Lovely lovely Laura Gemser returns as the fashion photographer Emanuelle, although one thing about her bothers me, if she's a fashion photographer why doesn't anybody she photographs ever wear clothes? Just a thought, rather than a complaint. Anyway this film is actually quite offensive. There's some 70's snuff nonsense as a sub-plot and it's really rather repellent. Still, Laura is beautiful and should have been cast in one of the Roger Moore Bond films.
Grapes of Wrath
Jean Rollin horror film about a pesticide that turns the inhabitants of a French wine-making town into murderous zombies. It's rubbish, but as with all Rollin films has the odd moment of beauty. Brigitte Lahaie (who should have been cast in a Timothy Dalton Bond movie) turns up briefly and is easily the best thing in the film. I suspect one of Rollin's mates lent him his Chateau for the week and he decided to make a film based around a vinyard.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited June 2009
There's nothing quite like a double feature at a drive-in on a hot summer night B-) ...and so when I saw what was playing at the Route 66 Drive-In Theatre, the boys and I jumped at the chance---since Loeff Jr and Loeff III wanted to see the first one, and we all wanted to see the second. The only complication: a nasty squall line of severe thunderstorms passing through the area...but the warning was due to expire just before the scheduled start time of the first film, so we rolled the dice.
It was actually very exciting. Just before sunset, I sipped on an illegally-smuggled can of cheap American light beer, and we got to see a giant wall of storm clouds---the lower lip of what must have been a 30,000-foot tall cumulo-nimbus anvil----approach from the west. It looked like something in-between the storm clouds in Twister...and the clouds that hid the invading saucers in Independence Day It got rather interesting for ten minutes or so; I could actually see the big white projection screen wobble and move a bit in the wind, which must have reached about 60mph or so...then it was past, and---except for a little drizzle early in the second feature, it was smooth sailing.
"Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian"
Cute, light fun, provided that one doesn't expend any brain power in analysis. Ben Stiller was fine (though a bit better in the first one, as he's a bit more distant and less engaged here)...Amy Adams was plucky and charming as Amelia Earhart, SNL's Bill Hader was funny as George Custer...but the biggest laughs came from the great Hank Azaria as the malevolent Egyptian wanna-be king, King Iforgothisname ;% The best part was that he seemed to be channeling the spirit of Boris Karloff, from the classic Mummy...and he had the best lines in the piece. On the way home, I complained to the boys that
...there was no way that a full-sized airplane, and particularly the cumbersome and slow original Wright Flyer, could fly around inside the Air & Space museum---and navigate around the other displays, without hitting anything at all---even if the talented Ms Earhart was on the stick...so to speak...
I explained to the boys about takeoff and stall speeds, etc....and then Loeff III (age 11) gently reminded me that this was a movie about museum exhibits that come to life at night... ;% So I conceded that, if you can accept the premise, lesser issues should probably be cast aside...
It was fun. 2.75 out of 5 stars.
"Terminator: Salvation"
I still haven't seen T3, but fortunately it doesn't seem to have been a prerequisite for this one. As I'd expected, it's a rousing sci-fi action picture with solid visual effects and effective performances---especially from Sam Worthington and Anton (Chekov in the new Star Trek) Yelchin.* There wasn't anything wrong with Christian Bale's John Connor---in fact he has many good moments---but IMO he's better as Bruce Wayne. It was enjoyable to see the little nods to the Terminator mythos...and you-know-who's cameo was just about right, as far as I was concerned.
I've heard some histrionics about James Cameron not directing...but I didn't find all that much wrong with McG (other than his ridiculously self-indulgent showbiz name). Issues with this film are symptomatic of those with so many modern action films---which are designed for ease of processing by the ever-shrinking attention span of the post-MTV, video iPod generation...but IMO this one, at times, teeters on the brink of being fairly smart science fiction, despite the plot holes and ancient boomboxes playing an excellent and relevant GnR tune. IMO, this film certainly doesn't harm the franchise in any way...which is probably all one should expect from a film that really didn't need to be made, in a franchise that could have stopped after just two films.
Summer movie fare, with extra butter. 3.5 out of 5 stars. Loeff Jr says that there should have been more explosions
*I'm even more impressed by Yelchin's Chekov, after seeing him here. This kid's got a future, IMHO.
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
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited June 2009
"The Terminator"
The James Cameron Classic from 1984---as a means of acclimating Loeff Jr and Loeff III to facts pertinent to the Terminator mythos, following their viewing of T4 last night without benefit of any advance storyline coaching. I must say, it was great, at the end of this original film, when
...we see the origin of the photo of Sarah Connor, which is held by both John Connor and Kyle Reese, at various points in the films...
...so that I could enjoy my boys' comprehension... B-)
This film holds up pretty well, in terms of storyline, etc., but the obvious Achilles' heel is the Ray Harryhausen-style stop-motion photography of the terminator unit in Act 3, which elicited some derision from my sons---who've been spoilt by modern CGI X-( ---but nevertheless was much appreciated, overall, as an "edge of your seat"* thriller at the end.
Great stuff. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
*Loeffelholz Jr.
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
aka Be Nice to Grandad, Don't Just Buy Him Socks This Year 8-)
Okay okay, I shouldn't be horrid about this as it's a favourite with Clint Eastwood fan Dan Same (although DS nemesis Paul Haggis is a co-writer on it - go figure) but I didn't care for this film. It's like a chugger, a charity mugger with a clipboard in the high street, you know you shouldn't find yourself irritated by them but you are.
Some films aim to titillate, inform, entertain or enlighten. Flags of Our Fathers does enlighten a bit in the final analysis but it's a long time coming and takes the form of a voiceover at the end, staple in some American dramas it seems (and also in French drama but rarely in the UK).
What didn't I like? Well, firstly the cinematography. It's perilously close to the dreaded Pearl Harbor at times. All atmospheric lighting casting shadows. None of it looks normal. The opener, with the poor old boy getting confused and shell shocked I would normally find moving, but instead I just found myself thinking, why is it shot like a Flake advert? Ditto on the island itself, rather than have uncommercial black and white, it's shot through in blue sepia, but it doesn't look real at all. (Bizarrely, the 'sequel' Letters from Iwo Jima had the island as an ugly black hunk of rock it really is - maybe Eastwood did it this way so he wouldn't mix the two films up in the editing! )
A lot of the people just don't look right in that they're all dressed up like a Vogue photoshoot.
Secondly, it's too broadly written for my tastes. The idea is that the guys who got to erect the flag on the island, and formed part of an iconic photo that later became a statue in Washington, are bullied and coerced into a publicity tour by their seniors who are portrayed as scumbags. It's two-dimensional and I didn't really buy it. I mean, this was an era where you are sent as a soldier to face certain death and don't complain. Going on a press junket doesn't seem too unreasonable. The 'drama' was all a bit contrived and like we're inflicting our current values on another time. A lot of it reminded me a bit too much of The Right Stuff, where the first US astronauts in space get put through the wringer.
Even in the end, which I found moving, where
the old guy pops his clogs, well, is it normal for the son to go outside and embrace his mum, then out pops his entire family to gather round in a group hug like he's scored the winning goal? If you thought your dad was gonna die, wouldn't you yell out in a panicky, worried voice to your mum/his wife outside? It all seemed as much propoganda as the iconic photo itself...
That said, the film offered some food for thought and it made me realise that the Iraq War was particulary bad in propoganda terms. First you have the attack on the twin towers, a visual gift for radical extremists (although the images also worked in America's favour, getting people on their side) then you have Bush's Mission Accomplished speech (albeit he was persuaded by others to do this because it would encourage investment in Iraq) and of course the infamous Lindy England with a prisoner on a bit of rope and so on, dreadful stuff. Oh, you even had the episode where the American flag was briefly raised rather than the Iraqi one, making it a triumphalist bit of jingoism rather than a liberating force. What a shambles. I mean, what were they even doing with an American flag on their person, if not to do that? It's not something you necessarily carry around with you is it... Or am I wrong, do killed soldiers get buried in the flag out there?
Batman (Michael Keaton) takes on the Joker (Jack Nicholson) while Gotham City hangs in the balance. I recently picked up the 20th anniversary BluRay of the film and watching it again was an interesting experience that showed me just how much movies have changed over the past 20 years. Considered a "groundbreaking" film in its time, it seems somewhat quaint by today's standards. Since the film was shot almost entirely on a soundstage, the action sequences and car chases all have a limited scope and small scale to them that becomes painfully apparent when compared to today's modern blockbusters. The film also practically grinds to a halt on several occasions to shoehorn some music by Prince into the proceedings (a really sad example of Warner's cross-promoting). As the film was made before the era of CGI, some of the effects don't work as well as others; the scene of the Joker falling to his death coming across as especially weak.
