Just watching The Sweeney (2012) on TV and reminding myself why it's the worst film I've ever seen. ) )
The worst film you’ve ever seen?
Then may I draw your attention to this little beauty :v
Enjoy -{
I'm not sure I can subject myself to that .... Michael Flatley??
'Troubled secret agent "Blackbird" abruptly retires from service and opens a luxurious nightclub in the Caribbean to escape the dark shadows of his past. An old flame arrives and reignites love in his life but she brings danger with her.'
What's his special set of skills? Irish dancing ) )
This war film is about the confrontation between an American destroyer and a German u-boat during WWII. The destroyer's captain is played by Robert Mitchum and the German captian by Curd Jürgens. David Heddison plays an American officer.
I think this is one of the better old war movies. This isn't a story about good guys vs bad guys, but of dedicated professionals doing their jobs well.
The still excellent Midnight Run with Robert DeNiro, Charles Grodin and our own Yaphet Kotto.
Is it a comedy? Only in the way Die Hard is. You laugh, but it's still kinda serious.
Pleasingly, it has not dated really. None of them use mobile phones but as the bounty hunters are trying to avoid being traced by the cops and the gangsters, this doesn't jar.
What's good is that women do not feature in this film. Woah - that's a sexist thing to say, right? But not really. You see, it's devoid of the stress of romantic engagement which often in 1980s films jars a bit because you realise it was a bit awful, sort of exploitative. It shows up how far we've moved since then. Even with no romantic subplot, they'd spice it up to show a gangster meeting in a strip joint, or a hood about to be 'seduced' by a hot babe. Back then I found this stuff exciting now it just seems sleazy. Midnight Run has none of that and maintains a kind of innocence. Die Hard too, in that respect. And The Untouchables.
A little known 60s comedy with Michael Caine in the lead, along with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Stalwarts such as John Mills and Ralph Richardson! Nanette Newman as the love interest.
John Barry doing the score!
Then cameos from Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock and bit roles from Irene Handle, John Le Mesurier Nicholas Parsons, Leonard Rossiter and was that Felicity Kendal and even Michael Aspel popping up too?
There's a reason why this is little known. It's awful. One of those heavy-going dead on arrival 1960s British comedies. Like The Beatles Help! but without the songs. Or Casino Royale without the song, the psychedelia or the Bond angle.
Some titters in a funeral procession chase at the end but even this attempts to steal from the earlier Pink Panther.
Great call, guys. One of my all-time favorites. The DeNiro-Grodin byplay is wonderful, Dennis Farina (RIP) is a fabulous scumbag, and Yaphet Kotto plays the dyspeptic FBI agent brilliantly. It's probably the movie that my wife and I have watched together more than any other -- to this day, whenever one of us is acting slightly cranky, the other one will mockingly yell, "I'm Mosley!"
Another fine film that has hardly dated, especially as it deals with 'fake news' - the difference being that this time it isn't politically orchestrated but due to a rogue reporter on The New Republic, a US magazine of renown. It's a true story, apparently.
This stars the Darth Vader prequel actor but don't let this put you off, as he shows himself to be a fine character actor as the titular Stephen Glass who pulls the wool over the editor's eyes. His weedling slyness is finely pitched, especially as he becomes aggrieved when it looks like he might be found out. As good if not better is Peter Saarsgard as the new editor who is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in the early stages, only to become increasingly unimpressed as things develop.
It is very much set at the dawn of the internet age when it was harder to check facts... you couldn't just jump on the internet and call up a load of Google hits. That said, I'd argue that though facts are easier to come by now, the truth is harder than ever and journalism is in a very poor shape these days when it comes to holding the Government to account.
This film is nearly 20 years old and it's hardly ever on TV, I don't know why this is and we get subjected to the same old same old all the time, I mean even I'm getting bored of Bond on telly all the time, it's like it's aimed to retard us in some way. There are all sorts of movie gems out there that never get a look in and I don't know why that is.
