This is a western starring Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe and directed by Otto Premier. Mitchum plays Matthew, a man who finds his nine year old son in the begining of the movie and starts a farm with the boy in the wilderness. Marilyn Monroe plays Kay, a saloon singer. She did her own singing and Monroe gets several song numbers in the movie. Without spoling too much of the plot I can say the three of them end up om a raft going down a river with dangerous rapids while being followed by indians on the war path. The indians are portrayed as straight-up villans.
This is Monroe's only western, but that's not the only thing that makes it unusual. I've never seen a western before where the action is centered around a raft on a river. The hero only rides a horse in a brief scene in the begining of the movie and he is without a gun for more than half the movie. Marilyn Monroe looks absolutely fantastic (so much that I'm willing to forgive her historically incorrect jeans). In an otherwise average western these things make it stand out in a positive way. But there is one scene that unfortunately ruins the movie for me. Mitchum's character attempts to rape Monroe's character and the only thing that stops him is a puma attack. Later in the movie he says he "didn't mean it", but other than this both characters behave as if nothing happened. At the end of the movie he throws her om his shoulder, caveman style, and telles her what career and life she is going to have. She gets no say in it. It's strange, because in spite of some conflict between them they treat each other well in the rest of the movie.
I think they called that Jason Statham movie HUMMINGBIRD in the U.K. because he has a recurring dream about the little blighters. Those scenes were inserted to give some sort of gravitas, I think, but the film doesn't really need them. REDEMPTION is a much better title. And I agree, Jason's rather good in this one.
I believe Monroe was in the chorus line of A TICKET TO TOMAHAWK, but we're all being very pedantic here, RIVER OF NO RETURN is her only proper western. And yes, what is that rape scene all about? Why's it even in there? It makes Mitchum's character very unsympathetic and makes hers look like a punch bag. The photography is great in this one and a lot of it was shot on location with a real raft on real rapids. Preminger was something of a masochist to his actors.
I too wonder why the scene is there. Is it some warped sense of showing the lead is a "real man"? Did they want to make him some kind of anti-hero? Then why is he a "white hat" in the rest of the movie and why isn't she affected by the attempted rape and why doesn't he show more remorse later on?
Without that scene I would've really enjoyed the movie. It would never have been a classic, but a good movie. The movie is beautiful, I like the atypical plot and like you say the locations are great.
her final film The Misfits was a type of western, but modern day
no24 said:
That doesn't count in my book. Modern westerns like "No country for old men" and "Hell or high water" are great, but they aren't true westerns.
fair enough! They are all wearing cowboy hats in the poster and I think it takes place on a ranch, but I too think a real Western is a period piece, a sort of origin myth for the United States.
Filmed in the summer of 1963, but not released for a full year after completion, Viva Las Vegas ranks as one of Elvis Presley’s most fun and engaging 1960s movies. It doesn’t quite follow the formula laid out in G.I. Blues, which helps immeasurably in the presentation. The fact it was a prestige MGM production directed by veteran craftsman George Sidney who made many fine musicals of the forties and fifties probably helped as well. Above all, while the movie is phenomenally short – clocking in at almost obscene 83 minutes – it packs in an awful lot of song and dance and never pauses for a breath.
Elvis plays Lucky Jackson, a race driver down on his luck preparing for the Las Vegas Grand Prix, who romances pool attendant and stage struck wannabe Rusty Martin, played with her best breathy Marilyn Monroe voice by sexy Ann-Margret. This kittenish powerhouse is a perfect match for the King and their chemistry is obvious and fundamental to the movie’s success. While the slapstick comedy is a little beneath all the stars, the singing and dancing is brilliant, although quite why Elvis is given a guitar to strum through three of the best numbers in the show defies logical thought.
The movie kicks off with a nightscape aerial shot of the Strip accompanied by Elvis bawling out the title track. Most of those grand old casinos have been demolished: the Flamingo, Stardust, the Sahara, the Freemont, the Dunes, the Mint – ah, Vegas looks so unspoilt in 1963. It wasn’t of course, but this is a cute version of the gambling town, just one scene at a roulette wheel and the rest of the scenery is lounge shows and sightseeing tours. Elvis rarely looked better and Ann-Margret never looked sexier. She has a multitude of costume changes, but is undone by the leotard affair she has to dance in for Appreciation. Female dancers are usually flattered by wearing dresses. Elvis doesn’t quite let rip, although C’mon Everybody really tries. His version of Ray Charles’ What’d I Say is low-key; the King looks embarrassed to be singing a classic. Red West’s If You Think I Don’t Need You is shamefully curtailed. The beautiful ballads Today, Tomorrow and Forever and I Need Somebody to Lean On are well presented and seem better with visuals than they do as pure audio.