In hindsight, the casting is also a bit odd. Keaton makes for an odd, perpetually distracted Bruce Wayne, his attention always seeming to waver off in different directions. His Batman persona fares better, though the added fidelity of BluRay makes it fairly obvious just how little time he actually spends in the suit. Jack Nicholson practically hijacks the movie with his over the top performance, though you really have to give him credit for so completely embracing such an extreme character; he also gets most of the best lines. The rest of the cast is largely forgettable: Kim Basinger is superfluous, little more than a convenient damsel in distress with a mane of hair that seems to have a life of its own; Pat Hingle is utterly ineffective as Commissioner Gordon, always four steps behind everyone else, he makes Neil Hamilton from the old TV show look like Elliot Ness by comparison; Robert Wuhl's Alexander Knox is supposed to represent the common man's reaction to all the wierdness, but comes across as an utterly expendable character.
Where the film really shines is in its production design and sound. Even though the film boasts a dark and largely bland color palette, this new edition shows Gotham's grime and texture in ultra-sharp detail and the sets all hold up well to the added scrutiny. Anton Furst's brilliant retro futuristic designs really give the film a unique identity and the photography is full of interesting angles and iconic images such as Batman standing on the roofs of Gotham or the destruction of the Axis Chemicals building. Batman's various toys, especially the Batmobile, still look sharp and sleek and continue to represent the high point of production design for Batman movies. Bob Ringwood's costume design is similarly inspired and even if Batman's cowl looks a little too much like a helmet some of the time, you can at least make out the bat symbol on his chest. Finally, Danny Elfman's bombastic, almost operatic score with its instantly recognizable main theme holds up remarkably well and is far more memorable than anything offered up in subsequent Batman movies.
Overall, the movie has lost some of its luster over the years, but in the end it overcomes its weaknesses and remains an entertaining if somewhat flawed interpretation of the Dark Knight.
Ghostbusters
Another 20th anniversary BluRay; Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson play a group of paranormal investigators who try to save a hot Sigourney Weaver, a nebbish Rick Moranis and the rest of New York from falling into the clutches of Gozer, an evil god from another dimension.
Though that brief summary might lead you to think otherwise, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, full of ridiculous situations, goofy action and lots of smart, funny one-liners. The movie is full of wacky characters, offbeat spirits and lots of memorable scenes: the Ghostbusters first paranormal encounter with a long dead librarian, their first successful capture of the revolting Slimer at the Sedgewyck Hotel, and of course their epic battle with the Staypuft Marshmallow man in downtown New York. The dynamics between Murray's womanizing Dr. Venkman, Weaver's Dana Barrett (especially when she's under the influence of Zool) and Moranis' Louis Tully (as possessed by Vinz Clortho) makes for one of the wackiest love triangles (or maybe its a love pentangle). The special effects, which were deliberately cartoony and hokey to begin with, hold up really well and once you hear Ray Parker Jr.'s theme song it just won't leave your head anymore.
The BluRay remastering makes for a sharper and more colorful image but honestly, any version of this movie is worth checking out. A comedy classic. Highly recommended.
Sunshine
Danny Boyle's take on the sci-fi genre, Sunshine takes place in 2057; our sun is dying and Earth sends out a pair of spaceships in a desperate attempt to reignite it before all life is destroyed. When Icarus mysteriously disappears, Icarus II is sent out to complete the mission. All is going fairly well until they come across a distress signal from the first ship, then things quickly start to go wrong.
The first two-thirds of the film are really character oriented and most of the time is spent examining the ethnically and racially diverse characters and the effects that the prolonged mission is having on them. These sections try to evoke a 2001 or Solaris vibe though quite frankly Boyle's story isn't up to the task. The last act, occurring after an ill-fated rendezvous with the first ship, shifts the tone rather abruptly into an action/suspense yarn. To say more would spoil what happens; suffice it to say that the crew of Icarus II must overcome a number of major challenges if Earth is to be saved.
Considering that the film only had a budget of $40 million, Boyle gives us a movie that looks more expensive than it actually is, with some convincing and at times majestic images of the Icarus II hurtling towards the sun in its bid to save the Earth. He also makes interesting use of subliminal cuts during a creepy section where the crew make their way thru the lifeless hull of Icarus I to create an air of dread and unease. While the characters are fairly interesting, the relatively short running time of 1 hour, 48 minutes (including the credits) means that we really don't get to know them well enough to care too much for their eventual fates and once the movie is over, it doesn't really stay with you the way other, more memorable sci-fi films do.
Definitely worth a look for fans of the genre, but probably not a keeper.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Sunshine...Definitely worth a look for fans of the genre, but probably not a keeper.
Well, of course I am a fan of the genre...but even allowing for that, it sounds like I enjoyed this one more than you did. It's one of my favourite Danny Boyles. Smart stuff, and offbeat; a good combination for me.
And, speaking of the genre...
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day"
I had something of an epiphany while watching this one with the boys, as I guide them through a bit of 'catch-up' with the Terminator mythos, since their experience with the franchise started with T4 last weekend...I suddenly realized that the last time I'd seen T2, I wasn't even a father yet---which makes it at least 13 1/2 years since I'd last looked at this one. And it holds up very well. Linda Hamilton is very strong, as a mother who's been changed, by her experiences in T1, as much as one might expect. Robert Patrick is menace incarnate as the T1000. Great action sequences, great music (I love GnR's 'You Could Be Mine,' on of the best tracks on either Use Your Illusion), and a great story all justify this second entry in the canon---even though its essentially a retread of the first film, with one caveat...
I know that Schwarzenegger is the marquee presence in the film, and the reason this movie was a megahit, and
...I realize that Arnold obviously wanted to be the 'good guy' this time round, which is fine. But the 'cutesy' elements of his process of humanization are as mildly annoying to me now as they were a decade-and-a-half ago. Merely my own hang-up, to be sure, but it prevents this film from being the absolute classic that T1 was: a similar kind of self-awareness that keeps some of the Bonds from making it to the next level of excellence.
Of course, the boys loved it. And it's still a hell of a lot of fun for me. 4 out of 5 stars.
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 do hope you and the boys will give T3 at chance at some point. It is similar in tone to T:S so if you liked that you'll probably get some mileage out of it. And if you were peeved by the attempts at making Arnold's Terminator more "family friendly" in T2, you'll probably like some of the things Arnold does with the character in T3.
There Will Be Blood
This has been playing on satellite all month and I finally got a chance to watch it.
Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector with an intense hatred of mankind and a compulsive need to see his competitors fail. As his fortune grows, his true nature emerges and he further alienates himself from all those around him.
The film is full of interesting characters: Paul Dano plays Eli Sunday, a self-styled preacher and faith healer. The always entertaining Kevin O'Connor plays a man who claims to be Plainview's brother. Their interactions with Plainview over the years prove interesting and ultimately violently shocking.
Normally the subject matter wouldn't interest me, and Lewis is not an actor I particularly gravitate to, but he is positively riveting and utterly unrecognizable in this one; once you start watching, the film just draws you in, making you marvel as he manipulates a parade of unsuspecting victims into doing business with him.
A very well made film and its easy to see why Daniel Day Lewis took home the Oscar for his performance.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I do hope you and the boys will give T3 at chance at some point. It is similar in tone to T:S so if you liked that you'll probably get some mileage out of it. And if you were peeved by the attempts at making Arnold's Terminator more "family friendly" in T2, you'll probably like some of the things Arnold does with the character in T3.
We're definitely going to see it. I'm putting it at the top of my Netflix queue...meanwhile, we're less than an hour from the premiere of Transformers 2, which the boys are eagerly anticipating...
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'm personally not a huge fan of this film. I find it to be overly pretentious, and very much the kind of film which deliverately sets out to be remembered as a classic. I'm also unconvinced that Plainview was this monster that alot of people make him out to be. As far as I'm concerned, characters like Michael Corleone from The Godfather Part II, Mister Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, Noah Cross from Chinatown and Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane would eat him alive. He did some nasty things but I felt that the filmmakers wanted the audience to regard him as this great monster; the Noah Cross of the 21st century, and I just didn't buy it.
Additionally, while I adore Daniel Day-Lewis, and I regard him as among the greatest actors of all time, I was a little disappointed with his performance. For much of the film, it was a brilliant performance, however,
in the end when he yelled 'milkshake' I was shocked as it IMO was a display of terrible acting. I'm a huge Day-Lewis fan, but I think that the acting in that scene, for lack of a better word, sucked. He redeemed himself just towards the end of the film,
but I do think that his Oscar was for a performance that was three quarters brilliant, and one quarter horrible. I don't know if it was the best performance of the year, it certainly wasn't among his best performances.
