![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladybug_archive1. Ask me as many fandom-related questions as you can think of in the comments. This can be fandom specific, general, or about fandom/lj stuff/fic writing/etc. in general.
2. There can be subparts to questions (but since I'm allowing multiple questions, you can just make them separate).
3. That's it. It can be as normal or odd as you like.
Aubrie is finally watching The Monkees, thanks to a torrent she found! XD She seems to like it too, and we are having an email discussion about the Alias Micky Dolenz episode. I'm glad that she's finally seen the point of origin for my mobster stories. ^^
The reunion wasn't really that worth going to. XD; There weren't many people there. But I did get to go to Borders (and Target and Deseret Book), so I can't complain too much. I bought Going My Way at Borders. The only DVD version is on a double-bill with Holiday Inn, which I could care less about, but eh. XD I also bought Mister Roberts and will be taking more pictures of Jimmy before long. And I got YGO Duelist #15, which is incredible. Seto is so awesome in it, and Marik and Rishid interact, and it's the start of the Yugi/Joey duel, which I love.
At Deseret Book I found the Clair Poulson novel I've been wanting, and I used the gift card I had to get it. I love his works so much! He used to be involved in law enforcement, so he brings that knowledge to his books, and he's a local LDS author, so he also brings in gospel principles and such. There's always a lot of suspense, and I love how it's counter-balanced with stuff about God and prayer and that sort of thing. ^^
I found an old movie on YouTube with Leo Gorcey in it! It's called Midnight Manhunt and it's fun. XD This guy gets murdered and there's all kinds of confusion as the body keeps being moved all around. Leo played a variation of his usual character, and did the classic malapropisms. If you go there and search for Leo Gorcey it will come up, as well as a hilarious music video featuring clips from the Dead End Kids, Little Tough Guys, and the East Side Kids films.
I've been reviewing Bowery Boys films over the weekend. XD It's fun, though these latest reviews are quite negative on the particular films I picked. I'm going to include the reviews here.
First, may I say that I've never cared for "jail" movies in general,
but I did try to be fair and impartial while watching both of these films.
A large reason why I don't like jail movies is because it seems so
depressing for someone to be locked up and treated poorly if they
haven't even done anything wrong. Triple Trouble was largely based on
fatalistic humor, which is not something I like much in any situation,
as I feel that it takes unfunny situations and mocks them in vain
attempts to make them funny. Stuff such as Louie's inability to find a
kind person to listen to him, and Slip and Sach getting locked in
solitary, just seems depressing and perhaps a little too realistic for
the Bowery Boys, especially considering the way the material was
treated. Maybe if it had been treated as serious, instead of trying to
make it funny, I would have liked it better.
However, Triple Trouble did have some funny bits, especially the
shortwave radio/Whitey's insomnia angle. And Triple Trouble has
something that Jail Busters does not have: a satisfying resolution.
The Boys were exonerated and able to go home, and it ended in a
trademark way with Sach playing a trick on the others and getting
whacked for it. It makes one feel uplifted and happy to see that they
have conquered another problem successfully, and after all, these
films are supposed to make one laugh and forget about their problems
for a while.
Jail Busters has a very promising, and dare I say, even a startling
opening. Chuck is beaten almost to death! I was not expecting that at
all. I assumed that when I read that he was beaten, that it was
actually not as dark of a situation as it was. The hospital scene was
very dramatic and serious, and I was stunned to see it in one of the
slapstick era films. I had high hopes for the film based on those
sequences. It could have been so much better.
It, then, was very shocking to me in a negative way that it made a 180
degree turn to end on a note of non-resolution, like a cartoon. I was
expecting more fatalistic humor, which there was in varying degrees,
and I was also suspicious that it would end as it did, but I had been
hoping that I would be proven wrong.
Also disappointing was that we never saw Chuck again after the
hospital scene. We only heard that he and Louie had been kidnapped. If
this had been an earlier film, we would have seen these things happen
and not just found out about them, as if they were of little
consequence. Chuck's beating was the event that the entire movie was
riding on! We should have at least been allowed to see that he was
recovering.
