A New Year's tradition in the Loeffelholz household is that we always watch a classic Marx Brothers film at midnight
We seriously need a tradition like that in my household - I'm a huge Marx Bros fan. As it is, Monty Python's Flying Circus was on the telly at midnight so we watched a couple of episodes of that.
Back on topic...last film I saw was David Lynch's The Elephant Man. I was very impressed by the film. The key performances - Anthony Hopkins as Dr Treves and John Hurt as John Merrick (The Elephant Man) - are spot on. Hurt's is particularly impressive since he was totally enveloped in prosthetics, yet he still managed to give the character emotion and soul. The black and white cinematography provided a great mood and period feel, giving strength to the fantastic true story of the human spirit. That Merrick manages to regain his dignity despite his deformity and the way he is treated is a great example to anyone.
Highly recommend the film to anyone.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
damn...I love this movie. SO much. saw it in the theater with two of my good friends when it first came out, and I HAD it on DVD, but my father lost it along with most of my other movies...and then, I bought it on itunes with a Christmas gift and watched it again. :x
I watched that movie a couple of months back - and I really enjoyed it, some really good performances AND a good storyline !
Watched Doomsday last night - a mix between 'Mad Max, 'Escape To New York' and '28 Days Later'.
I thought this film started off teriffically well but just couldn't last the pace. Some really good acting but some rather stereotypical roles. Lovely 'dirty, grimey' sets - exactly what you would expect if a killer virus had been contracted in the UK - great special effects too (lots of blood and gore) but some shocking plot holes really.
I enjoyed the movie - loved it in places - but felt a little let down at the end.
Hi highhopes, good of you to look it up, though I've posted the more humorous review of The Godfather Too on page 163 on another thread, that was the one I meant you to read with increasing astonishment...
Got to say, looking back at that review, my writing is very waffley, it always seems clearer at the time when I've just seen the movie. No wonder Dan Same never responded to it.
Actually, have you read Robert Evans' account of the movies? All self-aggrandising no doubt, and makes out he had in a big hand in their success, overriding Coppola's decisions... does have the ring of truth like all rumourmongers.
Watchman
Finished this at the third attempt. That's not because it is hard going, but I've been tired and the cold weather has been getting to me. I started it NY's Eve. That said, it feels more like a serial than a movie, it has an ensemble cast and it meanders along. Very dark and impressive, uncompromising. But it doesn't have a big narrative drive; it's unclear what threat they're up against really unlike the latest Batman. In some way it echoes the new Craig Bond, the films are about him rather than the rather lacklustre villains. Interestingly however, while this represents the fag end of Western pop culture it also represents a rebirth for the franchise, most paradoxical you might say.
But for all that I did very much enjoy Watchman, I should make that clear, more so than the latest Spidey or Dark Knight films, maybe not as much as the more conventional Iron Man. I liked all the actors and the woman superohero would have been a great Lois Lane in Superman Returns.
That credits scene is an absolute knock out and let's be fair, as with the Sherlock Holmes movie, it now seems that the Bond credits are, for the first time, not the best out there. They need to work hard to catch up.
Having quite enjoyed the original early 1930s film Frankenstein, when I saw its sequel was even more feted and dubbed the best monster film ever, I made sure to rent it.
Well, certainly its more technologically advanced, with a bigger budget and music on the soundtrack (although the almost audible silence on the original, so characteristic of early 1930s films, I found quite eerie). But I didn't really rate it. Like Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, it starts only 15 minutes after the last film ends. Problem is, they wrapped it up nicely at the end of the last film, so the sequel has to contrivedly and unconvincingly unpick all the loose ends to start the story up again. It's not a long film, and half an hour in we're back to the Monster rampaging through the woods all over again. Only this time it's a mite comical, less Frankenstein than Frank Spencer, as he well meaningly gatecrashes women in the woods and they run off scared and screaming.
This wily old mentor, who we've never seen before, arrives to coerce the scientist into having another bash at his experiments. (This is a common problem with sequels in which the 'hero' has learned his lesson the first time, or is too cowardly to go through it again - they have to be coerced by someone but it loses its dramatic edge imo.) To show he's a dab hand himself, this mentor reveals his own experiments, but they're so farfetched and far ahead of the scientist's cut and paste job, it defies belief, consisting of
six or seven miniature men and women formed from a seed and kept in bell jars, all dressed and running around with their own personalities like Tom Thumb
As for the bride, she's only in it for the last five minutes!
But Elsa Lanchester is forever. She also plays Mary Shelley at the beginning of the film, don't forget.
