I saw that version in the cinema on its release, and didn't like it very much. Olivier was clearly doing it for the money, though Langella wasn't bad.
Small point of interest- it was the first Dracula movie made by Universal since the Bela Lugosi days.
A little note on the great Christopher Lee, I recently read that he said he only got
the role of Frankenstein's Monster because his agent charged a little less than
Bernard Bresslaw's agent ! and that lead to Dracula ........
Here with Sid James.
What a waste of great talent it would have been, if Christopher Lee had ended up in the Carry On series and Bernard Bresslaw had played Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy, etc. Come to think of it, Bresslaw might have played Scaramanga!!!
What a Carry on, ... that would have been. Acting is at times a case
of Luck, one role leading to another. Apparently Lee was blackmailed
in to doing some of the Dracula films, as although he wasn't happy with
some scripts etc. He was told without his name attached to it, it wouldn't
get made and all the technicians, crew and other actors would be out of
work, so he did them !
In a recent YouTube documentary on the Hammer films, they showed two
scripts. One from Peter Cushing, which only had the odd note here and there
to change a word or two, and one from Christopher Lee, which had Notes all
over it, and replacement lines inserted.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
In a recent YouTube documentary on the Hammer films, they showed two
scripts. One from Peter Cushing, which only had the odd note here and there
to change a word or two, and one from Christopher Lee, which had Notes all
over it, and replacement lines inserted.
I'd like to see that one, TP, could you please give a link?
Here is a link to the history of Hammer's
Frankenstein films. In part two they show
A script from Peter Cushing's first, which
Is full of notes and ideas, as he was
Establishing the character.
Here is a link to the history of Hammer's
Frankenstein films. In part two they show
A script from Peter Cushing's first, which
Is full of notes and ideas, as he was
Establishing the character.
Just watched " The House that dripped Blood " 1971, on YouTube.
An all star cast with Cushing and Lee, Jon Pertwee etc. The usual selection of short
stories all connected to a creepy old house. One funny part was with Jon Pertwee playing
a Horror actor listing all the great horror actors, Like Bela Lugosi as Dracula, ......" Not that
new chap ! " I'm guessing that was a Christopher lee Joke.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Not as bad as I was expecting, given all the negative reviews I had read.
Sure Alden Ehrenreich is NO Harrison Ford, but .... I thought it was fun.
I'm working my way through the Star Wars movies, next up will be
Rogue One and then the original three Films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Wow, you call back in after a short absence and McBarbel is still swinging his Claymore!
Anyway, I watched The Hobbit, The Battle of the Five Armies yesterday. I've read the book... ) . A lot as I have all of Tolkiens works, but as much as I enjoyed it, it wasn't a patch on the LOTR trilogy and that wasn't a patch on the Books. It was over long and somewhat procrastinated to the point that it felt bloated. Billy Connolly was a nice touch as the bad tempered dwarf, but a touch underused in such a long film. My boy enjoyed it and it kept him quiet for 3 hours which makes it 10/10. )
Wow, you call back in after a short absence and McBarbel is still swinging his Claymore!
Anyway, I watched The Hobbit, The Battle of the Five Armies yesterday. I've read the book... ) . A lot as I have all of Tolkiens works, but as much as I enjoyed it, it wasn't a patch on the LOTR trilogy and that wasn't a patch on the Books. It was over long and somewhat procrastinated to the point that it felt bloated. Billy Connolly was a nice touch as the bad tempered dwarf, but a touch underused in such a long film. My boy enjoyed it and it kept him quiet for 3 hours which makes it 10/10. )
Nice to see you back, Chriscoop. I agree with your thoughts on the 3rd Hobbit movie- maybe 30 minutes material stretched to 3 hours.
Wow, you call back in after a short absence and McBarbel is still swinging his Claymore!
Anyway, I watched The Hobbit, The Battle of the Five Armies yesterday. I've read the book... ) . A lot as I have all of Tolkiens works, but as much as I enjoyed it, it wasn't a patch on the LOTR trilogy and that wasn't a patch on the Books. It was over long and somewhat procrastinated to the point that it felt bloated. Billy Connolly was a nice touch as the bad tempered dwarf, but a touch underused in such a long film. My boy enjoyed it and it kept him quiet for 3 hours which makes it 10/10. )
Nice to see you back, Chriscoop. I agree with your thoughts on the 3rd Hobbit movie- maybe 30 minutes material stretched to 3 hours.
Thank you Barbel -{ it's good to be back and see things haven't changed much.
Hi Chriscoop. I too wasn't impressed by the Hobbit movies. Three movies was an bridge too far, two would have worked better. The Hobbit movies lacked the magic of LotR. There was too much CGI and not enough character and plot.
Not as bad as I was expecting, given all the negative reviews I had read.
