Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,722Chief of Staff
The Damned United....a potted history of Brian Clough's 44 day tenure as Leeds Utd boss..and the reasons why he took the job...and failed.
Another great performance from Michael Sheen, he really captures the 'essence' of Clough in this film.
The film only 'lacks' because you're not quite sure what it's aiming to tell you, it recounts the period very well, ticks the relevant boxes, but you're just not sure what you're supposed to 'take away' with you once the film has ended. I certainly enjoyed the film, and definately left wanting more.
If you remember Clough and the period the film covers (1968-74), and like football...then the film is a must.
YNWA 97
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2009
"Shaun Of The Dead"
What a scream. Loved this film. Never mind the trite, somewhat overdone deus ex machina extraction from the crisis at the end---since that was absolved by the ridiculous denouement afterward ) ---this is as fun and entertaining a zombie movie as can probably be made in this day and age. Danny Boyle's fantastic 28 Days Later covers the other end of the tonal spectrum quite nicely; those two films are, to me, the Zombie State of the Art, post-early '80s George Romero B-)
I'd already seen and enjoyed Hot Fuzz, so I'm quite a fan of Simon Pegg. I'm really looking forward to seeing his Montgomery Scott B-)
Highly recommended.
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
OSS 117 star Jean Dujardin leads this erratic comedy attack against consumerism. It's brilliantly directed, ads turn into reality and vice versa, and Dujardin is charismatic, but some of it is just bizarre. It gets a bit preachy. The soundtrack is great though.
This is a creaky black and white movie about Elizabeth I taking on the Spanish Armada. You'd think it was a 1940 film from the heavy-handed parallels over Spain taking over England just as Germany would seek to dominate Europe, but it's only 1937, so remarkably far sighted.
Flora Robson is a quite sexy Elizabeth, she's reprise the role against Errol Flynn in The Sea Hawkes. That said, I had a similarly odd feeling watching this, as nowhere is Francis Drake to be seen, his exploits seem to be offscreen. The main hero is a very young Laurence Olivier, all virile youth like he's one of Take That, and it's not really him to be honest. Look out for a very young James Mason, more subtle as Lord Vain, a would-be traitor.
It's very creaky and in the same bracket as The Scarlet Pimpernel I guess. Must say I tired of the dynamic of Elizabeth - all capricious and abrupt, toying with her male underlings but then kindhearted. I suppose since Dame Judi took over as M, it's the same dynamic, with Bond as the impetuous Francis Drake type character she has to keep in check while he gallivants around the globe causing diplomatic rows. Problem is, in such a dynamic, the bloke's heroics always seem a bit peripheral, like he's just a kid in a playground.
Intriguing animated feature derived from the Watchmen comic book. I guess it is a metaphor about violence destroying a man and leading him into darkness. Or something. Nicely voiced by a growly Gerard Butler.
This is a nice atmospheric little Brit thriller using the now familiar ventriloquist dummy storyline. There are numerous versions I can recall off the top of my head incuding a 30s film starring Lionel Barrymoore, a Tales from the Crypt episode with Don Rickles, and Anthony Hopkins 1978 film, Magic.
What is the mystery behind the "great Vorelli's" dummy? Is it really alive? Watch the film with lovely Yvonne Romain to find out. The twist ending caught me by suprise and the dvd I watched includes both U.S. and "hot continental" versions. (no mystery as to which I delved straight into)
Another from the Shameless stable, an erotic exploitation film based (loosely) on the Marquis de Sade story.
It looks good - a moving picture version of those exotic European holiday brochures your parents would leave lying around the house, which might find its way up to your bedroom on account of a strangely erotic picture on p17.
Sadly, anything you might have thought up to accompany said picture would have had more vitality than this film conjurs up - the leads have no chemistry really and although they speak English, it seems dubbed by bland, handsome, conversational voices and there aren't many close-ups, the whole thing has a detatched, so-what feel.
Loads of breast shots, simulated fellatio in a Rolls Royce seen from a distance and only implied. The irritating score detracts from most of the early erotic scenes; later it picks up a bit but it's all a bit of a snore.
