I watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood a couple months back, good to see some discussion on it
first of all @Joshua I suspect Tarantino may just not be for you. Plot is not the main thing with his films, structure is more important, and he plays with the structure to make it a deliberately artificial experience. In every way imaginable he tries to reveal the artifice so that we do not suspend disbelief. Instead we are meant to think of the history of film while we watch his shallow stereotyped character stumble through typical plots we think we've seen before. Its almost like watching a film parody.
Enjoyment of Tarantino really depends on knowing the source material he's drawing from, so its a bit elitist that way. You cant just watch his films without background knowledge, though he's usually funny enough even if you don't get the references. And I certainly don't get half the references, Tarantino will always be hipper than the rest of us put together. Pulp Fiction for example is much more entertaining if you know the films John Travolta did in his youth, from the moment we see him we should all be wondering will he dance? and then he does!.
He reminds me of Mel Brooks in that sense. There's a Pauline Kael review where she savaged Blazing Saddles, saying all Brooks is doing is precisely replicating old film tropes, now with added fart jokes. Then when Star Wars came out, the same critic did not compare Star Wars to other contemporary scifi , she compared it to Blazing Saddles, saying it too was regurgitating old forms instead of doing something new, In a sense all film since has been that sort of self-aware regurgitation of old films. The medium has been round so long maybe we can never expect anything truly original again? Tarantino seems to be an evolutionary step beyond that, selfaware that everybody knows all he is doing is recycling, and then making that selfawareness itself the actual subject of his film.
anyway thats Tarantino in general. As for this specific film...
When I saw the film I asked if maybe Brad Pitt's character is imaginary. That was a joke, because there's this other film he did where he turns out to be imaginary. some folks might not have seen that earlier brad Pitt so I wont spoil it. The first rule is you don't talk about that film!
But plot and character wise it almost makes sense. diCaprio's character is such an impotent washed up has-been, and his underpaid stuntman turned chauffeur is so selfconfident and carefree, it almost seems as if Pitt is a wish fulfillment fantasy, the type of idealised self diCaprio knows he can no longer be. And I'm not sure if any characters other than the Manson family can see Pitt's character, he seems to mostly interact with diCaprio when nobody else is around.
anyway I googled a bit to see if that interpretation's a thing. And its not, I'm the only one stupid enough to come up with that theory. Turns out theres a much better theory. and I better spoiler tag the rest
First of all, this film may have the happiest ending of any Tarantino film. Certainly happier than we know this same story played out in real life. (and like Basterds, he is rewriting actual history to show how cinema's power of imagination can save the world).
The thing is, all that alternate history actually begins at a specific moment towards the ends. Remember Pitt purchases the cigarette soaked in liquid LSD and decides to go for a walk and smoke it after diCaprio has told him he no longer has a job? it is immediately after he has smoked it the Manson kids drive up the cul-de-sac and decide not to break into Polanski's house but instead to target the old cowboy actor next door. and we get that incredible shot where the teenager has the gun pointed t Pitt and the camera effects show Pitt's tripping ("trails") and he asks "are you real?"
Thats what going on in the final reel of the film: its all Pitt's acid fueled hallucination! Think how diCaprio doesnt seem at all concerned his best friend just sacrificed his life, he's finally met the big star next door and his life is going to turn around. That's one reason I thought Pitt might have been this imaginary friend he's finally outgrown, but it makes more sense that it's not happening at all. Rather Pitt is imagining a happy ending for his hard luck buddy. At the level of reality within the film Pitt has been tripping since he smoked the cigarette, has not actually met the Manson kids (thus when he asks "are you real", they are not), and he has not sacrificed his life, and diCaprio probably still hasnt met Sharon Tate. In fact Sharon Tate's probably getting murdered anyway, just we're following the hallucination and the "real" story does not get that far. the film ends mid-hallucination, thus Happy.
and if that's what's going on, its actually one of the most linearly logical stories we've ever seen in a Tarantino! Of course none of it is real. Its all Movie Magic. We know how Reality went and its almost sacrilegious to joke about it, extremely poor taste. But even within the fictional world of cinema some things are less real than others.
by the way @Napoleon Plural I think the reason there was so much contempt expressed for hippies, is these characters are from a slightly older generation, and their jobs are threatened. This was the days of New Hollywood, when low-budget counterculture films like Easy Rider were unexpected hits and old-school epics and musicals were expensive flops, and the generation that had been making films since the 1940s were retiring. That is the immediate context of the film, that moment in history, I'm sure its discussed within the dialog.
