find their humor in sarcastic remarks about hot topics and lowbrow sexual humor, but they would make timeless jokes that are just as relevant in the 1930s as they are in the 2020s.
But then we come to horror films, the supposed exception to old films' innate greatness. Over the age of twelve, I doubt anyone has ever really been frightened by a Vincent Price film in the way they've been terrified by a more recent scary movie. This is likely derived from a change in audience approval (audiences used to expect cheap thrills and to be entertained for the ninety minutes the film was on for and not a second more) as well as the indisputable fact that most older movies have outright terrible effects.
If the horror genre is the exception to old films' greatness, then 'The Innocents' must be the exception to the horror genre. Amazing acting, lingering thrills, a profound storyline, and a jarring overall experience that lasts long after viewing.
If you are into old movies, you will at least highly respect this film. If you think old films are cheesy, this movie will slap you across the face and tell you to go sit in the corner. If you love newer horror movies, then you will realize just where you're missing out.
The Sand Pebbles (1966)
The Epic We Needed, but not the Epic We Deserved
When viewing mid century epics one generally expects grand visuals, vast armies, minimal storytelling, and bad acting. This film sorta fails on the latter three aspects brilliantly. There are grand visuals, there's nothing much in the way of armies except a scene here and there, there's great storytelling, and all around phenomenal acting.
Where the average epic would focus on the scale of everything happening, this film fixated on the characters. For this reason Sand Pebbles is honestly more of a drama than a war film. The same can be said if most Robert Wise films though. 'The Haunting'(1963) while very much a horror film, is successful because of its deep roots in drama. 'The Setup'(1949) is a noir with a heavy emphasis on drama. 'I Want to Live'(1958) is a political propaganda film in the form of a drama. Sand Pebbles is no exception to Robert Wise's stunning filmography.
The Verdict (1982)
The Most Joyless Movie I have Ever Encountered
Is there anyone out there who genuinely adores this movie? I understand liking it, maybe even having a fondness for it, but I cannot imagine having a strong positive emotion for this film. It was filmed really well, I don't think one could really dispute this. Amazing acting as well as dialogue, it's just like icing without sugar-it's not that it is bad, it's just it is not really enjoyable.
The characters have their problems and go about life in a believable way. They are jerks who act like genuine jerks. They are not lovable or secretly funny, they are just jerky real people.
If you are sitting down to watch this expecting something similar to Judgement at Nuremberg or To Kill a Mockingbird, or even to 12 Angry Men, you will find yourself still wanting. If you understand that this is more of realistic take on a popular genre, then watch this. If you're a fan of movies and understand that it shouldn't be the film molding itself to your tastes instead of Vice versa, then you are probably going to respect this film. Actually respect is probably the most appropriate word for this film.
Glass (2019)
How do you review a bad movie that has so much good in it?
What the heck Shyamalan? We can never figure out what you're up to. And I'm not altogether sure if you can.
M Night Shyamalan is undeniably one of the most skillful directors of the last two decades. He generally has amazing directing, meaningful acting, and impactful storytelling. Just his decision making seems to trip him up.
So the question is: how do you rate a movie like Glass?
This film has honestly a lot to love. It has several really good scenes. Amazing acting. Well usage of a slow pace. And it gets its message across pretty well. Most of these plusses would generally be enough to surpass most Marvel movies, and probably just about every "b" movie out there. But (and I'm not just saying this because of superheroes) with great power comes great responsibility. Shyamalan has amazing powers and has exhibited them in making some of the greatest films of all time, but he doesn't always use his skill to the fullest. Should a critic judge this movie by the potential that Shyamalan has displayed in either his filmography, or in the film itself? Or should one rate it based on other films?
Certainly Glass is greater than say Spider-Man 3 (2007) or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2(2017). But do we view it that way? These two aforementioned films had a great cast and were the sequels of rather enjoyable films, but they failed in most conceivable ways to continue the streak. Glass is the sequel to two of the greatest movies of the postmodernist film era, but it fails itself. But in its failure, is it still better or worse than just the purely average movie?