Despite the lacklustre reviews by some on this board, I really enjoyed this tale of football manager Brian Clough's rise. I can nitpick it, but there aren't many movies out there so keen to CHARM me, and I don't mean the wearing, upper middle class charm of Richard Curtis, which has sort of worn thin with his latest. Damned United takes you by the hand and is out to give you a good time, unlike other movies keen to bash you over the head and knock you down.
Twisty-turny-twisty corporate thriller from Tony Gilroy. It is not as smug as his last movie, the Clooney vehicle Michael Clayton, but I spent a lot of time looking at my watch. Or rather looking at my wrist and remembering I don't actually have a watch.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited April 2009
It really does seem as if I'm the last guy on Earth to see some of these films---time goes by; life, work and other things get in the way---so I always feel a bit weird posting my reviews of three year-old films on this thread, but...
"Deja Vu"
A very clever and engaging thriller from veteran director Tony Scott, and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Denzel Washington plays Doug Carlin, an ATF agent who becomes involved in
unsanctioned, government-funded, Top Secret time travel
...while investigating a home-grown terrorist bombing of a ferry in New Orleans. Val Kilmer and Jim Caviezel each turn in very solid supporting performances.
As popcorn flicks go, I'd say this one gets a big 'Thumbs Up'---implausibilities melt (as they are wont to do, when effectively counterbalanced with narrative momentum, dramatic pacing and good dialogue) as this one unwinds to a very satisfying conclusion. A very nifty feat of prestidigitation/misdirection, early in Act 2, gets us 'over the hump,' and we're happily along for the ride.*
Highly recommended.
*Or most of us, anyway. It's quite easy to imagine some not being completely won over---but that's film for you.
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
I remember that film, Loeffs. Had a 12 Monkeys vibe about it, though I imagine
that the original ending had a doomed, tragic, feel to it and it got changed
P'tang, Yang Kipperbang
Coming-of-age tale set in 1948 in which a cricket-obsessed lad has a crush on a schoolgirl in his class. Opportunity knocks when the two of them are cast in a school play - and the final scene requires he kisses her.
UK ajbers of a certain age may remember this, it was screened on the debut evening of Channel 4. The film hasn't dated much; but it wouldn't being already set in the past. Det Sgt Cryer from The Bill shows up, as does Peter Dean from EastEnders as a copper. Alison Steadman doing her neurotic, highly sexed Singing Detective type role. It is also a showcase for Bond connnection Michael Apted's effective, unobtrusive and slightly unremarkable direction.
The title refers to the cliquey ritualistic greeting given by the kid to his friends. Was changed to First Love for other audiences.
Twisty-turny-twisty corporate thriller from Tony Gilroy. It is not as smug as his last movie, the Clooney vehicle Michael Clayton, but I spent a lot of time looking at my watch. Or rather looking at my wrist and remembering I don't actually have a watch.
Every chance then that Mickey and Babs will have him as the next director of the Bond film, as the rumours on mi6.co.uk suggest. We need another director who lets the snooze factor kick in on the hour without fail.
Twisty-turny-twisty corporate thriller from Tony Gilroy. It is not as smug as his last movie, the Clooney vehicle Michael Clayton, but I spent a lot of time looking at my watch. Or rather looking at my wrist and remembering I don't actually have a watch.
Every chance then that Mickey and Babs will have him as the next director of the Bond film, as the rumours on mi6.co.uk suggest. We need another director who lets the snooze factor kick in on the hour without fail.
They can do better than him. I'd rather have a hack than Gilroy. At least the average hack is competent.
Speaking of hacks I saw Gerard Krawczyk's Taxi 4 the other day. There's very little gas left in this fanchise and way too many miles on the clock for Samy Naceri who at 48 is far too old to be playing a boy racer. Still, Krawczyk would be better than Gilroy. At least he can film a car chase. And he put ninjas in Taxi 2. It's about time a James Bond film had some ninjas in it again.
) That tells me everything about your view of the film in just one sentence.
There's a story about a critic either reviewing the film The Bible, which was based on the stories of the book of Genesis, or the film The Greatest Story Ever Told which was about Jesus, (probably the latter) and his review featured just one sentence: 'read the book.' In retrospect however, this may be an example of you had to be there as I thought it was extremely funny when I first heard about it, but it doesn't read quite as humorous.
