Huh. What a strange way to start a movie…

Anyway, this is a very unrestored DVD — I’m guessing the film is in the public domain? My DVD looks very er cheap.

But they’re not playing football!

And then we’re onto the modern footage? Huh. Harold Lloyd doesn’t look that different… was that er just a fib? I guess Wikipedia says it’s accurate.

Wow. The producer, Howard Hughes, pulled the film, and re-shot parts of it and released in as Mad Wednesday four years later. And:

Both versions of the film, as originally released and as altered by Hughes, still exist. According to All Movie Guide’s Hal Erikson, the shorter version plays better for audiences, while the original is richer in its comic invention and characterizations.

Er… Damn those audiences, who like the less rich film better!!!1!

Time passes…

I absolutely adore some of Sturges’ earlier movies, but this is his first after he was booted from the studio(s), and… it doesn’t have the same zip as those films. Things just seem a bit off? The cinematography is rather pedestrian, and the editing is positively plodding. I guess it lacks the professional sheen of the major studios?

It tries really hard, I guess? It’s aiming for hilarious schtick, but it lands at vaguely amusing instead. (But I think mileage will vary — it’s like an oldee tymey variety show skit.)

Now I changed my mind! This is pretty funny.

Nice kitten.

Geez. That cat seems a bit overly playful…

AAAAAA

This starts off a bit janky, but then it turns into something totally different — something hilarious. And then it turns into a hi-jinx thing with Lloyd (and a lion) hanging off of a tall building (and that scene is totally insane and exciting). And then we get a romance at the end!

It barely coheres into a movie, but it’s really fun. I’m not sure how to throw the die on this one… The start is a ⚂, and then it’s a ⚄. So let’s go with:

The Sin of Harold Diddlebock. Preston Sturges. 1947. ⚃

This is very Sex and the City.

Oh, yeah, this movie flopped big time, didn’t it? And I think I can see why already — I’ve read some of the press on this, and Eichner was going “finally, a gay rom com”. But it’s way zanier than that. It’s got a total screwball comedy vibe. The jokes come so fast and are so tight it makes your head swim.

This has so many good gags. But there’s something odd about the pacing or the edit or something. This goes gag, gag, gag, gag, emotional plot scene, gag, gag, gag, and it just doesn’t quite connect up.

I don’t mean to make totally unreasonable comparisons, but I rewatched Bringing Up Baby a few weeks back, and it’s also a gag-heavy film that’s also a romance, but they were able to mix the elements flawlessly. Here they sort of stop and signal “ok, this is the serious bit” and it’s a bit weird.

*gasp*

I really like Eichner, but it’s a lot to ask him to carry a film like this. Because the other lead is … really leaden.

*snicker*

*snicker*

Oh, yeah… we’re in the third act? This is kinda tedious now.

This is more of a ⚂ movie — it just doesn’t quite work. But there’s a bunch of funny scenes, so:

Bros. Nicholas Stoller. 2022. ⚃

Finally a quality movie!!!

See?

I’m not quite sure why I bought this film… uhm… oh yeah — I was watching a movie doc about 80s special effects, and somebody there said that this movie had the best practical creature effects ever? Or something? I may be misremembering this totally…

Wow… is that matte painting? Surely that can’t be a real set — it’s huge.

Evil-Lyn!

I’ve never seen the cartoon this is based on, but I’m fascinated by the names already.

I think it’s a real, huge set! Wow. So much MDF.

But it’s really oddly shot. You’d think they’d want to show it off better than this — do some epic shots of people posing here, instead of shooting Dolph from the back half the time. Hm…

Oh, this is Goddard’s first and last directing job. He went on to design amusement park rides!

This film, along with Superman IV, led to Cannon and Golan/Globus eventually going bankrupt.

Now kiss.

Yes, yes, I know this is meant for children, but even as a movie for ten-year-olds, it’s kinda badly made? And boring? I had no hopes whatsoever for this being watchable — I mean, it’s a He-Man movie by Cannon! But it’s so much worse than you could reasonably expect.

It’s like they have no idea how to place people in a shot.

Oh the snark.

Accurate.

How do you spell “blocking” anyway?

It’s basically filmed like a no budget 50s film — but the thing is that this had a pretty decent budget — $17M, which wasn’t peanuts for Cannon. And they apparently spent all that money on the sound stage and moisturiser for Dolph, leaving no money to hire a crew that knows how to point a camera towards actors. Or perhaps the director just wouldn’t let them do their jobs?

Masters of the Universe. Gary Goddard. 1987. ⚀