Christopher Nolan's first feature film, Following (say that five times fast). It has all the hallmarks of a no-budget indy film: brief 71-minute running time, stark black-and-white photography to make dull urban interiors interesting, a cast of people you'd never seen before and will never see again. But this is good stuff: a seedy wannabe writer starts following people just as a hobby and then gets too close to someone who turns out to be a housebreaker. It's told in the layered, non-linear style Nolan would use brilliantly in Memento, and his master theme of a hero going through a bewildering reality is already in place. The "hero's" apartment door has the Batman logo on it and I immediately thought it was a hint to the audience--and then remembered Batman Begins was about six years in the future. . . Anyway, like I said, good stuff--well worth seeing.
Really enjoyed it, we even get the line "Put your trousers on. You,re Nicked!" )
There's also a brilliant chase across London with a shoot out through Trafalgar Square.
Although Ray Winstone's heavy breathing and Sighs at times felt like he was either
out of breath or suffering from Asthma.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I saw a film called "The Black Windmill" on TV starring Michael Caine.
It was kind of on in the background, but I did quite enjoy what I saw. It actually reminded me (just slightly) of bond, in terms of the spy/secret agent elements.
The Bourne Legacy 8/10 really suspenseful introduction of a new hero for this series. Stodgy beginning that flashes back unneccessarily to the previous film but once the story gets going its a belter. I must say I prefer Renner to Matt " one facial expression" Damon and he is far more physically plausible in the action scenes. At 42 Rachel Weisz is smoking hot and a terrific actress..daniel Craig is a lucky man.
Really enjoyed it, we even get the line "Put your trousers on. You,re Nicked!" )
There's also a brilliant chase across London with a shoot out through Trafalgar Square.
Although Ray Winstone's heavy breathing and Sighs at times felt like he was either
out of breath or suffering from Asthma.
I was reading this thread hoping someone had seen it. I was looking for an impartial review as its been hammered in the media.
Undecided whether to see it or not. Not sure even the fabulous Ray Winston can fill John Thaws shoes.
Is it true to the spirit of the original or just a British action movie ???
IMHO, The Sweeney is just a British action film. It has no feel or nods to the original series.
It's beautifuly filmed and the music is very Batman. But it pased a couple of hours and I
enjoyed it.
My only problem with it is "Plan b". I never warmed to his character even though he's one of the good guys,
He comes across as Nasty, and not very likeable.
Although You could wait and catch it on DVD as I don't think the Big Screen adds much to it.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
My only problem with it is "Plan b". I never warmed to his character even though he's one of the good guys,
He comes across as Nasty, and not very likeable.
Although You could wait and catch it on DVD as I don't think the Big Screen adds much to it.
I' d read that Plan B was one of the main problems with it .
Think I'll wait for the DVD ... Then I can drink a bottle of wine whilst I watch it. Everything is better with wine )
The Lives of Others - A grey, sombre movie that depicts the soul sapping, stagnant unpleasantness of East Germany from the perspective of both the victims (the GDR’s disproportionately persecuted intelligentsia) and perpetrators (officers of the infamous Stasi). Gerd Wisel (the late Ulrich Muhe) is assigned to spy on a youngish happy couple who work as musicians; Christie-Maria Sieland (a sultry Christa-Maria Sieland) and Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch, who resembles a younger Jack Nicholson). Inevitably this lengthy, intrusive spying operation winds up in tragedy, with corrupt and authoritarian bullies in the upper ranks of the GDR state (a punchably smug Ulrich Tukur and a toadish Thomas Thieme) making things worse. Of course the most interesting character that holds the movie together is Ger Wisel, played with chilling believability by Muhe (who was born in East Germany). Wisel is introduced as a experienced, un-affable interrogator who teaches Stasi cadets on how to subtly psychologically torture suspects and so lacking in social skills he only finds solace in aging prostitutes, but over the course of his last assignment he develops feelings for his marks and finds a way to weaken the unjust system he works for. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s directing was kind of workmanlike and appropriately distant, making the film feel like a more slick docudrama, though you wonder how Gerd Wisel could do what he did without his Stasi colleagues sussing him out much sooner. 7/10
Avengers Assemble - Unlike PotC: At World’s End and SpiderMan 3 this movie brings together several movies worth of plot and character development without being a bloated mess. Joss Whedon certainly had his ups and downs as a sci-fi/fantasy writer (Alien Resurrection?! Why Whedon, why?!) but he is clearly on the up with this movie (both as the writer and director) without things going to his head, producing a Marvel movie that’s the best since Iron Man. The plot is comparatively simple - Loki (Tom Hiddleston: Brits make the best bad guys) returns to Earth and is leading a massive invasion force of evil aliens, with SHIELD and its band of superhumans out to stop them. That’s pretty much it: why should it be more complicated, crashing under its own weight? The final battle in Manhattan is pretty reminiscent of TF: Dark of the Moon but seems to mesh with the rest of the movie much better and had more emotional weight to it. CGI effects have really come a long way in the past 15 years, blending the actors in better than the SW Prequels did, doing a lot of stuff that wouldn’t be possible or would look ugly only a decade or so ago. There’s a very strong ensemble cast with Robert Downey Jr. and Samuel L. Jackson being very reliable yet very predictable, with the surprise stars of the movie being Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk (the third guy in a row) and Clark Gregg as a high ranking SHIELD officer (who had been in many other earlier Marvel films). Also Scarlett Johansson had more to do and was a bit better in her Black Widow role than in Iron Man 2. The movie title has been localised for the UK (so it would not be confused with the cult 1960s British TV show with the same title). Also watch out for Harry Dean Stanton in a small cameo. 9/10
Porco Rosso - Part action adventure part noir, this Studio Ghibli animation set around interwar Italy featuring Porco Rosso, a mercenary pilot, who happens to be part pig, a pugnacious pirate gang, a free spirited mechanic girl, and a rival mercenary pilot from America. The animation features really great depictions of period aircraft and automobiles, but I was left a little cold by the dubbing (Michael Keaton seemed too disinterested and Cary Elwes’ cod Southern accent is unintentionally funny). The late 1920s/early 1930s setting gives this animated feature an Indiana Jones feel, but it seems to lack depth and believability in comparison to Miyazaki’s other fictional settings (high technology in Laputa and Nausicaa, with high magic in Spirited Away, Ponyo, and Howl’s Moving Castle which makes you accept the crazy Miyazaki visuals). With the fairly factual backdrop of Fascist Italy, it just makes you wonder how a humanoid pig wandering about and interacting with people without provoking profound disbelief or horror everywhere he goes, making him a priority target for immediate capture and scientific research by every authority. This movie was worth watching, but not enough to make me watch it again and again. Perhaps my comparatively lukewarm reaction to this is down to Studio Ghibli burnout? 6/10
Monsters - Part travelogue, part romance, and weird monster invasion movie, set in an alternative reality where a massive and hostile alien ecology has taken a foothold in a no-go zone in Mexico, with the US Military and allied forces perpetually fighting the gigantic alien creatures who occasionally emerge from the restricted region and violently trample through populated areas. Amidst this madness a vagabond photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) is forced to escort a VIP‘s daughter (Whitney Able) across the dangerous monster/military infested wilderness. Unbelievably made on a virtually non existent budget of less than a million dollars, the homebrewed CGI effects on Gareth Edwards’ laptop depicting the crab/octopus shaped alien beasties convinces. But despite the talent it almost vanishes up its own backside with its heavy political commentary and plays with the geography a bit. 6/10
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
The Man Who Knew Too Much
I've decided to start working through a Hitchcock box set I got a few years ago and so picked this one out, mainly due to it being the only title I had heard of that I hadn't already watched.
