My brother and I saw this the other day on BluRay; while we liked it a fair bit more than you did, it wasn't anywhere near as good as the original.
I feel pretty much the same as you. I saw it at the cinemas (twice in fact) and I quite enjoyed it. Is it a masterpiece? No, but then I never expected it to be. The original also is no masterpiece, but both films (particularly the original) are IMO enormously entertaining. What more can I ask for?
BTW, am I the only person who thinks that Diane Kruger looks really beautiful at the end when wet?
I also saw this movie in the theater and found it enormously entertaining. Yes, I know the plot is full of holes, but the situations they get themselves in and out of were very clever, the cast was very good and it had more humor than the first one. My wife liked this one better than the first because of the humor.
Yes Tony, the page 47 thing I believe is the set up for the next film and yes Dan, Diane Kruger is beautiful.
What a downer. I should have remembered that "mist" is German slang for manure. . .
Don't know if you ever read the original Stephen King novella on which the film is based, but that had a more ambiguous and also hopeful ending. When I discovered how the movie ends, I quickly lost all interest in even seeing it as those last few minutes pretty much render the entire film pointless. Manure indeed.
I also saw this movie in the theater and found it enormously entertaining. Yes, I know the plot is full of holes, but the situations they get themselves in and out of were very clever, the cast was very good and it had more humor than the first one. My wife liked this one better than the first because of the humor.
Yes Tony, the page 47 thing I believe is the set up for the next film and yes Dan, Diane Kruger is beautiful.
According to boxofficemojo.com Book of Secrets actually made more money than the first National Treasure. I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been any sequel buzz yet.
As to my last film seen, my brother and I recently bought our parents a new hi-def TV (their 25 year old clunker having finally kicked the bucket). I hooked up an upconverting DVD player and put on Cecile B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments for them as it is one of their favorite movies. I hadn't seen the film in years (the last time was on said old washed out dinosaur of a TV) and we were all absolutely shocked at how vivid the movie's color palette was. All the colors - from the red and blue fabrics to the sparkling gold jewelry to the burning yellow sand practically leaped off the screen. It was quite the revelation and I felt as though I was watching the movie for the first time. Yes, the dialog is often hokey and the acting often too bombastic but the sheer spectacle of the thing, when viewed properly just blew me away.
What a downer. I should have remembered that "mist" is German slang for manure. . .
Don't know if you ever read the original Stephen King novella on which the film is based, but that had a more ambiguous and also hopeful ending. When I discovered how the movie ends, I quickly lost all interest in even seeing it as those last few minutes pretty much render the entire film pointless. Manure indeed.
I also saw this movie in the theater and found it enormously entertaining. Yes, I know the plot is full of holes, but the situations they get themselves in and out of were very clever, the cast was very good and it had more humor than the first one. My wife liked this one better than the first because of the humor.
Yes Tony, the page 47 thing I believe is the set up for the next film and yes Dan, Diane Kruger is beautiful.
According to boxofficemojo.com Book of Secrets actually made more money than the first National Treasure. I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been any sequel buzz yet.
As to my last film seen, my brother and I recently bought our parents a new hi-def TV (their 25 year old clunker having finally kicked the bucket). I hooked up an upconverting DVD player and put on Cecile B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments for them as it is one of their favorite movies. I hadn't seen the film in years (the last time was on said old washed out dinosaur of a TV) and we were all absolutely shocked at how vivid the movie's color palette was. All the colors - from the red and blue fabrics to the sparkling gold jewelry to the burning yellow sand practically leaped off the screen. It was quite the revelation and I felt as though I was watching the movie for the first time. Yes, the dialog is often hokey and the acting often too bombastic but the sheer spectacle of the thing, when viewed properly just blew me away.
You are a good son Tony, however I was wondering if your parents thought the new television was better, or did they still miss their old faithful box. I know when my dad was around he never thought anything new was any good. BTW - The Ten Commandments is a great film.
Thanks Barry. I do what I must to make sure I don't get cut out of the will. )
however I was wondering if your parents thought the new television was better, or did they still miss their old faithful box. I know when my dad was around he never thought anything new was any good. BTW - The Ten Commandments is a great film.
They're hardly videophiles but the were able to make out the difference. Truth be told it did pain my mother greatly to part with the old clunker. It was one of those console style TV's with wood all around. Tacky as hell by today's standards and the thing must have weighed at least 450 pounds; Circuit City actually had to call in a second truck to be able to haul it away.
As to the new TV, the console style is long gone and mom made it clear that she didn't want a TV with an all black casing (it's an Italian thing). That killed about 95% of the available models. In the end she found a Phillips Magnavox that she liked (it was silver with black accents). I don't even think she bothered to look at the picture once while in the store. It wouldn't have been my first choice but as long as she was happy, I was cool with it. Turns out it puts out a very nice picture. I upgraded their satellite service to HD and between that and their screening of Commandments, even they could tell the difference.
