I caught this tonight on VHS playing on an early 90s VCR running into a 10 inch colour analogue TV set from 1987. And it looked. Incredible. Original hardware rules. This movie just keeps getting better.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/wnuf-halloween-special/4/
Watched on Sunday April 20, 2025.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/video-diary-of-a-lost-girl/1/
Way back in the mists of time, when I was first dipping a toe into the world of ‘Film & Film theory’, I enrolled in a college film and media course, and the first module of that course was analysing changes in cinematography, style, culture and media literacy across 3 different eras using the same film as a grounding. and one of the first films we attempted to deconstruct was ‘The Mummy (1932)’, ‘The Mummy (1959)’ and ‘The Mummy (1999)’.
This was not only one of my first Hammer horror films (alongside Frankenstein and Dracula) but was also one of the first times that I began to develop a sense for the developing art of film as a medium. how film makers learned from film makers on how to make film tell a story more through the visuals, than by just simply telling the audience what was happening. I dont think I could have dealt with a better triptic honestly.
This film came about well after Universal studios and Hammer films had ‘Hammered’ out an agreement between themselves allowing Hammer to continue to adapt the ‘classic’ monsters without fear of litigation from Universal, and in exchange Universal got the international distribution rights to (most) hammer films going into the mid 1960s. And what Hammers ‘The Mummy’ does have going for it, is nearly 25+ years of Universal ‘Mummy’ films and sequels, plus a few 40s and 50s horror movies with similar themes, to cherry pick the best bits out of to create, in effect a kind of ‘Greatest hits’ mummy movie.
The plot picks up in late 19th century Egypt as father and son duo Stephen and John Banning are on an expidition to find the secret tomb of ‘Princess Ananka’. John is determined that the tomb will be located almost imminantly, but a leg injury has him stuck in bed, in a tent at the edge of the expedition. Eventually, the expedition strikes good fortune and a tomb IS indeed discovered. but Johns reluctance to leave the site for medical aid until the tomb has been analysed, documented and key items removed for further inspection, has left him permanently disabled.
Before going much further, a local by the name of Mehemet Bey stops the team, warning them that disturbing the tomb could bring TERRIBLE consiquences. But this is a group of British chaps in the late 19th century…So he may as well have not bothered for all the good it did to warn them. However, things DO go quite wrong during the removals, when an unknown force attacks Stephen leaving him ranting like a maniac about unknown evil forces.
The gang get home to London, and some time later we’re reintroduced to the Bannings, John hasnt spoken to his father in a very long time due to his mental health issues since the ‘experience’, but he’s been summoned to speak to him urgently, at which point its revealed that he senses a great evil is returning again.
We’re then flashed back as a LOT of exposition reveals that, while inside the tomb, Stephen had read a ‘scroll of life’ which when read aloud accidentally ressurected the tombs ‘protector’ Kharis. Kharis was a high priest in the ancient egyption times who had a deep love for Ananka, and on Anankas death, he attempted to use the scoll of life to ressurect her. but got caught and was murdered as punishment and left to rot in Anankas chamber.
Little did the British explorers realise, that Kharis was there and that they’ve brought him back to London for more examination. Mehemet has ALSO come to London at roughly the same time Kharis is being transported and using the ‘Scroll of life’ he ressurects the mummy, to bring vengence to the ‘Infidels’ who desicrated Anankas chambers. Leading to all kinds of Mummy related shenanigans, ESPECIALLY when Isobel Banning (Johns Sister) enters the picture, and its revealed she has an uncanny resemblence to Princess Ananka.
And honestly? I have VERY little to complain about with this one. ‘The Mummy’ is probably my least favourite of the Universal monster movies, and most adaptations or offshoots of ‘The Mummy’ story, I find just drag atrociously, to me? I find them to be very ‘style over substance’ movies…usually one or two good bits of plotting or storytelling wrapped up in 70-90 minutes of brilliant direction and cine…which is fine if you like looking at pretty things, but not so good if you actually want to be captivated by the story. In particualr, the Universal ‘Mummy’ for me struggles on two counts, taking the sluggish elements of ‘Dracula’ and the blunt elements of ‘Frankenstein’ and shoving them together into a feature so slow, the monster could probably outrun it with ease.
Mercifully, BECAUSE the Hammer version gets the pick of the buffet on plot elements and story lines, we have what I would consider probably the best mummy movie made to date…Is it cheating that its essentially stitched together from 6-8 other mummy and mummy adjacent movies narratively?…maybe…but when its this good, who cares!?
The scripts razor sharp, expertly paced and doesnt hang around for a minute longer than it needs to. the characters all have a decent level of complexity, the plotting makes sense, feels naturalistic and for the time really pushed the boundaries of cinema. the tone is very dark in places, but it isnt afraid to contrast it with a little bit of humour here and there, but unlike ‘Horror of Dracula’ and ‘Curse of Frankenstein’ the humour in this is a lot more subtle and way less overt (no random burgermeisters pulling daft faces in THIS film!) the dialogues superb, the ending, satisfying and well handled.
