42 - Wrath of the Titans

    Hades and Ares betray Zeus and Poseidon, in an effort to bring Kronos back to life.  Perseus gets involved in the effort to rescue Zeus, and in the efforts to defeat Kronos.
    I didn't think much of the Clash of the Titans remake.  I've liked the original for quite some time, but there's something wrong with these new ones.  They lost a lot of the flavor of the original.  There was a sense of wonderment, and of epic adventure.  Now, it just seems like an action-movie delivery system.  Despite that criticism, these are fairly fun to look at.  It's just hard to actually care about them.
    The broader plot of these movies - the idea that the Gods are in decline because they are no longer being worshiped as they once were - is actually an interesting idea.  This could bring about some more interesting ideas about what it means to be a God.  Or what it means to be a hero.  Or what it is to be mythical.  But none of this is addressed.  I don't think it matters too much, since it's so hard to stir up any strong feelings about this.
    There are a few things that I like.  Many of the creature designs are very neat, particularly the Makhai.  They're warriors that have one set of legs, but they split at the torso into two bodies, so they don't have an obvious weak point.  I didn't care much for the minotaur, which reminded me a whole lot of Darkness from Legend.  Kronos is hard to care about.  He's a giant lava being.

41 - Bloody Mary

    After the disappearance of a girl at the hands of Bloody Mary, some girls on staff at a mental hospital try to throw investigators off the trail.
    Man, this movie was weird.  And it wasn't weird in a great way, the plot just seemed a little bizarre for a cheap horror movie.  In fact, that's one of the weird problems with this movie.  It's made cheaply.  The technical aspects are mostly pretty good, except that lighting seems awkward (especially the natural light in a scene that is supposed to involve people walking in an underground utility tunnel.)  The acting is either barely adequate, or a little sub-par.  Only one person (with a ridiculous accent) was pushing into the boundaries of really bad quality.
    But that's what's wrong about this movie.  With a better budget, and the backing of a decent B-studio, this could have been pretty good.  Or at least acceptable.  With improved editing, technical support, and a better cast, the script could have easily reached the level of say… The Faculty, or Urban Legend.  Instead, with this cheaper production, I feel like it's stuck in a position where no one will see it.  Even I found it by accident.  I bought another compilation set of 10 movies from Best Buy for $5.
    I found myself confused about the killer's motivation.  I also had no idea what Bloody Mary wanted to do - why she was collecting eyes.  Or what connection there was between the doctor that dies at the end, and the rest of the story.  Or what the weird bumps that appear on one of the girls are supposed to mean.  I suppose this should indicate that it isn't an acceptable movie.
    There's one major plus to this movie - and it's that it moves fast.  Things keep on happening, much faster than a normally paced movie would put them.  So it was able to keep my attention, which is more than I can say for most of these cheap flicks.

40 - For a Few Dollars More

    The drifter returns as a bounty hunter, this time working/competing with another bounty hunter to capture or kill a gang leader called Indio.
    I think this was a better script than the first one.  The action moves along with a more distinct sense of purpose.  There's also a firm sense of humor to this one, which doesn't get overpowered by the cruelty that seemed to permeate the first movie.
    I found myself enjoying the relationship between the bounty hunters much more than I expected to.  They are appropriately wary of each other, but it's nice to see that they are willing to address those concerns straight ahead, and they don't hold each other to blame.
    Everyone in this picture seems to behave correctly.  There isn't as much mindless violence, and we see more planning going on.  But I did notice that the shots of people faces before a shootout seemed to go on longer.

39 - The Phantom of the Opera

    After being fired from the pit orchestra, a violinist is desperate to continue his fascination with opera singer Christine.  After killing a man and being disfigured with acid, he hides out in the Paris Opera House, and tries to promote Christine's singing career from the shadows.
    Writing that summer just emphasized how many weird missteps this story took.  We don't know exactly why it is that the phantom is fascinated with Christine.  It doesn't seem to be a romantic thing.  (From what I've read, this production had made it so the Phantom was actually Christine's father.  That would been a little more interesting.)  There are two other competing love interests for Christine, a baritone and a policeman.  Their interactions are played for laughs, which would be fine, except… they actually come across as kind of gay.  It really looks like they're playing up some kind of sexual tension between the two of them, especially in the last scene.
    Even though this is included in the Universal Monsters collection, the phantom is a strange character.  He's not really a monster.  He's a disfigured person.  When we finally see his face in the last few minutes of the movie, it's anti-climactic

    Somehow, a single gunshot is able to make a substantial stone structure collapse.  After this, we get a strange statement from Christine about how she identified with the phantom.  Huh?
    The pacing of the movie is weird.  It takes a long time to get to the disfigurement.  Then we spent a whole lot of time with Christine, who has minimal interaction with the phantom.  I'd probably guess that only the last 15 minutes really make the movie worthwhile.  The rest of it seemed pretty slowly paced.
    The good thing is that it's shot nicely.  The colors are very nice.