Irony is the film the hot young starlet just made was not New Hollywood at all, but a Dean Martin film.
The last Bond sheet music I got was "You Know My Name" (OMG, 16 years ago now... 😯) cos I was sure I'd be asked for it- and indeed I was! I had to drop the key substantially, by about half an octave if I recall. "Skyfall" I didn't need the sheet music for, I could work it out myself, but I was only asked for that once and I've now forgotten the chords. Nothing since has either caught my fancy or seemed necessary- I mean, can you see someone shouting out "Hey, sing "Writing's On The Wall"?
@caractacus potts You make some good points. I am relatively new to American/European culture and many films and actors I simply haven't heard of. For example I had not heard of Sharon Tate until this film and had to look the name up on the internet. My not knowing the 'inside story' behind the scripts such as people like you do will not help me appreciate the Tarrantino films I'm sure, but I still don't think I would like them anyway because I find those I have watched simply too long and boring.
EDIT. The only scene I liked was the one with Bruce Lee (I have certainly heard of him). I thought that was entertaining and I wonder if the way he was portrayed was from the directors imagination or based on his real character?
@Number24 thank you for sending me a couple of the photographs as samples of your hold over Barbel. I have seen many traumatic things in my life but never any thing quite as bad as that!
I understand now why you will be never banned from AJB! 😉
"bloody hell" in that I just wrote up two longwinded posts of pretentious drivel that don't make a lick of sense, or "bloody hell" that theory about the last act actually makes sense?
The only scene I liked was the one with Bruce Lee (I have certainly heard of him). I thought that was entertaining and I wonder if the way he was portrayed was from the directors imagination or based on his real character?
I'm not sure, but I've seen online some fans quite offended by his portrayal, it is unflattering. But the scene is from Pitt's point of view, its not meant to be objective.
I have known a few folks who grew up in Europe or other places who just do not get The Simpsons for example. Me and my friends can recite Simpsons jokes chapter and verse, but they are really dependent on knowledge of North American pop culture. I love satire and parody, I watch a lot this sort of stuff, but it is inherently elitist, not universally accessible and Tarantino's the same sort of problem.
The best stuff's funny whether or not you get the real joke, it works on two levels. Like Monty Python, its taken me nearly 50 years to "get" some of those jokes but I always laughed because the voices are so funny, But I'm not a Brit and miss most of the real references.
Tarantino is the same thing. I dont know anything about these lowbudget "grindhouse" movies he obsesses about. but when he's good it doesnt matter. The first half of Pulp Fiction is the best example, the dialog and acting is so good, it is hilarious (and highly quotable) without knowing anything else. Kill Bill seems to require footnotes, and the dialogs not so good, but it is a thrill ride, very cleverly constructed. Those are the two I would recommend if you havent seen them.
I said it was 'Good Stuff' @caractacus potts that should give you an idea. Thing is, as you suggest a subtext can work great but it does help if it works on the surface too.
I sensed you were in imediate danger of getting thrown out of AJB so I sent you some "insurance". I'm sorry for the sleepless nights the photos caused.
Leo Vincey (Randolph Scott) learns of the possible existance of a hidden realm where an ancestor may have found the secret of eternal life five hundred years ago. Together with a friend of his father named Horace Holly he goes to Siberia to look for it. Together with the local guide Tugmore and his daughter Tanya they find the entrance to the hidden place called Kor. The place is ruled by She (Helen Gahagan), a woman who belives Leo is a reincarnation of his ancestor who she loved centuries ago. I'm not going to say more about the plot, but this movie should be far more famous! I'm convinced She must be one of the inspirations behind the Indiana Jones movies and it shares the sense of adventure and forgotten civilizations . She's appearance in a key scene is almost almost certainly the inspiration to the look of the evil queen in Disney's Snow White two years later:
The production design is beautiful art deco and the special effect are impressive (especially for the time). But most of all it's the sense of adventure and wonder that makes this movie so entertaining.