This is similar to the infamous Star Wars: The Last Jedi(2017) debate. Many upon release who threw aspersions would state "it's a good movie, but just not a good Star Wars movie." Is this a mindset that should be taken?
While I'm no professional, all I can offer is a suggestion in this scenario. In my opinion sequels always have to be earned. The first movie in a series exists for itself to please the audience just as much as the cast and crew, and if it fails the cast and crew can just move onto another film. A sequel though has to earn its keep. It has to add something new, if it's a sequel to a comedy it should have completely new laughs-not the same old gags. If it's a drama, there has to be genuine character growth. If it's an action film there should be new fights and a different reason for the fighting. And if it is a sequel in a really great franchise, it must follow that the movie should be great. But this still leads to Glass's and (in my opinion) Shyamalan's predicament: he has a lot of good, but fails in just a few small parts to the ruin of the whole movie.
I for one am glad this movie was no lower than it currently is on IMDb, and I fully agree that it shouldn't be any higher.
Split (2016)
He's Back
Wow. I wasn't expecting this film to be anywhere as great as I had heard it was. Assuming audience and critics alike were just happy Shyamalan made an objectively good movie, I went in expecting a movie about on par with an average marvel movie. I was wrong. This movie is on par with the greatest that shyamalan has made. And that does mean something!
Unfortunately he hasn't really followed up with creating another great film, but his previous two have been much better than say Airbender or The Happening.
Of course the story was interesting and compelling. There was little doubt that Shyamalan would ever fail in that aspect. The editing and cinematography were pretty great. Though still not comparable to Unbreakable or Sixth Sense, it was definitely better than his lesser films. Acting was amazing. James Maccovoy deserved an Oscar and a half.
Way to go M Night!
The Benchwarmers (2006)
Awkward Mishmash of Children's Comedy and Overtly Adult Comedy
I sat down expecting this to be a fun and terrible film to watch with the bros. It was. The acting was stagnant and off putting. The plot was unique but blatantly simple. The humor was clearly just a ripoff of Napoleon Dynamite. The movie even on paper is unoriginal and formulaic. Despite all of this, it was probably one of the best movie choices to watch with friends. You don't have to pay much attention, you can make fun of everything, and it honestly doesn't matter if you like the movie-you'll have fun watching it.
Be warned, it is not a children's movie. Despite having many gags that clearly were targeted at elementary aged kids, there are also a great many jokes which are overtly sexual to a degree that even a drunk frat boy will find to be too much.
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
A Clever Charming Film
I love old classic movies, silent movies, really anything from the late nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries. I have seen what this film was trying to emulate and I congratulate it for being such a success.
My complaint is that while the film emulates the transition from silent films to talkies well, it does not make a great enough movie to justify being lauded as such a critically acclaimed period piece. The story, while creative, is wafer thin because it is really a twenty minute sketch that is spread out to an entire feature film. The majority of songs were not original to this film, which isn't bad in it of itself, but by deciding to place their own songs in the soundtrack the creators unwittingly created a battle between their songwriter's skills and the skills of already successful songs. And the songs which were created for this film, (Moses Supposes) are neither interesting, catchy, or fun. There were many fun dances, but unfortunately the camera had to keep rolling until it became a punishment to the viewers.
The humor was one of the only purely great parts. I enjoyed the joking, the comedy, the acting. This aspect was fine.
The cinematography I feel was trying to mainly emulate late twenties and early thirties films in how much it feels like this is only filmed on a singular stage, maybe this is because of the Broadway play, but I'll give them credit for designing cinematography.
The color theory displayed in the film was actually superb. It is vibrant and popping, which might hurt the fact that it is supposed to be a twenties period piece, but who cares?
My main problem with the film is the music, which wouldn't normally matter, but as this is a musical I feel that I have to be critical. West Side story rules.
Minions: The Rise of Gru (2022)
This Movie Had No Business Being This Good
I watched this film recently, assuming it would just be something to joke about. Joking aside there was actually really good cinematography, I know most people wrote that as a joke, but the child abduction scene was so well filmed. That was also the only scene where I couldn't stop laughing! You could tell what was happening from a mile away but everything from the color grading, to the music, to the pacing, to the cinematography, to the voice acting, to the flipping amazing foley artistry hit home. Everyone who made this was actually succeeding at making a great film.