This western had a more balanced view of the conflict between indians and the Americans of European descent than most of its time, James Stewart stars in his first western as a man who ties to broker a peace between the US Army and the Apaches led by Cochise.
What I like even more than the novelty of not having the indians just play villans is the fact that they don't just portray the Apaches as noble first Americans. "Broken Arrow" makes a point to say that there were horrors comitted and victims on both sides.
But how does it work as entertainment? I think it works well. The film has a good plot, good actors and enough action and spectacle.
The film has aged in some ways, but I think that's part of the charm. One detail that wouldn't happen today is how James Stewart (40) has a love interest played by a 15 year old actress. Still, good film!
With a jolt you recall that Hugh Grant was supposed to be knocking on a bit in that. And that was, what 20 years ago?
It is made up of many enjoyable scenes and if the film is less than the sum of its parts, doesn't one find that matters less on reviewing, where you just enjoy the parts. A film like GoldenEye is the same, imo.
The Aint No Sunshine scene by the now late Bill Withers is particularly enjoyable, as Grant steps out for a walk and the changing seasons along Portobello Market depict the passing of time as he tries to get over Ms Roberts.
For all that, it may be the film works better for the fact that Julia Roberts seems miscast; yep she's a big star but she doesn't seem to suffer fools and it's hard to see what she'd see in Grant's character. Times when she is meant to be vulnerable never really convince and Roberts did have that flinty eye, bullish look by then. Oddly, the Julia Roberts of Pretty Woman could have been more convincing in this film, but thereafter she never really played that role - Erin Brockovich was the nearest in terms of looks and class but she still wasn't the ingenue of Pretty Woman. Nor was she ever as hot as in Pretty Woman, but if there'a s reason why Roberts is popular with women it's because she isn't your usual vulnerable blonde actress, she has balls.
Anyway! Despite all this it does make the film more interesting as Roberts' character is a counterweight to the other fine British ensemble cast.
A Toshiro Mifune double feature of Yojimbo and Red Sun.
Yojimbo is one of those films that I've been meaning to watch for many years. I've never really made an effort to watch Asian films beyond the one or two that I had to watch when I was a film student some years ago. I really enjoyed Yojimbo, and I definitely intend to seek out more Kurosawa films. My only previous Kurosawa experience was Rashomon during my aforementioned student days. Yojimbo's direction and cinematography was superb, with so much style in every frame. It's easy to see the influence that this film had on later ones, especially Fistful of Dollars.
While browsing for Yojimbo online, I also stumbled across Red Sun, which I decided could play as the B-feature to Yojimbo. This is a spaghetti western directed by none other than Terence Young, starring Toshiro Mifune, Charles Bronson and also some Bond alumni - Anthony Dawson and Ursula Andress. The samurai in the Old West idea is interesting, with Mifune and Bronson end up becoming reluctant allies in tracking down an outlaw. The film had some good moments, but it wasn't anything special by any means. Maurice Jarre contributed the score which featured a catchy main theme that I was humming for a while after the film ended.
Not exactly a movie, but have just finished watching the filmed version of National Theatre's Frankenstein.
A carefully thought out adaptation, well acted and memorable. The version I saw starred Jonny Lee Miller as Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature, and tomorrow I'm planning to see it with them switching parts (as they did on alternate nights on stage).
Bond connections- Naomie Harris plays Elizabeth, the female lead. Director was Danny Boyle. Miller is Bernard Lee's grandson.
I've never seen this British classic before. That's a shame, because I really liked it. I'm not going into the plot, but it's a very origional one. This movie is smart, emotional and at times fun. What'seven more surprising are the efects. They actually look good in spite of their advanced years.
I've never seen this British classic before. That's a shame, because I really liked it. I'm not going into the plot, but it's a very origional one. This movie is smart, emotional and at times fun. What'seven more surprising are the efects. They actually look good in spite of their advanced years.