She was planned as a colour movie, but it was shot in black and white for budget reasons. It was later colourized, and that's the version I saw. Look at the design and size of the production:
starring James Coburn as independent superspy Derek Flint and Lee J. Cobb as his would-be boss
Flint is some sort of SuperMan, perfect at everything he attempts, including dancing in the Moscow Ballet. As this adventure begins, he is no longer interested in spying, he is instead studying the language of dolphins. in the previous adventure he lived with four beautiful women who shared his attentions without jealousy, all of whom turned out to be capable agents in their own right. Now there are three different ladies. The earlier four have left to be married, Flint having prepared them with everything they shall need to know. The new trio don't get to do so much, getting themselves kidnapped fairly early in the plot, and doing little other than sport white bikinis.
Which brings us to our villains. A triumvarate of powerful influential women have set up their all-female headquarters on a tropical island, masquerading as a beauty spa (like Wonder Woman except evil!). From here they have hijacked a space station and replaced the US president with a double. They plan to replace the world's governments with an unelected matriarchy, which shall cure all humanity's ills. When Flint arrives on the island with his sheer studly magnetism, his mere presence weakens their resolve, as they too wish to know what it feels like to be with a Man Like Flint. When they explain their plan to him, he laughs in their faces.
(this last bit would seem to badly date the film, but wikipedia tells us there was dialog cut. Flint should have said "I'm sure all your facts are accurate but, like any other underdog in this world, you know more about the sickness than you do the cure. What you propose merely turns the coin over. It's the same old coin. If it's a slug on one side girls, it's a slug on the other. Now, forget it!" which is a rather more reasonable argument than simply laughing in their faces. Meet the new boss and all that.)
Exciting adventure ends with Flint himself going into space, and happily stranding himself on the space station with two female cosmonauts. Hey we'd be seeing that in one of our own films 12 years later, combined with elements of that other mid60s spy classic Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die! No wonder EON couldn't find room for any actual Fleming in their Moonraker adaptation, with this standard of classic source material to draw from instead.
As a film this begs comparison with the Matt Helm films, its tone is very similar. This is much more polished than those, even if it doenst make much sense and seems like scenes are missing. The soundtrack from Jerry Goldsmith is particularly excellent, epic and stirring. And it all looks consistently good whether or not there is a proper story, and Coburn seems committed to his character. Not like the celebrity home movie feel of Dean Martin's spy series. Therefor the extra surprising thing is Coburn says the billed director never showed up to work, and he himself, his stunt coordinator, and director of photography basically just filmed whatever they chose to and edited it together and called it a film! Bonus points for making that filmmaking strategy work!!
Austin Powers, within the dialog of The Spy Who Shagged Me, cites this as his favourite film, and its easy to see how the thematic importance of Derek Flint's studliness is something he can relate to. Its an assumption most of these 60s superspies can have any woman they choose, Flint is the only one for whom what we now call Mojo is an explicit superpower.
Part of the reason "She" looks so good is that it shared a lot of crew with the original "King Kong". Some of the sets were redressed from that wonderful film.
She's a good one, though the characters actual name is Ayesha. I have this dvd in my archives, an impulse purchase from a bookstore because I'm a fan of the author H Rider Haggard. Youve reminded me I need to watch it again. whether Spielberg and Lucas were specifically inspired by this film, Indiana Jones would seem to generally borrow from the recurring imagery of Haggard's books, most of which are about European explorers travelling off the edge of the map and discovering lost civilizations where magic rules.
@Number24 you may be interested in Haggard: the few of his books that arent variations of the Lost World formula are modern day attempts to write Viking saga! Eric Brighteyes. and The Wanderer's Necklace are the two I've read, there may be others.
She was remade in the 60s with Ursula Andress in the lead role. Not really so eerie in colour of course, and with Bernard Cribbins in the supporting cast, nothing against him but you kind of get the idea. I alway recall the original, which is never shown on telly these days.
Interesting. I googled "Eric Brighteyes" and was initially put off by the horns and wings on people's helmets, but then I remembered She isn't exactly historically correct either.
NP: She (1935) is eerie in colour. I know because I just watched the colourized version. Maybe I'll check out Ursula Andress' version of She some time.
I love the Flint movies @caractacus potts I never get tired of seeing them, and they’re more enjoyable than the Brosnan quartet. Great review and it’s made me want to see them again very soon!
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Roger Corman and Edgar Allan Poe fitted together like hand and glove, but this time the glove is missing some fingers. These three short Tales of Terror from adaptor Richard Matheson miss the mark badly.