Love the old Boris Karloff Frankensteins. I have never been able to accept another "look" to the Monster, even if the film itself was good. Take Branagh's version, for instance. I was interested in seeing it as a more faithful adaptation of the novel, and the acting was fine. But I couldn't get past DeNiro's look. Not his fault. But Karloff's makeup (if I remember correctly, it was Frank Perry or Pierce who created it) is simply a cinematic icon that just can't be overcome, despite all the fancy improvements since the '30s.
If I may indulge in a little nostalgia for a minute: As some of you might know, I grew up in France during the '60s. Paris at the time must have had thousands of theaters, from huge movie palaces on the Champs-Elysee to tiny flea-bitten art houses. Their appetite for movies was insatiable, and since there weren't enough movies to fill them them all, many of the smaller, seedier theaters were dedicated to old movies that in the States would have been shown on TV. So I got to see most of the classics on the big screen (there was only a single, part-time TV channel at the time in France). As a horror film fan (I subscribed to "Famous Monsters of Filmland," a magazine some of you might recall), I desperately wanted to see Karloff's original Frankenstein. However, they had film ratings there at the time and that film was prohibited to kids under 16. I wasn't quite that age, but I was big for my age and looked older, so we figured that if I went with an adult, I might get in. That dubious pleasure went to my dad (the old man hated going to the movies; it was a joke in my family 'cause my mom loved going). I stood up as straight as I could and he snuck me in. For the next 70 minutes or so, he sat in a broken seat while I was enthralled with the movie. It's a memory that I'll always cherish.
Anyone interested in the James Whale films (the first two Frankensteins) should check out Gods and Monsters (a line from the Bride). Great performance by Ian McKlellen (what else is new?) as Whale, and a very touching film about a man who left a good part of his soul in the trenches of World War I. And Brendan Fraser doesn't play a moron for a change.
Not a huge fan of musicals, but this one was engaging, fun and chock full of A-Listers. But none of them got lost in the shuffle, each had their moment to shine. I found it highly entertaining, great escapist fare with almost a guilt inducing voyeuristic glimpse into the great Fellini's life. Daniel Day Lewis is so incredibly believable, his performance is flawless. The highlight for me was seeing the fabulous Sophia Loren looking absolutely vibrant and stunning at 75 years young. And who knew Kate Hudson could sing? Let alone Penelope Cruz and our own Dame Judi. I may be one of the few who loved it, but I did.
James Cameron directed film that moves film making to the next level. The story is compelling and quite similar to Dances with Wolves. American scientists and Marines have come to a new planet, Pandora, to study the planet and for one capitalist, to plunder its resources. Sam Worthington is a paraplegic marine who is sent to investigate the native tribe by taking on the appearance of the natives. He meets a female of the tribe who is assigned the task of teaching him the way of the natives. While there he becomes torn between fulfilling his mission or protecting the people he has grown close to and whose way of life he respects.
The film is stunningly beautiful; Cameron uses 3D, not to throw things at you, but to immerse you in the planet Pandora. You see vegetation that appears to be right next to you, flying insects all around you and forests with real depth. The actors, that at times have to play second fiddle to the imagery, are all very good. Sigourney Weaver is a scientist who wants to deal with natives peacefully, Stephen Lang is your stereotypical gung-ho Marine Sergeant, but he brings real force to the role, Giovanni Ribisi is the capitalist who is only interested in the resources on the planet and how he can profit from mining it, regardless of what harm comes to the planet or its people. Zoe Saldana plays Neytiri, the native who shows Worthington the ways of her people, her role is thankless as she is under so much make-up you can't see her real features, yet she manages to convey her felling with her eyes and her facial expressions.
If I have a complaint about the movie, it is that the films message is hammered home pretty heavily. Cameron is an environmentalist and his political leanings are on display in this movie. I think the film would have been a little more realistic if the military personnel and the corporate guy were a little more fair minded, rather than the uncaring characters they were.
Despite that minor flaw, if you are a fan of film, If you are a film historian, or if you just want to see the latest cool thing, this movie cannot be missed at the cinema. The visual imagery of the film cannot be duplicated on the small screen, much will be lost if you do not see it at the cinema. I highly recommend this film, as I said at the beginning of this review; filmmaking has just taken its next step forward.
Just finished a most enjoyable evening. Today I purchased the 1966 BBC television programme adaption of Hound Of The Baskervilles with Peter Cushing. He had also played the master detective in the Hammer film 7 years prior.