I rarely ever laugh in a film, but I laughed at least every two to four minutes. Actually good.
Dementia 13 (1963)
Pleasantly Surprised by this Forgotten Movie
I had never heard of this before I just started scrolling through a list of cheesy movies on Amazon. Imagine my surprise upon seeing the opening credits that Francis Ford Coppola directed this. IMAGINE IT!!! I was expecting some fifth rate mst3k director, but got the director of Godfather II no less!
The story is clearly lacking solid sense, but is so convoluted that it is enjoyable. I can't describe the utter helplessness I felt in understanding the story when *SPOILER ALERT* the main lady dies like fifteen minutes in. The film is clearly inspired by Psycho(1960) in that sense. Other than that I cannot see what else could have inspired this film except for either LSD or a butchering of some Native American myth.
This film is just interesting and captivating.
I was expecting to watch a bad bad movie, while I hoped that it would end up being a good bad movie, but to my delight Dementia 13 turned out to be a bad good movie.
Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)
My First Disappointment from Robert Wise
It's probably me fault, but I watched this solely because I saw Robert Wise had directed it. I have loved deeply what few movies I have seen that he has done. Perhaps because I unrealistically expected this film to be on par with his usual greatness I was dissatisfied.
The film itself is not bad, but bland. This is prolly one of the only character driven crime noirs, but because of that it has an altogether lackluster plot with a simple meaning behind it. Instead of being a clever heist film, this is just a slow analysis of two men who are not really interesting, with an unarguably lame heist shoved in.
Despite spending so much of the film preparing for the end heist, nothing which happens really seems much more planned than a redneck trying to steal an ATM with a twenty year old pickup.
The end seems to be just a copy of White Heat, with an uninspired anti racism twist. Maybe the film was also a Cold War allegory, but by the end you don't really care.
On the positive side the cinematography was really good. The handheld camera shots were interesting and the cityscape shots were beautiful. I found the two main leads interesting at first, but then there was another forty minutes of film.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Meh
DONT HATE ME PLEASE!
This film is good, just not gold like everyone claims it is. I enjoyed many parts of this film, but was altogether lulled nearly to sleep during other parts. This really could just be a two hour film without seeming strained, but there are many repetitive shots and altogether pointless scenes which establish character for people who aren't even focused on until their death.
If you want to learn to like Kurosawa watch this film when you are a veteran to his craft. Watch Hidden Fortress instead as it is much more fast paced, humorous, and entertaining.
If you're thinking of watching this film for its influence on Star Wars, realize that unless you are planning on intricately analyzing scenes and cinematography, you should just watch Hidden Fortress. Hidden Fortress is clearly the test key which George Lucas respectfully cheated from and switched a few answers when writing the script for Star Wars. This film really is just Star Wars without Luke, Han and Chewbacca, or a Death Star. Which is big enough of a difference to be entertaining.
If you are watching this because of Magnificent Seven, rest assured, you've already watched it. Magnificent is literally just a locational change and nothing else is substantially different.
I like this film, but I have enjoyed every other Kurosawa much better.
Kakushi-toride no san-akunin (1958)
Favorite Kurosawa So Far
If you want to try to get into foreign language films or introduce someone to them, Hidden Fortress is the film. Don't go to Seven Samurai or Seventh Seal like everyone ironically suggests. Go to this film. The others are too slow paced and esoteric for someone who is probably not used to the style.
I've recently gotten to into Kurosawa after years of hearing and reading about him in interviews with George Lucas about Star Wars. I finally decided to watch Seven Samurai and was perplexed as to the hype surrounding it. It was a good film, do not get me wrong, but it just wasn't altogether the perfect film I had heard about. Hidden Fortress is that film.
