He was always shouty, but he went over the top and into HOO HAA mode in SCENT OF A WOMAN and never really stopped. He's managed to dial it back when necessary, like when he did THE INSIDER, but I think his instinct is to go big now.
I definitely felt Scent of a Woman was a turning point in the shouty stakes. I hated that film.
As I write this is not exactly 'last film seen' but will be later this evening!
I am going to watch Octopussy on my new 50" television. I have been saving hard to buy it and this will be the first James Bond film I have watched on it. I hope Roger Moore can almost leap out of the screen!
the Constant Gardener
adapted from le Carre
starring Ralph Fiennes (he's one of ours) and Rachel Weisz (she's married to one of ours, what was that fellows name again, oh you know who I mean, cant think of his name....)
A bit sleepy paced, but there's some valid reasons for that.
Its told through the eyes of a man experiencing traumatic grief following the murder of his wife, so much of it is flashbacks in a sort of dream state.
And the bulk of it takes place in Kenya, and is actually filmed there, in the villages and slums, with African music as its soundtrack, giving it all the sensation of a shimmering heat haze. Beautiful photography, depressing subject matter.
At the end is a quote from le Carre, asserting compared to what Big Pharma gets up to in reality, his story was a "holiday postcard"
I'm re-watching the Mission Impossible films and last night it was MI3, Good action
flick but the star of this outing has to be the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, what a
great performance he gave as the villain.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Bond fans of a certain age appreciate this 1970 drama, which gave a pre-Bond Roger Moore a chance to display his acting chops.
He plays a respectable, middle-aged married man with two kids and a successful place on the board who finds - just as an important merger is about to go through - that an imposter seems to be taking over his life. Just what is going on?
It all has a wonderfully seedy dreary British vibe to it.
And there a strangely prescient nods to the Bond films, even a reference to James Bond at one point, and I thought I recognised in the cast the actor who played the buffoonish colonel who loses at backgammon to Kamal Khan in Octopussy, but I could be wrong.
It's strange to see Anton Rogers - who later popped up in May to December sitcom and a small role in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels as the French police inspector looking so young.
There are anticipatory nods to other films such as Face/Off and another that if I name will spoil things.
Moore is excellent.
I hadn't seen this film since the VCR days and I was surprised by how good it is. The film is a mix of drama and comedy. Some scenes are almost slapstick, others are moving drama and even bloody horror. It shouldn't fit in the same film, but somehow it does. Dustin Hoffman is great in it. He actually holds the world reccord for longest age span portrayed by a actor in one movie - her plays Jack Crabb from age ten to 121!
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Two new films in the last few days: STAR WARS & CATS
STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER
Saw it at my newly refurbished Vue cinema on Thursday. It now has plush recliner seats. Very comfortable. It served me well for the film: I had a good sleep! I jest (a bit). The film is okay... sort of. When you hear the term 'bad film' it's difficult to know how to take it. If talking about competency of cinematic craft then this one's a winner. Technically it's a marvel. These films are fundamentally visual experiences & from that POV it works a treat. If 'bad' refers to narrative coherence & emotional investment then I'm afraid the film's woeful. There's a big scene where Rey & Kylo Ren face-off (again!?) amidst skyscraper sized waves. I found myself fascinated at the realism of the water. Not good when you're meant to be caring about yet another lightsabre duel between these two.
One of the beauties about the original trilogy was a simplicity of narrative. All were easy to follow. Beginning with the prequels there seemed to be a need to afford these films a profundity they didn't deserve. This one carries on that trend. Plot-points are fired at you left, right & centre, to a point I honestly didn't know what was going on. The film feels as though it's been hastily rewritten to achieve a release date. This last crop of films appear to have endured troubled production histories with original personnel jumping ship to be replaced by a safe pair of hands (Ron Howard on SOLO, J.J. Abrams on this). Abrams got the tone right for FORCE AWAKENS, recalling as it did the original films. But he was working from scratch on that one. Here it feels he's having to unravel a set of ideas that weren't working: effectively applying plasters to large open wounds. He does okay with some aspects but not all. It's all over the place with characters suddenly stating they're related to each other in a way which makes it resemble an episode of WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? And one character suddenly changes allegiances in a way that clearly smacks of a plot contrivance to get our heroes out of a hole.