"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
Never mind Dan... by one of those funny coincidences discussed in another thread, they are showing The Greatest Story Ever Told today (okay, it is Good Friday). A sublime print, with spectacular landscapes in widescreen. However, it is a po-faced, literal rendition almost wholly devoid of wit. Or should that be holy devoid of wit? Still, with a career spanning Christ, a knight having a crisis of faith and evil terrorist mastermind Blofeld, you can't say Max von Sydow hasn't got range of sorts.
Next review: Olivier's Henry V.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
... by one of those funny coincidences discussed in another thread, they are showing The Greatest Story Ever Told today (okay, it is Good Friday). A sublime print, with spectacular landscapes in widescreen. However, it is a po-faced, literal rendition almost wholly devoid of wit. Or should that be holy devoid of wit? Still, with a career spanning Christ, a knight having a crisis of faith and evil terrorist mastermind Blofeld, you can't say Max von Sydow hasn't got range of sorts.
Still, it might be a fair question to ask how much extra 'wit' such a story demands...George Stevens was an excellent director, and turned in a very reverential treatment of the material. Given the era in which the production occurred, it's difficult to imagine the film turning out any other way...
My favourite 'behind the scenes' story about Greatest Story: Of course, the film has an all-star cast; John Wayne had a cameo appearance---and one line---as a Roman Centurion at the scene of the crucifixion. The Duke's line was: "Truly, this man was the Son of God." George Stevens is said to have called for another take, telling Wayne to give the line 'more awe.' As the story goes, when the camera rolled again, John Wayne said: "Aww, truly this man was the Son of God." )
BTW...you can add Satan to von Sydow's resume...he did that in Needful Things, an adaptation of one of Stephen King's three hundred novels
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
Funnily enough part 2, it's also Max Von Sydow's birthday today. -{
Well, Happy Birthday to Jesus Christ/Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Satan {[]
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
Well, not wit as in Life of Brian admittedly but something a bit more savvy, a bit of edge. Those films are very much part of the Roman empire genre, like the Phantom Menace in style. Some more grit would be good.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited April 2009
For grit, see The Passion Of The Christ 1st Century crucifixion was no picnic, to be sure And an accurate depiction of it still drew considerable fire in the jaded, so much more coarsened Modern Hollywood Era...!
I've always thought of films like Greatest Story to be pretty much separate from standard genre classification, save perhaps for a 'biblical' one...
Anyway, I think I know what you're saying...but IMO it really wasn't in the offing in a story about Jesus' life and death, directed by George Stevens, in the era in which it came out. Perhaps the only available 'edginess' parallel for the time is Kubrick's Spartacus, with its veiled gay subtext in a scene or two? But then that's Kubrick, and not Stevens.
At any rate, it is what it is---and that is, it's still being played in 2009, so good on them. I haven't seen it in years---my only copy, on classic VHS, was lost in a typically biblical flood of my basement last spring
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
The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France
Or, just Henry V. This is Olivier's version rather than Branagh's, commissioned I understand by Churchill to help rally the Allied troops for the invasion or liberation of Nazi-occupied France in 1944. After all, Shakespeare's play deals with the Plantagenet king's success in sailing for France and defeating their forces at Azincourt against all the odds.
It's odd to watch this, as it's a history lesson in triplicate. First there's the fact it's a sort of propoganda piece. Then it's of the Shakespearian era, as the stunning opening shot in technicolour is a sweeping view up the Thames of Elizabethan London, from the Tower of London to the Globe Theatre. The conceit is that the play is being staged during the time it was written, and Olivier et al are Shakey's contemporaries. But of course, the events of the play took place some 180 years earlier, in 1415.
I admit I could only follow this with my No Fear Shakespeare guide providing a translation! But I had to turn several pages at a time to keep up, as large chunks are omitted from this version. Usually anything that hints of discord in the British camp, this being a propoganda piece of sorts. So the barons' plot to topple the king on the eve of his departure for France is omitted - though the barons do appear, just without Henry V's Blofeldesque pay off. Also, Henry's talk of ensuring Scotland is subdued as they always used war with France to invade through the backdoor. No wise talk in 1944 when you want the whole of the UK to rally behind you! Also, some historical references: that the King is descended from the French himself, or his remorse expressed over his father Henry IV's actions. (Henry IV aka Richard Bollingbrook was a baron who overthrew Richard II, argubably the last medieval king, and had him starved to death in the tower, casting doubt on Henry V's legitimacy, which he helped assuage by having Richard disinterred and reburried in Westminster Abbey, the proper place for kings.)