That's a film that I've been wanting to watch for a while, but haven't got round to yet. I've seen a few Powell-Pressburger films and have enjoyed them all. Another one that is on my watchlist is The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp.
A 1950 western starring Gregory Peck as a famous gunslinger whose reputation precedes him everywhere he goes, with the result that young whippersnappers all over the west can't resist taking him on to measure their prowess against the legend. The film also features a really good supporting performance by Millard Mitchell as a former partner of Peck, who is now a US Marshall who is wary of the trouble that Peck's arrival in his town could bring.
This is a lean, 85 minute film filled with tension, good character filled scenes and some striking black and white cinematography. I hadn't come across it until it was featured recently on a podcast called How the West was 'Cast. I recommend both the film and the podcast most highly.
This isn't a typical Hitchcock thriller. This is a romantic drama … set in the 19th century ….. in Australia.
It's really well made, og course. but to be honest I wouldn't have watched it if Under Capricorn wasn't directed by Afred Hitchcock and Ingrid Bergman wasn't so stunningly beautiful.
This isn't a typical Hitchcock thriller. This is a romantic drama … set in the 19th century ….. in Australia.
It's really well made, of course. but to be honest I wouldn't have watched it if Under Capricorn wasn't directed by Alfred Hitchcock and Ingrid Bergman wasn't so stunningly beautiful.
yeh I watched that a few years back, and it was more of a period costume drama than any sort of thriller. I don't remember much else about it, so I must have found it boring.
Usually there's at least one incredible image that I never ever forget from any given Hitchcock film.
Odd, because he was just about to enter his greatest period, but perhaps in the 40s he was still being made to do things by the Hollywood studio bosses?
On the positive side, there are two absolutely essential 1940s Hitchcock films with Ingrid Bergman.
Very good performances from Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. A film about a family and the struggles they face especially with dealing with an autistic brother. I found it very moving.
This isn't a typical Hitchcock thriller. This is a romantic drama … set in the 19th century ….. in Australia.
It's really well made, of course. but to be honest I wouldn't have watched it if Under Capricorn wasn't directed by Alfred Hitchcock and Ingrid Bergman wasn't so stunningly beautiful.
yeh I watched that a few years back, and it was more of a period costume drama than any sort of thriller. I don't remember much else about it, so I must have found it boring.
Usually there's at least one incredible image that I never ever forget from any given Hitchcock film.
Odd, because he was just about to enter his greatest period, but perhaps in the 40s he was still being made to do things by the Hollywood studio bosses?
On the positive side, there are two absolutely essential 1940s Hitchcock films with Ingrid Bergman.
This was the one film where, some time into filming, an exasperated Hitch suddenly declared 'This film is going to be an absolute disaster!' and so it proved.
The English Patient
M was good in this film, wasn't he?
I'd forgotten the story was about a team of cartographers.
We need more epic romances about cartographers, they lead exciting lives!
Was there ever any talk about Fiennes being the next James Bond around this time?
(I guess he did play John Steed so that was close)
That film left me emotionally scarred. I left the cinema and literally couldn't breath because I was crying so much. Felt drained for about 24 hours later!!
I've never watched it again. Bridges of Madison County was another one I've never watched again for similar reasons.
One of those films like The Wicker Man - also early 70s, also with Britt Ekland - that you might watch on telly late on a Friday night and after a slow start be gradually drawn into the best film ever. Get Carter is like a Bond classic in that it's one great scene after another, no padding.
One thing I don't get suddenly after many viewings. The place where Jack Carter visits his dead brother in his coffin - is that meant to be the same place he lodges later with the lecherous landlady? It doesn't make sense and it never occurred to me before. But as he peruses the joint, he visits a room where purple knickers are hanging and he clocks them. This brings on his later comment to her: 'I know you wear purple underwear' which I thought was just some random guesswork. Guess it wasn't.
But what was his brother doing living in a B&B? Or was he her live in lover? Where was the daughter then?