The history of the soundtrack demonstrates the mess Elvis’ career was turning into. Only a double A-side single and a 4-track EP was released to accompany the film. This is a stunning oversight from both Colonel Tom Parker – who didn’t want anyone else singing on an Elvis release, so Ann-Margret’s backing vocals were removed for the on sale versions – and MGM who simply ought to have insisted that a full OST be released, featuring all the Ann-Margret songs, the duets, the Coasters singing The Climb, the instrumentals, the whole shebang. I have the 2010 release and that’s not complete either. Given how strong the eleven songs are in the movie it’s almost criminal the paying public has never got to purchase it.
Enough on the brilliant songs. The photography is sharp. The acting enthusiastic. Cesar Danova as a rival racer driver makes a charming, mature counter to Elvis’ brash youthfulness. The script is lightweight fluff. Ann-Margret looks stunning. The climatic Grand Prix is an exciting if muddled contest, whose incidents all come in the wrong order. The film winds itself up so swiftly you almost miss it. It’s surprising to learn they spent ten weeks filming this as it speeds by so fast you wonder if they didn't wrapped it up in a couple of days. You also wonder what joys might have happened if they’d made a genuine effort to produce a genuine musical. It’s the closest Elvis ever got. Considering the poor quality of what surrounded it, Elvis-wise, [Kissin’ Cousins, Girl Happy, etc] Viva Las Vegas is a minor movie miracle.
Very enjoyable. Yes, good action scenes. I like the idea of a genius kid doing the accounts for all those gangsters in her head! I'd call it better than average for a Statham movie, although that sort of only makes it average against other movies, if you get me.
Another western classic tonight. There are good reasons Shane is a classic. I think the story and the dialog is very good. It's beautifully shot, but I wish they'd shot it in a wider format. I like how guns and gunfire is used in this movie. Until the final gunfight we only get a couple of gunshots and the lead doesn't strap on his gun until near the end, making the action significant. I belive this was done on purpose just as the sound of the shots are made louder than normal in movies of the 50s. This way the guns and gunfire feels more important and dangerous than it does in movies with hundreds of shots.
What I'm not completely sold on is the casting. The villans are good, especially Jack Palance as the black hat gunman. But the actress playing the farmer's wife (Jean Arthur) is the oldest member of the main cast at fifty. Not neccessarily a bad thing, of cource. But the makeup department worked hard to make her look younger, so it must have mattered. Then there is Alan Ladd as the title character. Just like Jean Arthur there's nothing wrong with his acting. Not only is he one of the shortest grown-ups in the movie (it shows even though they tried to hide it), but he isn't broad shouldered and he simply doesn't look though enough for the role. In fact I think he would've been better cast as the morally strong, but unused to voilence farmer. The casting doesn't stop the movie from being really good, but while watching I caught myself wondering how John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck or someone like them would've worked as Shane.
@Gymkata by coincidence, I watched Parker last night, I'd recorded it back in June but hadn't had an opportunity to view it until yesterday. It was my second viewing, although I didn't remember the beginning part of it. Here's my take:
PARKER (2013)
John Boorman’s Point Blank is one of the greatest crime thrillers of the sixties, a dream-like cascade of driven revenge and violence. Parker, nominally based on the same novel by Donald Westlake, is much, much, so much more violent, but isn’t so convincing. It’s a lot longer and isn’t as snappily directed.
Jason Statham stars as Parker, left for dead by four professional thieves after a heist goes badly awry. He survives, miraculously, and keeps surviving, miraculously. Jennifer Lopez crops up as a real estate agent who takes a shine to him and spies the chance of a quick buck. [No, buck, I wrote.] The film is cringingly vicious and Statham handles the fights and shootouts with his customary stoic relentlessness. There’s a nice turn by Patti Lupone as J-Lo’s mum. Nick Nolte is wasted. Michael Chiklis is a passable chief villain.
Taylor Hackford is a man’s director – like Victor Fleming and Raoul Walsh. Women are decoration to these guys. So Parker is a muscly, testosterone filled action fest which slows down for nothing and nobody, not even the plot, which barely convinces.
It isn’t the best example of Statham’s trade – all his movies tend to look and feel the same after a while anyway – but it passes a couple of hours without undue displeasure. Apparently it’s the most watched film ever on Netflix.
