Probably the most intelligently written dead movie I've ever seen, and the first to pay homage to Romero's NOTLD of '68. Excellent characterizations between the three main actors, Ray Lovelock, Arthur Kennedy, and Cristina Galbo. The dead are very effective with only minimum face paint and red contact lenses. Roaming the English landscape, the reason given for awakening is an agricultural pesticide in it's experimental stages. This has a fantastic musical score and great visuals of the English countryside, along with some awesome filming of early seventies London. One of the best zombie movies I've ever seen.
Probably the most intelligently written dead movie I've ever seen, and the first to pay homage to Romero's NOTLD of '68. Excellent characterizations between the three main actors, Ray Lovelock, Arthur Kennedy, and Cristina Galbo. The dead are very effective with only minimum face paint and red contact lenses. Roaming the English landscape, the reason given for awakening is an agricultural pesticide in it's experimental stages. This has a fantastic musical score and great visuals of the English countryside, along with some awesome filming of early seventies London. One of the best zombie movies I've ever seen.
That sounds fascinating Alex. I've never heard of this before. I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
I've just seen the rarest of things: A Scottish martial arts movie. It's called The Purifiers and is directed by Richard Jobson, the former frontman of the punk band The Skids. It essentially takes the premise of The Warriors and sets it in a futuristic version of Glasgow. It's pretty good. The fight scenes are excellent, although like Jobson's previous film, 16 Years of Alcohol there's a little too much talking. Forgiveable in a drama, but not in a out and out genre piece. Dominic Mohan (Charlie from'Lost'), and Kevin McKidd (HBO's 'Rome') are the only name actors in the film. But Gordon Lawrence is good as the tough, but thoughtful hero. He has the same kind of presence as Jason Statham, but with an IQ.
This is the stylised noir with George Clooney, Cate Blanchett and Tobey McGuire. A Steven Soderburgh(sp?) film.
Good stuff, I saw it at Prince Charles cinema in London's Leicester Square. Very restful on the eye, watching the bleached out black and white (it's not like the black and white of Schindler's List).
That said, its brief is not quite clear. Early on it shows a character ramming a prostitute bent over the bed, as if to shock and say, hey, we can do rude stuff too. This is actually how it was. Yet on the other hand, it bends over backwards, so to speak, to have the old black and white back projection and look of the old days, so it isn't quite clear.
Clooney plays against type, as a kind of Glenn Ford patsy type and other than that you can't see why he should be fallen for the Gilda-like Blanchett, who is wretched and miserable. Macguire is okay in a Lorre type role but also a bit against type.
Better supporting actors however, partly because they're less familiar. Overall, I enjoyed a lot in spite of this nitpicking. Different from the usual dross out there.
'Enigma.' This starts out well. It should have been a riveting film about the extraordinary efforts of a group of codebreakers trying to crack the German enigma machine. But the filmmakers don't trust the material and throw in a femme fatale, then turn Dougray Scott's geeky mathematician into an action man who gets involved in car chases and, in one of the most absurd scenes I've ever seen in a supposedly intelligent movie, punches out his superior as if he was Dirty Harry.
As ever, Scott is mournfully useless, but there's better support from Jeremy Northam as a sinister spymaster and Matthew MacFadyen as a badly scarred naval officer. I thought this was a real missed opportunity to tell a story about a group of people whose heroism deserves to be recognised.
This was at the Prince Charles in London (Casino Royale is also getting a regular screening there, it's a good cinema), however I wouldn't see this film here as the soundtrack had a buzz on it which you noticed during the quiet moments.
And there were a lot of quiet moments for an action film, even during the onslaught the Japanese troops had time to reflect and be introspective. Their learning curve was that they found they were just like the Americans, really.
I didn't really buy into this. Forget all the suicidal fighting to the death for honour, you don't see much of that here. The Japs we see are a feckless, reluctant lot. Those who top themselves only seem to do it under peer pressure. It's like saying the suicide bombers in Iraq have to be talked into it - and they don't.
