I'll get my main gripe over with first, it was too long. At 2hr 40m it could have been cut down here and there, and kept at a decent pace. It did drag a little now and then, but overall didn't detract from what was otherwise a powerful film.
Some great performances in there, Eric Bana being superb in the role of Avner Kaufman, a young man about to start a family suddenly thrust into a dangerous black operation for his country. Daniel Craig was a particular highlight too, and I'll be honest that he melted into the part so well that I did forget I was watching our new Bond. And despite only having a few minutes of screen time, Gila Almagor's portrayal of Golda Meir was brilliant. Nice to see Michael Lonsdale too
The direction was also top rate, and the assassination scenes managed to be hard-hitting without being remotely gratitious. The attention to detail and travelogue feel (if I can use the word travelogue in connection with hunting down terror suspects and killing them...) made the film visually impressive.
Obviously the plot is based on real events, but I'll find it difficult to comment on the portrayal without dropping on one side of the fence or the other. I felt the film was very even handed - it highlighted the futility of gunning down one terrorist, only for another to replace him. And another. And another. And eventually the hunter becomes the hunted, and it destroys his life. But the sheer horror of the Munich atrocity, and the casual mentions of the aircraft hijackings and Athens airport attacks, for me anyway, just re-affirms my belief that talking peace with people who do not want peace - who want you all dead, wiped off the map, is just as futile.
Overall though, great film, thoroughly recommended.
Hear, hear! My wife and I rented and watched Munich over the past weekend. This is a great film.
I was hesistant about the violence before I saw it, having endured Saving Private Ryan and losing my stomach for Spielberg's realism. But, as M5 says, the violence packs a wallop without the gratuitous gore. Don't get me wrong, there are some brutal scenes, but they are within the context of the story.
There are some fine portrayals from an ensemble cast. Eric Bana is good (not great) in the main role, but some of the other players are excellent. Most notable are Michael Lonsdale (sort of recreating his "wise old mysterious oddball" role from Ronin, complete with the same haircut), Daniel Craig (all passion and coiled energy, in the first role I have ever seen him in) and especially Geoffrey Rush, who absolutely shines as "the handler" (in a role originally intended for Ben Kingsley).
"Travelogue" was also the way the film struck me, as it did M5. Munich is in essence a series of tightly-scripted vignettes, some of them extremely tense. A telephone bomb that might claim an innocent, a "good guy" getting caught in the blast radius of his own team's bomb, brutal revenge on someone who may or not be an appropriate target, an assassination attempt gone awry due to an unlucky but amateurish mistake -- these are just a few examples.
In tackling the extremely touchy subject matter, Spielberg left himself open to attack from both sides. Surely he expected that going in, and I for one think he did a magnificent job of even-handedness. The film demonizes neither side, but it also doesn't imply "moral equivalence" as was asserted by certain parties.
More films should be this thought-provoking and well-made.
Enjoyable enough if not a tad predictable. Some great clothes and a few laughs. I seem to have taken on some of Meryl's mannerisms from the movie. Her way seemed to be very effective
( I also enjoyed the trailers, CR and Happy Feet .. set the film up nicely )
Watched The Departed with a friend yesterday; we were going to see World Trade Center, but it had already started and it was a movie I really didn't want to miss.
Anyway, I thought The Departed was technically well made but not a film I would truly recommend; not really to my taste.
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
I wondered whether it was prudent to include the latest film I've seen, given the controversy that's surrounded it and the extremely distasteful central plot device. However, it's no different from the treatment British television and film gives to its own political and royal figures. That aside, as a piece of film making:
Death of a President
I shall start by pointing out that I did not set out to watch this film. I caught it in the first five minutes while channel hopping, and I couldn't turn it away. The reason I didn't set out to watch it is because I find the idea of fictionalising the death of a living individual unpleasant, insensitive and just rude. However, guilty as charged, the film was instantly gripping and I was fixed till the end.
The film is done in the style of one of those analytical documentaries, looking back on an event and hearing from those involved, while interspersed with footage from the time. In that regard, it's extremely well acted. You forget that these people weren't involved in the investigation, weren't there on the night, weren't arrested as suspects - it's surreal. As uncomfortable as it is, George W Bush and Dick Cheney are themselves - they're superimposed (without fault, without looking remotely faked) into certain scenarios and in one instance Cheney's speech must be spliced and his lip movements generated to actually have him refer to the assassination in no uncertain terms. I say *must*, because it really doesn't sound as if it has.