Literally my only gripe here, is that for SOME BIZARRE reason, they decided to go all in on stereotying and racism towards the egyptians and…for SOME reason…the Irish. I dont know why, it doesnt suite the pictures tone or needs to do what it did. But they repeatedly cut back to painfully racist Irish stereotypes in the form of transporters who ‘hick’ there way through several scenes slurring and looking rough around the edges…the scenes in egypt display several ‘white’ workers who’ve been ‘tanned’ and they COMPLETELY gloss over the fact that John and co are essentially using hired slave labour for their expadition. I know its a film of its time, and its important that we reflect on films that do this to show WHY we should never do what we did again. But its just so surreal to see this film do what its doing when it really didnt need to…
Beyond that however, this is quitessential Hammer Horror. the direction is of a company in its stride Terence Fischer and Jimmy Sangster were now three films into this series and were in their element. With gorgeous, rich and lavish direction that commands a real sense of vibrance and talent. Of the four original ‘adaptation’ Hammer Horror films, I think this one is the most pleasing visually, with the cast all well aware of their screen presence, extravigant set spaces that are utilised superbly and a clearly developed hand on the rudder uniting sound, lighting, set work and camera operations into probably the single best shot Hammer film in the companies history.
The cine too is superb. rich colour usage and a keen eye to lighting and shadow work, render this film a feast for the eyes. compositions are astounding, managing to create striking visual imagery AND hearty amounts of experimentation without ever really dropping the ball or making the end product look or feel cheap. Its an ‘epic’ in horror movie form. and a master class on how to structure your scenes and visually tell a story. all wrapped up in an incredibly tight edit that does what it needs to do and leaves the audience wanting more.
Performance wise, this is the 3rd outing for Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing under Hammer, and as always they’re superb. I think I honestly prefer Lee’s ‘Mummy’ to his ‘Frankenstein’ everyone understands the tone needed for this one, theres a sincerity and genuineness in the performances here that havent been seen in previous entries. Not a bad performance in the entire cast run (barring the racist characturing) its amazing.
Only enhanced by a top tier soundtrack that matches the tone and energy of this film perfectly, and results in one of the finest Hammer scores recorded. and thats not even mentioning its implementation IN the film. which elevates the whole thing to the next level.
‘The Mummy’ completes the trifecta of Hammers early monster movies. and while they would go on to adapt other Universal Monster movies going forward, these first 3 outings really changed the face of horror and UK cinema, essentially acting as the catalyst that would eventually become the 70s amacus/folk horror movement.
This? is a masterpiece of horror cinema, and I dont use that term lightly. a vividly rich, razor focussed and lavish viewing experience that more or less does everything it can do WELL above a base standard. If you have even a passing interest in 50s horror, the first three Hammer horror films should be on your list by default. But this one especially.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-mummy-1959/1/
‘The Substance’ is a scathing look into the world of beauty standards for women, and how the industry (and men) can hold very drastic opinions of women dependent solely on their looks and age.
The film follows Elisabeth Sparkle a morning TV fitness instructor who, while successful, is not giving the right kind of ‘image’ the network want. While theres nothing at all wrong with Liz, the network believe that the show needs ‘sexing’ up. and that Liz, who’s been doing the show since the 80s and very much keeps that aesthetic in her show. Just isnt the kind of youthful raw energy they want for the show.
On the verge of being let go, Liz begins contemplating her appearence and age deeply, worried that her looks are what give her value in the eyes of her fans and audience. While deep in thought, she ends up in a car crash, and things begin to spiral when one of the doctors who sees her gives her a mysterious pendrive containing an advert for ‘The Substance’ but little other information than it promises to give you ‘the best version of you’
Curious, Liz enquires about it, and a short time later she recieves a key card to a back ally locker where her first supply of ‘The Substance’ is ready for collection. The process is simple. Liz takes an ‘activator’ which causes her body and conciousness to split, creating an idealized version of Liz thats youthful, perky and full of attitude.
However, in exchange, a balance needs to be struck. This new body and persona (christned ‘Sue’) can only stay active for 7 days, and needs daily spinal fluid injections from Liz’s unconcious corpse. After 7 days, Sue needs to transfuse her blood back into Lizs lifeless body to reactivate Liz for 7 days, before the process can repeat again. and they’re VERY keen to stress that 7 day limit. Not even an hour longer than that. when the times up you’ve got to swap, or there will be consiquences.
Well; as you can imagine Sue becomes a smash hit and takes over Lizs role on the morning gym programme, sexing it up and losing all the heart in the process. But Sue begins to become addicted to her new, more active, sexier and interesting life. So much so that she begins neglecting Liz’s body and attempting to extend the time she can stay as Sue BEYOND the 7 days…with horrifying results.