"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'm personally not a huge fan of this film. I find it to be overly pretentious, and very much the kind of film which deliverately sets out to be remembered as a classic. I'm also unconvinced that Plainview was this monster that alot of people make him out to be. As far as I'm concerned, characters like Michael Corleone from The Godfather Part II, Mister Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, Noah Cross from Chinatown and Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane would eat him alive. He did some nasty things but I felt that the filmmakers wanted the audience to regard him as this great monster; the Noah Cross of the 21st century, and I just didn't buy it.
Additionally, while I adore Daniel Day-Lewis, and I regard him as among the greatest actors of all time, I was a little disappointed with his performance. For much of the film, it was a brilliant performance, however,
in the end when he yelled 'milkshake' I was shocked as it IMO was a display of terrible acting. I'm a huge Day-Lewis fan, but I think that the acting in that scene, for lack of a better word, sucked. He redeemed himself just towards the end of the film,
but I do think that his Oscar was for a performance that was three quarters brilliant, and one quarter horrible. I don't know if it was the best performance of the year, it certainly wasn't among his best performances.
I am with Tony on this, I realy enjoyed this movie and Lewis's performance completly riviting.
If I may return to a discussion that was had on this thread months ago, There Will be Blood is the type of film that if it had not got an Oscar nomination I would not have seen. Which is why I maintain the Oscar are important, in that they give films like TWBB a kind of "stamp of approval", that draws audiences to them, that may not otherwise have seen them.
In a smaller note, I see the Best Picture category will have 10 nominees next year, instead of the usual five. Apparently, back in the 30's and 40's, 10 nominess was standard. I think some years it might be hard to find 10 deserving nominees.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
In a smaller note, I see the Best Picture category will have 10 nominees next year, instead of the usual five. Apparently, back in the 30's and 40's, 10 nominess was standard. I think some years it might be hard to find 10 deserving nominees.
Not to hijack the thread. But if you want to get technical, the Golden Globes have 10 Best Picture nominees, they just separate the dramas from the Comedy and Musical. Hopefully with the expansion some comedys will be recognized instead of 10 dramas. Now back to recent movies seen.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
If I may return to a discussion that was had on this thread months ago, There Will be Blood is the type of film that if it had not got an Oscar nomination I would not have seen. Which is why I maintain the Oscar are important, in that they give films like TWBB a kind of "stamp of approval", that draws audiences to them, that may not otherwise have seen them.
I couldn't agree with you more. As you probably know, I'm a huge fan of the Oscars, and as such I do my absolute best to see as many of the major nominees as possible every year. Although I will see genre films or films directed by/starring my favourites directors and actors regardless of the Oscars, and there are other films as well which I'll see irrespective of the Oscars for other reasons, there are always a few films I'll make an increased effort to see due to their being nominated. Alot of people criticise the Oscars, but I think it's great when people choose films to see based on them. It shows that they do serve a purpose.
In a smaller note, I see the Best Picture category will have 10 nominees next year, instead of the usual five. Apparently, back in the 30's and 40's, 10 nominess was standard. I think some years it might be hard to find 10 deserving nominees.
I had no idea until you mentioned this, and I had to check to make sure as this is absolutely extraordinary.
I don't know what I think. Yes, during the 30's and 40's there were up to 12 Best Picture nominees, but actors were also nominated for different films in the same category, and I can't see the Academy bringing that back. Now it could work if the Academy is willing to be creative. So for example, if the ten Best Picture nominees last year also included Wall-E and Gran Torino, that would have been wonderful IMO, but the Academy isn't always that creative. We could end up with a list of ten Best nominees, with a good number of them being completely undeserved. Of course, one could say that about the current five nominees in some years. The problem then becomes what you suggested; in many years there arguably aren't 10 deserving nominees, and so nominating ten films could potentially lower the bar. It's certainly going to make things very interesting. Can't wait until next year.
"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
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
One of the greatest advantages an average-to-subpar film can have---and this is particularly the case with summer popcorn fare---is a lack of heightened expectations...or perhaps no expectations whatsoever. The first Transformers film certainly enjoyed this benefit, at least from my own personal perspective: Being too old to have played with (or really even to have been aware of) the toys, and never having seen the cartoon show, I rented the first one on DVD and was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it: a nice mix of light humour, fast-paced action and fantastical, eye-popping visual effects. Thus, the breadth and depth of my Transformers knowledge and fandom was limited to my middling enjoyment of the first film, and so my expectations were somewhat similarly tempered heading into a sequel.
If you enjoyed the first film, you'll probably enjoy this one. I did---although I'll confess that by the third act, when the action becomes so prolonged and overwrought that it becomes hard to tell who's hitting whom, I was ready for it to be over...and with an estimated running time of 2 1/2 hours, the end took its time coming. Shia LeBeouf continues to be a likable lead, and his parents are enjoyable comic relief (although over-exposed in this one). John Turturro is almost always a little better than his material, and he's really slumming here, but he has some of the best lines in the piece. Megan Fox is...Megan Fox, and some of the greatest FX shots in T:ROTF thankfully feature her running---in slow motion!---in the foreground. Too bad about her lips, though; I think she was more attractive without the injections...
If ever a director has ever been well-matched with a project, it's Michael Bay and the Transformer juggernaut. The demands for real character depth and story viability are considerably less than the overcooked/overlong/overpopulated Pearl Harbor, or the ambitious and sincerely-intended The Island. Here, Bay is allowed to simply play in a very expensive playground, with the latest toys, never bothering to explain too much, or forcefeed the audience anything more nutritious than the overpriced popcorn this one will sell by the truckload.
Recommend for Transformer afficionados; a great many things fly through the air, strike each other, and explode. 2.8 out of of 5 stars.
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
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I'm personally not a huge fan of this film. I find it to be overly pretentious, and very much the kind of film which deliverately sets out to be remembered as a classic. I'm also unconvinced that Plainview was this monster that alot of people make him out to be. As far as I'm concerned, characters like Michael Corleone from The Godfather Part II, Mister Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, Noah Cross from Chinatown and Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane would eat him alive. He did some nasty things but I felt that the filmmakers wanted the audience to regard him as this great monster; the Noah Cross of the 21st century, and I just didn't buy it.
Additionally, while I adore Daniel Day-Lewis, and I regard him as among the greatest actors of all time, I was a little disappointed with his performance. For much of the film, it was a brilliant performance, however,
in the end when he yelled 'milkshake' I was shocked as it IMO was a display of terrible acting. I'm a huge Day-Lewis fan, but I think that the acting in that scene, for lack of a better word, sucked. He redeemed himself just towards the end of the film,
but I do think that his Oscar was for a performance that was three quarters brilliant, and one quarter horrible. I don't know if it was the best performance of the year, it certainly wasn't among his best performances.
I am with Tony on this, I realy enjoyed this movie and Lewis's performance completly riviting.
TWBB, to me, was basically a vehicle for Lewis to show us how talented he is. His acting was impeccable, and he really made the movie interesting. But by god if that movie doesn't have some of the strangest (read: worst) pacing I have ever seen. So, for me, TWBB is Lewis' acting reel, and not much more.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
My sons have until the end of June to use up some free rental coupons at our local video store...so, we made a run to see if we could rent...
"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"
Given the title of the piece, it leads one to believe---in advance of viewing the picture---that perhaps John, Sarah and the T101 might not have prevented Judgment Day after all
The biggest problems with this film are suffered by most franchises that aren't James Bond*: it seems that, before long, the creative teams involved find themselves trapped in an assembly line 'cookie cutter' situation with the product they're producing, and attempt to compensate by making little 'tweaks' and variations around the edges. Unfortunately, these can too often smack of gimmickry.
Such is the case here:
..."Okay," the filmmakers seem to be saying. "We've had Arnold as the evil Terminator. Then we made Arnold the good Terminator, and gave him some jokey stuff to take the edge off. We had an evil Terminator who could change shapes with the cool 'liquid metal' thingy...how about this time, Arnold's still a good Terminator, but he's not as cute as last time...and this time, the shape-shifting evil Terminator ought to be a hot chick, since maybe our audience is getting tired of seeing guys' asses after the lightning in the opening scenes..."
Still, this one has more than a few things which redeem it: 1) Claire Danes, whom I find terrifically appealing, and is an excellent actress. 2) The requisite chase/destruction scene, which may be the best of the entire series. 3) The added backstory of the T101, and extra details of John Connor's 'future backstory' do a nice job of filling the holes in the mythos.
