THE LOST BOYS (1987) - **1/2

Q: What's scarier than a vampire?
A: A vampire with a goddamn mullet!

Vampires may never age, but THE LOST BOYS sure did. With the bleached jeans, pink lights, and bad hair metal rock, I wonder if the legions of fans of this cult classic enjoy the movie itself or for the quick time capsule trip of the Reagan Decade.

A film dated isn't necessarily a bad thing. Several movies from the 1980s have continued on being popular simply because of their quality. GHOSTBUSTERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, DePalma's SCARFACE, and so forth.

Quite simply, I think its nostalgia that fuels Joel Schumacher's movie onward within our pop culture two decades later. I only say that because there is no other reason.

Certainly the movie starts out with some promise, and in fact its first act works as a set-up. Some kids move to a California town where its beaches and broadwalks are ruled by Keifer Sutherland and his gang of youthful vampires who get their kicks (and dinner) from attacking random civilians.

The teenage kid follows his balls, not his brains, and follows a gal from that brood. His younger brother meets up with some comic book store brats who know the exact reason why there are an absurd number of "MISSING" posters plaster-ed everywhere, and obviously have read too much of their own product.

As much as I enjoyed the moments when those vampire hunting wanna-bes confront these vampires, I realized something. I've seen all this before, and in a better movie from 1987.

THE MONSTER SQUAD was about adolescents using their encyclopedia of useless knowledge to fight real monsters. We enjoy as those boys actually contend and plan against Dracula, and see them go off to war with the Prince of Darkness.

With THE LOST BOYS, that same concept is pushed aside as background characters supporting the movie's actual storyline. If SQUAD was Shane Black penning a smart-ass kids adventure flick, BOYS is unfortunately the teenie-bopper spin on the material.

BOYS reprises all those 1950s teen rebel cinema cliches. You have the outsider who deals with the charismatic alpha male of a motorcycle outfit. The leader's gal falls for the newcomer, and all hell breaks loose. The twist is that like the orphans who end up in Neverland, these "lost boys" are forever young as they stalk the night.

Except, wouldn't that nightly routine get old after a few decades? I mean, I love booze and women and movies, but envitably bore-dom would set in.

I wished the filmmakers had explor-ed that concept some more. Not dwell on and on about it like Anne Rice would, but make a thematic point of how the ultimate freedom for rebellious teens might very well be the worst purgatory of them all.

But once we kick full-on the hero teen's story, BOYS staggers. It goes through the action motions, but the film never really bites into the emotional and storytelling possibilities that the first act bleeds out. If you want that, go rent NEAR DARK.

On the bright side, the Coreys have a film to coast on for the rest of their D-list celebrity days, even if the villain is now more known as a kicker on TV, instead of a sucker.

Ive always loved this film and is my fav film of the 80's up with Stand By Me and Back to the future.

Which I must say, is perfectly understandable. Its just too bad its about as thin as Corey Feldman's career after the 80's.

What happend to him?

He had potential to be a decent film star.

A good question...the same I would ask of Jason Patric. Then again, I'm sure SPEED 2 explains him.

Jason Patric was very good in SLEEPERS, after that, nothing. I've posted this before, did everyone know he's Jackie Gleason's grandson?

I love the crop duster scene and also the climax on Mt Rushmore.

Yeah, I also dig NORTH BY NORTHWEST. I guess its pretty much the cinema face of the "Man Wrongly Accused, Goes on the Run, Must prove his Innocence" plot paradigm, right?

OLDBOY 1/2
(First Viewing)

This is probably one of the most torturing psychological movies I've ever seen, and I loved it. The two main characters go to great and extreme lengths to get their point across that just leaves the audience shaking it's head at how sadistic and disturbed these characters truly are.

SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE
(First Vieiwng)

Another great tale of revenge from director Chan-wook Park. This started off a little slow and had more of a cop-tracks-down-the-bad guy feel to it. However, after then it turns into the father's redemption. So far this vengeance trilogy has been very enjoyable and I look forward to concluding it with LADY VENGEANCE tomorrow night.

