Saw a Takashi Miike picture called The Great Yokai War. "Yokai" is a Japanese term for monsters from folklore, as opposed to the more familiar kaiju. It's a kids' picture, about a young boy from Tokyo sent out to live in the countryside with his older sister and his intermittently senile grandfather. When a vengeful spirit appears, the boy gets caught up in a war between warring groups of yokai and must find his courage to become the "Kirin Rider", the hero who will set everything to rights. It's not a bad picture - nothing deep, but an amusing story. Some of the yokai are really trippy, Japanese folklore can get pretty "out there", apparently.

Views: 44980

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It was a side effect of passing through the wormhole.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

I saw that and asked, "How did they get off the satellite?" Tracy didn't know but we didn't go back to find out.

"Wormhole"? I'll have to read your MST3K Timeline. (I've tried consulting your discussion from time-to-time, but unsuccessfully; it really needs to be indexed on the initial post.) Also, I have an MST3K tpb around here somewhere, but I can't find it. I was looking at it not too long ago. Oh, well... it'll turn up. 

If I had it to  do over, I'd've watched them in order.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

"Wormhole"? I'll have to read your MST3K Timeline. (I've tried consulting your discussion from time-to-time, but unsuccessfully; it really needs to be indexed on the initial post.) Also, I have an MST3K tpb around here somewhere, but I can't find it. I was looking at it not too long ago. Oh, well... it'll turn up. 

Like I said it was good, just a little thin on plot.

ClarkKent_DC said:

Travis Herrick (Modular Mod) said:

 This morning I finally watched The Bourne Ultimatum, the actual third film. It was alright, it had a decent ending. My only real problem is that it felt like an almost 2 hour chase scene with some dialogue every once in a while.

You say that like it's a bad thing ... 

Continuing my vacation plan of watching one “new to me” movie every day:

The Lady Vanishes (1938). Early Hitchcock. Who doesn’t like a good “mystery on a train” movie? It takes a while to get going, but once it slips into gear it just races along. Redgrave and Lockwood have good chemistry.

The Bishop’s Wife (1947). Cary Grant just Cary Granting it all over the place. Monty Woolley has a nice supporting part, as does Elsa Lanchester. David Niven, unfortunately, seems uncomfortable and is kind of wasted in his role. I’m not sure if that’s him or just the role. Still, I liked this one.

Glass (2019). I never saw Split, but I didn’t really need to in order to follow the story here. I thought it did a reasonably good job of making the audience question what it believes about the characters, and keeping the climax grounded rather than devolving (as it head faked me into thinking it might) into a now-run-of-the-mill overblown battle of the supers.

Ball of Fire (1941). Hey look, it’s Barbara Stanwyck in another comedy!  And S.Z. Sakall, who’d play her “Uncle” Felix four years later in Christmas in Connecticut!  And Richard Haydn stealing scenes with his Edwin Carp voice!  And Gene Krupa drumming with matchsticks!  And … {yawn} … Gary Cooper.  I know, I know.  He’s supposed to be dull and awkward.  That’s what makes the romance … funny? Sweet?  I dunno.  Surrounding him with a screen full of character actors who lit up every scene they were in just emphasized how listless and wooden he seemed.

Bringing Up Baby (1938). This is a cheat, because I have seen this one before. But The Lovely and Talented asked for a movie that I thought she would like, and so I opted for something I knew was a charmer. Also, it set me up to watch …

Holiday (1938). Grant and Hepburn (again), also from 1938. Whereas Baby is a screwball comedy – with the comedy center stage, and the romance only barely believable – Holiday is first and foremost a romance, with the comedy (such as it is) only there to lighten up what could just as easily have been a serious drama about a romantic triangle of a woman, her sister, and her fiancé. I liked this, but not as much as I Iiked Baby – probably because I adore wacky Hepburn in Baby.

