"How things in Sydney, DS? I hear it's a bit smoggy..."
Firstly, a brilliant film. Secondly, Sydney has been through a dust storm recently, so it's not exactly smoggy, rather it's dusty. Alot of people had to hire window cleaners and send their cars to car washes (it's a good time to own shares in window-cleaning businesses and car washes. )
"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
The Invention Of Lying (Ricky Gervais's Directorial Debut)
The premise of this movie is a world like us, but no one has ever told a lie or anything that isn't true. So fiction doesn't exist either – movies are just someone narrating events that happened - and on a rather more interesting level, no religion has been established either....
That is until Ricky Gervais’s character comes along, and makes up the first 'lie' - once he realises he can get away with it, he then tries out his new found power (the first one being getting a very attractive woman to sleep with him, which he doesn't actually follow through with, but realises how he can basically get away with anything) and then very innocently tells his mum, who is dying, that she has nothing to be afraid of, as she will be going to a 'heaven' type place where she will be happy and content.
It's this, that then sets the parallel of irony, as he proceeds to make up 'Christianity' - and the problems that follow when you are then perceived to be a 'Jesus' type figure - which he is - when really all he wants is for the girl (Jennifer Garner) to marry him.
Several opportunities arise where he could get her to do this by lying (She feels she can't marry him, as genetically, she is way out of his league) however he doesn't. And I really liked that message he was trying to get across.
The humour is subtle, and it's a very Ricky Gervais film, if that makes sense....some might not be able to sit through 2 hours of it, as the jokes and humour isn't constant - although the opening scene is a classic - but it just doesn't seem to keep momentum.
A dvd rental if your other first top 3 are 'rented'
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
"Eagle Eye"
This one had an excellent trailer, early on, long before it was actually released to the cinema---a real grabber. We watch as Shia LeBeouf (sp? ;% ) suddenly finds that $750,000 has been deposited into his bank account...and explosives, weapons and classified information turn up in his apartment...while a pleasant female voice on his cellphone informs him that the FBI will arrive to apprehend him in 30 seconds Of course, violence and chases ensue. When I saw the trailer I thought: 'looks pretty crazy...I doubt the film can live up to it.'
Amazingly, IMRO it does. Eagle Eye is a blast; one of those actioners that both excites and inspires a certain dread in the minds of conspiracy lovers everywhere. Sure, it's bizarre and improbable...but it moves quickly, and it's played with an infectious earnestness by LeBoeuf---and Michelle Monahan as single mother of a young son who plays a potentially explosive piece of music while on a band trip to Washington, DC. The action setpieces are massive and eye-popping (although, once again, the editing gets a bit dodgy at key points---what is it with modern action films? X-( ), and the story hangs in there to deliver on its premise...and its promise.
A strong cast supports the high-tech outlandishness with able performances by all: Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson, Michael Chiklis, Ethan Embry. The dialogue gets a bit cheeky at times (especially Thornton's), but it all works toward the overall success of the picture, which I found to be great fun. 4 out of 5 stars, with extra butter for your popcorn B-)
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 Taking of Pelham 123 (warning: minor spoilers.)
Not the original classic, or the TV movie, but the remake with John Travolta and Denzel Washington. The original, which inspired Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, was among the greatest thrillers of its era, with fantastic performances, a superb plot and screenplay, and a real sense of character that was a distinct feature of films of the early to mid 1970's.
The remake tells essentially the same story, albeit with a few major differences: four thieves take over a subway train, demand a ransom, and the leader of the thieves negotiates with a rail worker. Travolta plays the mastermind behind the hostage taking, while Washington is the rail worker who realises that he won't be having a regular day at the office.
The major difference between the remake and the original, is that in the original, the thieves used aliases (colours such as Mr Brown etc...), while in this film, we discover exactly whom they are, including the identity of one thief relatively early. The method of the hostage taking has also been updated to modern times, with the stock market playing a prominent role.
One difference, which I did not appreciate, was in relation to Travolta's character. Unlike the character played by the extraordinary Robert Shaw, he is hotheaded, incredibly coarse (he calls everyone mother ******) and he doesn't come across as the professional he would have to be if he were to accomplish a job of this magnitude. He is also demystefied as he is revealed to be Catholic, which is interesting as it opens up a fatalistic aspect of his character, but the film doesn't really do much with it. Personally, I would also have preferred that there retain a sense of mystery about him. The way he dresses, with his tattoes visible, also isn't wonderful in terms of blending in. He looks exactly like a criminal; Shaw's character most certainly did not. The reason I keep on comparing Travolta to Shaw is that Shaw was magnificent in the orginal. Travolta, whilst a very good actor, delivers a performance that is well below his usual standards. He is as subtle as a brick, annoyingly loud and, as I mentioned earlier, very coarse, although of course the screenplay lets him down on the latter, and needs to be reminded of some of the great villains he's played (such as Broken Arrow and half of Face-Off). Washington is pretty good, but then again, he's always good.
This is a fun film, but it's a forgettable film even among forgettable popcorn flicks. I don't regret seeing it, but it capped off a relatively disappointing night at the cinemas (which began with the enormously disappointing *Public Enemies. )
*A review will be posted shortly.
Father of the Bride. The orginal with Spencer Tracey and Elizabeth Taylor. While Tracey is superb as always (there are certain actors who are simply incapable of producing disappointing performances, and he's one of them), the film isn't anything special. I suspect that this version gained its legendary status due to its cast, and due to it being remade. However, it comes across as a TV movie which doesn't have all that much to say about daughters getting married. This may be sacrilege to prefer a remake, but in this case, I certainly do. While the Steve Martin version was never among Martin's best films, I think his version is of more substance, feels less like a TV movie, and is also less old fashioned. One of my problems with this 1950 film is that while it explores numerous issues associated with having a daughter getting married, such as the cost, it doesn't really interrogate them sufficiently and it never ascended the level of a telemovie. Still, as I mentioned, Tracey is great. I would recommend it only to Tracey/Taylor fans, or to fans of the remake.
Sorority Row. I saw it with my GF (surprise, surprise), and it wasn't so bad. It probably doesn't say much if I say that it's nowhere near as horrible as the Halloween remake, the Hostel films or the Saw films, but it's actually an enjoyable film. It's a remake of an 80's slasher film (which I've never seen), and is essentially an I Know What You Did Last Summer-type of film. Fun, but only if one is interested in violent slasher films.
Knocked Up. A terrific Judd Apatow comedy with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. I watched it for the second time on TV and- while it's still very funny, and the performances are wonderful (especially Seth Rogen) and it has a gorgeous cameo from Harold Ramis- its humour and #wish fullfillment fantasy doesn't IMO translate nearly as well a second time. It is a good film, a very good film at times, but it's not a great film.
#By wish fullfillment fantasy I mean the idea of a funny, but not exactly physically impressive guy ending up with Katherine Heigl. It is something that Rogen, and other Apatow leads, (and members of the audience) dream about, but how realistic it is, is debatable.
"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
Having quite enjoyed the original early 1930s film Frankenstein, when I saw its sequel was even more feted and dubbed the best monster film ever, I made sure to rent it.
Well, certainly its more technologically advanced, with a bigger budget and music on the soundtrack (although the almost audible silence on the original, so characteristic of early 1930s films, I found quite eerie). But I didn't really rate it. Like Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, it starts only 15 minutes after the last film ends. Problem is, they wrapped it up nicely at the end of the last film, so the sequel has to contrivedly and unconvincingly unpick all the loose ends to start the story up again. It's not a long film, and half an hour in we're back to the Monster rampaging through the woods all over again. Only this time it's a mite comical, less Frankenstein than Frank Spencer, as he well meaningly gatecrashes women in the woods and they run off scared and screaming.
This wily old mentor, who we've never seen before, arrives to coerce the scientist into having another bash at his experiments. (This is a common problem with sequels in which the 'hero' has learned his lesson the first time, or is too cowardly to go through it again - they have to be coerced by someone but it loses its dramatic edge imo.) To show he's a dab hand himself, this mentor reveals his own experiments, but they're so farfetched and far ahead of the scientist's cut and paste job, it defies belief, consisting of
six or seven miniature men and women formed from a seed and kept in bell jars, all dressed and running around with their own personalities like Tom Thumb
As for the bride, she's only in it for the last five minutes!
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I do hope you'll continue on, and watch Son of Frankenstein, which followed in 1939, which was Karloff's swan song in the role of the creature...so that you'll be properly primed to watch Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, if you haven't yet seen it B-) I love those old Universals---own them all, even the lesser ones, the multi-montsterfests they put out through the '40s, leading up to Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein...