As minuses: The actor who plays John Connor isn't particularly strong, which is a problem; Edward Furlong was more convincing, IMNO, as a pre-teen who's unsure of his destiny---and his mother's sanity. By the time Connor's an adult, the wimpy self-doubt wears very thin Arnold is fine here...but he's clearly getting older now, and "Talk to da hand" doesn't change the fact that he's run his course within the constraints of the premise.
Overall, I'd have to say that Tony was right. This picture was definitely worth a look. 3 out of 5 stars...and I'm going back to revise upward my rating for T4, which is a better film than this one (and is Loeff Jr's favorite).
*And even James Bond succumbed to this eventually; it took extraordinary (and controversial!) measures by Eon to achieve a course correction...
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
This is an allegorical film about a three-year-old growing up in Nazi Germany who is so disgusted by adult life that he refuses to grow any more and becomes a gnome or dwarf. I can't say I was much taken with this movie as it seems all about the allegory (Germany being stunted under Nazi rule, the lower middle classes feeling excluded from Weimer Germany and wanting a voice, like the young kid) and if you leave that aside, there's not much else it seems. The kid, Oskar, makes a nuisance of himself, playing his tin drum whenever he feels stressed, or shattering glass with his eccentric vocal ablility. And that's it, I lost count of the number of times I thought the film was going to end, only to find, oh no, they're starting up with another plot development. It never really picks up the pace.
The interview with the extremely articulate director however made sense of it at least.
Seven Pounds. No, my British friends, not a reference to what Will Smith's latest film is worth, but to what I think is
the weight of some donated human organs.
Anyway, I like Smith and I usually like his movies, but this one left me cold. Long, slow, sometimes boring, and not helped by the fact the Fresh Prince goes through the entire movie with a pained, mopey expression on his face. After about 20 minutes you stop wondering what's wrong with him and you just want to slap him to get him out of it. The big "surprise" ending--which I saw coming--is supposed to be emotional and uplifting, but I'm of the opinion what the Smith character does is actually cowardly and an avoidance of responsibility. See only if you're a huge Will Smith fan or are into pain, or both.
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
"Dirty Harry"
The seminal action-crime classic, directed by Don Siegel and starring a guy named Clint Eastwood, as the titular San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan, in a role that's fairly well known to most. I hadn't seen this one for fifteen years---at least---and wow, is it still a blast B-)
Andy Robinson is scene-chewingly frantic as the killer, known only as 'Scorpio,' who begins as rooftop sniper, and then branches out into kidnapping and hostage situations. He's an anarchist, and a perfect foil for Mr. Law and Order (the 'system' be damned). Other fine actors, including John Vernon as 'The Mayor' and Harry Guardino as Harry's semi-sympathetic boss, are mere background to the action and the attitude. The score, by Lalo Schifrin, is very much of its time and therefore, perhaps, all the more effective for it. This is a Seventies Tale, all the way, and Harry's signature monologue, in Act One, continues to echo across film history B-)
A classic. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
"Punisher: War Zone"
Finally came up in the Netflix queue...and I have to say, I enjoyed it. Is it art? Perhaps not, ) but it is pretty much everything I'd ever want and expect from a Punisher flick---especially the fact that Dolph Lundgren isn't in it ---and Ray Stevenson is fantastic. Bond alum Colin Salmon, dodgy American accent and all, gives a good supporting performance as a troubled FBI agent who's out to bring Frank Castle to justice.
Not being at all familiar with the more recent 'Max' incarnation of the comic book---though I own the complete runs of the original Punisher, War Zone and War Journal titles---I think I'd have preferred a sequel to the Thomas Jane film, even with a different actor, and even though this film is undeniably more true to the character's origin. Just my own, ill-informed opinion, since these films tend to have little or no common ground amongst fans of the books
It's a pity that, given the film's poor showing, there probably won't be any more of these. The action is visceral, bloody and unapologetic---like a mid-shift, daylight tour of a busy abbatoir---and therefore, IMRO it deserves kudos for its boldness. At least it knows what it is, and is therefore vastly superior to cinematic excrement like Shoot 'Em Up.
Not a classic...but I'll own it B-) 3 out of 5 stars.
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
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Finally came up in the Netflix queue...and I have to say, I enjoyed it. Is it art? Perhaps not, ) but it is pretty much everything I'd ever want and expect from a Punisher flick---especially the fact that Dolph Lundgren isn't in it ---and Ray Stevenson is fantastic. Bond alum Colin Salmon, dodgy American accent and all, gives a good supporting performance as a troubled FBI agent who's out to bring Frank Castle to justice.
Not being at all familiar with the more recent 'Max' incarnation of the comic book---though I own the complete runs of the original Punisher, War Zone and War Journal titles---I think I'd have preferred a sequel to the Thomas Jane film, even with a different actor, and even though this film is undeniably more true to the character's origin. Just my own, ill-informed opinion, since these films tend to have little or no common ground amongst fans of the books
It's a pity that, given the film's poor showing, there probably won't be any more of these. The action is visceral, bloody and unapologetic---like a mid-shift, daylight tour of a busy abbatoir---and therefore, IMRO it deserves kudos for its boldness. At least it knows what it is, and is therefore vastly superior to cinematic excrement like Shoot 'Em Up.
Not a classic...but I'll own it B-) 3 out of 5 stars.
{[]
Love your fair and descriptive review, Loeff. The kid and I can't get enough of its cinematic carnage.
The film positively got sandbagged by Lionsgate when it came out last year.
On a side note, Colin Salmon's American accent trying to swear was just too hysterical for words. )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Love your fair and descriptive review, Loeff. The kid and I can't get enough of its cinematic carnage.
Cheers, buddy -{
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
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
TAKEN
My son bought this dvd for me Father's Day and it has to be one of the coolest gifts I've gotten from him thus far and a great thrill ride of a movie.
Liam Neeson is retired CIA agent Bryan Mills in search of his abducted teenage daughter who carelessly takes a trip to Europe with a friend who's also a minor.
The film offers a very brief glimpse into the world of sex traffickers but you get the sense that Neeson's character doesn't care about any of these women except his daughter. I think in the end that saves the movie - Neeson doesn't try to save the world, he only wants to save one person and will do pretty much anything to achieve that.
I've read and heard from those who've seen the flick and have complained about its content of questionable political incorrectness, its level of violence and how it might harbor xenophobic intent. I say lighten up: it's just a movie, it's not going to be for everyone. Although you sympathize right away with the main character, some of his actions you might call into question as overkill but maybe that's a good thing depending on how you view it.
If you love Commando and other films of this nature, this is right up your alley. Expect some fantastical moments in this one; as grounded in Bourne realism as it looks, there are some WTH moments along the way.
If you're one with kids of your own, especially a daughter, you don't know to what levels you'll take your urgency to get them back. It wouldn't hurt to be a CIA veteran with Mills skills either. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
I want to see Bryan Mills return to the big screen in a sequel.
TAKEN gets a hearty 3.5/4 stars from me.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Oh, yeah B-) Can't agree with you more...this is one of the great unappreciated action masterpieces of the year, IMO. Endlessly rewatchable.
And you're absolutely right about the suspension of disbelief, which it accomplishes (barely!) though sheer exuberance and forward momentum.*
*And, as a writer who's pounding out the final two chapters of a mystery action thriller, I can empathise with that!
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
Saw The Spirit last night. I didn't think it was as terrible as the critics charged, and I thought it had some good moments. Still, it's not a particularly good film--Samuel L. Jackson is so over-the-top and outlandish he seems to belong in another movie; and while noirish gumshoe dialogue may look cool in a comic book, it sounds downright idiotic coming from the mouths of real people. Coulda and shoulda been a lot better.
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2009
"Public Enemies"
This will be a short initial review, as it's late and I'm done in, but I REALLY enjoyed this film. If you like this period as I do---old cars with running boards, roaring Thompson .45s and B.A.R.s, with muzzle flashes during nighttime police assaults, and all the realistic viscera such material honestly demands---you will have fun living vicariously in this world for approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes B-) Johnny Depp is very good here---restrained and revealing in moments of silent stillness and reflection---and very convincing as John Dillinger, who lives for the moment and dreams of a future which he knows, on some level, he'll likely never see.