It doesn't look too terrible.  The story is made more difficult by the character being a little crazy.  He kills - before being disfigured, then afterward, he kills about three more people, plus whoever dies from the chandelier falling.

38 - This Is Spinal Tap

    Classic documentary about a fictional metal band and their struggles.
    I've seen this many, many times.  I don't remember when I first saw it, but I sort of burned out on it during high school.  So this is the first time I've seen it on Blu-ray.  For a movie that is intentionally roughly done, it's very nice to see this level of detail.  Everything still has a very glazed look, but more detail is visible in the expressions.
    What makes this movie work so well is the heart that goes into it.  Even though Spinal Tap is sophomoric, they are talented.  And they mean well.  It's easy to feel sorry for them.  It's easy to understand the dynamics in the band, and this is handled beautifully.  No one comes across as being a jerk.  They're both very childish, but they have reasons for doing everything they do.  These characters are fully realized.
    The entire core cast does an excellent job, but it's Christopher Guest who shines.  He doesn't just have the best, most surreal gags, but he has most of the sequences that make him into a developed character.  He loves the band, and he can't stand to have it screwed up outside his control.  He loves his collaborator, even as he alternately can't stand him.

37 - Paranormal Activity

    Framed as a found footage feature, a couple deal with a strange haunting in their house.
    I had only heard one person give a very negative impression of this movie.  But I also read a post on BoingBoing that suggested something interesting - that there was an overarching subplot that explained what was happening, but it gave only hints at a larger backstory spread out over several movies.  So I decided to give the first one a try.
    It's good.  It's not great.  It's worth a single viewing, but much like Blair Witch before it, I can't imagine being able to watch it more than once.  What I found interesting is that there wasn't much in the way of jump scares.  You see every step coming, and you have prompts to know when something will happen, but it never plays out with something popping out at the camera, or with a loud music cue.  This turns the jumps into an exercise in building tension.  (There is one thing that could be a jump scare close to the end.  I'm not sure how it played in theaters)
    The story is interesting, mostly because we have no idea what the antagonist's goal is.  The characters aren't especially likable, but they also aren't overly annoying.  The guy is a bit of a jerk, but it seems more like he doesn't know when to turn off the attitude he has.
    The audience is given a few clues about the backstory, but it's nowhere near enough to piece together a meaning for exactly what has happened.  We're stuck with what the main characters know, and that's it.
    It's creepy.

36 - Torn Curtain

    A man goes behind the iron curtain, unintentionally bringing his fiancee along.  I don't want to give more away, but it involves lots of spies, and smuggling people in and out of Germany.
    This stars Paul Newman, who I've only known from Cool Hand Luke, and Julie Andrews, who I've only known from Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music.  Both of their characters aren't developed that much, but their personalities aren't the important part.  First, the mystery is, and then second, the suspense is.  This is a lesser Hitchcock effort, and I'd probably place it below Marnie.  There were a few good sequences in this.  I liked the material at the farm, and the museum looked interesting, partly since it seemed to be half matte paintings.
    There's one death in the movie, and it's an unusual one.  The violence is stretched out, and I'm curious about the effect this has.  It's a long struggle, and none of the parties are especially skilled at killing or fighting.  What makes this weirder is that Newman's character never seems to be that choked up about having killed someone.
    There's something I don't like about the structuring of the story.  There are a few sidetracks that seem too silly.  Like the whole thing with the lady who wants them to be her sponsor.  Some of these touches add tension, but that is their only function.  I suppose I prefer to have the story more taut.
    I also felt like Paul Newman looks a little like George W. Bush.  And Julie Andrews looks a little like Carrie Fisher wearing a wig.

35 - Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines

    The murderous hillbilly trio is joined by their father, as they kill a bunch of teens in a small town as a music festival brings people in costume.
    I think I've seen all of the Wrong Turn movies, but I could be mistaken.  I don't think I can place anything distinct about the first, second, and third ones.  I remember that the fourth took place in a sanitarium.
    While I can't resist watching these, I've gotten more bothered by them over time.  Most horror movies have a certain balance.  The protagonist usually defeats - at least temporarily - the antagonist.  The ending allows the viewer to feel like it came out acceptably.  I don't mind dark endings either, but these have been getting progressively uglier as I watch them.  The problem is that there are normally no survivors.  Everyone dies, the villains get away clean.  It doesn't even seem like the villains suffer any losses.
    I'm having a hard time thinking of an example, but there are some exceptions.  If the villain has an appropriate motivation, or if there's enough development of the villain character.  In these movies, I think there's been one clue given.  In this movie, they imply that the whole hillbilly killers are leftover from the early 1800s when there was some feud with workers in the town.  This doesn't really give enough motivation though.
    As this movie progressed, it seemed like the decisions being made got progressively worse.  The dialogue got worse too.  And they started to really push more inventive deaths, but they seemed unusually complicated for three guys who have about half a brain between them.  And they seem to be incapable of speech.
    Technically, the movie is competent, but not especially so.  It looks like a lot of the movie was shot using a single street set (or possible two, one for corners).  Not too many extras.  Even exterior locations seem to be very limited.  The police station, which houses most of the action, is a pretty poor set.
    In a certain way, the female lead, the sheriff, is a bit sexist.  She's a pretty terrible sheriff.  She deputizes a handful of teens (well, possibly college age, it's hard to tell) and hands out guns, providing no instruction.  Then she gets persuaded to let a kid - one that she had arrested for substantial drug possession - leave the station to find his girlfriend, all because he gave a little speech about how he loves the girl.
     Also, the cover art for this movie is misleading.  It looks like it was created by a person who had been given a rough idea of what the movie would be about.  Instead, we never see anything even distantly like the scene in the background of that image.  And I don't think the girl on the cover is ever shown in the woods.