For my own part, tonight's film fare was much tamer, though equally dear to my heart:
"Summer of '42"
Probably in my top ten all-time favourite films, for sentimental reasons...the exquisite Jennifer O'Neill is one of the two great movie crushes of my childhood*...but also because I love the novel, written by Herman Raucher, about a 15 year-old's
...intitiation into adulthood, at the hands of a 22 year-old woman :x
The novel is both gut-bustingly hilarious and tragic, while the film itself strikes a nicely in-between portrait of teenage awkwardness and nostalgic period detail. There has to be a reason I set my latest writing project in this era...perhaps I lived during this time in a previous life :v
The war casts a long shadow over this piece, which deals with the loss of innocence. Jennifer O'Neill's performance is unremarkable until the Third Act, when it turns poignantly sublime. I'm still in love...
Hermie's trip to the drug store is the stuff of classics...honourable mention goes to a trip to the local moviehouse, where Now, Voyager, starring Bette Davis and Paul Henreid, casts reflected light upon wandering teenage hands...
4.8 out of 5 stars.
*The other being Katharine Ross, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Graduate
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 was in two minds about Son Of... Loeffs, but will rent it as I have added Young Frank' to my list! Sadly Summer of 42 is not at the rental place.
Danger: Diabolik
Obscure 1960s Italian Bond knock-off, recommended on this thread by either Alex or John Drake, probably Alex as he also suggested that George Lazenby murder mystery set in Venice. Amazingly for a 1968 film, just about every scene anticipates one from a future Bond film, from the opener where a helicopter chases a car - a black e-type Jag - along a mountaintop road just like the similar scene in The Spy Who Loved Me. Thereafter you'll catch things that pop up in Diamonds are Forever, Moonraker, A View to A Kill, right up to GoldenEye. It's as if EON had a bootleg copy of this film in a safe and took it out every few years to make notes.
But Diabolik (pronounced Dee-abolik in the Italian) is no government spy. He's a master thief who dresses in a tight black leather catsuit and black bavaclava to pull off his heists, making his getaway in a surely quite noticeable black e-type, with the help of his blonde crumpet and accomplice Eva.
The opening 20 minutes, in which there's a successful heist, a car chase, a campy loungecore song, a retreat to Diabolik's lavish and expansive pad culminating in a shagfest with said crumpet in a heap of bank notes, is beyond pornography. -{
Yet bizarrely, this is the moment when I began to detest the film. Diabolik (played by John Philip Law, who was the angel in Barberella) is such a humourless blank, a charisma-free zone who scarcely utters a witticism in the entire film. Suddenly I felt that the only reason such lusty or promiscuous attitudes prevailed in the 1960s is because the likes of Sean Connery and Michael Caine putting a positive spin on it. Law (ironically Jude Law would be a shoe-in for the role today) is more in the Terence Stamp mode, he goes about his business in a selfish, single-minded, unironical sort of way.
Though he has no personality, he puts you in mind of certain personas: at first Bond, then Batman with his underground lair, then the Joker as he pulls a practical joke at a press conference (though not out of joie de vivre but rather snide one-upmanship it seems), then Bonnie & Clyde.
But overall, this is a guy in superhero guise who has no alter ego and therefore no social life. Batman has Bruce Wayne, Superman has Clark Kent. This guy is just Diabolik and when he retreats to his lair to bang his bird, fine, but he doesn't actually have any mates at all so it's hard to connect with him. It's like if Superman decided to not bother to save lives but just went on Viking-like pillages once in a while, holing up in the Fortress of Solitude every so often to shag Lex Luther's mistress and count the cash.
However, the DVDs extras, as with Bride of Frankenstein, did assist my attitude to the film. Diabolik is an anti-hero favoured by the Italians. Unlike America, which won the war and has faith in the government being right and so on, Italy had Mussolini and a more cynical attitude to the government, so viewers would applaud the guy sticking it to the man. What's more, the character stems from a comic book and many of the shots owe something to that in the way they're framed, with nods to the square shape of the panel. The direction has a dynamic style lacking from other comic book spin-offs of the time.
For all that, the anti-hero and his girl are so unlikeable and ruthless that you do feel generally excluded from their activities. They remind me of the charmless pair from Topaki, though the film has more to offer than that.
I do hope you'll continue on, and watch Son of Frankenstein
i must agree!!!
Son of Frankenstein is my favorite of the old Universal monster movies.
with as great as Lugosi is in Dracula i think this is a more engaging performance as Ygor. similar to how in Frankenstein sympathy for the monster is engendered from the viewer, here you can't but feel sorry for poor Ygor. the villagers tried to kill him (leaving him disfigured) and even the children are cruel to him. then you learn what he's up to.
Karloff is also excellent as is Rathbone.
as has been mentioned, there are also some fun origins to many gags in Young Frankenstein including the one-armed constable.
Beautifully shot horror movie with a murderer cutting his was through the models and owners of an Italian fashion house. The killer wears a creepy outfit, which is one part Film Noir with a smooth faceless mask. There's some stunning imagery, but there is nobody you really care about. Though that guy who used to play Buck in the High Chaparral is in it.
Also A Bay of Blood
Apparently this was a huge influence on Friday the 13th, which depending on your opinion is a either a good or a bad thing. There's a few acres by a lake that is worth a fortune to developers and a bunch of people killing each other in various gruesome ways for the rights. It is far gorier than any of the other Bava films I've seen and I nearly threw up at one sequence involving a dead man's face and an octopus. It's not in the same class as Lisa and the Devil or Kill Baby Kill, but it is certainly watchable. The ending is brilliant though.
This one surprised me, a Roger Vadim movie I actually liked.
Blood and Roses
Haunting vampire movie with a mesmerising performance from Annete Vadim. It's based on Sheridan Le Fanu's story Carmilla and it tells of a young woman awakening the spirit of a centuries old vampire, although there is a certain amount of ambiguity present in the film that suggests Carmilla may just be disturbed. Highly recommended, although gorehounds should avoid it. This has more in common with the subtleties of Roger Corman's The Tomb of Ligeia, or Jack Clayton's The Innocents.
Black Emanuelle, White Emanuelle
One of the weakest in the rip-off series, as Emanuelle travels to Egypt and gets involved with an obnoxious and violent fashion photographer and some wierdy-beardy religious fellow. The only pluses here are Laura Gemser and her co-star Annie Belle, two of the finest 70's cult cinema icons brought together in the same film, a meeting that I consider to be far more important than King Kong versus Godzilla, or De Niro meeting Pacino for a cup of coffee in Heat.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2009
"The Spirit"
Wow, where to begin---perhaps with the caveat that I've never read the classic comic book, which must be a blessing, since (whatever Will Eisner was up to) Frank Miller surely messed with it a bit.
Visually, I enjoyed it, and the self-aware nature of the piece's humour was infectious. So on that level, it was quite a bit of fun. Loeff Jr and Loeff III both really enjoyed it, whilst admitting that it was easily one of the oddest films either of them had (maybe) ever seen. The lead actor, Gabriel Macht (sp?) was actually quite good. Eva Mendes and Scarlett Johannson cashed a check, although both of them looked like they were having fun---but none moreso than Samuel L. Jackson, who looked like he was having a great time.
However---and this is my thing---I think I would've preferred a more sombre, genuinely Noirish tale, with a more melancholy tinge to the hero and storyline. Perhaps that wasn't what Eisner was up to at all---probably not---but it's what I would've liked. As played, it comes off as entertaining, but wildly uneven. As high camp, it arguably works...I'm a fan of Frank Miller's comic book work (most of it), but his "look at me!" style intrudes. I don't think he was the right director for this project...if he's a film director at all. 2 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 should be pulling out the Universal legacy sets soon. In the meanwhile, a spaghetti western kick has been in place.
If You Meet Sartana Pray For Your Death (1968)
Stylish, handsome, smiling, and armed to the teeth, Sartana is like the western 007. (If Bond was an avenging angel of death)
Gianni Garko, billed as John, is one of the coolest Italian western anti-heroes since Franco Nero's Django. I thought it was an excellent entry. Definitely top tier for this genre. (look for a cameo by a young TonyDP who plays one of the pallbearers)
look for a cameo by a young TonyDP who plays one of the pallbearers
) I'm not sure how you know what I look like but now you've piqued my curiosity and I'll have to hunt this movie down. The only thing I've ever seen Gianni Garko in is an episode of Space 1999.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2009
"Gran Torino"
Can't remember if I reviewed this one the first time I saw it (with my parents, about 3 wks ago)...but I'll do so now, since I just saw it with my sons last night---and it seems more fitting to do so for the 2nd viewing, because this was the one where I cried... ;%
Clint Eastwood has had a legendary and storied career in film, of course---on both sides of the camera---but it's ironic that he's actually become the John Huston of his time, given that he (basically) portrayed him in White Hunter, Black Heart, one of many excellent films in which he both directs and stars. I really enjoyed his early directorial efforts (Play Misty For Me, High Plains Drifter and especially The Eiger Sanction), and began to be genuinely impressed with efforts such as the aforementioned WHBH and of course Unforgiven, where he assigned a masterstroke of a coda to his work in the 'Western' milieu. With Gran Torino, in my humble opinion, he's done the same thing for his overall screen persona...