The cast is incredibly strong---a deep bench of talent, each actor playing essentially a 'niche' role: Stephen Dorff, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Lang, Lili Taylor, Leelee Sobieski and many others turn in roles short on screen time, but long on lasting impression. Marion Cotillard is lovely and engaging as Billie Frechette, the girl who turns Dillinger's head; their story plays well, IMO, but Ms. Cotillard's American accent inexplicably fails in the third act Billy Crudup, as a young and amibitious J. Edgar Hoover, strikes a nicely carnivorous tone as he sets out to make a name for himself by focusing the resources of the U.S. government on the likes of Pretty Boy Floyd, Alvin Karpis, Machine Gun Kelly, and of course Dillinger. A nice surprise, for me, was the performance of Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis, a G-man with plenty of stuff going on behind his eyes. I thought Bale was quite good here, if not at all flashy; his work will probably go unheralded with all the attention Depp will get.
Michael Mann is in excellent form here, working in a generally dark/moody pallette of colours, and taking care to tell the story without gratuitous glamour---or flourishes of the OTT stylism which so defined his early-career work (TV's Miami Vice in particular). He's a master of action, and these gunfights are edge-of-your-seat spectacular. Whether you know this story or not, if you're a fan of gangster pictures, you owe it to yourself to see this one on the big screen. I saw this one without Loeff Jr and Loeff III, and I'm glad---this one earns its 'R' very honestly.
Maybe a classic...I want to see this one again, and soon, to make sure. 4.25 out of 5 stars. Guess it wasn't that short a review, after all ;%
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
This film has been reviewed by others so I will not repeat a summary of the story, but I will say I did not care for this as much as others have. For me, the film plays out like a television movie of the week, the story is implausible at times, the action scenes poorly shot and the acting, with the exception of Liam Neeson, rather weak. So many scenes had me rolling my eyes that I can’t list them all, but it starts early in the movie when Neeson provides protection for a singer and the events that transpire after the concert. IMO, the scene is totally hokey, with no real drama or suspense, just a convenient plot device to provide a nice conclusion to the film later. I could list more, but it would be a long list and I don't want to bore everyone, suffice to say, I wish the films writers had taken the time to provide a more intelligent story.
Just back from seeing this film, and if I could, I would watch it again immediately. Enemies is a wonderful film from Michael Mann detailing the last few years of John Dillinger's life. Mann does a great job of capturing both the glamorous side of a depression era bank robber as well as the deadly, not so glamorous moments. Mann uses various camera angles and extreme close ups to capture the mood and intensity of scenes which I found to be quite effective. As Loeffs mentioned, the entire cast is effective, Depp and Bale are the protagonists and each delivers memorable performances. Two smaller parts that jumped off the screen for me were Marion Cotillard as Dillinger's faithful girlfriend and Stephen Lang as Agent Windsted, the ruthless, but smart agent brought in to match the Dillinger's gang's toughness.
Like Loeffs I am fond of this era, I like the architecture, music, cars, and fashion, all of which Mann captures on film. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and highly recommend it.
On a personal note, I grew up in Wisconsin where some of this film was shot and where Dillinger often laid low between bank jobs. I remember when I was a kid my family visited The Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters Wisconsin where Dillinger and the FBI engaged in a large shoot out. The lodge plays up the Dillinger history to attract business and I can remember seeing some of the bullet holes in the walls that were left from the shoot out. It was fun to see that shoot out played out on film.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'm really happy you liked this one, Barry! It's fairly rare that we agree on such things...
Rotten Tomatoes had it at a disappointing 64%, last I looked. But what the hell? I guess most interesting pictures tend to polarize. At work today, I talked to an older guy who said he thought it was the worst edited film he'd seen in 20 years. I assume he hadn't yet caught QoS ;% Some 'critics' on RT complained that it didn't know what story it was telling...I strongly disagree. This film knows exactly what it's about B-) But, like so many other pictures I enjoy, it isn't for everyone.
Cheers {[]
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
One of my faves, hard to watch without a giddy smile on my face. Great characters, taut script, wonderful set pieces and sumptuous costumes and sets. One great villain in Al Capone. Look out for Sheriff JW Pepper as the portly prosecutor near the end.
After many viewings I did pick up on some faults; Connery's Oirish accent gets the same treatment as Dickie Attenborough's Scottish in Jurassic Park, he gives it a fair crack of the whip early on, then forgets about it... The passage of time is a bit hokey, it is obviously meant to be over maybe two years in that Ness's wife has a baby during that time, but to us it only seems they've been together weeks.
All the same, I wish some of the Bond films since had been more like this.
In today's economic clime, this one moved to the high priority list of netflix I mean lovefilm, queue...
Well it's set in the Depression and it's depressing alright. So much so that I had to stagger the viewing over two nights. Henry Fonda plays the guy released from jail for accidental homicide and returning to the bosom of his family only to find out that they're being moved on from the land they've been tied to for generations and have to make for California in their old jallopy.
Mainly this is about their road trip, the first half, and grim viewing it is too. The movie starts off a bit like a Coen Brothers movie, especially when Fonda meets the former preacher played by John Carradine, father of the late David, who has lost his faith and doesn't believe any more. It's ironic that JC should be playing a guy in such troubled times, while his son dies in a solo sex game, that's the generations for you...
Not one to really buck you up, this film, though it rallies for the final third and gets a bit more like Scarlet in Gone With The Wind, probably to avoid sending audiences out to commit mass suicide. Still odd to see that Pa Fonda would have been politically at odds with his daughter; this could be accused of being a pinko film at the time and of course Jane Fonda did They Shoot Horses Don't They?, a similar Depression era film.
Comments
Emanuelle in America
Lovely lovely Laura Gemser returns as the fashion photographer Emanuelle, although one thing about her bothers me, if she's a fashion photographer why doesn't anybody she photographs ever wear clothes? Just a thought, rather than a complaint. Anyway this film is actually quite offensive. There's some 70's snuff nonsense as a sub-plot and it's really rather repellent. Still, Laura is beautiful and should have been cast in one of the Roger Moore Bond films.
Grapes of Wrath
Jean Rollin horror film about a pesticide that turns the inhabitants of a French wine-making town into murderous zombies. It's rubbish, but as with all Rollin films has the odd moment of beauty. Brigitte Lahaie (who should have been cast in a Timothy Dalton Bond movie) turns up briefly and is easily the best thing in the film. I suspect one of Rollin's mates lent him his Chateau for the week and he decided to make a film based around a vinyard.
It was actually very exciting. Just before sunset, I sipped on an illegally-smuggled can of cheap American light beer, and we got to see a giant wall of storm clouds---the lower lip of what must have been a 30,000-foot tall cumulo-nimbus anvil----approach from the west. It looked like something in-between the storm clouds in Twister...and the clouds that hid the invading saucers in Independence Day
"Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian"
Cute, light fun, provided that one doesn't expend any brain power in analysis. Ben Stiller was fine (though a bit better in the first one, as he's a bit more distant and less engaged here)...Amy Adams was plucky and charming as Amelia Earhart, SNL's Bill Hader was funny as George Custer...but the biggest laughs came from the great Hank Azaria as the malevolent Egyptian wanna-be king, King Iforgothisname ;% The best part was that he seemed to be channeling the spirit of Boris Karloff, from the classic Mummy...and he had the best lines in the piece. On the way home, I complained to the boys that
I explained to the boys about takeoff and stall speeds, etc....and then Loeff III (age 11) gently reminded me that this was a movie about museum exhibits that come to life at night... ;% So I conceded that, if you can accept the premise, lesser issues should probably be cast aside...
It was fun. 2.75 out of 5 stars.
"Terminator: Salvation"
I still haven't seen T3, but fortunately it doesn't seem to have been a prerequisite for this one. As I'd expected, it's a rousing sci-fi action picture with solid visual effects and effective performances---especially from Sam Worthington and Anton (Chekov in the new Star Trek) Yelchin.* There wasn't anything wrong with Christian Bale's John Connor---in fact he has many good moments---but IMO he's better as Bruce Wayne. It was enjoyable to see the little nods to the Terminator mythos...and you-know-who's cameo was just about right, as far as I was concerned.
I've heard some histrionics about James Cameron not directing...but I didn't find all that much wrong with McG (other than his ridiculously self-indulgent showbiz name). Issues with this film are symptomatic of those with so many modern action films---which are designed for ease of processing by the ever-shrinking attention span of the post-MTV, video iPod generation...but IMO this one, at times, teeters on the brink of being fairly smart science fiction, despite the plot holes and ancient boomboxes playing an excellent and relevant GnR tune. IMO, this film certainly doesn't harm the franchise in any way...which is probably all one should expect from a film that really didn't need to be made, in a franchise that could have stopped after just two films.