Everything from the acting to the humor to story is enjoyable. I don't think I have ever laughed out loud to a foreign language film before this, but I was laughing five minutes in and rarely stopped. It was just a fun fast paced film. Or at least fast paced for a Kurosawa film.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Not Terrible, and Definitely Not as Bad as You Remember
I always remembered disliking this film. For years the only memories I really had were the infamous fridge sequence, the pointless monkey swinging, and the nonsensical waterfalls. What I found out upon rewatching the movie is that those scenes combined a total of about two minutes or so in the entirety of the two hour film. There are so many genuinely great events which take place throughout the rest of the film that I am surprised they aren't better remembered.
I believe that the nuking the fridge scene and the monkey sequence isn't so far fetched for an Indiana Jones film as everyone trumps them up to be. On paper it would be difficult to see much of a difference between the fridge scene and say the inflatable raft jumping scene from Temple of Doom. I feel like the only reason why one of these is amusedly accepted and the other so critically rejected is because of the heavy usage of CGI in KotCS. There's no humor nor charm to CGI as there is in miniatures. And humor and charm is the main thing which makes the Indiana Jones franchise work. The problem did not lie in the script nor the directing, but in the vfx production side of things for this part at least.
Mutt is one of the most panned character in the whole of cinema. I watched the film expecting to see the glaring character flaws, the annoying quirks, and the staleness of his character which I had been told of. None of them existed. Aside from the Monkey Swinging scene there was nothing I could really find worthy of complaint in his character. He had good chemistry with both Indy and Miriam, he acted reasonably in most situations, and he actually served a purpose to both the plot and meaning of the overall story. If there is any problem character in the film it is Mack. I assume most negative characteristics people incorrectly attribute to Mutt are most likely inspired by the utter pointlessness and unlikability of Mack.
As far as the story goes it is intriguing. The fact that there are aliens in Indiana Jones does kinda irk me, but I fail to see how they could have been implemented any better. The first forty minutes or so are genuinely on par with the rest of the franchise, the lore and connection to the occult are ever present as well. The film unfortunately does become rather dull once they enter the jungle though.
All in all, I'll watch this film several more times before I die, but not as much as the original three or fifth.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
I'm Never Listening to a Critic's Review Again
I feel like most of the negative critics of the movie were expecting Dial of Destiny despite being a new movie, to somehow stand up as a classic alongside the original three. Those movies are forty years old and have been adored for just as long. They have in a sense become untouchable and it would therefore be preposterous to assume a new film could skip 'the test of time' and become an instant classic. That's just not logical.
In twenty years I feel like this movie will be able to stand iconic with the others.
As far as my actual review goes this movie was really good. Most critics denounce the CGI throughout the film but I didn't have much of a problem, sure Indy's face does look a little janky during some early shots, but it still looks fricking amazing. The plot was fun and not overly convoluted (people have complained that the plot is just a cookie cutter Indiana Jones plot, which it is, but so are all the other Indiana Jones films so you can't really attack Dial of Destiny without attacking the others). The action scenes were actually really fun, especially the tuktuk chase and train sequence. The one thing I believe is in universal agreement, is that John Williams' score is really great, I have been listening to it over and over again.
Mads Mikkelsen as Voller was eerily threatening. He wasn't the blatant bad guy we've seen in early films, and he wasn't inspired by greed or hatred. I feel he was probably the most complex character of the film, despite have some of the smallest screen time.
Phoebe Waller-Bridge was actually good in this film. There were plenty of times where I thought she was going to be annoying or a problem to the film, but her character was a really likable jerk. My only complaint is that she might have stood up along Indy too well, though it makes sense for her to know all the knowledge about the Dial, it'd have been far more interesting if she didn't immediately know the answer to every Dial related question and Indy had to figure it out.
This has to be the only Indiana Jones film where Harrison Ford got to really act. His monologue on the boat was so well done. I don't think that the Oscars deserve to be given to be given to Harrison after that scene. People have complained that the movie is depressing and we only see a shell of his former self. It is true that Indy starts off in a depressed state having become an alcoholic and working at a cheap public college, but he rises up from this rut and becomes Indiana Jones.
To Have and Have Not (1944)
"Was you ever watched by a bad movie?"
"Just put your lips together and BOO!"