This Akira Kurushawa movie is a classic among samurai, Japanese and world cinema. Is it a deserved reputation? Yes. The beautiful cinematography, great story, entertaining characters and fine battle scenes makes this a classic. I like how the characters are the lowest of their society, the poorest farmers and out of work masterless samurai (ronin).
The battle scenes are masterfully planned and shot. The movie focuses on and shows tactics like few movies have. We see what the youtuber Lindybeige means when he says spears are better than swords in most combat situations and the final battle in the rain just has to be seen.
But Seven Samurai isn't perfect. 😱
Some of the acting is so theatrical and over the top it's just looks riddicolus. There is surprisingly much broad comedy in the movie and we have to account for a foreign acting style and how people behaved differently in an other time an place, but I can't rid myself of the impression that some performances are so OTT it makes sheriff Pepper look like something out of an Ingmar Bergman movie.
I am not a young man but the reason I liked the film is because it was different to any I had seen, not because of the characters attitudes. This will seem strange to people, but I also like to see scenes of real streets and towns as they are in the past. I also am a fan of Michael Caine which was my reason for watching it. I often look on the 'reelstreets' site to compare them as they were during a film and as they are now.
Last night I watched 'IF'. I thought this would be a different film and it was certainly that but I found it to be boring and not to my taste at all. I usually turn the TV off when I don't like something but I stuck with it. It was two and a half hours of my life which I cannot get beck!
Thanks @Joshua, I know what you mean about seeing London with the old streets. Not much of that in the 60s Bond films - I think the producers always wanted to make them timeless and mostly they succeeded. None of that Swinging London stuff - there's a shot of a South-East street in Thunderball with 'old' cars outside when Lippe meets his colleagues outside Shrublands.
Talking Pictures channel 81 does those old footage of streets stuff from time to time.
If is a film I've not sat through. Parts of it are in black and white and fans liked to suggest this was for deep filmic reasons when in fact the director ran out of cash and had to shoot it in cheaper black and white. He filmed it at his old public school but had to fudge the plot line and finale to obtain permission. The headmaster suggested to him that maybe the film was like Tom Brown's Schooldays? The director said that 'aspects' of the film might be compared to that. Afterwards, there's no record of his being asked to attend prize giving events.
I certainly don't recommend If. Of course though there will be people who think it is a great film.
I have seen the talking pictures TV channel and do watch it. I have been watching 'Danger UXB' on that channel. This was a series not a film, but it is quite interesting. I have to record many programmes as I am almost always working, so I have a few episodes of Danger UXB to catch up with.
I agree with you guys about IF. Dreadfully dated. All those ideas of class rebellion. Very sixties. Not anywhere near as interesting as critics say it is. Not in an acting way. Not in a writing way. Not in a directorial way. As you say, Nap, the only interesting thing is the juxtaposition of colour and monochrome film and that was purely a cost saving exercise.
It hasn’t aged well to be fair, but it did inspire a remake, The Magnificent Seven (1960), my favourite movie of all time, as I boringly keep reminding AJBers 🤣
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
I watched the whole of the loosely connected Mick Travis 'trilogy' last year, ie if...., O Lucky Man! and Britannia Hospital. I had just watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time and was keen to watch more early Malcolm McDowell. I also tend to enjoy stories that revolve around outcasts or rebellious characters existing in settings with very rigid, formal structures. In addition to McDowell, I was also looking forward to seeing him on screen with David Wood as the pair acted together again later in their careers in one my old favourites, the war film Aces High.
It's not always easy to explain or understand why a particular film is enjoyable or not enjoyable, but in complete contrast to the experiences of Joshua, Napoleon Plural and chrisno1, if... was without exagerration one of the most enjoyable film watching experiences I've had. I found McDowell's character captivating throughout, the humourous moments worked for me, I enjoyed the more surreal scenes such as the motorbike outing and the scene at the cafe. And the infamous climax was, dare I say, cathartic.
It was also quite interesting watching all three film as a trilogy, because many of the same actors crop up in the different films, often playing similar characters but in very different contexts.
So there we go, there's my unpopular opinion for today. I'm now really looking forward to giving if.... another viewing. 😉
Some of the acting is so theatrical and over the top it's just looks ridiculous. There is surprisingly much broad comedy in the movie and we have to account for a foreign acting style and how people behaved differently in an other time an place, but I can't rid myself of the impression that some performances are some OTT it makes sheriff Pepper look like something out of an Ingmar Bergman movie.