I knew nothing about it beforehand which was fantastic and I'm tempted to try that with a modern movie - just walk into the cinema and pick a title that sounds good, which I've seen no trailers for.
It started well, dipped off and then picked up again for the majority of the film. It had felt like there wasn't enough happening and then everything was happening! The bit in the Albert Hall was magnificent. Certainly the most drawn out suspense I've seen in a Hitchcock movie and I had to admire him for that. I've always liked James Stewart in Hitchcock movies and once again he didn't disappoint, Doris Day was pretty good too.
Unfortunately the passage of time hasn't been kind to some of the scenes in Morocco. The rear projection looks horrendous from a modern perspective and it seemed quite pointless to. At first I thought that perhaps it was because they hadn't filmed any of it with the actors in Morocco. Yet later I could see they had and I couldn't understand why they didn't just have the actors in shot, amongst things that they had to film anyway. I try to approach old films in context, but I found this element of the film particularly difficult to accept.
That Hitch film, TMWKTM, is a remake of a 1930s Hitch made in London - some prefer that, but time hasn't been kind to that one either. Of course The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes rock.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
I'll have to try and check that out. I've seen The 39 Steps and thought it was absolutely marvellous.
The Dictator. What should have been a rip-roaring political satire gets all soft and turns out to be Sacha Baron Cohen's tribute to Crocodile Dundee. Made by some of the same people responsible for Seinfeld, the average episode of which is far funnier than this film; and featuring, for whatever reason, cameos by all sorts of American TV stars past and present.
Spanking new print of The Ipcress File on BBC2. Madly stylish, all odd angle camera shots like in Performance. I was all ready to praise Lewis Gilbert or Guy Hamilton, but it was neither, the director is Sidney J Furie, who isn't such a name, going on to do stuff like Iron Eagle and Superman IV. He's still in the game though, he has a film out next year. Gilbert directed Caine's Alfie of course, while Hamilton did the sequel to Ipcress, Funeral in Berlin, which was even more Cold War but really it was decreasing returns imo.
Not only that, but FiB didn't have John Barry's amazing score. Ipcress File has got the Thunderball vibe to it, same kind of orchestration, and of course Guy Doleman is in both films.
Caine is iconic, but I suppose it's a sign of getting older that his insubordinate streak seems quite overdone in the first quarter of an hour, akin to real life as pornography is to sex; act like that in real life and you'd be thrown out. Oh, the barman from UK series Minder, also seen in a small role in Get Carter, shows up too, briefly.
Top film, because of the calibre of character actors back then. I mean, Gordon Jackson, fab actor, but look how little he had to work with! But he nails it. Same in a way with Nigel Greene, just top of his game as the cold fish Dalby.
I was very disappointed. I enjoyed the original Bourne trilogy very much. I was quite willing to embrace a Bourne film without Jason Bourne, but it just didn't work for me. I didn't find becoming interested in the characters or the plot, and I was bored for pretty much the whole film. My interest spiked only during the extended foot/bike chase, which had some excitement but was also just a rehash of what had come before. And the ending was awful, it lacked the cool factor of the endings to Supremacy and Ultimatum. The only reason I knew it was the ending was because the Moby song started - it didn't feel like an ending at all.
I was very disappointed. I enjoyed the original Bourne trilogy very much. I was quite willing to embrace a Bourne film without Jason Bourne, but it just didn't work for me. I didn't find becoming interested in the characters or the plot, and I was bored for pretty much the whole film. My interest spiked only during the extended foot/bike chase, which had some excitement but was also just a rehash of what had come before. And the ending was awful, it lacked the cool factor of the endings to Supremacy and Ultimatum. The only reason I knew it was the ending was because the Moby song started - it didn't feel like an ending at all.
So far this was the only film ive walked out on, i fell asleep halfway though it as well.
The Mercenary (1968) - directed by Sergio Corbucci.
I am a fan of Western movies, and have a particular liking for the Italian Westerns as it was the Sergio Leone films which first got me interested in the genre. I quickly discovered however, that Leone's work was of a much higher quality than the other 'spaghetti' Westerns. However, I have found that there are other good examples of spaghetti westerns to be found, and another Sergio - Sergio Corbucci - is one of the most respected directors in the genre.
Set during the Mexican revolution, The Mercenary is an exciting, entertaining film and is probably the best non-Leone example of a spaghetti Western I have seen. It has everything you would expect of the genre - bags of visual style, plenty of wit, a great Ennio Morricone score, and slightly questionable dubbing! Franco Nero, Jack Palance and Tony Musante are the stars. The lead character is a Polish mercenary who forms an uneasy alliance with Mexican peon-turned-revolutionary Paco Roman. Palance plays Curly, a man who wants revenge on Paco and his band. This leads, in true spaghetti western tradition, to a showdown in an arena, which i thought was the most memorable sequence in the film.