With the passing of Paul Schofield earlier this year, I thought I'd check this out. It's set in the time of Henry VIII (early 1500s) and deals with the King's clash with the Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas Moor over his attempts to divorce and remarry to secure an heir.
At first the film seemed a bit twee, suffering from that problem with 1960s films, it seems all a bit Highgate and Hampstead, like Dr Zhivago, also penned by Robert Bolt.
But it grows on you. Henry VIII turns up sparingly and is played as a cunning, boisterous bully by Robert 'Red Grant' Shaw, in the manner of Prince Harry trying to get past a jobsworth bouncer at a nightclub or Wayne Rooney trying to appeal to an intransigent referee.
John 'Professor Ox' Hurt is a young protege of More's - though one feels if Schofield had lived long enough he'd say to Hurt now: "It prospers a man nothing to sell his soul for Hollywood - but Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls? " ) I guess you'd have to have seen the film recently to get that reference...
Mainly shot on the river Thames, in a way reminiscent of A Lion in Winter, set some 300 years earlier.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
What a downer. I should have remembered that "mist" is German slang for manure. . .
Don't know if you ever read the original Stephen King novella on which the film is based, but that had a more ambiguous and also hopeful ending. When I discovered how the movie ends, I quickly lost all interest in even seeing it as those last few minutes pretty much render the entire film pointless. Manure indeed.
Wow, that's harsh. I reviewed The Mist a page or two ago---but I actually think it's a pretty (cheeky) cool horror film until the final scene, when Darabont deliberately steers straight for the ditch. Still, artistically I understand his decision, even if I don't agree with it. That's art, though. Manure is, IMO, something else entirely.
I'm glad I saw it. Too bad there isn't an alternative (literary-faithful) alternative you can tack onto it via DVD.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
David Ayer, who wrote Training Day, about 2 cops driving around LA getting in trouble, then made his directorial debut with Harsh Times, a film in which a guy who wants to be a cop and his mate drive about LA getting in trouble, has now made Street Kings, a film in which a cop drives about LA getting in trouble before he gets another cop involved and they both drive around LA getting in trouble. Does this guy have issues with law enforcement and driving in LA or what? To be fair, this is taken from a screenplay treatment by James Ellroy and while his thematic interests are present, police corruption, redemption, all the other stuff that makes his fiction interesting has been excised by Ayer and all that is left is two guys, a car, trouble in LA, and so much bull****.
The Virgin Queen (1955) is set from 1881 onwards and deals with a kind of love triangle between Elizabeth I, the ambitious Walter Raleigh and Beth Throgmorton, a lady in court.
The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939) is set in 1895 and deals with love affair between Elizabeth I and the ambitious Earl of Essex, who is fancied by Lady Penlope Gray.
Bette Davis plays the fiery monarch in both movies. As you can see, the chronology is out of whack; she is meant to be older in the earlier film.
Actually both films are pretty rubbish. The Virgin Queen is really about Walter Raleigh and his attempts to ingratiate himself with the Queen so he can build a ship and go search for spices and gold - don't mix him up with Drake and the Armada. Richard Todd is Raleigh but can't convey headstrong and passionate, Joan Collins is his trollopy love interest, lust really. It's a typical 1950s Cinemscope bore, a dead film.
The other with Errol Flynn as the love interest is a Michael Curtiz film so it looks similar to The Adventures of Robin Hood is not much better in spite of that. There's no chemistry between Davis and Flynn, who hated each other, and weird in a Harold and Maude way to have the virile young man pining for this greyed up ageing queen (her age isn't specified). Vincent Price has a early role as Raleigh, Essex's rival in court, but as the romance between Liz and Essex is quite fictional, it all seems a bit pointless.
Two movies about Elizabeth 1 and no mention of the Spanish Armada in any of them seems something of an oversight.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited June 2008
"The Incredible Hulk"
A cracking good time at the cinema; not high art, but IMO superior to Ang Lee's effort (which I also enjoyed, mind you). This one wisely includes more of an element of fun in the mix---no repressed memory of 'Daddy killed Mommy' tragedy to weigh the piece down, thank God---with a story that moves straight ahead.
This one is much more well-structured, with a running time (under 2 hrs) that makes sense. Act 3 goes a bit askew (tends to be a Marvel trait), but the action is a blast and the inescapable CGI does its job. Hulk is lit differently (more subdued) in this one, which certainly helps, and a scene in the rain comes off pretty well.
Edward Norton makes an excellent Bruce Banner; the delectable Liv Tyler is good as Betty Ross (although some of their scenes together didn't quite work for me---not sure if it's a dialogue thing or a performance thing), and William Hurt's General Ross is effective. Tim Roth is an excellent heavy; but I wasn't crazy about what they did with the Abomination. Still, it's better than Nick Nolte turning into a giant storm cloud
Excellent cameo by Robert Downey, Jr's Tony Stark in the final scene---with the inclusion of the super soldier serum, they're well on their way to an Avengers storyline! B-) Also very cool was an oblique nod to Bill Bixby, when Banner watches a rerun of "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" on Brazilian TV! Plus an extended cameo by Lou Ferrigno, who has a couple of lines in this one, and the ubiquitous Stan Lee in another great appearance I was also pleasantly surprised to hear the strains of "The Incredible Hulk" TV show theme early on.