Usually folks talk about Kurosawa's being influenced by John Ford and film noirs, but there's also a lot of traditional Japanese theatre in there. I think the elements you're not liking are the ones from Japanese theatre, all that slow stagey acting with the exaggerated characterizations. I read a biography of Kurosawa a while back: audiences at home liked him less than international audiences, they didn't appreciate all this Western filmmaking technique he was incorporating into his films! poor old Kurosawa just can't win...
The one extra-bizarre performance I remember was one of the farmers, a small sad faced loser sort of a guy, played by an actor who appears in several Kurosawa films. Mifune torments this character throughout, then cries when he is killed in the final battle. Mifune himself would be considered "over the top" if he was in a western film.
a bit of googling tells me the "sad face" actor is named Bokuzen Hidari
I watched the 2017 documentary GRACE JONES: BLOODLIGHT AND BAMI.
Filmed over a period of about a decade, this is quite a candid behind the scenes glimpse of various aspects of Grace Jones' life both as a recording artist, as well as with her family in Jamaica. Interspersed with these largely unglamourous behind-the-scenes moments are quite nicely shot live peformances from Grace Jones on tour. I am not really familiar with Grace Jones as a musician so I enjoyed getting to listen to some of the songs and also get some nuggets of information which may explain some of the background to the lyrics of these songs. It was also quite cool to see different facets of Grace Jones, for example in the recording studio or at a television recording where at times her temper comes to the fore, and at other times when she is very laid back, seemingly fitting in to the Jamaican community really easily.
At 2 hours in length, the documentary did feel like it went on for a little bit too long. I was really into it for the first hour, and then my attention waned a bit in the second half. Nonetheless I enjoyed expanding my appreciation for Grace Jones as a performer, beyond her memorable appearance in AVTAK. In my initial experiences of Bond films, it was Jaws and May Day that were the two most memorable characters that made an impact on my 10 year old self. There was one scene in the documentary in which Grace is in a Parisian taxi and is chatting to the driver...I was so sad she never mentioned anything about her 'leap' from the Eiffel Tower. 😄
Standard 50s "giant monster destroys a city" stuff. In this case, it's a giant octopus and the city is San Francisco. Amusingly enough, Ray Harryhausen didn't have enough budget to give the octopus eight tentacles so it has only six. It's barely noticeable, though.
My copy is colourised which normally I'm very much against, but in this case it works fine. One of the best of this kind of movie.
Look at that, she just comes back here and thinks she can master how to bold up her titles! Sad in a way.
At least Loeffs just came and departed before anyone could insult him.
That said, the emoticons have gone down the dumper on this site LR, the reason you're sat here looking teed off with my comments. Normally I'd put in a smiley or a big grin to remove the sting but nothing here now.
Re If I didn't say I hated it, I haven't seen it in years so can't vouchsafe an opinion.
I think AJB has seen too little activity lately and too many members have left us. Because of this we should make an effort to make new members and old members returning feel welcome. 🙂
The lives of others/ Das leben der Anderen (2006).
This is a German movie where most of the story takes place in East Germany in 1984.
A famous author and his actress wife is put under surveilance by the Stasi (state security). The Stasi officer in charge of the surveilance gets intimate knowledge of the couple, and this forces him to make some difficult choices.
Thankfully I didn't grow up in a dictatorship, but the story is very good and everything seems convincing to me. In fact the prop master spent time in Stasi prison and he only used real Stasi equipment in the movie (shown in the special features om the DVD). Unfortunately the problem of surveilance and attacks on privacy has only gotten worse after the fall of the wall, so the topic remains important. Very much worth watching!
Comments
River of no return (1954)
This is a western starring Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe and directed by Otto Premier. Mitchum plays Matthew, a man who finds his nine year old son in the begining of the movie and starts a farm with the boy in the wilderness. Marilyn Monroe plays Kay, a saloon singer. She did her own singing and Monroe gets several song numbers in the movie. Without spoling too much of the plot I can say the three of them end up om a raft going down a river with dangerous rapids while being followed by indians on the war path. The indians are portrayed as straight-up villans.