The opener, Morella, revisits the same territory as The House of Usher, with Vincent Price’s Locke still in mourning for his dead wife, whose body he has exhumed and embalmed. The return of his terminally ill daughter brings about the ghoulish animation of Morella's spectre and everyone dies in a sanctifying inferno. Bleak.
The middle story, The Black Cat, benefits from Peter Lorre, whose drunken domestic abuser is by turns frightening, pitiful and amusing. Vincent Price spars well with Lorre and his turn as a pompous oenologist is preposterously over the top. The comic interplay between the terrible twosome, as well as a simpering Joyce Jameson, as the wife, makes this one watchable. She’s all low cut dresses and knowing awkwardness, a bit like Barbara Windsor in those Carry On histories. The eventual moment of horror and revelation is marvellous.
The trio is completed by the weird The Facts in the Case of M. Vandemar, where Price’s dying socialite submits to mesmerism in an effort to relive his painful tumours, but instead comes under the hypnotic influence of the dastardly Basil Rathbone, who desires Vandemar’s wife, Debra Paget, whose fallen a long way from the auspices of Broken Arrow. Everyone looks to be on their last legs in this one. It ends with a climax of laughable fearsomeness.
Comments
I watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood a couple months back, good to see some discussion on it
first of all @Joshua I suspect Tarantino may just not be for you. Plot is not the main thing with his films, structure is more important, and he plays with the structure to make it a deliberately artificial experience. In every way imaginable he tries to reveal the artifice so that we do not suspend disbelief. Instead we are meant to think of the history of film while we watch his shallow stereotyped character stumble through typical plots we think we've seen before. Its almost like watching a film parody.
Enjoyment of Tarantino really depends on knowing the source material he's drawing from, so its a bit elitist that way. You cant just watch his films without background knowledge, though he's usually funny enough even if you don't get the references. And I certainly don't get half the references, Tarantino will always be hipper than the rest of us put together. Pulp Fiction for example is much more entertaining if you know the films John Travolta did in his youth, from the moment we see him we should all be wondering will he dance? and then he does!.
He reminds me of Mel Brooks in that sense. There's a Pauline Kael review where she savaged Blazing Saddles, saying all Brooks is doing is precisely replicating old film tropes, now with added fart jokes. Then when Star Wars came out, the same critic did not compare Star Wars to other contemporary scifi , she compared it to Blazing Saddles, saying it too was regurgitating old forms instead of doing something new, In a sense all film since has been that sort of self-aware regurgitation of old films. The medium has been round so long maybe we can never expect anything truly original again? Tarantino seems to be an evolutionary step beyond that, selfaware that everybody knows all he is doing is recycling, and then making that selfawareness itself the actual subject of his film.
anyway thats Tarantino in general. As for this specific film...
When I saw the film I asked if maybe Brad Pitt's character is imaginary. That was a joke, because there's this other film he did where he turns out to be imaginary. some folks might not have seen that earlier brad Pitt so I wont spoil it. The first rule is you don't talk about that film!
But plot and character wise it almost makes sense. diCaprio's character is such an impotent washed up has-been, and his underpaid stuntman turned chauffeur is so selfconfident and carefree, it almost seems as if Pitt is a wish fulfillment fantasy, the type of idealised self diCaprio knows he can no longer be. And I'm not sure if any characters other than the Manson family can see Pitt's character, he seems to mostly interact with diCaprio when nobody else is around.
anyway I googled a bit to see if that interpretation's a thing. And its not, I'm the only one stupid enough to come up with that theory. Turns out theres a much better theory. and I better spoiler tag the rest
First of all, this film may have the happiest ending of any Tarantino film. Certainly happier than we know this same story played out in real life. (and like Basterds, he is rewriting actual history to show how cinema's power of imagination can save the world).
The thing is, all that alternate history actually begins at a specific moment towards the ends. Remember Pitt purchases the cigarette soaked in liquid LSD and decides to go for a walk and smoke it after diCaprio has told him he no longer has a job? it is immediately after he has smoked it the Manson kids drive up the cul-de-sac and decide not to break into Polanski's house but instead to target the old cowboy actor next door. and we get that incredible shot where the teenager has the gun pointed t Pitt and the camera effects show Pitt's tripping ("trails") and he asks "are you real?"