Sure Alden Ehrenreich is NO Harrison Ford, but .... I thought it was fun.
I'm working my way through the Star Wars movies, next up will be
Rogue One and then the original three Films.
And then you can stop right there. Good thing Disney never made a sequel trilogy...and that Doctor Who ended when Moffat and Capaldi left...and that they never let Alex Kurtzman make a Star Trek series or two.
I've seen discussion of other edits that supposedly get it down to closer to two hours.
All those action sequences that show off the 3d could be edited out too, they really padded out the movie. Just getting it down to only what Tolkien wrote should reduce it to one single normal length movie. Even if there are resultant plot-holes, they should't be worse than most normal movies.
Lord of the Rings was approx 1000pgs, not counting the appendices, and the three films add up to approx 10hrs.
Therefor the Hobbit, which is only about 200pgs, should not be more than 2hrs.
Stoopidest thing about the third film: in the book, Bilbo is knocked unconscious just before the battle begins, at the end of one chapter, then wakes up at the beginning of the next chapter and it's all over. Tolkien does not describe the Battle! That's a good two hours of movie right there that is not needed.
1950s classic starring Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, direct by Elia Kazan. I read the play ages ago when I was a student and remember enjoying it. Then while listening to a compilation of Alex North film music the other day I heard a couple of pieces from the film's score and that reminded me that I've been meaning to watch it for years. So I did that, and I also re-read the play beforehand to refresh my memory. I really enjoyed the film - the cinematography and set design was excellent, as were the performances. And Alex North's music was terrific too, not surprising since it was hearing the music which nudged me to watch the film.
The Force Awakens was a disappointment to me as it felt like an inferior remake of A New Hope. The Last Jedi is by far my least favorite Star Wars movie as I did not care for the way many characters were used and Rian Johnson's insistence on dismantling everything from the prior films. So as you can imagine I was in no hurry to see TROS and went in with zero expectations.
All that said, I ended up being entertained. Make no mistake, the plot of this movie has holes you could fly a Death Star thru and, as is typical for a JJ ABrams movie, whole swaths of it are copied from events in prior films. However, visually it looks great and the pace never really gives you time to stop and think about how implausible most of the movie is.
Also, I have to admit taking a dark (side) pleasure in seeing Rian Johnson's ideas fall by the wayside one by one. Johnson tried to make Ben the big villain, Abrams redeems him. Johnson destroyed Luke's lightsaber, Abrams shows it freshly rebuilt. Johnson had Luke throw that lightsaber away, Abrams has Luke save it from a fire and quip "this deserves more respect", Johnson sank Luke's X-Wing, Abrams has him pull it from the water Yoda style. I could go on and on but you get the idea; the movie could have been just as easily titled Star Wars Episode 9: "F" Rian Johnson.
The amount of fan service, from objects, characters and obscure references went, like everything else, just too far. But at the same time I didn't mind seeing things like the Tantive IV, the holographic chess table and so on.
In terms of acting, the leads were all serviceable and actually behaved in ways you expected them to and were not the air-headed buffoons and "I know everything but won't tell you for no good reason" commanders from the prior film. Ian McDirmid's return as Palpatine stretched the laws of credibility to extreme lengths but he was always one of my favorite characters and hearing his cackling laugh and distinct intonation was enjoyable, although you'd think he would have learned by now that force lightning isn't mabye the best strategy to use against Jedi.
So overall, despite it's derivative nature, flimsy plot and over the top fan service, I was entertained. It tried too hard to placate fans and comes across as more of an apology for Last Jedi, but at the end of the day I'd rather watch a movie that panders to the fans (who made this franchise what it is) and embraces its history than one that panders to the filmmaker's ego and critics (who never embraced these movies), subverts fan expectations so negatively and tries to dismantle 40 years of tradition in one fell swoop.
Just working my way through all the Star Was movies, and just want to ask
Why does the Empire keep building " Death Stars " ... they've never worked,
the Rebels keep blowing them up. The same can be said for Jurassic Park
films. Given how many people have died in their resorts. How do they keep
getting licences to open new ones !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Quatermass and the Pit
Hammer Films, 1967
with Andrew Keir as Professor Bernard Quatermass
also features Julian Glover (he's one of ours) as the closedminded military officer Quatermass is forced to work with
I am aware this is a remake of a teevee serial from the 50s, the third in a series that is often claimed to be the predecessor of Doctor Who.
I've never seen any Quatermass adventures before, but this one sure contains a whole bunch of the elements we would shortly see specifically in the Third Doctor's first season.
As well as a character who looks and behaves exactly like Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, there is an efficient redheaded lady scientist who is our heroes most loyal ally, and a plot where London dwellers have dug too deep and unearthed an alien menace. Which was the plot to just about every Third Doctor story prior to the introduction of the Master.