Bell, Book and Candle (1958). Jimmy Stewart!  Jack Lemmon!  Elsa Lanchester!  Hermione Gingold!  Ernie Kovacs!  What’s not to like about this?!?!   Kim Novak, that’s what.

Larceny, Inc. (1942). Edgar G. Robinson as a crook who (follow me on this) buys a leather goods store, which he plans to run as a phony business, to cover his real plan to rob a bank, to finance the purchase of a dog track in Florida, which he claims will be a legit business, but his not-quite-daughter schemes, with his supplier’s sales rep, to make it a successful leather goods store, which it becomes, and he becomes a hero to the other storeowners on the block, and it goes to his head, and he has dreams of creating a business empire and and and … and it’s all a bunch of hooey. But it’s a good cast, and everyone’s game. But if I want to watch a con man (maybe) reform at Christmas, I’d rather be watching The Lemon Drop Kid.

Hellboy (2019). The good thing about going into a movie with low expectations is that it’s hard to be disappointed. I had heard such bad things about this one that it wouldn’t have taken much for me to be pleasantly surprised. Which I was. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a good movie, but as a Big Dumb Popcorn Movie, it was a pleasant enough timewaster. Ian McShane can pretty much phone these roles in (and he may have done, with this one), and David Harbour was an entertaining Hellboy. (Disclaimer: I only know Hellboy from the del Toro/Perlman films, having never read any of the comics. So Mignola fans may hate this for perfectly understandable reasons that wouldn’t bother me.) The only thing that really bugged me (not a lot, but a little) was that the level of gore and profanity didn’t seem to serve any purpose other than to intentionally make this an “R” movie. I wasn’t offended by either, but I didn’t see the point.

Doctor Hmmm? said:

Glass (2019). I never saw Split, but I didn’t really need to in order to follow the story here. I thought it did a reasonably good job of making the audience question what it believes about the characters, and keeping the climax grounded rather than devolving (as it head faked me into thinking it might) into a now-run-of-the-mill overblown battle of the supers.

Glass was well done, as was the ending. Split is a good movie. James McAvoy got to do even more of the many personalities in it. The connection to the David Dunn Unbreakable character isn’t revealed until the last few minutes of the movie.

We saw Bringing Up Baby, The Lady Vanishes and The Bishop’s Wife a few years ago and enjoyed them.

Ball of Fire (1941). Hey look, it’s Barbara Stanwyck in another comedy! ….. And … {yawn} … Gary Cooper. I know, I know. He’s supposed to be dull and awkward

I’ve been watching a lot of movies with Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant lately. I’ve never seen any of them turn in a bad performance. Ball of Fire was fun. Either Gary Cooper was out of his element or he was directed to seem dull.

Holiday (1938). Grant and Hepburn (again), also from 1938. Whereas Baby is a screwball comedy – with the comedy center stage, and the romance only barely believable – Holiday is first and foremost a romance, with the comedy (such as it is) only there to lighten up what could just as easily have been a serious drama about a romantic triangle of a woman, her sister, and her fiancé. I liked this, but not as much as I Iiked Baby – probably because I adore wacky Hepburn in Baby.

Hepburn was pretty wacky in Holiday, too. When I saw Cary Grant doing back-flips in this movie I thought it was a stunt double. No, apparently Grant made his money as an acrobat before becoming an actor.

Just watched Hepburn again in The Lion in Winter, 1968 version. I've seen it several times. She has one line in it that always makes me laugh out loud.

Bell, Book and Candle (1958). Jimmy Stewart! Jack Lemmon! Elsa Lanchester! Hermione Gingold! Ernie Kovacs! What’s not to like about this?!?! Kim Novak, that’s what.

I’ve recorded this to rewatch. I have trouble believing that Kim Novak isn’t a good thing.