...since I firmly believe that GT is Eastwood's own unique take on what Don Siegel did for John Wayne in his excellent The Shootist...
...and if Eastwood never acts on film again (a distinct possibility, I believe), he cannot have picked a better final role: Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and widower, whose quiet but sad life is interrupted by events in his suburban neighborhood, which has become increasingly Asian...and populated with ethnic gang-bangers. The performances---from Eastwood himself to all the supporting players---are top notch. While some humour is milked from Kowalski's 'grumpy old man' schtick, it is frequently a welcome and pitch-perfect respite from other goings-on. After seeing it for the first time, I was leery of showing it to Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but was swiftly reassured that they hear worse every day in middle school Appropriately, it causes me to reflect upon the general blight of societal decay (hope and change we can believe in notwithstanding)
That he didn't take home an Oscar for this one is a case study in political correctness. It is a story of friendship and redemption, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 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
Can't remember if I reviewed this one the first time I saw it (with my parents, about 3 wks ago)...but I'll do so now, since I just saw it with my sons last night---and it seems more fitting to do so for the 2nd viewing, because this was the one where I cried... ;%
Clint Eastwood has had a legendary and storied career in film, of course---on both sides of the camera---but it's ironic that he's actually become the John Huston of his time, given that he (basically) portrayed him in White Hunter, Black Heart, one of many excellent films in which he both directs and stars. I really enjoyed his early directorial efforts (Play Misty For Me, High Plains Drifter and especially The Eiger Sanction), and began to be genuinely impressed with efforts such as the aforementioned WHBH and of course Unforgiven, where he assigned a masterstroke of a coda to his work in the 'Western' milieu. With Gran Torino, in my humble opinion, he's done the same thing for his overall screen persona...
...since I firmly believe that GT is Eastwood's own unique take on what Don Siegel did for John Wayne in his excellent The Shootist...
...and if Eastwood never acts on film again (a distinct possibility, I believe), he cannot have picked a better final role: Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and widower, whose quiet but sad life is interrupted by events in his suburban neighborhood, which has become increasingly Asian...and populated with ethnic gang-bangers. The performances---from Eastwood himself to all the supporting players---are top notch. While some humour is milked from Kowalski's 'grumpy old man' schtick, it is frequently a welcome and pitch-perfect respite from other goings-on. After seeing it for the first time, I was leery of showing it to Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but was swiftly reassured that they hear worse every day in middle school Appropriately, it causes me to reflect upon the general blight of societal decay (hope and change we can believe in notwithstanding)
That he didn't take home an Oscar for this one is a case study in political correctness. It is a story of friendship and redemption, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
I'm with you there. The build up to the final scene is brilliant, and without spoiling it - it didn't end as I expected and was obviously all the better for it...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Alfred Hitchcock thriller starring Cary Grant and the lovely Eva Marie Saint. I last saw this film in Film Study class while attending college, which was quite awhile ago. In brief, the story involves Cary Grant being mistaken for an American government agent by a foreign spy working in the States. Not only is Grant forced to evade being killed by the foreign adversaries, he also has to flee the police who think he has killed someone. Eva Marie Saint is the woman who helps Grant elude police, but later it isn't clear where her loyalty is.
A well written film with a good performances from the cast, is it me or did Hitchcock know how to light his female leads, because they always look gorgeous. In typical Hitchcock fashion we get some interesting turns in the film with a thrilling and original climax to the story.
Note - For those of you who enjoy this type of thing, I happened to notice that at about the 4 minute mark of the film, Grant gets out of a cab to go into a restaurant and a tall blond woman walks by on the street with an off-white v-cut backless dress. At about the 25 minute mark, Grant gets out of a cab with his mother to go into a hotel and I believe that same woman wearing the same dress walks by again. I don't usually notice those things, but that jumped out at me, perhaps Hitch just kept using the same extras for the crowd scenes.
I don't usually notice those things, but that jumped out at me, perhaps Hitch just kept using the same extras for the crowd scenes.
Given the economies of filmmaking, Hitchcock probably shot those scenes back to back at the same time, using the same extras.
North by Northwest is easily my favorite Hitchcock film, with some really evocative imagery like that shot of Thornhill being chased by the cropduster and some very interesting camera angles. The subject matter is of course welcome and Cary Grant gives a memorably slick performance. James Mason and Martin Landau are also very good here, especially Landau's creepy, overprotective, borderline man-crush on Mason.
There's a 50th Anniversary DVD and BluRay being released in a couple of weeks that will feature a newly remastered print and all sorts of extras.
That scene at the auction where he deliberately acts the jackass in order to gain protection by proximity cracks me up.
There was another made in the 60s where he plays an alcoholic on a pacific island who lands a mess of orphans and a lovely French lass. One of his last films I believe and another favorite of mine.
North by Northwest is easily my favorite Hitchcock film, with some really evocative imagery like that shot of Thornhill being chased by the cropduster and some very interesting camera angles. The subject matter is of course welcome and Cary Grant gives a memorably slick performance. James Mason and Martin Landau are also very good here, especially Landau's creepy, overprotective, borderline man-crush on Mason.
From a purely entertainment perspective, I completely agree with you. It is IMO Hitchcock's most entertaining film by far; a brilliant mystery adventure thriller which is as comforting as a nice glass of Scotch on a wintery evening. The reason I singled it out from an entertainment perspective is because I'm not sure whether it really is my favourite Hitchcock film. Vertigo, Strangers on a Train, even Rear Window are also among my favourite Hitchcock films.
"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
Notorious sequel to the classic Godfather film. Most of you will know the history of this, but for the young 'uns I'll explain. In the early 1970s Paramount was in a cash crisis thanks to Coppola's Heaven's Gate fiasco. With the Godfather sequel scheduled for filming, a decision was made to make it more commercial, a feelgood movie with a broader range - "a film for all the Family" as one cringeworthy tagline went. At at time when the Bond films were becoming increasingly juvenile, it seemed a smart move, and one that would appeal to Italian-Americans. The plot has Mikey Corleone taking his kids on a road trip to discover "the real America". At this point it was discovered that thanks to a legal loophole, Marlon Brando was contracted to appear in the sequel even though is character dies in the first film. So they fixed it for him to show up as Vito's long estranged half-brother Giuseppe, who has a minor Godfather role in a small Sicilian town.
He doesn't actually rub people out but rather arranges for unpleasant things to happen to them - sneaks dog turds into their path, nicks their milk, that sort of thing. Anyway Mikey makes him an offer he can't refuse and he joins his family for the road trip, where they discover lots of things along the way, having fun and learning too. Another tag went: "Mikey and the gang are hitting the road, with the Godfather Too!" Funnily enough, Diane Keaton managed to steer clear of this fiasco.
To be honest, I found a couple of scenes quite amusing - the impromptu shoe shuffle in the Nevada shopping mall (although it's clear even now that Brando's weight gain is becoming an issue) and the spaghetti and meatball food fight finale (nods to Bugsy Malone here, though I'm not sure which came first). All the same, this is regarded as the worst sequel of all time, worse even than More American Graffiti, and Brando's career never fully recovered.
Notorious sequel to the classic Godfather film. Most of you will know the history of this, but for the young 'uns I'll explain. In the early 1970s Paramount was in a cash crisis thanks to Coppola's Heaven's Gate fiasco. With the Godfather sequel scheduled for filming, a decision was made to make it more commercial, a feelgood movie with a broader range - "a film for all the Family" as one cringeworthy tagline went. At at time when the Bond films were becoming increasingly juvenile, it seemed a smart move, and one that would appeal to Italian-Americans. The plot has Mikey Corleone taking his kids on a road trip to discover "the real America". At this point it was discovered that thanks to a legal loophole, Marlon Brando was contracted to appear in the sequel even though is character dies in the first film. So they fixed it for him to show up as Vito's long estranged half-brother Giuseppe, who has a minor Godfather role in a small Sicilian town.