This is Monroe's only western, but that's not the only thing that makes it unusual. I've never seen a western before where the action is centered around a raft on a river. The hero only rides a horse in a brief scene in the begining of the movie and he is without a gun for more than half the movie. Marilyn Monroe looks absolutely fantastic (so much that I'm willing to forgive her historically incorrect jeans). In an otherwise average western these things make it stand out in a positive way. But there is one scene that unfortunately ruins the movie for me. Mitchum's character attempts to rape Monroe's character and the only thing that stops him is a puma attack. Later in the movie he says he "didn't mean it", but other than this both characters behave as if nothing happened. At the end of the movie he throws her om his shoulder, caveman style, and telles her what career and life she is going to have. She gets no say in it. It's strange, because in spite of some conflict between them they treat each other well in the rest of the movie.
no24 said:
This is Monroe's only western...
her final film The Misfits was a type of western, but modern day
That doesn't count in my book. Modern westerns like "No country for old men" and "Hell or high water" are great, but they aren't true westerns.
I just discovered the attempted rape was the main image on one of the movie posteres promoting the movie. They clearly had no shame about it.
@Gymkata
I think they called that Jason Statham movie HUMMINGBIRD in the U.K. because he has a recurring dream about the little blighters. Those scenes were inserted to give some sort of gravitas, I think, but the film doesn't really need them. REDEMPTION is a much better title. And I agree, Jason's rather good in this one.
@Number24
I believe Monroe was in the chorus line of A TICKET TO TOMAHAWK, but we're all being very pedantic here, RIVER OF NO RETURN is her only proper western. And yes, what is that rape scene all about? Why's it even in there? It makes Mitchum's character very unsympathetic and makes hers look like a punch bag. The photography is great in this one and a lot of it was shot on location with a real raft on real rapids. Preminger was something of a masochist to his actors.
I too wonder why the scene is there. Is it some warped sense of showing the lead is a "real man"? Did they want to make him some kind of anti-hero? Then why is he a "white hat" in the rest of the movie and why isn't she affected by the attempted rape and why doesn't he show more remorse later on?
Without that scene I would've really enjoyed the movie. It would never have been a classic, but a good movie. The movie is beautiful, I like the atypical plot and like you say the locations are great.
no24 said:
This is Monroe's only western...
I said:
her final film The Misfits was a type of western, but modern day
no24 said:
That doesn't count in my book. Modern westerns like "No country for old men" and "Hell or high water" are great, but they aren't true westerns.
fair enough! They are all wearing cowboy hats in the poster and I think it takes place on a ranch, but I too think a real Western is a period piece, a sort of origin myth for the United States.
On the other hand, the puma comes out quite well in it presumably...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The puma is the de tragic hero of the scene.
Marilyn should have burried it with honours and given the puma a tearful farewell speech.
VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964)
Filmed in the summer of 1963, but not released for a full year after completion, Viva Las Vegas ranks as one of Elvis Presley’s most fun and engaging 1960s movies. It doesn’t quite follow the formula laid out in G.I. Blues, which helps immeasurably in the presentation. The fact it was a prestige MGM production directed by veteran craftsman George Sidney who made many fine musicals of the forties and fifties probably helped as well. Above all, while the movie is phenomenally short – clocking in at almost obscene 83 minutes – it packs in an awful lot of song and dance and never pauses for a breath.
Elvis plays Lucky Jackson, a race driver down on his luck preparing for the Las Vegas Grand Prix, who romances pool attendant and stage struck wannabe Rusty Martin, played with her best breathy Marilyn Monroe voice by sexy Ann-Margret. This kittenish powerhouse is a perfect match for the King and their chemistry is obvious and fundamental to the movie’s success. While the slapstick comedy is a little beneath all the stars, the singing and dancing is brilliant, although quite why Elvis is given a guitar to strum through three of the best numbers in the show defies logical thought.
The movie kicks off with a nightscape aerial shot of the Strip accompanied by Elvis bawling out the title track. Most of those grand old casinos have been demolished: the Flamingo, Stardust, the Sahara, the Freemont, the Dunes, the Mint – ah, Vegas looks so unspoilt in 1963. It wasn’t of course, but this is a cute version of the gambling town, just one scene at a roulette wheel and the rest of the scenery is lounge shows and sightseeing tours. Elvis rarely looked better and Ann-Margret never looked sexier. She has a multitude of costume changes, but is undone by the leotard affair she has to dance in for Appreciation. Female dancers are usually flattered by wearing dresses. Elvis doesn’t quite let rip, although C’mon Everybody really tries. His version of Ray Charles’ What’d I Say is low-key; the King looks embarrassed to be singing a classic. Red West’s If You Think I Don’t Need You is shamefully curtailed. The beautiful ballads Today, Tomorrow and Forever and I Need Somebody to Lean On are well presented and seem better with visuals than they do as pure audio.