The extent to which Carter's London boss was trailing him all the time escaped me on earlier viewings.
I remember seeing this photo of Ted Lewis supposedly on the set of Get Carter doing a quick rewrite , don't know if it's true but how cool does he look fag in his gob .
I've been on a bit of a Guy Ritchie kick, revisiting some films that I've seen and crossing others off of the list that I haven't seen.
What about his King Arthur film?
What do you think about his use of flashbacks?
That seems to be consistent in every film of his I've seen. Does it serve the story or draw too much attention to the filmmaking?
I actually thought it was appropriate to Sherlock Holmes, where Holmes is supposed to be explaining to Watson what he was too foolish to observe for himself.
That film left me emotionally scarred. I left the cinema and literally couldn't breath because I was crying so much. Felt drained for about 24 hours later!!
it's a three hanky weeper!
even creepy ol' Willem Dafoe was moved by the Patient's story when he finally got to the end!
I was thinking this morning: it's not just that the characters are cartographers, but geography plays a major symbolic role in telling the story.
Geography, and the idea that we can define the land and claim ownership.
The framing sequence is set in an abandoned Italian monastary. Presumably abandoned because of the War. When it was built there would have been no unified Italian state, but dozens of independent citystates. But Italy has since united as a single nationstate, and allied itself with Germany which also unified at the same time. Germany imposed an ethnic ideal upon a diverse population, dont know if Italy did the same, but this imposed Nation ultimately led to the War which has just devastated Italy.
So this artificial creation of nationStates has led to the wreckage the characters now find themselves in.
The flashbacks take place in the Sahara desert, with some shorter scenes in Cairo.
In one key bit of dialog, László tells Katherine he does not believe in ownership nor borders, which justifies their affair.
Yet he is doing a surveyors job, out there in the endless desert, mapping the unmappable.
We can see not only are there few recognisable landmarks in the land they are surveying, but the land itself is constantly changing shape. in another key sequence, László and Katherine are caught in a sandstorm and the land they are exploring has completely rearranged itself when they emerge. It is right after this shifting sands sequence they begin their affair.
I think László is mapping the desert for sheer intellectual pursuit. Katherines husband is mapping it to provide information for the British government in preparation for the war (thus resulting in the crucial maps traded to the enemy at the end).
Cartography is the art of reducing the endless world we live in to a quantifiable objective set of data. We each experience our landscape subjectively and incompletely, but the great renaissance cartographers like Mercator figured out how to synthesise travellers' tales to a solvable mathematical problem.
And it was done so that the powers that be could claim ownership. Surveying in particular is all about defining legal ownership of land, and cartography in general developed so that the competing Great Powers could establish claim to their Empires.
Katharine's husband is helping the British claim ownership of the unmappable desert, László says he does not believe in ownership, and he trades that data to the enemy in the end in a failed attempt to save Katharine's life.
László turns out to be a Hungarian Count, which of course is what dooms Katharine and himself when forced to identify himself. But following the symbology: what is important is a Count is Landed Gentry. His ancestors owned land when most humans were chattel. Perhaps his lands were lost in one of Hungary's wars, or perhaps he has chosen to renounce his heritage, but now this Landed Gentry is exploring the unmappable desert denying the concept of Ownership.
Then when the British confront him with this unwanted identity it costs him and his lover their lives.
Katharine said she didn't want to be left in the desert, she wanted to be buried in her parents garden in England. Unlike László, the idea that she is of a specific piece of land is important to her sense of identity. And it is because László is trying to honour her dying wish he is shot down in the film's opening scene.
One more bit of geographic symbolism in the film: I think in their first key scene together, László follows Katharine as she tries to navigate the market in Cairo. I've never been to Cairo, but I have been to Fez in Morocco, and you need to be a cartographer to find your way out of that ancient medina.
That's probably all discussed in every English course that studies the book, right? nothing original there, I'm sure. But that did all come to me over breakfast this morning as I was procrastinating "working from home". and trying to put my thoughts into words has successfully gotten me all the way to "lunchbreak"!