Rivières pourpres, Les [The Crimson Rivers] (2000) ****

Directed by: Mathieu Kassovitz (Gothika (2003), Babylon A.D. (2008))
Starring: Jean Reno (The Professional (1994)) & Vincent Cassel (Ocean's Twelve/Thirteen)

Two out-of-town French cops working on what seemed to be separate cases cross paths at a common suspect/victim's apartment to solve heinous crimes from an apparent serial killer. But there's much more to unearth.

Member a1, my Filmmaking instructor, told me this was great so I rented it (and its sequel which hasn't arrived yet). First off, thank goodness for the Bonus Features cuz otherwise I'd have a very hard time understanding exactly what happened. And I actually wasn't all that thrilled with the climax, personally, but it was a very good film. Unknown to me, it defaulted to dubbed English. (Well, it was obvious it was dubbed, tho they did a decent job, but) I really wish I had watched it in French with the subtitles, because it seems MOST of the dialogue was changed for the dubbing, and in the Extras much of it made a lot more sense as intended.

Incidentally, a1 also told me that the following was one of the worst films he's seen, so I watched this the other day:

Color of Night (1994) ***

Directed by: Richard Rush (The Stunt Man (1980))
Starring: Bruce Willis & Jane March (Beauty and the Beast (2003))

After one of his patients commits suicide from his NY office window, a psychiatrist (Willis) questions his profession and visits an old friend/colleague in LA who runs a support group. Upon his friend's murder, Willis reluctantly takes over the group and tries to help solve the crime.

I've seen quite a few bad movies in my day, but I kinda like them. This was no exception. Perhaps as someone who studied psych and led groups himself, it was intriguing. And God knows I love a good (or bad) murder mystery/thriller! So I wouldn't call this one of the worst movies ever made -- it held my interest at least. Especially the sex scenes (I believe it was the Unrated option: so choose that if you wanna see Bruce Willis and/or Jane March full-frontally nude )

Only 2 1/2 stars for oldboy

Yeah, after I watched it I was a little confused on how I would rate it but I probably wouldn't go higher than

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) ****

I watched this last night for probably the 50th or 60th time. It's the movie that gave Sinatra his second wind as a performer and gave him a claim as a serious actor, to go along with his early success as a singer. In all likelyhood, it was then wife Ava Gardner's pleas to studio head Harry Cohn that got him the part and NOT Luca Brasi-----lol.

It takes place in the days leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and deals with some pretty serious stuff, considering it was made in the early 50's. Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Donna Reed, Deborah Kerr, Frank Sinatra, Ernest Borginine and a baby-faced Jack Warden lead the way.

One of my ten favorite films of all-time.

I actually gave it 2.88574444 black holes - I don't use stars, I use black holes.

Of course, if you've seen one black hole you've seen them all, so..

You need to get out of the restroom of the Apollo Theatre.

Believe it or not, I've never seen it.

But at least Johnny Fontaine got into the movie, right?

SUPERBAD
(Second Viewing)

Jonah Hill continues to find new ways to make me laugh. I've loved seeing this guy's work since I first saw GRANDMA'S BOY. It's great to see him finally star in a film and he didn't disappoint at all. He alone was well worth the price of admission and his two friends, along with Seth Rogen and Bill Hader were just deserts. For whatever reason, I could relate to Jonah's character and have met a couple of friends like him in the past. I haven't laughed this hard since THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN and this was better, even then WEDDING CRASHERS which I absolutely loved. Definitely the funniest movie of the year and in my top 5. See it when it comes out on DVD on December 4th.

I just watched Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof

Man was that a mistake.

I hated the way it was filmed, lousy editing, lousy acting, and lousy plotline(if you can call it that)

Hell I've seen better acting and better plotlines in porn films, and that's saying something.