The history of the soundtrack demonstrates the mess Elvis’ career was turning into. Only a double A-side single and a 4-track EP was released to accompany the film. This is a stunning oversight from both Colonel Tom Parker – who didn’t want anyone else singing on an Elvis release, so Ann-Margret’s backing vocals were removed for the on sale versions – and MGM who simply ought to have insisted that a full OST be released, featuring all the Ann-Margret songs, the duets, the Coasters singing The Climb, the instrumentals, the whole shebang. I have the 2010 release and that’s not complete either. Given how strong the eleven songs are in the movie it’s almost criminal the paying public has never got to purchase it.
Enough on the brilliant songs. The photography is sharp. The acting enthusiastic. Cesar Danova as a rival racer driver makes a charming, mature counter to Elvis’ brash youthfulness. The script is lightweight fluff. Ann-Margret looks stunning. The climatic Grand Prix is an exciting if muddled contest, whose incidents all come in the wrong order. The film winds itself up so swiftly you almost miss it. It’s surprising to learn they spent ten weeks filming this as it speeds by so fast you wonder if they didn't wrapped it up in a couple of days. You also wonder what joys might have happened if they’d made a genuine effort to produce a genuine musical. It’s the closest Elvis ever got. Considering the poor quality of what surrounded it, Elvis-wise, [Kissin’ Cousins, Girl Happy, etc] Viva Las Vegas is a minor movie miracle.
A fun watch all-round. Elvis almost in his prime.
@Gymkata Oh, SAFE is a good one.
Very enjoyable. Yes, good action scenes. I like the idea of a genius kid doing the accounts for all those gangsters in her head! I'd call it better than average for a Statham movie, although that sort of only makes it average against other movies, if you get me.
Shane (1952)
Another western classic tonight. There are good reasons Shane is a classic. I think the story and the dialog is very good. It's beautifully shot, but I wish they'd shot it in a wider format. I like how guns and gunfire is used in this movie. Until the final gunfight we only get a couple of gunshots and the lead doesn't strap on his gun until near the end, making the action significant. I belive this was done on purpose just as the sound of the shots are made louder than normal in movies of the 50s. This way the guns and gunfire feels more important and dangerous than it does in movies with hundreds of shots.
What I'm not completely sold on is the casting. The villans are good, especially Jack Palance as the black hat gunman. But the actress playing the farmer's wife (Jean Arthur) is the oldest member of the main cast at fifty. Not neccessarily a bad thing, of cource. But the makeup department worked hard to make her look younger, so it must have mattered. Then there is Alan Ladd as the title character. Just like Jean Arthur there's nothing wrong with his acting. Not only is he one of the shortest grown-ups in the movie (it shows even though they tried to hide it), but he isn't broad shouldered and he simply doesn't look though enough for the role. In fact I think he would've been better cast as the morally strong, but unused to voilence farmer. The casting doesn't stop the movie from being really good, but while watching I caught myself wondering how John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck or someone like them would've worked as Shane.
@Gymkata by coincidence, I watched Parker last night, I'd recorded it back in June but hadn't had an opportunity to view it until yesterday. It was my second viewing, although I didn't remember the beginning part of it. Here's my take:
PARKER (2013)
John Boorman’s Point Blank is one of the greatest crime thrillers of the sixties, a dream-like cascade of driven revenge and violence. Parker, nominally based on the same novel by Donald Westlake, is much, much, so much more violent, but isn’t so convincing. It’s a lot longer and isn’t as snappily directed.
Jason Statham stars as Parker, left for dead by four professional thieves after a heist goes badly awry. He survives, miraculously, and keeps surviving, miraculously. Jennifer Lopez crops up as a real estate agent who takes a shine to him and spies the chance of a quick buck. [No, buck, I wrote.] The film is cringingly vicious and Statham handles the fights and shootouts with his customary stoic relentlessness. There’s a nice turn by Patti Lupone as J-Lo’s mum. Nick Nolte is wasted. Michael Chiklis is a passable chief villain.
Taylor Hackford is a man’s director – like Victor Fleming and Raoul Walsh. Women are decoration to these guys. So Parker is a muscly, testosterone filled action fest which slows down for nothing and nobody, not even the plot, which barely convinces.
It isn’t the best example of Statham’s trade – all his movies tend to look and feel the same after a while anyway – but it passes a couple of hours without undue displeasure. Apparently it’s the most watched film ever on Netflix.