Larceny, Inc. (1942). Edgar G. Robinson as a crook who (follow me on this) buys a leather goods store, which he plans to run as a phony business, to cover his real plan to rob a bank, to finance the purchase of a dog track in Florida, which he claims will be a legit business, but his not-quite-daughter schemes, with his supplier’s sales rep, to make it a successful leather goods store, which it becomes, and he becomes a hero to the other storeowners on the block, and it goes to his head, and he has dreams of creating a business empire and and and … and it’s all a bunch of hooey. But it’s a good cast, and everyone’s game. But if I want to watch a con man (maybe) reform at Christmas, I’d rather be watching The Lemon Drop Kid.

I got a kick out of this one.

Hellboy (2019). The good thing about going into a movie with low expectations is that it’s hard to be disappointed. I had heard such bad things about this one that it wouldn’t have taken much for me to be pleasantly surprised. Which I was. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a good movie, but as a Big Dumb Popcorn Movie, it was a pleasant enough timewaster. ……The only thing that really bugged me (not a lot, but a little) was that the level of gore and profanity didn’t seem to serve any purpose other than to intentionally make this an “R” movie. I wasn’t offended by either, but I didn’t see the point.

I haven’t watched this yet, but, like the other Hellboy movies, I bought it to keep on DVD. Like you, I’ve only experienced Hellboy in the movies. Often, bad language is in a movie to intentionally get the R rating so teenagers and young adults will want to see it; less than an R, they probably won’t.

CATALINA CAPER (MST3K); The last of the Joel episodes we recorded that we haven't watched yet. We have nine more (from later seasons) to go.

MST3K Drinking Game (for two or more players): Challenge your opponent to explain a joke. If he cannot, he must take a shot. If, however, you challenge him and he does explain it, then you must take a shot. you must always know the answer yourself. If you make a challenge and your opponent cannot answer, you must them cite the reference or you must take the shot.

Another game is to "anticipate the stinger" (no points). 

I thought I had previously seen Bell, Book and Candle. I must have confused it with another movie.  This was the first time I watched it. 

As for Kim Novak's performance, this was released the same year as Hitchcock's Vertigo, in which she also was called upon to portray an icy blonde. In this movie, Gillian is a specifically non-human character. The screenplay was based upon an earlier stage play, which may have caused her to be directed to seem unemotional (can't cry, can't love). 

An earlier movie on the theme is I Married a Witch (1942). B&W;  Fredric March, Veronica Lake, Cecil Kellaway; dir. Rene Clair. I found it funnier and sexier. Kellaway is very good in it.

I think that's the one I confused it with.

Luke Blanchard said:

An earlier movie on the theme is I Married a Witch (1942). B&W;  Fredric March, Veronica Lake, Cecil Kellaway; dir. Rene Clair. I found it funnier and sexier. Kellaway is very good in it.

GIANT SPIDER INVASION (MST3K): Another good one. It occurs to me that we recorded a slew of MST3Ks a while ago, but fell out of the habit of watching them because, picking ones that sounded good at random wasn't working. Tracy consulted two online lists of the best/funniest movies (not to mention our own MST3K expert) and deleted about half of the ones we had left. Since then, we've been moving through them faster.

I thought about that.  I think part of the problem may be entirely structural. 

Looked at objectively, what Novak's character does to Stewart's character (and causes him to do to his fiancee) is so reprehensible that the rest of the movie is going to have to work really hard to convince me that she's actually an OK person and that it's all for the best because they truly belong together.  The ice princess act doesn't even try.  The closest the movie gets to giving her a genuinely emotional motivation is to suggest that Stewart's fiancee "had it coming" because she was mean to Novak in college.  A revenge motive is ... not helpful to the cause.

Richard Willis said:

I thought I had previously seen Bell, Book and Candle. I must have confused it with another movie.  This was the first time I watched it. 

As for Kim Novak's performance, this was released the same year as Hitchcock's Vertigo, in which she also was called upon to portray an icy blonde. In this movie, Gillian is a specifically non-human character. The screenplay was based upon an earlier stage play, which may have caused her to be directed to seem unemotional (can't cry, can't love). 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service