LADY VENGEANCE
(First Viewing)

I was really disappointed with this film considering I enjoyed the first two films in director Chan-wook Park's vengeance trilogy so much. I was hoping it'd go out more with a bang. The vengeance theme in this film didn't really grasp me until the last 20 minutes or so and by then the film was pretty much over. Also, I felt a lot of the inmates introduced earlier in the film were unnecessary seeing as how only one of them really helps her on the outside.

Have you seen Robert Rodriguez'a PLANET TERROR? GRINDHOUSE was my favorite film of the year and between the two, I liked DEATH PROOF more but that's just me.

You know, more and more I actually despise GRINDHOUSE.

For a 3 hour wank-fest to Z-grade double features of the days, spending $70-80 million is sort of hypocritical, isn't it?

Hell, QT's RESERVOIR DOGS and RR's EL MARIACHI or DESPERADO were more Grindhouse than GRINDHOUSE.

Not only hypocritical, but also dumb in a way. The movies to which he is paying the so-called "tribute" were probably made with $500,000.

WOW! I'm shocked!!!

A self proclaimed film critic who's never seen a classic such as FROM HERE TO ETERNITY ? That's probably considered a real infamia in the world of film!

Well at least you're honest about it. I'll give you that!

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN 1/2
(First Viewing)

Wow, the Coen brothers are back in a big way! Everything positive you've heard about this film is absolutely true. This has got to be their best film since THE BIG LEBOWSKI and could contend with FARGO as their best ever. What I loved most about the film was the fact their isn't a lot of dialogue. The first half of the film is a great cat-and-mouse game that is so intense and the actors are providing the right emotions to strike excitment and fear in the audience without saying anything.

Josh Brolin was awesome as the southern gentleman, Llewelyn Moss, who stumbles upon this little stack of cash. However, the show belonged to Javier Bardem. He owned this film! I was only briefly familar with his work in COLLATERAL as Felix and I'm glad he was given a bigger American/English speaking role. Finally, I've always enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones' work. Definitely in my top 10 for the year and probably in my top 5.

I also saw No Country for Old Men today. I would probably give it the same rating, but I wouldn't recommend it to the casual moviegoer, mainly for the ending which I am hoping others here on the board are open to discuss.

Irish is right when he says the best role in the movie belongs to Javier Bardem. Not only is he as brutal and ruthless as any bad guy I have ever seen but his rare dialogue with the other main characters are excellent. The Coen Brothers prove that you don't have to say a lot of words to make a big statement.

But once again, I wouldn't recommend the movie to anyone who expects all the story lines to be wrapped up in a nice package and ended perfectly. This is definitely a thinking movie and one that I predict will be on my mind for a few days.

You wouldn't believe the supposed classics I haven't watched yet.

Believe it or not, I have a life outside of movies.

I agree. I didn't like the ending and thought they ended with the wrong character

I rented this because of I12's description and watched it tonight. I know I've said that I love psychological thrillers -- and still do. And I've said many times that I like "bad" movies, and still do. But this, to me, goes well beyond "bad"...

First off, DO NOT -- I REPEAT -- DO NOT watch the English dubbed version of this!! Did Adam West do the voice over, WTF???!! After an hour of cringing I switched to the Korean with subtitles. A little better. Maybe that's what made me almost turn it off without finishing it; maybe had I just went with the subtitles I'd've thought a bit more highly of it.

Sure, the story was clever and there were some good shots. But there were also some really BAD shots, and some really bad nonsensical errors that really made me cringe how -- unless I'm missing something here -- the director must've fucked up. The guy gases the room with the window wide open with a breeze blowing in? Sounds effective. There was something else even more ridiculous that I can't recall now. But in general, despite the great idea -- it was not, IMHO, told as well as it could've been, and certainly wasn't paced very well. The 53 endings could've been cut down to like 1 or 2. It doesn't take 2 hours to tell this story -- especially when there's no terror being conveyed on screen -- or at least felt by me watching it. It was almost like a comic book, but that'd be an insult to comic books.

8.3/10 on IMDb and 3.7/5 on Netflix? Multiple awards? Maybe I am missing something here. But IMHO, I thought it blew. So there.

**/5