The Brigadier would first appear in a Second Doctor storyline in 1968, a year after this film was released.
Hobb's Lane subway station is being expanded, when diggers unearth some odd shaped human skulls that are older than any known human fossil, then what at first appears to be an unexploded V2 rocket, except it is made of a metal does not exist on earth and contains the remains of giant three legged insects.
There then follows a lot of cool research through the historic records of London back to the Middle Ages, showing that Hobb's Lane has always been a cursed place, with recurring rumours of demons dwelling beneath the earth.
Quatermass hypothesises the giant insects are Martians who five million years ago selectively bred our apelike ancestors to create modern humans. Then when the military try to destroy the troublesome evidence before there is a panic, everything spontaneously starts to blow up real good, leading to an extended post-apocalyptic type final shot.
Good stuff all round!
Hey you know another film that was released a year later that hypothesised ancient alien visitors selectively bred our apelike ancestors to create us? 2001!!
You think Kubrick was also inspired by these Quatermass stories?
I just fininshed a fan cut version of "Waterloo" (1970) at 2 h 10 minites. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSaGPIpb830
It stars Christopher Plummer as Wellington and Rod Steiger as Napoleon. This is a very good film, and remarkably historical correct. It's also worth noteing that the magnificent battle scnenes are accomplished without a pixel of CGI, instead they used 20 000 Soviet soldiers. This is an epic if there ever was one. Just look at the French cavalry charge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=2k0K-yvQbeo&feature=emb_logo
Comments
Small point of interest- it was the first Dracula movie made by Universal since the Bela Lugosi days.
What a waste of great talent it would have been, if Christopher Lee had ended up in the Carry On series and Bernard Bresslaw had played Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy, etc. Come to think of it, Bresslaw might have played Scaramanga!!!
of Luck, one role leading to another. Apparently Lee was blackmailed
in to doing some of the Dracula films, as although he wasn't happy with
some scripts etc. He was told without his name attached to it, it wouldn't
get made and all the technicians, crew and other actors would be out of
work, so he did them !
In a recent YouTube documentary on the Hammer films, they showed two
scripts. One from Peter Cushing, which only had the odd note here and there
to change a word or two, and one from Christopher Lee, which had Notes all
over it, and replacement lines inserted.
I'd like to see that one, TP, could you please give a link?
https://youtu.be/KCX1j5YZkls
https://youtu.be/s1KScQ67XnY
In fact this channel has lots of Hammer stuff
Many thanks, will get watching that soon.
Frankenstein films. In part two they show
A script from Peter Cushing's first, which
Is full of notes and ideas, as he was
Establishing the character.
https://youtu.be/HQ3_pCar7E4
https://youtu.be/0gjljnk2gBY
You obviously haven’t seen The Betsy
Thanks TP this looks interesting.
An all star cast with Cushing and Lee, Jon Pertwee etc. The usual selection of short
stories all connected to a creepy old house. One funny part was with Jon Pertwee playing
a Horror actor listing all the great horror actors, Like Bela Lugosi as Dracula, ......" Not that
new chap ! "
Not as bad as I was expecting, given all the negative reviews I had read.
Sure Alden Ehrenreich is NO Harrison Ford, but .... I thought it was fun.
I'm working my way through the Star Wars movies, next up will be
Rogue One and then the original three Films.
Failed to elicit a titter from me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Anyway, I watched The Hobbit, The Battle of the Five Armies yesterday. I've read the book...
Nice to see you back, Chriscoop. I agree with your thoughts on the 3rd Hobbit movie- maybe 30 minutes material stretched to 3 hours.
And then you can stop right there. Good thing Disney never made a sequel trilogy...and that Doctor Who ended when Moffat and Capaldi left...and that they never let Alex Kurtzman make a Star Trek series or two.
I've seen discussion of other edits that supposedly get it down to closer to two hours.
All those action sequences that show off the 3d could be edited out too, they really padded out the movie. Just getting it down to only what Tolkien wrote should reduce it to one single normal length movie. Even if there are resultant plot-holes, they should't be worse than most normal movies.
Lord of the Rings was approx 1000pgs, not counting the appendices, and the three films add up to approx 10hrs.
Therefor the Hobbit, which is only about 200pgs, should not be more than 2hrs.
Stoopidest thing about the third film: in the book, Bilbo is knocked unconscious just before the battle begins, at the end of one chapter, then wakes up at the beginning of the next chapter and it's all over. Tolkien does not describe the Battle! That's a good two hours of movie right there that is not needed.
1950s classic starring Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, direct by Elia Kazan. I read the play ages ago when I was a student and remember enjoying it. Then while listening to a compilation of Alex North film music the other day I heard a couple of pieces from the film's score and that reminded me that I've been meaning to watch it for years. So I did that, and I also re-read the play beforehand to refresh my memory. I really enjoyed the film - the cinematography and set design was excellent, as were the performances. And Alex North's music was terrific too, not surprising since it was hearing the music which nudged me to watch the film.