Truly terrible movie, which I watched simply because it was the last film of one of my favourite actors, Peter Cushing. The time-travel plot gave him the opportunity to do what he was always best at- speaking complete nonsense totally convincingly.
Truly terrible movie, which I watched simply because it was the last film of one of my favourite actors, Peter Cushing. The time-travel plot gave him the opportunity to do what he was always best at- speaking complete nonsense totally convincingly.
This is my ultimate guilty pleasure film. I won't try and argue that it is a good film, but nonetheless I am very fond of it. I first saw it at the of 8 or 9 when I was a sucker for any film involving aeroplane action. After many rewatches over the years, I do still think that Neil Dickson's performance as Biggles is pretty decent, and Cushing brings some class.
I can imagine how the development of the film might have unfolded...In the early 80s a period adventure film in the style of Raiders of the Lost Ark, based on a beloved literary character involving nasty Germans, duelling biplanes and other WWI action must have seemed a recipe for success. But then during the pre-production process Back to the Future became a smash-hit and the story team pivoted to add in a time-travel plot which also allowed them to include a modern American lead to star alongside Biggles.
Comments
The worst film you’ve ever seen?
Then may I draw your attention to this little beauty :v
Enjoy -{
I'm not sure I can subject myself to that .... Michael Flatley??
'Troubled secret agent "Blackbird" abruptly retires from service and opens a luxurious nightclub in the Caribbean to escape the dark shadows of his past. An old flame arrives and reignites love in his life but she brings danger with her.'
What's his special set of skills? Irish dancing
This war film is about the confrontation between an American destroyer and a German u-boat during WWII. The destroyer's captain is played by Robert Mitchum and the German captian by Curd Jürgens. David Heddison plays an American officer.
I think this is one of the better old war movies. This isn't a story about good guys vs bad guys, but of dedicated professionals doing their jobs well.
The movie is available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4_iSP-Jr-w
Is it a comedy? Only in the way Die Hard is. You laugh, but it's still kinda serious.
Pleasingly, it has not dated really. None of them use mobile phones but as the bounty hunters are trying to avoid being traced by the cops and the gangsters, this doesn't jar.
What's good is that women do not feature in this film. Woah - that's a sexist thing to say, right? But not really. You see, it's devoid of the stress of romantic engagement which often in 1980s films jars a bit because you realise it was a bit awful, sort of exploitative. It shows up how far we've moved since then. Even with no romantic subplot, they'd spice it up to show a gangster meeting in a strip joint, or a hood about to be 'seduced' by a hot babe. Back then I found this stuff exciting now it just seems sleazy. Midnight Run has none of that and maintains a kind of innocence. Die Hard too, in that respect. And The Untouchables.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A little known 60s comedy with Michael Caine in the lead, along with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Stalwarts such as John Mills and Ralph Richardson! Nanette Newman as the love interest.
John Barry doing the score!
Then cameos from Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock and bit roles from Irene Handle, John Le Mesurier Nicholas Parsons, Leonard Rossiter and was that Felicity Kendal and even Michael Aspel popping up too?
There's a reason why this is little known. It's awful. One of those heavy-going dead on arrival 1960s British comedies. Like The Beatles Help! but without the songs. Or Casino Royale without the song, the psychedelia or the Bond angle.
Some titters in a funeral procession chase at the end but even this attempts to steal from the earlier Pink Panther.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Another fine film that has hardly dated, especially as it deals with 'fake news' - the difference being that this time it isn't politically orchestrated but due to a rogue reporter on The New Republic, a US magazine of renown. It's a true story, apparently.
This stars the Darth Vader prequel actor but don't let this put you off, as he shows himself to be a fine character actor as the titular Stephen Glass who pulls the wool over the editor's eyes. His weedling slyness is finely pitched, especially as he becomes aggrieved when it looks like he might be found out. As good if not better is Peter Saarsgard as the new editor who is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in the early stages, only to become increasingly unimpressed as things develop.