I really quite enjoyed ‘The Substance’ its grounded firmly in the works of Cronenberg and Brian Yuzna but with a VERY modernist take on the body horror subgenre. in some ways to its detriment (in my opinion)
The script is positively SCATHING in places, and that anger over the various beauty standards held towards women, the idea that women can be abused, ignored and simply forgotten purely for their age and looks. the sexist attitudes (both conciously and subconciously) that men have towards women. and even the idea of women being unable to love or make connections due to their feelings about themselves all play a critical part in making this film as interesting as it is.
The pacing is pretty pitch perfect, the act structuring is consistent and solid. I really enjoyed the first 2 acts, though (probably a surprise to regular viewers/readers) I wasnt really won over by the 3rd act, the first 2 acts did such a wonderful job of keeping the twists and turns interesting and mixing subtle and overt tones and messages coming thick and fast. But the 3rd act (while impressive visually) kind of hard left turns into a somewhat surreal and gorier experience that I really wasnt expecting (Mild spoilers: But I personally subscribe to the theory that everything from when Sue retakes ‘The Substance’ onwards is playing out in Sues mind and that she basically just died in liz’s bathroom, as that final 10-15 minutes is WILDLY out of tone with the rest of the film and goes off in strange and unusual ways.)
The characters are all richly developed, with even the shallow characters having distinct layers of slime in their make up. At its core this is a character piece centered around two halves of a broken person slowly falling into loathing with each other when their faults become insufferable to each other. Its a cautionary tale on learning to love yourself for who you are and finding balance between understanding and appreciating aging and finding joy in the things that come with it, while also embracing virility and your inner youth. Learning ultimately to balance those two worlds so that you dont either become a MASSIVE old weirdo, or a MASSIVE old fart in the process.
In fact, one of my only criticisms of this film from a script perspective, is that I think it would have been nice to have seen Sue use the fact she has Liz’s years of experience and memories to manipulate people to do what she wanted. its quite common for young people to be underestimated or seen as manipulatable, and I think, even if it had only been for a couple of scenes. Giving Sue the ability to use her looks and Lizs knowledge to blackmail, intimidate or manipulate her situations could have given us a bit more complexity to the story.
As for the direction, im somewhat polarized. It cant be denied really that on a technical level, the direction is superb, crisp, vivid, colourful, open to experimentation. On that level I absolutely loved it. However, on a personal level. I feel it wasnt quite for me. the main issue I had is simply that a key part of the direction is a strong and sharp polarisation between ultra clean and clinical stylisation, and disgusting filth, blood, guts and gore.
Im not against striking contrasts in direction, in fact, in most cases im supportive of contrasts helping to had shade and depth to what could otherwise be a pretty one note and flat experience. However, the key for me is that those contrasts, like fashion, need to compliment each other. they can be direct opposites, but they need to work together to create a sense of visual coherency. and here, the extremes are SO extreme in places, that I didnt really feel like it worked all that well. the two styles dont compliment each other in my opinion, and whether that was intentional or not. It just made me feel like I was watching 2 different directors at work for most of the first act. with a sense of coherency finally landing about halfway through the second act. at which point things kind of settled in a little bit. But on that front I found it a bit bumpy to start with.
Direction of the cast is superb, no notes. its a decent balance of set/prop work, visual effects and some light improvisation that compliments the darker and more humerous moments well. I also have to give MAJOR props to the production for largely sticking with physical effects over digital ones. that really helped give the film a sense of realism that otherwise would have been lost I fear.
The cine is equally astounding, clean crisp, hyper colourful and apurposfully airbrushed style clashing agaisnt gritty realism to create a wonderful visual experience. My only gripe here really being that they rely a little too heavily on the depth of the frame and in framing things to have equal paralells across the frame breadth which, absolutely added to the more clinical moments of the direction, but felt a bit overused after a while, it would have been nice to have more intimate moments with the cast members and locations, other than these wide, deep set scenes where everyones so distant. I appreciate what they were trying to do with the cine, but the scripting more than sold me on Liz’s Isolationism honestly.
Performance wise, Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were both superb, if I had to favour one. I’d say Moore gets the meatier share of the dialogue and narrative and as such gets more range to work. She’s really astounding in this, probably a career peak for me. and her Oscar nomination and Saturn award were more than earned.
The rest of the cast are all equally fantastic at what they do. I do kind of wish the male cast had had a little bit more depth, but at the same time I totally appreciate why they were kept kind of one note for the purpose of proving a point. They all do great, I had no complaints.
And the soundtrack…It works for this film, I dont feel like it worked for me. I can totally appreciate that a quasi synthy droning roaring score is PERFECT for this kind of movie and really helps set the mood. Im just…SO tired of synth drone soundtracks in sci-fi and horror at this point. I really just want something ANYTHING with actual ‘substance’ behind it…
All in all, while flawed at times, I really enjoyed ‘The Substance’ I can absolutely see why it won the acclaim that it did, and would highly recommend it if you havent already checked it out. Its imperfect, and thats okay.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-substance/
Sent to me by a viewer of my youtube channel. I didnt really know what I was getting into when I popped in ‘The Jungle Book: The Movie’, but it didnt take more than 10 minutes and a quick google search to confirm my gut feeling on this one.