The Force Awakens was a disappointment to me as it felt like an inferior remake of A New Hope. The Last Jedi is by far my least favorite Star Wars movie as I did not care for the way many characters were used and Rian Johnson's insistence on dismantling everything from the prior films. So as you can imagine I was in no hurry to see TROS and went in with zero expectations.
All that said, I ended up being entertained. Make no mistake, the plot of this movie has holes you could fly a Death Star thru and, as is typical for a JJ ABrams movie, whole swaths of it are copied from events in prior films. However, visually it looks great and the pace never really gives you time to stop and think about how implausible most of the movie is.
Also, I have to admit taking a dark (side) pleasure in seeing Rian Johnson's ideas fall by the wayside one by one. Johnson tried to make Ben the big villain, Abrams redeems him. Johnson destroyed Luke's lightsaber, Abrams shows it freshly rebuilt. Johnson had Luke throw that lightsaber away, Abrams has Luke save it from a fire and quip "this deserves more respect", Johnson sank Luke's X-Wing, Abrams has him pull it from the water Yoda style. I could go on and on but you get the idea; the movie could have been just as easily titled Star Wars Episode 9: "F" Rian Johnson.
The amount of fan service, from objects, characters and obscure references went, like everything else, just too far. But at the same time I didn't mind seeing things like the Tantive IV, the holographic chess table and so on.
In terms of acting, the leads were all serviceable and actually behaved in ways you expected them to and were not the air-headed buffoons and "I know everything but won't tell you for no good reason" commanders from the prior film. Ian McDirmid's return as Palpatine stretched the laws of credibility to extreme lengths but he was always one of my favorite characters and hearing his cackling laugh and distinct intonation was enjoyable, although you'd think he would have learned by now that force lightning isn't mabye the best strategy to use against Jedi.
So overall, despite it's derivative nature, flimsy plot and over the top fan service, I was entertained. It tried too hard to placate fans and comes across as more of an apology for Last Jedi, but at the end of the day I'd rather watch a movie that panders to the fans (who made this franchise what it is) and embraces its history than one that panders to the filmmaker's ego and critics (who never embraced these movies), subverts fan expectations so negatively and tries to dismantle 40 years of tradition in one fell swoop.
Why does the Empire keep building " Death Stars " ... they've never worked,
the Rebels keep blowing them up. The same can be said for Jurassic Park
films. Given how many people have died in their resorts. How do they keep
getting licences to open new ones !
Hammer Films, 1967
with Andrew Keir as Professor Bernard Quatermass
also features Julian Glover (he's one of ours) as the closedminded military officer Quatermass is forced to work with
I am aware this is a remake of a teevee serial from the 50s, the third in a series that is often claimed to be the predecessor of Doctor Who.
I've never seen any Quatermass adventures before, but this one sure contains a whole bunch of the elements we would shortly see specifically in the Third Doctor's first season.
As well as a character who looks and behaves exactly like Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, there is an efficient redheaded lady scientist who is our heroes most loyal ally, and a plot where London dwellers have dug too deep and unearthed an alien menace. Which was the plot to just about every Third Doctor story prior to the introduction of the Master.
The Brigadier would first appear in a Second Doctor storyline in 1968, a year after this film was released.
Hobb's Lane subway station is being expanded, when diggers unearth some odd shaped human skulls that are older than any known human fossil, then what at first appears to be an unexploded V2 rocket, except it is made of a metal does not exist on earth and contains the remains of giant three legged insects.
There then follows a lot of cool research through the historic records of London back to the Middle Ages, showing that Hobb's Lane has always been a cursed place, with recurring rumours of demons dwelling beneath the earth.
Quatermass hypothesises the giant insects are Martians who five million years ago selectively bred our apelike ancestors to create modern humans. Then when the military try to destroy the troublesome evidence before there is a panic, everything spontaneously starts to blow up real good, leading to an extended post-apocalyptic type final shot.
Good stuff all round!
Hey you know another film that was released a year later that hypothesised ancient alien visitors selectively bred our apelike ancestors to create us?
2001!!
You think Kubrick was also inspired by these Quatermass stories?
Standard 70's B-movie Monster flick. I watched it on YouTube and part of the way through
I realised I'd seen this in the local cinema as a kid
It stars Christopher Plummer as Wellington and Rod Steiger as Napoleon. This is a very good film, and remarkably historical correct. It's also worth noteing that the magnificent battle scnenes are accomplished without a pixel of CGI, instead they used 20 000 Soviet soldiers. This is an epic if there ever was one. Just look at the French cavalry charge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=2k0K-yvQbeo&feature=emb_logo