34 - The Gold Rush

    Charlie Chaplin is a prospector who goes to Alaska to stake a claim.  He has a series of adventures dealing with the harsh weather, the dance halls, and a romance with a girl named Georgia.
    This is the version which was re-released in 1942.  The original film was tightened up a bit.  A score was added, and Chaplin recorded a narration for it.  This goes a long way to making the movie palatable for a modern audience.  There's a lot of interpretation that would have been involved otherwise.
    It's an interesting movie.  It's funny, but it has some dark elements to it.  There's a sequence that was intended to lead the audience to think that a dog had been eaten out of hunger, and another scene where two starving guys eat a shoe.  These gags are handled well, but it still gives a very depression-era feeling to things.
    The humor is largely physical, and Chaplin is a lot of fun to watch.  The early state of film direction at the time works against some of his skills - there are some moments where he gives some masterful expressions.  A lot of scenes seem to be handled in longer takes, although some awkward edits are in there.
    His dance using the rolls is remarkable.  It's a silly piece of comedy, but I haven't seen anything like it in modern times.

33 - The Muppet Movie

    Kermit gets dreams of becoming an entertainer in Hollywood, and sets out on a road trip.  He picks up assorted other Muppets - Fozzie, Gonzo and Henrietta, Piggy.  And he's being chased by a guy who owns a chain of restaurants that serve frog legs.
    I was looking to get the more recent Muppet movie, but Netflix sent the old one.  It had been a long time, and I tend to get their movies mixed up.  This still has one problem that I remember.  It's got some slow pacing.  Some of the sequences are inspired, and it's great to see Steve Martin and Mel Brooks in this movie.  What gets in the way is how thin the plot is.  I don't care too much for the romance between Kermit and Piggy, but it played a little better than I remember it being as a kid.
    The songs are a mixed bag.  I'm not a fan of Rainbow Connection.  It's catchy, but it seems like it goes on longer than it needs to.  In fact, that's a common complaint about most of the songs.  Some of them are really great, but need a touch of trimming.  Movin' Right Along is lots of fun.  I'm Going to Go Back There Someday is very nice.  But something about them allows the viewer to tune out about 3/4th of the way through the number.  I like the first half of I Hope That Somethin' Better Comes Along.
    There's also something that leaves me feeling unresolved.  Something about how neatly tied up the ending comes together.  The antagonist is scared off, but I don't feel like anything was solved.  There no reason why he wouldn't come back.  The Muppets succeed too easily, which is amusing, but a bit anticlimactic.  And the ending number just isn't powerful enough to make me leave the movie with a good feeling.
    Nevertheless, it's still fun, and there are some fantastic little moments.  Beeker only gets a few "lines" but he steals those scenes.

32 - The Master

    An alcoholic veteran runs into the charismatic leader of a vaguely cult-like philosophy called The Cause.  Their relationship is framed through a series of events.
    Another movie that defies synopsis, since it primarily uses strange non-events to allow for an exploration of the relationship between two characters.  What's even more frustrating is how vague the movie is about their relationship.  Nothing is made very clear.
    I love Paul Thomas Anderson's movies.  He's got an amazing ear for dialogue, a fantastic visual flair, and he manages to not be predictable.  Only predictably great.  When I first saw Punch Drunk Love, I was a bit disappointed.  On revisiting that, I found that I liked it much more.  When I first saw There Will Be Blood, I was similarly disappointed.  On rewatching it, I liked it a lot more.  This makes me hesitant to form any solid opinions of The Master.
    It's shot wonderfully.  And the atmosphere is remarkable.  The script has some scenes that I found incredible.  Nevertheless, I still felt lost.  I didn't come out of it feeling like there was a meaning, or even some kind of idea that was being expressed.  There are a few thoughts that seem disorganized, or scattered, but they are hard to pin down.
    This unfocused exploration of the two characters means that I found myself a bit fascinated, a bit bored, and I ended the movie being a little paralyzed by it.  I'm unsure of what I saw.  This may have insinuated itself into my dreams.  I remember that I had some bizarre dreams after I finished this, but I wasn't able to remember anything about them.