The film is unable to suggest that the Japanese army may in fact have really been a bunch of maniac fascists.
Unfair? No, I don't think so. In Band of Brothers, an elderly GI reflects that a lad in his home town killed himself at the shame of not being able to join up. "Different times, " he said. Right, the past is a different country, they do things differently there. Doubly so for Japan in the Forties.
We've heard how the Red Army savagely raped its way across Eastern Europe. And others have vouchsafed that in fact the German populace were quite ready to send the Jews to the gas chambers, in the book "Hitler's Willing Excutioners."
So the cultural differences need to be stressed. Here it just looks like the Japs are the same as the GIs, and isn't it a shame that they have to fight in that case? Which isn't really true, and undermines the cause that the Allies took on. Like Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor, it hints that the whole thing was really a bit of an accident.
Some comments on the imdb do back up this view...
Other problems: some fake looking CGI of the ships approaching the island, in that hard to put your finger on kind of way. And the finding of the letters in contemporary times is a bit of a cliche, like in the Korean film last year, Brotherhood (or something, I forget the title).
It's like saying the suicide bombers in Iraq have to be talked into it - and they don't.
That's very debatable, but that aside, I don't think that the film was drawing any comparison between the soldiers taking their own lives and the suicide bombers in Iraq.
The film is unable to suggest that the Japanese army may in fact have really been a bunch of maniac fascists.
Perhaps they weren't. NP, wether or not you believe that the Japanese soldiers were 'a bunch of maniac fascists,' do you really want to see yet another film potraying the enemy in a negative light? Most war films, by their nature, potray the enemy as less than ideal, and considering that Letters was about an attempt to look at history from an alternative point of view, I personally would not want to see the Japanese soldiers get portrayed as 'a bunch of maniac fascists' as IMO that is quite simplistic.
So the cultural differences need to be stressed. Here it just looks like the Japs are the same as the GIs, and isn't it a shame that they have to fight in that case? Which isn't really true, and undermines the cause that the Allies took on.
I think that the film did note the cultural differences (the Japanese focus on honour, for example) but I don't think that there is anything wrong with potraying the Japanese soldiers as similar to (or even the same as) the GIs. The Japanese soldiers weren't all monsters and the GIs weren't all saints, and I think it is simplistic to suggest that is the case.
Furthermore, as for the cause that the Allies had to take up, the film wasn't really about that, and it also of course quite debatable as to what the cause really was. But that's a discussion for another time and doesn't have anything to do with the film.
BTW, have you seen Flags of Our Fathers?
"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
No, I haven't seen Flags of our Fathers yet, I intend to...
You should. It might even alter your perspective.
"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
) You shouldn't have said that. This is a family site. )
"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
Fun 80's movie, about a group of kids who discover that Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and Frankenstein's Monster are in town and looking to cause trouble. The pick of the monsters is Tom Noonan's gentle FM, who deserves comparison with Boris Karloff's work in the classic Universal pictures of the 30's. Recommended for anyone who liked The Goonies.
Today I finally got the chance to see Hot Fuzz. Funny stuff (if a tad too long), and what a cast! People talk about the Harry Potter films boasting the best actors in the UK, but this one is impressive on its own. Gotta love Tim Dalton sinking his teeth into his role as the officious grocer. "I'm a slasher--of prices! My deals are criminal!" Good show, Brits.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
Spiderman 3
Can't say I loved it, can't say i hated it. I did seem to run a little bit too long. If they had cut down on Peter Parkers "EMO" state this movie might have been better. I must also complain about the lack of Venom. In short. this isn't Spiderman, it's Peter Parker.
Lastly, I saw this after I finished my shift at work. There was about 15 to 20 people in the theater. Most were laughing at the way the movie ended. I can look beyond the way the movie ended, but can also see why the people were laughing at the ending. I overheard one person say "they should of stayed home and watched C.S.I." To each his own I guess.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
I watched Seraphim Falls on DVD last night. It stars Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson. It is a western set just after the Civil War. Neeson's character is hunting down Brosnan's character with a group of highered thugs for a reason that isn't revealed until the end of the film. It was a good film with great scenery. At the end is gets a little mystical which I didn't care for. All in all a good film, three stars out of five.