Corbucci isn't quite the genius that Sergio Leone was, but the two films of his that I have seen so far (the other being Django) suggest that he is a good director in the genre. If you like spaghetti Westerns, I highly recommend The Mercenary.
Richard Gere plays a billionaire New York hedge fund owner with everything seemingly going his way -- spectacular wealth, a loving family (including a whip-smart daughter who works for him) and the respect of high society. Of course, all is not as it seems -- his hedge fund company has a $400M hole in its assets which could jeopardize his attempts to sell it, his mistress is a slightly unstable young art gallery owner who is becoming impatient with being the girl on the side, and an accident results in a death which could be pinned on him.
Not surprisingly, all comes crashing down, or at least threatens to. It is fun watching the character hang on by the narrowest of margins, aided by a crafty lawyer and the son of an old friend. But the film is also trying to tell too many stories at once, which means that none of them is given enough depth to really resonate.
For reasons unimportant, last week I finally got premium cable (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.) in my home. Last Thursday, while browsing in my new on-demand candy store, I noticed that all 10 episodes of The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin's new series, were available for free viewing...but only until today (Monday 24 Sept.). That meant my wife and I had to somehow squeeze in all 10 episodes over a four-day period, lest we (heaven forbid!) have to pay for them afterward. This is not our typical viewing pattern, so I was dubious about our chances. Well, we did it.
The Newsroom tells the story of a nightly cable news broadcast anchored by Will McAvoy (a fabulous Jeff Daniels). McAvoy is a burned-out newsman and a prickly, lonely man who has reduced himself to presenting the least offensive broadcast possible in an attempt to keep viewers. Speaking on a panel at a major university, he finally snaps and embarks on a multi-minute rant (classic Sorkin device) about the state of America that both earns him a forced vacation and rekindles his desire to do "real" news.
His boss (Sam Waterston, sporting a bowtie designed to identify him as both a liberal and an old-style newsman) hires a new Executive Producer (EP) for Will -- his ex-girlfriend McKenzie McHale, a British-sounding American played by Emily Mortimer. "Will and Mac" as they are known, have a volatile personal history but work well together. Other characters include Will's slightly cynical former EP, a pretty but socially clueless economics reporter (Olivia Munn) and several younger newsroom staffers with seemingly limitless ability to pull all-nighters. Everyone is thrown together in the large bullpen of a newsroom, preparing for the nightly broadcast.
Sound familiar? It should. It's basically the same format as Sorkin's previous television effort, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. What's also familiar are the usual Sorkin elements -- lots of rapid-fire dialogue, preachy characters who are amazingly informed on important issues of the day, light comedy as stress relief, clumsy romantic subplots, and liberal views delivered as if they were unbiased facts. Like The West Wing and Studio 60, background characters become figures of public adulation or scrutiny. In the real world, no one outside their particular circles cares much about mid-level White House staffers, sketch comedy writers or junior news producers, but in Sorkin's world they are well-known people among the general populace.
What is different about this show, both its best and worst asset, is that it is set in "the recent past" and incorporates real events and their news coverage into the episode plots. The BP Deepwater spill, Gabrielle Giffords' shooting, the rise of the Tea Party, the Egyptian uprising and the death of Osama bin Laden are among the events that serve as vehicles to drive the stories. This provides Sorkin with 20/20 hindsight as he shows how he believes those events should have been covered. Very convenient.
Reading until now, you might assume that I am not a fan, but I actually am. I doubt that Aaron Sorkin and I have many political views in common, but he really is a good writer of entertaining material. The thing is, you must suspend disbelief when watching this show, which is probably his most idealistic yet. If you can do that, and you can get over the reality that nothing Sorkin does in TV will be as good as The West Wing was, The Newsroom is worth your time.
Just spread it out a bit more than I did over the last three days!
Baseball serves as a backdrop for a father daughter relationship story starring Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams. Eastwood is a baseball scout who has spent his life driving from amateur baseball game to amateur baseball game looking for the next major league star. He is the scout who discovered some of the greats, but it has been a while since he has discovered anyone and the executives in the front office believe it may be time for him to retire.
Amy Adams is Eastwood's daughter a successful attorney who spent her childhood years traveling with her dad after the death of her mother, but eventually was sent to live with an aunt and uncle. Her relationship with her father is now strained as he rejects any effort by her to help him or resume a "normal" relationship.
Despite having to prepare for a big case, she takes some time off to try and help her dad when she learns he may be losing his eyesight. From there the film focuses on her attempts to emotionally reach her father while maintaining her own emotional distance from several men who are interested in her.
After a summer of big budget action packed films, this film was a nice change-of-pace. The film moves along slowly, the focus is on the actors and they all shine. Amy Adams nails the role of a high price lawyer who underneath her business suits knows more about baseball then most men. Eastwood, in a role similar to the role he played in Gran Torino, is excellent as the cantankerous old baseball scout who is angry at growing old and refusing to accept that his eyesight and other body parts don't work so well. Justin Timberlake and John Goodman have supporting roles that they handle well.
The film has some plot twists that I enjoyed and even though the ending is a little too neat, I enjoyed the film.
I caught the last half hour of 500 Days of Summer and it looked really good, star is the guy now seen in Looper and in Dark Knight Rises slightly. A really startling and imo affecting extract from The Graduate in it, too.
Three young Mossad agents (two men and and woman) go undercover in 1965 East Berlin, where they are assigned to kidnap a notorious Nazi concentration camp doctor to bring to Israel for trial. Of course, things go awry and they are unable to get out of Berlin, leading to tension both among the three agents and with the doctor they have kidnapped, who delights in tormenting them even though he is the captive. Everything eventually explodes into a climax that brings great notoriety to the agents. Flash forward 30 years, and they are faced with some nasty ramifications of their decisions way back when.