A very good summer film, and an able companion piece to IM (though I'd give the overall nod to IM). Highly recommended for fans of the comic book, and the old TV show
It was a packed and enthusiastic Opening Day house---cheers and appreciative responses to the spoilers above---but I seriously doubt that this one can defeat Jack Black's Kung Fu Panda to rule the box office roost. Still, I'm quite confident that fledgling Marvel Studios has another solid hit on its hands...
The boys loved it...and their old man was never bored
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A pretty good horror film about English soldiers encountering Werewolfs in the forrests of Scottland. The lead actor (Kevin McKidd) looked really familiar to me. When I first saw him, I though he was Paul Bettany as he very much looks like Bettany. However it turns out that he was in the TV show Rome (he played Lucius Vorenus.)
I very much enjoyed this film. It did take a while to get going and it isn't particularly original (it even references Night of the Living Dead.) It is also pretty obvious in ramming home that the werewolf myth is really about men's fear of femininity. But nonetheless, it is really fun, terrifically acted and enormously suspensful.
I also discovered that I really do have a dark side as, towards the end, I thought of an ending that was much darker than the film's actual ending. :v
Anyway, I had a great time and I would definitely recommend this film. {[]
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It showed how disturbing and violent the Vietnam War was. I'm sure the real war was much worst, but this gave me an idea of how bad things have gotten and how bad they may get in the future. The film was full of terrific performances also. Charlie Sheen, Forest Whitaker, and Tom Berenger were all wonderful. I especially loved William Dafoe in this.
William Dafoe's death scene accompanied with "Adagio for Strings" was one of the most moving scenes I have ever watched.
This movie is definitely a 10/10 in my opinion and I recommend anyone who hasn't seen this already to watch it. {[]
Loeffs, your Hulk spoiler really isn't. . .there's a commercial that uses the scene itself, obviously to lure in fans of Iron Man!
Anyway, a couple of days ago I watched The Kite Runner. A bit schmaltzy at times, but also at times quite moving; and, like the other Marc Forster films I've seen, well-acted and beautifully photographed. What bodes well for QOS is that there's a fight scene that occurs late in the film that's gripping and powerful, and Forster makes the sequences of competitive kite flying downright exciting. If he handles the promised "dogfight" as well as he handled the fighting kites, we could be in for a treat.
My brother and I also saw The Incredible Hulk today. Overall, a well done and enjoyable summer movie somewhat hampered by a few minor problems.
The film is a synthesis of the old TV show (Bruce Banner is very much the man on the run desperately searching for a cure to his gamma radiation affliction that turns him into a raging monster) and the comic books (from which we get the more outrageous villains, hardware and several supporting characters).
Edward Norton (who is not really one of my favorite actors) does a very good job at selling Banner's plight and is able to sell the sense of urgency that the character is often weighed under. Louis Letterier succeeds showing us the the suffering Banner must endure, while never sinking to the pathetic depths that Sam Raimi put Spider-Wuss through.
Unfortunately, most of the supporting cast don't fare nearly as well. William Hurt's General Ross is the classic two-dimensional army guy who can only see the military viewpoint of any situation. Liv Tyler usually comes across as a wide-eyed, love struck damsel in distress although she does show some chops in a scene where she angrily confronts her father. Tim Roth is very good as Emil Blonsky, showing us a man who lives only for combat. He fears losing his youth and will do anything to recapture it; unfortunately the movie drops the ball somewhat in depicting Blonsky's slow descent into madness as he tries to learn the Hulk's secrets. Lastly, Tim Blake Nelson goes a little over the top as Samuel Sterns, a scientist who is ostensibly trying to help Banner cure his affliction.
The action scenes are fast, noisy (almost painfully so at times) and engaging. Although, quite frankly, nothing in this movie really approaches the scope of the sequence in the 2003 Hulk film where the creature escapes from the army's underground research facility and does battle with the army across the desert and ultimately into San Fancisco. This time around, the action is somewhat more modest and with generally fewer pieces on the gameboard. Even the big confrontation with the Abomination at the end, despite a ton of collateral damage, seems to come to a resolution fairly quickly.
The CGI is also somewhat inconsistent. Most of the time, the Hulk looks pretty good. But there are also a few scenes where he doesn't look quite right (I actually thought the scene in the rain was one of the weaker ones, as it looked more like the Hulk was covered in oil to me). Luckily, he is often in the shadows or moving quickly, so the effect still works.
The film does end on a high note with two very entertaining and interesting scenes...
First, is the much ballyhooed cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark where he tells the now disgraced General Ross that he's "putting a team together". Quite honestly, Downey's magnetism in this brief scene eclipses just about every one else in the movie.