For those who aren't aware, the film is a docu-drama 'looking back' on the events of October 2007 and the assassination of President George W Bush. It has multiple messages, and takes the current body politic to the worst case scenario. Let me say that it is *not* propoganda. This isn't a Micheal Moore-esque piece. It is not anti-Bush, it is not anti-US. The full horror of such an event isn't stifled. It does, however, make certain assumptions over how President Cheney would react (perhaps understandably given the situation, rather hawkishly) and does contain its own warning of jumping to conclusion. Bush himself is portrayed as a warm, engaging and understanding man.
The film opens with the events of 19th October 2007. The President is due to address the Economic Club of Chicago at the Sheraton Hotel, and a massive anti-war demo is taking place in the city that night for his visit. We hear from the police how the air among the demonstrators is ugly, almost hysterical. A major breach of security occurs when several protestors manage a sit-down in the road, stopping the Presidential motorcade in its tracks. One of the demonstrators makes a lunge for one of the limousines though is pinned down on the vehicle's bonnet by the police - apparently the President is calm and remarks to his aide that he's just disappointed some resort to violence. The motorcade is re-routed to the underground car park of the hotel, avoiding the main entrance and the friendly crowd gathered to see him. After a very successful and warmly received speech, he insists on meeting the people on the ropeline outside. It is during that brief walkabout that two distant shots are heard and the President stumbles forward, clutching his chest - he's rushed to hospital (in a very harrowing scene involving the Presidential limousine speeding through Chicago) but later dies from his injuries. It is not gratituous, it is not graphic, it is not sensationalist.
Put simply, it's shocking. Just shocking. It's fiction, you know it's going to happen, yet the sense of despair does leave you feeling sick, upset even.
The rest of the film concentrates on the ensuing investigation to find the assassin. For those who plan on seeing it, I won't go any further. For those who plan on avoiding it because of what it deals with - I can completely and utterly understand why you would. I planned to, but that was before I was caught in it's net. As a piece of cinema - it's gripping and powerful. It is most certainly not popcorn entertainment.
(Though it's been on More4 in the UK, its terrestrial debut is tonight at 10pm on Channel 4)
(Though it's been on More4 in the UK, its terrestrial debut is tonight at 10pm on Channel 4)
I saw this whilst looking through my TV guide. I was going to give it a miss but I think, after reading your post, I will watch it afterall.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Went with a friend to see "Man of the Year" last night. And I must say I was disappointed. I was under the impression that this movie was going to be a comedy, but boy I was wrong. The movie gets really serious towards the middle where a corporation goes to great lengths to cover up a flaw in their product. This movie was a disaster that not even Christopher Walken could save!
On a positive note, it brought a smile on my face to see the Casino Royale poster proudly on display! Roll on November 17th! {[]
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
I shall start by pointing out that I did not set out to watch this film. I caught it in the first five minutes while channel hopping, and I couldn't turn it away. The reason I didn't set out to watch it is because I find the idea of fictionalising the death of a living individual unpleasant, insensitive and just rude.
For many the same reasons, a lot of U. S. theater chains have decided they won't show Death of a President. A lot of people--including those who don't like or who simply disagree with Bush--are indeed appalled by the idea of a film about the assassination of a sitting president, and many more are disgusted that the assassination scene itself is apparently patterned after the nurder of Lee Harvey Oswald at the hands of Jack Ruby. Bush isn't my favorite guy either, but I'm in no hurry to see a movie where he's gunned down.
On a lighter note, the last film I saw was The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, a British classic from 1943. It's a strange movie that really sticks with you--not quite a comedy or a drama, incredibly long, beautiful Technicolor cinematography, Deborah Kerr in her first major film role (and, wow, did she look good!). . .I don't know how to explain it, but it had me thinking about the morality of war, the need for tradition and friendship, and the changes brought about by time. Really an extraordinary movie.