He doesn't actually rub people out but rather arranges for unpleasant things to happen to them - sneaks dog turds into their path, nicks their milk, that sort of thing. Anyway Mikey makes him an offer he can't refuse and he joins his family for the road trip, where they discover lots of things along the way, having fun and learning too. Another tag went: "Mikey and the gang are hitting the road, with the Godfather Too!" Funnily enough, Diane Keaton managed to steer clear of this fiasco.
To be honest, I found a couple of scenes quite amusing - the impromptu shoe shuffle in the Nevada shopping mall (although it's clear even now that Brando's weight gain is becoming an issue) and the spaghetti and meatball food fight finale (nods to Bugsy Malone here, though I'm not sure which came first). All the same, this is regarded as the worst sequel of all time, worse even than More American Graffiti, and Brando's career never fully recovered.
) Bravo! You really did outdid yourself. Fantastic.
"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
But Mr Same, the smile may be wiped from your face when you read my real review. I won't be surprised to wake up with a horse's head in my bed... did I enjoy The Godfather Part II? Neigh, neigh and thrice neigh!!
It lost me from hello. The opener against a Sicilian landscape, with a funeral procession. The script on screen says we're dealing with the death of The Godfather's dad, around 1900. ie Brando's Dad. It tells how Vito (Brando) stays with his mum while his brother Paolo flees for the country. Okay, I think, this is going to be about the two sons and their different attitudes. One stays loyal to his mother and is law-abiding, the other turns criminal, but Vito gradually starts to see that you need more than virtue in life, and later turns to the bad or something... Not saying I conciously thought all this, but this seems to be the set-up. Leaving aside the sub-editor in me that's annoyed at hypenating mur-der in the opening scroll... But then
shots ring out and a cry goes up: Paolo has been shot! I have to rewind it... I thought Paolo had fled to the country. What's he doing there? Did he just show up for the funeral? Or did they kill him and drag him out there? Why bother mentioning his whereabouts if he's gonna get offed in the first scene?
This 'Eh? You what?' attitude prevailed throughout the film. Part of it is given over to Vito's rise to become the Godfather, most of it is his son Mikey's continuing quest to be the shark in his family, but we saw much of that in the last film. This narrative trick tends to occur when its needed to conceal that neither plot lines are actually very interesting. It even happened in GoldenEye when it flits between Bond and Natalya's escape.
The early scenes with Vito are sort of interesting but not emotionally gripping. It all seems quite simplistic, his rise, and almost comic. The scene where he gets lured into stealing a carpet is almost Harold Lloyd. Shouldn't he be annoyed at getting talked into that? And then he wipes out the local kingpin, (spot an early cameo from E.T. )*:
You think, well, if that's all it takes to be the main guy, it can't be too hard. DeNiro looks a bit like the young Godfather might be, but he's not Brando. DeNiro looks like a hard nut from the start, but Brando's character had a bear-like charm, a charisma. It's like Brando's man got backed into being a bad guy through circumstance, almost like Connery's Bond in that he's up against even worse people than him. DeNiro's Vito looks like he's mostly there already.
As for Mikey's part of the tale, well, he's looking for the traitor in his midst but I couldn't really care less as they're all such unsympathetic characters. I didn't get it, was it the Jewish guy Roth? If so, why? Just cos he's not Italian? There's a nasty senator who has it in for them but
when he's obviously fitted up with a dead prossie, he turns to the Family and doesn't seem to suspect; next scene he's their bestest mate with nary a sign of resentment or suspicion
Keaton's Kay gets an underwritten part, she's mainly in a huff but when it later transpires
that she's had an abortion, it seems odd because we haven't seen her reach rock bottom in her attitude to the Family. And shouldn't Mikey have it in for Tom (Duvall) for lying about her miscarriage or even arranging the abortion? We don't know - he doesn't even confront him about it!
Mikey goes to Havana - and I quite enjoyed these scenes, in fact all the crowd scenes - but surmises that the rebels will win after watching one incident involving a suicide attacker. Perhaps that Senator had it right about Italians lack of moral fibre, that kind of attitude would be no good in Afganhistan! ) Still, Italian tanks have one forward gear and three in reverse and all that...
It goes on and on. People get forgiven, then wiped out to provide some kind of finale. Most of all I missed the effortless period depiction of, say, 1950s streets and cars going by. There's none of that at all, and no great set piece killings, save Vito gaining his 00 badge early on. And why did the fat Italian suddenly drop his testimony because his brother shows up from Sicily? Does his brother have an account of all the porn films they used to watch as a kid? ) It's just too pat and unexplained.
Pacino ages well, and looks bulky, but at times resembles his character from Dick Tracy!
The Godfather Too would have been more fun! There you go Dan, the stables are that way....
* E.T.'s training in the circus as a fire-eater came into its own in this scene, and he was spotted by Spielberg who was looking to remake the 1930s classic Freaks, before finding the perfect role for him: as Gandhi. Sadly, Dickie Attenborough was already making the film, so Spielberg opted instead for E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, a big hit to be sure, but it did lead to the alien actor being typecast and later dogged by rumours about occurrences at Michael Jackson's Neverland...
Can't remember if I reviewed this one the first time I saw it (with my parents, about 3 wks ago)...but I'll do so now, since I just saw it with my sons last night---and it seems more fitting to do so for the 2nd viewing, because this was the one where I cried... ;%
Clint Eastwood has had a legendary and storied career in film, of course---on both sides of the camera---but it's ironic that he's actually become the John Huston of his time, given that he (basically) portrayed him in White Hunter, Black Heart, one of many excellent films in which he both directs and stars. I really enjoyed his early directorial efforts (Play Misty For Me, High Plains Drifter and especially The Eiger Sanction), and began to be genuinely impressed with efforts such as the aforementioned WHBH and of course Unforgiven, where he assigned a masterstroke of a coda to his work in the 'Western' milieu. With Gran Torino, in my humble opinion, he's done the same thing for his overall screen persona...
...since I firmly believe that GT is Eastwood's own unique take on what Don Siegel did for John Wayne in his excellent The Shootist...
...and if Eastwood never acts on film again (a distinct possibility, I believe), he cannot have picked a better final role: Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and widower, whose quiet but sad life is interrupted by events in his suburban neighborhood, which has become increasingly Asian...and populated with ethnic gang-bangers. The performances---from Eastwood himself to all the supporting players---are top notch. While some humour is milked from Kowalski's 'grumpy old man' schtick, it is frequently a welcome and pitch-perfect respite from other goings-on. After seeing it for the first time, I was leery of showing it to Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but was swiftly reassured that they hear worse every day in middle school Appropriately, it causes me to reflect upon the general blight of societal decay (hope and change we can believe in notwithstanding)
That he didn't take home an Oscar for this one is a case study in political correctness. It is a story of friendship and redemption, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
I'm with you there. The build up to the final scene is brilliant, and without spoiling it - it didn't end as I expected and was obviously all the better for it...
Gran Torino is a masterpiece, one of Clint's best films and one of my all-time favourite films. I saw it three times at the Cinemas, which is alot for me. I think it is a magnificent film, and IMO the fact that Clint wasn't even nominated is a travesty. I think he should have won the Oscar, which ideally should have been his second acting Oscar (I think he should have won for Million Dollar Baby). His performance, his best ever IMO, in Gran Torino showcased a great actor at the peak of his powers; tough, wounded, soft and incredibly complexed.
The film itself it brilliant. Tightly structured, it features one of the best screenplays Clint has had the pleasure of working with in years. Unlike Million Dollar Baby, for example (which was written by the *dreaded Paul Haggis :v), Gran Torino didn't really feauture any false notes. That's not to suggest it is perfect; rather, the film is organised so cleanly and neatly that its flaws are easily overcome by its numerous strengths.
While Clint, as a director, has never been a great stylist, he utilises his usual minialism where he services the film and does only what is needed. As a result, he neither distracts the viewer or takes away focus from the film at hand. The music is wonderful, and I loved the song at the end which he co-wrote.
I mentioned Clint's masterful perfomance. The performances of the supporting characters, particularly from the non-professionals playing the Hmong, were extremely impressive, and I love how he intoduced a people to the screen that many, if not most, viewers had never heard of in a way that does not come across as a school or University lecture.
Two more comments:
1)I often hear of the comparison between Clint and John Huston, I don't think it's entirely accurate as, while Clint is not necessarily a better director than Huston (but nor was Huston better than Clint), I think that Clint is a vastly better actor. Additionally, the two men had different thematic concerns. I think that Eastwood is more like Sam Peckinpah, Don Siegal and Sergio Leone than Huston (and, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Eastwood made multiple films with Siegal and Leone).