This is a very faithful adaption, though the last time I read the story was quite a ways behind. It's shot on what I believe to be video, by no means an expert, but it resembles those hour length twilight zone experiments that looked so very different then shooting in film.
As some of you are probably aware, only five episodes with Cushing still remain. The rest were lost or recorded over. A common practice back then it seems. Fortunately we will never lose an episode of Coupling today! 8-)
I highly recommend the new set from A&E which contains all surviving episodes. This is a must for all Sherlockians and Peter Cushing fans. I bought mine at Best Buy. Highly recommended!
Highhopes, is that where you got your Eva Green fixation from, that 1968 Paris film with her in it? I cant' recall the title but she gets her kit off in it. The Libertines or something.
Have you read the book, The Secret History of Paris, by Andrew Hennessy or Hussay? That's great stuff.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...is that where you got your Eva Green fixation from, that 1968 Paris film with her in it? I cant' recall the title but she gets her kit off in it.
Bertolucci's The Dreamers. Quite riveting in parts, if quite balmy in others.
This afternoon the Loeff boys and I are off to see Avatar in 3D at the Kerasotes Showplace 12, the fanciest multiplex in town, way over on the west side. Loeff Jr would rather see Sherlock Holmes, but Loeff III and I outvoted him...
Review to follow...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
"Avatar" in 3D
Having experience low-rent 3D most recently in Spy Kids 3D a few years back (the perils of being a father of young kids at the time), I was fairly jaded about the notion of James Cameron putting all of his eggs in a 3D, three hour-long movie basket...but this isn't that level of 3D. This, as people who've seen it now now, is something completely different. My first clue was that the glasses they gave us at the box office weren't made of perforated cardboard with one red lens and one green...these were more like classic Ray-Bans, which fortunately fit nicely right over the spectacles I wear to see the real world...
I'd have to say that it was one of the most remarkable cinematic experiences I've ever had, from a visual/technical standpoint. Absolutely stunning. As for the film itself, I'm still processing it---but Barry is quite right in his assessment that this is essentially a sci fi-fantasy retelling of Dances With Wolves. The cast is quite strong, with good performances all round (great to see the formidable Sigourney Weaver again), from Sam Worthington to Zoe Saldana to the always-enjoyable Stephen Lang. Yes, the film is decidely preachy and not in the least bit subtle, and the story in and of itself isn't of the groundbreaking sort...
...especially inasmuch as that the final fisticuffs between Lang's Marine officer and Worthington's blue alien ends up as disappointingly routine, in a cookie-cutter action movie sense
but so much other ground is being broken here that it must be called an unqualified success on every level nevertheless. I'm very glad it wasn't the gimmicky sort of 3D I'd feared; this was simply real, right down to the insects and seed spores floating through the forest air to the pulse-quickening views of precipitous heights during the flying sequences.
It's become a cliche to say so, but this has to be experienced on the big screen. 4 out of 5 stars.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Alexander Nevsky, a celebrated Soviet propoganda film from 1938, made in anticipation of a Nazi attack. When their brief, cynical alliance was made, the film was withdrawn, only to be put out again when Hitler broke his word.
To be fair, if viewed as a propoganda film this gets five stars. Just looking at the poster, which has 1242 then 1942 underneath to reinforce the parallels between this Dark Ages battle (in which the outnumbered Russians repel the German advance) and a battle that could usher in a new Dark Ages would make any Russian want to fight to the death, and many did. You can see the poster here:
Otherwise, this film really is creaky even by the standards of its own era. It's hard to believe it was made just one year before Gone With The Wind, or three years after The 39 Steps. What dialogue there is is so stilted and unflowing, that with the subtitles it seems more like a silent movie with reading placards held up. We learn nothing about Nevsky's personal life, he seems a sainted figure (though later he actually was made a saint) though that's better in a way from the Mel Gibson Braveheart approach. But the love triangle between a young maiden (who looks quite mad by the way) and her promise to wed the man who shows most valour in battle is cringey. "Handsome good looks we do not care for" goes the song at the end. "Only strength and valour in battle!" Being a handsome but admittedly idle fellow, I took issue with this.
The climactic battle on ice is great but not what I expected. It's sheer chaos, not seemingly choreographed, but then I guess that's how it would be. The Germans fall through the ice because their armour is heavier. I think the ice chases in TLD and DAD could have made use of that, had Bond had a zippy little car.
Maybe skip the first hour I would suggest. Someone drew parallels with Olivier's Henry V, but in that case it's the battle which lets it down, as it seems very lightweight and staged.