I wondered whether it was prudent to include the latest film I've seen...Death of a President
I doubt I will ever see this film, because I find the subject matter so distasteful. That aside...your did yourself proud with that review, M5. You obviously thought long and hard about if/what to say, and the result is a very balanced review that gets across your appreciation for the way the film was made. Well done.
I just saw The Man Who Would Be King for the first time. Its an excellent bit of John Huston directing and definately one of Connery's best performances.
One thing about being under the weather, lots of good movies to watch. I caught Evelyn on the Bravo channel. Which is an entrapping courtroom drama. The scene with Brosnan, knee deep in water, angry as hell at the world over the loss of his daughter is a mighty little scene.
I loved it. Predictable, yes, but Meryl is great, the film is very funny and much to my nice suprise fellow Australian Simon Baker is in the film. It is a bit fluffy, but it's entertaining. And I couldn't ask for anything more.
( I also enjoyed the trailers, CR and Happy Feet .. set the film up nicely ]
I saw Happy Feet but not CR.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Had a touch of insomnia at three in the morning so I checked out STREETS OF FIRE on Cinemax.
Still classic. {[]
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Well, they did it, they achieved the impossible. They actually made Sandra Bullock look unattractive. That's a daunting feat! I think the false teeth did it more then anything.
Nice seeing Anne Bancroft as the gypsy woman, a role she could play in her sleep.
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
Well I was disappionted when I was catchin only the last few moments of this movie but then I realised just who thankful I am for replay channels.
I was In His Life: The John Lennon Story the afternoon. I've seen it once before at a friends and as it's only available in region 1 on dvd I didn't think I'd be able to own it for quite a while. But then I stuck a tape in and walah!
It doesn't cover all of his life, just up to where the Beatles find out they've made number 1 in America. But it was very amusing at times and most of the acting was quite good, even if the script and directing was pretty terrible.
I gave The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen another go last night. Sean Connery is as watchable as ever (although he has slown down considerably). I have come to the conclusion that the film's biggest flaw is its terrible editing. Choppy, incoherent, and overall poor pacing.
I watched the Terrorists with Sean Connery last night. A good Connery movie from the late 60's early 70's I had never seen before. It is being played all this month on cable here in the States and its worth watching if you happen to see it on TV.
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
I just saw Stoned, the Purvis & Wade authored biopic of the Rolling Stones' Brian Jones. I don't believe this was released in U.S. theaters, and I can see why--it's just a notch or two above unwatchable. Incoherent editing and unimaginative direction (oooh, how original: a montage of drug use and sexual activity while "Ask Alice" plays on the soundtrack); a guy portraying Brian Jones who looks more like Tom Baker than anyone else; and a script that offers no insight whatsoever into Jones as an artist or as an important part of the Stones. It's just a portrait of a nasty little hedonist headed toward self-destruction and all the miserable people around him. I've defended P & W's writing before, but on this one, they're on their own!
I gave The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen another go last night. Sean Connery is as watchable as ever (although he has slown down considerably). I have come to the conclusion that the film's biggest flaw is its terrible editing. Choppy, incoherent, and overall poor pacing.
You'd have to agree that the script, and some of the characters were unbearable also. I actually don't mind the film all that much, but find myself frustrated at many points throughout.
Vertigo
which Ive seen before
saw a few new things this time, and as before Ive been thinking about it for days afterward
1. less happens than in most Hitchcock films, its really just an extremely screwed up love story
2. Jimmy Stewart takes on the characteristics of the Kim Novak character as the film progresses, except shes faking it and hes got it for real
hes become possessed by the vision of this woman who does not exist and his life becomes a shambles because of it, at one point hes in the mental hospital himself, just as he'd originally advised Novaks husband to get her professional help
3. Stewarts fear of heights really is not a major plot element, it starts the movie and allows the murder, but otherwise is not part of the plot
instead, the sense of Vertigo comes from the overwhelming sense of identity loss, of being lost in the past, private memories and illusions, the ghosts of old California, the insignificance of our 80 years or less as compared to the timescale of geology
the scene in the Redwood forest is where I reallyfeel the Vertigo, where Novak points at the tree-rings and says in that hypnotic singsong voice "...I was born here..., ...and I died here..."