2)I don't agree that it is a coda to Clint's overall screen persona. The reason being that I see it as more of a continuation of Clint's thematic fascination with violence (and war), and its effects on those who practice it. Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima all examine the effects of violence, either directly or indirectly. Add to it some of his earlier films (such as The Outlaw Josey Wales and High Plains Drifter) as well as The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and I see it as simply another chapter in the brilliant book that is Clint Eastwood' career.
*Dreaded for me that is.
"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
There was another made in the 60s where he plays an alcoholic on a pacific island who lands a mess of orphans and a lovely French lass. One of his last films I believe and another favorite of mine.
Father Goose, set during WWII. A classic. And Leslie Caron... :x
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
Gawd, I memorized that film when I was a duckling {:)
NP's reputation as a contrarian is cemented )
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
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A classic western thriller with the great Spencer Tracey playing a one-armed man who comes into a desolate town searching for someone. Unsurpisingly he encounters oppostion. Tracey is brilliant, as always. One of the truly greatest actors of all time, he both commands authority and promises danger to those who seek to do him wrong. He was Gregory Peck and Clint Eastwood combined.
Bad Day At Black Rock is a fascinating film as it utilises Western elements (as well as Noir elements) in the guise of a thriller, and examines both America's treatment of the Japanese as well as issues of greed, vengeance and responsibility. One could argue that it even questions the basis on which the West was formed. Nonetheless, even putting aside its moral/socio-political implications, it is ultimately about a lone man's quest for the truth.
Its cast is magnificent; Tracey, as mentioned above, is magnificent, Robert Ryan is great, Walter Brennan is impressive, Ernest Borgnine is terrific, while Lee Marvin gives arguably the film's second best performance (after Tracey). He is electrifying. The film is tightly directed, extremely well written, and in what will probably interest fellow Leone fan Tony, it arguably partly lays the basis for the Dollar films (and Once Upon a Time in the West) in terms of its slow-burning suspence and the way it interrogates the myths of the American Frontier (with the town serving as an metaphor for the old West). It also has some terrific dialogue and may simply be viewed as a Western thriller, and a good one at that.
That all said, it is a very old fashioned film. Its dialogue is quintessentially that of 50's thrillers ("I'm half-horse, half-alligator. You mess with me and I'll kick a lung outta ya") and one of the fight scenes, whilst admittedly fun, may get a chuckle from those who are used to modern martial arts and fighting. The town itself, and I admitt that I may be wrong about this, does not look to me like the set for a real-life town and, to be perfectly frank, the film is pretty tame when compared to other (more recent) films, such as Do The Right Thing, which have also examined racism in America. However it should be applauded for being among the first films to tackle the treatment of the Japanese, and as a Western thriller, it does so in a manner which is not threatening to the viewer.
I do think that this is a very good film from a great director (John Sturges who also directed The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape), and it may even be regarded as his masterpiece, although I would probably pickThe Magnificent Seven. If time is less than kind to it, it is not purely the fault of the film. I would recommend Bad Day At Black Rock, but be warned, it is dated.
P.S. Perhaps incidentally, the film features a reference to one of my favourite novels; Conrad's 'The Secret Agent.'
"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
Have you sat down to watch a movie thinking it is the first time you have seen it, only to watch about 10 minutes and suddenly say "hey, I have seen this before". Well that happened to me tonight, having enjoyed North by Northwest last night, I thought I would watch another Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant movie so I selected Notorious. Watching it again was fine by me, as this is another excellent Hitchcock film.
The story revolves around Cary Grant, an American agent, who shortly after WWII asks Ingrid Bergman, the daughter of an American Nazi sympathizer, to work for the American government in an investigation of former Nazi's now living in Brazil. She agrees, but things get complicated when they fall in love, but later learn that her assignment is to become romantically involved with the leader of the group. From there, a basic spy story is in intertwined with a love story. I enjoyed the movie, but it is not without it faults, the largest being I found it hard to believe that Grant and Bergman would fall so deeply in love with each other so quickly. They didn't seem to have anything in common, yet we are to believe they are madly in love. I also found it hard to believe that she could go through with becoming involved with Claude Rains. There again, I found it hard to believe she could even pretend to care for him. Bergman's performance in this film is really good as she has to reveal her true inner feelings for Grant with facial expressions and body movement/posture. Despite her words, we know she is hurting inside, wanting to and be loved by Grant.
Notorious was listed as one of the 100 greatest films of all time, it is a very good film, but Hitchcock has done better. Here are my favorite HItchcock films in order.
1 - Rear Window - The voyeurism completly drew me in.
2 - North by Northwest - Very entertaining, with a smart story and some classic scenes.
3 - Psycho - Scared the bejesus out of me when I saw it in high school, thought I saw "mother" in all my neighbors windows.
4 - Vertigo - Another great story, with a great performance by Jimmie Stewert.
5 - Notorious - Great performances from Grant and Bergman.
6 - The Birds - Another movie to freak you out, won't look at sea gulls or crows the same way ever again.
7 - Dial M for Murder - Always liked this film, Grace Kelly really helps.
8 - Strangers on a Train - Story grabs you early and really pulls you in.
9 - Rope - Something of a cinematic exercise, and feels like a play at times, but I like it.
Hitchcock is really one of the great directors of all time and if you are interested in film, you must see at least a few of his films.
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The premise of this movie is a world like us, but no one has ever told a lie or anything that isn't true. So fiction doesn't exist either – movies are just someone narrating events that happened - and on a rather more interesting level, no religion has been established either....
That is until Ricky Gervais’s character comes along, and makes up the first 'lie' - once he realises he can get away with it, he then tries out his new found power (the first one being getting a very attractive woman to sleep with him, which he doesn't actually follow through with, but realises how he can basically get away with anything) and then very innocently tells his mum, who is dying, that she has nothing to be afraid of, as she will be going to a 'heaven' type place where she will be happy and content.
It's this, that then sets the parallel of irony, as he proceeds to make up 'Christianity' - and the problems that follow when you are then perceived to be a 'Jesus' type figure - which he is - when really all he wants is for the girl (Jennifer Garner) to marry him.
Several opportunities arise where he could get her to do this by lying (She feels she can't marry him, as genetically, she is way out of his league) however he doesn't. And I really liked that message he was trying to get across.
The humour is subtle, and it's a very Ricky Gervais film, if that makes sense....some might not be able to sit through 2 hours of it, as the jokes and humour isn't constant - although the opening scene is a classic - but it just doesn't seem to keep momentum.
A dvd rental if your other first top 3 are 'rented'
This one had an excellent trailer, early on, long before it was actually released to the cinema---a real grabber. We watch as Shia LeBeouf (sp? ;% ) suddenly finds that $750,000 has been deposited into his bank account...and explosives, weapons and classified information turn up in his apartment...while a pleasant female voice on his cellphone informs him that the FBI will arrive to apprehend him in 30 seconds
Amazingly, IMRO it does. Eagle Eye is a blast; one of those actioners that both excites and inspires a certain dread in the minds of conspiracy lovers everywhere. Sure, it's bizarre and improbable...but it moves quickly, and it's played with an infectious earnestness by LeBoeuf---and Michelle Monahan as single mother of a young son who plays a potentially explosive piece of music while on a band trip to Washington, DC. The action setpieces are massive and eye-popping (although, once again, the editing gets a bit dodgy at key points---what is it with modern action films? X-( ), and the story hangs in there to deliver on its premise...and its promise.
A strong cast supports the high-tech outlandishness with able performances by all: Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson, Michael Chiklis, Ethan Embry. The dialogue gets a bit cheeky at times (especially Thornton's), but it all works toward the overall success of the picture, which I found to be great fun. 4 out of 5 stars, with extra butter for your popcorn B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
forgot how good that movie is
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
The Taking of Pelham 123 (warning: minor spoilers.)
Not the original classic, or the TV movie, but the remake with John Travolta and Denzel Washington. The original, which inspired Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, was among the greatest thrillers of its era, with fantastic performances, a superb plot and screenplay, and a real sense of character that was a distinct feature of films of the early to mid 1970's.
The remake tells essentially the same story, albeit with a few major differences: four thieves take over a subway train, demand a ransom, and the leader of the thieves negotiates with a rail worker. Travolta plays the mastermind behind the hostage taking, while Washington is the rail worker who realises that he won't be having a regular day at the office.
The major difference between the remake and the original, is that in the original, the thieves used aliases (colours such as Mr Brown etc...), while in this film, we discover exactly whom they are, including the identity of one thief relatively early. The method of the hostage taking has also been updated to modern times, with the stock market playing a prominent role.