And then, right at the end, there's a very clever shot of Banner meditating...and smiling as he opens his eyes and we see the familiar green glow. The suggestion of course is that he has learned to control the creature within him and that hints at all kinds of possibilities for a sequel.
It's also fairly obvious that a lot of footage was trimmed from the movie to get it in at under two hours. There are some pretty abrupt cuts, several characters show up and inexplicably disappear, and several scenes from the trailers are nowhere to be seen in the finished film. The director has said that 70 minutes of footage was excised from the film. He promises that it will all be restored for the inevitable DVD and I genuinely look forward to seeing it.
My criticisms notwithstanding, I did enjoy the movie a lot (much more than a lot of other Marvel films including any of the Spiderman movies or even the first two X-Men films). It ditches the psychological aspects of the 2003 Ang Lee version in favor of a more visceral, kinetic, action-fest and sets up the Hulk as a force to be reckoned with, either in his own standalone films or as a supporting character in other franchises.
As a summer event/popcorn flick it definitely scores a bullseye and should not be missed.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Loeffs, your Hulk spoiler really isn't. . .there's a commercial that uses the scene itself, obviously to lure in fans of Iron Man!
Ah well ;% Better safe than sorry.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Classic 70s film noir. A niggling mystery hangs over it from the outset – chiefly, is that really Mr Wint from Diamonds Are Forever as private investigator Jack Nicolson's right-hand man? (Yes, it is! {[] )
Unusually for a noir, much of it takes place in startling daylight, until the night closes in. Faye Dunaway is great in it, both posh and sensual. But they're all good, inc Nicolson of course and John Huston. Only one snag, the way the pvt investigator goes wandering into the villain's lair with no back-up, saying, oh, and here's the one bit of evidence I've got against you! Like that might not be a tad ill-advised! 8-)
My brother and I also saw The Incredible Hulk today...
And then, right at the end, there's a very clever shot of Banner meditating...and smiling as he opens his eyes and we see the familiar green glow. The suggestion of course is that he has learned to control the creature within him and that hints at all kinds of possibilities for a sequel.
Yes I found that scene interesting too. Perhaps Bruce Banner has
managed to control his "Hulk outs" and has become the Smart Hulk.
With Edward Norton reportedly making daily re-writes to the script, with details harking back to the comic books, perhaps this may be true. If so, it would be definitely work better for the proposed Avengers movie.
By the way, I loved the film. Despite the fact that the inclusion of Betty Ross slowed down the pace of the film. And I used to think that Liv Tyler's voice was appealing, now I've just grown tired of it.
Drawn Out Dad.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
1970s Italian horror recommended by an ajb member who compared it favourably to the grisly Hostel 2, a woman in peril horror only with a touch more atmosphere and class.
An American teen attends a ballet school in Vienna or somewhere; but it hides a sinister secret - and she's driven nuts by someone playing Tubular Bells from their cassette player at nights... )
Not bad but not really that terrifying unless large chunks of it were cut. Oddly it has that staple of Italian films where the actors have to speak a foreign language and get dubbed later or something, I don't know.
I've read the first 10 of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe novels, and only recently have I started ordering the TV movies from Netflix. Last night I saw Sharpe's Eagle from 1993, and I was intrigued by the actor playing the arrogant and sadistic Lt. Barry. My thought process went from "He looks familiar" to "I'm sure I've seen him before" to "Is that--?" to "No way" to "It could be--" to "Well he does look kind of like--" to "It IS!" Yep, the 26-year-old actor in question was none other than Daniel Craig, quite a bit heavier than he is now and with his head covered in a curly brown wig and with his eyebrows dyed black.
I'm not sure what to make of the Sharpe movies on the whole. None of the characters are really as I imagined them--of course, I always see Victor McLaglen as Sgt. Harper--and I can't say I like the way Sharpe becomes Major Hogan's puppet or David Troughton's portrayal of Wellington as the biggest twit in the British army. But I guess I'll march on. . .
I saw The Incredible Hulk yesterday. I liked it, but on the whole I'd rank it as a "mid-tier" Marvel adaptation. The story is pretty predictable (Hulk gets chased by the army, but in the end proves his worth by defeating a REAL threat) and even a little sloppy--Betty's boyfriend couldn't have been more hurriedly sent out of the movie if the Hulk himself had kicked him into the next county. I also sort-of missed the epic feel Ang Lee brought to his film--yes, it has its flaws, but there's also a sense of tragedy and grandeur to the proceedings. Still, what I liked about this Hulk was its cast, the moments of genuine humor (the purple pants scene, and pretty much every minute Tim Blake Nelson was on screen), the excellent special effects, and the real lack of pretension. This Hulk is just plain fun, and that says a lot.
I saw The Incredible Hulk yesterday. I liked it, but on the whole I'd rank it as a "mid-tier" Marvel adaptation.
Good to see you enjoying some of your movies, HB, you went thru a rough patch recently. Can I recommend The Love Guru - that's been getting pretty good reviews I hear.
