American Made. Interesting and informative, but the more I learned about Barry Seal, the less I liked him.
I mean, you're not supposed to.
The thing I liked best about it is that it wasn't a Cruise film that happens more often than not in his movies.
He always plays certain kinds of characters and the film wasn't influenced by his casting or necessarily written for him and he didn't have to carry the film. He played it well and there were several good performances throughout.
I loved it for that reason. It also came at the right time, with the resurgence of Escobar retellings with Narcos and such.
Sorta wish I saw it at the cinema. I could've but didn't in fear it would be that kind of film.
While my father runs from horror, I got him to see American Psycho since he's such a huge fan of Christian Bale and having not seen what is considered to be his best. He liked it and he thought it recreated the 80s well (with colours etc.).
Margaret Lockwood hams it up in this picture made by Gainsborough, which is appropriate as the setting is all Highway men and Bored Ladies of the Manor.
She is good even if she plays it a bit broad, perhaps to make it so OTT it got past the censor (even if her cleavage didn't in the US, who demanded reshoots). I suppose getting older I preferred Patricia Roc who plays her lovely cousin who is so cruelly wronged. That said, if it were a stage play you could imagine them swapping roles on alternate nights.
It's good fun but the plot contrivances at the end don't make sense.
A Good Day to Die Hard
You'd have felt cheated if you saw this in the cinema but for free on the telly, it's not too bad. Pretty awful though, and no third act to speak of. McClane would normally be a national hero after all he'd done but convention demands he's regarded as a scum bag by the authorities of course. It's set in Moscow and one horrible moment has McClane flag a car down and then knock out the driver shouting at him quite reasonably, saying 'I don't speak foreigner.' I don't know when McClane went from being a blue-collar Democrat to Trumpian Republican (is there is such a thing).
One Moscow action scene has a helicopter machine gunning the heroes (he's with his son this time round) in a skyscraper, which I had long thought up for a Bond movie, only in my version Bond jumps onto the runner of the copter which then hares off around the Kremlin and nearby river on a bright sunny day. My scene was better...
One big problem is if his son is involved then of course, that's two people who can't die, it moves into Lethal Weapon 4 territory after a few films or Indy and Crystal Skulls. If one person can't die, well, that's us up on the screen! More than that, and it strains credibility. Also, McClane seems like a spare part, sort of tagging along.
We loved BRIDGE OF SPIES. It seems to have been relegated to being a 'lesser Spielberg film' in terms of prestige but I just don't see it. I think it's one of his best movies along with the truly underrated/underappreciated MUNICH.
I loved Munich too !!
I kept putting off watching 'Bridge of Spies' for some reason but once I started I knew I was going to like it.
It is very long but it didn't feel it when watching and Mark Rylance deserved his Oscar.
For recent Tom Cruise movies, I usually cite EDGE OF TOMORROW/LIVE DIE REPEAT as being a particularly strong entry featuring a very solid performance by Cruise. He has a pretty strong character arc in the film, with him playing against type for the first two thirds of the film and eventually evolving into more of a 'hero' type character.
Supposedly they're working on a sequel to that film, and everyone is on board (Cruise, Blunt, Doug Liman to direct), so I'm holding out hope that we get something worthy of the first one.
Fantastic film, definitely have my fingers crossed for that sequel -{
Spider-Man
2002 - 2007 retrospect.
Just watched all three, and I have words. These movies were made by a dude my age who grew up with Ditko & Romita's version. He tried to stay as close to it as he could without being slavish. The new MCU Spider-Man, while really, REALLY good, is not the same- he's basically completely retooled for today's era. Raimi & Maguire's Spidey is MY web head.
Pluses, minuses & ratings. Spider-Man (2002). It was purely awesome. Organic web shooters. 9/10 Spider-Man 2 (2004). Costume in the garbage can- classic. Too many scripted plot devices undermine characterizations. 7.5/10 Spider-Man 3 (2007). Amazing and dramatic character arc conclusions. A LOT going on for one 2hr 20min movie. 9/10
Conventional wisdom says the the second film is the best one, and that the third is some kind of 'failure'. Well, I guess I use UNconventional wisdom here.
Thoughts?
Spider-Man
2002 - 2007 retrospect.
Just watched all three, and I have words. These movies were made by a dude my age who grew up with Ditko & Romita's version. He tried to stay as close to it as he could without being slavish. The new MCU Spider-Man, while really, REALLY good, is not the same- he's basically completely retooled for today's era. Raimi & Maguire's Spidey is MY web head.