This is a decent film that could have been a great one. The East Berlin scenes brim with Cold War tension and claustrophobia, and the acting is mostly good, including Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds as the older agents haunted by their experiences. There is also some nifty misdirection early in the film that uses the "unreliable narrator" device as well as I can remember it being used. However, the whole film feels a little haphazard and rushed, with the ending especially seeming as if it were tacked on quickly. The film was shot in 2009 and made a minor splash on US screens only in 2011, and I can understand why.
Not actually billed as a film in the Radio Times, this TV special from Christmas 1967 is notorious for marking the beginning of the end for The Beatles, being wholly inappropriate for Xmas Day telly with the grandparents watching on, not only that but it was shown in black and white when its main selling point was the garish, trippy colour.
It was preceded by a documentary, and maybe it was that or lowered expectations but do you know, I found the actual film quite enjoyable. A lot of the offbeat humour has aged quite well, what with Vic and Bob doing their schtick more recently. What looked horrible in the I am the Walrus video, with the Beatles dressed as animals, now looks really current, after Super Furry Animals and Coldplay doing the same sort of thing. And overall, it's probably the last time you ever saw Lennon look so damned happy! The scene where he's piling up the spagetti is like Mr Creosote in The Meaning of Life. The whole film is just weird, rather like David Lynch as starring the Beatles.
And I have to say, I've been more awkward and/or bored during the other Beatle films that are supposed to be so much better. MMT only went on for about 70 mins.
Liam Neeson is Bryan Mills a man with a particular set of skills, which is killing everyone that tries ro take his family members. In the original Taken his daughter was kidnapped to be put in the international sex trade business. Dad killed everyone involved, so now the Albanian families of those that were killed seek vengeness by taking Neeson and his wife.
The movie running time is just over 90 minutes, short by today's standard. The short running time is because there is almost no plot development as we are only about 15 minutes into the film when Neeson and his wife, Famke Janssen are taken From there the film is just about wall to wall chase scenes and shoot-outs.
I will start by saying the original Taken was a better film, that film took its time and built to a great climax. This film is in such a hurry to get to the action that you never build any feeling for the characters. That isn't to say the action scenes are not good, several are very good, others rely on some old cliche scenes that we have seen in action films before.
Neeson and Maggie Grace who plays the daughter are very good, Janssen is given little to do, which is a shame. The Istanbul scenes look reaistic and add a sense of realism to the film.
Unless you are big fan of Neeson, I would suggest you wait for the DVD.
I seem to have an unintended interest in films directed by John Madden, who also directed The Debt, my most recent entry a few posts above this one. I had no idea he directed either one until the final credits rolled. Anyhow...
Seven retirement-age Britons each decide to live out their golden years in Jaipur, India, lured by an online sales pitch of a lovely new hotel/retirement community there. The group consists of:
-- A recently widowed woman (Judi Dench) whose husband managed all household finances and left her without a nest egg nor much of a clue of how to rebuild one. Her flat is her only real asset and needs to be sold.
-- A quiet 30-year civil servant (Bill Nighy) with a brittle, high-strung, bitter wife. They have lost most of their savings investing in their daughter's internet start-up, and their retirement options in England are not promising.
-- A high court judge (Tom Wilkinson) who is fed up with his job and wants to return to his childhood home in India to find a lost love.
-- A divorced woman who is reasonably well-off financially but tired of babysitting her grandchildren and seeks a husband to revitalize her.
-- An older man with a younger man's libido but no outlet for it. The dating scene is not working.
-- A lifetime domestic (Maggie Smith) whose employer has let her go. She is a virulent racist but accepts going to India because she can get a needed hip transplant there without waiting the necessary six months in England.
This somewhat motley crew travel together to the new, lovely hotel...which of course turns out to be nothing of the type. Instead, it is a ramshackle establishment run by Sonny (Dev Patel) who is long on enthusiasm and salesmanship but short on money and business acumen. He has a girlfriend who works at the local call center and a disapproving mother who wants jhim to give up his silly hotel dream, come back to Delhi and marry someone more suitable.
The potential plot directions are fairly easy to guess in advance. What relationships will take hold (or be broken) among the seven pensioners? Who will like India, and who will not? Will the hotel survive? Will Sonny and his girlfriend survive as a couple? For the most part, these questions are answered in predictable, convenient and pleasant ways. The pensioners generally find what they are looking for, even if it just a better sense of self. In doing so, they enlighten Sonny -- and vice versa.
Despite the predictability and occasional hokeyness, there is a charm about the film that I found enjoyable. Perhaps it was watching some stellar British acting talent in fine form. Perhaps it was that the pensioners are roughly the same age as my own parents. Whatever it was, I liked the film more than I expected to. It made me smile, simple as that.
I found myself watching an action scene with Sly in a truck playing chicken with a plane taking off, not unlike an early scene in Face/Off. Quite gripping action, I thought it must be Cobra, which I've never seen. Then a daft little old lady came into view in a shootout on the runway and I realised it was 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot!', one of the worst comedies of all time, directed by Roger 'Tomorrow Never Dies' Spottiswood! Once it got down to jokes again it really was the worst film ever but the action was okay, or what I saw of it.
Excellent film courtesy of Ben Affleck, portraying the true story of the CIA's rescue of six US embassy personnel from 1980 Tehran. The six had escaped from the embassy when it was stormed by Khomeini supporters angry at the US for providing asylum to the deposed Shah. The six lived for almost three months with the Canadian ambassador, but the Canadians were about to pull up stakes, and the six probably would have been tried and executed as spies had they been discovered. So, the CIA needed to mount an operation to extract them. That operation ended up being a ruse involving a fake movie being scouted for locations in Iran.
Affleck plays the CIA mastermind behind the plan and the man sent to extract the group. John Goodman and Alan Arkin play a Hollywood makeup artist and producer, respectively, who are instrumental in setting up the elaborate cover story. I won't say too much more except that one mark of a good film is when you know what the outcome will be, yet the film is incredibly tense anyway. This film teems with tension, as the group must navigate numerous obstancles, among them many checkpoints staffed by suspicious Iranian soldiers. The fact that it's a true story makes it all the better.