There's a decent line in wit throughout & the middle section features some nice running around shiny corridors blasting lasers. But the rest is a bit of a drag & there's too much fanboy pandering (Ewoks make an appearance during the slushy climax). As much as John Williams' score swells & Daisy Ridley blubs (her eyes are rarely dry throughout) there's no emotional involvement. I don't enjoy slagging it off - these films are part of my cultural DNA - & there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours but this really is a bit lazy. There are lots of things going on but not actually anything going on. There is one good sight gag involving a torch & lightsabre that went unnoticed, but I chuckled.
CATS
Saw this on Friday. I can honestly say I can't remember a film that's received such unanimously bad reviews. And for the life of me I cannot see why. In short, I enjoyed it. Not a perfect film, but the weaknesses are down to a couple of lacklustre songs as opposed to its visual imagining. The CGI effects worked fine - it's basically the stage show with digital tinkering as opposed to leotards. It comes down to this: do you like the original stage musical? If so, it's a cinematic replica. If not, then nothing will make it better. I found the stage show okay if a little over-rated. But I was about fourteen at the time & more excited about being in London. There are times you have to make a lone stand against much opposition. This is a case in point. Many will undoubtedly disagree.
Maybe there is, but I must say for the most part I loved it B-) I'm of the age (51) where Star Wars was a huge deal for me as a kid, but I'm no SW geek, and I don't ask, or want, to be served.... However, seeing it with my two boys, one of whom is 9 and therefore the same age as me when my mum first took me to see A New Hope, I could not help but to be moved by certain parts of this conclusion, and in seeing his overwhelming joy in the fun and excitement of it all..... Maybe I'm a soppy sentimentalist, but I enjoyed the references, which felt right in the context of this being a conclusion; and yes, it took me back.... As a family, with my older son (14) and wife (who didn't do SW as a kid) we all loved it!... I find the huge negative critical reception way over the top, and just a sign of the times we live in, where everything is torn apart, and all the joy is sucked away. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, or without fault (and I agree with a lot of your points) but, as a fun bit of fantasy escapism it's a very enjoyable movie.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Maybe there is, but I must say for the most part I loved it B-) I'm of the age (51) where Star Wars was a huge deal for me as a kid, but I'm no SW geek, and I don't ask, or want, to be served.... However, seeing it with my two boys, one of whom is 9 and therefore the same age as me when my mum first took me to see A New Hope, I could not help but to be moved by certain parts of this conclusion, and in seeing his overwhelming joy in the fun and excitement of it all..... Maybe I'm a soppy sentimentalist, but I enjoyed the references, which felt right in the context of this being a conclusion; and yes, it took me back.... As a family, with my older son (14) and wife (who didn't do SW as a kid) we all loved it!... I find the huge negative critical reception way over the top, and just a sign of the times we live in, where everything is torn apart, and all the joy is sucked away. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, or without fault (and I agree with a lot of your points) but, as a fun bit of fantasy escapism it's a very enjoyable movie.
I too am 51 & remember the joy of finally seeing the first film in February, 1978. My dad hates sci-fi & it took that long to persuade him to take me. I can understand the pleasure of rekindling the past with your own children. I have no children & can only see as I find. To me it does a dis-service to hardcore fans. THE FORCE AWAKENS felt a more magical film. This just feels... well, a bit lazy. But I hardly think my view counts for much in the scheme of things. It appears to be making a mint for Disney.