Pluses, minuses & ratings. Spider-Man (2002). It was purely awesome. Organic web shooters. 9/10 Spider-Man 2 (2004). Costume in the garbage can- classic. Too many scripted plot devices undermine characterizations. 7.5/10 Spider-Man 3 (2007). Amazing and dramatic character arc conclusions. A LOT going on for one 2hr 20min movie. 9/10
Conventional wisdom says the the second film is the best one, and that the third is some kind of 'failure'. Well, I guess I use UNconventional wisdom here.
Thoughts?
I've been a longtime fan of comic books and their movie adaptations but must confess to absolutely despising Raimi's trilogy.
First and foremost, Tobey Maguire's portrayal of Peter Parker as a whiney, impotent human dish rag quickly became tiresome. Parker was always an outcast but the movies took it to extremes, especially Spiderman 2 where he was subjected to one humiliation after another. His attempts to go dark in #3 were laughable, especially the dancing scene. He also had an annoying habit of losing his mask, especially the scene in #2 where everyone on the train sees who he really is.
The villains were often skewed to be way too tragic or misunderstood; especially Doc Ock from #2 and Sandman from #3 and trying to turn them into misunderstood antagonists who ultimately end up helping Spidey was a mistake in my opinion.
The supporting cast was similarly annoying, be it Mary Jane's helpless damsel in distress (all three movies climaxed with Spiderman needing to rescue her) or Aunt Mae who often came across as a pathetic character (I'm still scarred from the the toaster scene from #2).
So for me the Raimi movies were pretty much writeoffs. The first one had some interesting moments to it and I was able to overlook some of its shortcomings because of the novelty of it, but by #2 the bloom had worn off and the series just spiraled into pathos and angst.
Spider-Man
2002 - 2007 retrospect.
Just watched all three, and I have words. These movies were made by a dude my age who grew up with Ditko & Romita's version. He tried to stay as close to it as he could without being slavish. The new MCU Spider-Man, while really, REALLY good, is not the same- he's basically completely retooled for today's era. Raimi & Maguire's Spidey is MY web head.
Pluses, minuses & ratings. Spider-Man (2002). It was purely awesome. Organic web shooters. 9/10 Spider-Man 2 (2004). Costume in the garbage can- classic. Too many scripted plot devices undermine characterizations. 7.5/10 Spider-Man 3 (2007). Amazing and dramatic character arc conclusions. A LOT going on for one 2hr 20min movie. 9/10
Conventional wisdom says the the second film is the best one, and that the third is some kind of 'failure'. Well, I guess I use UNconventional wisdom here.
Thoughts?
I've been a longtime fan of comic books and their movie adaptations but must confess to absolutely despising Raimi's trilogy.
First and foremost, Tobey Maguire's portrayal of Peter Parker as a whiney, impotent human dish rag quickly became tiresome. Parker was always an outcast but the movies took it to extremes, especially Spiderman 2 where he was subjected to one humiliation after another. His attempts to go dark in #3 were laughable, especially the dancing scene. He also had an annoying habit of losing his mask, especially the scene in #2 where everyone on the train sees who he really is.
The villains were often skewed to be way too tragic or misunderstood; especially Doc Ock from #2 and Sandman from #3 and trying to turn them into misunderstood antagonists who ultimately end up helping Spidey was a mistake in my opinion.
The supporting cast was similarly annoying, be it Mary Jane's helpless damsel in distress (all three movies climaxed with Spiderman needing to rescue her) or Aunt Mae who often came across as a pathetic character (I'm still scarred from the the toaster scene from #2).
So for me the Raimi movies were pretty much writeoffs. The first one had some interesting moments to it and I was able to overlook some of its shortcomings because of the novelty of it, but by #2 the bloom had worn off and the series just spiraled into pathos and angst.
I guess that's a fair take on these movies albeit one I firmly do not share. It's all up to where you come from, the comics you've read, and your overall life experience to this point, I conjure. I guess we can agree at least, that #2 was the, er... LEAST BEST of them, eh? LOL
The Sea Shall Not Have them, 1954 Lewis Gilbert movie about the RAF Air Sea Rescue launches in WW2, with Michael Redgrave, Dirk Bogarde and Anthony Steel. a real classic about a forgotten RAF branch .
