Archive

Posts Tagged ‘1972’

Friday Fun! (Stanley Cup FTW!)

June 17, 2011 3 comments

Hello my lovely readers!  Ok, so I know most of you aren’t from Boston and thus don’t really care, but OMG THE BRUINS WON!!!!!

Here’s the thing.  I fucking love hockey.  Love it.  It’s my absolute favorite sport.  Perhaps because this is I grew up practically on the Canadian border (our signs were in French and English).  I suspect, however, that it’s more because hockey is one of the few sports that is still not a pussy sport.  The players routinely get into fights with each other on the ice, and they don’t even get put in the penalty box for it.  Most of the time.  Plus they do this physically difficult sport on ice.  We all know everything’s harder on ice.  (Ok, ok, not everything *wink wink, nudge nudge*)

Anyway, so this past week was the championship between the Boston Bruins and the Vancouver Canucks.  If you don’t know, there are 7 games played, and the winning team is the best of 7.  My past week thus largely consisted of watching hockey.  Last Friday I went out to a local dive bar (that has free popcorn) to do so with one of my friends.  Alas, we lost that game.  Monday night I watched at home after a tough gym session and kept my dad, who works second shift, posted on the score via text message.  Our win Monday meant we were tied at 3/3, which meant a game 7! Ahhhhhh!!!  Now the Bruins hadn’t won since 1972.  Clearly such an event demanded a night out.

I ended up going out to a local very packed bar with friends.  Watching the game in a bar full of fellow fans was one of the most awesome experiences I’ve had in a while.  We drank. We yelled.  We celebrated.  There was music.  Strangers were randomly high-fiving and hugging each other.  It was the loudest I’ve ever been outside of a concert.  In fact, my voice is a bit off today.  And the best part is we won!! We won the Stanley Cup!!!  Take that, Canada.  Hockey ain’t just your sport. 😛

Now, if I can just actually manage to make it to a game at the Garden next season…….

Movie Review: Original vs. Remake Comparison: The Last House on the Left (1972 vs. 2009)

November 25, 2010 4 comments

Woman with bloody hand clamped over her mouth.Summary:
1972:
Mary is a sweet-tempered, girl-next-door that every boy in the neighborhood has the hots for, but she has a best friend from the wrong side of the tracks.  They frolic in the woods together and drink alcohol kept cool in the river.  Mary’s parents do not approve.  Mary and her friend go to NYC for a concert, but when her friend tries to score some weed, their night goes horribly awry.  Suddenly they find themselves at the mercy of two escape convicts, a son of one of the convicts who does their beck and call for his heroin hits, and a malicious, nympho woman.

2009:
Mary is vacationing in the lakes with her doctor father and lovely mother.  She goes into town to hang out with her old friend, and the two of them go back to a hotel room to get high with a teenage boy.  But that boy’s father, uncle, and the uncle’s girlfriend come back, and the dad is an escaped con.  He decides he can’t let the girls go and kidnaps them, finishing them off in the woods.  They wind up car-wrecked and must seek help at a nearby cabin that just so happens to be Mary’s parents’.  When they figure out the mystery, all hell breaks loose.

Review:
1972:
This is a classically 70s film featuring everything from feathered hair to 70s music to background music oddly upbeat for the dark tone.  The opening shot is essentially of Mary’s Woman standing in front of a lake.boobs.  This was the era of really stretching the boundaries.  Everything semi-pornographic and disgusting that they could get away with, they did get away with.  There is one, rather controversial, scene in which Mary and her friend are forced to have sex with each other–and need I remind you her friend is female?  There is a lot of rape, a lot of blood, and these killers really do kill just for fun.  Not to make it sound like this is slasher porn, though.  There’s nothing at all remotely sexy about the violence.  It’s meant to be disturbing, and it is.  There’s one scene in particular that will have all male viewers crossing their legs and quivering in their boots.  All that said, this movie definitely reads as campy due to some unfortunate scenes featuring upbeat music and bumbling policemen that feel like they belong more in an episode of Andy Griffith than a horror movie.  I’m really  not sure what Craven was thinking sticking those scenes in there.  There of course also is the enduring problem of the victims being truly, incredibly stupid.  Horror is the most horrifying when it feels as if the victims did everything smart, but still got caught.  The element of unsuspected revenge is what saves the movie, though.

2009:
This movie is quite creative for a modern horror.  It takes a fairly sympathetic main character and has her a make a rather impulsive, but not completely stupid decision.  Mary and her friend take far more agency trying to get away.  They are far more modern female victims.  They fight back physically and not with words and pleading.  The cinematography is dark and intense.  The convict’s son becomes a far more sympathetic character, and Mary’s parents much more believable as a vindictive pair.  The whole plot moves at the perfect pace, and the ending is surprising.

1972 vs. 2009:
I have to say, 2009 wins for horror movie quality.  It is put together more smoothly without the odd side-story of the police with the humorous background music.  The story is more cohesive.  However, surprisingly, 1972 is far more gory and feels more like a slasher.  The violence, both sexual and physical, is surprising, and the villains are far more evil.  If you’re out for the chills of a good horror, movie, go with the 2009 version.  If you’re after sheer blood and violence, go for the 1972 version.

1972: 3.5 out of 5 stars

2009: 4 out of 5 stars

Source: Netflix

1972: Buy It

2009: Buy It

Movie Review: The Thing with Two Heads (1972)

December 3, 2009 Leave a comment

Summary:
A white racist transplant doctor has figured out how to transplant a head onto a new body.  When he encounters an accident and is in danger of dying, his staff desperately try to find a donor body.  They finally snag a volunteer from death row–a black convict.  The catch is that the two heads must live on the body simultaneously for the first month.  When the convict escapes with both heads still attached, the race is on for ownership of his body.

Review:
This movie is hilarious, even though I’m sure it doesn’t mean to be.  The effects are bad.  The same car crash scenes are used repeatedly from different angles to show at least ten different car crashes.  The two heads do not look realistic at all, and that is all part of what makes it awesome.

The soundtrack is classic 70s music, that of course wasn’t classic yet at the time.  Watching the cops walk down death row to a disco beat is exactly the type of juxtaposition that makes this movie so funny.

I honestly have no idea what racial statement this movie was trying to make, but I can tell you that everyone is a caricature regardless of their race.  It’s just that kind of over-the-top writing found in B movies.  I would caution anyone reading the description against taking this movie too seriously.  I’m pretty sure it was entirely the result of a “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if a racist was stuck with a black guy? Awesome!”

This is one of those rare instances of a movie so incredibly bad it actually is insanely good.

5 out of 5 stars

Source: Netflix

Buy It