"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
Ocean's 11 - the remake, though the original is on TCM today.
Well, at least it's a cool casino movie
Some good soundtrack stuff from David Holmes, and the gambling theme is there throughout (Danny bets big to get his girl back). Unlike CR, where the casino stuff is stodgily sandwiched between the action stuff. Nice banter between Clooney and Pitt, though the audio could have been clearer for me. Had to strain just slightly to hear it all... Gambling looks cool, though through selective camera angels and close ups - the real Bellagio has Yanks with pretty awful dress sense milling around.
I stayed at the Bellagio this year so it was good to see it in contect, though they could have made more of the location in a way. I recognise it after being there, but when I went there I didn't remember it from the film, except for the knock out finale where they watch the fountains choreographed to Clare da Lune.
That said, I went off the film as I did when I first saw it. The plot gets more unlikely as it goes on. In particular, young ruffian Minus (Matt Damon) passing himself off as a member of the games commission to ruthleess casino boss. Or Pitt posing as a doctor to pretend pass out Saul - you can't fake rescusitation like that, esp on an old guy. What if the staff had tried to revive him instead? Any hiccup on the night and it would easily go pear-shaped.
Of course, the problem is that this should really be a comedy thriller like in the 60s. Then, you can laugh along with it and gloss over the unlikely stuff - a bit like some of the old Bond films. However, that genre doesn't really exist anymore.
Another problem was Julia Roberts, who has such an awful gait (way of walking), like a man in drag. Face like a whippet with huge lips. Still, some good lines. "Does he make you laugh like I do?" asks Clooney. "He doesn't make me cry."
I've just finished watching a film- but let me skip the title for now:
Roger Moore is the star; the villain's plan is to flood a mine, causing financial benefit via the stock market for his associates and himself; John Glen was one of the makers; Maurice Binder did the titles; Moore enjoys a sexy bath scene with a blonde British actress; heroically a black character sacrifices themself (and saves Moore) in an explosion which foils the villain's plan; villain dies falling from a height...
The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point. Given free in today's Mail On Sunday (which is the only way they'll induce me to buy that particular rag) was Gold, which I remember watching waaayy back on a double-bill with DAF. If my rapidly aging memory serves me, Moore filmed this between LALD and TMWTGG. An enjoyable film with many other former, continuing or future Bond cast/crew involved (eg Peter Hunt, Don Black, Alec Mills, Bernard Horsfall) although watching it again after so many years I couldn't help but compare it to... well, what did the description above remind you of?
some bits of it were ok (venom = ultimate love) but overall, I was rather disapointed. I found Spidy/Parker to be somewhat of a whiney emo, which frustrated the hell out of me. Deff. not my favorite of the three. And what's up with NEW Goblin? doesn't he have another name?
who saw Willem Dafoe in the backround at the Jazz club? made my night, that cameo.
Roger Moore is the star; the villain's plan is to flood a mine, causing financial benefit via the stock market for his associates and himself; John Glen was one of the makers; Maurice Binder did the titles; Moore enjoys a sexy bath scene with a blonde British actress; heroically a black character sacrifices themself (and saves Moore) in an explosion which foils the villain's plan; villain dies falling from a height...
well, what did the description above remind you of?
Oh I see what you mean, yep, A View To A Kill. Took a while to get, as the look of the films are very different. Bet that would have been great on with DAF. I bought a copy today, I have yet to see it. Caught it on telly once.
Oh I see what you mean, yep, A View To A Kill. Took a while to get, as the look of the films are very different. Bet that would have been great on with DAF. I bought a copy today, I have yet to see it. Caught it on telly once.
It was a good double bill; shame they don't do that regularly any more (still, with DVDs the market's not there now).