I have a confession; the only Cary Grant film I've seen so far is Charade which was brilliant but I'm going to see North by Northwest this weekend.
Also, I'm up for other Hitchcock films as I haven't seen many of his either. Which ones would you recommend?
Sorry if I'm hi-jackin' this thread but we don't have a "Film to see..." thread ( ) ).
I have a confession; the only Cary Grant film I've seen so far is Charade which was brilliant but I'm going to see North by Northwest this weekend.
Also, I'm up for other Hitchcock films as I haven't seen many of his either. Which ones would you recommend?
I recommend Notorious, a late 40s Hitchcock spy film with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, about Nazis in South America: there's a bit to think about in this one.
He also did an earlier one with Hitchcock called Suspicion where he plays a creepy husband, and of course there's the glamorous To Catch a Thief with Grace Kelly.
...and go back to Cary's screwball comedies from the 30s, the best are with Katharine Hepburn: Bringing Up Baby and Philadelphia Story.
If you watch too many Cary Grant movies in a row you're going to get stuck doing that voice.
Spider-Man
2002 - 2007 retrospect.
Just watched all three,
...
Conventional wisdom says the the second film is the best one, and that the third is some kind of 'failure'. Well, I guess I use UNconventional wisdom here.Thoughts?
I haven't seen them in a while, probably since before Marvel started their own studio, but I sure liked the first two when they came out. I defer to conventional wisdom about the third, typical third film bloat, the type that makes me wonder why every successful film demands a trilogy? Just do the sequel, then if you still have something left to say come up with some new ideas for a third.
The first film came out shortly after the first X-Men. Those were exciting times, the superhero genre had become disreputable after Scumacher's lousy Batman films, and Marvel had never had previous luck with film adaptations. I think it was the success of X-Men and Spider-Man that allowed them to start their own studio.
The first film did capture the look and feel of the early Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita comics. MaryJane was too pathetic, that's true, they got her character wrong, but J Jonah Jameson was exactly as I had always pictured him and moreso! And the CGI was used to persuasively make the wall-crawling and web-slinging look real, rather than overwhelming the story with visual noise like most recent superhero films end up doing.
And I liked the tragic portrayal of Dr. Octopus in the second. That's the way Stan Lee wrote his villains, there was a lot of moral gray areas in those Silver Age Marvel comics (probably why Ditko quit).
I've been a longtime fan of comic books and their movie adaptations but must confess to absolutely despising Raimi's trilogy.
Did you prefer either of the two later versions?
Are you satisfied with any comic book movies, or do you feel they are incapable of capturing the charm of the source material?
Because I did give up on them for a long time for that very reason.
Have you guys seen the original live action Spider-Man tv show from the late 70s? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrwMyQ3_7P8
This is what basically all Marvel adaptations looked like until that one/two punch of the X-Men and Spider-Man films.
They do get creative with the wallcrawling, though, a combination of stuntwork and very practical special effects.
Also, I'm up for other Hitchcock films as I haven't seen many of his either. Which ones would you recommend?
Sorry if I'm hi-jackin' this thread but we don't have a "Film to see..." thread.
You know we indoobitably do have a Hitchcock thread, somewhere, about 20 pages back, but his legacy is just so huge, his influence, his list of collaborators ... general film discussion just goes organically in and out of Hitchcock talk every couple of pages, we'd lose that in a Hitchcock only thread, I think, if you know what I mean?
...and to Gymkata's list I would add The Lodger (which Hitchcock considered the first proper Hitchcock film) Blackmail (his first talkie, and like Lodger its very prototypical of his recurring themes)
his 30s spy films, but in particular the 39 Steps (probably his most important early British film) Rebecca (his first American film) Lifeboat (one of his technical tour-de-forces, as in how do you film this and make it visually interesting? he manages) SpellBound (includes Salvador Dali content) Strangers on a Train
the 1950s version of The Man Who Knew Too Much
and I note Gymkata put To Catch a Thief in his recommended Cary list but not his top-tier Hitchcock list, Be sure to watch that one too
A shorter list would be which Hitchcock is inessential.
And once you get done all those, watch Mel Brooks' High Anxiety.
Forgot STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. That's a great, great movie.
I would say your list is, by definition, top tier.
And my list is more like, once you've watched all that Hitchcock you're going to want to watch more, so these are all essential too.