This isnt a movie…rather, its more of an ‘Omnibus’. See; This adaptation of ‘The Jungle Book’ was originally released in 2011 or 2012 and ended up being a 156 episode TV series, with each episode being around 11 minutes long. And each self contained story would begin where the last one ended and end where the next one begins (in a very loose way so as to help with syndication)…And what this film is, is essentially 6 stories of the TV series, with the titles and credits lopped off, stitched ‘Human Centipede’ style together into one long unbroken 62 minute long ‘mega episode’…
The 6 stories include, an episode where Mowgli has to fight an agrieved wolf for his right to be able to ‘belong’ to the wolf pack that helped raise him, an episode where Mowgli tries to find the ‘bravest’ animal in the Jungle. An episode where Mowgli teams up with a monkey to scare away humans from discovering an ancient city of treasure, an episode where Shere Khan, Baloo and Bagheera are trying to find breakfast, an episode where Mowgli falls down a well, and an episode where an elephant who wants to show off ends up in trouble, leaving it down to Mowgli and the gang to try and rescue him.
and; as far as this goes as a TV series? I.E – 6 self contained short stories set in the Jungle book universe? I thought it was pretty okay. Its written for kids aged between 4 and 7 years old i’d say and its designed pretty intrinsically to only hold their attention briefly, with a small moral lesson, before dumping them into something with a bit more mainstream appeal. The animation is colourful, vibrant and the direction is fairly fun (though, not a patch on the disney version). ‘Inoffensive’ is what i’d probably label this as, something that would probably exit my brain as soon as the credits rolled.
Why the low score here then? Because this ‘film’ version is SO lazily thrown together, to the point that it quite quickly becomes almost painful to watch…See…a lone episode of this, 11 minutes of my time, is fine as part of a viewing block. but taking 6 almost totally unrelated, INCREDIBLY basic stories that are only loosely tied by a flimsy ‘bridging’ element at the start and end of each episode. that quite often retread similar ground and dont really offer much in the way of complexity. And LITERALLY just topping and tailing the titles and credits off them, at MOST adding in a cross fade and then calling it a day is BEYOND a dull viewing experience.
They had the chance to do something a bit interesting with this, maybe re-edit the episodes so we have 2-3 plots happening concurrently with 156 episodes to choose from, they almost certainly could have cut this film version to have 2-3 plot points that cut across each other and form a makeshift 3 act structure that differentiates them enough from the TV series.
But the laziness of this release to just stitch 6 interconnected episodes together and chuck it out the door is horrendous. They dont even bother creating unique titles or credits for this ‘movie’ release. they just use the TV’s titles and tweak the credits list slightly, but even then they miss some of the cast out.
Add to that that the voice acting throughout is a little too ‘stagey’ and doesnt really (to me) fit the tone and vibe of an animated kids series, it feels more like a radio play or on stage performance vocally, and the fact that they dont amend any of the sound edits here, meaning we get a LOT of repetition of music between episodes. and ultimately? I really dont think kids would appreciate this film version.
If you can find the isolated ‘TV’ edits of this series, I think younger children may get on with it fine enough, but recut into this edition? the pacings terrible, the editing is ultra basic and feels like the editor couldnt be arsed to do anything other than stitch them together end to end and click export.
It feels like an attempt to squeeze some extra cash out of unknowing parents, and an ultra cheap attempt at that. Like I say, go find the TV version and maybe catch one or two. You’ll probably think they’re okay. Avoid this.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-jungle-book-the-movie/
And thus, the Rocky franchise completes its transition from ‘hard hitting, slice of life drama with sports elements’ about a no name bum of a loanshark with a heart of gold who’s is given a chance to be a ‘somebody’ by a cocky professional who underestimated him. To full blown farce sports dramady about a semi blind, retired millionaire with likely brain damage effectively becoming Jesus and declaring world peace and an end to Communism all inside of 90 minutes.
I love Rocky IV very dearly, like ‘Rocky III’ this one was in regular rotation in my house growing up, and even after what could very well be its 30th or 40th full viewing, I still have to absolutely stare in awe at the BALLS of Sylvester Stallone in taking a studios money, and essentially making 4 Rocky music videos and a ‘Sylvester Stallone’ promotional video, and stitching it together into what is very closely approaching an ‘eccentric masterpiece’.
The film picks up some time after the events of ‘Rocky III’ with a recap of the end of that movie (If im guessing, im assuming it takes place a couple of years after…) and Rocky and Apollo are still sparring on and off, Apollos been out of the ring for about 5 years and Rockys pretty much retired and now only fights for fun as a hobby.