Thats what going on in the final reel of the film: its all Pitt's acid fueled hallucination! Think how diCaprio doesnt seem at all concerned his best friend just sacrificed his life, he's finally met the big star next door and his life is going to turn around. That's one reason I thought Pitt might have been this imaginary friend he's finally outgrown, but it makes more sense that it's not happening at all. Rather Pitt is imagining a happy ending for his hard luck buddy. At the level of reality within the film Pitt has been tripping since he smoked the cigarette, has not actually met the Manson kids (thus when he asks "are you real", they are not), and he has not sacrificed his life, and diCaprio probably still hasnt met Sharon Tate. In fact Sharon Tate's probably getting murdered anyway, just we're following the hallucination and the "real" story does not get that far. the film ends mid-hallucination, thus Happy.
and if that's what's going on, its actually one of the most linearly logical stories we've ever seen in a Tarantino! Of course none of it is real. Its all Movie Magic. We know how Reality went and its almost sacrilegious to joke about it, extremely poor taste. But even within the fictional world of cinema some things are less real than others.
by the way @Napoleon Plural I think the reason there was so much contempt expressed for hippies, is these characters are from a slightly older generation, and their jobs are threatened. This was the days of New Hollywood, when low-budget counterculture films like Easy Rider were unexpected hits and old-school epics and musicals were expensive flops, and the generation that had been making films since the 1940s were retiring. That is the immediate context of the film, that moment in history, I'm sure its discussed within the dialog.
Irony is the film the hot young starlet just made was not New Hollywood at all, but a Dean Martin film.
Bloody hell, @caractacus potts (would post smilie of eyes spinnng round but we don't have that any more). Good stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The last Bond sheet music I got was "You Know My Name" (OMG, 16 years ago now... 😯) cos I was sure I'd be asked for it- and indeed I was! I had to drop the key substantially, by about half an octave if I recall. "Skyfall" I didn't need the sheet music for, I could work it out myself, but I was only asked for that once and I've now forgotten the chords. Nothing since has either caught my fancy or seemed necessary- I mean, can you see someone shouting out "Hey, sing "Writing's On The Wall"?
@caractacus potts You make some good points. I am relatively new to American/European culture and many films and actors I simply haven't heard of. For example I had not heard of Sharon Tate until this film and had to look the name up on the internet. My not knowing the 'inside story' behind the scripts such as people like you do will not help me appreciate the Tarrantino films I'm sure, but I still don't think I would like them anyway because I find those I have watched simply too long and boring.
EDIT. The only scene I liked was the one with Bruce Lee (I have certainly heard of him). I thought that was entertaining and I wonder if the way he was portrayed was from the directors imagination or based on his real character?
@Number24 thank you for sending me a couple of the photographs as samples of your hold over Barbel. I have seen many traumatic things in my life but never any thing quite as bad as that!
I understand now why you will be never banned from AJB! 😉
"bloody hell" in that I just wrote up two longwinded posts of pretentious drivel that don't make a lick of sense, or "bloody hell" that theory about the last act actually makes sense?
joshua said:
The only scene I liked was the one with Bruce Lee (I have certainly heard of him). I thought that was entertaining and I wonder if the way he was portrayed was from the directors imagination or based on his real character?
I'm not sure, but I've seen online some fans quite offended by his portrayal, it is unflattering. But the scene is from Pitt's point of view, its not meant to be objective.
I have known a few folks who grew up in Europe or other places who just do not get The Simpsons for example. Me and my friends can recite Simpsons jokes chapter and verse, but they are really dependent on knowledge of North American pop culture. I love satire and parody, I watch a lot this sort of stuff, but it is inherently elitist, not universally accessible and Tarantino's the same sort of problem.
The best stuff's funny whether or not you get the real joke, it works on two levels. Like Monty Python, its taken me nearly 50 years to "get" some of those jokes but I always laughed because the voices are so funny, But I'm not a Brit and miss most of the real references.
Tarantino is the same thing. I dont know anything about these lowbudget "grindhouse" movies he obsesses about. but when he's good it doesnt matter. The first half of Pulp Fiction is the best example, the dialog and acting is so good, it is hilarious (and highly quotable) without knowing anything else. Kill Bill seems to require footnotes, and the dialogs not so good, but it is a thrill ride, very cleverly constructed. Those are the two I would recommend if you havent seen them.