Dirty Punker you seem like a real student of how film is made. Watch how Hitchcock basically uses the camera as if it itself is a character in the story. It's always moving, manipulating how we perceive events. I think many later directors, like Kubrick or Lynch, build on Hitchcock's use of smooth tracking shots. And Mel Brooks makes some great jokes in his movie just based on typical Hitchcockian camera movements!
Dirty Punker you seem like a real student of how film is made.
Slightly overwhelming number of replies, my most profound thanks to you Gymkata and you caractacus.
I've been trying to get back to watching movies I had missed or not gotten the opportunity to see for the past few months while trying to expand my knowledge on the subject and Hitchcock is definitely at the top of my list.
Was aware of Vertigo (due to how disoriented some people felt after watching it and I have some kind of a thing for detective movies)
Psycho (with the famous shower scene and the stigma an actor got after it) and Dial M for Murder (by how much the title has been parodied). Both of you mentioned films I hadn't even heard of before and don't know if I would've watched on my own initiative.
Will, definitely, definitely get on it asap.
The Band Wagon
with Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse
directed by Vincente Minnelli, who earlier did the somewhat similar An American in Paris with Gene Kelly.
grand climax is a 12 minute ballet inspired by the imagery of Mickey Spillane
YouTube only has a 4 minute excerpt from this sequence, vimeo has the full 12 minutes, check it out if you like that sort of tough guy pulp fiction: https://vimeo.com/55995775
Wikipedia tells me Cyd Charisse suffered polio when she was a child. Same disease that put FDR in a wheelchair. Can you believe it?
Supposedly Michael Jackson borrowed many moves from this precise routine.
And Steve Martin and Gilda Radner's famous duet from SNL was inspired by another sequence in this same film.
Black Panther
I waited til the crowds died down, then caught a weekday matinee. Next weeks March Break though, so don't try to see it then.
Its a visual feast, every frame is bursting with ideas ... probably best appreciated on the big screen. But I'd love to press the pause button on any of the establishing shots of downtown Wakanda.
Extrapolates on Jack Kirby's weird art, but fleshes it out with authentic African patterns and motifs, and makes it all very sci-fi yet rooted in the half-imaginary traditional culture (I think Wakanda is meant to be near Kenya).
Previously I had most liked the Thor films for their use of CGI. I feel its a distraction in most of these films, but in Thor the CGI brought Kirby's Asgard to life, as well as some truly weird Kirby costume designs. But Wakanda beats that precedent, as it is so much more persuasive in all its small details. I think a lot of research went into fleshing out those small details.
Some interesting philosophical debates on how one country should relate to its neighbours, its a bit headier than the average Marvel Studios film, while not being so dark as the X-Men films.
For us Bond geeks, there is a Q's lab type scene. T'Challa's little sister is the Q type character (Letitia Wright, who steals every scene she's in). She even gives him a tricked-out car to use in his mission.
Immediately followed by a Casino scene, in which the CIA agent (played by Bilbo Baggins) is introduced. Black Panther and his adversaries do more damage inside this casino than any Bond film I've ever seen though (I'm sure Bond reveres the Casino as an institution too much, he makes sure to take the fight outside, whereas T'Challa has no such attachment).
This casino scene in turn is followed by a car chase in which the vehicle tips on two wheels to get past some obstacles.
I'm guessing the sequence of three consecutive typically Bond-ian scenes is not a coincidence.
Also features Andy Serkis actually body-mapped to his own real life self for a change!
As expected I saw North By Northwest and I can't help but think of Roger.
No, not Roger Thornhill, Roger Moore. Especially in the auction scene and "what does a man do when he's out of his suit?".
The ending of Live and Let Die with this one's ending, mountaineering about outside his house like the safari suit-mansion scenes in OP, the Merc almost going downhill, the list goes on. Honestly, if Roger hadn't went on with Bond, I think that the producers robbed us of a very fine actor. It also makes FRWL look bad but it was presumably penned before North by Northwest. Enough Bond.
Let's get on with the film. These will be my raw thoughts on the film and I will intentionally leave this unpolished to retain that feeling of "just watched the film".
Cary Grant acts most scenes with just the right amount and everyone throughout the film compliments him on his performance (though for different reasons). I enjoyed him throughout but there was some "life" that was missing out of some lines that could've been delivered a tiny bit better but nothing enough to bring to ones attention, I can't quite put my finger on it. He carries (proud of myself for that one) himself well and really sold you to the idea of him being intoxicated while driving the Merc, quite a feat considering the very 50s backward projection. In terms of storytelling, miss one part of the film and bang, you have no idea what's happening.