Summer movie fare, with extra butter. 3.5 out of 5 stars. Loeff Jr says that there should have been more explosions
* I'm even more impressed by Yelchin's Chekov, after seeing him here. This kid's got a future, IMHO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The James Cameron Classic from 1984---as a means of acclimating Loeff Jr and Loeff III to facts pertinent to the Terminator mythos, following their viewing of T4 last night without benefit of any advance storyline coaching. I must say, it was great, at the end of this original film, when
This film holds up pretty well, in terms of storyline, etc., but the obvious Achilles' heel is the Ray Harryhausen-style stop-motion photography of the terminator unit in Act 3, which elicited some derision from my sons---who've been spoilt by modern CGI X-( ---but nevertheless was much appreciated, overall, as an "edge of your seat"* thriller at the end.
Great stuff. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
* Loeffelholz Jr.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
aka Be Nice to Grandad, Don't Just Buy Him Socks This Year 8-)
Okay okay, I shouldn't be horrid about this as it's a favourite with Clint Eastwood fan Dan Same (although DS nemesis Paul Haggis is a co-writer on it - go figure) but I didn't care for this film. It's like a chugger, a charity mugger with a clipboard in the high street, you know you shouldn't find yourself irritated by them but you are.
Some films aim to titillate, inform, entertain or enlighten. Flags of Our Fathers does enlighten a bit in the final analysis but it's a long time coming and takes the form of a voiceover at the end, staple in some American dramas it seems (and also in French drama but rarely in the UK).
What didn't I like? Well, firstly the cinematography. It's perilously close to the dreaded Pearl Harbor at times. All atmospheric lighting casting shadows. None of it looks normal. The opener, with the poor old boy getting confused and shell shocked I would normally find moving, but instead I just found myself thinking, why is it shot like a Flake advert? Ditto on the island itself, rather than have uncommercial black and white, it's shot through in blue sepia, but it doesn't look real at all. (Bizarrely, the 'sequel' Letters from Iwo Jima had the island as an ugly black hunk of rock it really is - maybe Eastwood did it this way so he wouldn't mix the two films up in the editing!
A lot of the people just don't look right in that they're all dressed up like a Vogue photoshoot.
Secondly, it's too broadly written for my tastes. The idea is that the guys who got to erect the flag on the island, and formed part of an iconic photo that later became a statue in Washington, are bullied and coerced into a publicity tour by their seniors who are portrayed as scumbags. It's two-dimensional and I didn't really buy it. I mean, this was an era where you are sent as a soldier to face certain death and don't complain. Going on a press junket doesn't seem too unreasonable. The 'drama' was all a bit contrived and like we're inflicting our current values on another time. A lot of it reminded me a bit too much of The Right Stuff, where the first US astronauts in space get put through the wringer.
Even in the end, which I found moving, where
That said, the film offered some food for thought and it made me realise that the Iraq War was particulary bad in propoganda terms. First you have the attack on the twin towers, a visual gift for radical extremists (although the images also worked in America's favour, getting people on their side) then you have Bush's Mission Accomplished speech (albeit he was persuaded by others to do this because it would encourage investment in Iraq) and of course the infamous Lindy England with a prisoner on a bit of rope and so on, dreadful stuff. Oh, you even had the episode where the American flag was briefly raised rather than the Iraqi one, making it a triumphalist bit of jingoism rather than a liberating force. What a shambles. I mean, what were they even doing with an American flag on their person, if not to do that? It's not something you necessarily carry around with you is it... Or am I wrong, do killed soldiers get buried in the flag out there?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Batman (Michael Keaton) takes on the Joker (Jack Nicholson) while Gotham City hangs in the balance. I recently picked up the 20th anniversary BluRay of the film and watching it again was an interesting experience that showed me just how much movies have changed over the past 20 years. Considered a "groundbreaking" film in its time, it seems somewhat quaint by today's standards. Since the film was shot almost entirely on a soundstage, the action sequences and car chases all have a limited scope and small scale to them that becomes painfully apparent when compared to today's modern blockbusters. The film also practically grinds to a halt on several occasions to shoehorn some music by Prince into the proceedings (a really sad example of Warner's cross-promoting). As the film was made before the era of CGI, some of the effects don't work as well as others; the scene of the Joker falling to his death coming across as especially weak.
In hindsight, the casting is also a bit odd. Keaton makes for an odd, perpetually distracted Bruce Wayne, his attention always seeming to waver off in different directions. His Batman persona fares better, though the added fidelity of BluRay makes it fairly obvious just how little time he actually spends in the suit. Jack Nicholson practically hijacks the movie with his over the top performance, though you really have to give him credit for so completely embracing such an extreme character; he also gets most of the best lines. The rest of the cast is largely forgettable: Kim Basinger is superfluous, little more than a convenient damsel in distress with a mane of hair that seems to have a life of its own; Pat Hingle is utterly ineffective as Commissioner Gordon, always four steps behind everyone else, he makes Neil Hamilton from the old TV show look like Elliot Ness by comparison; Robert Wuhl's Alexander Knox is supposed to represent the common man's reaction to all the wierdness, but comes across as an utterly expendable character.
Where the film really shines is in its production design and sound. Even though the film boasts a dark and largely bland color palette, this new edition shows Gotham's grime and texture in ultra-sharp detail and the sets all hold up well to the added scrutiny. Anton Furst's brilliant retro futuristic designs really give the film a unique identity and the photography is full of interesting angles and iconic images such as Batman standing on the roofs of Gotham or the destruction of the Axis Chemicals building. Batman's various toys, especially the Batmobile, still look sharp and sleek and continue to represent the high point of production design for Batman movies. Bob Ringwood's costume design is similarly inspired and even if Batman's cowl looks a little too much like a helmet some of the time, you can at least make out the bat symbol on his chest. Finally, Danny Elfman's bombastic, almost operatic score with its instantly recognizable main theme holds up remarkably well and is far more memorable than anything offered up in subsequent Batman movies.
Overall, the movie has lost some of its luster over the years, but in the end it overcomes its weaknesses and remains an entertaining if somewhat flawed interpretation of the Dark Knight.
Ghostbusters
Another 20th anniversary BluRay; Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson play a group of paranormal investigators who try to save a hot Sigourney Weaver, a nebbish Rick Moranis and the rest of New York from falling into the clutches of Gozer, an evil god from another dimension.
Though that brief summary might lead you to think otherwise, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, full of ridiculous situations, goofy action and lots of smart, funny one-liners. The movie is full of wacky characters, offbeat spirits and lots of memorable scenes: the Ghostbusters first paranormal encounter with a long dead librarian, their first successful capture of the revolting Slimer at the Sedgewyck Hotel, and of course their epic battle with the Staypuft Marshmallow man in downtown New York. The dynamics between Murray's womanizing Dr. Venkman, Weaver's Dana Barrett (especially when she's under the influence of Zool) and Moranis' Louis Tully (as possessed by Vinz Clortho) makes for one of the wackiest love triangles (or maybe its a love pentangle). The special effects, which were deliberately cartoony and hokey to begin with, hold up really well and once you hear Ray Parker Jr.'s theme song it just won't leave your head anymore.
The BluRay remastering makes for a sharper and more colorful image but honestly, any version of this movie is worth checking out. A comedy classic. Highly recommended.
Sunshine
Danny Boyle's take on the sci-fi genre, Sunshine takes place in 2057; our sun is dying and Earth sends out a pair of spaceships in a desperate attempt to reignite it before all life is destroyed. When Icarus mysteriously disappears, Icarus II is sent out to complete the mission. All is going fairly well until they come across a distress signal from the first ship, then things quickly start to go wrong.
The first two-thirds of the film are really character oriented and most of the time is spent examining the ethnically and racially diverse characters and the effects that the prolonged mission is having on them. These sections try to evoke a 2001 or Solaris vibe though quite frankly Boyle's story isn't up to the task. The last act, occurring after an ill-fated rendezvous with the first ship, shifts the tone rather abruptly into an action/suspense yarn. To say more would spoil what happens; suffice it to say that the crew of Icarus II must overcome a number of major challenges if Earth is to be saved.
Considering that the film only had a budget of $40 million, Boyle gives us a movie that looks more expensive than it actually is, with some convincing and at times majestic images of the Icarus II hurtling towards the sun in its bid to save the Earth. He also makes interesting use of subliminal cuts during a creepy section where the crew make their way thru the lifeless hull of Icarus I to create an air of dread and unease. While the characters are fairly interesting, the relatively short running time of 1 hour, 48 minutes (including the credits) means that we really don't get to know them well enough to care too much for their eventual fates and once the movie is over, it doesn't really stay with you the way other, more memorable sci-fi films do.
Definitely worth a look for fans of the genre, but probably not a keeper.