It is very much set at the dawn of the internet age when it was harder to check facts... you couldn't just jump on the internet and call up a load of Google hits. That said, I'd argue that though facts are easier to come by now, the truth is harder than ever and journalism is in a very poor shape these days when it comes to holding the Government to account.
This film is nearly 20 years old and it's hardly ever on TV, I don't know why this is and we get subjected to the same old same old all the time, I mean even I'm getting bored of Bond on telly all the time, it's like it's aimed to retard us in some way. There are all sorts of movie gems out there that never get a look in and I don't know why that is.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This western had a more balanced view of the conflict between indians and the Americans of European descent than most of its time, James Stewart stars in his first western as a man who ties to broker a peace between the US Army and the Apaches led by Cochise.
What I like even more than the novelty of not having the indians just play villans is the fact that they don't just portray the Apaches as noble first Americans. "Broken Arrow" makes a point to say that there were horrors comitted and victims on both sides.
But how does it work as entertainment? I think it works well. The film has a good plot, good actors and enough action and spectacle.
The film has aged in some ways, but I think that's part of the charm. One detail that wouldn't happen today is how James Stewart (40) has a love interest played by a 15 year old actress. Still, good film!
With a jolt you recall that Hugh Grant was supposed to be knocking on a bit in that. And that was, what 20 years ago?
It is made up of many enjoyable scenes and if the film is less than the sum of its parts, doesn't one find that matters less on reviewing, where you just enjoy the parts. A film like GoldenEye is the same, imo.
The Aint No Sunshine scene by the now late Bill Withers is particularly enjoyable, as Grant steps out for a walk and the changing seasons along Portobello Market depict the passing of time as he tries to get over Ms Roberts.
For all that, it may be the film works better for the fact that Julia Roberts seems miscast; yep she's a big star but she doesn't seem to suffer fools and it's hard to see what she'd see in Grant's character. Times when she is meant to be vulnerable never really convince and Roberts did have that flinty eye, bullish look by then. Oddly, the Julia Roberts of Pretty Woman could have been more convincing in this film, but thereafter she never really played that role - Erin Brockovich was the nearest in terms of looks and class but she still wasn't the ingenue of Pretty Woman. Nor was she ever as hot as in Pretty Woman, but if there'a s reason why Roberts is popular with women it's because she isn't your usual vulnerable blonde actress, she has balls.
Anyway! Despite all this it does make the film more interesting as Roberts' character is a counterweight to the other fine British ensemble cast.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yojimbo is one of those films that I've been meaning to watch for many years. I've never really made an effort to watch Asian films beyond the one or two that I had to watch when I was a film student some years ago. I really enjoyed Yojimbo, and I definitely intend to seek out more Kurosawa films. My only previous Kurosawa experience was Rashomon during my aforementioned student days. Yojimbo's direction and cinematography was superb, with so much style in every frame. It's easy to see the influence that this film had on later ones, especially Fistful of Dollars.
While browsing for Yojimbo online, I also stumbled across Red Sun, which I decided could play as the B-feature to Yojimbo. This is a spaghetti western directed by none other than Terence Young, starring Toshiro Mifune, Charles Bronson and also some Bond alumni - Anthony Dawson and Ursula Andress. The samurai in the Old West idea is interesting, with Mifune and Bronson end up becoming reluctant allies in tracking down an outlaw. The film had some good moments, but it wasn't anything special by any means. Maurice Jarre contributed the score which featured a catchy main theme that I was humming for a while after the film ended.
A carefully thought out adaptation, well acted and memorable. The version I saw starred Jonny Lee Miller as Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature, and tomorrow I'm planning to see it with them switching parts (as they did on alternate nights on stage).
Bond connections- Naomie Harris plays Elizabeth, the female lead. Director was Danny Boyle. Miller is Bernard Lee's grandson.