Sir Hilary wrote a complete review so I will add that who ever did the casting did an excellent job finding some actors that looked quite like the six Americans that managed to make it out of the embassy. LIke Sir Hilary, even though I knew what was going to happen, my heart was racing during the climatic scene.
Note to anyone who attends the film, don't run out of the cinema when the film ends, the credits adds some interesting historical perspective to the film. Tony Mendez, the CIA agent that orchestrated the plot is a real life hero.
8.5/10 - The best Bond film since The World is not Enough (contentious choice I know, but the point is it's a lot better than the last 3!), and one of the better films all in all, though still not quite reaching the upper echelons of excellence. Has left me a heck of a lot more hopeful for Bond 24 than QoS did for Bond 23!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Last night a local cinema had a one night showing of the original Halloween, directed by John Carpenter and starring Jamie Lee Curtis. It had been a long time since I saw the original Halloween and I greatly enjoyed seeing the film on the big screen.
For those that don't know, Halloween tells the story of Michael Myers, Myers at the age of five killed his older sister and was sent away to a mental health institute. Halloween night, 15 years later, Myers escapes and returns to his hometown to kill again.
Halloween was made in 1978 for the miniscule budget of $300,000. Despite having a young director, an unknown cast and no money they managed to make a true horror classic. They did it by spending the money they had on the important things, they had an experienced crew, they used the best film stock, had the film processed at the top Hollywood production house at the time and used the latest in hand-held cameras. The film looks good and Director John Carpenter made outstanding use of the handheld camera as the filmgoer literally sees the victims through Michael Myers eyes.
The original film became a hit, helped by a 4-star Roger Ebert review, and has spawned many sequels. I think it is a shame so many sequels have been made because it lessens the original. Now, all the Halloween films are lumped together, which is too bad because none have come close to the original in terms of terror. The original film has five victims in it; one of the recent Halloween adaptions had 25 victims. The original film spends a lot of time building the suspense, the young girls see Myers, and then they don’t, the audience, through Myers eyes, sees the victims and hears Myers breathing, at times the audience can see Myers eyes in the shadows even though the girls cannot. Time is taken to develop the characters and create tension. The more recent films are more about the body count and the blood and gore.
As I mentioned Carpenter does an excellent job of building the suspense, Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role is excellent as Laurie, the good responsible girl who is spending Halloween night babysitting, unlike her girlfriends who are out with boyfriends. Donald Pleasance, who was hired for five days work on the picture, adds an authoritative presence as the doctor who has treated Myers and knows what Myers is capable of.
The theatre was fairly full and the audience applauded at the end, applause that was well deserved for a group of young actors and crew that made a classic.
Comments
Really enjoyed it, we even get the line "Put your trousers on. You,re Nicked!"
There's also a brilliant chase across London with a shoot out through Trafalgar Square.
Although Ray Winstone's heavy breathing and Sighs at times felt like he was either
out of breath or suffering from Asthma.
It was kind of on in the background, but I did quite enjoy what I saw. It actually reminded me (just slightly) of bond, in terms of the spy/secret agent elements.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I was reading this thread hoping someone had seen it. I was looking for an impartial review as its been hammered in the media.
Undecided whether to see it or not. Not sure even the fabulous Ray Winston can fill John Thaws shoes.
Is it true to the spirit of the original or just a British action movie ???
It's beautifuly filmed and the music is very Batman. But it pased a couple of hours and I
enjoyed it.
My only problem with it is "Plan b". I never warmed to his character even though he's one of the good guys,
He comes across as Nasty, and not very likeable.
Although You could wait and catch it on DVD as I don't think the Big Screen adds much to it.
I' d read that Plan B was one of the main problems with it .
Think I'll wait for the DVD ... Then I can drink a bottle of wine whilst I watch it. Everything is better with wine
Avengers Assemble - Unlike PotC: At World’s End and SpiderMan 3 this movie brings together several movies worth of plot and character development without being a bloated mess. Joss Whedon certainly had his ups and downs as a sci-fi/fantasy writer (Alien Resurrection?! Why Whedon, why?!) but he is clearly on the up with this movie (both as the writer and director) without things going to his head, producing a Marvel movie that’s the best since Iron Man. The plot is comparatively simple - Loki (Tom Hiddleston: Brits make the best bad guys) returns to Earth and is leading a massive invasion force of evil aliens, with SHIELD and its band of superhumans out to stop them. That’s pretty much it: why should it be more complicated, crashing under its own weight? The final battle in Manhattan is pretty reminiscent of TF: Dark of the Moon but seems to mesh with the rest of the movie much better and had more emotional weight to it. CGI effects have really come a long way in the past 15 years, blending the actors in better than the SW Prequels did, doing a lot of stuff that wouldn’t be possible or would look ugly only a decade or so ago. There’s a very strong ensemble cast with Robert Downey Jr. and Samuel L. Jackson being very reliable yet very predictable, with the surprise stars of the movie being Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk (the third guy in a row) and Clark Gregg as a high ranking SHIELD officer (who had been in many other earlier Marvel films). Also Scarlett Johansson had more to do and was a bit better in her Black Widow role than in Iron Man 2. The movie title has been localised for the UK (so it would not be confused with the cult 1960s British TV show with the same title). Also watch out for Harry Dean Stanton in a small cameo. 9/10
Porco Rosso - Part action adventure part noir, this Studio Ghibli animation set around interwar Italy featuring Porco Rosso, a mercenary pilot, who happens to be part pig, a pugnacious pirate gang, a free spirited mechanic girl, and a rival mercenary pilot from America. The animation features really great depictions of period aircraft and automobiles, but I was left a little cold by the dubbing (Michael Keaton seemed too disinterested and Cary Elwes’ cod Southern accent is unintentionally funny). The late 1920s/early 1930s setting gives this animated feature an Indiana Jones feel, but it seems to lack depth and believability in comparison to Miyazaki’s other fictional settings (high technology in Laputa and Nausicaa, with high magic in Spirited Away, Ponyo, and Howl’s Moving Castle which makes you accept the crazy Miyazaki visuals). With the fairly factual backdrop of Fascist Italy, it just makes you wonder how a humanoid pig wandering about and interacting with people without provoking profound disbelief or horror everywhere he goes, making him a priority target for immediate capture and scientific research by every authority. This movie was worth watching, but not enough to make me watch it again and again. Perhaps my comparatively lukewarm reaction to this is down to Studio Ghibli burnout? 6/10
Monsters - Part travelogue, part romance, and weird monster invasion movie, set in an alternative reality where a massive and hostile alien ecology has taken a foothold in a no-go zone in Mexico, with the US Military and allied forces perpetually fighting the gigantic alien creatures who occasionally emerge from the restricted region and violently trample through populated areas. Amidst this madness a vagabond photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) is forced to escort a VIP‘s daughter (Whitney Able) across the dangerous monster/military infested wilderness. Unbelievably made on a virtually non existent budget of less than a million dollars, the homebrewed CGI effects on Gareth Edwards’ laptop depicting the crab/octopus shaped alien beasties convinces. But despite the talent it almost vanishes up its own backside with its heavy political commentary and plays with the geography a bit. 6/10
I've decided to start working through a Hitchcock box set I got a few years ago and so picked this one out, mainly due to it being the only title I had heard of that I hadn't already watched.
