This is another notable classic that I never got around to seeing before. I’ve been a fan of the title song ever since it was used in a 90s commercial for half a dozen Paramount movies at once, but that’s not necessarily enough to expect the others to live up to.
On the other hand, the classic status, notability of Kevin Bacon, and possibly the fact that they remade it (if it’s as good as they say it shouldn’t have needed to be remade, but that’s not an argument producers hear).
Remember the story of Robin Hood? Forget it. Well, don’t forget it, because this is a sequel. To the fable. The story you know is the backstory. If Robin Hood was Sean Connery. And it happens all over again. That’s the impression the box gave.
Oh. Another horror film. Even though I’m not fond of horror. I’m more interested in this because it seems more like “creepy sci-fi” than horror, though. It’s hard to even place a good handle on what “horror” is, and that’s probably because I never get as scared as I’m told I’m supposed to by horror.
It occurs to me that Jeff Goldblum is an odd choice for horror. I thought for a while that he’d actually be rather good as a victim protagonist, but then he still has to act as the human/fly monster as well. So, it should be good to see him act out of type?
I really hope I get a good, safe scare out of this. But then, can a scare really be safe and still scary?
The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers. Este Films 1973/1974.
Before watching the movie:
A large-budget film with a star-studded cast and strict attention to period accuracy could go poorly in all sorts of ways. The actors could fight for attention to the detriment of the film, the visual appeal could be lost in gritty details or vice versa, and the effort put into the enormous practical concerns could stomp out any entertainment value of the film.
These worries are only enhanced by the subject material. I vaguely recall an adaptation of The Three Musketeers in that a young man wants to be a Musketeer, gets in a fight with some, and then they all have adventures together. Rather dull, especially if one isn’t into swashbuckling tales.
I recognize many names, but I can connect hardly any of them with anything I know. At least it’s sold as a comedy, but I don’t expect much out of a 70s film.
Usually, I avoid sequels, but this pair was intended to be a single film, so I am taking it as one.
I loved the concept of this movie when I first heard about it years ago. Matter shrinking, a tour of the human body, the body as a counterpart to outer space and alien worlds…
I’ve put it off for so long because films of the 60s and 70s, especially science fiction films, were focused on amazing imagery that looks badly dated today and moved at glacial paces. Aside from 2001: A Space Odyssey, I can’t think of a better opportunity for a filmmaker to stop and let the scenery flow over the acid-tripping audience than a submarine drifting through the world inside the human body. Never mind the dying patient they belong to, aren’t those nerve fibers far out?
I just hope the storytelling of this movie won’t be as nonexistent as in 2001.
I didn’t know Alfred Hitchcock did comedies, but here this is. I’ve read a few different synopses that seem to tell entirely different stories, but it seems to involve disreputable people, lots of money, and family relations.
The only thing I completely understand going in is that Alfred Hitchcock was involved, so there will be massive attention to detail.
Despite the massive changes coming my way this summer, I expect to be able to keep this blog going. However, that depends on how I assess the situation upon arrival.
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. Warner Brothers 2001.
Before watching the movie:
It’s not often that I come across a science fiction movie that I’m not looking forward to seeing. This film should have everything going for it. It was made recently, so should have a clean, appealing aesthetic. It’s about robots and what it means to be human. It was made by Stephen Spielberg. So why have I put this off for ten years?
I’m not looking forward to the story. It sounds too sad for me to enjoy. A child android is programmed to be completely human, but he’s still a robot in society’s eyes. Wait, that sounds like Bicentennial Man without Robin Williams. The problem I expect is that the robot in that movie was on a quest to make society understand him, but in this movie, since he is a child, I only expect harsh treatment and crying. Admittedly, that’s a little too simplistic. I fully expect this one to fall in the category of movies I liked better than I expected because my expectations were too low.
I was originally attracted to this movie for the time travel, but I don’t expect it to be my favorite kind of time travel story. Peggy Sue goes back in time by Macguffinal means and fixes her life. No paradoxes, no knotty time loops, just an opportunity to do it again. The period nostalgia should be fun, though.
I’m very surprised to learn that Nicholas Cage (before he was a joke, if there was ever such a time) plays a lead role in this film.
Until just a few minutes ago, all I knew about this film was that Dustin Hoffman (too soon for another Hoffman? Nah.) plays an autistic man in a praiseworthy manner, and it’s about the relationship between him and his brother. I didn’t even realize until now that the brother was played by Tom Cruise. I was worried that the plot would be too much like Of Mice and Men for me, but it looks more like it’s about Cruise’s character being taught to be a better person and coming to love his brother.
This is a really weird concept. Like perhaps many other people or perhaps nobody else, the only reason I know the name “John Malkovich” is because of this movie’s existence.
Other than some trippy ideas and actor rage, I have no idea what to expect from this film.
This is the part where I ramble about the blog itself to fill space.