I said it was 'Good Stuff' @caractacus potts that should give you an idea. Thing is, as you suggest a subtext can work great but it does help if it works on the surface too.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Carry On Colombus
I'll wait until @chrisno1 submits his review until posting...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, no, I was buying pizza at the time while not sweating!
I sensed you were in imediate danger of getting thrown out of AJB so I sent you some "insurance". I'm sorry for the sleepless nights the photos caused.
Huh ? Is this a good film ? Is there any reason I'd want to review it ? When was it on ? The title's awful... (but I like it) 😆😆
It's so awful it has a strange fascination... just pulling your leg, mind you, you have reviewed some pretty dire* Elvis films. * according to you.
Colombus was on Talking Pictures TV last night.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
She (1935)
Leo Vincey (Randolph Scott) learns of the possible existance of a hidden realm where an ancestor may have found the secret of eternal life five hundred years ago. Together with a friend of his father named Horace Holly he goes to Siberia to look for it. Together with the local guide Tugmore and his daughter Tanya they find the entrance to the hidden place called Kor. The place is ruled by She (Helen Gahagan), a woman who belives Leo is a reincarnation of his ancestor who she loved centuries ago. I'm not going to say more about the plot, but this movie should be far more famous! I'm convinced She must be one of the inspirations behind the Indiana Jones movies and it shares the sense of adventure and forgotten civilizations . She's appearance in a key scene is almost almost certainly the inspiration to the look of the evil queen in Disney's Snow White two years later:
The production design is beautiful art deco and the special effect are impressive (especially for the time). But most of all it's the sense of adventure and wonder that makes this movie so entertaining.
Here it is for free: SHE (1935) 1080p HD - YouTube
She was planned as a colour movie, but it was shot in black and white for budget reasons. It was later colourized, and that's the version I saw. Look at the design and size of the production:
In Like Flint, 1967
sequel to the previous years Our Man Flint
starring James Coburn as independent superspy Derek Flint and Lee J. Cobb as his would-be boss
Flint is some sort of SuperMan, perfect at everything he attempts, including dancing in the Moscow Ballet. As this adventure begins, he is no longer interested in spying, he is instead studying the language of dolphins. in the previous adventure he lived with four beautiful women who shared his attentions without jealousy, all of whom turned out to be capable agents in their own right. Now there are three different ladies. The earlier four have left to be married, Flint having prepared them with everything they shall need to know. The new trio don't get to do so much, getting themselves kidnapped fairly early in the plot, and doing little other than sport white bikinis.
Which brings us to our villains. A triumvarate of powerful influential women have set up their all-female headquarters on a tropical island, masquerading as a beauty spa (like Wonder Woman except evil!). From here they have hijacked a space station and replaced the US president with a double. They plan to replace the world's governments with an unelected matriarchy, which shall cure all humanity's ills. When Flint arrives on the island with his sheer studly magnetism, his mere presence weakens their resolve, as they too wish to know what it feels like to be with a Man Like Flint. When they explain their plan to him, he laughs in their faces.
(this last bit would seem to badly date the film, but wikipedia tells us there was dialog cut. Flint should have said "I'm sure all your facts are accurate but, like any other underdog in this world, you know more about the sickness than you do the cure. What you propose merely turns the coin over. It's the same old coin. If it's a slug on one side girls, it's a slug on the other. Now, forget it!" which is a rather more reasonable argument than simply laughing in their faces. Meet the new boss and all that.)
Exciting adventure ends with Flint himself going into space, and happily stranding himself on the space station with two female cosmonauts. Hey we'd be seeing that in one of our own films 12 years later, combined with elements of that other mid60s spy classic Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die! No wonder EON couldn't find room for any actual Fleming in their Moonraker adaptation, with this standard of classic source material to draw from instead.
As a film this begs comparison with the Matt Helm films, its tone is very similar. This is much more polished than those, even if it doenst make much sense and seems like scenes are missing. The soundtrack from Jerry Goldsmith is particularly excellent, epic and stirring. And it all looks consistently good whether or not there is a proper story, and Coburn seems committed to his character. Not like the celebrity home movie feel of Dean Martin's spy series. Therefor the extra surprising thing is Coburn says the billed director never showed up to work, and he himself, his stunt coordinator, and director of photography basically just filmed whatever they chose to and edited it together and called it a film! Bonus points for making that filmmaking strategy work!!