They also omit Henry's 'let us in peaceably or I can't be help responsible for my soldiers raping your women' speech to Harfleur, their first port of call on arriving in France.
Anyway, just shy of the half hour mark the play opens up away from the Globe and becomes a real film, albeit with cardboard backdrops etc, and Olivier looks more like the real king.
The best bit is the eve of battle. In the night, the two camps face opposite each other, readying for the next day. The atmosphere as the king walks among his people by night, eavesdropping on their fears and prayers, is wonderful (look out for a very young George Cole - St Trinian's, Minder - as a young lad of the Skins generation!) and quite affecting.
That said, the battle itself is a letdown in a way. Oh, it's a sunny English summer's day but the real Agincourt took place in October in northern France and was a nasty, bloody, claustrophobic affair. It had rained and the French cavalry charged, getting massacred by the English longbows (nasty, effective weapons, not the Robin Hood bows and arrows depicted here). They fell in the mud and were unable to rouse thanks to the heavy armour, they were sitting ducks. The reason only around 8,000 English, worn out by their travels and dysentry, could defeat 30,000 French (see Wiki for details) was because the French were rubbish and lambs to the slaughter.
This is glossed over a bit in the film, which seems to be a jolly canter about in the English Kent countryside! Almost like a boy scout's war game activity! There's also a fabricated section (not in the play I believe) when Henry personally intervenes to avenge a death, in modern Hollywood 'I'm mad as hell' style.
All in all a highly enjoyable movie in glorious technicolour, but I will see Branagh's version as recommended by Dan Same if I recall, to balance it out. And also Luc Brssson's Joan of Arc, as let us not forget that Henry V's achievements were wiped out within only 20 years, so it wasn't an enduring victory, unlike those of, say, Alfred the Great.
Well, one another film where the genre came between me and the story I'm afraid. Not so po-faced however, but the matey banter inserted had me reaching for the volume remote.
The past is a foreign country, so the saying goes, but of course movies can chose to take you on a journey, show you a different culture that may be disconcerting or eerie, with unfamiliar tastes and sights. Or, they can shoehorn the history into our own present preconceptions, the equivalent of booking into a luxury hotel and never stepping out.
Arthur aims to be a Braveheart for the English. It's okay in explaining how the Romans were set to flee Britannica and leave it to the invading Anglo-Saxons, but my understanding is that the Saxons pretty much wiped the floor with them. So if Arthur really was a saviour, a Roman general who stayed on to tackle them, I'm not sure he did very well ultimately. This could have worked with a sense of melancholic doomed heroism to the tale, however.
On a more basic level, its two characters Arthur and Merlin were devoid of charisma, Clive Owen (who I don't normally dislike by any means) delivering every line in the tone of voice a bored Curry's member of staff might inform you that the camera you want is not in stock and would you come back the following week.
Keira Knightley barely features in it - no, not barely sadly, I mean hardly. She fires an arrow and that's about it.
Knowing, the new Nicholas Cage film. It was quite disappointing because they had a good story line to work with but they didn't deliver it.
What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero , or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does.
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
I am watching Luc Besson's Joan of Arc: The Messenger. Or Mad Frogs And Englishmen, if you prefer...
It's good stuff so far. Not sure it works as a movie in its own right, it helps to know the historical context. I should have watched Branagh's Henry V, which is bloodier and more historically ambivalent than Oliver's version, and sets things up for Joan of Arc: The Revenge.
It's uncomfortable to watch being English, as they are the villains here. But it's muddied a bit, as everyone speaks English (albeit with a French or American accent at times) while the English are portrayed as either Scots or lairy cockney London. I really would like to see a French language film depicting this era, as the Normans and Plantagents were French really.
Milla Jollovich is v good as the fanatical/inspired heroine though her oratory and speaking voice isn't really that rousing to lead troops into battle, and she has a sexual quality that belies a woman in the sole service of God. I imagine the real Joan was more transclucently divine. Milla has a touch of the Matt Damon about her after her crop.