Highhopes, is that where you got your Eva Green fixation from, that 1968 Paris film with her in it? I cant' recall the title but she gets her kit off in it. The Libertines or something.
Have you read the book, The Secret History of Paris, by Andrew Hennessy or Hussay? That's great stuff.
Loeff's right. It's The Dreamers. I'm not really a huge fan of the movie per se, it just reminds me of a similar personal experience in that time and place (May '68).
But no, I haven't read the book. I'll have to look for it. I would imagine the history is pretty extensive and interesting
I'm a little late to see this movie, but boy was it good.
Really money.
Yeah, that's one of my favorites, too. A girlfriend turned me on to it just few years ago. I've probably watched it a half-dozen times. Funny in an adult sort of way, unlike the usual gross out kind of comedies that are so popular now.
Antichrist, that Lars von Trier movie that had the Cannes Film Festival up-in-arms, was showing at my local art house theatre. So, feeling ready to test my own limits, I figured I would see what the fuss is all about.
For the first two or three acts of the movie, I was impressed. While I expected there to be a lot of pretentious-looking hokey camerawork, von Trier effectively captures a sense of dread throughout Chapter One and Chapter Two of the film. Many of the shots are also beautifully rendered and mesmerizing. The sex is copious, but befitting. And Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are very convincing as He and She respectively. It was during Chapter Three where I found my opinion of the movie to be challenged the most (and to anyone who has already seen it, you'll know why). Some of the graphic violence is absolutely horrendous, to the point where I can hardly recommend Antichrist to anyone. Eva Green was apparently in talks for this movie, and I don't blame her agents for pulling her from the role. Nothing can prepare you for it.
Overall my feelings were extremely mixed, as someone who prides graphic horror films with minimal violence and occasional gore (think Se7en and Alien). Antichrist is a very different kind of film, and only for those with iron-cast stomachs. But in terms of technicality, it is quite a vivid achievement.
"The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
A surprisingly entertaining movie from Nora Ephron, which tells the story of two Julia's, Julia Child the famous chef and Julia Powel an internet blogger who decided to make every recipe in Julia Childs cook book. The stories are intertwined as we go back and forth between Julia Child’s training as a chef and the writing of her famous cookbook, and Julia Powell's experience cooking all 500 meals, and writing her successful blog. I found Julia Child's story a little more interesting as she was truly a unique character and her life was quite interesting.
Meryl Streep was nominated for a Golden Globe for this performance and is expected to receive an Academy Award nomination as well, and it is well deserved. Streep completely embodies Child's character, her vocal expressions, hand and head movements are all dead on. IMO this is one of Streep's best performances. Amy Adams plays Julia Powell and although she is given less to do than Streep she is very good as well. Stanley Tucci playing Child's husband also is quite good.
I'm a little late to see this movie, but boy was it good.
Really money.
Yeah, that's one of my favorites, too. A girlfriend turned me on to it just few years ago. I've probably watched it a half-dozen times. Funny in an adult sort of way, unlike the usual gross out kind of comedies that are so popular now.
If you have other movies like that, I'd be happy to hear them. I'd be glad to hear your favorites.
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
Excellent 1946 black and white movie about the readjustment to civilian life made by three soldiers returning from the Second World War to a fairly typical smalltown. They only meet on the flight back home, they're of different ranks but return to different socio-economic backgrounds.
Often this threatened to be a slow-moving car crash of a film but the threatened dreadful scenes don't always turn out the way you expect, or dread. That said, for the time it was a shocker for audiences who weren't used to an absence of sugar-coating.
Firstly, I am a fan of Hitchcock, he is possibly my favourite film director ever. Topaz is one his few films that has a really bad reputation and even though I had the DVD as part of a Hitch box set I have put off watching it for a long time as a result. Now that I have seen it at last, I am convinced that there is no such thing as a bad Hitchcock film.
The film is a spy thriller set around the time of the Cuban Missile crisis and is based on a Leon Uris novel. It has a low key cast (unusual for a Hitchcock film), with no major stars. For us Bond fans there is Karin Dor (Helga Brandt in YOLT) in a supporting role to enjoy. The film is definitely not Hitchcock's best film, far from it, but at least it is a solid good film despite what its many critics claim. There are some scenes of typical Hitchcock genius. My favourite is the defection scene which opens the movie. The tension in the scene is well built up until the climax on a street in Copenhagen. Also, there is a terrific overhead shot
during the death scene of Karin Dor's character which shows Hitch's genius and visual flair, where as she falls her dress seems to spread out beneath her like a pool of blood.