That is, until a political upset occurs. The Soviet Union have decided to send one of their fighters to the US to show the talent and technology of Soviet might in the form of ‘Ivan Drago’ a machine of a man who punches with the same pounds of force equal to being hit by a car doing 18-20 mph…for reference, most professionals can punch with the same pounds of force equal to being hit by a car travelling at 7mph…So the guys hardcore. But he’s also considered an ‘amateur’ boxer as he hasnt even performed in a ranked or leagured fight.
As something of a goodwill gesture, an exhibition match is set up (essentially a ‘friendly’) with Drago taking on Apollo Creed with the media running with an ‘East vs West’ type narrative to help keep things a little punchy.
Creeds cocky, he thinks Drago is all bluster and no skill, and if anything doesnt really bother to train that much because…hey; its a friendly…Apollo Creed is then promptly flat out murdered 2 rounds in when its revealed that Drago IS in fact a killing machine. This leads Rocky to take on Drago, not just to avenge his friend, but to put the Russians in their place and to teach the world that the USA IS in fact A-Okay! in a RIP roaring finale that will make anyone who survived the Reagan era feel like getting an Eagle motif painted onto the hood of their car…I know I did…
Whether this is a particularly well made film will obviously fall to personal preference. I feel if im speaking objectively, no. No it’s not a very well made film…but SUBJECTIVELY…I bloody love this film.
My big issue with ‘Rocky III’ was that it was kind of trying to walk the tightrope of having to occupy the world of the first two Rocky films, while ALSO having to suspend SOME degree of belief, becuase by the end of ‘Rocky II’, Rocky should have never gone anywhere near a set of boxing gloves again…Hell, the FIGHT in ‘Rocky II’ would NEVER have happened in the real world after the injuries sustained…But because ‘Rocky IV’ is using ‘Rocky III’ as its baseline, and Rocky III managed to throw off some of the shackles that kept the series grounded to reality. ‘Rocky IV’ is able to now FULLY release itself into a world of fantasy, where its full of evil Russians, Robotic wives and James Brown numbers. Indeed, if you watched the original Rocky and then jumped to this one, you’d be forgiven for thinking someone had spiked you.
The script isnt so much a traditional narrative, more a series of ‘happenings’ intercut with music video style training montages. the core plot of Rocky avenging his friend and representing America on the world stage isnt really explored all that deeply, what i’ve written there is basically as deep as it begins and ends. All our characters have had ANY kind of complexity or intreague sanded clean off. we’re now in a fully ‘Flanderized’ universe, where Rocky is the good guy, Drago is the bad guy and Paulie is just a cookie character with a robot wife, and not a serial abuser with mysoginistic, racist and homophobic tendancies. T
The world this script inhabits doesnt feel real, it feels like it exists under the oddly set pretence that this story needs for it to exist. the pacing is incredibly stop/start, we have AT LEAST 3 full blown training montages and music videos, the ending is frankly ludicrous AND hilarious in equal measures and the tone is so blatently jingoistic to that specific flavour of mid 80s American Nationalism, that watching it tonight, I absolutely understood how the USA has ended up in the position it currently sits in. Its a world of simple answers, very little questions and largely blind acceptance. and I cant help but watch this film with a HUGE smirk on my face throughout for just how wild it is that this actually got made.
I mean, I shouldnt be TOO surprised, Stallone co-wrote ‘First Blood’ a film dealing with topics like ‘PTSD’, Mental health, processing trauma and the horrors of the Vietnam war…and then followed it up with the screenplay for ‘First Blood: Part 2’ a film that basically goes ‘Yeh…mental healths bad innit…GUNS!!!!!!!!!’ he’s not a subtle film maker is what im getting at.
Outside of that though, the direction and cine is striking, VERY heavily inspired by media content from that specific period of the 80s. its sharp, crisp, colourful and focussed direction that isnt afraid to experiment and showcase the ‘new way’ of film making for the MTV Generation. the colour useage blending blues, whites and Reds SCREAMS patriotism from every inch of this celluloid. its a remarkable work on a visual level, let down by, what I feel is probably the ropiest edit in the series to date. Nothing quite flows right, they’re heavily reliant on stock footage from previous films to stitch this thing together, cuts are too soon, or not soon enough. Its so bad that Stallone himself had to try and recut the film a couple of years ago, fixing some things…but also making a few bits MUCH worse (Cutting out Paulies large headed robot wife in the new cut was a sin.)
At this point in time, everyone apart from Carl Weathers has seemingly forgotten how to play their characters, Stallone is just playing his ‘Macho’ persona for most of the runtime, with one touching scene with Adrien being about as good as it gets, Burt Young as Paulie feels less like a performance and more like candid outtakes of a guy on vacation. Weathers is sincere and drags ‘Creed’ back to similar vibes from ‘Rocky II’ but maybe a bit paired back, I thought he was probably the best ‘Genuine’ performance here, outside of maybe Dolph Lundgren as ‘Ivan Drago’ who is EASILY one of the best villains not just in this franchise, but in 80s cinema all together. a silent, cold and methodical machine of a man, and a quick shorthand for ruthlessness. he’s fantastic.