One difference, which I did not appreciate, was in relation to Travolta's character. Unlike the character played by the extraordinary Robert Shaw, he is hotheaded, incredibly coarse (he calls everyone mother ******) and he doesn't come across as the professional he would have to be if he were to accomplish a job of this magnitude. He is also demystefied as he is revealed to be Catholic, which is interesting as it opens up a fatalistic aspect of his character, but the film doesn't really do much with it. Personally, I would also have preferred that there retain a sense of mystery about him. The way he dresses, with his tattoes visible, also isn't wonderful in terms of blending in. He looks exactly like a criminal; Shaw's character most certainly did not. The reason I keep on comparing Travolta to Shaw is that Shaw was magnificent in the orginal. Travolta, whilst a very good actor, delivers a performance that is well below his usual standards. He is as subtle as a brick, annoyingly loud and, as I mentioned earlier, very coarse, although of course the screenplay lets him down on the latter, and needs to be reminded of some of the great villains he's played (such as Broken Arrow and half of Face-Off). Washington is pretty good, but then again, he's always good.
This is a fun film, but it's a forgettable film even among forgettable popcorn flicks. I don't regret seeing it, but it capped off a relatively disappointing night at the cinemas (which began with the enormously disappointing *Public Enemies.
*A review will be posted shortly.
Father of the Bride. The orginal with Spencer Tracey and Elizabeth Taylor. While Tracey is superb as always (there are certain actors who are simply incapable of producing disappointing performances, and he's one of them), the film isn't anything special. I suspect that this version gained its legendary status due to its cast, and due to it being remade. However, it comes across as a TV movie which doesn't have all that much to say about daughters getting married. This may be sacrilege to prefer a remake, but in this case, I certainly do. While the Steve Martin version was never among Martin's best films, I think his version is of more substance, feels less like a TV movie, and is also less old fashioned. One of my problems with this 1950 film is that while it explores numerous issues associated with having a daughter getting married, such as the cost, it doesn't really interrogate them sufficiently and it never ascended the level of a telemovie. Still, as I mentioned, Tracey is great.
Sorority Row. I saw it with my GF (surprise, surprise), and it wasn't so bad. It probably doesn't say much if I say that it's nowhere near as horrible as the Halloween remake, the Hostel films or the Saw films, but it's actually an enjoyable film. It's a remake of an 80's slasher film (which I've never seen), and is essentially an I Know What You Did Last Summer-type of film. Fun, but only if one is interested in violent slasher films.
Knocked Up. A terrific Judd Apatow comedy with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. I watched it for the second time on TV and- while it's still very funny, and the performances are wonderful (especially Seth Rogen) and it has a gorgeous cameo from Harold Ramis- its humour and #wish fullfillment fantasy doesn't IMO translate nearly as well a second time. It is a good film, a very good film at times, but it's not a great film.
#By wish fullfillment fantasy I mean the idea of a funny, but not exactly physically impressive guy ending up with Katherine Heigl. It is something that Rogen, and other Apatow leads, (and members of the audience) dream about, but how realistic it is, is debatable.
Having quite enjoyed the original early 1930s film Frankenstein, when I saw its sequel was even more feted and dubbed the best monster film ever, I made sure to rent it.
Well, certainly its more technologically advanced, with a bigger budget and music on the soundtrack (although the almost audible silence on the original, so characteristic of early 1930s films, I found quite eerie). But I didn't really rate it. Like Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, it starts only 15 minutes after the last film ends. Problem is, they wrapped it up nicely at the end of the last film, so the sequel has to contrivedly and unconvincingly unpick all the loose ends to start the story up again. It's not a long film, and half an hour in we're back to the Monster rampaging through the woods all over again. Only this time it's a mite comical, less Frankenstein than Frank Spencer, as he well meaningly gatecrashes women in the woods and they run off scared and screaming.
This wily old mentor, who we've never seen before, arrives to coerce the scientist into having another bash at his experiments. (This is a common problem with sequels in which the 'hero' has learned his lesson the first time, or is too cowardly to go through it again - they have to be coerced by someone but it loses its dramatic edge imo.) To show he's a dab hand himself, this mentor reveals his own experiments, but they're so farfetched and far ahead of the scientist's cut and paste job, it defies belief, consisting of
As for the bride, she's only in it for the last five minutes!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I do hope you'll continue on, and watch Son of Frankenstein, which followed in 1939, which was Karloff's swan song in the role of the creature...so that you'll be properly primed to watch Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, if you haven't yet seen it B-) I love those old Universals---own them all, even the lesser ones, the multi-montsterfests they put out through the '40s, leading up to Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein...
For my own part, tonight's film fare was much tamer, though equally dear to my heart:
"Summer of '42"
Probably in my top ten all-time favourite films, for sentimental reasons...the exquisite Jennifer O'Neill is one of the two great movie crushes of my childhood*...but also because I love the novel, written by Herman Raucher, about a 15 year-old's
The novel is both gut-bustingly hilarious and tragic, while the film itself strikes a nicely in-between portrait of teenage awkwardness and nostalgic period detail. There has to be a reason I set my latest writing project in this era...perhaps I lived during this time in a previous life :v
The war casts a long shadow over this piece, which deals with the loss of innocence. Jennifer O'Neill's performance is unremarkable until the Third Act, when it turns poignantly sublime. I'm still in love...
Hermie's trip to the drug store is the stuff of classics...honourable mention goes to a trip to the local moviehouse, where Now, Voyager, starring Bette Davis and Paul Henreid, casts reflected light upon wandering teenage hands...
4.8 out of 5 stars.
*The other being Katharine Ross, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Graduate
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Danger: Diabolik
Obscure 1960s Italian Bond knock-off, recommended on this thread by either Alex or John Drake, probably Alex as he also suggested that George Lazenby murder mystery set in Venice.
But Diabolik (pronounced Dee-abolik in the Italian) is no government spy. He's a master thief who dresses in a tight black leather catsuit and black bavaclava to pull off his heists, making his getaway in a surely quite noticeable black e-type, with the help of his blonde crumpet and accomplice Eva.
The opening 20 minutes, in which there's a successful heist, a car chase, a campy loungecore song, a retreat to Diabolik's lavish and expansive pad culminating in a shagfest with said crumpet in a heap of bank notes, is beyond pornography. -{
Yet bizarrely, this is the moment when I began to detest the film. Diabolik (played by John Philip Law, who was the angel in Barberella) is such a humourless blank, a charisma-free zone who scarcely utters a witticism in the entire film. Suddenly I felt that the only reason such lusty or promiscuous attitudes prevailed in the 1960s is because the likes of Sean Connery and Michael Caine putting a positive spin on it. Law (ironically Jude Law would be a shoe-in for the role today) is more in the Terence Stamp mode, he goes about his business in a selfish, single-minded, unironical sort of way.
Though he has no personality, he puts you in mind of certain personas: at first Bond, then Batman with his underground lair, then the Joker as he pulls a practical joke at a press conference (though not out of joie de vivre but rather snide one-upmanship it seems), then Bonnie & Clyde.
But overall, this is a guy in superhero guise who has no alter ego and therefore no social life. Batman has Bruce Wayne, Superman has Clark Kent. This guy is just Diabolik and when he retreats to his lair to bang his bird, fine, but he doesn't actually have any mates at all so it's hard to connect with him. It's like if Superman decided to not bother to save lives but just went on Viking-like pillages once in a while, holing up in the Fortress of Solitude every so often to shag Lex Luther's mistress and count the cash.
However, the DVDs extras, as with Bride of Frankenstein, did assist my attitude to the film. Diabolik is an anti-hero favoured by the Italians. Unlike America, which won the war and has faith in the government being right and so on, Italy had Mussolini and a more cynical attitude to the government, so viewers would applaud the guy sticking it to the man. What's more, the character stems from a comic book and many of the shots owe something to that in the way they're framed, with nods to the square shape of the panel. The direction has a dynamic style lacking from other comic book spin-offs of the time.
For all that, the anti-hero and his girl are so unlikeable and ruthless that you do feel generally excluded from their activities. They remind me of the charmless pair from Topaki, though the film has more to offer than that.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
i must agree!!!
Son of Frankenstein is my favorite of the old Universal monster movies.
with as great as Lugosi is in Dracula i think this is a more engaging performance as Ygor. similar to how in Frankenstein sympathy for the monster is engendered from the viewer, here you can't but feel sorry for poor Ygor. the villagers tried to kill him (leaving him disfigured) and even the children are cruel to him. then you learn what he's up to.
Karloff is also excellent as is Rathbone.
as has been mentioned, there are also some fun origins to many gags in Young Frankenstein including the one-armed constable.
GREAT FILM
Firstly a couple of Mario Bava movies.