Good to see you enjoying some of your movies, HB, you went thru a rough patch recently. Can I recommend The Love Guru - that's been getting pretty good reviews I hear.
?:) Before Hulk, I gave a rave to The Assassination of Jesse James, a thumbs-down to The Mist, and a mixed review to Sharpe's Eagle--doesn't sound too rough to me! But, anyway, I tend to see a lot of films in the week, and I usually only post in this forum when the movie is so good I want others to see it, so bad I want to warn others away from it, or when there's something interesting about it that's worth kicking around.
Anyway (I): Last night I saw Lars and the Real Girl--look up John Drake's review from a few pages back and you'll pretty much get my opinion.
Anyway (II): Not sure what reviews you're reading, NP, but stateside the reviews of The Love Guru have been dreadful and the clips look downright awful to me. Ooh, dwarf jokes! A Hindu association is also demanding that the studio attach a disclaimer to the movie, since they feel it demeans Hinduism. I dunno, I suspect there's bad karma connected to that project.
No, I mean you'd reviewed a few pages back some right stinkers, very obscure too. I've joined a DVD renting service and have some 40 classic movies backed up, everything from The Sea Hawk to Sleuth to A History of Violence. There's simply no time to be watching drek these days, I find.
A History of Violence. There's simply no time to be watching drek these days, I find.
A very good film, that. Probably the closest we will get to a decent Matt Helm picture (the concept is similar to the retired agent now a family man forced to become re-activated by circumstances beyond his control found in Death of a Citizen). Viggo Mortensen is brilliant in it.
Recently I re-watched Licence To Kill. Not *quite* perfect but a bloody good Bond film, with a commanding Bond performance from Mr Dalton.
Only one snag, the way the pvt investigator goes wandering into the villain's lair with no back-up, saying, oh, and here's the one bit of evidence I've got against you! Like that might not be a tad ill-advised! 8-)
The idea is that, like most Noir protagonists, he's a 'Lone Wolf' character. Although he does have assistants, he generally does things on his own and is unlikely to call upon backup unless it is absolutely necessary, and even then, he probably won't.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This is not a great film. I know, what a shock. ) Seriously, this is the new film from writer/producer/director M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense) and is essentially about people committing suicide for seemingly no reason at all.
The film has alot of flaws, not the least of which it gets quite absurd sometimes and is badly and confusingly shot, but I think it is a very effective film. It is quite chilling at times, enormously creepy towards the end, has an intriguing premise and stars Mark Wahlberg (whom I like alot.)
There has been alot of criticism of this film. Personally, I find alot of the abuse that is heaped upon this film to be vastly OTT. Yes, it it's not a particularly good film, but give me a hundred The Happenings over the remake of Halloween anytime. Additionally, I think that the performances, whilst not paricularly impressive (sadly Mark was having an off day at the office) to be nowhere near as bad as what some people have been saying. I suspect that many of the more vehement critics are taking this film far too seriously.
To conclude, let me just advice that this is a film probably best left to dvd. I don't think it is anywhere near good enough to justify spending x amount at the cinemas, but I don't see any harm in watching it for less money on dvd. It is no masterpiece, and is in fact pretty forgettable, but it is also quite entertaining and I can think of worse ways to spend 90 minutes.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
I also saw this movie in the theater and found it enormously entertaining. Yes, I know the plot is full of holes, but the situations they get themselves in and out of were very clever, the cast was very good and it had more humor than the first one. My wife liked this one better than the first because of the humor.
Yes Tony, the page 47 thing I believe is the set up for the next film and yes Dan, Diane Kruger is beautiful.
Don't know if you ever read the original Stephen King novella on which the film is based, but that had a more ambiguous and also hopeful ending. When I discovered how the movie ends, I quickly lost all interest in even seeing it as those last few minutes pretty much render the entire film pointless. Manure indeed.
According to boxofficemojo.com Book of Secrets actually made more money than the first National Treasure. I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been any sequel buzz yet.
As to my last film seen, my brother and I recently bought our parents a new hi-def TV (their 25 year old clunker having finally kicked the bucket). I hooked up an upconverting DVD player and put on Cecile B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments for them as it is one of their favorite movies. I hadn't seen the film in years (the last time was on said old washed out dinosaur of a TV) and we were all absolutely shocked at how vivid the movie's color palette was. All the colors - from the red and blue fabrics to the sparkling gold jewelry to the burning yellow sand practically leaped off the screen. It was quite the revelation and I felt as though I was watching the movie for the first time. Yes, the dialog is often hokey and the acting often too bombastic but the sheer spectacle of the thing, when viewed properly just blew me away.
You are a good son Tony, however I was wondering if your parents thought the new television was better, or did they still miss their old faithful box. I know when my dad was around he never thought anything new was any good. BTW - The Ten Commandments is a great film.
Thanks Barry. I do what I must to make sure I don't get cut out of the will.