Some grisly, bloody battle scenes with severed limbs tell it how it was. I have to admit the film is rousing stuff and as usual it's the wily courtiers who provide much of the drama as they bend the dauphin's (prince's) ear.
I watched this as a companion piece to Luc Besson's modern take and now I'm all Joaned out. Anyway, this is as bleak, minimalistic and stripped down as Besson's take is dramatic. They overlap slightly, but the trial is shown away from the public here whereas in Besson's film Joan (pronounced Jean) finds her defiance is greeted with outraged whispers and exclamations in the crowded court.
As you know, this is about the simple peasant girl who led the fightback against the English invaders in the late 1420s thanks to divine visions, only to fall into the clutches of the Bergundians who handed her over to the English for a showtrial, denouncing her as a witch. She was burned at the stake.
As with everything, you learn to take one step back to take two forward. Joan did have parents who later campagined for her rehabilitation after her death, Besson's film implies she was made an orphan through some English lairy savagery. Her canonisation hundreds of years later was in part due to the Vatican wanting to be nice to France. And she was that much a peasant girl, though she couldn't read or write, hardly unusual back then. Her parents were part of the village aristocracy.
Frances Delay, who plays Jean, has at times the sulky noncompliance of Magda the home help in Jack Dee's sitcom Lead Balloon.
Good stuff but v wordy as it's lifted from the trial documents verbatim.
Korean homage to Sergio Leone's great western. Directed by Ji-Woon Kim (A Tale of Two Sisters, A Bittersweet Life), this features a knockout performance from Kang-Ho Sang as an Eli Wallach-type bandit. Highly recommended.
The Young and the Dangerous 2, stylish sequel to the Hong Kong gangster movie, in which the young Triads find themselves on opposing sides in a gang war.
The Young and the Dangerous 3 is not that great though. This time they have to deal with an arrogant rival who is out of control.
Comments
Another great performance from Michael Sheen, he really captures the 'essence' of Clough in this film.
The film only 'lacks' because you're not quite sure what it's aiming to tell you, it recounts the period very well, ticks the relevant boxes, but you're just not sure what you're supposed to 'take away' with you once the film has ended. I certainly enjoyed the film, and definately left wanting more.
If you remember Clough and the period the film covers (1968-74), and like football...then the film is a must.
What a scream. Loved this film. Never mind the trite, somewhat overdone deus ex machina extraction from the crisis at the end---since that was absolved by the ridiculous denouement afterward
I'd already seen and enjoyed Hot Fuzz, so I'm quite a fan of Simon Pegg. I'm really looking forward to seeing his Montgomery Scott B-)
Highly recommended.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
OSS 117 star Jean Dujardin leads this erratic comedy attack against consumerism. It's brilliantly directed, ads turn into reality and vice versa, and Dujardin is charismatic, but some of it is just bizarre. It gets a bit preachy. The soundtrack is great though.
This is a creaky black and white movie about Elizabeth I taking on the Spanish Armada. You'd think it was a 1940 film from the heavy-handed parallels over Spain taking over England just as Germany would seek to dominate Europe, but it's only 1937, so remarkably far sighted.
Flora Robson is a quite sexy Elizabeth, she's reprise the role against Errol Flynn in The Sea Hawkes. That said, I had a similarly odd feeling watching this, as nowhere is Francis Drake to be seen, his exploits seem to be offscreen. The main hero is a very young Laurence Olivier, all virile youth like he's one of Take That, and it's not really him to be honest. Look out for a very young James Mason, more subtle as Lord Vain, a would-be traitor.
It's very creaky and in the same bracket as The Scarlet Pimpernel I guess. Must say I tired of the dynamic of Elizabeth - all capricious and abrupt, toying with her male underlings but then kindhearted. I suppose since Dame Judi took over as M, it's the same dynamic, with Bond as the impetuous Francis Drake type character she has to keep in check while he gallivants around the globe causing diplomatic rows. Problem is, in such a dynamic, the bloke's heroics always seem a bit peripheral, like he's just a kid in a playground.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sorry, a pet peeve of mine!
Intriguing animated feature derived from the Watchmen comic book. I guess it is a metaphor about violence destroying a man and leading him into darkness. Or something. Nicely voiced by a growly Gerard Butler.