I've never seen this British classic before. That's a shame, because I really liked it. I'm not going into the plot, but it's a very origional one. This movie is smart, emotional and at times fun. What'seven more surprising are the efects. They actually look good in spite of their advanced years.
That's a film that I've been wanting to watch for a while, but haven't got round to yet. I've seen a few Powell-Pressburger films and have enjoyed them all. Another one that is on my watchlist is The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp.
It has a young pre Bond Sean Connery in with Lana Turner, set at the end of WWII. Not a great plot but interesting to see one of Sean's early films,
M was good in this film, wasn't he?
I'd forgotten the story was about a team of cartographers.
We need more epic romances about cartographers, they lead exciting lives!
Was there ever any talk about Fiennes being the next James Bond around this time?
(I guess he did play John Steed so that was close)
A 1950 western starring Gregory Peck as a famous gunslinger whose reputation precedes him everywhere he goes, with the result that young whippersnappers all over the west can't resist taking him on to measure their prowess against the legend. The film also features a really good supporting performance by Millard Mitchell as a former partner of Peck, who is now a US Marshall who is wary of the trouble that Peck's arrival in his town could bring.
This is a lean, 85 minute film filled with tension, good character filled scenes and some striking black and white cinematography. I hadn't come across it until it was featured recently on a podcast called How the West was 'Cast. I recommend both the film and the podcast most highly.
This isn't a typical Hitchcock thriller. This is a romantic drama … set in the 19th century ….. in Australia.
It's really well made, og course. but to be honest I wouldn't have watched it if Under Capricorn wasn't directed by Afred Hitchcock and Ingrid Bergman wasn't so stunningly beautiful.
Usually there's at least one incredible image that I never ever forget from any given Hitchcock film.
Odd, because he was just about to enter his greatest period, but perhaps in the 40s he was still being made to do things by the Hollywood studio bosses?
On the positive side, there are two absolutely essential 1940s Hitchcock films with Ingrid Bergman.
Very good performances from Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. A film about a family and the struggles they face especially with dealing with an autistic brother. I found it very moving.
This was the one film where, some time into filming, an exasperated Hitch suddenly declared 'This film is going to be an absolute disaster!' and so it proved.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That film left me emotionally scarred. I left the cinema and literally couldn't breath because I was crying so much. Felt drained for about 24 hours later!!
I've never watched it again. Bridges of Madison County was another one I've never watched again for similar reasons.
One of those films like The Wicker Man - also early 70s, also with Britt Ekland - that you might watch on telly late on a Friday night and after a slow start be gradually drawn into the best film ever.
Get Carter is like a Bond classic in that it's one great scene after another, no padding.
One thing I don't get suddenly after many viewings. The place where Jack Carter visits his dead brother in his coffin - is that meant to be the same place he lodges later with the lecherous landlady? It doesn't make sense and it never occurred to me before. But as he peruses the joint, he visits a room where purple knickers are hanging and he clocks them. This brings on his later comment to her: 'I know you wear purple underwear' which I thought was just some random guesswork. Guess it wasn't.
But what was his brother doing living in a B&B? Or was he her live in lover? Where was the daughter then?
The extent to which Carter's London boss was trailing him all the time escaped me on earlier viewings.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I remember seeing this photo of Ted Lewis supposedly on the set of Get Carter doing a quick rewrite , don't know if it's true but how cool does he look fag in his gob .
What do you think about his use of flashbacks?
That seems to be consistent in every film of his I've seen. Does it serve the story or draw too much attention to the filmmaking?
I actually thought it was appropriate to Sherlock Holmes, where Holmes is supposed to be explaining to Watson what he was too foolish to observe for himself.
even creepy ol' Willem Dafoe was moved by the Patient's story when he finally got to the end!
_____________________________________________________________
I was thinking this morning: it's not just that the characters are cartographers, but geography plays a major symbolic role in telling the story.