They're hardly videophiles but the were able to make out the difference. Truth be told it did pain my mother greatly to part with the old clunker. It was one of those console style TV's with wood all around. Tacky as hell by today's standards and the thing must have weighed at least 450 pounds; Circuit City actually had to call in a second truck to be able to haul it away.
As to the new TV, the console style is long gone and mom made it clear that she didn't want a TV with an all black casing (it's an Italian thing). That killed about 95% of the available models. In the end she found a Phillips Magnavox that she liked (it was silver with black accents). I don't even think she bothered to look at the picture once while in the store. It wouldn't have been my first choice but as long as she was happy, I was cool with it. Turns out it puts out a very nice picture. I upgraded their satellite service to HD and between that and their screening of Commandments, even they could tell the difference.
With the passing of Paul Schofield earlier this year, I thought I'd check this out. It's set in the time of Henry VIII (early 1500s) and deals with the King's clash with the Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas Moor over his attempts to divorce and remarry to secure an heir.
At first the film seemed a bit twee, suffering from that problem with 1960s films, it seems all a bit Highgate and Hampstead, like Dr Zhivago, also penned by Robert Bolt.
But it grows on you. Henry VIII turns up sparingly and is played as a cunning, boisterous bully by Robert 'Red Grant' Shaw, in the manner of Prince Harry trying to get past a jobsworth bouncer at a nightclub or Wayne Rooney trying to appeal to an intransigent referee.
John 'Professor Ox' Hurt is a young protege of More's - though one feels if Schofield had lived long enough he'd say to Hurt now: "It prospers a man nothing to sell his soul for Hollywood - but Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls?
Mainly shot on the river Thames, in a way reminiscent of A Lion in Winter, set some 300 years earlier.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wow, that's harsh. I reviewed The Mist a page or two ago---but I actually think it's a pretty (cheeky) cool horror film until the final scene, when Darabont deliberately steers straight for the ditch. Still, artistically I understand his decision, even if I don't agree with it. That's art, though. Manure is, IMO, something else entirely.
I'm glad I saw it. Too bad there isn't an alternative (literary-faithful) alternative you can tack onto it via DVD.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
David Ayer, who wrote Training Day, about 2 cops driving around LA getting in trouble, then made his directorial debut with Harsh Times, a film in which a guy who wants to be a cop and his mate drive about LA getting in trouble, has now made Street Kings, a film in which a cop drives about LA getting in trouble before he gets another cop involved and they both drive around LA getting in trouble. Does this guy have issues with law enforcement and driving in LA or what? To be fair, this is taken from a screenplay treatment by James Ellroy and while his thematic interests are present, police corruption, redemption, all the other stuff that makes his fiction interesting has been excised by Ayer and all that is left is two guys, a car, trouble in LA, and so much bull****.
Scars of Dracula 1970 4/6
Dracula AD 1972 3/6 (Dracula vs hippies , I dunno
I've seen almost all the Draculas Lee did cept for 1970s Count Dracula (Spain production) & 1974s Satanic rites of D.....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939) is set in 1895 and deals with love affair between Elizabeth I and the ambitious Earl of Essex, who is fancied by Lady Penlope Gray.
Bette Davis plays the fiery monarch in both movies. As you can see, the chronology is out of whack; she is meant to be older in the earlier film.
Actually both films are pretty rubbish. The Virgin Queen is really about Walter Raleigh and his attempts to ingratiate himself with the Queen so he can build a ship and go search for spices and gold - don't mix him up with Drake and the Armada. Richard Todd is Raleigh but can't convey headstrong and passionate, Joan Collins is his trollopy love interest, lust really. It's a typical 1950s Cinemscope bore, a dead film.
The other with Errol Flynn as the love interest is a Michael Curtiz film so it looks similar to The Adventures of Robin Hood is not much better in spite of that. There's no chemistry between Davis and Flynn, who hated each other, and weird in a Harold and Maude way to have the virile young man pining for this greyed up ageing queen (her age isn't specified). Vincent Price has a early role as Raleigh, Essex's rival in court, but as the romance between Liz and Essex is quite fictional, it all seems a bit pointless.
Two movies about Elizabeth 1 and no mention of the Spanish Armada in any of them seems something of an oversight.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A cracking good time at the cinema; not high art, but IMO superior to Ang Lee's effort (which I also enjoyed, mind you). This one wisely includes more of an element of fun in the mix---no repressed memory of 'Daddy killed Mommy' tragedy to weigh the piece down, thank God---with a story that moves straight ahead.
This one is much more well-structured, with a running time (under 2 hrs) that makes sense. Act 3 goes a bit askew (tends to be a Marvel trait), but the action is a blast and the inescapable CGI does its job. Hulk is lit differently (more subdued) in this one, which certainly helps, and a scene in the rain comes off pretty well.