that line trips me out each time I see the movie, maybe because I lived on Vancouver Island for a longtime, spent a lot of time in those coastal forests and lost my own sense of self in the EntTime
but I know its not just me, cuz thats precisely the scene that Terry Gilliam has playing in 12 Monkeys when a timetravelling Bruce Willis hides from the police in a movie theater
4. it bugged me the first time that Hitchock ended it all with a logical explanation, but now I see that the logical explanation comes much earlier, when Novak reappears
as soon as Stewart leaves her alone for a moment she tells the audience what really happened, and for the rest of it we're watching Stewart getting creepier and creepier, as he still believes shes a different girl (who resembles a dead girl who was possessed by a ghost) until he sees that pendant, and we know she knows he'll never love her for her genuine self
he may take her to a fancy restaurant but he's a very bad date!
so I guess thats the Hitchcockian suspense, but really the movie is about mood rather than plotpoints
its probably his least funny movie, but man is it trippy as Stewart loses himself to the ghost of a ghost and leads the real woman before him to her death
The Notorious Bettie Page. This one came and went at the box office, and that's a shame, because it's actually a very good film. The movie captures both the gritty black-and-white style and the Technicolor style of the films of the 1940s and '50s, and there are some genuinely funny moments. But, for my money, the entire film rides on the shoulders of Gretchen Mol as Bettie, and she's nothing short of revealing (pardon the pun). She plays Bettie as genuinely sweet but never naive, and as a sincerely religious woman who sees posing nude and doing bondage photos as making use of the talents God gave her. It's a remarkable performance, and of course Gretch' looks great--in costume and out!
I saw Major League, a great comedy/baseball outing where they end up doing what was least expected of them, a great underdog moment. Plus, the second one has Alison Doody, so I'll be sure to see that.
I also saw X-Men 3, which left a lot of loose ends untied at the close of the movie what with Magneto and Mystique and Jean Grey going psycho and killing everyone ever. (But hey, we got to see a LOT of Famke Janssen).
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
I saw Major League, a great comedy/baseball outing where they end up doing what was least expected of them, a great underdog moment. Plus, the second one has Alison Doody, so I'll be sure to see that.
I hope you saw it on DVD. It seems the cable stations chop the movie up. Plus I like the profanity in the movie. I like this movie alot. It has some great comical moments. And if you like baseball movies JFF, may I recommend Bull Durham "Don't think, it only hurts the ballclub." ) ) )
I also saw X-Men 3, which left a lot of loose ends untied at the close of the movie what with Magneto and Mystique and Jean Grey going psycho and killing everyone ever. (But hey, we got to see a LOT of Famke Janssen).
I hope you watched after the credits to. it doesn't answer any of your questions, but it will raise one more question for you. As for Mystique. She was shot with the "cure drug" and Magneto was stabbed with it. But the end of the movie hints at "the cure" not being permanent. It even hints at that when Beast visits Leech at Alcatraz. Maybe they wanted to leave things open for a possible 4th movie.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Let's keep it simple; better than the second, and on-par with the original. The film's success and positive reviews speak for itself. A trilogy as strong as this both in quality and success is a rarity on the horror field. No doubt Jigsaw will become a classic villain in years to come.
Austin Powers in Goldmember
This was my first time and I loved it. I don't think it's nearly as good as the first one (which I consider to be brilliant) but much better than the second one (which I loathe.) There are a few things which I would have gotten rid of, but generally speaking, I had a terrific time. APIGM also helped prove my theory that Michael Caine is incapable of delivering a poor performance.
Con Air
I had seen it numerous times before, but although I wouldn't rate it among the very best of action films, I do think that it has alot of really good things for it and is just alot of fun. I love it.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Austin Powers in Goldmember
This was my first time and I loved it. I don't think it's nearly as good as the first one (which I consider to be brilliant) but much better than the second one (which I loathe.)
wow! how come you loathe the 2nd one?
for me thats the best one, with Heather Graham, Fat Basstard, MiniMe, and the Alan Parson Project/one... million... dollars!!! jokes
EDIT: stoopid swear filter: thats the characters name, what am I supposed to call him, Fat Illegitimate Son?