This is a nice atmospheric little Brit thriller using the now familiar ventriloquist dummy storyline. There are numerous versions I can recall off the top of my head incuding a 30s film starring Lionel Barrymoore, a Tales from the Crypt episode with Don Rickles, and Anthony Hopkins 1978 film, Magic.
What is the mystery behind the "great Vorelli's" dummy? Is it really alive? Watch the film with lovely Yvonne Romain to find out. The twist ending caught me by suprise and the dvd I watched includes both U.S. and "hot continental" versions. (no mystery as to which I delved straight into)
Another from the Shameless stable, an erotic exploitation film based (loosely) on the Marquis de Sade story.
It looks good - a moving picture version of those exotic European holiday brochures your parents would leave lying around the house, which might find its way up to your bedroom on account of a strangely erotic picture on p17.
Sadly, anything you might have thought up to accompany said picture would have had more vitality than this film conjurs up - the leads have no chemistry really and although they speak English, it seems dubbed by bland, handsome, conversational voices and there aren't many close-ups, the whole thing has a detatched, so-what feel.
Loads of breast shots, simulated fellatio in a Rolls Royce seen from a distance and only implied. The irritating score detracts from most of the early erotic scenes; later it picks up a bit but it's all a bit of a snore.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Despite the lacklustre reviews by some on this board, I really enjoyed this tale of football manager Brian Clough's rise. I can nitpick it, but there aren't many movies out there so keen to CHARM me, and I don't mean the wearing, upper middle class charm of Richard Curtis, which has sort of worn thin with his latest. Damned United takes you by the hand and is out to give you a good time, unlike other movies keen to bash you over the head and knock you down.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Twisty-turny-twisty corporate thriller from Tony Gilroy. It is not as smug as his last movie, the Clooney vehicle Michael Clayton, but I spent a lot of time looking at my watch. Or rather looking at my wrist and remembering I don't actually have a watch.
"Deja Vu"
A very clever and engaging thriller from veteran director Tony Scott, and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Denzel Washington plays Doug Carlin, an ATF agent who becomes involved in
...while investigating a home-grown terrorist bombing of a ferry in New Orleans. Val Kilmer and Jim Caviezel each turn in very solid supporting performances.
As popcorn flicks go, I'd say this one gets a big 'Thumbs Up'---implausibilities melt (as they are wont to do, when effectively counterbalanced with narrative momentum, dramatic pacing and good dialogue) as this one unwinds to a very satisfying conclusion. A very nifty feat of prestidigitation/misdirection, early in Act 2, gets us 'over the hump,' and we're happily along for the ride.*
Highly recommended.
*Or most of us, anyway. It's quite easy to imagine some not being completely won over---but that's film for you.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
P'tang, Yang Kipperbang
Coming-of-age tale set in 1948 in which a cricket-obsessed lad has a crush on a schoolgirl in his class. Opportunity knocks when the two of them are cast in a school play - and the final scene requires he kisses her.
UK ajbers of a certain age may remember this, it was screened on the debut evening of Channel 4. The film hasn't dated much; but it wouldn't being already set in the past. Det Sgt Cryer from The Bill shows up, as does Peter Dean from EastEnders as a copper. Alison Steadman doing her neurotic, highly sexed Singing Detective type role. It is also a showcase for Bond connnection Michael Apted's effective, unobtrusive and slightly unremarkable direction.
The title refers to the cliquey ritualistic greeting given by the kid to his friends. Was changed to First Love for other audiences.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Every chance then that Mickey and Babs will have him as the next director of the Bond film, as the rumours on mi6.co.uk suggest. We need another director who lets the snooze factor kick in on the hour without fail.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Speaking of hacks I saw Gerard Krawczyk's Taxi 4 the other day. There's very little gas left in this fanchise and way too many miles on the clock for Samy Naceri who at 48 is far too old to be playing a boy racer. Still, Krawczyk would be better than Gilroy. At least he can film a car chase. And he put ninjas in Taxi 2. It's about time a James Bond film had some ninjas in it again.
Oh God, there's a Part Two.
There's a story about a critic either reviewing the film The Bible, which was based on the stories of the book of Genesis, or the film The Greatest Story Ever Told which was about Jesus, (probably the latter) and his review featured just one sentence: 'read the book.'
