JAPfeif Reviews

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Definitely NOT a bad movie

[9/10 · 20 October 2012]

Well, I was all set to write a review on the movie defending it from all the negative flack it gets and I admittedly assumed that when I logged on here all I would see were negative comments. Actually, I scrolled through two pages and found not one negative review, all positives, so I guess no defending is necessary! So I just want to add that this movie in NO WAY deserves all the criticism it gets. I am an avid fan of the original Godzilla series and have a subscription to G-Fan, so I totally appreciate most of J.D. Lees's comments and opinions. I just do not get the backlash against this movie, except for probably ONE reason. The name.

I think most folks were expecting basically a remake of the original Godzilla, same look, same mannerisms, same often-times hokey behavior, and when they didn't get that, they complain and moan. I agree with a previous poster here....if Roland et. al. HAD done that, made a creature that was just like the original in THIS day and age, the movie really WOULD have gotten lambasted and shot down. Besides, they already TRIED that once, remember? (anyone recall GODZILLA 1985??.....practically a carbon-copy of the look of the original monster and if I recall, it wasn't exactly a blockbuster!). So the film makers tried something new, totally updated effects (and no one can deny that they were excellent), an interesting plot, a new twist on the original, a cast of likable characters...and it gets totally ripped apart.

Which brings me to my original point I wanted to make. The name. I honestly believe that if the film (and monster) had NOT been called "Godzilla", just called "Monstersaurus" or something, and not been made to appear as the iconic monster from our childhood, the movie would have done great in more people's eyes (well, at least on the level as other similarly-themed films like INDEPENDENCE DAY, TWISTER, and such). The kiss of death for many people was that they felt the movie was trying to "pass off" this monster as "Godzilla". And they didn't like that.......they didn't like the idea of totally changing the look and actions of a very iconic pop culture figure.

So yeah.....had the movie been called something else and not associated with Godzilla in any way, I think the outcome would have been way different. Because, there sure wasn't much else to complain about in this movie! It was great!! Just my two pennies!

The Missing Mouse (1953)

re: History of Violence

[9 June 2007]

In reply to the quote "I don't know whether Hanna/Barbera acknowledged this problem in this kids' film, but this is pretty shocking to me. Nobody really don't die in these films unless were talking about Itchy and Scratchy, and even if they do, we're shown how their souls leave their body and ascend/descend to heaven/hell in some amusing way, but at least they're back in the next film." Well, not exactly. In "The Two Mouseketeers", Tom actually gets BEHEADED in the finale! There was one other one that no one actually died but had some rather sinister implications. I can't recall the episode title but it was on the beach I think, and it was one with Jerry & (I think) that little yellow duck. At the end, Tom has them cornered under a beach umbrella & the final shot shows Tom covering Jerry & the "camera" (and hence, the audience's view) with the umbrella with some appropriately ominous-sounding music playing. It is left to our imagination as to what happens to Jerry & the duck by Tom.

Don't Bother to Knock (1952)

Marilyn CAN be scary!

[10/10 · 18 November 2006]

I saw this for the first time a few years ago on TCM and now have it in my DVD collection. Marilyn does a wonderful job portraying the psychotic babysitter who starts out all sweet, innocent, and a bit naive. What threw me is that I had no idea what to expect from this movie, having only seen Mairlyn's "ditzy blonde" featherweight roles she is mainly known for. Most folks don't even KNOW she made a scary movie! Her soft, slightly breathy voice still reminds of her "dumb blonde" roles but underneath her increasing mental deterioration comes thru very plainly.

SPOILER HERE

I won't go into the plot, as others have already pretty much covered it, but one scene that really sticks out & shows just how menacing Marilyn could be is at the end, as she realizes she has lost the guy of her obsession, and feels that the young girl she is babysitting for is to blame, we see her approaching the tied up girl in the bedroom, saying softly "you...little...devil..." as she walks out of frame & toward the child, obviously with murder on her mind. The cruelty of her toward the young girl... (even in the gag she puts on the child...a large rag stuffed into her mouth and held in place with another cloth...rather harsh for a young child I would think) is just SO out of character for Marilyn, it's quite a shock.

SPOILER END

Like I said, I don't want to repeat the plot here, but just wanted to chime in with my recommendation for this film for anyone who wants to see Marilynn in a very different kind of role than she is usually associated with.

The Leech Woman (1960)

Not nearly as bad as has been claimed

[8/10 · 24 March 2006]

I won't go in to the plot much here, as anyone who is reading these summaries knows it by now. I personally find this to be one of the more satisfying of the 50's/60's-type Sci-fi films. I'm not sure why other reviewers are surprised or disappointed with the stock footage in the African scenes. It's a low-budget horror flick! Every low (or even some medium-to-high)-budget film (& not just horror/sci-fi) from that era used stock footage to represent exotic locals. Why should anyone be critical because "The Leech Woman" did the same? Also, unlike many others, I found the acting to be quite believable, and subtle (ex: Sally (to the rejuvenated June (a.k.a. Terri Hart), after seeing that her fiancée is obviously attracted to Terri): "I'm Sally...I guess your aunt described ME to you as well". Terri: "Yes she did". Sally: "Well then I guess she mentioned that Neil and I are engaged". Terri: "No, she didn't...why should she?" Sally (in a really catty tone) "Oh, I don't know....I just thought I'd mention it"). Dialogue like this, with it's underlying tone & subtleties, are a joy in a cheap flick like this one. I also found the weasle-like antics of June's doctor husband, who obviously has ulterior motives for suddenly calling off their divorce & wanting her to come to Africa, quite fun to watch, especially in his look of surprise when, after June is given her choice of any man for the sacrifice that will make her young again, picks HIM (especially after, just moment earlier, his idea of a "great escape plan" is to leave his wife there occupying the savages while he & the guide make a run for it, with the promise that "we'll be sure to come back for you tomorrow"!).

The ending WAS a bit abrupt, but again, this was a cheap sci-fi flick, coming in at the very tail-end of the Golden Age of Sci-Fi, and I think that one needs to be realistic & forgiving if it isn't up to the standards of today's films, or even those made earlier when budgets were a bit more generous. And as for the "no-name cast", as one other reviewer put it, you've got Grant Williams from "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and "The Monolith Monsters", Phillip Terry from 1944's "Monster and the Girl", Gloria Talbott from "I Married a Monster From Outer Space" and "The Cyclops", and Coleen Gray from 1957's "The Vampire". Obviously someone doesn't know their classic Sci-Fi movie stars! All in all, a very satisfying film, too good to have been lampooned on that bastardization abomination, MST3K. Give it a try if you haven't.