You're right, the look of the films is completely different although some of the flooded mine scenes look somewhat similar, but it was only this afternoon (having not seen Gold for over thirty years and having watched AVTAK Lord knows how often since it came out ten years or so later) that the parallels struck me. Other points: the heroine is the heiress to a mining concern, the villain is of (at least implied) Aryan ancestry, one of the principals is an Oscar winner, one of the backers introduced in a boardroom scene is later killed off, a silver Rolls Royce comes to an untimely end... etc, etc.
There's a very Bondian scene early on when Moore's character wakes up in bed with a beautiful girl and reaches over for the champagne bottle to find that it's empty.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
some bits of it were ok (venom = ultimate love) but overall, I was rather disapointed. I found Spidy/Parker to be somewhat of a whiney emo, which frustrated the hell out of me. Deff. not my favorite of the three. And what's up with NEW Goblin? doesn't he have another name?
who saw Willem Dafoe in the backround at the Jazz club? made my night, that cameo.
~Pen -{
I missed that. I just remember William in the mirror, similar to Spidey 2.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Not a bad film. Will Smith is a great actor, usually in different types of roles, but he has branched out in the last few years with great success imo.
Staggeringly awful, philisophical mumbo-jumbo from Darren Aranofsky. It's like something written by a 16-year-old. No wonder Brad Pitt walked away from this debacle. Poor old Hugh Jackman. I don't think I've ever felt more sorry for an actor. At certain points in this movie, he is bald-headed and floating through space in a giant bubble with a magic tree. This is a movie that some people may claim is misunderstood by those who simply didn't get it. That it was too smart for some. Well, there is no misunderstanding IMO. It is an utterly stupid, facile waste of time.
Director: Sam Raimi. Writer(s): Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi, Alvin Sargent. Main Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church. Budget: Estimated at $260,000,000.
Plot/Writing/Direction;
Under this heading comes our first, and biggest problem: There are too many storylines going on at once. I mean, you've got 3 villains, Sandman's background, trouble with MJ, Harry's numerous changes of heart, 2 different Spidermans, competition at the Bugle, Gwen Stacy, etc. What was great about Spiderman 2, was that the plot was much more visible and focused; all you had to deal with was Parker's inner struggle, and his relationship with MJ, and his fight against the villain, Doc Ock. Additionally, I thought the writing was a tad flat and uninspired; perhaps a surprise considering it was written by veteran, Alvin Sargent (although he wrote Spiderman 2 alone, but co-wrote 3 with Sam and Ivan Raimi - so maybe that had something to do with it).
Cast;
Really, no stand-out performances among the main cast. The character of MJ is a bit of a useless brat in this film, and I never much liked Kirsten Dunst, who doesn't make any of her feelings in the film look genuine. Tobey Maguire was competant, but was painful to watch during Peter Parker's eye-liner-clad bad boy scenes (yeah, what was that all about anyway? Talk about losing the plot!). Franco was annoying as he was in the previous two; but that's mainly due to the kind of character he had to work with. Still, he didn't make a convincing villain, and the same can be said for Topher Grace, who was irritating before he became the vastly under-written Venom. Much better were Thomas Haden Church, who succeeded in bringing us a villain for whom we had an ounce of sympathy. Bryce Dallas Howard played her part well, as did J.K Simmons (yet again). The highlight of the film, however, had to be Bruce Campbell as the Maître d’. Hilarious.
Music;
Bit of a mish-mash score here. Danny Elfman was hired, as he was for the previous two, but had a falling out with Sam Raimi and left the project. Christopher Young was brought in to score the film, but film chiefs thought he did a poor job and replaced some of his work with snippets of music recycled from previous Spiderman/Danny Elfman films. Still, the sentimental moments worked, and Christopher Young did a decent enough job. Even so, I think Elfman's scores, while they do the trick, have never been phenomenal in any respect.
Other;
For a film with a $260 million dollar budget, the effects didn't blow me away as I had much expected them to. The visuals in both the first two films weren't overly impressive either, so it didn't bother me all that much. The best parts (with regard to visual effects) were undoubtedly the Sandman's scenes.