For whatever reason, all the seldom-seem movies I put in my Netflix queue are being delivered right now. The latest was Beowulf & Grendel, with Gerard Butler stomping around Iceland in his bearskin underwear. O, where to begin, where to begin. . .
I recommend this one to people who like to invite a few friends over, pop a disc into the DVD player, and laugh and hoot at the movie that appears on screen, a la Mystery Science Theater 300. This one is a howler. The sixth-century epic poem, one of the few surviving examples of the Mercian dialect of the Saxon tongue and a direct link to the mindset of the earliest Germanic settlers in England, has been "updated" with modern political correctness. No longer is Grendel a hate-filled spawn of the race of Cain who wreaks havoc on Heorot because he can't stand the happiness of the people inside--no, he's a misunderstood troll who only wants to get even with those nasty, bigoted Danes who committed a hate crime by killing Grendel's father. Then there's an invented character of the town witch who's actually a victim of those sexist males who view her as a prostitute and force her to live away from the community, and of course she keeps telling Beowulf that he is an intruder in the land and that he just doesn't understand the nature of things. And Beowulf himself--no steely jawed hero, he; he's a sensitive guy who questions his actions in coming to Daneland and who comes to admire Grendel, because, after all, Grendel is far more honorable for living in a cave than the Danes are for living in a mead hall.
Then there's the dialogue. No solemn alliteration here; nope, the characters all speak in good ol' modern English, and, for whatever reason, they all swear like sailors. King Hrothgar, so eloquent and tragic in the poem, has his magnificent speeches reduced to such lines as, "I know, I know--I look like walrus s__t." To add to the fun, all the actors are directed to speak in their native accents. So we have Stellan Skarsgaard as Hrothgar (and apparently recycling the Hagar the Horrible costume he wore in King Arthur) speaking with his Swedish inflections, which makes some sense; but we also have the Scot Butler and the Canadian Sarah Polley working together to create such exchanges as this:
SARAH: Hiz name'z Grendel. It meanz th' Grinder.
GERRY: Tha Grrrinder? Of boones?
Who would have known there was such linguistic diversity in sixth-century Denmark?
In the final scene, we see our heroic Geats sailing back to Geatland, as a new convert to Christianity writes the poem we all know and love, filling it of course with lies about Beowulf's strength and Grendel's evil. A sailor sneers to Beowulf, "His story's s__t." A fitting commentary, only applied to the wrong version of Beowulf.
wow! how come you loathe the 2nd one?
for me thats the best one, with Heather Graham, Fat Basstard, MiniMe, and the Alan Parson Project/one... million... dollars!!! jokes
You just answered your own question. Fat B****rd is a major reason why I hated the second one (and why I don't think the third one is as good as the original.) I find him to be a stupid, disgusting, idiotic character who is not only completely unfunny but lacks a certain sophistication that even Austin Powers himself had. In the case of the second film, I found him to be quite appropiate as the whole film IMO was completely dumb, unfunny, disgusting, derivitive, pointless, poorly acted and filmed and one of the worst films I have ever seen. I would give anything to have back the 95 minutes I spent watching that darn thing. Oh, did I mention I hated the second Austin Powers film?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Little Miss Sunshine
I really enjoyed it. It's no masterpiece but I had a great time. I think that the performances are terrific, the script is really smart and quite original and the film is generally very funny. The main characters are a little too disfunctional for my liking, there isn't much character development, but as a snapshot of this particular family at this particular time, I think it's great. The ending is also superb and the film confirms everything that I have ever suspected about child beauty pageants. I would very much recommend this film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
Hear, hear! My wife and I rented and watched Munich over the past weekend. This is a great film.
I was hesistant about the violence before I saw it, having endured Saving Private Ryan and losing my stomach for Spielberg's realism. But, as M5 says, the violence packs a wallop without the gratuitous gore. Don't get me wrong, there are some brutal scenes, but they are within the context of the story.
There are some fine portrayals from an ensemble cast. Eric Bana is good (not great) in the main role, but some of the other players are excellent. Most notable are Michael Lonsdale (sort of recreating his "wise old mysterious oddball" role from Ronin, complete with the same haircut), Daniel Craig (all passion and coiled energy, in the first role I have ever seen him in) and especially Geoffrey Rush, who absolutely shines as "the handler" (in a role originally intended for Ben Kingsley).