This is a great moment in an admittedly low-key film, but it is fairly well plotted and acted which the trademark visual flair of Hitchcock and fascinating cold war spy subject matter.
I think it is well worth a look, especially for spy movie fans and those with a taste for the genius of Hitchcock, even if this film isn't as remarkable as Psycho, North By Northwest or Rear Window.
1939 Basil Rathbone flick, very atmospheric and generally entertaining but it didn't live up to its promise, where none other than Moriaty threatens to pull of a crime that will ruin Holmes. There's the olde worlde courtesy as Holmes and his nemesis agree to share a handsome cab from the court where Moriaty has been acquitted from a murder everyone knows he committed, and engage in Bond-Scaramanga over dinner type banter. Other Bond references apply, including the use of a bolus, decapitated statues and so on.
Very atmospheric and foggy London, but I found the plot quite risible and while Rathbone had the usual bite and authority, it made his cavalier regard for his clients quite astonishing. What's more, we know that Moriaty is up to something thanks to some heavyhanded exposition with his subordinate, so we are one step ahead of Holmes unusually. At times I felt it was aimed at 10 year olds.
Absolutely amazing film. Emotional, gripping, engaging, superbly directed and realistically acted. Throws up the horrors of (what is now) modern warfare and its consequences on the mental attitudes of those engaged in it. Couldn't get the fact that we've lost two of these bomb disposal guys in the last 3 months out of my head; it's all too real.
Highly recommended.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
Public Enemies
Enjoyable gangster flick. One thing I didn't care for was the close-up shots of peoples faces in some scenes. Not sure what that was about. Oh well, I do recommend this movie. Not as good as The Untouchables (1987) but still something to sit back and enjoy.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars... and you. What else you need to know?"
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Comments
We seriously need a tradition like that in my household - I'm a huge Marx Bros fan. As it is, Monty Python's Flying Circus was on the telly at midnight so we watched a couple of episodes of that.
Back on topic...last film I saw was David Lynch's The Elephant Man. I was very impressed by the film. The key performances - Anthony Hopkins as Dr Treves and John Hurt as John Merrick (The Elephant Man) - are spot on. Hurt's is particularly impressive since he was totally enveloped in prosthetics, yet he still managed to give the character emotion and soul. The black and white cinematography provided a great mood and period feel, giving strength to the fantastic true story of the human spirit. That Merrick manages to regain his dignity despite his deformity and the way he is treated is a great example to anyone.
Highly recommend the film to anyone.
I watched that movie a couple of months back - and I really enjoyed it, some really good performances AND a good storyline !
Watched Doomsday last night - a mix between 'Mad Max, 'Escape To New York' and '28 Days Later'.
I thought this film started off teriffically well but just couldn't last the pace. Some really good acting but some rather stereotypical roles. Lovely 'dirty, grimey' sets - exactly what you would expect if a killer virus had been contracted in the UK - great special effects too (lots of blood and gore) but some shocking plot holes really.
I enjoyed the movie - loved it in places - but felt a little let down at the end.
I'm a little late to see this movie, but boy was it good.
Got to say, looking back at that review, my writing is very waffley, it always seems clearer at the time when I've just seen the movie.
Actually, have you read Robert Evans' account of the movies? All self-aggrandising no doubt, and makes out he had in a big hand in their success, overriding Coppola's decisions... does have the ring of truth like all rumourmongers.
Watchman
Finished this at the third attempt. That's not because it is hard going, but I've been tired and the cold weather has been getting to me. I started it NY's Eve. That said, it feels more like a serial than a movie, it has an ensemble cast and it meanders along. Very dark and impressive, uncompromising. But it doesn't have a big narrative drive; it's unclear what threat they're up against really unlike the latest Batman. In some way it echoes the new Craig Bond, the films are about him rather than the rather lacklustre villains. Interestingly however, while this represents the fag end of Western pop culture it also represents a rebirth for the franchise, most paradoxical you might say.
But for all that I did very much enjoy Watchman, I should make that clear, more so than the latest Spidey or Dark Knight films, maybe not as much as the more conventional Iron Man. I liked all the actors and the woman superohero would have been a great Lois Lane in Superman Returns.
That credits scene is an absolute knock out and let's be fair, as with the Sherlock Holmes movie, it now seems that the Bond credits are, for the first time, not the best out there. They need to work hard to catch up.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Since you haven't received a response from Sir Hilly, I will do the honors. No, your guess was off target.
But Elsa Lanchester is forever. She also plays Mary Shelley at the beginning of the film, don't forget.