I had to learn the hard way with the name calling and unfortunate timing (which, there's "what a coincidence, yes so convenient" storytelling, and then there's North By Northwest which is most definitely not a bad thing because, as always, the devil's in the details, which I love in film). I think that this is some kind of running gag in the Hitchcock films and it is testament to how he tells a story and how tight a ship he's running. The direction was on point without being too show-ey and, for a 50s film, the connecting shots work beautifully, which makes you think of him like some sort of maestro. When I first saw the buttery smooth transition between the train's interior and the outside-the-window shot or for example the taxi/police car scenes, I was stunned from how well edited and coordinated they are. One can't help but think how these would've looked on modern technologies of real vehicles and shut-down roads with faux-traffic or modern back-projection and it's also a testament to how well framed they are (example of well framed-ness: the transition between the knocked out-Roger and the bed or Roger walking out of the shot in the hotel to Roger fading in on the other side of the hallway). There was a certain energy to it that felt like it was one continuous shot and the characters have room to breath in double-sided conversations, a lacking element in many films. However, I did spot some continuity errors like the glass on Carry's hand on the train dinner, which is no biggy but it's there, and I noticed. There was also this tension throughout that was really palpable during the final minutes of the film that always kept you on the toes of one's feet and he really plays with your emotions. Cinematography was also on point, particularly the aforementioned train scenes, the field and the Rushmore in the climax but the lighting was too good at many points in the film and I enjoyed the soft focusing on the forrest scene with Eve that was also used with Roger. Not like OHMSS where they softly focused on Tracy and went back to normal with Bond, which was really distracting in that film.
Solid performances throughout with Eva's tone of voice being slightly more convincing than her face, the villains and the heroes (that got a bit mixed up as the film went on and you not being sure who to believe or not) are all...for a lack of a better word...great.
Apart from her, however, I wish I could say the same for Mr Baddie, who I can't bring myself to remember his name (which is always a bad thing) and considering all the running around Roger did because of him and him acting out the decoy, we don't get much screen-time of him on the cost of more characterisation with Roger, which makes it a very character driven film, which I don't know if it's a good thing or not (probably, though).
Needless to say, I liked the film.
I do prefer Hitchcock's The 39 Steps, which that film resembles. Innocent man mistaken identity pursued by both villains and police. Some of the comedy in NBNW is a bit broad for my tastes.
The villain is James Mason, great in 40s films stuff like The Wicked Lady and Odd Man Out, a darkly handsome leading man with a highly distinctive voice. Manages to out-smooth Grant, which was the main thing - it takes some doing.
Red Sparrow at the cinema. My hopes for this were not too high due to it having some mixed reviews, but I enjoyed it. Enjoyed seeing Jennifer Lawrence too. It is probably a little too long though.
Comments
American Made. Interesting and informative, but the more I learned about Barry Seal, the less I liked him.
The thing I liked best about it is that it wasn't a Cruise film that happens more often than not in his movies.
He always plays certain kinds of characters and the film wasn't influenced by his casting or necessarily written for him and he didn't have to carry the film. He played it well and there were several good performances throughout.
I loved it for that reason. It also came at the right time, with the resurgence of Escobar retellings with Narcos and such.
Sorta wish I saw it at the cinema. I could've but didn't in fear it would be that kind of film.
While my father runs from horror, I got him to see American Psycho since he's such a huge fan of Christian Bale and having not seen what is considered to be his best. He liked it and he thought it recreated the 80s well (with colours etc.).
Well, that and Vanilla Sky.
But then again, I'm one of those weird ones that cites it as a brilliant film.
But he usually plays "Tom Cruise".
Margaret Lockwood hams it up in this picture made by Gainsborough, which is appropriate as the setting is all Highway men and Bored Ladies of the Manor.
She is good even if she plays it a bit broad, perhaps to make it so OTT it got past the censor (even if her cleavage didn't in the US, who demanded reshoots). I suppose getting older I preferred Patricia Roc who plays her lovely cousin who is so cruelly wronged. That said, if it were a stage play you could imagine them swapping roles on alternate nights.
It's good fun but the plot contrivances at the end don't make sense.