Summary;
Well it kept me entertained for its lengthy running time. Solid cast, a plot that was overcrowded but enjoyable enough, and a lot of polish, owed to it's huge-ass budget. Should certainly appeal to the masses, and is likely to go on to be extremely financially successful. But after the great Spiderman 2, I can't help but think Raimi has let the side down a little.
Ocean's 12 - the sequel to Ocean's 11 (of course...)
By some margin, the worst film I have ever seen, it's insultingly bad. For all the world like the actors have done it as a tax break or a jolly, while we pay to watch them have fun in Amsterdam while Steven Soderburgh gets his camera out and tries to make a plot up as he goes along.
At least films like DAD have some ambition - Oceans 12 has none and STILL fails. It's like some extended Comic Relief sketch.
Dire French horror about people getting cut to pieces. It was directed by Alexandre Aja, who went to Hollywood to direct the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. Hollywood always knows a hack who can make them lots of money when they see one. Aja is currently in the process of remaking Joe Dante's Piranha for which I hope he finds a shoal of piranha in his underwear. SR has a twist, that has become such a cliche in unimaginative horror films. It was parodied by Charlie Kaufman in his screenplay for Adaptation as the film Charlie's twin brother is writing that is so dumb, that all the studio execs love it. Awful.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Getting prepared for work this morning, I saw A VIEW TO A KILL on Encore...
Doesn't get better after repeated viewings. You take the awesome title song out of this and it's pretty bland. No...it's bland.
Roger Moore's license to kill, while leaning heavily on a cane mind you, should have retired after the fun romp which is Octopussy.
JFF, please...no hate mail.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Comments
Probably the most intelligently written dead movie I've ever seen, and the first to pay homage to Romero's NOTLD of '68. Excellent characterizations between the three main actors, Ray Lovelock, Arthur Kennedy, and Cristina Galbo. The dead are very effective with only minimum face paint and red contact lenses. Roaming the English landscape, the reason given for awakening is an agricultural pesticide in it's experimental stages. This has a fantastic musical score and great visuals of the English countryside, along with some awesome filming of early seventies London. One of the best zombie movies I've ever seen.
That sounds fascinating Alex. I've never heard of this before. I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
I've just seen the rarest of things: A Scottish martial arts movie. It's called The Purifiers and is directed by Richard Jobson, the former frontman of the punk band The Skids. It essentially takes the premise of The Warriors and sets it in a futuristic version of Glasgow. It's pretty good. The fight scenes are excellent, although like Jobson's previous film, 16 Years of Alcohol there's a little too much talking. Forgiveable in a drama, but not in a out and out genre piece. Dominic Mohan (Charlie from'Lost'), and Kevin McKidd (HBO's 'Rome') are the only name actors in the film. But Gordon Lawrence is good as the tough, but thoughtful hero. He has the same kind of presence as Jason Statham, but with an IQ.
This is the stylised noir with George Clooney, Cate Blanchett and Tobey McGuire. A Steven Soderburgh(sp?) film.
Good stuff, I saw it at Prince Charles cinema in London's Leicester Square. Very restful on the eye, watching the bleached out black and white (it's not like the black and white of Schindler's List).
That said, its brief is not quite clear. Early on it shows a character ramming a prostitute bent over the bed, as if to shock and say, hey, we can do rude stuff too. This is actually how it was. Yet on the other hand, it bends over backwards, so to speak, to have the old black and white back projection and look of the old days, so it isn't quite clear.
Clooney plays against type, as a kind of Glenn Ford patsy type and other than that you can't see why he should be fallen for the Gilda-like Blanchett, who is wretched and miserable. Macguire is okay in a Lorre type role but also a bit against type.
Better supporting actors however, partly because they're less familiar. Overall, I enjoyed a lot in spite of this nitpicking. Different from the usual dross out there.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As ever, Scott is mournfully useless, but there's better support from Jeremy Northam as a sinister spymaster and Matthew MacFadyen as a badly scarred naval officer. I thought this was a real missed opportunity to tell a story about a group of people whose heroism deserves to be recognised.