I finished watching this movie and came up with one conclusion that solidified my entire stance on the film-"nothing happened." Like actually. If you were to take the events of this film out of the lives of these characters almost nothing would change.
This film is clearly just a Walmart brand version of Casablanca. They didn't even bother to change much anything other than having all principal characters live happily ever after. I'm sorry but none of Humphrey Bogart's characters should ever live happily ever after. It would be like having Bob Hope contemplate suicide. Literally every character or theme has its basis from Casablanca. You can even tell that they tried to have a repeated line which every time it is spoken has a new connotation similar to Casablanca's "here's looking at you kid." And they ended up with "was you ever bit by a dead bee." Just think about it. They even got their own theme song which follows in line with the poor Casablanca rip offs. For this they decided that instead of the esoteric "as time goes by" they went with "Hong Kong blues". Here is just the first stanza of the magnum opus:
It's the story of a very unfortunate colored man
Who got arrested down in old Hong Kong
He got twenty years privilege taken away from him
When he kicked old Buddha's gong
That sums up the movie pretty well.
Also, what the heck does 'to have and to have not' have to do with the movie. Like I have found no connection at all. They may have just as well called LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE.
On the Waterfront (1954)
It has class
If you want to watch a drama watch this. Incredibly watchable. Everything about it is good, not perfect, but good. Well there may be a little perfect in it, but I won't go overboard. Marlon Brando and Eva Marie Saint's acting is particularly good. The long scenes we have between them seem like two humans conversing, not actors talking. Their chemistry is actually realistic unlike their other romances as seen in Streetcar Named Desire(1951) or North By Northwest(1959). Instead this seems to be a lot more like Marty(1955) which is really just two awkward people having an awkward relationship that is inherently realistic. The black and white cinematography casts the poverty ridden waterfront in a documentary like style similar to that of Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves (1948). Leonard Bernstein was kicking it into high gear when he decide to temporarily step down from orchestrating for symphonies and score On the Waterfront. Specifically his them titled 'Walk and End Title' is particularly beautiful. Combined with the brilliance of Elia Kazan's directing and you have one of the single greatest films ever made.
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Culturally, Historically, and Aesthetically significant
If filmmakers still had the guts to make movies like this the world would be a much better place. Nicholas Ray's decision to condemn basically everything is unheard of today. He made adults into either demanding hotheads or spineless wimps. He made teenagers emotionally disturbed animals. He made authority have very little power. He made reality.
Nicholas showed us that nobody is the specific root of all our problems. Instead he displayed a spiderweb of error and sin which encapsulates everyone. We can't blame each other for our own mistakes as we too don't learn from others'. This film gives very little comfort or catharsis to the audience. We are given the reality to the depravity of man and we spend the film trying to get out of it. We are given characters who symbolize us and we therefore embed our own traits into them without realizing their's and our's fatal flaw- they're one dimensional characters. They go through one heck of a Odyssey only to come out hurt but unchanged.
The film often gains criticism for taking place over the span of only one day. People claim that the character's (especially the teenagers) act entirely unrealistic. This couldn't be further from the truth! Some say that it is wholly unrealistic that Judy would instantly start hitting on James Dean's character mere hours after the death of her boyfriend. Critics claim that after the death of a friend teens would probably just turn into balls of emotional nonsense and lose any sort of gain on reality and would be so confused that they would be constantly mentally disrupted. This is exactly what the principal character do for the last half of the film! They move from one place to another as the world falls around them and they try and fail to cope with it all.
Detour (1945)
I love noir, I hate Detour
This film took itself WAY too seriously. I think that the director thought he was making an existential view on the difference between right and wrong and the furtherance of humanity and destitution. I also think the writers just started writing with no thought as to where it would take them. If this truly was the case then I'd say they succeeded in making a one hour epic akin to Homer's the Odyssey. But if I am correct then that'd mean that there was at least some skill involved in the making of the film, and if you watch Detour you will realize this couldn't possibly be the case. The main actor is really just a Walmart brand Elisha Cook Jr. The lead actress clearly thought she was gonna be in contention for the oscars. Her long, awkward stares at the man are just laughable. If you can watch it for free it is definitely worth the time (only because it is only an hour long).