Austin Powers, within the dialog of The Spy Who Shagged Me, cites this as his favourite film, and its easy to see how the thematic importance of Derek Flint's studliness is something he can relate to. Its an assumption most of these 60s superspies can have any woman they choose, Flint is the only one for whom what we now call Mojo is an explicit superpower.
Part of the reason "She" looks so good is that it shared a lot of crew with the original "King Kong". Some of the sets were redressed from that wonderful film.
number24 said:
She (1935)
She's a good one, though the characters actual name is Ayesha. I have this dvd in my archives, an impulse purchase from a bookstore because I'm a fan of the author H Rider Haggard. Youve reminded me I need to watch it again. whether Spielberg and Lucas were specifically inspired by this film, Indiana Jones would seem to generally borrow from the recurring imagery of Haggard's books, most of which are about European explorers travelling off the edge of the map and discovering lost civilizations where magic rules.
@Number24 you may be interested in Haggard: the few of his books that arent variations of the Lost World formula are modern day attempts to write Viking saga! Eric Brighteyes. and The Wanderer's Necklace are the two I've read, there may be others.
She was remade in the 60s with Ursula Andress in the lead role. Not really so eerie in colour of course, and with Bernard Cribbins in the supporting cast, nothing against him but you kind of get the idea. I alway recall the original, which is never shown on telly these days.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Interesting. I googled "Eric Brighteyes" and was initially put off by the horns and wings on people's helmets, but then I remembered She isn't exactly historically correct either.
NP: She (1935) is eerie in colour. I know because I just watched the colourized version. Maybe I'll check out Ursula Andress' version of She some time.
Yes, I can see what you mean about that version, but I kind of meant the 60s version, it can't help but have that 10 Million Years BC look about it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, okay.
I love the Flint movies @caractacus potts I never get tired of seeing them, and they’re more enjoyable than the Brosnan quartet. Great review and it’s made me want to see them again very soon!
Is sheet music for Another w…actually a way to get around the swearathon?
Barbel has strong feelings about a particular title song ....
I have other words for that thing than "song".....
TALES OF TERROR (1962)
Roger Corman and Edgar Allan Poe fitted together like hand and glove, but this time the glove is missing some fingers. These three short Tales of Terror from adaptor Richard Matheson miss the mark badly.
The opener, Morella, revisits the same territory as The House of Usher, with Vincent Price’s Locke still in mourning for his dead wife, whose body he has exhumed and embalmed. The return of his terminally ill daughter brings about the ghoulish animation of Morella's spectre and everyone dies in a sanctifying inferno. Bleak.
The middle story, The Black Cat, benefits from Peter Lorre, whose drunken domestic abuser is by turns frightening, pitiful and amusing. Vincent Price spars well with Lorre and his turn as a pompous oenologist is preposterously over the top. The comic interplay between the terrible twosome, as well as a simpering Joyce Jameson, as the wife, makes this one watchable. She’s all low cut dresses and knowing awkwardness, a bit like Barbara Windsor in those Carry On histories. The eventual moment of horror and revelation is marvellous.
The trio is completed by the weird The Facts in the Case of M. Vandemar, where Price’s dying socialite submits to mesmerism in an effort to relive his painful tumours, but instead comes under the hypnotic influence of the dastardly Basil Rathbone, who desires Vandemar’s wife, Debra Paget, whose fallen a long way from the auspices of Broken Arrow. Everyone looks to be on their last legs in this one. It ends with a climax of laughable fearsomeness.
Sub-Corman and sub-Poe.
Thankfully the forum doesn't allow that kind of language. 😁
Kubo and the two strings (2016)
This stop-motion movie is probably the best I've ever seen! The plot summary is lifted from wikipedia:
The early "If you must blink - do it now!" scene actually sets up the plot fairly well: Kubo And The Two Strings HD if you must blink do it now origami art - YouTube
The plot is highly origional and good. The voice artists are Charlize Theron, Ralph Fiennes, Rooney Mara and Mathew MacConaughey among others, but the real star is the visuals! This movie looks stunning. Here's the trailer: (Official) Kubo and the Two Strings Music Video - "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by Regina Spektor - YouTube