This was at the Prince Charles in London (Casino Royale is also getting a regular screening there, it's a good cinema), however I wouldn't see this film here as the soundtrack had a buzz on it which you noticed during the quiet moments.
And there were a lot of quiet moments for an action film, even during the onslaught the Japanese troops had time to reflect and be introspective. Their learning curve was that they found they were just like the Americans, really.
I didn't really buy into this. Forget all the suicidal fighting to the death for honour, you don't see much of that here. The Japs we see are a feckless, reluctant lot. Those who top themselves only seem to do it under peer pressure. It's like saying the suicide bombers in Iraq have to be talked into it - and they don't.
The film is unable to suggest that the Japanese army may in fact have really been a bunch of maniac fascists.
Unfair? No, I don't think so. In Band of Brothers, an elderly GI reflects that a lad in his home town killed himself at the shame of not being able to join up. "Different times, " he said. Right, the past is a different country, they do things differently there. Doubly so for Japan in the Forties.
We've heard how the Red Army savagely raped its way across Eastern Europe. And others have vouchsafed that in fact the German populace were quite ready to send the Jews to the gas chambers, in the book "Hitler's Willing Excutioners."
So the cultural differences need to be stressed. Here it just looks like the Japs are the same as the GIs, and isn't it a shame that they have to fight in that case? Which isn't really true, and undermines the cause that the Allies took on. Like Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor, it hints that the whole thing was really a bit of an accident.
Some comments on the imdb do back up this view...
Other problems: some fake looking CGI of the ships approaching the island, in that hard to put your finger on kind of way. And the finding of the letters in contemporary times is a bit of a cliche, like in the Korean film last year, Brotherhood (or something, I forget the title).
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's very debatable, but that aside, I don't think that the film was drawing any comparison between the soldiers taking their own lives and the suicide bombers in Iraq.
Perhaps they weren't. NP, wether or not you believe that the Japanese soldiers were 'a bunch of maniac fascists,' do you really want to see yet another film potraying the enemy in a negative light? Most war films, by their nature, potray the enemy as less than ideal, and considering that Letters was about an attempt to look at history from an alternative point of view, I personally would not want to see the Japanese soldiers get portrayed as 'a bunch of maniac fascists' as IMO that is quite simplistic.
I think that the film did note the cultural differences (the Japanese focus on honour, for example) but I don't think that there is anything wrong with potraying the Japanese soldiers as similar to (or even the same as) the GIs. The Japanese soldiers weren't all monsters and the GIs weren't all saints, and I think it is simplistic to suggest that is the case.
Furthermore, as for the cause that the Allies had to take up, the film wasn't really about that, and it also of course quite debatable as to what the cause really was. But that's a discussion for another time and doesn't have anything to do with the film.
BTW, have you seen Flags of Our Fathers?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
___________________
jen07
Alcohol Rehab --Have more options on alcohol rehab
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Fun 80's movie, about a group of kids who discover that Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and Frankenstein's Monster are in town and looking to cause trouble. The pick of the monsters is Tom Noonan's gentle FM, who deserves comparison with Boris Karloff's work in the classic Universal pictures of the 30's. Recommended for anyone who liked The Goonies.
Can't say I loved it, can't say i hated it. I did seem to run a little bit too long. If they had cut down on Peter Parkers "EMO" state this movie might have been better. I must also complain about the lack of Venom. In short. this isn't Spiderman, it's Peter Parker.
Lastly, I saw this after I finished my shift at work. There was about 15 to 20 people in the theater. Most were laughing at the way the movie ended. I can look beyond the way the movie ended, but can also see why the people were laughing at the ending. I overheard one person say "they should of stayed home and watched C.S.I." To each his own I guess.