A Good Day to Die Hard
You'd have felt cheated if you saw this in the cinema but for free on the telly, it's not too bad. Pretty awful though, and no third act to speak of. McClane would normally be a national hero after all he'd done but convention demands he's regarded as a scum bag by the authorities of course. It's set in Moscow and one horrible moment has McClane flag a car down and then knock out the driver shouting at him quite reasonably, saying 'I don't speak foreigner.' I don't know when McClane went from being a blue-collar Democrat to Trumpian Republican (is there is such a thing).
One Moscow action scene has a helicopter machine gunning the heroes (he's with his son this time round) in a skyscraper, which I had long thought up for a Bond movie, only in my version Bond jumps onto the runner of the copter which then hares off around the Kremlin and nearby river on a bright sunny day. My scene was better...
One big problem is if his son is involved then of course, that's two people who can't die, it moves into Lethal Weapon 4 territory after a few films or Indy and Crystal Skulls. If one person can't die, well, that's us up on the screen! More than that, and it strains credibility. Also, McClane seems like a spare part, sort of tagging along.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Has Tom Hanks ever made a bad film ??
Really loved this film and all the more amazing it's based on true events.
LAST FLAG FLYING
Wasn't too sure about this.
Seemed a bit laboured at times but the acting was good. Steve Carell is proving to be a very versatile actor.
I loved Munich too !!
I kept putting off watching 'Bridge of Spies' for some reason but once I started I knew I was going to like it.
It is very long but it didn't feel it when watching and Mark Rylance deserved his Oscar.
Fantastic film, definitely have my fingers crossed for that sequel -{
2002 - 2007 retrospect.
Just watched all three, and I have words. These movies were made by a dude my age who grew up with Ditko & Romita's version. He tried to stay as close to it as he could without being slavish. The new MCU Spider-Man, while really, REALLY good, is not the same- he's basically completely retooled for today's era. Raimi & Maguire's Spidey is MY web head.
Pluses, minuses & ratings.
Spider-Man (2002). It was purely awesome. Organic web shooters. 9/10
Spider-Man 2 (2004). Costume in the garbage can- classic. Too many scripted plot devices undermine characterizations. 7.5/10
Spider-Man 3 (2007). Amazing and dramatic character arc conclusions. A LOT going on for one 2hr 20min movie. 9/10
Conventional wisdom says the the second film is the best one, and that the third is some kind of 'failure'. Well, I guess I use UNconventional wisdom here.
Thoughts?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I've been a longtime fan of comic books and their movie adaptations but must confess to absolutely despising Raimi's trilogy.
First and foremost, Tobey Maguire's portrayal of Peter Parker as a whiney, impotent human dish rag quickly became tiresome. Parker was always an outcast but the movies took it to extremes, especially Spiderman 2 where he was subjected to one humiliation after another. His attempts to go dark in #3 were laughable, especially the dancing scene. He also had an annoying habit of losing his mask, especially the scene in #2 where everyone on the train sees who he really is.
The villains were often skewed to be way too tragic or misunderstood; especially Doc Ock from #2 and Sandman from #3 and trying to turn them into misunderstood antagonists who ultimately end up helping Spidey was a mistake in my opinion.
The supporting cast was similarly annoying, be it Mary Jane's helpless damsel in distress (all three movies climaxed with Spiderman needing to rescue her) or Aunt Mae who often came across as a pathetic character (I'm still scarred from the the toaster scene from #2).
So for me the Raimi movies were pretty much writeoffs. The first one had some interesting moments to it and I was able to overlook some of its shortcomings because of the novelty of it, but by #2 the bloom had worn off and the series just spiraled into pathos and angst.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc5SOCTtOrM&t=2580s
Also, I'm up for other Hitchcock films as I haven't seen many of his either. Which ones would you recommend?
Sorry if I'm hi-jackin' this thread but we don't have a "Film to see..." thread (
He also did an earlier one with Hitchcock called Suspicion where he plays a creepy husband, and of course there's the glamorous To Catch a Thief with Grace Kelly.
...and go back to Cary's screwball comedies from the 30s, the best are with Katharine Hepburn: Bringing Up Baby and Philadelphia Story.
If you watch too many Cary Grant movies in a row you're going to get stuck doing that voice.
The first film came out shortly after the first X-Men. Those were exciting times, the superhero genre had become disreputable after Scumacher's lousy Batman films, and Marvel had never had previous luck with film adaptations. I think it was the success of X-Men and Spider-Man that allowed them to start their own studio.