Geography, and the idea that we can define the land and claim ownership.
The framing sequence is set in an abandoned Italian monastary. Presumably abandoned because of the War. When it was built there would have been no unified Italian state, but dozens of independent citystates. But Italy has since united as a single nationstate, and allied itself with Germany which also unified at the same time. Germany imposed an ethnic ideal upon a diverse population, dont know if Italy did the same, but this imposed Nation ultimately led to the War which has just devastated Italy.
So this artificial creation of nationStates has led to the wreckage the characters now find themselves in.
The flashbacks take place in the Sahara desert, with some shorter scenes in Cairo.
In one key bit of dialog, László tells Katherine he does not believe in ownership nor borders, which justifies their affair.
Yet he is doing a surveyors job, out there in the endless desert, mapping the unmappable.
We can see not only are there few recognisable landmarks in the land they are surveying, but the land itself is constantly changing shape. in another key sequence, László and Katherine are caught in a sandstorm and the land they are exploring has completely rearranged itself when they emerge. It is right after this shifting sands sequence they begin their affair.
I think László is mapping the desert for sheer intellectual pursuit. Katherines husband is mapping it to provide information for the British government in preparation for the war (thus resulting in the crucial maps traded to the enemy at the end).
Cartography is the art of reducing the endless world we live in to a quantifiable objective set of data. We each experience our landscape subjectively and incompletely, but the great renaissance cartographers like Mercator figured out how to synthesise travellers' tales to a solvable mathematical problem.
And it was done so that the powers that be could claim ownership. Surveying in particular is all about defining legal ownership of land, and cartography in general developed so that the competing Great Powers could establish claim to their Empires.
Katharine's husband is helping the British claim ownership of the unmappable desert, László says he does not believe in ownership, and he trades that data to the enemy in the end in a failed attempt to save Katharine's life.
László turns out to be a Hungarian Count, which of course is what dooms Katharine and himself when forced to identify himself. But following the symbology: what is important is a Count is Landed Gentry. His ancestors owned land when most humans were chattel. Perhaps his lands were lost in one of Hungary's wars, or perhaps he has chosen to renounce his heritage, but now this Landed Gentry is exploring the unmappable desert denying the concept of Ownership.
Then when the British confront him with this unwanted identity it costs him and his lover their lives.
Katharine said she didn't want to be left in the desert, she wanted to be buried in her parents garden in England. Unlike László, the idea that she is of a specific piece of land is important to her sense of identity. And it is because László is trying to honour her dying wish he is shot down in the film's opening scene.
One more bit of geographic symbolism in the film: I think in their first key scene together, László follows Katharine as she tries to navigate the market in Cairo. I've never been to Cairo, but I have been to Fez in Morocco, and you need to be a cartographer to find your way out of that ancient medina.
That's probably all discussed in every English course that studies the book, right? nothing original there, I'm sure. But that did all come to me over breakfast this morning as I was procrastinating "working from home". and trying to put my thoughts into words has successfully gotten me all the way to "lunchbreak"!
Truly terrible movie, which I watched simply because it was the last film of one of my favourite actors, Peter Cushing. The time-travel plot gave him the opportunity to do what he was always best at- speaking complete nonsense totally convincingly.
This is my ultimate guilty pleasure film. I won't try and argue that it is a good film, but nonetheless I am very fond of it. I first saw it at the of 8 or 9 when I was a sucker for any film involving aeroplane action. After many rewatches over the years, I do still think that Neil Dickson's performance as Biggles is pretty decent, and Cushing brings some class.
I can imagine how the development of the film might have unfolded...In the early 80s a period adventure film in the style of Raiders of the Lost Ark, based on a beloved literary character involving nasty Germans, duelling biplanes and other WWI action must have seemed a recipe for success. But then during the pre-production process Back to the Future became a smash-hit and the story team pivoted to add in a time-travel plot which also allowed them to include a modern American lead to star alongside Biggles.