Go, Jason! Go figure…
The seven samurai (1954)
This Akira Kurushawa movie is a classic among samurai, Japanese and world cinema. Is it a deserved reputation? Yes. The beautiful cinematography, great story, entertaining characters and fine battle scenes makes this a classic. I like how the characters are the lowest of their society, the poorest farmers and out of work masterless samurai (ronin).
The battle scenes are masterfully planned and shot. The movie focuses on and shows tactics like few movies have. We see what the youtuber Lindybeige means when he says spears are better than swords in most combat situations and the final battle in the rain just has to be seen.
But Seven Samurai isn't perfect. 😱
Some of the acting is so theatrical and over the top it's just looks riddicolus. There is surprisingly much broad comedy in the movie and we have to account for a foreign acting style and how people behaved differently in an other time an place, but I can't rid myself of the impression that some performances are so OTT it makes sheriff Pepper look like something out of an Ingmar Bergman movie.
@Napoleon Plural
I am not a young man but the reason I liked the film is because it was different to any I had seen, not because of the characters attitudes. This will seem strange to people, but I also like to see scenes of real streets and towns as they are in the past. I also am a fan of Michael Caine which was my reason for watching it. I often look on the 'reelstreets' site to compare them as they were during a film and as they are now.
Last night I watched 'IF'. I thought this would be a different film and it was certainly that but I found it to be boring and not to my taste at all. I usually turn the TV off when I don't like something but I stuck with it. It was two and a half hours of my life which I cannot get beck!
Thanks @Joshua, I know what you mean about seeing London with the old streets. Not much of that in the 60s Bond films - I think the producers always wanted to make them timeless and mostly they succeeded. None of that Swinging London stuff - there's a shot of a South-East street in Thunderball with 'old' cars outside when Lippe meets his colleagues outside Shrublands.
Talking Pictures channel 81 does those old footage of streets stuff from time to time.
If is a film I've not sat through. Parts of it are in black and white and fans liked to suggest this was for deep filmic reasons when in fact the director ran out of cash and had to shoot it in cheaper black and white. He filmed it at his old public school but had to fudge the plot line and finale to obtain permission. The headmaster suggested to him that maybe the film was like Tom Brown's Schooldays? The director said that 'aspects' of the film might be compared to that. Afterwards, there's no record of his being asked to attend prize giving events.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I certainly don't recommend If. Of course though there will be people who think it is a great film.
I have seen the talking pictures TV channel and do watch it. I have been watching 'Danger UXB' on that channel. This was a series not a film, but it is quite interesting. I have to record many programmes as I am almost always working, so I have a few episodes of Danger UXB to catch up with.
I agree with you guys about IF. Dreadfully dated. All those ideas of class rebellion. Very sixties. Not anywhere near as interesting as critics say it is. Not in an acting way. Not in a writing way. Not in a directorial way. As you say, Nap, the only interesting thing is the juxtaposition of colour and monochrome film and that was purely a cost saving exercise.
It hasn’t aged well to be fair, but it did inspire a remake, The Magnificent Seven (1960), my favourite movie of all time, as I boringly keep reminding AJBers 🤣
I'll have to be the one to stand up for if....
I watched the whole of the loosely connected Mick Travis 'trilogy' last year, ie if...., O Lucky Man! and Britannia Hospital. I had just watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time and was keen to watch more early Malcolm McDowell. I also tend to enjoy stories that revolve around outcasts or rebellious characters existing in settings with very rigid, formal structures. In addition to McDowell, I was also looking forward to seeing him on screen with David Wood as the pair acted together again later in their careers in one my old favourites, the war film Aces High.
It's not always easy to explain or understand why a particular film is enjoyable or not enjoyable, but in complete contrast to the experiences of Joshua, Napoleon Plural and chrisno1, if... was without exagerration one of the most enjoyable film watching experiences I've had. I found McDowell's character captivating throughout, the humourous moments worked for me, I enjoyed the more surreal scenes such as the motorbike outing and the scene at the cafe. And the infamous climax was, dare I say, cathartic.
It was also quite interesting watching all three film as a trilogy, because many of the same actors crop up in the different films, often playing similar characters but in very different contexts.
So there we go, there's my unpopular opinion for today. I'm now really looking forward to giving if.... another viewing. 😉
no24 said:
The seven samurai (1954)
...
Some of the acting is so theatrical and over the top it's just looks ridiculous. There is surprisingly much broad comedy in the movie and we have to account for a foreign acting style and how people behaved differently in an other time an place, but I can't rid myself of the impression that some performances are some OTT it makes sheriff Pepper look like something out of an Ingmar Bergman movie.