"Travelogue" was also the way the film struck me, as it did M5. Munich is in essence a series of tightly-scripted vignettes, some of them extremely tense. A telephone bomb that might claim an innocent, a "good guy" getting caught in the blast radius of his own team's bomb, brutal revenge on someone who may or not be an appropriate target, an assassination attempt gone awry due to an unlucky but amateurish mistake -- these are just a few examples.
In tackling the extremely touchy subject matter, Spielberg left himself open to attack from both sides. Surely he expected that going in, and I for one think he did a magnificent job of even-handedness. The film demonizes neither side, but it also doesn't imply "moral equivalence" as was asserted by certain parties.
More films should be this thought-provoking and well-made.
Enjoyable enough if not a tad predictable. Some great clothes and a few laughs. I seem to have taken on some of Meryl's mannerisms from the movie. Her way seemed to be very effective
( I also enjoyed the trailers, CR and Happy Feet .. set the film up nicely )
Anyway, I thought The Departed was technically well made but not a film I would truly recommend; not really to my taste.
Death of a President
I shall start by pointing out that I did not set out to watch this film. I caught it in the first five minutes while channel hopping, and I couldn't turn it away. The reason I didn't set out to watch it is because I find the idea of fictionalising the death of a living individual unpleasant, insensitive and just rude. However, guilty as charged, the film was instantly gripping and I was fixed till the end.
The film is done in the style of one of those analytical documentaries, looking back on an event and hearing from those involved, while interspersed with footage from the time. In that regard, it's extremely well acted. You forget that these people weren't involved in the investigation, weren't there on the night, weren't arrested as suspects - it's surreal. As uncomfortable as it is, George W Bush and Dick Cheney are themselves - they're superimposed (without fault, without looking remotely faked) into certain scenarios and in one instance Cheney's speech must be spliced and his lip movements generated to actually have him refer to the assassination in no uncertain terms. I say *must*, because it really doesn't sound as if it has.
For those who aren't aware, the film is a docu-drama 'looking back' on the events of October 2007 and the assassination of President George W Bush. It has multiple messages, and takes the current body politic to the worst case scenario. Let me say that it is *not* propoganda. This isn't a Micheal Moore-esque piece. It is not anti-Bush, it is not anti-US. The full horror of such an event isn't stifled. It does, however, make certain assumptions over how President Cheney would react (perhaps understandably given the situation, rather hawkishly) and does contain its own warning of jumping to conclusion. Bush himself is portrayed as a warm, engaging and understanding man.
The film opens with the events of 19th October 2007. The President is due to address the Economic Club of Chicago at the Sheraton Hotel, and a massive anti-war demo is taking place in the city that night for his visit. We hear from the police how the air among the demonstrators is ugly, almost hysterical. A major breach of security occurs when several protestors manage a sit-down in the road, stopping the Presidential motorcade in its tracks. One of the demonstrators makes a lunge for one of the limousines though is pinned down on the vehicle's bonnet by the police - apparently the President is calm and remarks to his aide that he's just disappointed some resort to violence. The motorcade is re-routed to the underground car park of the hotel, avoiding the main entrance and the friendly crowd gathered to see him. After a very successful and warmly received speech, he insists on meeting the people on the ropeline outside. It is during that brief walkabout that two distant shots are heard and the President stumbles forward, clutching his chest - he's rushed to hospital (in a very harrowing scene involving the Presidential limousine speeding through Chicago) but later dies from his injuries. It is not gratituous, it is not graphic, it is not sensationalist.
Put simply, it's shocking. Just shocking. It's fiction, you know it's going to happen, yet the sense of despair does leave you feeling sick, upset even.
The rest of the film concentrates on the ensuing investigation to find the assassin. For those who plan on seeing it, I won't go any further. For those who plan on avoiding it because of what it deals with - I can completely and utterly understand why you would. I planned to, but that was before I was caught in it's net. As a piece of cinema - it's gripping and powerful. It is most certainly not popcorn entertainment.
(Though it's been on More4 in the UK, its terrestrial debut is tonight at 10pm on Channel 4)
I saw this whilst looking through my TV guide. I was going to give it a miss but I think, after reading your post, I will watch it afterall.