I knew nothing about it beforehand which was fantastic and I'm tempted to try that with a modern movie - just walk into the cinema and pick a title that sounds good, which I've seen no trailers for.
It started well, dipped off and then picked up again for the majority of the film. It had felt like there wasn't enough happening and then everything was happening! The bit in the Albert Hall was magnificent. Certainly the most drawn out suspense I've seen in a Hitchcock movie and I had to admire him for that. I've always liked James Stewart in Hitchcock movies and once again he didn't disappoint, Doris Day was pretty good too.
Unfortunately the passage of time hasn't been kind to some of the scenes in Morocco. The rear projection looks horrendous from a modern perspective and it seemed quite pointless to. At first I thought that perhaps it was because they hadn't filmed any of it with the actors in Morocco. Yet later I could see they had and I couldn't understand why they didn't just have the actors in shot, amongst things that they had to film anyway. I try to approach old films in context, but I found this element of the film particularly difficult to accept.
Next Hitchcock film will be Rope.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Not only that, but FiB didn't have John Barry's amazing score. Ipcress File has got the Thunderball vibe to it, same kind of orchestration, and of course Guy Doleman is in both films.
Caine is iconic, but I suppose it's a sign of getting older that his insubordinate streak seems quite overdone in the first quarter of an hour, akin to real life as pornography is to sex; act like that in real life and you'd be thrown out. Oh, the barman from UK series Minder, also seen in a small role in Get Carter, shows up too, briefly.
Top film, because of the calibre of character actors back then. I mean, Gordon Jackson, fab actor, but look how little he had to work with! But he nails it. Same in a way with Nigel Greene, just top of his game as the cold fish Dalby.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I was very disappointed. I enjoyed the original Bourne trilogy very much. I was quite willing to embrace a Bourne film without Jason Bourne, but it just didn't work for me. I didn't find becoming interested in the characters or the plot, and I was bored for pretty much the whole film. My interest spiked only during the extended foot/bike chase, which had some excitement but was also just a rehash of what had come before. And the ending was awful, it lacked the cool factor of the endings to Supremacy and Ultimatum. The only reason I knew it was the ending was because the Moby song started - it didn't feel like an ending at all.
So far this was the only film ive walked out on, i fell asleep halfway though it as well.
I am a fan of Western movies, and have a particular liking for the Italian Westerns as it was the Sergio Leone films which first got me interested in the genre. I quickly discovered however, that Leone's work was of a much higher quality than the other 'spaghetti' Westerns. However, I have found that there are other good examples of spaghetti westerns to be found, and another Sergio - Sergio Corbucci - is one of the most respected directors in the genre.
Set during the Mexican revolution, The Mercenary is an exciting, entertaining film and is probably the best non-Leone example of a spaghetti Western I have seen. It has everything you would expect of the genre - bags of visual style, plenty of wit, a great Ennio Morricone score, and slightly questionable dubbing! Franco Nero, Jack Palance and Tony Musante are the stars. The lead character is a Polish mercenary who forms an uneasy alliance with Mexican peon-turned-revolutionary Paco Roman. Palance plays Curly, a man who wants revenge on Paco and his band. This leads, in true spaghetti western tradition, to a showdown in an arena, which i thought was the most memorable sequence in the film.
Corbucci isn't quite the genius that Sergio Leone was, but the two films of his that I have seen so far (the other being Django) suggest that he is a good director in the genre. If you like spaghetti Westerns, I highly recommend The Mercenary.
Richard Gere plays a billionaire New York hedge fund owner with everything seemingly going his way -- spectacular wealth, a loving family (including a whip-smart daughter who works for him) and the respect of high society. Of course, all is not as it seems -- his hedge fund company has a $400M hole in its assets which could jeopardize his attempts to sell it, his mistress is a slightly unstable young art gallery owner who is becoming impatient with being the girl on the side, and an accident results in a death which could be pinned on him.
Not surprisingly, all comes crashing down, or at least threatens to. It is fun watching the character hang on by the narrowest of margins, aided by a crafty lawyer and the son of an old friend. But the film is also trying to tell too many stories at once, which means that none of them is given enough depth to really resonate.
6/10
For reasons unimportant, last week I finally got premium cable (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.) in my home. Last Thursday, while browsing in my new on-demand candy store, I noticed that all 10 episodes of The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin's new series, were available for free viewing...but only until today (Monday 24 Sept.). That meant my wife and I had to somehow squeeze in all 10 episodes over a four-day period, lest we (heaven forbid!) have to pay for them afterward. This is not our typical viewing pattern, so I was dubious about our chances. Well, we did it.
The Newsroom tells the story of a nightly cable news broadcast anchored by Will McAvoy (a fabulous Jeff Daniels). McAvoy is a burned-out newsman and a prickly, lonely man who has reduced himself to presenting the least offensive broadcast possible in an attempt to keep viewers. Speaking on a panel at a major university, he finally snaps and embarks on a multi-minute rant (classic Sorkin device) about the state of America that both earns him a forced vacation and rekindles his desire to do "real" news.