Blood and Black Lace
Beautifully shot horror movie with a murderer cutting his was through the models and owners of an Italian fashion house. The killer wears a creepy outfit, which is one part Film Noir with a smooth faceless mask. There's some stunning imagery, but there is nobody you really care about. Though that guy who used to play Buck in the High Chaparral is in it.
Also A Bay of Blood
Apparently this was a huge influence on Friday the 13th, which depending on your opinion is a either a good or a bad thing. There's a few acres by a lake that is worth a fortune to developers and a bunch of people killing each other in various gruesome ways for the rights. It is far gorier than any of the other Bava films I've seen and I nearly threw up at one sequence involving a dead man's face and an octopus. It's not in the same class as Lisa and the Devil or Kill Baby Kill, but it is certainly watchable. The ending is brilliant though.
This one surprised me, a Roger Vadim movie I actually liked.
Blood and Roses
Haunting vampire movie with a mesmerising performance from Annete Vadim. It's based on Sheridan Le Fanu's story Carmilla and it tells of a young woman awakening the spirit of a centuries old vampire, although there is a certain amount of ambiguity present in the film that suggests Carmilla may just be disturbed. Highly recommended, although gorehounds should avoid it. This has more in common with the subtleties of Roger Corman's The Tomb of Ligeia, or Jack Clayton's The Innocents.
Black Emanuelle, White Emanuelle
One of the weakest in the rip-off series, as Emanuelle travels to Egypt and gets involved with an obnoxious and violent fashion photographer and some wierdy-beardy religious fellow. The only pluses here are Laura Gemser and her co-star Annie Belle, two of the finest 70's cult cinema icons brought together in the same film, a meeting that I consider to be far more important than King Kong versus Godzilla, or De Niro meeting Pacino for a cup of coffee in Heat.
Wow, where to begin---perhaps with the caveat that I've never read the classic comic book, which must be a blessing, since (whatever Will Eisner was up to) Frank Miller surely messed with it a bit.
Visually, I enjoyed it, and the self-aware nature of the piece's humour was infectious. So on that level, it was quite a bit of fun. Loeff Jr and Loeff III both really enjoyed it, whilst admitting that it was easily one of the oddest films either of them had (maybe) ever seen. The lead actor, Gabriel Macht (sp?) was actually quite good. Eva Mendes and Scarlett Johannson cashed a check, although both of them looked like they were having fun---but none moreso than Samuel L. Jackson, who looked like he was having a great time.
However---and this is my thing---I think I would've preferred a more sombre, genuinely Noirish tale, with a more melancholy tinge to the hero and storyline. Perhaps that wasn't what Eisner was up to at all---probably not---but it's what I would've liked. As played, it comes off as entertaining, but wildly uneven. As high camp, it arguably works...I'm a fan of Frank Miller's comic book work (most of it), but his "look at me!" style intrudes. I don't think he was the right director for this project...if he's a film director at all. 2 out of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If You Meet Sartana Pray For Your Death (1968)
Stylish, handsome, smiling, and armed to the teeth, Sartana is like the western 007. (If Bond was an avenging angel of death)
Gianni Garko, billed as John, is one of the coolest Italian western anti-heroes since Franco Nero's Django. I thought it was an excellent entry. Definitely top tier for this genre. (look for a cameo by a young TonyDP who plays one of the pallbearers)
Can't remember if I reviewed this one the first time I saw it (with my parents, about 3 wks ago)...but I'll do so now, since I just saw it with my sons last night---and it seems more fitting to do so for the 2nd viewing, because this was the one where I cried... ;%
Clint Eastwood has had a legendary and storied career in film, of course---on both sides of the camera---but it's ironic that he's actually become the John Huston of his time, given that he (basically) portrayed him in White Hunter, Black Heart, one of many excellent films in which he both directs and stars. I really enjoyed his early directorial efforts (Play Misty For Me, High Plains Drifter and especially The Eiger Sanction), and began to be genuinely impressed with efforts such as the aforementioned WHBH and of course Unforgiven, where he assigned a masterstroke of a coda to his work in the 'Western' milieu. With Gran Torino, in my humble opinion, he's done the same thing for his overall screen persona...
...and if Eastwood never acts on film again (a distinct possibility, I believe), he cannot have picked a better final role: Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and widower, whose quiet but sad life is interrupted by events in his suburban neighborhood, which has become increasingly Asian...and populated with ethnic gang-bangers. The performances---from Eastwood himself to all the supporting players---are top notch. While some humour is milked from Kowalski's 'grumpy old man' schtick, it is frequently a welcome and pitch-perfect respite from other goings-on. After seeing it for the first time, I was leery of showing it to Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but was swiftly reassured that they hear worse every day in middle school
That he didn't take home an Oscar for this one is a case study in political correctness. It is a story of friendship and redemption, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm with you there. The build up to the final scene is brilliant, and without spoiling it - it didn't end as I expected and was obviously all the better for it...
http://apbateman.com
Alfred Hitchcock thriller starring Cary Grant and the lovely Eva Marie Saint. I last saw this film in Film Study class while attending college, which was quite awhile ago.
A well written film with a good performances from the cast, is it me or did Hitchcock know how to light his female leads, because they always look gorgeous. In typical Hitchcock fashion we get some interesting turns in the film with a thrilling and original climax to the story.
Note - For those of you who enjoy this type of thing, I happened to notice that at about the 4 minute mark of the film, Grant gets out of a cab to go into a restaurant and a tall blond woman walks by on the street with an off-white v-cut backless dress. At about the 25 minute mark, Grant gets out of a cab with his mother to go into a hotel and I believe that same woman wearing the same dress walks by again. I don't usually notice those things, but that jumped out at me, perhaps Hitch just kept using the same extras for the crowd scenes.
Given the economies of filmmaking, Hitchcock probably shot those scenes back to back at the same time, using the same extras.
North by Northwest is easily my favorite Hitchcock film, with some really evocative imagery like that shot of Thornhill being chased by the cropduster and some very interesting camera angles. The subject matter is of course welcome and Cary Grant gives a memorably slick performance. James Mason and Martin Landau are also very good here, especially Landau's creepy, overprotective, borderline man-crush on Mason.
There's a 50th Anniversary DVD and BluRay being released in a couple of weeks that will feature a newly remastered print and all sorts of extras.
That scene at the auction where he deliberately acts the jackass in order to gain protection by proximity cracks me up.
There was another made in the 60s where he plays an alcoholic on a pacific island who lands a mess of orphans and a lovely French lass. One of his last films I believe and another favorite of mine.
Notorious sequel to the classic Godfather film. Most of you will know the history of this, but for the young 'uns I'll explain. In the early 1970s Paramount was in a cash crisis thanks to Coppola's Heaven's Gate fiasco. With the Godfather sequel scheduled for filming, a decision was made to make it more commercial, a feelgood movie with a broader range - "a film for all the Family" as one cringeworthy tagline went. At at time when the Bond films were becoming increasingly juvenile, it seemed a smart move, and one that would appeal to Italian-Americans. The plot has Mikey Corleone taking his kids on a road trip to discover "the real America". At this point it was discovered that thanks to a legal loophole, Marlon Brando was contracted to appear in the sequel even though is character dies in the first film.
He doesn't actually rub people out but rather arranges for unpleasant things to happen to them - sneaks dog turds into their path, nicks their milk, that sort of thing. Anyway Mikey makes him an offer he can't refuse
To be honest, I found a couple of scenes quite amusing - the impromptu shoe shuffle in the Nevada shopping mall (although it's clear even now that Brando's weight gain is becoming an issue) and the spaghetti and meatball food fight finale (nods to Bugsy Malone here, though I'm not sure which came first). All the same, this is regarded as the worst sequel of all time, worse even than More American Graffiti, and Brando's career never fully recovered.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But Mr Same, the smile may be wiped from your face when you read my real review. I won't be surprised to wake up with a horse's head in my bed... did I enjoy The Godfather Part II? Neigh, neigh and thrice neigh!!
It lost me from hello. The opener against a Sicilian landscape, with a funeral procession. The script on screen says we're dealing with the death of The Godfather's dad, around 1900. ie Brando's Dad. It tells how Vito (Brando) stays with his mum while his brother Paolo flees for the country. Okay, I think, this is going to be about the two sons and their different attitudes. One stays loyal to his mother and is law-abiding, the other turns criminal, but Vito gradually starts to see that you need more than virtue in life, and later turns to the bad or something... Not saying I conciously thought all this, but this seems to be the set-up. Leaving aside the sub-editor in me that's annoyed at hypenating mur-der in the opening scroll... But then
This 'Eh? You what?' attitude prevailed throughout the film.