Star Wars: The Rise of Somebody (after watching it I really don't care who rose)
It's really not good, not as bad as the last one but still bad. They've rehashed Carrie Fisher's unused scenes from the previous film and wrote a story around them, unfortunately the story was bad
J J Abrams has nailed the final nail into the coffin that Rian Johnson built
The 7th Dawn (1964). This was directed by Lewis Gilbert, and I have to think it's the film that suggested to the Bond producers that Gilbert should direct YOLT: it's set in the far east (Malaysia) and utilizes Freddie Young's cinematography to create vast, sweeping images that are exotic and beautiful. It also foregrounds YOLT in the casting of Tetsuro Tana (Tamba) in a major role and a couple of shoot-em-ups and mano-a-mano fights. . .and just as YOLT has Connery putting on "yellow" face as a Japanese peasant, this one has Capucine yellowing it up as a Malay mistress. As for the story: William Holden is very much a Bogart kind of character as a loner in Malaysia during the political machinations surrounding its independence from Britain. Kind of slow and talky, but not without interest.
Bridge of Spies (2015) directed by Steven Spielberg.
I've seen this one before, but it's a very good cold was spy thriller. Smart, atmospheric and a little known story. NB: Tom Hanks' character is portrayed as an ordinary lawyer who happened to be involved in the Nuremberg trails, but he was just an down to earth guy. In reality he was the top legal advicer of the OSS (the US inteligence service) duting WWII.
It's also worth mentining that Billy Magnusen plays a supporting role.
After watching some Star Wars, currently re-watching Spielberg's Lincoln.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Bridge of Spies (2015) directed by Steven Spielberg.
I was trying to remember this film the other week as I was reading Deighton's Funeral in Berlin.
We watch the Wall being built over the course of the film. One westerner gets caught on the wrong side of it as the bricks are being cemented into place. Later on Hanks witnesses an easterner being shot down as he tries to cross the "No Mans Land". Then finally there is the big exchange on the bridge.
wikipedia tells me they took a lot of poetic license, compressing unrelated events to show us the construction and impact of the Wall within the time of the plot structure. But I appreciate how they were able to bring all that to life and visualize it for us.
I saw this TV-movie on Youtube last night, mainly because it stars Roger Moore. I think it was well made and acted, but nothing really impressive. Sir Roger got the chance to stretch his acting a bit, especially in the scenes where Sherlock is in disguise. If you watch this you'll see some plot points and scenes that borders on a Edwardian Goldfinger and I enjoyed that. This moie is nice for a lazy Sunday afternoon, but it wasn't cheated at the Emmy's.
This movie stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood. The plot is inspired by a true story. An old man who gets into economic problems is recruited by a Mexican drug cartel to smuggle drugs for them. In the making of Eastwood says he wanted to make a movie that was different from what he's made before, and he succeded in that. First of all he plays a very flawed man, something he does well. There's very little heroic about the man he plays. He's never looked this old on the screen before, even struggling to get up from a chair. Not surprising considering his advanced years (he's 89), but according to his co-star Bradly Cooper this is an acting choise. Clint Eastwood is in very good shape. Keep your eyes open for his wardrobe, because he's wearing clothes from his earlier movies!
I finally got around to watching the Netflix original (which is getting some Oscar buzz), Dolemite Is My Name! Eddie Murphy puts in his best performance since--well, maybe forever--as Rudy Ray Moore, the comedian/record store owner/musician/ etc. who created the character of Dolemite and then moved heaven and earth to get a movie about him made. It's sort of an Ed Wood of the Blaxploitation movement--and it's just as much fun.
How much time did the filmmakers worry about political correctnes while making this Movie in South Africa? Probably even less time than they spent making sure the plot was true to actual events. The two male leads (Roger Moore and Lee Marvin) start out as ivory hunters and near the end Roger is in blackface! )
But I liked the movie. It's entertaining and full of adventure and Roger Moore has an arch from Eton graduate fresh of the boat to seasoned though guy out for revenge. I've actually never seen him look so convincingly though in any movie before. This is the film where Roger Moore got in a real fight on set with Lee Marvin and beat him up. Lee Marvin is obviously belivable as a heavy drinker. This is the film where Roger Moore got in a fight on set with Lee Marvin and beat him up.