Both films, in my opinion, are not among the Boys' best work, but
Triple Trouble had a better plot structure, was more well-rounded, and
all of the characters were given fair screentime, not just the ones in
jail. Triple Trouble also has a resolution, as mentioned, which I do
believe is very important. Not completely fixing the problem is
cartoonish and depressing when one wants to see the Boys come out of
their problem with flying colors.
In short, while I'm not fond of either film, I would give Triple
Trouble a higher rating than Jail Busters.
And this one:
When I first watched this film, I did not have a very high opinion of it. The plot was good, and cute, but there just seemed to be something that was off. I watched it again this morning in the hopes that maybe my opinion would change, as it has for Trouble Makers and Fighting Trouble, and my opinion did change, but not for the better. I figured out what was off: the characterization, and it was much more of a headache in this film than anything Fighting Trouble did.
Let me quote from The Films of the Bowery Boys book concerning this film: "In the Money has the favorite characterizations, chases, improbable gags, a straightforward plot, and a favorable locale." Now, I agree with most all of this, except the first remark. Yes, there are the favorite characterizations, If, IF this is a Leo Gorcey film. But it is not. And it doesn't really seem like a Duke film, either. In fact, I'm not sure what I'd classify it as.
I, frankly, have never seen the writers try so hard to make Duke into a Slip clone. I did not pick up on this the first time around because at that time I had only seen a couple of Slip movies. But now this fact is glaringly obvious to me. Not only do they give him more malapropisms than they ever have before, but (I have to say it) they seem to have lowered his IQ in general. I've always felt that Duke is more educated than Sach or Slip, and that this comes across in some of the other films, but for In the Money (and to a lesser extent in Up in Smoke) they change his character so he's more like Slip, education level-wise. (Duke doesn't know that a veterinarian is a dog doctor?! I can't buy that. I could see Slip being confused on it, due to his fractures of the English language, but for Duke it isn't believeable.)
Also, this dialogue here sounds strange to me:
Duke: There's Westminster Abbey!
Sach: Why don't you get a room there?
Duke: Are you out of your mind? You can only get a room there when you're dead!
Sach: That's what I'm saying, Why don't you get a room there?
In earlier films, I believe that it would have been reversed, with Duke good-naturedly ribbing Sach. It just sounds ... off, for Sach to say this.
Sach in general acted a little bit strange in the film as well. I don't quite know how to explain it, but he seemed more bold and unlike himself, making cracks that Duke (or Slip, for that matter) wouldn't have taken in past films. Why does Duke just let Sach say this and other things in the film without batting an eye or retorting? That's not the short-tempered Bowery Boy leader I know and love. It doesn't make sense! It wouldn't be in Duke's nature to let those remarks slip by without threatening Sach in some way, and Slip wouldn't either, so here's an example of Duke not acting like himself or his predecessor, either.
The film's end result has left me figuratively scratching my head in confusion. On the one hand, they tried to make Duke even more into a Slip clone, and on the other, they seemed to try all the more to make Sach seem like the leader with Duke as his (sometimes not-too-bright himself) sidekick, which is unthinkable for both the Slip films and the earlier Duke films. In the latter, when Sach would seemingly play leader, that's how I always thought of it: that he was just playing, kidding. Here, it just doesn't seem that way as much. The writers seemed so indecisive. Were they trying to write a Slip movie without Slip, or a Duke film, or a film where Sach is seriously taking over as leader?
In the end, I dropped In the Money half a star from what I'd previously rated it as (which was ***, meaning average). It had promise, and the plot was really cute and reminiscent of older BB films, but the bad and pointless and confusing characterizations just gives me a headache. Why couldn't the writers make up their minds on what they wanted?! I know it really isn't meant to be taken seriously, but I think even in comedies it's pretty bad when they can't keep characters' personalities straight.
As you can see, I over-analyze too much. XD But I love it! I've also been writing some stuff about Duke, but I don't know if I'm done with that yet. I've been putting together what we learn about Duke from the films, as well as my own idea of his backstory and how he possibly could be the East Side Kid "Stash."