Love the old Boris Karloff Frankensteins. I have never been able to accept another "look" to the Monster, even if the film itself was good. Take Branagh's version, for instance. I was interested in seeing it as a more faithful adaptation of the novel, and the acting was fine. But I couldn't get past DeNiro's look. Not his fault. But Karloff's makeup (if I remember correctly, it was Frank Perry or Pierce who created it) is simply a cinematic icon that just can't be overcome, despite all the fancy improvements since the '30s.
If I may indulge in a little nostalgia for a minute: As some of you might know, I grew up in France during the '60s. Paris at the time must have had thousands of theaters, from huge movie palaces on the Champs-Elysee to tiny flea-bitten art houses. Their appetite for movies was insatiable, and since there weren't enough movies to fill them them all, many of the smaller, seedier theaters were dedicated to old movies that in the States would have been shown on TV. So I got to see most of the classics on the big screen (there was only a single, part-time TV channel at the time in France). As a horror film fan (I subscribed to "Famous Monsters of Filmland," a magazine some of you might recall), I desperately wanted to see Karloff's original Frankenstein. However, they had film ratings there at the time and that film was prohibited to kids under 16. I wasn't quite that age, but I was big for my age and looked older, so we figured that if I went with an adult, I might get in. That dubious pleasure went to my dad (the old man hated going to the movies; it was a joke in my family 'cause my mom loved going). I stood up as straight as I could and he snuck me in. For the next 70 minutes or so, he sat in a broken seat while I was enthralled with the movie. It's a memory that I'll always cherish.
Anyone interested in the James Whale films (the first two Frankensteins) should check out Gods and Monsters (a line from the Bride). Great performance by Ian McKlellen (what else is new?) as Whale, and a very touching film about a man who left a good part of his soul in the trenches of World War I. And Brendan Fraser doesn't play a moron for a change.
Not a huge fan of musicals, but this one was engaging, fun and chock full of A-Listers. But none of them got lost in the shuffle, each had their moment to shine. I found it highly entertaining, great escapist fare with almost a guilt inducing voyeuristic glimpse into the great Fellini's life. Daniel Day Lewis is so incredibly believable, his performance is flawless. The highlight for me was seeing the fabulous Sophia Loren looking absolutely vibrant and stunning at 75 years young. And who knew Kate Hudson could sing? Let alone Penelope Cruz and our own Dame Judi.
James Cameron directed film that moves film making to the next level. The story is compelling and quite similar to Dances with Wolves. American scientists and Marines have come to a new planet, Pandora, to study the planet and for one capitalist, to plunder its resources. Sam Worthington is a paraplegic marine who is sent to investigate the native tribe by taking on the appearance of the natives. He meets a female of the tribe who is assigned the task of teaching him the way of the natives. While there he becomes torn between fulfilling his mission or protecting the people he has grown close to and whose way of life he respects.
The film is stunningly beautiful; Cameron uses 3D, not to throw things at you, but to immerse you in the planet Pandora. You see vegetation that appears to be right next to you, flying insects all around you and forests with real depth. The actors, that at times have to play second fiddle to the imagery, are all very good. Sigourney Weaver is a scientist who wants to deal with natives peacefully, Stephen Lang is your stereotypical gung-ho Marine Sergeant, but he brings real force to the role, Giovanni Ribisi is the capitalist who is only interested in the resources on the planet and how he can profit from mining it, regardless of what harm comes to the planet or its people. Zoe Saldana plays Neytiri, the native who shows Worthington the ways of her people, her role is thankless as she is under so much make-up you can't see her real features, yet she manages to convey her felling with her eyes and her facial expressions.
If I have a complaint about the movie, it is that the films message is hammered home pretty heavily. Cameron is an environmentalist and his political leanings are on display in this movie. I think the film would have been a little more realistic if the military personnel and the corporate guy were a little more fair minded, rather than the uncaring characters they were.
Despite that minor flaw, if you are a fan of film, If you are a film historian, or if you just want to see the latest cool thing, this movie cannot be missed at the cinema. The visual imagery of the film cannot be duplicated on the small screen, much will be lost if you do not see it at the cinema. I highly recommend this film, as I said at the beginning of this review; filmmaking has just taken its next step forward.
This is a very faithful adaption, though the last time I read the story was quite a ways behind. It's shot on what I believe to be video, by no means an expert, but it resembles those hour length twilight zone experiments that looked so very different then shooting in film.