The first film did capture the look and feel of the early Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita comics. MaryJane was too pathetic, that's true, they got her character wrong, but J Jonah Jameson was exactly as I had always pictured him and moreso! And the CGI was used to persuasively make the wall-crawling and web-slinging look real, rather than overwhelming the story with visual noise like most recent superhero films end up doing.
And I liked the tragic portrayal of Dr. Octopus in the second. That's the way Stan Lee wrote his villains, there was a lot of moral gray areas in those Silver Age Marvel comics (probably why Ditko quit).
Did you prefer either of the two later versions?
Are you satisfied with any comic book movies, or do you feel they are incapable of capturing the charm of the source material?
Because I did give up on them for a long time for that very reason.
Have you guys seen the original live action Spider-Man tv show from the late 70s?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrwMyQ3_7P8
This is what basically all Marvel adaptations looked like until that one/two punch of the X-Men and Spider-Man films.
They do get creative with the wallcrawling, though, a combination of stuntwork and very practical special effects.
...and to Gymkata's list I would add
The Lodger (which Hitchcock considered the first proper Hitchcock film)
Blackmail (his first talkie, and like Lodger its very prototypical of his recurring themes)
his 30s spy films, but in particular the 39 Steps (probably his most important early British film)
Rebecca (his first American film)
Lifeboat (one of his technical tour-de-forces, as in how do you film this and make it visually interesting? he manages)
SpellBound (includes Salvador Dali content)
Strangers on a Train
the 1950s version of The Man Who Knew Too Much
and I note Gymkata put To Catch a Thief in his recommended Cary list but not his top-tier Hitchcock list, Be sure to watch that one too
A shorter list would be which Hitchcock is inessential.
And once you get done all those, watch Mel Brooks' High Anxiety.
And my list is more like, once you've watched all that Hitchcock you're going to want to watch more, so these are all essential too.
Dirty Punker you seem like a real student of how film is made. Watch how Hitchcock basically uses the camera as if it itself is a character in the story. It's always moving, manipulating how we perceive events. I think many later directors, like Kubrick or Lynch, build on Hitchcock's use of smooth tracking shots. And Mel Brooks makes some great jokes in his movie just based on typical Hitchcockian camera movements!
* hence a few Third Man references in the Vienna scenes of Glen's TLD.
Slightly overwhelming number of replies, my most profound thanks to you Gymkata and you caractacus.
I've been trying to get back to watching movies I had missed or not gotten the opportunity to see for the past few months while trying to expand my knowledge on the subject and Hitchcock is definitely at the top of my list.
Was aware of Vertigo (due to how disoriented some people felt after watching it and I have some kind of a thing for detective movies)
Psycho (with the famous shower scene and the stigma an actor got after it) and Dial M for Murder (by how much the title has been parodied). Both of you mentioned films I hadn't even heard of before and don't know if I would've watched on my own initiative.
Will, definitely, definitely get on it asap.
with Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse
directed by Vincente Minnelli, who earlier did the somewhat similar An American in Paris with Gene Kelly.
grand climax is a 12 minute ballet inspired by the imagery of Mickey Spillane
YouTube only has a 4 minute excerpt from this sequence, vimeo has the full 12 minutes, check it out if you like that sort of tough guy pulp fiction:
https://vimeo.com/55995775
Wikipedia tells me Cyd Charisse suffered polio when she was a child. Same disease that put FDR in a wheelchair. Can you believe it?
Supposedly Michael Jackson borrowed many moves from this precise routine.
And Steve Martin and Gilda Radner's famous duet from SNL was inspired by another sequence in this same film.
I waited til the crowds died down, then caught a weekday matinee. Next weeks March Break though, so don't try to see it then.
Its a visual feast, every frame is bursting with ideas ... probably best appreciated on the big screen. But I'd love to press the pause button on any of the establishing shots of downtown Wakanda.
Extrapolates on Jack Kirby's weird art, but fleshes it out with authentic African patterns and motifs, and makes it all very sci-fi yet rooted in the half-imaginary traditional culture (I think Wakanda is meant to be near Kenya).
Previously I had most liked the Thor films for their use of CGI. I feel its a distraction in most of these films, but in Thor the CGI brought Kirby's Asgard to life, as well as some truly weird Kirby costume designs. But Wakanda beats that precedent, as it is so much more persuasive in all its small details. I think a lot of research went into fleshing out those small details.
Some interesting philosophical debates on how one country should relate to its neighbours, its a bit headier than the average Marvel Studios film, while not being so dark as the X-Men films.