His boss (Sam Waterston, sporting a bowtie designed to identify him as both a liberal and an old-style newsman) hires a new Executive Producer (EP) for Will -- his ex-girlfriend McKenzie McHale, a British-sounding American played by Emily Mortimer. "Will and Mac" as they are known, have a volatile personal history but work well together. Other characters include Will's slightly cynical former EP, a pretty but socially clueless economics reporter (Olivia Munn) and several younger newsroom staffers with seemingly limitless ability to pull all-nighters. Everyone is thrown together in the large bullpen of a newsroom, preparing for the nightly broadcast.
Sound familiar? It should. It's basically the same format as Sorkin's previous television effort, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. What's also familiar are the usual Sorkin elements -- lots of rapid-fire dialogue, preachy characters who are amazingly informed on important issues of the day, light comedy as stress relief, clumsy romantic subplots, and liberal views delivered as if they were unbiased facts. Like The West Wing and Studio 60, background characters become figures of public adulation or scrutiny. In the real world, no one outside their particular circles cares much about mid-level White House staffers, sketch comedy writers or junior news producers, but in Sorkin's world they are well-known people among the general populace.
What is different about this show, both its best and worst asset, is that it is set in "the recent past" and incorporates real events and their news coverage into the episode plots. The BP Deepwater spill, Gabrielle Giffords' shooting, the rise of the Tea Party, the Egyptian uprising and the death of Osama bin Laden are among the events that serve as vehicles to drive the stories. This provides Sorkin with 20/20 hindsight as he shows how he believes those events should have been covered. Very convenient.
Reading until now, you might assume that I am not a fan, but I actually am. I doubt that Aaron Sorkin and I have many political views in common, but he really is a good writer of entertaining material. The thing is, you must suspend disbelief when watching this show, which is probably his most idealistic yet. If you can do that, and you can get over the reality that nothing Sorkin does in TV will be as good as The West Wing was, The Newsroom is worth your time.
Just spread it out a bit more than I did over the last three days!
Baseball serves as a backdrop for a father daughter relationship story starring Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams. Eastwood is a baseball scout who has spent his life driving from amateur baseball game to amateur baseball game looking for the next major league star. He is the scout who discovered some of the greats, but it has been a while since he has discovered anyone and the executives in the front office believe it may be time for him to retire.
Amy Adams is Eastwood's daughter a successful attorney who spent her childhood years traveling with her dad after the death of her mother, but eventually was sent to live with an aunt and uncle. Her relationship with her father is now strained as he rejects any effort by her to help him or resume a "normal" relationship.
Despite having to prepare for a big case, she takes some time off to try and help her dad when she learns he may be losing his eyesight. From there the film focuses on her attempts to emotionally reach her father while maintaining her own emotional distance from several men who are interested in her.
After a summer of big budget action packed films, this film was a nice change-of-pace. The film moves along slowly, the focus is on the actors and they all shine. Amy Adams nails the role of a high price lawyer who underneath her business suits knows more about baseball then most men. Eastwood, in a role similar to the role he played in Gran Torino, is excellent as the cantankerous old baseball scout who is angry at growing old and refusing to accept that his eyesight and other body parts don't work so well. Justin Timberlake and John Goodman have supporting roles that they handle well.
The film has some plot twists that I enjoyed and even though the ending is a little too neat, I enjoyed the film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Three young Mossad agents (two men and and woman) go undercover in 1965 East Berlin, where they are assigned to kidnap a notorious Nazi concentration camp doctor to bring to Israel for trial. Of course, things go awry and they are unable to get out of Berlin, leading to tension both among the three agents and with the doctor they have kidnapped, who delights in tormenting them even though he is the captive. Everything eventually explodes into a climax that brings great notoriety to the agents. Flash forward 30 years, and they are faced with some nasty ramifications of their decisions way back when.
This is a decent film that could have been a great one. The East Berlin scenes brim with Cold War tension and claustrophobia, and the acting is mostly good, including Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds as the older agents haunted by their experiences. There is also some nifty misdirection early in the film that uses the "unreliable narrator" device as well as I can remember it being used. However, the whole film feels a little haphazard and rushed, with the ending especially seeming as if it were tacked on quickly. The film was shot in 2009 and made a minor splash on US screens only in 2011, and I can understand why.
Not actually billed as a film in the Radio Times, this TV special from Christmas 1967 is notorious for marking the beginning of the end for The Beatles, being wholly inappropriate for Xmas Day telly with the grandparents watching on, not only that but it was shown in black and white when its main selling point was the garish, trippy colour.
It was preceded by a documentary, and maybe it was that or lowered expectations but do you know, I found the actual film quite enjoyable. A lot of the offbeat humour has aged quite well, what with Vic and Bob doing their schtick more recently. What looked horrible in the I am the Walrus video, with the Beatles dressed as animals, now looks really current, after Super Furry Animals and Coldplay doing the same sort of thing. And overall, it's probably the last time you ever saw Lennon look so damned happy! The scene where he's piling up the spagetti is like Mr Creosote in The Meaning of Life. The whole film is just weird, rather like David Lynch as starring the Beatles.
And I have to say, I've been more awkward and/or bored during the other Beatle films that are supposed to be so much better. MMT only went on for about 70 mins.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Liam Neeson is Bryan Mills a man with a particular set of skills, which is killing everyone that tries ro take his family members. In the original Taken his daughter was kidnapped to be put in the international sex trade business. Dad killed everyone involved, so now the Albanian families of those that were killed seek vengeness by taking Neeson and his wife.
The movie running time is just over 90 minutes, short by today's standard. The short running time is because there is almost no plot development as we are only about 15 minutes into the film when Neeson and his wife, Famke Janssen are taken From there the film is just about wall to wall chase scenes and shoot-outs.
I will start by saying the original Taken was a better film, that film took its time and built to a great climax. This film is in such a hurry to get to the action that you never build any feeling for the characters. That isn't to say the action scenes are not good, several are very good, others rely on some old cliche scenes that we have seen in action films before.