As some of you are probably aware, only five episodes with Cushing still remain. The rest were lost or recorded over. A common practice back then it seems. Fortunately we will never lose an episode of Coupling today! 8-)
I highly recommend the new set from A&E which contains all surviving episodes. This is a must for all Sherlockians and Peter Cushing fans. I bought mine at Best Buy. Highly recommended!
http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Holmes-Collection-Peter-Cushing/dp/B001TE6P78/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263335522&sr=1-1
Next up, A Study In Scarlet.
Have you read the book, The Secret History of Paris, by Andrew Hennessy or Hussay? That's great stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Bertolucci's The Dreamers. Quite riveting in parts, if quite balmy in others.
This afternoon the Loeff boys and I are off to see Avatar in 3D at the Kerasotes Showplace 12, the fanciest multiplex in town, way over on the west side. Loeff Jr would rather see Sherlock Holmes, but Loeff III and I outvoted him...
Review to follow...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Having experience low-rent 3D most recently in Spy Kids 3D a few years back (the perils of being a father of young kids at the time), I was fairly jaded about the notion of James Cameron putting all of his eggs in a 3D, three hour-long movie basket...but this isn't that level of 3D. This, as people who've seen it now now, is something completely different. My first clue was that the glasses they gave us at the box office weren't made of perforated cardboard with one red lens and one green...these were more like classic Ray-Bans, which fortunately fit nicely right over the spectacles I wear to see the real world...
I'd have to say that it was one of the most remarkable cinematic experiences I've ever had, from a visual/technical standpoint. Absolutely stunning. As for the film itself, I'm still processing it---but Barry is quite right in his assessment that this is essentially a sci fi-fantasy retelling of Dances With Wolves. The cast is quite strong, with good performances all round (great to see the formidable Sigourney Weaver again), from Sam Worthington to Zoe Saldana to the always-enjoyable Stephen Lang. Yes, the film is decidely preachy and not in the least bit subtle, and the story in and of itself isn't of the groundbreaking sort...
but so much other ground is being broken here that it must be called an unqualified success on every level nevertheless. I'm very glad it wasn't the gimmicky sort of 3D I'd feared; this was simply real, right down to the insects and seed spores floating through the forest air to the pulse-quickening views of precipitous heights during the flying sequences.
It's become a cliche to say so, but this has to be experienced on the big screen. 4 out of 5 stars.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Very nice film.
To be fair, if viewed as a propoganda film this gets five stars. Just looking at the poster, which has 1242 then 1942 underneath to reinforce the parallels between this Dark Ages battle (in which the outnumbered Russians repel the German advance) and a battle that could usher in a new Dark Ages would make any Russian want to fight to the death, and many did. You can see the poster here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky_(film)
Otherwise, this film really is creaky even by the standards of its own era. It's hard to believe it was made just one year before Gone With The Wind, or three years after The 39 Steps. What dialogue there is is so stilted and unflowing, that with the subtitles it seems more like a silent movie with reading placards held up. We learn nothing about Nevsky's personal life, he seems a sainted figure (though later he actually was made a saint) though that's better in a way from the Mel Gibson Braveheart approach. But the love triangle between a young maiden (who looks quite mad by the way) and her promise to wed the man who shows most valour in battle is cringey. "Handsome good looks we do not care for" goes the song at the end. "Only strength and valour in battle!" Being a handsome but admittedly idle fellow, I took issue with this.
The climactic battle on ice is great but not what I expected. It's sheer chaos, not seemingly choreographed, but then I guess that's how it would be. The Germans fall through the ice because their armour is heavier. I think the ice chases in TLD and DAD could have made use of that, had Bond had a zippy little car.
Maybe skip the first hour I would suggest. Someone drew parallels with Olivier's Henry V, but in that case it's the battle which lets it down, as it seems very lightweight and staged.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Loeff's right. It's The Dreamers. I'm not really a huge fan of the movie per se, it just reminds me of a similar personal experience in that time and place (May '68).
But no, I haven't read the book. I'll have to look for it. I would imagine the history is pretty extensive and interesting
Really money.
Yeah, that's one of my favorites, too. A girlfriend turned me on to it just few years ago. I've probably watched it a half-dozen times. Funny in an adult sort of way, unlike the usual gross out kind of comedies that are so popular now.
Aye, looks interesting. The trailer reminded of a cracking little B-movie called The Prophecy starring Christopher Walken as the Archangel Gabriel.