Usually folks talk about Kurosawa's being influenced by John Ford and film noirs, but there's also a lot of traditional Japanese theatre in there. I think the elements you're not liking are the ones from Japanese theatre, all that slow stagey acting with the exaggerated characterizations. I read a biography of Kurosawa a while back: audiences at home liked him less than international audiences, they didn't appreciate all this Western filmmaking technique he was incorporating into his films! poor old Kurosawa just can't win...
The one extra-bizarre performance I remember was one of the farmers, a small sad faced loser sort of a guy, played by an actor who appears in several Kurosawa films. Mifune torments this character throughout, then cries when he is killed in the final battle. Mifune himself would be considered "over the top" if he was in a western film.
a bit of googling tells me the "sad face" actor is named Bokuzen Hidari
I watched the 2017 documentary GRACE JONES: BLOODLIGHT AND BAMI.
Filmed over a period of about a decade, this is quite a candid behind the scenes glimpse of various aspects of Grace Jones' life both as a recording artist, as well as with her family in Jamaica. Interspersed with these largely unglamourous behind-the-scenes moments are quite nicely shot live peformances from Grace Jones on tour. I am not really familiar with Grace Jones as a musician so I enjoyed getting to listen to some of the songs and also get some nuggets of information which may explain some of the background to the lyrics of these songs. It was also quite cool to see different facets of Grace Jones, for example in the recording studio or at a television recording where at times her temper comes to the fore, and at other times when she is very laid back, seemingly fitting in to the Jamaican community really easily.
At 2 hours in length, the documentary did feel like it went on for a little bit too long. I was really into it for the first hour, and then my attention waned a bit in the second half. Nonetheless I enjoyed expanding my appreciation for Grace Jones as a performer, beyond her memorable appearance in AVTAK. In my initial experiences of Bond films, it was Jaws and May Day that were the two most memorable characters that made an impact on my 10 year old self. There was one scene in the documentary in which Grace is in a Parisian taxi and is chatting to the driver...I was so sad she never mentioned anything about her 'leap' from the Eiffel Tower. 😄
It Came from Beneath The Sea (1955)
Standard 50s "giant monster destroys a city" stuff. In this case, it's a giant octopus and the city is San Francisco. Amusingly enough, Ray Harryhausen didn't have enough budget to give the octopus eight tentacles so it has only six. It's barely noticeable, though.
My copy is colourised which normally I'm very much against, but in this case it works fine. One of the best of this kind of movie.
The Catcher Was A Spy starring Paul Rudd
The story of Moe Berg who was a baseball player who became a spy for the US during the war.
It also has Mark Strong, Giancarlo Giannini, Paul Giamatti and Guy Pearce and Jeff Daniels.
I really enjoyed it. Worth a watch.
Look at that, she just comes back here and thinks she can master how to bold up her titles! Sad in a way.
At least Loeffs just came and departed before anyone could insult him.
That said, the emoticons have gone down the dumper on this site LR, the reason you're sat here looking teed off with my comments. Normally I'd put in a smiley or a big grin to remove the sting but nothing here now.
Re If I didn't say I hated it, I haven't seen it in years so can't vouchsafe an opinion.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Someones very grumpy! I'm back now so there will always be a little ray of sunshine on the site. :-D
I forgot about the little glitches though.
I think AJB has seen too little activity lately and too many members have left us. Because of this we should make an effort to make new members and old members returning feel welcome. 🙂
Lady Rose is only back because OnlyFans has begun its crackdown!!! 😁
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How did you know? 😉 Were you denied access?
Don't ever change NP 🤣
The lives of others/ Das leben der Anderen (2006).
This is a German movie where most of the story takes place in East Germany in 1984.
A famous author and his actress wife is put under surveilance by the Stasi (state security). The Stasi officer in charge of the surveilance gets intimate knowledge of the couple, and this forces him to make some difficult choices.
Thankfully I didn't grow up in a dictatorship, but the story is very good and everything seems convincing to me. In fact the prop master spent time in Stasi prison and he only used real Stasi equipment in the movie (shown in the special features om the DVD). Unfortunately the problem of surveilance and attacks on privacy has only gotten worse after the fall of the wall, so the topic remains important. Very much worth watching!
Last night I watched 'Deathwish - The Face of Death'.
Oh dear! When I say I watched it I actually mean I got to about ten minutes before turning off!
Tonight I am planning to watch 'Enter The Dragon'.