On a positive note, it brought a smile on my face to see the Casino Royale poster proudly on display! Roll on November 17th! {[]
-Roger Moore
For many the same reasons, a lot of U. S. theater chains have decided they won't show Death of a President. A lot of people--including those who don't like or who simply disagree with Bush--are indeed appalled by the idea of a film about the assassination of a sitting president, and many more are disgusted that the assassination scene itself is apparently patterned after the nurder of Lee Harvey Oswald at the hands of Jack Ruby. Bush isn't my favorite guy either, but I'm in no hurry to see a movie where he's gunned down.
On a lighter note, the last film I saw was The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, a British classic from 1943. It's a strange movie that really sticks with you--not quite a comedy or a drama, incredibly long, beautiful Technicolor cinematography, Deborah Kerr in her first major film role (and, wow, did she look good!). . .I don't know how to explain it, but it had me thinking about the morality of war, the need for tradition and friendship, and the changes brought about by time. Really an extraordinary movie.
I loved it. Predictable, yes, but Meryl is great, the film is very funny and much to my nice suprise fellow Australian Simon Baker is in the film. It is a bit fluffy, but it's entertaining. And I couldn't ask for anything more.
I saw Happy Feet but not CR.
Still classic. {[]
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I agree on Evelyn, particularly that scene in the water. Pierce SHINES in that film.
Well, they did it, they achieved the impossible. They actually made Sandra Bullock look unattractive. That's a daunting feat! I think the false teeth did it more then anything.
Nice seeing Anne Bancroft as the gypsy woman, a role she could play in her sleep.
I was In His Life: The John Lennon Story the afternoon. I've seen it once before at a friends and as it's only available in region 1 on dvd I didn't think I'd be able to own it for quite a while. But then I stuck a tape in and walah!
It doesn't cover all of his life, just up to where the Beatles find out they've made number 1 in America. But it was very amusing at times and most of the acting was quite good, even if the script and directing was pretty terrible.
You'd have to agree that the script, and some of the characters were unbearable also. I actually don't mind the film all that much, but find myself frustrated at many points throughout.
which Ive seen before
saw a few new things this time, and as before Ive been thinking about it for days afterward
1. less happens than in most Hitchcock films, its really just an extremely screwed up love story
2. Jimmy Stewart takes on the characteristics of the Kim Novak character as the film progresses, except shes faking it and hes got it for real
hes become possessed by the vision of this woman who does not exist and his life becomes a shambles because of it, at one point hes in the mental hospital himself, just as he'd originally advised Novaks husband to get her professional help
3. Stewarts fear of heights really is not a major plot element, it starts the movie and allows the murder, but otherwise is not part of the plot
instead, the sense of Vertigo comes from the overwhelming sense of identity loss, of being lost in the past, private memories and illusions, the ghosts of old California, the insignificance of our 80 years or less as compared to the timescale of geology
the scene in the Redwood forest is where I reallyfeel the Vertigo, where Novak points at the tree-rings and says in that hypnotic singsong voice "...I was born here..., ...and I died here..."
that line trips me out each time I see the movie, maybe because I lived on Vancouver Island for a longtime, spent a lot of time in those coastal forests and lost my own sense of self in the EntTime
but I know its not just me, cuz thats precisely the scene that Terry Gilliam has playing in 12 Monkeys when a timetravelling Bruce Willis hides from the police in a movie theater
4. it bugged me the first time that Hitchock ended it all with a logical explanation, but now I see that the logical explanation comes much earlier, when Novak reappears
as soon as Stewart leaves her alone for a moment she tells the audience what really happened, and for the rest of it we're watching Stewart getting creepier and creepier, as he still believes shes a different girl (who resembles a dead girl who was possessed by a ghost) until he sees that pendant, and we know she knows he'll never love her for her genuine self
he may take her to a fancy restaurant but he's a very bad date!
so I guess thats the Hitchcockian suspense, but really the movie is about mood rather than plotpoints
its probably his least funny movie, but man is it trippy as Stewart loses himself to the ghost of a ghost and leads the real woman before him to her death
I also saw X-Men 3, which left a lot of loose ends untied at the close of the movie what with Magneto and Mystique and Jean Grey going psycho and killing everyone ever. (But hey, we got to see a LOT of Famke Janssen).