Edward Norton makes an excellent Bruce Banner; the delectable Liv Tyler is good as Betty Ross (although some of their scenes together didn't quite work for me---not sure if it's a dialogue thing or a performance thing), and William Hurt's General Ross is effective. Tim Roth is an excellent heavy; but I wasn't crazy about what they did with the Abomination. Still, it's better than Nick Nolte turning into a giant storm cloud
A very good summer film, and an able companion piece to IM (though I'd give the overall nod to IM). Highly recommended for fans of the comic book, and the old TV show
It was a packed and enthusiastic Opening Day house---cheers and appreciative responses to the spoilers above---but I seriously doubt that this one can defeat Jack Black's Kung Fu Panda to rule the box office roost. Still, I'm quite confident that fledgling Marvel Studios has another solid hit on its hands...
The boys loved it...and their old man was never bored
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A pretty good horror film about English soldiers encountering Werewolfs in the forrests of Scottland. The lead actor (Kevin McKidd) looked really familiar to me. When I first saw him, I though he was Paul Bettany as he very much looks like Bettany. However it turns out that he was in the TV show Rome (he played Lucius Vorenus.)
I very much enjoyed this film. It did take a while to get going and it isn't particularly original (it even references Night of the Living Dead.) It is also pretty obvious in ramming home that the werewolf myth is really about men's fear of femininity. But nonetheless, it is really fun, terrifically acted and enormously suspensful.
I also discovered that I really do have a dark side as, towards the end, I thought of an ending that was much darker than the film's actual ending. :v
Anyway, I had a great time and I would definitely recommend this film. {[]
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It showed how disturbing and violent the Vietnam War was. I'm sure the real war was much worst, but this gave me an idea of how bad things have gotten and how bad they may get in the future. The film was full of terrific performances also. Charlie Sheen, Forest Whitaker, and Tom Berenger were all wonderful. I especially loved William Dafoe in this.
This movie is definitely a 10/10 in my opinion and I recommend anyone who hasn't seen this already to watch it. {[]
Anyway, a couple of days ago I watched The Kite Runner. A bit schmaltzy at times, but also at times quite moving; and, like the other Marc Forster films I've seen, well-acted and beautifully photographed. What bodes well for QOS is that there's a fight scene that occurs late in the film that's gripping and powerful, and Forster makes the sequences of competitive kite flying downright exciting. If he handles the promised "dogfight" as well as he handled the fighting kites, we could be in for a treat.
The film is a synthesis of the old TV show (Bruce Banner is very much the man on the run desperately searching for a cure to his gamma radiation affliction that turns him into a raging monster) and the comic books (from which we get the more outrageous villains, hardware and several supporting characters).
Edward Norton (who is not really one of my favorite actors) does a very good job at selling Banner's plight and is able to sell the sense of urgency that the character is often weighed under. Louis Letterier succeeds showing us the the suffering Banner must endure, while never sinking to the pathetic depths that Sam Raimi put Spider-Wuss through.
Unfortunately, most of the supporting cast don't fare nearly as well. William Hurt's General Ross is the classic two-dimensional army guy who can only see the military viewpoint of any situation. Liv Tyler usually comes across as a wide-eyed, love struck damsel in distress although she does show some chops in a scene where she angrily confronts her father. Tim Roth is very good as Emil Blonsky, showing us a man who lives only for combat. He fears losing his youth and will do anything to recapture it; unfortunately the movie drops the ball somewhat in depicting Blonsky's slow descent into madness as he tries to learn the Hulk's secrets. Lastly, Tim Blake Nelson goes a little over the top as Samuel Sterns, a scientist who is ostensibly trying to help Banner cure his affliction.
The action scenes are fast, noisy (almost painfully so at times) and engaging. Although, quite frankly, nothing in this movie really approaches the scope of the sequence in the 2003 Hulk film where the creature escapes from the army's underground research facility and does battle with the army across the desert and ultimately into San Fancisco. This time around, the action is somewhat more modest and with generally fewer pieces on the gameboard. Even the big confrontation with the Abomination at the end, despite a ton of collateral damage, seems to come to a resolution fairly quickly.
The CGI is also somewhat inconsistent. Most of the time, the Hulk looks pretty good. But there are also a few scenes where he doesn't look quite right (I actually thought the scene in the rain was one of the weaker ones, as it looked more like the Hulk was covered in oil to me). Luckily, he is often in the shadows or moving quickly, so the effect still works.
The film does end on a high note with two very entertaining and interesting scenes...
And then, right at the end, there's a very clever shot of Banner meditating...and smiling as he opens his eyes and we see the familiar green glow. The suggestion of course is that he has learned to control the creature within him and that hints at all kinds of possibilities for a sequel.
It's also fairly obvious that a lot of footage was trimmed from the movie to get it in at under two hours. There are some pretty abrupt cuts, several characters show up and inexplicably disappear, and several scenes from the trailers are nowhere to be seen in the finished film. The director has said that 70 minutes of footage was excised from the film. He promises that it will all be restored for the inevitable DVD and I genuinely look forward to seeing it.