2. There can be subparts to questions (but since I'm allowing multiple questions, you can just make them separate).
3. That's it. It can be as normal or odd as you like.
Aubrie is finally watching The Monkees, thanks to a torrent she found! XD She seems to like it too, and we are having an email discussion about the Alias Micky Dolenz episode. I'm glad that she's finally seen the point of origin for my mobster stories. ^^
The reunion wasn't really that worth going to. XD; There weren't many people there. But I did get to go to Borders (and Target and Deseret Book), so I can't complain too much. I bought Going My Way at Borders. The only DVD version is on a double-bill with Holiday Inn, which I could care less about, but eh. XD I also bought Mister Roberts and will be taking more pictures of Jimmy before long. And I got YGO Duelist #15, which is incredible. Seto is so awesome in it, and Marik and Rishid interact, and it's the start of the Yugi/Joey duel, which I love.
At Deseret Book I found the Clair Poulson novel I've been wanting, and I used the gift card I had to get it. I love his works so much! He used to be involved in law enforcement, so he brings that knowledge to his books, and he's a local LDS author, so he also brings in gospel principles and such. There's always a lot of suspense, and I love how it's counter-balanced with stuff about God and prayer and that sort of thing. ^^
I found an old movie on YouTube with Leo Gorcey in it! It's called Midnight Manhunt and it's fun. XD This guy gets murdered and there's all kinds of confusion as the body keeps being moved all around. Leo played a variation of his usual character, and did the classic malapropisms. If you go there and search for Leo Gorcey it will come up, as well as a hilarious music video featuring clips from the Dead End Kids, Little Tough Guys, and the East Side Kids films.
I've been reviewing Bowery Boys films over the weekend. XD It's fun, though these latest reviews are quite negative on the particular films I picked. I'm going to include the reviews here.
First, may I say that I've never cared for "jail" movies in general,
but I did try to be fair and impartial while watching both of these films.
A large reason why I don't like jail movies is because it seems so
depressing for someone to be locked up and treated poorly if they
haven't even done anything wrong. Triple Trouble was largely based on
fatalistic humor, which is not something I like much in any situation,
as I feel that it takes unfunny situations and mocks them in vain
attempts to make them funny. Stuff such as Louie's inability to find a
kind person to listen to him, and Slip and Sach getting locked in
solitary, just seems depressing and perhaps a little too realistic for
the Bowery Boys, especially considering the way the material was
treated. Maybe if it had been treated as serious, instead of trying to
make it funny, I would have liked it better.
However, Triple Trouble did have some funny bits, especially the
shortwave radio/Whitey's insomnia angle. And Triple Trouble has
something that Jail Busters does not have: a satisfying resolution.
The Boys were exonerated and able to go home, and it ended in a
trademark way with Sach playing a trick on the others and getting
whacked for it. It makes one feel uplifted and happy to see that they
have conquered another problem successfully, and after all, these
films are supposed to make one laugh and forget about their problems
for a while.
Jail Busters has a very promising, and dare I say, even a startling
opening. Chuck is beaten almost to death! I was not expecting that at
all. I assumed that when I read that he was beaten, that it was
actually not as dark of a situation as it was. The hospital scene was
very dramatic and serious, and I was stunned to see it in one of the
slapstick era films. I had high hopes for the film based on those
sequences. It could have been so much better.
It, then, was very shocking to me in a negative way that it made a 180
degree turn to end on a note of non-resolution, like a cartoon. I was
expecting more fatalistic humor, which there was in varying degrees,
and I was also suspicious that it would end as it did, but I had been
hoping that I would be proven wrong.
Also disappointing was that we never saw Chuck again after the
hospital scene. We only heard that he and Louie had been kidnapped. If
this had been an earlier film, we would have seen these things happen
and not just found out about them, as if they were of little
consequence. Chuck's beating was the event that the entire movie was
riding on! We should have at least been allowed to see that he was
recovering.