And the soundtrack? Favourite of the whole damn franchise, all killer, no filler. Its rock solid, with my only complaint being that we didnt get a Georgio Mororder rendition of ‘Gonna fly now’. It feels at times almost like Stallone was given the score first and told to build a movie around it, rather than vice versa just for how prominant and front and center the score is for this thing. I love it honestly.
‘Rocky IV’ is very much a film of its time, and the fact its SO bedded into that specific era, coupled with its total eccentricity, has really helped cement it as an iconic picture of that decade. and I feel rightly so. its a totally different beast to the rest of the franchise and absolutely worth seeing in my opinion, purely for just HOW simultaineously messy, yet coordinated it is as a work. Probably the cleanest example of ‘Organised Chaos’ i’ve seen in a mainstream picture.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/rocky-iv-rocky-vs-drago-the-ultimate-directors/
ADRIEEEEEEEEN (We are a non ‘Rocky V’ household.)
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/the-rocky-films-ranked/
So up front, I need to make it clear that im giving this film three and a half stars…but its a STRONG three and a half. Thats because ‘Rocky III’ while VERY enjoyable, is ultimately a bit of a deflated experience after the first two films.
Picking up 3 years after the events of ‘Rocky II’, The Italian Stallion is on top of the world, he’s got luxury commercial deals, a nice big house where both him, Adrian, Rocky Jr. and his manager Micky are living comfortably without want and things just keep going from strength to strength.
However; things are about to become rudely disrupted when the number 1 ranked champion ‘Clubber Lang’ (played by Mr. T) begins observing Balboas fights and starts calling him out to challenge him for the Heavyweight world title. Which is problematic because…Rocky’s considering retiring shortly after a statue of him is raised in his home town.
However; at the unveiling, Clubber turns up a taunts Rocky and insults Adrian and Micky, leading Rocky to get hot headed and making him agree to finally challenge him. This is a TERRIBLE idea, as Micky shortly points out, because he reveals that for the last 3 years, Micks been curating Rocky’s fights to keep him healthy and winning. He’s keen to stress that these wernt ‘setup’ fights, but rather, he picked them knowing they wernt going to brutalize Rocky…Lang has every intention of trying to kill him. Aside from that and the various physical issues Rocky’s endured since his 30 rounds with Apollo Creed, Micky informs Rocky that he’s going to have to get serious VERY quickly if he has ANY chance of even HOPING to put Lang on the floor, and that he doesnt feel the ‘Hunger’ is there for the challenge…
And what follows is a story of loss, identity, facing your fears and adversity (without going into too much detail for the sake of spoilers)
Dont get me wrong, I really liked ‘Rocky III’, both this film and ‘Rocky IV’ were on constant rotation in my house growing up, alongside ‘First Blood’ so I know the films fairly well. But its probably been my biggest gap between viewings of this one (at least 15 years) and revisiting it now, especially off the back of watching the first 2 films, I do feel like some of the heart has started to leave the franchise.
The most noticable thing, and the thing that I feel really drags my feelings about the film down is that a LOT of the smaller, more insignificant ‘natural’ moments that were second nature in the first 2 films are largely gone. We get a handful of tender and real moments between Rocky, Adrian and Micky…But they’re all kind of strategic to the plotting and dont feel as natural as earlier entries. It feels like Stallone kind of forgot how to write ‘Rocky’ with this entry, and I can appreciate that 3 years of fame, travel and rich’s will change a person fundamentally. But what I loved about Rocky Balboa in the first two films is that he is fundamentally an under dog, but a humble under dog at that. He has simple pleasures, simple enjoyments and only aspired to be not more worse off than he was the day before.
This iteration of Balboa seems instead to feel like he ‘belongs’ to a certain status, and both him and Adrian remenice about ‘the old days’ as if they wernt literally only 2-3 years ago. Put it this way, in ‘Rocky II’ Rocky is BEYOND content to just stop by the local pet shop or zoo and hang around with the tigers or puppies. If Adrien is there, then its IMMEDIATELY a 10 times better experience. This version of Rocky? I dont feel would have the same affection.
Its not just character mannerisms though, situationally, there just arnt as many smaller nicer moments. Points in the film that make you want to be invested in these characters or this world. Rocky is still an engaging and fun character, but the heart isnt quite there, it feels a bit too polished script wise a bit TOO tight. and the lack of those relatable small moments really pulled me away from this picture. Part of that could be put down to the fact that this film is playing on the trope of ‘Man full of Hubris is knocked down a peg or two and has to work to get back to where he was’ but part of it I feel was just the creative decision to lose the ‘slice of life’ moments in exchange for firming up the base narrative (Balboa V Lang). Which I think is this films greatest loss.
