SOME STRANGELY NASTY MOVIE FANS

SOME STRANGELY NASTY MOVIE FANS

I know people can often have strong (often completely uneducated) opinions on things they like or dislike, but it seems that discussions on movies can get as heated as any political argument. I used to be appalled at the comments left on imdb.com (Internet Movie Date Base) on various movies before imdb wisely shut this section down. I mean, if someone disagreed with another's opinion of a movie, they would write the most hateful things, attacking them, their politics, their sexuality, even their mothers to a degree that made one wonder if these people were playing with a full deck. On Facebook, one guy left a comment on another guy's post, saying that he thought a movie that the first guy liked was over-rated, and the original poster replied "You're an idiot!" I mean, the guy who left the comment wasn't nasty, it was just his opinion, but the first guy was obviously on the maturity level of an eight-year-old. It's true -- we live in an Internet world where even the most childish, stupid, most uneducated person can have access to forums, and the result is unbridled nastiness. I believe people over-react in this way for several reasons. They are insecure, wondering if perhaps their opinion is not the "correct" one or unsure of how much they really know about movies (especially film history). They are, obviously, very immature, regardless of their actual age. And they have a weak sense of self. If you dare say that you don't like -- or conversely admire -- a film they love or don't care for, you are attacking them and they feel a need to strike back, like a child who feels insulted and has to immediately say something nasty or give another child a whack.

Sad, really. . 

JOHN STANLEY'S CREATURE FEATURES MOVIE GUIDE STRIKES AGAIN

JOHN STANLEY'S CREATURE FEATURES MOVIE GUIDE STRIKES AGAIN. John Stanley. Creatures at Large Press; 1994.

This book presents capsule reviews of horror/sci fi/fantasy and related films written by former horror host Stanley over many years and collected into one volume. The reviews show a discrepancy of style, with some being geared to frat boys with their emphasis on boobs and very bad puns, and others offering some cogent, if hardly in-depth (given their brevity) criticism. His write-up on The Sentinel is on-target, but his review of Terror out of the Sky, a killer bee movie, notes that the telefilm is (groan) “bees-ily directed by Lee H. Katzin.” Stanley seems to be the only person who actually liked the dreadful Captain America feature with Matt Salinger, saying it “captures the flavor of the original” (not the movie I saw!) and the Cesar Romero starrer The Jungle, which he deems a “terrific adventure” and actually seems to think was filmed in India! He thinks the awful, almost campy remake of Lord of the Flies is superior to Peter Brook's devastating original and credits screenwriter Richard Maibaum for the love affair between Bond and Tracey in On Her Majesty's Secret Service when it was a basic part of Ian Fleming's original novel. By far the most hilarious gaffe is when he credits Leonard Bernstein (!!!) with the score for Bill Cosby's unfunny stinker (aside from those frogs that “hop” a car out of a parking lot) Leonard Part Six instead of Elmer Bernstein. And any book that receives a testimonial from the moronic “Joe Bob Briggs” can't be all good. On the other hand, Stanley has dug up some interesting forgotten movies, including some even I had never heard of, and the book is fun in its limited way. For a book supposedly about “Creature Features,” however, Stanley seems to have little love in his heart for many beloved old monster movies.

Verdict: Everyone's entitled to their opinion. **1/2. 

A YEAR OF HITCHCOCK: 52 WEEKS WITH THE MASTER OF SUSPENSE

A YEAR OF HITCHCOCK: 52 Weeks with the Master of Suspense. Jim McDevitt and Eric San Juan. Rowman and Littlefield; 2009.

This volume looks at the films of Alfred Hitchcock with a fresh and often discerning eye, from his very first films up to classics like Vertigo and Psycho, and his later films such as Marnie and Frenzy. The authors make it clear that Hitchcock was often competing with himself, that you expect so much from the "Master," that you're disappointed if you see little imperfections, even though even Hitchcock's lesser films are often much better than those of lesser directors. Some of the authors' assertions are a little surprising, such as "Strangers on a Train is not one of Hitchcock's most well-known movies," but the book seems to be geared less for the serious Hitchcock fan than for newcomers to his work. Long-time fans of the Master may not find too much that is new, but the authors' analyses [while you won't always agree] are good, and they often make interesting points about a particular movie. One unfortunate aspect to the book, and which may make it seem like "Hitchcock Lite" to the casual observer, is the use of trendy sidebars as if this were "Hitchcock for Dummies." Still, the book is a good read whether you're new to Hitchcock or already very familiar with his work.

Verdict: Solid look at the films of Alfred Hitchcock. ***.

MASTERS OF MENACE: GREENSTREET AND LORRE

MASTERS OF MENACE: GREENSTREET AND LORRE. Ted Sennett. E. P. Dutton. 1979.

Ted Sennett supplies an excellent overview of the careers of fine character actors Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, who were on occasion paired together, and whose screen images were often as smiling, sinister heavies, although both also played more benign roles in comedies. Masters of Menace is not a biography. There are some basic notes about the lives of these two actors, but nothing in depth. Instead Sennett analyzes -- and analyzes very well -- the various films they made, together and apart, and cites what the film did or did not do for each actor's career, and if the role suited them to the best advantage or not. Lots of great black and white photos and filmographies. Worth hunting down if you're a fan of both gentlemen -- and who isn't?

Verdict: Very good, fast, and informative read. ***.