Well worth watching!
I just got back from seeing 1917 and Mendes and Deakins deserve the accolades they’ve been getting. (Roger will win the cinematography Oscar in a walk.) The story is stripped down so the emphasis is on the spectacle. There are some shots and sequences that I’ve never seen before in film which is saying something given how well-trodden the ground is for war movies. The Newman score reminded me of Skyfall, I have to admit! )
Re-watched Spielberg's War Horse, and Catch Me if You Can before that. The latter is definitely rewatchable for me, the former, while imo a great film, is significantly less rewatchable.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
When eight bells toll :
First film for Anthony Hopkins, I have this on DVD but watched it on a YouTube channel
which shows old films. Shout at the devil is another on their list.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The Man with Two Brains
directed by Carl Reiner
starring Steve Martin
and Kathleen Turner, who had previously taken off all her clothes in a different movie with a nice noir-style John Barry soundtrack.
"What Bond movie is this still from?" you may ask. It's not from a Bond film, it's from:
The Sea Wolves (1980)
In my opinion this is the best film Roger Moore made outside the Bonds, at least of those I've seen so far. It balances humour and the darker moments better than most of his films. The plot is based on real events during WWII: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Creek).
Some of the cars, costumes and guns look too modern to me, but it doesn't destroy the film for me.
The Germans were transmitting shipping information to u-boats in the Indian Oacean from a (supposedly) civilian ship in Goa harbour. Goa was a colony of neutral Portugal, so the Allied forces couldn't be seen as involved in an attack. The SOE (Special Operations Executive) decided to use volunteers from Calcutta Light Horse, a territorial unit consiting of bankers, solicitors and the like who last saw combat in the Boer war. The film stars Roger Moore, Gregory Peck and David Niven - that's two cast memebers from "The Guns of Navarone" and James Bond. Patrick Macnee also has a supporting role. The advanced years of the cast works because of the plot, unlike AVTAK. Roger Moore's character is spy who gambles, womanizes and wears a tux for a while. He also Plays the role closer to his James Bond and public persona than he did in "Scherlock Holmes in New York" and "shout at the devil".
The movie is an adventure with spying, humor, exotic locations and action. If you (like me) likes that kind of stuff and you're a Roger Moore fan this film is highly recomended.
When eight bells toll :
First film for Anthony Hopkins, I have this on DVD but watched it on a YouTube channel
which shows old films. Shout at the devil is another on their list.
I've seen this Youtube channel (I assume you are referring to Flick Vault)...and there are a few films on their list that I would like to check out. When Eight Bells Toll is one of them. From what I've heard it is a film worth checking out. Shout at the Devil is a film I watched a number of years ago, although I must admit to being a little bored throughout - apart from the scenes involving a WWI era pusher biplane. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.
And on the subject of WWI...my all-time favourite guilty pleasure movie is on Flick Vault - Biggles: Adventures in Time. I read a fair few Biggles book in my childhood and was very excited to come across a Biggles movie in my local video rental shop as a kid. When I was a 10 year old the use of 80s electro-pop tunes to accompany a WWI dogfight scene didn't seem incongruous at all! I still think the film's cast is pretty decent. Neil Dickson makes a fine Biggles, and Peter Cushing plays Air Commodore Raymond. You may even recognise the occasional sexy French waitress from 'Allo 'Allo, as well as a porky X-wing pilot and one of Bertie's mates from Jeeves and Wooster.
Comments
So that was recall in Spectre?! It's all starting to make sense now...I think.
I definitely felt Scent of a Woman was a turning point in the shouty stakes. I hated that film.
I am going to watch Octopussy on my new 50" television. I have been saving hard to buy it and this will be the first James Bond film I have watched on it. I hope Roger Moore can almost leap out of the screen!
adapted from le Carre
starring Ralph Fiennes (he's one of ours) and Rachel Weisz (she's married to one of ours, what was that fellows name again, oh you know who I mean, cant think of his name....)