Its also the beginning of the ‘Cartoonification’ of these characters as well, Rocky seemingly has endless powerscaling. After his fights with Creed he realistically shouldnt have been legally allowed to fight again…Letalone 2 rounds with Lang. Lang himself is an almost PAINFULLY cartoonish villain. VERY one note, unreasonably aggressive 24/7. It feels like Stallone wrote him specifically to be as unappealing, egotistical and unpleasent as he could envision an opponent being. Like…Creed was a gloater. But he was a fairly well rounded character, we got to see what he was dealing with and his life behind the scenes. Clubber Lang is just an asshole. and an entitled one at that. Which DOES make the final fight here all the more satisfying. But at the same time, it also removes any sense of tension.
The way the first two Rocky films were written and presented. you could FULLY believe Rocky COULD lose those fights if you hadnt seen the franchise before. But here? they set Lang up as SUCH a pantomime villain, that its almost a certainty that Rocky IS going to defeat him before the end of the film. which again, just sands the emotional edges off this film quite harshly.
Outside of the above, this films quite a bit shorter than the last two, and I feel the pacing struggles a bit as a result, while I appreciate that it handles itself fairly well, it feels like its racing to get us from set piece to set piece without really letting the audience breath or take in the atmosphere or intentions of the piece. They dont really lean on Rockys physical health at all in this one, which would make an audience think he’s pretty fair game, rather than a likely brain damaged, blind in one eye fairly out of shape boxer who really should have retired after Creed.
The characters are still fairly strong (Lang permitting) but they too feel like they’ve had their edges kind of shaved off a bit. Paulie has gone from a struggling, clearly mentally ill and abusive alcoholic, a figure to be pitied more than anything else, to a comedy drunk in the opening, and comic relief by the end of the movie. with the rest of the cast starting to fall into the pit that is ‘Flanderisation’.
Non of this is to say this is inherently a BAD movie, but its just a bit of a fall and pivot from what the last two films strived for. it feels less believable, less natural or honest.
Beyond the script, the rest of the film is technically on the level. Direction and cine maintain the momentum from ‘Rocky II’ though it is maybe a tad less willing to take risks over the last film for my money, composition is strong, theres some nice slow mo and tracking footage which works in the films favour, the training montages were relatively solid, but I dont quite feel they had the same strength as the last films attempts. Its a good looking film, but I dont think it nearly has as much power or enthusiasm as the last entry.
Performance wise? Stallone as Balboa here feels surprisingly low energy. If the first film was Stallones breakout as an actor, and the sequel was him proving his worth in the industry after striking out with an out of nowhere hit. Much like Balboa, he feels a little *too* comfortable here, too tidy, his performance is too polished, he doesnt quite nail that relatable and at times bizarrely awkward character. Its almost like he forgot how to play ‘Rocky’ and is doing a ‘Rocky’ impression based on what he saw when he rewatched the last two movies…which is a bit of a shame.
That being said the single greatest performance in this film absolutely HAS to be Burgess Meredith as ‘Micky’ who absolutely blossomed across these 3 films into a complex, infinitely likeable curmugeonly player, who outshines Stallone in this film with a performance that I would argue is in his top 5 greatest ever honestly.
Talia Shire is a harder performance to read, On the one hand I can interpret her turn as Adrien here as the continuing development of a shy and reclusive woman, slowly opening up to the world around her after years of abuse and neglect and learning to stand by, stand up for and support what she believes in. OR! similar to Stallone, she just hasnt quite remembered how to play the character and is doing an impression of an impression. Or it could be both…Who knows, I enjoyed her turn here, but with only one or two moments between her and Rocky for the entire films runtime. Its hard for me to truely appreciate her best moments because they seem to have been left on the cutting room floor.
As for the score? Not as good as last time being honest, Yes; this is the first film to feature ‘Eye of the Tiger’ (and believe me, I REALLY didnt like that they kept referring to ‘The eye of the tiger’ in the dialogue of the film itself…that was cringey) but whats here just isnt as poweful, energetic or well used as whats been and gone with ‘Rocky I and II’ again, its fine. but it just feels like its missing some freshness, a bit more power or energy which did ultimatley underwhelm the films pace and tone.
All in all, I like ‘Rocky III’ dont get me wrong, its still a fun and entertaining movie from a fun and entertaining series…But this feels to me less like a movie that NEEDED to be made, and more a film that felt OBLIGED to exist. and thats the key difference here. the first two films felt like Stallone and his team had something to say and show to the world. This? feels a lot more corporate and a lot less soulful.
Its a film in the middle of a bit of an identity crisis, which…at this point in time, Stallone was doing the same. So I get WHY it turned out the way it did. but the transition from ‘Slice of life’, real world, hard hitting, tonally heartwarming Oscar winning cinema, to totally silly, over the top, meathead action sports film is well underway. and if I remember ‘Rocky IV’ the way I *THINK* I remember it, I should be in for a treat VERY shortly…
Probably better than the original, and I’m not afraid to say it.
It’s the rematch of the century, everything you could love about the first film is polished to within an inch of its life, the best bits amplified, the slower pace built up and more evenly distributed.