I hope you saw it on DVD. It seems the cable stations chop the movie up. Plus I like the profanity in the movie. I like this movie alot. It has some great comical moments. And if you like baseball movies JFF, may I recommend Bull Durham "Don't think, it only hurts the ballclub."
I hope you watched after the credits to. it doesn't answer any of your questions, but it will raise one more question for you. As for Mystique. She was shot with the "cure drug" and Magneto was stabbed with it. But the end of the movie hints at "the cure" not being permanent. It even hints at that when Beast visits Leech at Alcatraz. Maybe they wanted to leave things open for a possible 4th movie.
Let's keep it simple; better than the second, and on-par with the original. The film's success and positive reviews speak for itself. A trilogy as strong as this both in quality and success is a rarity on the horror field. No doubt Jigsaw will become a classic villain in years to come.
Austin Powers in Goldmember
This was my first time and I loved it. I don't think it's nearly as good as the first one (which I consider to be brilliant) but much better than the second one (which I loathe.) There are a few things which I would have gotten rid of, but generally speaking, I had a terrific time. APIGM also helped prove my theory that Michael Caine is incapable of delivering a poor performance.
Con Air
I had seen it numerous times before, but although I wouldn't rate it among the very best of action films, I do think that it has alot of really good things for it and is just alot of fun. I love it.
for me thats the best one, with Heather Graham, Fat Basstard, MiniMe, and the Alan Parson Project/one... million... dollars!!! jokes
EDIT: stoopid swear filter: thats the characters name, what am I supposed to call him, Fat Illegitimate Son?
I recommend this one to people who like to invite a few friends over, pop a disc into the DVD player, and laugh and hoot at the movie that appears on screen, a la Mystery Science Theater 300. This one is a howler. The sixth-century epic poem, one of the few surviving examples of the Mercian dialect of the Saxon tongue and a direct link to the mindset of the earliest Germanic settlers in England, has been "updated" with modern political correctness. No longer is Grendel a hate-filled spawn of the race of Cain who wreaks havoc on Heorot because he can't stand the happiness of the people inside--no, he's a misunderstood troll who only wants to get even with those nasty, bigoted Danes who committed a hate crime by killing Grendel's father. Then there's an invented character of the town witch who's actually a victim of those sexist males who view her as a prostitute and force her to live away from the community, and of course she keeps telling Beowulf that he is an intruder in the land and that he just doesn't understand the nature of things. And Beowulf himself--no steely jawed hero, he; he's a sensitive guy who questions his actions in coming to Daneland and who comes to admire Grendel, because, after all, Grendel is far more honorable for living in a cave than the Danes are for living in a mead hall.
Then there's the dialogue. No solemn alliteration here; nope, the characters all speak in good ol' modern English, and, for whatever reason, they all swear like sailors. King Hrothgar, so eloquent and tragic in the poem, has his magnificent speeches reduced to such lines as, "I know, I know--I look like walrus s__t." To add to the fun, all the actors are directed to speak in their native accents. So we have Stellan Skarsgaard as Hrothgar (and apparently recycling the Hagar the Horrible costume he wore in King Arthur) speaking with his Swedish inflections, which makes some sense; but we also have the Scot Butler and the Canadian Sarah Polley working together to create such exchanges as this:
SARAH: Hiz name'z Grendel. It meanz th' Grinder.
GERRY: Tha Grrrinder? Of boones?
Who would have known there was such linguistic diversity in sixth-century Denmark?
In the final scene, we see our heroic Geats sailing back to Geatland, as a new convert to Christianity writes the poem we all know and love, filling it of course with lies about Beowulf's strength and Grendel's evil. A sailor sneers to Beowulf, "His story's s__t." A fitting commentary, only applied to the wrong version of Beowulf.
I really enjoyed it. It's no masterpiece but I had a great time. I think that the performances are terrific, the script is really smart and quite original and the film is generally very funny. The main characters are a little too disfunctional for my liking, there isn't much character development, but as a snapshot of this particular family at this particular time, I think it's great. The ending is also superb and the film confirms everything that I have ever suspected about child beauty pageants. I would very much recommend this film.