For the first two or three acts of the movie, I was impressed. While I expected there to be a lot of pretentious-looking hokey camerawork, von Trier effectively captures a sense of dread throughout Chapter One and Chapter Two of the film. Many of the shots are also beautifully rendered and mesmerizing. The sex is copious, but befitting. And Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are very convincing as He and She respectively. It was during Chapter Three where I found my opinion of the movie to be challenged the most (and to anyone who has already seen it, you'll know why). Some of the graphic violence is absolutely horrendous, to the point where I can hardly recommend Antichrist to anyone. Eva Green was apparently in talks for this movie, and I don't blame her agents for pulling her from the role. Nothing can prepare you for it.
Overall my feelings were extremely mixed, as someone who prides graphic horror films with minimal violence and occasional gore (think Se7en and Alien). Antichrist is a very different kind of film, and only for those with iron-cast stomachs. But in terms of technicality, it is quite a vivid achievement.
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
A surprisingly entertaining movie from Nora Ephron, which tells the story of two Julia's, Julia Child the famous chef and Julia Powel an internet blogger who decided to make every recipe in Julia Childs cook book. The stories are intertwined as we go back and forth between Julia Child’s training as a chef and the writing of her famous cookbook, and Julia Powell's experience cooking all 500 meals, and writing her successful blog. I found Julia Child's story a little more interesting as she was truly a unique character and her life was quite interesting.
Meryl Streep was nominated for a Golden Globe for this performance and is expected to receive an Academy Award nomination as well, and it is well deserved. Streep completely embodies Child's character, her vocal expressions, hand and head movements are all dead on. IMO this is one of Streep's best performances. Amy Adams plays Julia Powell and although she is given less to do than Streep she is very good as well. Stanley Tucci playing Child's husband also is quite good.
I enjoyed the film and definitely recommend it.
If you have other movies like that, I'd be happy to hear them. I'd be glad to hear your favorites.
Excellent 1946 black and white movie about the readjustment to civilian life made by three soldiers returning from the Second World War to a fairly typical smalltown. They only meet on the flight back home, they're of different ranks but return to different socio-economic backgrounds.
Often this threatened to be a slow-moving car crash of a film but the threatened dreadful scenes don't always turn out the way you expect, or dread. That said, for the time it was a shocker for audiences who weren't used to an absence of sugar-coating.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Firstly, I am a fan of Hitchcock, he is possibly my favourite film director ever. Topaz is one his few films that has a really bad reputation and even though I had the DVD as part of a Hitch box set I have put off watching it for a long time as a result. Now that I have seen it at last, I am convinced that there is no such thing as a bad Hitchcock film.
The film is a spy thriller set around the time of the Cuban Missile crisis and is based on a Leon Uris novel. It has a low key cast (unusual for a Hitchcock film), with no major stars. For us Bond fans there is Karin Dor (Helga Brandt in YOLT) in a supporting role to enjoy. The film is definitely not Hitchcock's best film, far from it, but at least it is a solid good film despite what its many critics claim. There are some scenes of typical Hitchcock genius. My favourite is the defection scene which opens the movie. The tension in the scene is well built up until the climax on a street in Copenhagen. Also, there is a terrific overhead shot
I think it is well worth a look, especially for spy movie fans and those with a taste for the genius of Hitchcock, even if this film isn't as remarkable as Psycho, North By Northwest or Rear Window.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
1939 Basil Rathbone flick, very atmospheric and generally entertaining but it didn't live up to its promise, where none other than Moriaty threatens to pull of a crime that will ruin Holmes. There's the olde worlde courtesy as Holmes and his nemesis agree to share a handsome cab from the court where Moriaty has been acquitted from a murder everyone knows he committed, and engage in Bond-Scaramanga over dinner type banter. Other Bond references apply, including the use of a bolus, decapitated statues and so on.
Very atmospheric and foggy London, but I found the plot quite risible and while Rathbone had the usual bite and authority, it made his cavalier regard for his clients quite astonishing. What's more, we know that Moriaty is up to something thanks to some heavyhanded exposition with his subordinate, so we are one step ahead of Holmes unusually. At times I felt it was aimed at 10 year olds.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Apologies! ;% wasn't thinking...
Easy, Nap...
Absolutely amazing film. Emotional, gripping, engaging, superbly directed and realistically acted. Throws up the horrors of (what is now) modern warfare and its consequences on the mental attitudes of those engaged in it. Couldn't get the fact that we've lost two of these bomb disposal guys in the last 3 months out of my head; it's all too real.
Highly recommended.
Enjoyable gangster flick. One thing I didn't care for was the close-up shots of peoples faces in some scenes. Not sure what that was about. Oh well, I do recommend this movie. Not as good as The Untouchables (1987) but still something to sit back and enjoy.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars... and you. What else you need to know?"