Next review: Olivier's Henry V.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Still, it might be a fair question to ask how much extra 'wit' such a story demands...George Stevens was an excellent director, and turned in a very reverential treatment of the material. Given the era in which the production occurred, it's difficult to imagine the film turning out any other way...
My favourite 'behind the scenes' story about Greatest Story: Of course, the film has an all-star cast; John Wayne had a cameo appearance---and one line---as a Roman Centurion at the scene of the crucifixion. The Duke's line was: "Truly, this man was the Son of God." George Stevens is said to have called for another take, telling Wayne to give the line 'more awe.' As the story goes, when the camera rolled again, John Wayne said: "Aww, truly this man was the Son of God."
BTW...you can add Satan to von Sydow's resume...he did that in Needful Things, an adaptation of one of Stephen King's three hundred novels
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, Happy Birthday to Jesus Christ/Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Satan {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I've always thought of films like Greatest Story to be pretty much separate from standard genre classification, save perhaps for a 'biblical' one...
Anyway, I think I know what you're saying...but IMO it really wasn't in the offing in a story about Jesus' life and death, directed by George Stevens, in the era in which it came out. Perhaps the only available 'edginess' parallel for the time is Kubrick's Spartacus, with its veiled gay subtext in a scene or two? But then that's Kubrick, and not Stevens.
At any rate, it is what it is---and that is, it's still being played in 2009, so good on them. I haven't seen it in years---my only copy, on classic VHS, was lost in a typically biblical flood of my basement last spring
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A film about a samurai food taster. I am not making this up. It's elegantly made, but dull.
Or, just Henry V. This is Olivier's version rather than Branagh's, commissioned I understand by Churchill to help rally the Allied troops for the invasion or liberation of Nazi-occupied France in 1944. After all, Shakespeare's play deals with the Plantagenet king's success in sailing for France and defeating their forces at Azincourt against all the odds.
It's odd to watch this, as it's a history lesson in triplicate. First there's the fact it's a sort of propoganda piece. Then it's of the Shakespearian era, as the stunning opening shot in technicolour is a sweeping view up the Thames of Elizabethan London, from the Tower of London to the Globe Theatre. The conceit is that the play is being staged during the time it was written, and Olivier et al are Shakey's contemporaries. But of course, the events of the play took place some 180 years earlier, in 1415.
I admit I could only follow this with my No Fear Shakespeare guide providing a translation! But I had to turn several pages at a time to keep up, as large chunks are omitted from this version. Usually anything that hints of discord in the British camp, this being a propoganda piece of sorts. So the barons' plot to topple the king on the eve of his departure for France is omitted - though the barons do appear, just without Henry V's Blofeldesque pay off. Also, Henry's talk of ensuring Scotland is subdued as they always used war with France to invade through the backdoor. No wise talk in 1944 when you want the whole of the UK to rally behind you! Also, some historical references: that the King is descended from the French himself, or his remorse expressed over his father Henry IV's actions. (Henry IV aka Richard Bollingbrook was a baron who overthrew Richard II, argubably the last medieval king, and had him starved to death in the tower, casting doubt on Henry V's legitimacy, which he helped assuage by having Richard disinterred and reburried in Westminster Abbey, the proper place for kings.)
They also omit Henry's 'let us in peaceably or I can't be help responsible for my soldiers raping your women' speech to Harfleur, their first port of call on arriving in France.
Anyway, just shy of the half hour mark the play opens up away from the Globe and becomes a real film, albeit with cardboard backdrops etc, and Olivier looks more like the real king.
The best bit is the eve of battle. In the night, the two camps face opposite each other, readying for the next day. The atmosphere as the king walks among his people by night, eavesdropping on their fears and prayers, is wonderful (look out for a very young George Cole - St Trinian's, Minder - as a young lad of the Skins generation!) and quite affecting.
That said, the battle itself is a letdown in a way. Oh, it's a sunny English summer's day but the real Agincourt took place in October in northern France and was a nasty, bloody, claustrophobic affair. It had rained and the French cavalry charged, getting massacred by the English longbows (nasty, effective weapons, not the Robin Hood bows and arrows depicted here). They fell in the mud and were unable to rouse thanks to the heavy armour, they were sitting ducks. The reason only around 8,000 English, worn out by their travels and dysentry, could defeat 30,000 French (see Wiki for details) was because the French were rubbish and lambs to the slaughter.