My criticisms notwithstanding, I did enjoy the movie a lot (much more than a lot of other Marvel films including any of the Spiderman movies or even the first two X-Men films). It ditches the psychological aspects of the 2003 Ang Lee version in favor of a more visceral, kinetic, action-fest and sets up the Hulk as a force to be reckoned with, either in his own standalone films or as a supporting character in other franchises.
As a summer event/popcorn flick it definitely scores a bullseye and should not be missed.
Ah well ;% Better safe than sorry.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The formula is running thin at this point , you can call it "Police Academy" syndrome
The Jessica in this movie is a snooze , the actress in "AD 1972" was much better imo....
French horror with Beatrice Dalle very convincing as a knife wielding psycho, in a film that has obviously been influenced by J-horror.
Classic 70s film noir. A niggling mystery hangs over it from the outset – chiefly, is that really Mr Wint from Diamonds Are Forever as private investigator Jack Nicolson's right-hand man? (Yes, it is! {[] )
Unusually for a noir, much of it takes place in startling daylight, until the night closes in. Faye Dunaway is great in it, both posh and sensual. But they're all good, inc Nicolson of course and John Huston. Only one snag, the way the pvt investigator goes wandering into the villain's lair with no back-up, saying, oh, and here's the one bit of evidence I've got against you! Like that might not be a tad ill-advised! 8-)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes I found that scene interesting too. Perhaps Bruce Banner has
By the way, I loved the film. Despite the fact that the inclusion of Betty Ross slowed down the pace of the film. And I used to think that Liv Tyler's voice was appealing, now I've just grown tired of it.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
1970s Italian horror recommended by an ajb member who compared it favourably to the grisly Hostel 2, a woman in peril horror only with a touch more atmosphere and class.
An American teen attends a ballet school in Vienna or somewhere; but it hides a sinister secret - and she's driven nuts by someone playing Tubular Bells from their cassette player at nights...
Not bad but not really that terrifying unless large chunks of it were cut. Oddly it has that staple of Italian films where the actors have to speak a foreign language and get dubbed later or something, I don't know.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm not sure what to make of the Sharpe movies on the whole. None of the characters are really as I imagined them--of course, I always see Victor McLaglen as Sgt. Harper--and I can't say I like the way Sharpe becomes Major Hogan's puppet or David Troughton's portrayal of Wellington as the biggest twit in the British army. But I guess I'll march on. . .
Italian horror film from Lamberto Bava. Not nearly as much fun as Demons and I'm afraid to say I found this to be pretty poor.
Good to see you enjoying some of your movies, HB, you went thru a rough patch recently. Can I recommend The Love Guru - that's been getting pretty good reviews I hear.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
?:) Before Hulk, I gave a rave to The Assassination of Jesse James, a thumbs-down to The Mist, and a mixed review to Sharpe's Eagle--doesn't sound too rough to me! But, anyway, I tend to see a lot of films in the week, and I usually only post in this forum when the movie is so good I want others to see it, so bad I want to warn others away from it, or when there's something interesting about it that's worth kicking around.
Anyway (I): Last night I saw Lars and the Real Girl--look up John Drake's review from a few pages back and you'll pretty much get my opinion.
Anyway (II): Not sure what reviews you're reading, NP, but stateside the reviews of The Love Guru have been dreadful and the clips look downright awful to me. Ooh, dwarf jokes! A Hindu association is also demanding that the studio attach a disclaimer to the movie, since they feel it demeans Hinduism. I dunno, I suspect there's bad karma connected to that project.
The Love Guru was not a sincere suggestion...
No, I mean you'd reviewed a few pages back some right stinkers, very obscure too. I've joined a DVD renting service and have some 40 classic movies backed up, everything from The Sea Hawk to Sleuth to A History of Violence. There's simply no time to be watching drek these days, I find.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Recently I re-watched Licence To Kill. Not *quite* perfect but a bloody good Bond film, with a commanding Bond performance from Mr Dalton.
The idea is that, like most Noir protagonists, he's a 'Lone Wolf' character. Although he does have assistants, he generally does things on his own and is unlikely to call upon backup unless it is absolutely necessary, and even then, he probably won't.
This is not a great film. I know, what a shock.
The film has alot of flaws, not the least of which it gets quite absurd sometimes and is badly and confusingly shot, but I think it is a very effective film. It is quite chilling at times, enormously creepy towards the end, has an intriguing premise and stars Mark Wahlberg (whom I like alot.)
There has been alot of criticism of this film. Personally, I find alot of the abuse that is heaped upon this film to be vastly OTT. Yes, it it's not a particularly good film, but give me a hundred The Happenings over the remake of Halloween anytime.
To conclude, let me just advice that this is a film probably best left to dvd. I don't think it is anywhere near good enough to justify spending x amount at the cinemas, but I don't see any harm in watching it for less money on dvd. It is no masterpiece, and is in fact pretty forgettable, but it is also quite entertaining and I can think of worse ways to spend 90 minutes.