Well, at least it's a cool casino movie
Some good soundtrack stuff from David Holmes, and the gambling theme is there throughout (Danny bets big to get his girl back). Unlike CR, where the casino stuff is stodgily sandwiched between the action stuff. Nice banter between Clooney and Pitt, though the audio could have been clearer for me. Had to strain just slightly to hear it all... Gambling looks cool, though through selective camera angels and close ups - the real Bellagio has Yanks with pretty awful dress sense milling around.
I stayed at the Bellagio this year so it was good to see it in contect, though they could have made more of the location in a way. I recognise it after being there, but when I went there I didn't remember it from the film, except for the knock out finale where they watch the fountains choreographed to Clare da Lune.
That said, I went off the film as I did when I first saw it. The plot gets more unlikely as it goes on. In particular, young ruffian Minus (Matt Damon) passing himself off as a member of the games commission to ruthleess casino boss. Or Pitt posing as a doctor to pretend pass out Saul - you can't fake rescusitation like that, esp on an old guy. What if the staff had tried to revive him instead? Any hiccup on the night and it would easily go pear-shaped.
Of course, the problem is that this should really be a comedy thriller like in the 60s. Then, you can laugh along with it and gloss over the unlikely stuff - a bit like some of the old Bond films. However, that genre doesn't really exist anymore.
Another problem was Julia Roberts, who has such an awful gait (way of walking), like a man in drag. Face like a whippet with huge lips. Still, some good lines. "Does he make you laugh like I do?" asks Clooney. "He doesn't make me cry."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Not bad at all. A different take on a fairly well known premise.
The Boys from Brazil
Ever watchable, with star turns by two of my favourite actors, Gregory Peck and James Mason.
Roger Moore is the star; the villain's plan is to flood a mine, causing financial benefit via the stock market for his associates and himself; John Glen was one of the makers; Maurice Binder did the titles; Moore enjoys a sexy bath scene with a blonde British actress; heroically a black character sacrifices themself (and saves Moore) in an explosion which foils the villain's plan; villain dies falling from a height...
The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point. Given free in today's Mail On Sunday (which is the only way they'll induce me to buy that particular rag) was Gold, which I remember watching waaayy back on a double-bill with DAF. If my rapidly aging memory serves me, Moore filmed this between LALD and TMWTGG. An enjoyable film with many other former, continuing or future Bond cast/crew involved (eg Peter Hunt, Don Black, Alec Mills, Bernard Horsfall) although watching it again after so many years I couldn't help but compare it to... well, what did the description above remind you of?
some bits of it were ok (venom = ultimate love) but overall, I was rather disapointed. I found Spidy/Parker to be somewhat of a whiney emo, which frustrated the hell out of me. Deff. not my favorite of the three. And what's up with NEW Goblin? doesn't he have another name?
who saw Willem Dafoe in the backround at the Jazz club? made my night, that cameo.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Oh I see what you mean, yep, A View To A Kill. Took a while to get, as the look of the films are very different. Bet that would have been great on with DAF. I bought a copy today, I have yet to see it. Caught it on telly once.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It was a good double bill; shame they don't do that regularly any more (still, with DVDs the market's not there now).
You're right, the look of the films is completely different although some of the flooded mine scenes look somewhat similar, but it was only this afternoon (having not seen Gold for over thirty years and having watched AVTAK Lord knows how often since it came out ten years or so later) that the parallels struck me. Other points: the heroine is the heiress to a mining concern, the villain is of (at least implied) Aryan ancestry, one of the principals is an Oscar winner, one of the backers introduced in a boardroom scene is later killed off, a silver Rolls Royce comes to an untimely end... etc, etc.
There's a very Bondian scene early on when Moore's character wakes up in bed with a beautiful girl and reaches over for the champagne bottle to find that it's empty.
I missed that. I just remember William in the mirror, similar to Spidey 2.
Not a bad film. Will Smith is a great actor, usually in different types of roles, but he has branched out in the last few years with great success imo.