Both films, in my opinion, are not among the Boys' best work, but
Triple Trouble had a better plot structure, was more well-rounded, and
all of the characters were given fair screentime, not just the ones in
jail. Triple Trouble also has a resolution, as mentioned, which I do
believe is very important. Not completely fixing the problem is
cartoonish and depressing when one wants to see the Boys come out of
their problem with flying colors.
In short, while I'm not fond of either film, I would give Triple
Trouble a higher rating than Jail Busters.
And this one:
When I first watched this film, I did not have a very high opinion of it. The plot was good, and cute, but there just seemed to be something that was off. I watched it again this morning in the hopes that maybe my opinion would change, as it has for Trouble Makers and Fighting Trouble, and my opinion did change, but not for the better. I figured out what was off: the characterization, and it was much more of a headache in this film than anything Fighting Trouble did.
Let me quote from The Films of the Bowery Boys book concerning this film: "In the Money has the favorite characterizations, chases, improbable gags, a straightforward plot, and a favorable locale." Now, I agree with most all of this, except the first remark. Yes, there are the favorite characterizations, If, IF this is a Leo Gorcey film. But it is not. And it doesn't really seem like a Duke film, either. In fact, I'm not sure what I'd classify it as.
I, frankly, have never seen the writers try so hard to make Duke into a Slip clone. I did not pick up on this the first time around because at that time I had only seen a couple of Slip movies. But now this fact is glaringly obvious to me. Not only do they give him more malapropisms than they ever have before, but (I have to say it) they seem to have lowered his IQ in general. I've always felt that Duke is more educated than Sach or Slip, and that this comes across in some of the other films, but for In the Money (and to a lesser extent in Up in Smoke) they change his character so he's more like Slip, education level-wise. (Duke doesn't know that a veterinarian is a dog doctor?! I can't buy that. I could see Slip being confused on it, due to his fractures of the English language, but for Duke it isn't believeable.)
Also, this dialogue here sounds strange to me:
Duke: There's Westminster Abbey!
Sach: Why don't you get a room there?
Duke: Are you out of your mind? You can only get a room there when you're dead!
Sach: That's what I'm saying, Why don't you get a room there?
In earlier films, I believe that it would have been reversed, with Duke good-naturedly ribbing Sach. It just sounds ... off, for Sach to say this.
Sach in general acted a little bit strange in the film as well. I don't quite know how to explain it, but he seemed more bold and unlike himself, making cracks that Duke (or Slip, for that matter) wouldn't have taken in past films. Why does Duke just let Sach say this and other things in the film without batting an eye or retorting? That's not the short-tempered Bowery Boy leader I know and love. It doesn't make sense! It wouldn't be in Duke's nature to let those remarks slip by without threatening Sach in some way, and Slip wouldn't either, so here's an example of Duke not acting like himself or his predecessor, either.
The film's end result has left me figuratively scratching my head in confusion. On the one hand, they tried to make Duke even more into a Slip clone, and on the other, they seemed to try all the more to make Sach seem like the leader with Duke as his (sometimes not-too-bright himself) sidekick, which is unthinkable for both the Slip films and the earlier Duke films. In the latter, when Sach would seemingly play leader, that's how I always thought of it: that he was just playing, kidding. Here, it just doesn't seem that way as much. The writers seemed so indecisive. Were they trying to write a Slip movie without Slip, or a Duke film, or a film where Sach is seriously taking over as leader?
In the end, I dropped In the Money half a star from what I'd previously rated it as (which was ***, meaning average). It had promise, and the plot was really cute and reminiscent of older BB films, but the bad and pointless and confusing characterizations just gives me a headache. Why couldn't the writers make up their minds on what they wanted?! I know it really isn't meant to be taken seriously, but I think even in comedies it's pretty bad when they can't keep characters' personalities straight.
As you can see, I over-analyze too much. XD But I love it! I've also been writing some stuff about Duke, but I don't know if I'm done with that yet. I've been putting together what we learn about Duke from the films, as well as my own idea of his backstory and how he possibly could be the East Side Kid "Stash."