For us Bond geeks, there is a Q's lab type scene. T'Challa's little sister is the Q type character (Letitia Wright, who steals every scene she's in). She even gives him a tricked-out car to use in his mission.
Immediately followed by a Casino scene, in which the CIA agent (played by Bilbo Baggins) is introduced. Black Panther and his adversaries do more damage inside this casino than any Bond film I've ever seen though (I'm sure Bond reveres the Casino as an institution too much, he makes sure to take the fight outside, whereas T'Challa has no such attachment).
This casino scene in turn is followed by a car chase in which the vehicle tips on two wheels to get past some obstacles.
I'm guessing the sequence of three consecutive typically Bond-ian scenes is not a coincidence.
Also features Andy Serkis actually body-mapped to his own real life self for a change!
No, not Roger Thornhill, Roger Moore. Especially in the auction scene and "what does a man do when he's out of his suit?".
The ending of Live and Let Die with this one's ending, mountaineering about outside his house like the safari suit-mansion scenes in OP, the Merc almost going downhill, the list goes on. Honestly, if Roger hadn't went on with Bond, I think that the producers robbed us of a very fine actor. It also makes FRWL look bad but it was presumably penned before North by Northwest. Enough Bond.
Let's get on with the film. These will be my raw thoughts on the film and I will intentionally leave this unpolished to retain that feeling of "just watched the film".
Cary Grant acts most scenes with just the right amount and everyone throughout the film compliments him on his performance (though for different reasons). I enjoyed him throughout but there was some "life" that was missing out of some lines that could've been delivered a tiny bit better but nothing enough to bring to ones attention, I can't quite put my finger on it. He carries (proud of myself for that one) himself well and really sold you to the idea of him being intoxicated while driving the Merc, quite a feat considering the very 50s backward projection. In terms of storytelling, miss one part of the film and bang, you have no idea what's happening.
I had to learn the hard way with the name calling and unfortunate timing (which, there's "what a coincidence, yes so convenient" storytelling, and then there's North By Northwest which is most definitely not a bad thing because, as always, the devil's in the details, which I love in film). I think that this is some kind of running gag in the Hitchcock films and it is testament to how he tells a story and how tight a ship he's running. The direction was on point without being too show-ey and, for a 50s film, the connecting shots work beautifully, which makes you think of him like some sort of maestro. When I first saw the buttery smooth transition between the train's interior and the outside-the-window shot or for example the taxi/police car scenes, I was stunned from how well edited and coordinated they are. One can't help but think how these would've looked on modern technologies of real vehicles and shut-down roads with faux-traffic or modern back-projection and it's also a testament to how well framed they are (example of well framed-ness: the transition between the knocked out-Roger and the bed or Roger walking out of the shot in the hotel to Roger fading in on the other side of the hallway). There was a certain energy to it that felt like it was one continuous shot and the characters have room to breath in double-sided conversations, a lacking element in many films. However, I did spot some continuity errors like the glass on Carry's hand on the train dinner, which is no biggy but it's there, and I noticed. There was also this tension throughout that was really palpable during the final minutes of the film that always kept you on the toes of one's feet and he really plays with your emotions. Cinematography was also on point, particularly the aforementioned train scenes, the field and the Rushmore in the climax but the lighting was too good at many points in the film and I enjoyed the soft focusing on the forrest scene with Eve that was also used with Roger. Not like OHMSS where they softly focused on Tracy and went back to normal with Bond, which was really distracting in that film.
Solid performances throughout with Eva's tone of voice being slightly more convincing than her face, the villains and the heroes (that got a bit mixed up as the film went on and you not being sure who to believe or not) are all...for a lack of a better word...great.
Apart from her, however, I wish I could say the same for Mr Baddie, who I can't bring myself to remember his name (which is always a bad thing) and considering all the running around Roger did because of him and him acting out the decoy, we don't get much screen-time of him on the cost of more characterisation with Roger, which makes it a very character driven film, which I don't know if it's a good thing or not (probably, though).
Needless to say, I liked the film.
The villain is James Mason, great in 40s films stuff like The Wicked Lady and Odd Man Out, a darkly handsome leading man with a highly distinctive voice. Manages to out-smooth Grant, which was the main thing - it takes some doing.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
What did you think of them?
Going in Style - Zach Braff's terrific remake of Martin Brest's debut film. Recommended if you haven't seen it.
-{