Neeson and Maggie Grace who plays the daughter are very good, Janssen is given little to do, which is a shame. The Istanbul scenes look reaistic and add a sense of realism to the film.
Unless you are big fan of Neeson, I would suggest you wait for the DVD.
I seem to have an unintended interest in films directed by John Madden, who also directed The Debt, my most recent entry a few posts above this one. I had no idea he directed either one until the final credits rolled. Anyhow...
Seven retirement-age Britons each decide to live out their golden years in Jaipur, India, lured by an online sales pitch of a lovely new hotel/retirement community there. The group consists of:
-- A recently widowed woman (Judi Dench) whose husband managed all household finances and left her without a nest egg nor much of a clue of how to rebuild one. Her flat is her only real asset and needs to be sold.
-- A quiet 30-year civil servant (Bill Nighy) with a brittle, high-strung, bitter wife. They have lost most of their savings investing in their daughter's internet start-up, and their retirement options in England are not promising.
-- A high court judge (Tom Wilkinson) who is fed up with his job and wants to return to his childhood home in India to find a lost love.
-- A divorced woman who is reasonably well-off financially but tired of babysitting her grandchildren and seeks a husband to revitalize her.
-- An older man with a younger man's libido but no outlet for it. The dating scene is not working.
-- A lifetime domestic (Maggie Smith) whose employer has let her go. She is a virulent racist but accepts going to India because she can get a needed hip transplant there without waiting the necessary six months in England.
This somewhat motley crew travel together to the new, lovely hotel...which of course turns out to be nothing of the type. Instead, it is a ramshackle establishment run by Sonny (Dev Patel) who is long on enthusiasm and salesmanship but short on money and business acumen. He has a girlfriend who works at the local call center and a disapproving mother who wants jhim to give up his silly hotel dream, come back to Delhi and marry someone more suitable.
The potential plot directions are fairly easy to guess in advance. What relationships will take hold (or be broken) among the seven pensioners? Who will like India, and who will not? Will the hotel survive? Will Sonny and his girlfriend survive as a couple? For the most part, these questions are answered in predictable, convenient and pleasant ways. The pensioners generally find what they are looking for, even if it just a better sense of self. In doing so, they enlighten Sonny -- and vice versa.
Despite the predictability and occasional hokeyness, there is a charm about the film that I found enjoyable. Perhaps it was watching some stellar British acting talent in fine form. Perhaps it was that the pensioners are roughly the same age as my own parents. Whatever it was, I liked the film more than I expected to. It made me smile, simple as that.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Excellent film courtesy of Ben Affleck, portraying the true story of the CIA's rescue of six US embassy personnel from 1980 Tehran. The six had escaped from the embassy when it was stormed by Khomeini supporters angry at the US for providing asylum to the deposed Shah. The six lived for almost three months with the Canadian ambassador, but the Canadians were about to pull up stakes, and the six probably would have been tried and executed as spies had they been discovered. So, the CIA needed to mount an operation to extract them. That operation ended up being a ruse involving a fake movie being scouted for locations in Iran.
Affleck plays the CIA mastermind behind the plan and the man sent to extract the group. John Goodman and Alan Arkin play a Hollywood makeup artist and producer, respectively, who are instrumental in setting up the elaborate cover story. I won't say too much more except that one mark of a good film is when you know what the outcome will be, yet the film is incredibly tense anyway. This film teems with tension, as the group must navigate numerous obstancles, among them many checkpoints staffed by suspicious Iranian soldiers. The fact that it's a true story makes it all the better.
I definitely recommend.
Sir Hilary wrote a complete review so I will add that who ever did the casting did an excellent job finding some actors that looked quite like the six Americans that managed to make it out of the embassy. LIke Sir Hilary, even though I knew what was going to happen, my heart was racing during the climatic scene.
Note to anyone who attends the film, don't run out of the cinema when the film ends, the credits adds some interesting historical perspective to the film. Tony Mendez, the CIA agent that orchestrated the plot is a real life hero.
Highly recommend.
8.5/10 - The best Bond film since The World is not Enough (contentious choice I know, but the point is it's a lot better than the last 3!), and one of the better films all in all, though still not quite reaching the upper echelons of excellence. Has left me a heck of a lot more hopeful for Bond 24 than QoS did for Bond 23!
Last night a local cinema had a one night showing of the original Halloween, directed by John Carpenter and starring Jamie Lee Curtis. It had been a long time since I saw the original Halloween and I greatly enjoyed seeing the film on the big screen.
For those that don't know, Halloween tells the story of Michael Myers, Myers at the age of five killed his older sister and was sent away to a mental health institute. Halloween night, 15 years later, Myers escapes and returns to his hometown to kill again.
Halloween was made in 1978 for the miniscule budget of $300,000. Despite having a young director, an unknown cast and no money they managed to make a true horror classic. They did it by spending the money they had on the important things, they had an experienced crew, they used the best film stock, had the film processed at the top Hollywood production house at the time and used the latest in hand-held cameras. The film looks good and Director John Carpenter made outstanding use of the handheld camera as the filmgoer literally sees the victims through Michael Myers eyes.
The original film became a hit, helped by a 4-star Roger Ebert review, and has spawned many sequels. I think it is a shame so many sequels have been made because it lessens the original. Now, all the Halloween films are lumped together, which is too bad because none have come close to the original in terms of terror. The original film has five victims in it; one of the recent Halloween adaptions had 25 victims. The original film spends a lot of time building the suspense, the young girls see Myers, and then they don’t, the audience, through Myers eyes, sees the victims and hears Myers breathing, at times the audience can see Myers eyes in the shadows even though the girls cannot. Time is taken to develop the characters and create tension. The more recent films are more about the body count and the blood and gore.
As I mentioned Carpenter does an excellent job of building the suspense, Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role is excellent as Laurie, the good responsible girl who is spending Halloween night babysitting, unlike her girlfriends who are out with boyfriends. Donald Pleasance, who was hired for five days work on the picture, adds an authoritative presence as the doctor who has treated Myers and knows what Myers is capable of.
The theatre was fairly full and the audience applauded at the end, applause that was well deserved for a group of young actors and crew that made a classic.