A bit sleepy paced, but there's some valid reasons for that.
Its told through the eyes of a man experiencing traumatic grief following the murder of his wife, so much of it is flashbacks in a sort of dream state.
And the bulk of it takes place in Kenya, and is actually filmed there, in the villages and slums, with African music as its soundtrack, giving it all the sensation of a shimmering heat haze. Beautiful photography, depressing subject matter.
At the end is a quote from le Carre, asserting compared to what Big Pharma gets up to in reality, his story was a "holiday postcard"
flick but the star of this outing has to be the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, what a
great performance he gave as the villain.
It was good!
A sleazy unofficial remake of Double Indemnity starring Jessica (Kathleen Turner) Rabbit.
Of interest to us because it has a spooky hypnotic noir style soundtrack from John Barry.
Of interest to those of us who saw the movie in 1981 with a naked circa 1981 Kathleen Turner.
Bond fans of a certain age appreciate this 1970 drama, which gave a pre-Bond Roger Moore a chance to display his acting chops.
He plays a respectable, middle-aged married man with two kids and a successful place on the board who finds - just as an important merger is about to go through - that an imposter seems to be taking over his life. Just what is going on?
It all has a wonderfully seedy dreary British vibe to it.
And there a strangely prescient nods to the Bond films, even a reference to James Bond at one point, and I thought I recognised in the cast the actor who played the buffoonish colonel who loses at backgammon to Kamal Khan in Octopussy, but I could be wrong.
It's strange to see Anton Rogers - who later popped up in May to December sitcom and a small role in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels as the French police inspector looking so young.
There are anticipatory nods to other films such as Face/Off and another that if I name will spoil things.
Moore is excellent.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I hadn't seen this film since the VCR days and I was surprised by how good it is. The film is a mix of drama and comedy. Some scenes are almost slapstick, others are moving drama and even bloody horror. It shouldn't fit in the same film, but somehow it does. Dustin Hoffman is great in it. He actually holds the world reccord for longest age span portrayed by a actor in one movie - her plays Jack Crabb from age ten to 121!
STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER
Saw it at my newly refurbished Vue cinema on Thursday. It now has plush recliner seats. Very comfortable. It served me well for the film: I had a good sleep! I jest (a bit). The film is okay... sort of. When you hear the term 'bad film' it's difficult to know how to take it. If talking about competency of cinematic craft then this one's a winner. Technically it's a marvel. These films are fundamentally visual experiences & from that POV it works a treat. If 'bad' refers to narrative coherence & emotional investment then I'm afraid the film's woeful. There's a big scene where Rey & Kylo Ren face-off (again!?) amidst skyscraper sized waves. I found myself fascinated at the realism of the water. Not good when you're meant to be caring about yet another lightsabre duel between these two.
One of the beauties about the original trilogy was a simplicity of narrative. All were easy to follow. Beginning with the prequels there seemed to be a need to afford these films a profundity they didn't deserve. This one carries on that trend. Plot-points are fired at you left, right & centre, to a point I honestly didn't know what was going on. The film feels as though it's been hastily rewritten to achieve a release date. This last crop of films appear to have endured troubled production histories with original personnel jumping ship to be replaced by a safe pair of hands (Ron Howard on SOLO, J.J. Abrams on this). Abrams got the tone right for FORCE AWAKENS, recalling as it did the original films. But he was working from scratch on that one. Here it feels he's having to unravel a set of ideas that weren't working: effectively applying plasters to large open wounds. He does okay with some aspects but not all. It's all over the place with characters suddenly stating they're related to each other in a way which makes it resemble an episode of WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? And one character suddenly changes allegiances in a way that clearly smacks of a plot contrivance to get our heroes out of a hole.