Well, of course I am a fan of the genre...but even allowing for that, it sounds like I enjoyed this one more than you did. It's one of my favourite Danny Boyles. Smart stuff, and offbeat; a good combination for me.
And, speaking of the genre...
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day"
I had something of an epiphany while watching this one with the boys, as I guide them through a bit of 'catch-up' with the Terminator mythos, since their experience with the franchise started with T4 last weekend...I suddenly realized that the last time I'd seen T2, I wasn't even a father yet---which makes it at least 13 1/2 years since I'd last looked at this one. And it holds up very well. Linda Hamilton is very strong, as a mother who's been changed, by her experiences in T1, as much as one might expect. Robert Patrick is menace incarnate as the T1000. Great action sequences, great music (I love GnR's 'You Could Be Mine,' on of the best tracks on either Use Your Illusion), and a great story all justify this second entry in the canon---even though its essentially a retread of the first film, with one caveat...
I know that Schwarzenegger is the marquee presence in the film, and the reason this movie was a megahit, and
Of course, the boys loved it. And it's still a hell of a lot of fun for me. 4 out of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There Will Be Blood
This has been playing on satellite all month and I finally got a chance to watch it.
Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector with an intense hatred of mankind and a compulsive need to see his competitors fail. As his fortune grows, his true nature emerges and he further alienates himself from all those around him.
The film is full of interesting characters: Paul Dano plays Eli Sunday, a self-styled preacher and faith healer. The always entertaining Kevin O'Connor plays a man who claims to be Plainview's brother. Their interactions with Plainview over the years prove interesting and ultimately violently shocking.
Normally the subject matter wouldn't interest me, and Lewis is not an actor I particularly gravitate to, but he is positively riveting and utterly unrecognizable in this one; once you start watching, the film just draws you in, making you marvel as he manipulates a parade of unsuspecting victims into doing business with him.
A very well made film and its easy to see why Daniel Day Lewis took home the Oscar for his performance.
We're definitely going to see it. I'm putting it at the top of my Netflix queue...meanwhile, we're less than an hour from the premiere of Transformers 2, which the boys are eagerly anticipating...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Additionally, while I adore Daniel Day-Lewis, and I regard him as among the greatest actors of all time, I was a little disappointed with his performance. For much of the film, it was a brilliant performance, however,
I am with Tony on this, I realy enjoyed this movie and Lewis's performance completly riviting.
If I may return to a discussion that was had on this thread months ago, There Will be Blood is the type of film that if it had not got an Oscar nomination I would not have seen. Which is why I maintain the Oscar are important, in that they give films like TWBB a kind of "stamp of approval", that draws audiences to them, that may not otherwise have seen them.
In a smaller note, I see the Best Picture category will have 10 nominees next year, instead of the usual five. Apparently, back in the 30's and 40's, 10 nominess was standard. I think some years it might be hard to find 10 deserving nominees.
Not to hijack the thread. But if you want to get technical, the Golden Globes have 10 Best Picture nominees, they just separate the dramas from the Comedy and Musical. Hopefully with the expansion some comedys will be recognized instead of 10 dramas. Now back to recent movies seen.
I don't know what I think. Yes, during the 30's and 40's there were up to 12 Best Picture nominees, but actors were also nominated for different films in the same category, and I can't see the Academy bringing that back. Now it could work if the Academy is willing to be creative. So for example, if the ten Best Picture nominees last year also included Wall-E and Gran Torino, that would have been wonderful IMO, but the Academy isn't always that creative. We could end up with a list of ten Best nominees, with a good number of them being completely undeserved. Of course, one could say that about the current five nominees in some years. The problem then becomes what you suggested; in many years there arguably aren't 10 deserving nominees, and so nominating ten films could potentially lower the bar. It's certainly going to make things very interesting. Can't wait until next year.
One of the greatest advantages an average-to-subpar film can have---and this is particularly the case with summer popcorn fare---is a lack of heightened expectations...or perhaps no expectations whatsoever. The first Transformers film certainly enjoyed this benefit, at least from my own personal perspective: Being too old to have played with (or really even to have been aware of) the toys, and never having seen the cartoon show, I rented the first one on DVD and was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it: a nice mix of light humour, fast-paced action and fantastical, eye-popping visual effects. Thus, the breadth and depth of my Transformers knowledge and fandom was limited to my middling enjoyment of the first film, and so my expectations were somewhat similarly tempered heading into a sequel.
If you enjoyed the first film, you'll probably enjoy this one. I did---although I'll confess that by the third act, when the action becomes so prolonged and overwrought that it becomes hard to tell who's hitting whom, I was ready for it to be over...and with an estimated running time of 2 1/2 hours, the end took its time coming. Shia LeBeouf continues to be a likable lead, and his parents are enjoyable comic relief (although over-exposed in this one). John Turturro is almost always a little better than his material, and he's really slumming here, but he has some of the best lines in the piece. Megan Fox is...Megan Fox, and some of the greatest FX shots in T:ROTF thankfully feature her running---in slow motion!---in the foreground. Too bad about her lips, though; I think she was more attractive without the injections...
If ever a director has ever been well-matched with a project, it's Michael Bay and the Transformer juggernaut. The demands for real character depth and story viability are considerably less than the overcooked/overlong/overpopulated Pearl Harbor, or the ambitious and sincerely-intended The Island. Here, Bay is allowed to simply play in a very expensive playground, with the latest toys, never bothering to explain too much, or forcefeed the audience anything more nutritious than the overpriced popcorn this one will sell by the truckload.
Recommend for Transformer afficionados; a great many things fly through the air, strike each other, and explode. 2.8 out of of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
TWBB, to me, was basically a vehicle for Lewis to show us how talented he is. His acting was impeccable, and he really made the movie interesting. But by god if that movie doesn't have some of the strangest (read: worst) pacing I have ever seen. So, for me, TWBB is Lewis' acting reel, and not much more.
"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"
Given the title of the piece, it leads one to believe---in advance of viewing the picture---that perhaps John, Sarah and the T101 might not have prevented Judgment Day after all
The biggest problems with this film are suffered by most franchises that aren't James Bond*: it seems that, before long, the creative teams involved find themselves trapped in an assembly line 'cookie cutter' situation with the product they're producing, and attempt to compensate by making little 'tweaks' and variations around the edges. Unfortunately, these can too often smack of gimmickry.
Such is the case here:
Still, this one has more than a few things which redeem it: 1) Claire Danes, whom I find terrifically appealing, and is an excellent actress. 2) The requisite chase/destruction scene, which may be the best of the entire series. 3) The added backstory of the T101, and extra details of John Connor's 'future backstory' do a nice job of filling the holes in the mythos.
As minuses: The actor who plays John Connor isn't particularly strong, which is a problem; Edward Furlong was more convincing, IMNO, as a pre-teen who's unsure of his destiny---and his mother's sanity. By the time Connor's an adult, the wimpy self-doubt wears very thin
Overall, I'd have to say that Tony was right. This picture was definitely worth a look. 3 out of 5 stars...and I'm going back to revise upward my rating for T4, which is a better film than this one (and is Loeff Jr's favorite).
* And even James Bond succumbed to this eventually; it took extraordinary (and controversial!) measures by Eon to achieve a course correction...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Another day, another Daniel Craig lookalike...
This is an allegorical film about a three-year-old growing up in Nazi Germany who is so disgusted by adult life that he refuses to grow any more and becomes a gnome or dwarf. I can't say I was much taken with this movie as it seems all about the allegory (Germany being stunted under Nazi rule, the lower middle classes feeling excluded from Weimer Germany and wanting a voice, like the young kid) and if you leave that aside, there's not much else it seems. The kid, Oskar, makes a nuisance of himself, playing his tin drum whenever he feels stressed, or shattering glass with his eccentric vocal ablility. And that's it, I lost count of the number of times I thought the film was going to end, only to find, oh no, they're starting up with another plot development. It never really picks up the pace.