This is glossed over a bit in the film, which seems to be a jolly canter about in the English Kent countryside! Almost like a boy scout's war game activity! There's also a fabricated section (not in the play I believe) when Henry personally intervenes to avenge a death, in modern Hollywood 'I'm mad as hell' style.
All in all a highly enjoyable movie in glorious technicolour, but I will see Branagh's version as recommended by Dan Same if I recall, to balance it out.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, one another film where the genre came between me and the story I'm afraid. Not so po-faced however, but the matey banter inserted had me reaching for the volume remote.
The past is a foreign country, so the saying goes, but of course movies can chose to take you on a journey, show you a different culture that may be disconcerting or eerie, with unfamiliar tastes and sights. Or, they can shoehorn the history into our own present preconceptions, the equivalent of booking into a luxury hotel and never stepping out.
Arthur aims to be a Braveheart for the English. It's okay in explaining how the Romans were set to flee Britannica and leave it to the invading Anglo-Saxons, but my understanding is that the Saxons pretty much wiped the floor with them. So if Arthur really was a saviour, a Roman general who stayed on to tackle them, I'm not sure he did very well ultimately. This could have worked with a sense of melancholic doomed heroism to the tale, however.
On a more basic level, its two characters Arthur and Merlin were devoid of charisma, Clive Owen (who I don't normally dislike by any means) delivering every line in the tone of voice a bored Curry's member of staff might inform you that the camera you want is not in stock and would you come back the following week.
Keira Knightley barely features in it - no, not barely sadly, I mean hardly. She fires an arrow and that's about it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
It's good stuff so far. Not sure it works as a movie in its own right, it helps to know the historical context. I should have watched Branagh's Henry V, which is bloodier and more historically ambivalent than Oliver's version, and sets things up for Joan of Arc: The Revenge.
It's uncomfortable to watch being English, as they are the villains here. But it's muddied a bit, as everyone speaks English (albeit with a French or American accent at times) while the English are portrayed as either Scots or lairy cockney London. I really would like to see a French language film depicting this era, as the Normans and Plantagents were French really.
Milla Jollovich is v good as the fanatical/inspired heroine though her oratory and speaking voice isn't really that rousing to lead troops into battle, and she has a sexual quality that belies a woman in the sole service of God. I imagine the real Joan was more transclucently divine. Milla has a touch of the Matt Damon about her after her crop.
Some grisly, bloody battle scenes with severed limbs tell it how it was. I have to admit the film is rousing stuff and as usual it's the wily courtiers who provide much of the drama as they bend the dauphin's (prince's) ear.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I watched this as a companion piece to Luc Besson's modern take and now I'm all Joaned out. Anyway, this is as bleak, minimalistic and stripped down as Besson's take is dramatic. They overlap slightly, but the trial is shown away from the public here whereas in Besson's film Joan (pronounced Jean) finds her defiance is greeted with outraged whispers and exclamations in the crowded court.
As you know, this is about the simple peasant girl who led the fightback against the English invaders in the late 1420s thanks to divine visions, only to fall into the clutches of the Bergundians who handed her over to the English for a showtrial, denouncing her as a witch. She was burned at the stake.
As with everything, you learn to take one step back to take two forward. Joan did have parents who later campagined for her rehabilitation after her death, Besson's film implies she was made an orphan through some English lairy savagery. Her canonisation hundreds of years later was in part due to the Vatican wanting to be nice to France. And she was that much a peasant girl, though she couldn't read or write, hardly unusual back then. Her parents were part of the village aristocracy.
Frances Delay, who plays Jean, has at times the sulky noncompliance of Magda the home help in Jack Dee's sitcom Lead Balloon.
Good stuff but v wordy as it's lifted from the trial documents verbatim.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Korean homage to Sergio Leone's great western. Directed by Ji-Woon Kim (A Tale of Two Sisters, A Bittersweet Life), this features a knockout performance from Kang-Ho Sang as an Eli Wallach-type bandit. Highly recommended.
The Young and the Dangerous 3 is not that great though. This time they have to deal with an arrogant rival who is out of control.