There's a decent line in wit throughout & the middle section features some nice running around shiny corridors blasting lasers. But the rest is a bit of a drag & there's too much fanboy pandering (Ewoks make an appearance during the slushy climax). As much as John Williams' score swells & Daisy Ridley blubs (her eyes are rarely dry throughout) there's no emotional involvement. I don't enjoy slagging it off - these films are part of my cultural DNA - & there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours but this really is a bit lazy. There are lots of things going on but not actually anything going on. There is one good sight gag involving a torch & lightsabre that went unnoticed, but I chuckled.
CATS
Saw this on Friday. I can honestly say I can't remember a film that's received such unanimously bad reviews. And for the life of me I cannot see why. In short, I enjoyed it. Not a perfect film, but the weaknesses are down to a couple of lacklustre songs as opposed to its visual imagining. The CGI effects worked fine - it's basically the stage show with digital tinkering as opposed to leotards. It comes down to this: do you like the original stage musical? If so, it's a cinematic replica. If not, then nothing will make it better. I found the stage show okay if a little over-rated. But I was about fourteen at the time & more excited about being in London. There are times you have to make a lone stand against much opposition. This is a case in point. Many will undoubtedly disagree.
Maybe there is, but I must say for the most part I loved it B-) I'm of the age (51) where Star Wars was a huge deal for me as a kid, but I'm no SW geek, and I don't ask, or want, to be served.... However, seeing it with my two boys, one of whom is 9 and therefore the same age as me when my mum first took me to see A New Hope, I could not help but to be moved by certain parts of this conclusion, and in seeing his overwhelming joy in the fun and excitement of it all..... Maybe I'm a soppy sentimentalist, but I enjoyed the references, which felt right in the context of this being a conclusion; and yes, it took me back.... As a family, with my older son (14) and wife (who didn't do SW as a kid) we all loved it!... I find the huge negative critical reception way over the top, and just a sign of the times we live in, where everything is torn apart, and all the joy is sucked away. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, or without fault (and I agree with a lot of your points) but, as a fun bit of fantasy escapism it's a very enjoyable movie.
I too am 51 & remember the joy of finally seeing the first film in February, 1978. My dad hates sci-fi & it took that long to persuade him to take me. I can understand the pleasure of rekindling the past with your own children. I have no children & can only see as I find. To me it does a dis-service to hardcore fans. THE FORCE AWAKENS felt a more magical film. This just feels... well, a bit lazy. But I hardly think my view counts for much in the scheme of things. It appears to be making a mint for Disney.
It's really not good, not as bad as the last one but still bad. They've rehashed Carrie Fisher's unused scenes from the previous film and wrote a story around them, unfortunately the story was bad
J J Abrams has nailed the final nail into the coffin that Rian Johnson built
I've seen this one before, but it's a very good cold was spy thriller. Smart, atmospheric and a little known story. NB: Tom Hanks' character is portrayed as an ordinary lawyer who happened to be involved in the Nuremberg trails, but he was just an down to earth guy. In reality he was the top legal advicer of the OSS (the US inteligence service) duting WWII.
It's also worth mentining that Billy Magnusen plays a supporting role.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
We watch the Wall being built over the course of the film. One westerner gets caught on the wrong side of it as the bricks are being cemented into place. Later on Hanks witnesses an easterner being shot down as he tries to cross the "No Mans Land". Then finally there is the big exchange on the bridge.
wikipedia tells me they took a lot of poetic license, compressing unrelated events to show us the construction and impact of the Wall within the time of the plot structure. But I appreciate how they were able to bring all that to life and visualize it for us.
I saw this TV-movie on Youtube last night, mainly because it stars Roger Moore. I think it was well made and acted, but nothing really impressive. Sir Roger got the chance to stretch his acting a bit, especially in the scenes where Sherlock is in disguise. If you watch this you'll see some plot points and scenes that borders on a Edwardian Goldfinger and I enjoyed that. This moie is nice for a lazy Sunday afternoon, but it wasn't cheated at the Emmy's.