The early scenes with Vito are sort of interesting but not emotionally gripping. It all seems quite simplistic, his rise, and almost comic. The scene where he gets lured into stealing a carpet is almost Harold Lloyd. Shouldn't he be annoyed at getting talked into that? And then he wipes out the local kingpin, (spot an early cameo from E.T.
You think, well, if that's all it takes to be the main guy, it can't be too hard. DeNiro looks a bit like the young Godfather might be, but he's not Brando. DeNiro looks like a hard nut from the start, but Brando's character had a bear-like charm, a charisma. It's like Brando's man got backed into being a bad guy through circumstance, almost like Connery's Bond in that he's up against even worse people than him. DeNiro's Vito looks like he's mostly there already.
As for Mikey's part of the tale, well, he's looking for the traitor in his midst but I couldn't really care less as they're all such unsympathetic characters. I didn't get it, was it the Jewish guy Roth? If so, why? Just cos he's not Italian? There's a nasty senator who has it in for them but
Keaton's Kay gets an underwritten part, she's mainly in a huff but when it later transpires
Mikey goes to Havana - and I quite enjoyed these scenes, in fact all the crowd scenes - but surmises that the rebels will win after watching one incident involving a suicide attacker. Perhaps that Senator had it right about Italians lack of moral fibre, that kind of attitude would be no good in Afganhistan!
It goes on and on. People get forgiven, then wiped out to provide some kind of finale. Most of all I missed the effortless period depiction of, say, 1950s streets and cars going by. There's none of that at all, and no great set piece killings, save Vito gaining his 00 badge early on. And why did the fat Italian suddenly drop his testimony because his brother shows up from Sicily? Does his brother have an account of all the porn films they used to watch as a kid?
Pacino ages well, and looks bulky, but at times resembles his character from Dick Tracy!
The Godfather Too would have been more fun! There you go Dan, the stables are that way....
* E.T.'s training in the circus as a fire-eater came into its own in this scene, and he was spotted by Spielberg who was looking to remake the 1930s classic Freaks, before finding the perfect role for him: as Gandhi. Sadly, Dickie Attenborough was already making the film, so Spielberg opted instead for E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, a big hit to be sure, but it did lead to the alien actor being typecast and later dogged by rumours about occurrences at Michael Jackson's Neverland...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The film itself it brilliant. Tightly structured, it features one of the best screenplays Clint has had the pleasure of working with in years. Unlike Million Dollar Baby, for example (which was written by the *dreaded Paul Haggis :v), Gran Torino didn't really feauture any false notes. That's not to suggest it is perfect; rather, the film is organised so cleanly and neatly that its flaws are easily overcome by its numerous strengths.
While Clint, as a director, has never been a great stylist, he utilises his usual minialism where he services the film and does only what is needed. As a result, he neither distracts the viewer or takes away focus from the film at hand. The music is wonderful, and I loved the song at the end which he co-wrote.
I mentioned Clint's masterful perfomance. The performances of the supporting characters, particularly from the non-professionals playing the Hmong, were extremely impressive, and I love how he intoduced a people to the screen that many, if not most, viewers had never heard of in a way that does not come across as a school or University lecture.
Two more comments:
1)I often hear of the comparison between Clint and John Huston, I don't think it's entirely accurate as, while Clint is not necessarily a better director than Huston (but nor was Huston better than Clint), I think that Clint is a vastly better actor. Additionally, the two men had different thematic concerns. I think that Eastwood is more like Sam Peckinpah, Don Siegal and Sergio Leone than Huston (and, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Eastwood made multiple films with Siegal and Leone).
2)I don't agree that it is a coda to Clint's overall screen persona. The reason being that I see it as more of a continuation of Clint's thematic fascination with violence (and war), and its effects on those who practice it. Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima all examine the effects of violence, either directly or indirectly. Add to it some of his earlier films (such as The Outlaw Josey Wales and High Plains Drifter) as well as The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and I see it as simply another chapter in the brilliant book that is Clint Eastwood' career.
*Dreaded for me that is.
Father Goose, set during WWII. A classic. And Leslie Caron... :x
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Gawd, I memorized that film when I was a duckling {:)
Father Goose, thanks Loeff! Caron was beautiful indeed!
NP's reputation as a contrarian is cemented
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
We'll continue to disagree on those.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bad Day At Black Rock
A classic western thriller with the great Spencer Tracey playing a one-armed man who comes into a desolate town searching for someone. Unsurpisingly he encounters oppostion. Tracey is brilliant, as always. One of the truly greatest actors of all time, he both commands authority and promises danger to those who seek to do him wrong. He was Gregory Peck and Clint Eastwood combined.
Bad Day At Black Rock is a fascinating film as it utilises Western elements (as well as Noir elements) in the guise of a thriller, and examines both America's treatment of the Japanese as well as issues of greed, vengeance and responsibility. One could argue that it even questions the basis on which the West was formed. Nonetheless, even putting aside its moral/socio-political implications, it is ultimately about a lone man's quest for the truth.
Its cast is magnificent; Tracey, as mentioned above, is magnificent, Robert Ryan is great, Walter Brennan is impressive, Ernest Borgnine is terrific, while Lee Marvin gives arguably the film's second best performance (after Tracey). He is electrifying. The film is tightly directed, extremely well written, and in what will probably interest fellow Leone fan Tony, it arguably partly lays the basis for the Dollar films (and Once Upon a Time in the West) in terms of its slow-burning suspence and the way it interrogates the myths of the American Frontier (with the town serving as an metaphor for the old West). It also has some terrific dialogue and may simply be viewed as a Western thriller, and a good one at that.
That all said, it is a very old fashioned film. Its dialogue is quintessentially that of 50's thrillers ("I'm half-horse, half-alligator. You mess with me and I'll kick a lung outta ya") and one of the fight scenes, whilst admittedly fun, may get a chuckle from those who are used to modern martial arts and fighting. The town itself, and I admitt that I may be wrong about this, does not look to me like the set for a real-life town and, to be perfectly frank, the film is pretty tame when compared to other (more recent) films, such as Do The Right Thing, which have also examined racism in America. However it should be applauded for being among the first films to tackle the treatment of the Japanese, and as a Western thriller, it does so in a manner which is not threatening to the viewer.
I do think that this is a very good film from a great director (John Sturges who also directed The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape), and it may even be regarded as his masterpiece, although I would probably pickThe Magnificent Seven. If time is less than kind to it, it is not purely the fault of the film. I would recommend Bad Day At Black Rock, but be warned, it is dated.
P.S. Perhaps incidentally, the film features a reference to one of my favourite novels; Conrad's 'The Secret Agent.'
Have you sat down to watch a movie thinking it is the first time you have seen it, only to watch about 10 minutes and suddenly say "hey, I have seen this before". Well that happened to me tonight, having enjoyed North by Northwest last night, I thought I would watch another Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant movie so I selected Notorious. Watching it again was fine by me, as this is another excellent Hitchcock film.
The story revolves around Cary Grant, an American agent, who shortly after WWII asks Ingrid Bergman, the daughter of an American Nazi sympathizer, to work for the American government in an investigation of former Nazi's now living in Brazil. She agrees, but things get complicated when they fall in love, but later learn that her assignment is to become romantically involved with the leader of the group. From there, a basic spy story is in intertwined with a love story. I enjoyed the movie, but it is not without it faults, the largest being I found it hard to believe that Grant and Bergman would fall so deeply in love with each other so quickly. They didn't seem to have anything in common, yet we are to believe they are madly in love. I also found it hard to believe that she could go through with becoming involved with Claude Rains. There again, I found it hard to believe she could even pretend to care for him. Bergman's performance in this film is really good as she has to reveal her true inner feelings for Grant with facial expressions and body movement/posture. Despite her words, we know she is hurting inside, wanting to and be loved by Grant.
Notorious was listed as one of the 100 greatest films of all time, it is a very good film, but Hitchcock has done better. Here are my favorite HItchcock films in order.
1 - Rear Window - The voyeurism completly drew me in.
2 - North by Northwest - Very entertaining, with a smart story and some classic scenes.
3 - Psycho - Scared the bejesus out of me when I saw it in high school, thought I saw "mother" in all my neighbors windows.
4 - Vertigo - Another great story, with a great performance by Jimmie Stewert.
5 - Notorious - Great performances from Grant and Bergman.
6 - The Birds - Another movie to freak you out, won't look at sea gulls or crows the same way ever again.
7 - Dial M for Murder - Always liked this film, Grace Kelly really helps.
8 - Strangers on a Train - Story grabs you early and really pulls you in.
9 - Rope - Something of a cinematic exercise, and feels like a play at times, but I like it.
Hitchcock is really one of the great directors of all time and if you are interested in film, you must see at least a few of his films.