If I have ANY fault with this film, its that the ending wasn’t quite as closed as I’d have liked it to be. But it’s still damn near perfect.
No…honestly, I have nothing else to say. It’s so close to being a perfect movie it damn near scares me that we could ever get this good.
If you arnt watching a double header of ‘Rocky’ and ‘Rocky II’ tonight. What the HELL else are you up to?!
The First film in the ‘Karnstein Trilogy’, and one of the earlier examples of Hammers ‘Playboy’ era films. ‘The Vampire Lovers was a fine enough watch for me, but suffers from a lot of the recurring issues that Hammer films from this era seem to fall into.
The plot introduces us to the family Karnstein, a group of undead vampires who for centuries had preyed on the local inhabitants of the village, and anyone who happened to roam into the woods or graveyards at night. 40 years prior to the events of this movie, the family was finished by a rival family who realised they were vampires and wanted an end to it.
However, 40 years to the day a mysterious woman claiming to be a baroness arrives at the house of a respected General (played by Peter Cushing) asking for mercy in the face of a serious accident thats left her and her daughter Marcilla abandoned in the middle of nowhere for a few days while alternate travel is arranged.
The general agrees and Marcilla forms a strong ‘bond’ with the generals Daughter Laura. Very strong…its a pseudo lesbian relationship. I say pseudo because, Marcilla is ACTUALLY ‘Carmilla’ the daughter of the family Karnstein, and her and her mother have infiltrated the generals house using false identities to try and enlist servents and bolster their supplies to help ressurect the Karnstein family name…and…for a time, they appear to succeed; Killing the Generals daughter over several days while tormenting her in the process.
The General, on realising his Daughter has been murdered by Vampires, and totally bereft, leaves his residence to seek help from the family who dispatched the Karnsteins in the first place. The Karnsteins meanwhile flee the manor, fake a horse carriage accident and begin their grift again…Only, now time is working against them, as the General rallies the troops and word of the growing grizzly murders begins to spread.
And, Its been just over a Day since I watched this movie, and im already forgetting quite large chunks of it…Which is never a good sign for a movie in my opinion.
Dont get me wrong, this isnt a bad movie by any stretch. But I do rather feel that, while its fresh for early 70s Hammer…In the grand scheme of Hammer and Amacus’s work in this kind of field…it’s a bit lacking.
The scripts fine enough, but as mentioned it does hit the rather unfortunate Hammer tropes of rushing to the 2nd act with great pacing, interesting twists and turns and fun characters. Only to then grind to a halt for most of the 2nd and a bit of the 3rd act, as we get bogged down in runarounds, reams of exposition that dont really add anything to the film and padding which bloat the middle of this film right up to the closing 20-25 minutes or so where, once again, it picks up pace and ends in a pretty satisfying way.
The characters are a little flat in this one, while most of the characters in the latter entries of the Karnstein trilogy get a bit more complexity and interesting plot developments, a layered set of main cast members who all feel like they fit into a well lived universe. This has the OTHER Hammer trope, where the core 2-4 main characters DO have complex character traits and backstories…but everyone else gets one, at a push two charictaristics and basically get nothing to do with the plot itself other than vomit exposition and to take ANY line that the writers didnt feel comfortable giving to the developed cast. Which is a real shame.
I just dont feel this one has the same level of pull as ‘Lust for a Vampire’ and ‘Twins of Evil’ they both were interesting character driven pieces that played more on emotional resonence than plotting to drive the story. This films characters feel a little undercooked and it leads with several subplots that make it feel more like a horror thriller than anything else. and I wasnt really into it for that.
Outside of the scripting though its pretty by the numbers sailing. Cine and Direction are well up to the mark for Hammer standard (which is always above average) later films in this trilogy lean more into modern technical abilities to help keep the cine and direction fresh, experimental and creative…But this ones still quite firmly grounded in the ‘old’ style of Hammer direction, which didnt really evolve much past 1961. as such its VERY nice, grand and rich set and location work. But mixed in with very static, sequences, limited dolly and tracking shots and fairly by the numbers blocking. Colour use I felt was also a little drab here, I didnt feel this was a particularly vibrant film…especially compared to later entries.
Casting is altogether fine, I have no strong feelings on any of the performances, other than to ask the question of why Peter Cushing was even in this movie, hes on screen for probably somewhere in the region of 7-10 minutes and gets near top billing. Which is kind of crazy to me given he plays a character with one significant moment, who then leaves for the majority of the film and only comes back at the end. Wild.
The scoring is half decent too which is nice…Like I say, this is basically about as ‘Middle of the road’ as you can get with Hammer. I liked it, but I do think it definitely could have done with some tightining up on the script front and maybe a bit more experimentation with the compositions and colour work on this…I’d say the Karnstein trilogy on the whole is definitely worth looking into, and if your weakest entry is ‘passably’ good. I think thats a pretty good indicator that you may be onto a good thing.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-vampire-lovers/
TYTD Reviews 