This movie stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood. The plot is inspired by a true story. An old man who gets into economic problems is recruited by a Mexican drug cartel to smuggle drugs for them. In the making of Eastwood says he wanted to make a movie that was different from what he's made before, and he succeded in that. First of all he plays a very flawed man, something he does well. There's very little heroic about the man he plays. He's never looked this old on the screen before, even struggling to get up from a chair. Not surprising considering his advanced years (he's 89), but according to his co-star Bradly Cooper this is an acting choise. Clint Eastwood is in very good shape. Keep your eyes open for his wardrobe, because he's wearing clothes from his earlier movies!
How much time did the filmmakers worry about political correctnes while making this Movie in South Africa? Probably even less time than they spent making sure the plot was true to actual events. The two male leads (Roger Moore and Lee Marvin) start out as ivory hunters and near the end Roger is in blackface!
But I liked the movie. It's entertaining and full of adventure and Roger Moore has an arch from Eton graduate fresh of the boat to seasoned though guy out for revenge. I've actually never seen him look so convincingly though in any movie before. This is the film where Roger Moore got in a real fight on set with Lee Marvin and beat him up. Lee Marvin is obviously belivable as a heavy drinker. This is the film where Roger Moore got in a fight on set with Lee Marvin and beat him up.
Well worth watching!
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
First film for Anthony Hopkins, I have this on DVD but watched it on a YouTube channel
which shows old films. Shout at the devil is another on their list.
directed by Carl Reiner
starring Steve Martin
and Kathleen Turner, who had previously taken off all her clothes in a different movie with a nice noir-style John Barry soundtrack.
"What Bond movie is this still from?" you may ask. It's not from a Bond film, it's from:
The Sea Wolves (1980)
In my opinion this is the best film Roger Moore made outside the Bonds, at least of those I've seen so far. It balances humour and the darker moments better than most of his films. The plot is based on real events during WWII: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Creek).
Some of the cars, costumes and guns look too modern to me, but it doesn't destroy the film for me.
The Germans were transmitting shipping information to u-boats in the Indian Oacean from a (supposedly) civilian ship in Goa harbour. Goa was a colony of neutral Portugal, so the Allied forces couldn't be seen as involved in an attack. The SOE (Special Operations Executive) decided to use volunteers from Calcutta Light Horse, a territorial unit consiting of bankers, solicitors and the like who last saw combat in the Boer war. The film stars Roger Moore, Gregory Peck and David Niven - that's two cast memebers from "The Guns of Navarone" and James Bond. Patrick Macnee also has a supporting role. The advanced years of the cast works because of the plot, unlike AVTAK. Roger Moore's character is spy who gambles, womanizes and wears a tux for a while. He also Plays the role closer to his James Bond and public persona than he did in "Scherlock Holmes in New York" and "shout at the devil".
The movie is an adventure with spying, humor, exotic locations and action. If you (like me) likes that kind of stuff and you're a Roger Moore fan this film is highly recomended.
I've seen this Youtube channel (I assume you are referring to Flick Vault)...and there are a few films on their list that I would like to check out. When Eight Bells Toll is one of them. From what I've heard it is a film worth checking out. Shout at the Devil is a film I watched a number of years ago, although I must admit to being a little bored throughout - apart from the scenes involving a WWI era pusher biplane. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.
And on the subject of WWI...my all-time favourite guilty pleasure movie is on Flick Vault - Biggles: Adventures in Time. I read a fair few Biggles book in my childhood and was very excited to come across a Biggles movie in my local video rental shop as a kid. When I was a 10 year old the use of 80s electro-pop tunes to accompany a WWI dogfight scene didn't seem incongruous at all! I still think the film's cast is pretty decent. Neil Dickson makes a fine Biggles, and Peter Cushing plays Air Commodore Raymond. You may even recognise the occasional sexy French waitress from 'Allo 'Allo, as well as a porky X-wing pilot and one of Bertie's mates from Jeeves and Wooster.