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Holds up surprisingly well.
In spite of the sole pull to the film being the bitter and well publicized rivalry between both lead actresses it surprisingly still holds up. About the first forty minutes are actually really good, like peak cinema. The two prologues are beautifully eerie. The last really good part of the movie is about halfway in when Bette Davis gives Joan Crawford a covered platter just after the disappearance of Joan's bird. The revelation that her bird is what Bette was trying to feed her is honestly very bone chilling.
The movie really does start to fall apart as it continues. It becomes rather mundane and repetitive as Joan Crawford contemplated going downstairs about twenty million times. We are also supposed to somehow have enough suspension of disbelief so as to believe literally anything surrounding their maid. She makes no sense whatsoever, she realizes that Davis is deranged and abusive and that Davis is also only giving her time off due to an obviously evil ulterior motive, and she cares. The maid actually cares about Crawford, but she just gives in to Davis' suggestions. She also somehow manages to get herself killed by Davis which seems to be a feat worthy of recognition. I don't even want to speak about the end of the film, it just wasn't as good as the beginning. That's not to say it was bad, it's just that I really enjoy the first forty minutes. Another bonus is the extremely creepy singing by Davis when she sings 'A Letter to Daddy.' Now that was the stuff of nightmares.
The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)
Personally Iconic
The movie is pretty bad. But it is also kinda likeable, and not in the "so bad it's good way." It is probably the most realistic Bigfoot film to date as the principal actors are the actual people the story is based off of. The documentary like style which follows Sasquatch's trail all throughout Foulke Arkansas surprisingly gives off a noir vibe. Like actually. The opening narration is very reminiscent of Carol Reed's The Third Man (1949). The unforced and ordinary serious tone to the film definitely protects it from becoming just another bad film. It is a bad film though.
The nature cinematography is actually pretty good. The slow movements through the bog are ominously beautiful. The scene in which a little kid is running through the forest while hunting is surprisingly intense. The long shot crab following him in his run through the woods is always satisfying enough to make the movie worth the watch. Personally. I seriously doubt anyone else feels this way.
If you can, watch this in a group of well humored adults. I went to watch this several years back for the anniversary in Foulke (where the movie is based) with an audience of almost solely rednecked forty and fifty year olds who watched it when it first came out. They knew the perfect times when to laugh and when to remain quiet in wait of upcoming laughs. You'd be surprised how good the Travis Crabtree theme song sounds when sung by two hundred chain smokers.
Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny (1972)
Fun for the whole family !
This movie is actually the worst film I have ever seen. And I have seen most all MST3K films so that's saying something. This is up there with Irish Welles' The Trial (1962) in difficult to sit through movies. After watching this film I was physically angry. I hated it. I kicked my couch. I watched it again.
I found out that this is incredibly rewatchable, but only if you found the first viewing as watchable. I was expecting the movie to not be anywhere near as bad as I remembered it. It was. Only disappointments there.
Even the Rifftrax version of the film is a grueling task.
One interesting thing that I haven't seen many people speak about is how there are actually two versions of the film. One of them is the generally universal version where Santa pleases the lovely children with his wondrous tale of Thumbalina (I'm not gonna look up how it's spelled). The other lesser seen version is about Jack and the Beanstalk. Im not gonna connect this to anything I just wanted to say it.
Rocky III (1982)
What do you mean 6.8 stars?
This film is honestly probably the greatest sports movie. Sorry Rudy, A League of Their Own, The Natural, and The Big Lebowski. And it is definitely the greatest boxing movie. Sorry Body and Soul, The Setup, The Champion, Raging Bull, Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky IV, and Rocky V. The acting is of course not particularly great but who goes to a sports movie for acting? It's like going to a John Wayne for a heartwarming story, or going to John Wayne for good acting for that matter. You go for the action, and heck yes this pulls through with great action. It even brings in Survivor's Eye of the Tiger which itself makes the film at least a 6. The seventh comes from the action and the eighth from the story. It's just a good story, it doesn't have to be depressing like the majority of Rocky I was to be good. It just is. Plain and simple.