The interview with the extremely articulate director however made sense of it at least.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The seminal action-crime classic, directed by Don Siegel and starring a guy named Clint Eastwood, as the titular San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan, in a role that's fairly well known to most. I hadn't seen this one for fifteen years---at least---and wow, is it still a blast B-)
Andy Robinson is scene-chewingly frantic as the killer, known only as 'Scorpio,' who begins as rooftop sniper, and then branches out into kidnapping and hostage situations. He's an anarchist, and a perfect foil for Mr. Law and Order (the 'system' be damned). Other fine actors, including John Vernon as 'The Mayor' and Harry Guardino as Harry's semi-sympathetic boss, are mere background to the action and the attitude. The score, by Lalo Schifrin, is very much of its time and therefore, perhaps, all the more effective for it. This is a Seventies Tale, all the way, and Harry's signature monologue, in Act One, continues to echo across film history B-)
A classic. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
"Punisher: War Zone"
Finally came up in the Netflix queue...and I have to say, I enjoyed it. Is it art? Perhaps not,
Not being at all familiar with the more recent 'Max' incarnation of the comic book---though I own the complete runs of the original Punisher, War Zone and War Journal titles---I think I'd have preferred a sequel to the Thomas Jane film, even with a different actor, and even though this film is undeniably more true to the character's origin. Just my own, ill-informed opinion, since these films tend to have little or no common ground amongst fans of the books
It's a pity that, given the film's poor showing, there probably won't be any more of these. The action is visceral, bloody and unapologetic---like a mid-shift, daylight tour of a busy abbatoir---and therefore, IMRO it deserves kudos for its boldness. At least it knows what it is, and is therefore vastly superior to cinematic excrement like Shoot 'Em Up.
Not a classic...but I'll own it B-) 3 out of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
{[]
Love your fair and descriptive review, Loeff. The kid and I can't get enough of its cinematic carnage.
The film positively got sandbagged by Lionsgate when it came out last year.
On a side note, Colin Salmon's American accent trying to swear was just too hysterical for words.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My son bought this dvd for me Father's Day and it has to be one of the coolest gifts I've gotten from him thus far and a great thrill ride of a movie.
Liam Neeson is retired CIA agent Bryan Mills in search of his abducted teenage daughter who carelessly takes a trip to Europe with a friend who's also a minor.
The film offers a very brief glimpse into the world of sex traffickers but you get the sense that Neeson's character doesn't care about any of these women except his daughter. I think in the end that saves the movie - Neeson doesn't try to save the world, he only wants to save one person and will do pretty much anything to achieve that.
I've read and heard from those who've seen the flick and have complained about its content of questionable political incorrectness, its level of violence and how it might harbor xenophobic intent. I say lighten up: it's just a movie, it's not going to be for everyone. Although you sympathize right away with the main character, some of his actions you might call into question as overkill but maybe that's a good thing depending on how you view it.
If you love Commando and other films of this nature, this is right up your alley. Expect some fantastical moments in this one; as grounded in Bourne realism as it looks, there are some WTH moments along the way.
If you're one with kids of your own, especially a daughter, you don't know to what levels you'll take your urgency to get them back. It wouldn't hurt to be a CIA veteran with Mills skills either. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
I want to see Bryan Mills return to the big screen in a sequel.
TAKEN gets a hearty 3.5/4 stars from me.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Oh, yeah B-) Can't agree with you more...this is one of the great unappreciated action masterpieces of the year, IMO. Endlessly rewatchable.
And you're absolutely right about the suspension of disbelief, which it accomplishes (barely!) though sheer exuberance and forward momentum.*
*And, as a writer who's pounding out the final two chapters of a mystery action thriller, I can empathise with that!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This will be a short initial review, as it's late and I'm done in, but I REALLY enjoyed this film. If you like this period as I do---old cars with running boards, roaring Thompson .45s and B.A.R.s, with muzzle flashes during nighttime police assaults, and all the realistic viscera such material honestly demands---you will have fun living vicariously in this world for approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes B-) Johnny Depp is very good here---restrained and revealing in moments of silent stillness and reflection---and very convincing as John Dillinger, who lives for the moment and dreams of a future which he knows, on some level, he'll likely never see.
The cast is incredibly strong---a deep bench of talent, each actor playing essentially a 'niche' role: Stephen Dorff, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Lang, Lili Taylor, Leelee Sobieski and many others turn in roles short on screen time, but long on lasting impression. Marion Cotillard is lovely and engaging as Billie Frechette, the girl who turns Dillinger's head; their story plays well, IMO, but Ms. Cotillard's American accent inexplicably fails in the third act
Michael Mann is in excellent form here, working in a generally dark/moody pallette of colours, and taking care to tell the story without gratuitous glamour---or flourishes of the OTT stylism which so defined his early-career work (TV's Miami Vice in particular). He's a master of action, and these gunfights are edge-of-your-seat spectacular. Whether you know this story or not, if you're a fan of gangster pictures, you owe it to yourself to see this one on the big screen. I saw this one without Loeff Jr and Loeff III, and I'm glad---this one earns its 'R' very honestly.
Maybe a classic...I want to see this one again, and soon, to make sure. 4.25 out of 5 stars. Guess it wasn't that short a review, after all ;%
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This film has been reviewed by others so I will not repeat a summary of the story, but I will say I did not care for this as much as others have. For me, the film plays out like a television movie of the week, the story is implausible at times, the action scenes poorly shot and the acting, with the exception of Liam Neeson, rather weak. So many scenes had me rolling my eyes that I can’t list them all, but it starts early in the movie when Neeson provides protection for a singer and the events that transpire after the concert. IMO, the scene is totally hokey, with no real drama or suspense, just a convenient plot device to provide a nice conclusion to the film later. I could list more, but it would be a long list and I don't want to bore everyone, suffice to say, I wish the films writers had taken the time to provide a more intelligent story.
I know others liked it, but thumb down for me.
3.5/5 stars from me
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Just back from seeing this film, and if I could, I would watch it again immediately. Enemies is a wonderful film from Michael Mann detailing the last few years of John Dillinger's life. Mann does a great job of capturing both the glamorous side of a depression era bank robber as well as the deadly, not so glamorous moments. Mann uses various camera angles and extreme close ups to capture the mood and intensity of scenes which I found to be quite effective. As Loeffs mentioned, the entire cast is effective, Depp and Bale are the protagonists and each delivers memorable performances. Two smaller parts that jumped off the screen for me were Marion Cotillard as Dillinger's faithful girlfriend and Stephen Lang as Agent Windsted, the ruthless, but smart agent brought in to match the Dillinger's gang's toughness.
Like Loeffs I am fond of this era, I like the architecture, music, cars, and fashion, all of which Mann captures on film. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and highly recommend it.
On a personal note, I grew up in Wisconsin where some of this film was shot and where Dillinger often laid low between bank jobs. I remember when I was a kid my family visited The Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters Wisconsin where Dillinger and the FBI engaged in a large shoot out. The lodge plays up the Dillinger history to attract business and I can remember seeing some of the bullet holes in the walls that were left from the shoot out. It was fun to see that shoot out played out on film.
I'm really happy you liked this one, Barry!
Rotten Tomatoes had it at a disappointing 64%, last I looked. But what the hell? I guess most interesting pictures tend to polarize. At work today, I talked to an older guy who said he thought it was the worst edited film he'd seen in 20 years. I assume he hadn't yet caught QoS ;% Some 'critics' on RT complained that it didn't know what story it was telling...I strongly disagree. This film knows exactly what it's about B-) But, like so many other pictures I enjoy, it isn't for everyone.
Cheers {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
One of my faves, hard to watch without a giddy smile on my face. Great characters, taut script, wonderful set pieces and sumptuous costumes and sets. One great villain in Al Capone. Look out for Sheriff JW Pepper as the portly prosecutor near the end.
After many viewings I did pick up on some faults; Connery's Oirish accent gets the same treatment as Dickie Attenborough's Scottish in Jurassic Park, he gives it a fair crack of the whip early on, then forgets about it... The passage of time is a bit hokey, it is obviously meant to be over maybe two years in that Ness's wife has a baby during that time, but to us it only seems they've been together weeks.
All the same, I wish some of the Bond films since had been more like this.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In today's economic clime, this one moved to the high priority list of netflix I mean lovefilm, queue...
Well it's set in the Depression and it's depressing alright. So much so that I had to stagger the viewing over two nights. Henry Fonda plays the guy released from jail for accidental homicide and returning to the bosom of his family only to find out that they're being moved on from the land they've been tied to for generations and have to make for California in their old jallopy.
Mainly this is about their road trip, the first half, and grim viewing it is too. The movie starts off a bit like a Coen Brothers movie, especially when Fonda meets the former preacher played by John Carradine, father of the late David, who has lost his faith and doesn't believe any more. It's ironic that JC should be playing a guy in such troubled times, while his son dies in a solo sex game, that's the generations for you...
Not one to really buck you up, this film, though it rallies for the final third and gets a bit more like Scarlet in Gone With The Wind, probably to avoid sending audiences out to commit mass suicide. Still odd to see that Pa Fonda would have been politically at odds with his daughter; this could be accused of being a pinko film at the time and of course Jane Fonda did They Shoot Horses Don't They?, a similar Depression era film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017