***
Staggeringly awful, philisophical mumbo-jumbo from Darren Aranofsky. It's like something written by a 16-year-old. No wonder Brad Pitt walked away from this debacle. Poor old Hugh Jackman. I don't think I've ever felt more sorry for an actor. At certain points in this movie, he is bald-headed and floating through space in a giant bubble with a magic tree. This is a movie that some people may claim is misunderstood by those who simply didn't get it. That it was too smart for some. Well, there is no misunderstanding IMO. It is an utterly stupid, facile waste of time.
Director: Sam Raimi.
Writer(s): Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi, Alvin Sargent.
Main Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church.
Budget: Estimated at $260,000,000.
Plot/Writing/Direction;
Under this heading comes our first, and biggest problem: There are too many storylines going on at once. I mean, you've got 3 villains, Sandman's background, trouble with MJ, Harry's numerous changes of heart, 2 different Spidermans, competition at the Bugle, Gwen Stacy, etc. What was great about Spiderman 2, was that the plot was much more visible and focused; all you had to deal with was Parker's inner struggle, and his relationship with MJ, and his fight against the villain, Doc Ock. Additionally, I thought the writing was a tad flat and uninspired; perhaps a surprise considering it was written by veteran, Alvin Sargent (although he wrote Spiderman 2 alone, but co-wrote 3 with Sam and Ivan Raimi - so maybe that had something to do with it).
Cast;
Really, no stand-out performances among the main cast. The character of MJ is a bit of a useless brat in this film, and I never much liked Kirsten Dunst, who doesn't make any of her feelings in the film look genuine. Tobey Maguire was competant, but was painful to watch during Peter Parker's eye-liner-clad bad boy scenes (yeah, what was that all about anyway? Talk about losing the plot!). Franco was annoying as he was in the previous two; but that's mainly due to the kind of character he had to work with. Still, he didn't make a convincing villain, and the same can be said for Topher Grace, who was irritating before he became the vastly under-written Venom. Much better were Thomas Haden Church, who succeeded in bringing us a villain for whom we had an ounce of sympathy. Bryce Dallas Howard played her part well, as did J.K Simmons (yet again). The highlight of the film, however, had to be Bruce Campbell as the Maître d’. Hilarious.
Music;
Bit of a mish-mash score here. Danny Elfman was hired, as he was for the previous two, but had a falling out with Sam Raimi and left the project. Christopher Young was brought in to score the film, but film chiefs thought he did a poor job and replaced some of his work with snippets of music recycled from previous Spiderman/Danny Elfman films. Still, the sentimental moments worked, and Christopher Young did a decent enough job. Even so, I think Elfman's scores, while they do the trick, have never been phenomenal in any respect.
Other;
For a film with a $260 million dollar budget, the effects didn't blow me away as I had much expected them to. The visuals in both the first two films weren't overly impressive either, so it didn't bother me all that much. The best parts (with regard to visual effects) were undoubtedly the Sandman's scenes.
Summary;
Well it kept me entertained for its lengthy running time. Solid cast, a plot that was overcrowded but enjoyable enough, and a lot of polish, owed to it's huge-ass budget. Should certainly appeal to the masses, and is likely to go on to be extremely financially successful. But after the great Spiderman 2, I can't help but think Raimi has let the side down a little.
6.7/10
By some margin, the worst film I have ever seen, it's insultingly bad. For all the world like the actors have done it as a tax break or a jolly, while we pay to watch them have fun in Amsterdam while Steven Soderburgh gets his camera out and tries to make a plot up as he goes along.
At least films like DAD have some ambition - Oceans 12 has none and STILL fails. It's like some extended Comic Relief sketch.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
What a load of rubbish this was. Nothing original about it, just the usual gore fest of a millionn other films.
Dire French horror about people getting cut to pieces. It was directed by Alexandre Aja, who went to Hollywood to direct the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. Hollywood always knows a hack who can make them lots of money when they see one.
Doesn't get better after repeated viewings. You take the awesome title song out of this and it's pretty bland. No...it's bland.
Roger Moore's license to kill, while leaning heavily on a cane mind you, should have retired after the fun romp which is Octopussy.
JFF, please...no hate mail.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -