View Full Version : JayDee's Movie Musings
Pages :
1
2
3
[
4]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I, actually, loved this film!:p
Oh well there you are! Just goes to show how much I know! :D I just felt that while it was a film I admired it was such a tough, unflinching watch that it would be tough to really love. Who knows though, maybe over time I would.
This is one of those performances that I'd point people to who think Hopkins is scary or chilling (rather than the obvious ham-fest it is) in Silence Of The Lambs.
Ok this I agree with 100%. :yup:
EDIT - Oh and CA thanks for quoting my whole review. Helped me spot that I had slightly underscored 10 Rillington Place, missing out a + for the rating. Must have slipped through the cracks when I was copying and pasting the review.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1990
Directed by
Barbet Schroeder
Written by
Nicholas Kazan
Alan M. Dershowitz (book)
Starring
Jeremy Irons
Ron Silver
Glenn Close
Annabella Sciorra
Fisher Stevens
Reversal of Fortune
3.5 ++
Plot – Telling the true case of the fate the befell Sonny Von Bulow (Close), and exploring the notion of how exactly it happened. When she is inexplicably left brain-dead in a coma, her husband Claus (Irons) is arrested for her murder. After being found guilty he recruits the talents of law professor Alan Dershowitz (Silver) for his appeal. Like just about everyone else, Dershowitz initially seems quite convinced of Claus' guilt. Taking the case to fund other causes, Dershowitz employs a group of his law students to assist him. As Dershowitz gets to know Claus, and learns more about the case, he becomes less and less certain that he is guilty.
The film I watched just previous to this was 10 Rillington Place: a film which took an uncompromising and straight-laced approach to its subject. While Reversal of Fortune also tackles a real life story of crime (or possible crime) it does so in a vastly different method. The film takes quite a curious and quirky approach, actually presenting a rather flippant view of the whole case. From the opening moments the film is graced with occasional narration from the comatose Glenn Close in an echo of Sunset Boulevard where the deceased Joe Gillis describes the fate that befell him. And from that moment on it also shares Boulevard's dark and satirical bite with a strong vein of black humour running throughout it. It has absolutely no sympathy for its characters and as a result it's tough to really care for any of them. Despite her plight we really have no sympathy for Sonny. Claus is so dispassionate and smug that you constantly feel he needs a good slap. And the fact that we don't know the truth makes it tough to root for any outcome. While this approach made for an entertaining spectacle it perhaps robs the film of any emotion, and takes it into slightly hollow territory.
Along with presenting the facts of the case, the film seems just as interested in painting a satirical picture of the idle rich, taking the picture very much into the territory of a commentary on class. From the film's opening helicopter shot of the mansions that populate Newport, Rhode Island it's clear that we are in the world of the super-rich. And through his sharp and witty script Kazan has a great time sending up the lives of these nugatory wasters. This becomes particularly evident when examining the marriage of Sunny and Claus. We see the absolute waste of a life that is Sunny and the sham of a marriage she shares with Claus. While they may have once cared for each other, now there is absolutely nothing between them. While sleeping next to each other in bed they wear blinders and earplugs as if they are trying to put as much distance as possible between each other. They are part of a society were image and perception is everything, and where extra-marital affairs are accepted and damn near encouraged as long as their image is held up. We can't help but judge these two for choosing to remain in such a loveless marriage; and combined with Sunny's image as a miserable, abusive alcoholic and drug abuser we are led worryingly close to the feeling that what happened to her was no great loss, perhaps that she even got what she deserved.
The film breaks from the tradition of most courtroom dramas I've seen in that it barely ventures into the actual courtroom itself. Indeed all added up we probably don't spend more than a couple of minutes inside the court. What this film details is this incredible amount of work that goes into prepping for a trial; and then just when you think we're building up to the big trial, full of bellows of “objection” and other dramatic outcries, the film ends; only telling you the outcome through captions on the screen. The scenes where Dershowitz and his students are gathering clues and strategizing about the case bring a lot of energy and are highly entertaining. It's fascinating to see the immense level of work that goes into such a case, highlighting all the little nuances of the process.
Reversal of Fortune is however hampered by the frustrating fact that it cannot reveal what truly happened to Sonny Von Bulow. The reason for this being that the only person in the whole world who knows the truth about his guilt or lack thereof is Claus Von Bulow himself. Or Sonny Von Bulow; and she certainly wasn't going to be talking! So what the film does is explore all the possible answers while remaining ambiguous, allowing us to make up our own minds. It presents a very convincing argument as to why Claus would want to get rid of his abusive addict of a wife, but balances this by showing how it could have been just as plausible that Sonny herself was at fault; either as a deliberate suicide attempt or an accidental overdose as a result of her deteriorating mental state.
While the whole ensemble is filled out by a series of strong performers, the film is spear-headed by a couple of truly excellent central showings from Jeremy Irons and the late Ron Silver. And it's to these two that the film truly owes its success to. I have no idea what kind of person Jeremy Irons actually is, but as an actor I think he could probably play the role of a smug, arrogant sleeze in his sleep by now; making him the perfect choice for the role. In fact in some ways it feels like Irons merely dusted off his performance from Dead Ringers just two years previous. Ice cold and insanely reserved when it comes to emotion, he makes for a real eccentric who on occasion seems rather pitiful, and even approaching something close to sympathetic. His unadulterated arrogance and tongue in cheek delivery make his performance quite the joy to behold. Opposite Irons is Ron Silver as Alan Dershowitz, delivering a passionate and driven performance. While I perhaps struggled to get a complete grasp on his character, Silver himself was great and I think he could hve considered himself unfortunate not to show Irons in receiving an Oscar nomination at the time. Glenn Close also does an admirable job considering her role requires just two things from her really - to lie around in a coma or to be drunk. She is able to really shine in a few key scenes however, and one thing she does get across in the rare instances were the character is not completely spaced out is the beauty of the character, helping us to understand how Claus could have been attracted to her once and how her husband and kids could still care about her despite everything she does.
Conclusion – A captivating drama, a fascinating mystery and a deliciously dark comedy all in one package; this film has a real air of class about it. With a strong cast working from Kazan's Oscar nominated script, this is a very entertaining tragicomedy about the idle rich, though it does perhaps lack in emotional weight.
honeykid
03-04-13, 10:21 PM
Was this one I recommended to you? I love Reversal Of Fortune and it's always great fun to watch it. As you said, this films rests with the lead performances and, with Ron Silver in perticular, you were always guaranteed a good one.
I really enjoyed this movie :yup: nice review :)
Was this one I recommended to you? I love Reversal Of Fortune and it's always great fun to watch it. As you said, this films rests with the lead performances and, with Ron Silver in perticular, you were always guaranteed a good one.
Eh, not sure. Had a quick search of posts and you approved when I bought the DVD but not actual recommendation there, perhaps in one of your PMs, kind of lose track. Also came across a post where you talk about how it almost made your top 100.
Oh yeah I actually meant to go back in and write a bit more about Silver's performance. I don't imagine I've seen a great deal of stuff featuring him but always enjoy him when I do - Ali, his villainous turn in Timecop as wel as some TV work. Any other films with him worth checking out?
I really enjoyed this movie :yup: nice review :)
Oh so this was just a 'nice review' after my 'great' 10 Rillington Place review? Are my standards slipping? :p
honeykid
03-05-13, 09:01 PM
Eh, not sure. Had a quick search of posts and you approved when I bought the DVD but not actual recommendation there, perhaps in one of your PMs, kind of lose track. Also came across a post where you talk about how it almost made your top 100.
Ah. That's probably what it was.
Oh yeah I actually meant to go back in and write a bit more about Silver's performance. I don't imagine I've seen a great deal of stuff featuring him but always enjoy him when I do - Ali, his villainous turn in Timecop as wel as some TV work. Any other films with him worth checking out?
I'll watch him in anything. He's a bit like Brian Dennehy, in that I just like to see him onscreen. Even in a bad film, you know it'll be more interesting when he's onscreen.
As for films, I'd recommend the these: Billionaire's Boys Club, Silkwood, The Entity, Garbo Talks! Mr. Saturday Night and Blue Steel are worth a look, too.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2009
Directed by
McG
Written by
John D. Brancato
Michael Ferris
Starring
Sam Worthington
Christian Bale
Anton Yelchin
Moon Bloodgood
Bryce Dallas Howard
Terminator: Salvation
3 +
Plot – 2003. Convicted criminal Marcus Wright (Worthington) is on death row. Moments before his death he is convinced to donate his body to Cyberdyne for medical research. 2018. A disastrous excursion into a Skynet facility leaves every member of the resistance group dead except for John Connor (Bale). After Connor has been picked up another individual emerges, a naked and amnesia-stricken Marcus. Wandering through an abandoned Los Angeles, Marcus befriends a young Kyle Reese (Yelchin). When they come into contact with each other, John Connor believes that Marcus has been sent to kill him. But after Reese is taken prisoner by the machines the two must join together to try and rescue him, and deal a large blow to Skynet.
It's taken me a good while to get round to this film, despite the fact that I'm a big fan of the franchise. I absolutely love the first two films, and even enjoy Rise of the Machines for what it is. I just wasn't feeling this one however; I wasn't getting a great vibe from the trailers and assorted promotional material at the time of its release. As a result I've only just decided to give it a shot now. And I've got to say that while it may be a bit rough around the edges it's actually a pretty good entry in the series; certainly a good deal above my expectations, such as they were.
First things first though; There's no doubt that the film certainly misses the considerable presence that is Arnold Schwarzenegger. After all he is the most recognised element of the whole franchise. It's like a Rocky movie without Stallone, a Die Hard film without Willis, a Predator film without...well, the Predator! Indeed without the pop culture icon that the character became I think it's fairly safe to say that the odds of the franchise still churning out films 25 years after the original would be fairly slim. In his place somewhat, Sam Worthington proves to be a solid addition, bringing a strength and intensity both physically and emotionally to the character. He is at least given a bit to work with as he embarks on a journey to discover who, or indeed what, he really is and then how he attempts to find redemption with this second chance that he has been given. Though the fact that we never really know what he did in his original life, and what he's trying to make up for, is certainly a flaw. But all in all he does a good job, though it can't be avoided that when compared with Arnie he is lacking in terms of charisma and screen presence.
Film trivia – The film's director, McG, actually went to visit James Cameron in New Zealand when he was working on Avatar. McG went with respect to the mythology of the first two films, and to gain any insights Cameron may have. It was during this time that Cameron actually recommended Sam Worthington for the role of Marcus.The rest of the cast I felt were a bit of a mixed bag. I found Christian Bale to be quite a bland and dour John Connor. In fact for a long time I had my suspicions that Bale didn't truly star in this film. I got the distinct vibe that some computer whiz had merely taken Bale's performances from the Batman series and photoshopped it into Salvation. It feels startlingly similar to his Bruce Wayne! It's the same glum, woe is me scowl on his face, and the same gruff, gravelly voice which I personally can't take all that seriously. I know he's going for serious and intense, but I tend to find it more laughable. I just feel that for the supposed leader of the resistance, the man who is apparently going to save mankind, the character needs a lot more personality. Along with being a brave, kick ass warrior I think you would need to be a really charismatic presence to get people to follow you and risk their lives for yours. In fact between Edward Furlong's whiny emo kid, and Bale's perennial downer, is it just me or is John Connor a little bit of a douche?
Anyway the real find amongst the cast proves to be Anton Yelchin as a young, puckish Kyle Reese. As well as proving to be a very likeable character he also does an impressive job convincing as a young Michael Biehn, gamely attempting to capture and replicate his mannerisms and characteristics. He also deserves extra credit for being so impressive despite having some awful dialogue to spout on a few occasions. So it's a real shame then that the plot contrives to remove him from proceedings for a large portion of its running time. If we continue to get more instalments of the series I certainly hope he returns, and is given a more substantial role. The same could also be said of Bryce Dallas Howard, who given her pedigree, I felt was immensely under-used as John Connor's wife. Oh but any film that includes Michael Ironside, even in a minor role, is going to earn itself some bonus points. Now he shows Bale how you do gruff and aggressive with style and personality.
I don't feel the plot is as focused or strong as in the past, and perhaps it was just me but I struggled to really feel the same level of threat and danger as in the previous films. It just feels a bit more small scale and lacking in ambition. Though I do give the film credit for trying to introduce some new elements and twists to the Terminator mythology, even if they prove to be a bit hit and miss. The film expands the range of machines at Skynet's disposal, though not all that successfully in my eyes. They are able to contribute to a couple of cool moments, but for the most part I found them to be rather goofy and not an entirely comfortable fit for the franchise. In fact I almost felt like they had accidentally wandered over from the Transformers set.
Film trivia - As I'm pretty sure everyone on here will know, Salvation marks the fourth entry in the Terminator franchise. And quite amazingly each film was produced by a different studio. The Terminator was produced by Hemdale and went through Orion. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was produced by Carolco and Tri-Star. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was produced by C-2 Pictures and distributed by Warner Bros. and Columbia Pictures. And finally Salvation was produced by The Halcyon Company. As such Salvation qualified as an independent film; with its $200m budget making it the most expensive indie film of all time.I've got to say I wasn't all that enamoured with the look of the film. The drab, washed-out colour palette that the film employs seems to be the current go-to aesthetic for apocalyptic scenarios in films and TV shows, and it feels rather played out. And just generally it's not something I'm particularly fond off, particularly for big budget movies. I feel it gave it quite a cheap, tinny appearance and as a result it struggled to put much distance between itself and the dystopias we've seen on the small screen of late in shows like Falling Skies. And when you consider its near $200m budget I'd say that's a problem. I struggled to see all that money on the screen I have to say. It also doesn't really allow the film to match the vivid, nightmarish vision of the future we've been shown in tantalising glimpses in the other Terminator films; particularly in the epic opening to Terminator 2: Judgement Day. It was something I had always wanted to see, but now that I have I think it was more fun when we were just getting brief glimpses and letting our imagination fill in the rest.
While I probably wouldn't say that any of the action sequences earn their place alongside some of the great set-pieces the series has offered up to this point, they are able to deliver some thrills along the way. Stand-out moments of action include a Mad Max-esque road battle and Marcus' escape from the resistance's camp which is shot with a war movie vibe. And then the film closes with the classic mainstay of the series, a brutal smackdown between the hero and the seemingly unstoppable Terminator. This moment also delivers a brief cameo of sorts from Arnie. While it's a piece of CGI, as opposed to the real thing, and doesn't last long it's still pretty cool and put a silly grin on my face.
Conclusion - While this is still a million miles away from the first two entries in the franchise, I did find this to be a more enjoyable film than I was expecting, and indeed fearing it would be. And it also proves that there is perhaps still a little life left in the series, especially if Arnie was to be reintroduced in the role that made him one of the biggest stars in the world.
The Rodent
03-06-13, 05:44 PM
Agree... Salvation is a mile away from the first two but beats the comedic tone of T3...
Though, I reviewed Terminator Salvation nearly a year ago, so it's old news now :D
The Rodent
03-06-13, 05:49 PM
Oh, and the look of the film was a let down for me too. I wanted to see what was shown in T2... blue lasers and Terminators walking across a floor of skeletons with humans hiding underground in what looks like old prison cells...
... instead we got a grey ruined city scape, tons and tons of desert, and a Terminator Factory that looked like the molten steel factory at the end of T2.
Agree... Salvation is a mile away from the first two but beats the comedic tone of T3...
As I mentioned in the review I actually enjoyed Rise of the Machines for what it was. The first two were sci-fi thrillers and purely great films. The third was a dumb, popcorn action flick but quite fun and with a great ending.
Though, I reviewed Terminator Salvation nearly a year ago, so it's old news now :D
:laugh: Touche! Though without even looking I can confidently predict that in quality terms I kicked yo ass! :p
mirror mirror
Year of release
1985
Directed by
Peter Weir
Written by
Earl W. Wallace
William Kelley
Starring
Harrison Ford
Kelly McGillis
Lukas Haas
Josef Sommer
Jan Rubes
Witness
3.5
Plot - An Amish mother, Rachel (McGillis), takes her young son Samuel (Haas) to Philadelphia; the first time he's ever been out into the outside world. However at the train station Samuel witnesses the murder of a policeman in the toilets. Detective John Book (Ford) is assigned to the case an takes responsibility for keeping the family safe, but when it becomes clear that the men responsible were fellow cops he realises that things won't be as simple as he hoped. Now the target for the corrupt cops, Book takes off with the family and returns with them to their Amish community. To protect them Book stays with them, attempting to adapt to their strict and strange lifestyle. While there however he begins to develop feelings for Samuel's mother, and despite the restrictions placed on her by the Amish community the feelings prove to be mutual.
I feel I'm perhaps being a bit harsh with my score for this one because I can appreciate that it's a very finely crafted film, but it just didn't excite me as much as I was expecting. That may be partly on me as my idea of the film was a little off. I was expecting something more in the pure thriller mode, and in those terms I found the film to be left wanting. Surprisingly little time was actually dedicated to the thriller elements of the film, and what was failed to really break any new territory in the genre. It's the kind of scenario that's been seen countless times before - cop discovers corruption in his own department and when he tries to do something about it things are turned around so that he's the one who appears to be guilty. And of course the person he confides in turns out to be in on it! It's pretty clichéd territory.
So the thriller side of things wasn't a big hit for me. As a result the intrigue here lies in the relationships between the characters, the contrasting of worlds, the sense of community amongst the Amish people and the touching, heartfelt romance of forbidden love that is shared between the characters of Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis. While it took a little while to win me over I was eventually able to engage with what was going on on screen
The film's cast are all uniformly excellent. Ford gives one of the most impressive performances of his career as homicide detective John Book. For someone I associate most with rather bombastic, larger than life characters (Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Jack Ryan etc) I was surprised with the depth and sensitivity he was able to imbue the character with. As such this role provided Ford with his only Oscar nomination to date. Ford is of course a screen legend; at the completely opposite end of the spectrum is Lukas Hass. As young Samuel, Lukas Haas turns in an impressive showing in his film debut. Even if he isn't asked to do a whole lot at times (indeed he only has 4 lines in the whole film) his eyes of pure innocence bring a lot to the film. For me however the star turn came from Kelly McGillis in the role of Rachel. She brought a great deal of beauty and purity to the role, initially showing herself as a strong and protecting mother who worries about Book's influence on her son, before eventually allowing out a romantic side when her attitude towards him softens. She has a sort of luminous quality to her. As the elder member of the Lapp family, Jan Rubes delivers a grand performance as the stern, but likeable Eli. He's one of those actors that just popped up every so often in a film or TV show and I was always happy to see him. A lot of that affection came from growing up with him through repeated viewings of The Mighty Ducks 2. Oh and it was fun to see Danny Glover in a rare villainous turn.
Film trivia snippets - Witness could have taken on a very different appearance had original plans worked out. The role of John Book was originally offered to Sylvester Stallone who turned it down. Stallone has been quoted as calling this the worst decision of his career. /// Witness' story was originally conceived as an episode of classic TV series Gunsmoke. Writers William Kelley and Earl W. Wallce had both been writers in the show and their original plot had Marshall Dillon travelling to an Amish farm looking for a witness to a murder. Peter Weir deals with his subjects in a sensitive and even handed way. We've seen the Amish portrayed in a goofy, uneducated manner in other endeavours but here they are portrayed with honesty and sincerity. As a result Weir is able to completely immerse us in their world, helping us to understand their ideals and ways. He also doesn't sugarcoat things by making it all appear like an idyllic existence, highlighting elements that we may find negative and unyielding such as the attitude the community has towards Rachel's potential romance with Book. As part of this Amish immersion there is a barn building sequence which is quite astonishing as at one point we are shown dozens of individuals clambering all over the structure working away. Weir expertly shows how both Book and Samuel are in the same boat as outsiders in an alien world. In the opening exchanges especially with young Samuel in the big city we are able to see through the young boy's eyes, and take in just how strange and unfamiliar everything is to him.
The film features some gorgeous photography courtesy of Jon Seale which really captures the lush vistas and the rural beauty of the landscape where the Amish reside. He just allows the nature to speak for itself however, not resorting to overly glossy or stylised colour. In combination with Maurice Jarre's haunting and slightly surreal score it creates a wonderfully atmospheric vibe. They are also key components in contrasting the Philadelphia city life and the Amish's rural existence in Lancaster County. The scenes set in the Amish community have a much more languid, peaceful pace about them compared to the more frantic tone of the city; while Weir's direction and the differing aesthetics further this contrast.
The great strength of the film is to be found in its relationships. It's the romance between Book and Rachel; it's Samuel's fascination of Book's ways and the surrogate father/son bond that threatens to develop between them; it's Eli's guardian watching over both Book and Rachel, attempting to keep an eye out for both of them. Rachel is initially upset about Book's ways and how they fascinate her son, threatening his innocence. As she begins to see the kind of man he really is however a spark begins to develop. As I mentioned back at the start the thriller side of things was pretty cliched, and to an extent so is the romance between Book and Rachel. After so much cliché however I really appreciated the end of the film which brings a realistic stance to the situation.
Conclusion - A lot of care has gone into crafting this film and I was able to appreciate that. It took a while for me to really get drawn in as it wasn't the thriller I had been banking on, if anything it's a love story. However I certainly became more fond of it as it went along, and I get the feeling that will also be the case with repeat viewings. This could be a film I become a big fan of with time.
TylerDurden99
03-09-13, 10:35 PM
I've had a copy of this sitting around for a while, but I haven't watched it yet, despite being intrigued and my mother saying it was good (she usually has an eye for movies I'd like). After seeing your review, I might give it a go.
Witness has been on my watch list for a bit now. Need to move it up in the order.
Godoggo
03-09-13, 11:37 PM
The strength of Witness is definitely the relationships. When I was a child I lived fairly close to an Amish community and I also appreciate the way they are portrayed. It's a good movie and well worth watching. I think I'd give it a B-.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1998
Directed by
Steven Spielberg
Written by
Robert Rodat
Starring
Tom Hanks
Tom Sizemore
Barry Pepper
Edward Burns
Matt Damon
Adam Goldberg
Jeremy Davies
Saving Private Ryan
5
Plot – Opening with the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, we find Captain John Miller (Hanks) leading the members of the 2nd Ranger Battalion onto Omaha beach. During the Normandy landings two brothers are killed, joining a third brother who died in New Guinea; with their mother due to receive all three telegrams informing her of their death on the same day. When the Chief of Staff, General Marshall, is informed about this he decides to send a unit to find the remaining brother, James Ryan (Damon), so he can be sent back home to his mother. Captain Miller is given the assignment and leads a squad of 8 men in the search.
The one thing that everyone who's seen this film will undoubtedly remember is its truly epic scenes of warfare, so that seems as good a place as any to start this review. And I've got to say that even 15 years on I'm struggling to remember anything I've seen that has been able to match them in terms of their scale and incredible power. Some people may like the action because it's 'cool', and as a kid perhaps I did as well. However what really makes them so incredible is just how much they immerse you in the experience; you're just instantly gripped by what is unfolding on screen. This is heightened even further as a result of the camera just dropping you right into the thick of the action; placing you on that beach alongside these heroic men, dodging bullets and trying to keep your wits about you while blood stained water laps at your feet. It shows that while these men may be heroes, there is nothing heroic about the act of war itself. It's a nasty, vile business (see the bewildered soldier wandering around looking for his blown-off arm) which brings out the absolute worse in people. This visceral opening battle is also an effective tool in terms of immediately making us care for and identify with the characters. We may not have had any time to familiarise ourselves with these individuals yet, but by placing them in such a hellish situation we cannot help but sympathise with them right from the off; no-one deserves to be involved in anything like this.
All of that and I've not even gotten around to commenting on it as a technical achievement. Costing $12 million, featuring some 1500 extras, utilizing real amputees, taking four weeks to shoot and employing some forty barrels of fake blood the scale of it is just insane. And what a testament to the skill of Spielberg that he is able to somehow assemble all these elements into something so coherent and enthralling. While it's beautiful in terms of the level of craft that has gone into it, it's not a particularly beautiful sequence or film as a whole to look at. It is however presented in a very appropriate and successful way. The cinematography from Janusz Kamiński creates a bleached, desaturated look of greys and greens which allows for a sharper, more realistic experience; just further immersing you in the film. Not surprisingly and quite rightly Kaminski was rewarded with an Oscar for his efforts. And perhaps just as amazing as this opening battle that Spielberg delivers is the fact that he at least matches, and perhaps even surpasses himself with the battle that closes the film. Taking place on the streets of Ramelle, in amongst its war-torn buildings, it sees the characters scattered throughout the town; some on the ground, others perched high in towers, attempting to fight off vastly superior numbers of German soldiers who are armed with tanks and heavy weaponry. It's a fantastically constructed and nerve-shredding sequence.
Film trivia – The film has several sources of inspiration. The original idea for Robert Rodat came in 1994 at a monument that was dedicated to the four sons of Agnes Allison of Pennsylvania. They were all killed during the American Civil War. Inspiration also came from the true story of the Niland brothers. While it was eventually revealed that two survived, it was long thought that three brothers; Robert, Preston and Edward, had all perished in combat during World War II. As a resulting the sole surviving brother, Frederick, was sent back home to the States. It was later discovered that Edward was not actually dead, but was being held captive in a Japanese POW camp.The opening battle also has no quandaries in showing the true nature of these men. This isn't Stallone's Rambo we're dealing with, nor is it Schwarzenegger's Dutch or any other larger than life soldier we may have become accustomed to. These are real men. In the boats heading onto the beaches of Normandy these guys aren't joking around and smoking cigars, relishing the idea of war. No; what they are doing is throwing up through fear, crying at the prospect of what lies ahead and praying to God that they will somehow make it through alive. These are the genuine reactions you would likely find on such a battlefield. And that sequence where they are on the boats heading towards the beach is just so gut-wrenchingly tense. It's also rare for any of these men to get what you would call a 'heroic' death, complete with glorious and profound last words. For the large majority of the unfortunate souls they never see it coming; it's quick, it's sudden and it's gruesome.
In between the scenes of warfare we are given a good degree of character building, and evidence of the camaraderie, humour and sense of brotherhood that develops between individuals who embark on such a shared experience. I also believe it shows just how important this bond is if you're to retain any chance whatsoever of holding on to your sanity. Another such example of this would be Private Jackson, the crew's resident sniper. For him, his faith is a large part of trying to retain his strength and sanity. These scenes of brotherhood just build upon the level of caring already established from the opening battle. As they talk and share memories and stories from their lives back home, our connection and sympathies just grow and grow so that everytime we lose one of these men it feels like a real punch in the gut. While the search for a single man is partly based on a true story, it also works as a metaphor for the absurdities of war and the waste that is inherent within them. The group's discussions about their mission just highlight how futile it can all appear.
The men that make up the company who go in search of Ryan represent the broad spectrum of individuals you would find in the army. Tom Hanks' Captain Miller is a prime example of the most normal of guys placed in the most unnatural of situations. As we eventually find out he is just an unassuming English schoolteacher from Pennsylvania; it was never his ambition to be leading men in such an endeavour and making decisions that will affect their lives. And his only ambition is just to get home to his wife, that is all he wants. More than anyone else, Jeremy Davies' Corporal Upham represents the young clueless kid who has absolutely no business being involved in such a venture. Inexperienced and completely out of his depth he is just a bundle of nerves. Private Caparzo, portrayed by Vin Diesel, is representative of the tough, macho guy who will put on quite an aggressive show which is really just a front to hide the fear which he feels just like everyone else. While Edward Burns' Private Reiben represents more than most just what war can do to a good man; just how tough it is to remain human in such conditions. It could perhaps lead to a feeling of stereotypes for some people, but I think it works very well, particularly as there are moments were we see that really they are all just the same deep down; they share the same flaws and fears.
Film trivia - All of the film's principal stars underwent a brutal and gruelling week long course of army training under the tutelage of technical advisor Dale Dye. Well when I say 'all', that's not quite accurate. Matt Damon was spared having to endure it in an effort to get the other actors to resent him, with the hope being that their resentment towards him would then come through in their performances and feed into the story. The film doesn't overly demonise the German soldiers, nor does it sanctify the American soldiers. There are numerous occasions of ambiguous morals, right down to the rather apathetic attitude of the soldiers towards their mission and towards Ryan himself. The film shows American soldiers killing Germans who are attempting to surrender, and shows them raiding their dead bodies for mementos. It shows their bloodlust and sense of vengeance after Wade is killed as they plan to gun down the German soldier responsible. And rather unexpectedly for a long while Captain Miller, their supposed leader, goes along with it. Without thinking he also partakes in rooting through the dog tags of fallen men while their comrades look on. It all just shows the toll that war can have on a man, how hard it is to retain your humanity in such a despicable spectacle. And it makes Miller's speech about just trying to hold onto who you were before the war all the more poignant.
The cast that Spielberg was able to assemble is just incredible. I had actually forgotten the huge amount of talent that was sprinkled throughout the film. Even the most minor of roles are filled by a legion of recognisable and talented performers such as Paul Giamatti, Ted Danson, Nathan Fillion and Bryan Cranston. While those men, and numerous others may not be on screen for a great deal of time they are pretty much all able to bring something to the table.
Leading the pack is Tom Hanks. And as for his performance, well, he's Tom Hanks! And this is just another in a long line of impressive performances that he has turned in over the years. While there are obviously weaker performances on his CV I honestly don't feel I've seen a performance of his I would call poor. He's just one of the most dependable performers out there. As great as he is here however it's perhaps not surprising that he didn't add to the collection of little gold men sitting on his mantle (I'm referring to Oscar statues by the way, I'm not accusing him of being into anything freaky or kinky!). The reason being that for the majority of the time it's not an especially big or showy performance, but it is crammed with a series of small and quiet, but highly effective moments. Moments that really get to you such as his attempts to try and understand and justify the deaths of his men, or the war at large. Or talking about how all he wants to do is get home to his wife and try to remain the same man that he was before the war.
Film trivia – It's become legend now that the film's action, and in particular that opening invasion of Omaha beach, was so realistic and vivid that men who had actually experienced it found it immensely powerful, sometimes overly so. Following the film's release The Department of Veterans Afffairs set up a special 800 number to help the hundreds of former soldiers who were left traumatized after viewing the film. It has also been noted that in the week following the film's release, visits to PTSD counsellors soared.As the eponymous Private Ryan, Matt Damon is not actually on screen for a huge amount of time, but he grabs the chance and is able to make a huge impression regardless. It's a terrifically natural performance that when teemed with his turn in Good Will Hunting the previous year, confirmed him as one of the hottest young talents at the time. His pain and confusion over the situation is beautifully played; torn between mourning the loss of his familial brothers and the duty he feels to his brothers in arms. While Hanks and Damon are the film's biggest stars, there are virtually no failures to be found amongst any of the cast. Barry Pepper, an actor I've always admired, is on fine form as are the likes of Tom Sizemore and Giovanni Ribisi.
I'm aware that many people, even large admirers of the film, have a problem with the scenes that bookend the film. Set in the present day at the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, it sees the now elderly James Ryan returning to honour the soldiers who laid their lives on the line for him. Personally I don't have a huge problem with the scenes though I would happily have them excised. They certainly come across as an attempt to manipulate your emotions, but in that respect I find them completely superfluous. The two and a half hours in between these scenes has already achieved so much in those terms that there is nothing more they could possibly add. However I don't begrudge the film highlighting once more the immense sacrifice that was made through the thousands of crosses that seem to stretch endlessly off into the horizon. And I think in terms of design, the crosses and the stars of David are a beautifully simplistic representation of something truly momentous. And while they may not add much to the film itself, I think the scenes prove a touching tribute to the millions of soldiers who laid down their lives.
Conclusion – I still find this to be one of the most incredible screen accomplishments I've ever seen. It's just the true definition of an epic in every way. Impeccably acted, tightly scripted and featuring bravura direction from Spielberg I consider it a modern masterpiece. I was going to say that it's one of those films I wish I had seen at the cinema, but thinking about I'm actually not sure. It's already such a powerful, intense viewing experience that seeing it on the big screen may have been just too overwhelming.
Daniel M
03-10-13, 05:55 PM
I won't read all the review because I haven't seen it yet, but I've had this on my Sky Planner for a couple of weeks now recorded from one of the ITV channels, really want to watch it now that you've awarded it 5 stars, should be good :)
gandalf26
03-10-13, 06:06 PM
Saving Private Ryan a worthy recipient of the fabled 5 star rating. Probably the last true "great" film that Spielberg will ever make. I haven't seen Lincoln but I don't think Spielberg has made anything better than 4/5 film since SPR.
I think you are being generous giving Terminator Salvation 3/5. The only "salvation" for me was when it ended. The end fight between John Conner and the CGI Terminator was an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. The Terminator keeps picking up Connor and throwing him against a wall, when it could pick him up and break his neck/crush his skull in 0.5 seconds. Just laughable and not in a good way. Also what kind of Director calls themself MLG??
The Rodent
03-10-13, 06:11 PM
Excellent film.
One of only 3 films that cracked 101% Perfect Rating in my own thread...
Nice review! :up:
cinemaafficionado
03-10-13, 09:20 PM
mirror mirror
Year of release
1998
Directed by
Steven Spielberg
Written by
Robert Rodat
Starring
Tom Hanks
Tom Sizemore
Barry Pepper
Edward Burns
Matt Damon
Adam Goldberg
Jeremy Davies
Saving Private Ryan
5
Plot – Opening with the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, we find Captain John Miller (Hanks) leading the members of the 2nd Ranger Battalion onto Omaha beach. During the Normandy landings two brothers are killed, joining a third brother who died in New Guinea; with their mother due to receive all three telegrams informing her of their death on the same day. When the Chief of Staff, General Marshall, is informed about this he decides to send a unit to find the remaining brother, James Ryan (Damon), so he can be sent back home to his mother. Captain Miller is given the assignment and leads a squad of 8 men in the search.
The one thing that everyone who's seen this film will undoubtedly remember is its truly epic scenes of warfare, so that seems as good a place as any to start this review. And I've got to say that even 15 years on I'm struggling to remember anything I've seen that has been able to match them in terms of their scale and incredible power. Some people may like the action because it's 'cool', and as a kid perhaps I did as well. However what really makes them so incredible is just how much they immerse you in the experience; you're just instantly gripped by what is unfolding on screen. This is heightened even further as a result of the camera just dropping you right into the thick of the action; placing you on that beach alongside these heroic men, dodging bullets and trying to keep your wits about you while blood stained water laps at your feet. It shows that while these men may be heroes, there is nothing heroic about the act of war itself. It's a nasty, vile business (see the bewildered soldier wandering around looking for his blown-off arm) which brings out the absolute worse in people. This visceral opening battle is also an effective tool in terms of immediately making us care for and identify with the characters. We may not have had any time to familiarise ourselves with these individuals yet, but by placing them in such a hellish situation we cannot help but sympathise with them right from the off; no-one deserves to be involved in anything like this.
All of that and I've not even gotten around to commenting on it as a technical achievement. Costing $12 million, featuring some 1500 extras, utilizing real amputees, taking four weeks to shoot and employing some forty barrels of fake blood the scale of it is just insane. And what a testament to the skill of Spielberg that he is able to somehow assemble all these elements into something so coherent and enthralling. While it's beautiful in terms of the level of craft that has gone into it, it's not a particularly beautiful sequence or film as a whole to look at. It is however presented in a very appropriate and successful way. The cinematography from Janusz Kamiński creates a bleached, desaturated look of greys and greens which allows for a sharper, more realistic experience; just further immersing you in the film. Not surprisingly and quite rightly Kaminski was rewarded with an Oscar for his efforts. And perhaps just as amazing as this opening battle that Spielberg delivers is the fact that he at least matches, and perhaps even surpasses himself with the battle that closes the film. Taking place on the streets of Ramelle, in amongst its war-torn buildings, it sees the characters scattered throughout the town; some on the ground, others perched high in towers, attempting to fight off vastly superior numbers of German soldiers who are armed with tanks and heavy weaponry. It's a fantastically constructed and nerve-shredding sequence.
The opening battle also has no quandaries in showing the true nature of these men. This isn't Stallone's Rambo we're dealing with, nor is it Schwarzenegger's Dutch or any other larger than life soldier we may have become accustomed to. These are real men. In the boats heading onto the beaches of Normandy these guys aren't joking around and smoking cigars, relishing the idea of war. No; what they are doing is throwing up through fear, crying at the prospect of what lies ahead and praying to God that they will somehow make it through alive. These are the genuine reactions you would likely find on such a battlefield. And that sequence where they are on the boats heading towards the beach is just so gut-wrenchingly tense. It's also rare for any of these men to get what you would call a 'heroic' death, complete with glorious and profound last words. For the large majority of the unfortunate souls they never see it coming; it's quick, it's sudden and it's gruesome.
In between the scenes of warfare we are given a good degree of character building, and evidence of the camaraderie, humour and sense of brotherhood that develops between individuals who embark on such a shared experience. I also believe it shows just how important this bond is if you're to retain any chance whatsoever of holding on to your sanity. Another such example of this would be Private Jackson, the crew's resident sniper. For him, his faith is a large part of trying to retain his strength and sanity. These scenes of brotherhood just build upon the level of caring already established from the opening battle. As they talk and share memories and stories from their lives back home, our connection and sympathies just grow and grow so that everytime we lose one of these men it feels like a real punch in the gut. While the search for a single man is partly based on a true story, it also works as a metaphor for the absurdities of war and the waste that is inherent within them. The group's discussions about their mission just highlight how futile it can all appear.
The men that make up the company who go in search of Ryan represent the broad spectrum of individuals you would find in the army. Tom Hanks' Captain Miller is a prime example of the most normal of guys placed in the most unnatural of situations. As we eventually find out he is just an unassuming English schoolteacher from Pennsylvania; it was never his ambition to be leading men in such an endeavour and making decisions that will affect their lives. And his only ambition is just to get home to his wife, that is all he wants. More than anyone else, Jeremy Davies' Corporal Upham represents the young clueless kid who has absolutely no business being involved in such a venture. Inexperienced and completely out of his depth he is just a bundle of nerves. Private Caparzo, portrayed by Vin Diesel, is representative of the tough, macho guy who will put on quite an aggressive show which is really just a front to hide the fear which he feels just like everyone else. While Edward Burns' Private Reiben represents more than most just what war can do to a good man; just how tough it is to remain human in such conditions. It could perhaps lead to a feeling of stereotypes for some people, but I think it works very well, particularly as there are moments were we see that really they are all just the same deep down; they share the same flaws and fears.
The film doesn't overly demonise the German soldiers, nor does it sanctify the American soldiers. There are numerous occasions of ambiguous morals, right down to the rather apathetic attitude of the soldiers towards their mission and towards Ryan himself. The film shows American soldiers killing Germans who are attempting to surrender, and shows them raiding their dead bodies for mementos. It shows their bloodlust and sense of vengeance after Wade is killed as they plan to gun down the German soldier responsible. And rather unexpectedly for a long while Captain Miller, their supposed leader, goes along with it. Without thinking he also partakes in rooting through the dog tags of fallen men while their comrades look on. It all just shows the toll that war can have on a man, how hard it is to retain your humanity in such a despicable spectacle. And it makes Miller's speech about just trying to hold onto who you were before the war all the more poignant.
The cast that Spielberg was able to assemble is just incredible. I had actually forgotten the huge amount of talent that was sprinkled throughout the film. Even the most minor of roles are filled by a legion of recognisable and talented performers such as Paul Giamatti, Ted Danson, Nathan Fillion and Bryan Cranston. While those men, and numerous others may not be on screen for a great deal of time they are pretty much all able to bring something to the table.
Leading the pack is Tom Hanks. And as for his performance, well, he's Tom Hanks! And this is just another in a long line of impressive performances that he has turned in over the years. While there are obviously weaker performances on his CV I honestly don't feel I've seen a performance of his I would call poor. He's just one of the most dependable performers out there. As great as he is here however it's perhaps not surprising that he didn't add to the collection of little gold men sitting on his mantle (I'm referring to Oscar statues by the way, I'm not accusing him of being into anything freaky or kinky!). The reason being that for the majority of the time it's not an especially big or showy performance, but it is crammed with a series of small and quiet, but highly effective moments. Moments that really get to you such as his attempts to try and understand and justify the deaths of his men, or the war at large. Or talking about how all he wants to do is get home to his wife and try to remain the same man that he was before the war.
As the eponymous Private Ryan, Matt Damon is not actually on screen for a huge amount of time, but he grabs the chance and is able to make a huge impression regardless. It's a terrifically natural performance that when teemed with his turn in Good Will Hunting the previous year, confirmed him as one of the hottest young talents at the time. His pain and confusion over the situation is beautifully played; torn between mourning the loss of his familial brothers and the duty he feels to his brothers in arms. While Hanks and Damon are the film's biggest stars, there are virtually no failures to be found amongst any of the cast. Barry Pepper, an actor I've always admired, is on fine form as are the likes of Tom Sizemore and Giovanni Ribisi.
I'm aware that many people, even large admirers of the film, have a problem with the scenes that bookend the film. Set in the present day at the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, it sees the now elderly James Ryan returning to honour the soldiers who laid their lives on the line for him. Personally I don't have a huge problem with the scenes though I would happily have them excised. They certainly come across as an attempt to manipulate your emotions, but in that respect I find them completely superfluous. The two and a half hours in between these scenes has already achieved so much in those terms that there is nothing more they could possibly add. However I don't begrudge the film highlighting once more the immense sacrifice that was made through the thousands of crosses that seem to stretch endlessly off into the horizon. And I think in terms of design, the crosses and the stars of David are a beautifully simplistic representation of something truly momentous. And while they may not add much to the film itself, I think the scenes prove a touching tribute to the millions of soldiers who laid down their lives.
Conclusion – I still find this to be one of the most incredible screen accomplishments I've ever seen. It's just the true definition of an epic in every way. Impeccably acted, tightly scripted and featuring bravura direction from Spielberg I consider it a modern masterpiece. I was going to say that it's one of those films I wish I had seen at the cinema, but thinking about I'm actually not sure. It's already such a powerful, intense viewing experience that seeing it on the big screen may have been just too overwhelming.
A truly Oscar worthy review of this movie that I too will be listing as one of my most memorable films.
That openning scene made me dodge bullets on my cauch and along with a scene from Blackhawk Down, in my eye, rate as the most intense battle scenes ever.
As for films, I'd recommend the these: Billionaire's Boys Club, Silkwood, The Entity, Garbo Talks! Mr. Saturday Night and Blue Steel are worth a look, too.
Sorry for being a bit late but thanks for the recs HK! :up: I'll check them out. Blue Steel I already know and think I've got the DVD kicking around somewhere. And I think I've perhaps got Mr Saturday Night taped somewhere. That a Billy Crystal flick?
I won't read all the review because I haven't seen it yet, but I've had this on my Sky Planner for a couple of weeks now recorded from one of the ITV channels, really want to watch it now that you've awarded it 5 stars, should be good :)
Fair enough. Hope you enjoy it whenever you get to it.
Excellent film.
One of only 3 films that cracked 101% Perfect Rating in my own thread...
Nice review! :up:
Nice? Nice?!!! NICE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All that time and effort and the best you can come up with is nice?! :mad: That's it, you're banned from the thread!
:p
What were the other two by the way? Too lazy to check myself right now
Saving Private Ryan a worthy recipient of the fabled 5 star rating. Probably the last true "great" film that Spielberg will ever make. I haven't seen Lincoln but I don't think Spielberg has made anything better than 4/5 film since SPR.
I think you are being generous giving Terminator Salvation 3/5. The only "salvation" for me was when it ended. The end fight between John Conner and the CGI Terminator was an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. The Terminator keeps picking up Connor and throwing him against a wall, when it could pick him up and break his neck/crush his skull in 0.5 seconds. Just laughable and not in a good way. Also what kind of Director calls themself MLG??
Don't know I'd go that far. Catch Me If You Can was really, really good and while I've not seen it for a while I remember loving Minority Report. Like you I've also not seen Lincoln. Or Munich for that matter.
That actually was one thing I meant to comment on - am I the only one kind of confused as to how the robots haven't already won? I mean they've got a conveyor belt of near unstoppable terminators, they can travel in time and now we see they can build machines hundreds of feet tall! And humanity has got......eh.......John Connor?
A truly Oscar worthy review of this movie that I too will be listing as one of my most memorable films.
That openning scene made me dodge bullets on my cauch and along with a scene from Blackhawk Down, in my eye, rate as the most intense battle scenes ever.
Do they give Oscars for reviews? I'll happily just accept a MoFo award for best review, or reviewer for that matter. Can't be too hard if my only competition is Rodent!! I kid because I love Rodent :kiss: :p
Oh and I thought I remember you had already included SPR on your memorable films list. Maybe I'm getting mixed up
The Rodent
03-13-13, 07:32 PM
In future I'll say: "Very not bad review! :up:"
The Rodent
03-13-13, 07:34 PM
Oh, the other two that cracked 101% were The Green Mile and WALL-E.
cinemaafficionado
03-16-13, 03:06 AM
:p
Do they give Oscars for reviews? I'll happily just accept a MoFo award for best review, or reviewer for that matter. Can't be too hard if my only competition is Rodent!! I kid because I love Rodent :kiss: :p
Oh, I would definitely throw BumbleBee into the mix:p so all you guys can duke it out for top honors:D
mirror mirror
Year of release
2012
Directed by
Malik Bendjelloul
Written by
Malik Bendjelloul
Searching for Sugar Man
4 +
Plot – In the early 1970s, a Detroit folk-singer by the name of Rodriguez is signed up by a music company and tipped for big things, with comparisons being made to Bob Dylan. Upon their release however his two albums completely flop and Rodriguez disappears. Except that's not actually what happened. Unbeknownst to Rodriguez, his music somehow made it to South Africa, a country being torn apart by apartheid. There he became a musical icon, and his music became the soundtrack to the lives of its people; adopted as protest anthems against the government. Despite his huge South African fanbase however they knew nothing about him, prompting numerous rumours to circulate about him, including that he had committed suicide live on stage. In the 1990s a few of his fans set off on a quest to find out the truth, setting in motion an incredible chain of events. This film details that story.
WARNING - There are spoilers to be found in this review. If you're intending to watch this film, and want to remain completely oblivous to the paths the story goes down, you may want to skip it.
As a story I found Searching for Sugar Man to be just fantastic. As a documentary however I may have a couple of issues with it, namely manipulation. Or perhaps directorial sleight-of-hand to give it a more positive spin. The film-makers appear to manipulate the story and facts, and as a result the viewer. For its opening stretch it appears to unfold in the present day, and it feels like we are leading up to the conclusion of the film being his glorious return to the stage. Except that it actually happened almost 15 years ago!!! Some of the major players however are acting oblivious to this, creating the illusion that it's only just happening right now. Particularly iffy is them talking about the stories that circulated South Africa of Rodriguez's death, despite the fact they know at this point (and have done for 15 years) that he's alive and well. I thought this film was going to be the search for Rodriguez, instead it's a retelling of the search which actually concluded in 1998. I'll give the film-makers the benefit of the doubt and say they were just attempting to recreate the sense of mystery and discovery that was felt back at the time by those conducting the search.
The film-makers also drop a storytelling thread about where the money went that he should have earned from his South African success. They ask Clarence Avant (to whom the South African royalties were apparently sent) about it and when they get stonewalled by him they just forget all about it. And lastly the film also appears guilty of omitting a fact or two. It ignores the fact that Rodriguez actually had a degree of success in Australia in the 1970s, so much so that he toured the country in 1979 and 1981. I can understand why this was ignored on one hand as its a film about the mythical air Rodriguez enjoyed in South Africa, and as a result of the harsh censorship and sanctions placed on the country during apartheid they would have had no idea about his popularity in Australia. However it does feel like they ignored it purely to build up the drama and emotion of his story.
Now that we've got the few negatives out of the way, onto the positives. Making use of Rodriguez's fairly meagre back catalogue (he made just two albums before fading into obscurity) provides the film with a stunning soundtrack, already one I'd probably rate amongst my favourite ever movie soundtracks. It may only be two albums worth but it's a great cache of songs. These songs commonly play over beautiful images of Rodriguez wandering the streets of Detroit. The images are very apt in trying to capture the poetic, roaming free spirit that many people painted him as. At the time of his initial attempt at stardom he was compared to Bob Dylan when it came to his song-writing ability and how revered he could/should be; and he certainly reminds me of the likes of Dylan, Nick Drake, Johnny Cash etc when it comes to his performances; imbuing his songs with so much emotion and power. The particular highlight for me would have to be Sugar Man, a haunting and hypnotic work. For introducing me, and indeed the world, to this man and his songs; for that alone the film deserves credit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyE9vFGKogs
Similarly to my recent viewing of The Lives of Others, this film shows the power of art, and in the case of Searching for Sugar Man, the power of music as a form of protest. In such a conservative and controlling country, this man singing about drugs and sex was a revelation; these people had found themselves a heroic rebel. And with songs such as “The Anti-Establishment Blues” it's no surprise that he inspired people who took on his music as protest anthems. His work also inspired other musicians in South Africa to protest against the apartheid government, forming what became known as the Voelvry movement; one of the first forms of protest that began to emerge. In fact his music was deemed so unsavoury and potentially dangerous that the government scratched his records so that radio stations couldn't play them. This of course just fuelled the desire amongst the people to seek out his music.
It seems somewhat appropriate that with his music was being born out of a tough time (1960s/70s Detroit), it was in another tough time that it found its spiritual home (apartheid-era South Africa). While they may both be very cinematic cities, and are joined by their difficult circumstances they are at opposite ends of the earth and could hardly have vastly more contrasting appearances. Detroit is a cold, harsh and immensely grey city whereas South Africa appears to be a sun-drenched, picturesque paradise. To fill in for the lack of existing footage from his life, animation is used to flesh out the locations of Detroit that were once there and that Rodriguez used to walk, but which are now long gone. Bendjelloul also employs an old super 8 camera at times to recreate moments from that time and create the feel of the time in the footage.
The film spends most of its time detailing the impact that Rodriguez had on the people who knew him and who heard his music, but I've got to say I would have liked them to delve deeper into Rodriguez's life; to see and hear more from the man himself. While a large part of that may have been down to his shy nature and reluctance to attract much attention, it does perhaps help in attempting to try and keep alive a degree of the mystery that tantalised the people of South Africa for so long. Though the film does feature quite a decent level of contribution from his three daughters which adds quite a bit of charm and emotion. And many of the people interviewed clearly have such a fondness and reverence for the man and his work that they impart such passion to their stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHdq4jm0oQ
In that time that we are allowed to spend in his presence however, Rodriguez himself proves to be a very likeable individual. Despite being built up as such a mythical figure the reality is much more down to earth. He proves to be spectacularly normal, nice and modest guy. He's not bitter or downtrodden in any way about what's happened in his life, and in a strange way he actually seems quite content with his lot. He may still live in the same dilapidated house he has all his life but he seems comfortable. And the money that he made from touring South Africa he largely gave away to his friends and family. While I hope this film raises his star to a great degree, and that he finally gets the recognition and success he deserves I don't feel it's something he personally would be all that obsessed over.
It really is an incredible story of a man who could somehow be completely ignored in his own country, and yet be a superstar, hell make that an icon, halfway around the world and completely unaware. At one point Clarence Avant says that upon its release in the States, one of Rodriguez's albums sold literally six copies, and it's tough to tell whether or not he's exaggerating. And yet across the world, and completely unbeknownst to him, he was one of the biggest artists for whole generations of people; selling half a million albums and dwarfing even the likes of the Rolling Stones. And for him to finally have become aware of this, to have had the opportunity to go to South Africa and perform in a series of sold-out concerts in front of thousands of fans, is just a wonderful Cinderella story. Rodriguez's story is great but it's something larger than that; it's an uplifting tale about hope, the human spirit and the realisation of your dreams.
And rather fittingly it's a story that is somewhat mirrored by that of the film's director, Malik Bendjelloul. Attempting to make a film that became a real passion project for him which he spent three years on (without earning a penny), before finally running out of money. He was completely broke and with the project seemingly doomed, he basically abandoned the film for a time. He returned to the film but unable to employ people he resorted to doing much of the film all by himself. With no experience, and nothing more than just his own laptop he was able to edit the film on his own, created the original score and provided the illustrations to flesh out the story. He even had to resort to using his smartphone with an iPhone app to shoot some footage at one point. Eventually he was able to get in contact with the producers of Man on Wire and gain their involvement, ensuring the film's future. Alongside Rodriguez it just sends the message that if you stick to your guns and integrity, and if you produce something worthwhile you may well be rewarded. If you put your heart and soul into trying to make your dreams come true then maybe they just will, even if it takes a while.
Conclusion – Just an absolutely fantastic story which makes for a fantastic viewing experience. For fans of music, of amazing tales and of great underdog stories I cannot recommend this enough. Oh and my copy of the film's soundtrack should hopefully be arriving any day now. I ordered it immediately as the closing titles began to roll!
Added a little interactive element to my Searching for Sugar Man review - a couple of youtube videos with his songs. I've included "Sugar Man" and the wonderfully catchy "I Wonder"
Micro Musings
mirror mirror
Year of release
1996
Directed by
Leon Gast
Featuring
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Don King
Norman Mailer
James Brown
When We Were Kings
4
As a huge Muhammad Ali fan this one already had a lot going for it coming in. And the film is successful on a number of fronts. It works as an examination of why Muhammad Ali is such a famous and beloved figure; showing him as the fascinating, charismatic, poetic and hilarious man that he was. It shows him as the boxer, as the activist, as the political leader and as the out and out entertainer. It also works as a behind the scenes look at one of the biggest, if not the biggest fight of all time - the Rumble in the Jungle battle between Ali and George Foreman, who up to this point had been deemed unstoppable. It's great just to see the build-up and all the hype that went into the event. And the moment where Ali pops off the ropes to put Foreman on the mat has got to be one of the greatest moments in sporting history. The film also provides a political and social view of life in Zaire at the time, but also back at home in America, and how powerfully Ali felt about these issues and the plans he had to try and combat them. The film has a terrific amount of fantastic archive footage, combined with great interviews with the likes of Norman Mailer and George Plimpton, two respected journalists and great storytellers. When We Were Kings also features a pretty cool soundtrack which captures the spirit of the time, featuring artists who performed at the music festival Don King organised as part of the huge event that was going on in Zaire around the fight; the likes of James Brown, B.B. King and the Spinners amongst others. The film is just a great snapshot of both sporting and cultural history.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1949
Directed by
Robert Hamer
Starring
Dennis Price
Valerie Hobson
Alec Guinness
Joan Greenwood
Kind Hearts and Coronets
2.5 +
I don't know if I'm alone in this, or if other people feel the same way, but every so often I come across films that I wished I loved, but just didn't. For the most part the Ealing comedies would unfortunately fall into that category. The only one I really liked (close to loved) was The Lavender Hill Mob. And I also liked The Man in the White Suit. Outside of that they just don't greatly appeal to me. I mean I can appreciate that they, and this film in particular, are smart and classy affairs but they just don't excite me, and worst of all they just don't make me laugh. I just find them so quaint, so twee, so old-fashioned, so English! The brand of humour throughout is just so incredibly dry that at times it would take me a couple of seconds to realise, 'oh that was a funny line' and by then the moment had passed. Basically what I'm asking is when is someone going to get hit in the nuts by a football?! :p The story itself I found to be interesting and enjoyable enough, despite the lack of laughs. The p*sstake of the class system was fun, and I got a kick out of the twist at the end which revealed a slightly surprising femme fatale. Despite what the score may indicate, in no way do I find this a poor film, just not one that really does much for me. Apologies to fans of the film, especially Mark who I think had it in his top 100 list. Just so you know Mark I'm imagining you with an Al Pacino-like voice from Godfather - “You broke my heart JayDee.” :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1989
Directed by
Ivan Reitman
Starring
Bill Murray
Dan Aykroyd
Sigourney Weaver
Harold Ramis
Rick Moranis
Ghostbusters II
3 +
I've got quite a shocking revelation to kick-start this little review – up until now I had never actually seen Ghostbusters II!!!.............Ok I sense that none of you are that impressed. :D To all of you it won't mean much but this was quite a shock to me. I was sure I had seen this film, and as I love the first one I can't believe I hadn't; well not in full anyway. I've caught portions of it on TV quite a few times, and I think when combined with the numerous times I've watched the original, in my mind I've sort of melded the footage together and imagined a full viewing experience. Anyway onto the film itself. And sadly it doesn't come all that close to matching the original comedy classic. There are still quite a few laughs to be found throughout, but this time around the film is certainly relying heavily on the talents of its cast (Bill Murray especially) to mine these laughs. The script and plot just don't have the same spark as the first film. And while it may be hard to do considering the first film the whole thing just seems a bit sillier, and like it was perhaps created more with kids in mind. The villain this time out, Vigo, just doesn't prove as memorable or pose as big a threat, and the whole story that's built around him just didn't satisfy the same way. As a result most of my favourite moments didn't actually revolve around the ghostbusting, but the personal interaction between Murray and Weaver. I think a big problem was that the first film just felt like a perfectly contained story with a natural end that did not need to be revisited. However thanks to the cast and their chemistry together it does still prove an entertaining enterprise, but way short of the brilliance that was the first Ghostbusters.
Skepsis93
03-19-13, 07:57 PM
I know what you mean about Kind Hearts - it didn't make me laugh out loud many times, but I thought it had a very humorous undertone and I just loved that mix of quaint and sinister. I'd give it 4, personally, but I can definitely see how how you'd find it just too British and too quaint.
honeykid
03-19-13, 08:31 PM
I'm the same with Ealing comedies, JD, with the exception that I don't love any of them. :D
I'm looking forward to Searching For Sugarman, which is why I haven't read your review.
Whatever. :)
Oh Mark don't be like that. I know that you're hurting, but you don't have to try and hide it behind a blase 'whatever'. I'm really sorry man. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/hug-1_zps21251001.gif
:p
but I can definitely see how how you'd find it just too British and too quaint.
Whoa wait a minute. I never said it was too British. I said it was too English. Don't try and rope the Scots in on the blame! :p
I'm the same with Ealing comedies, JD, with the exception that I don't love any of them. :D
I'm looking forward to Searching For Sugarman, which is why I haven't read your review.
Not a fan of any of them? The only 'big' Ealing film I've got left I think is The Ladykillers.
Alright then, I can give you a pass on one of my reviews just this once. ;)
mirror mirror
Year of release
2001
Directed by
Baz Luhrmann
Written by
Baz Luhrmann
Craig Pearce
Starring
Nicole Kidman
Ewan McGregor
Jim Broadbent
John Leguizamo
Richard Roxburgh
Moulin Rouge
3 -
Plot – The year is 1899 and the city of Paris has attracted a young English writer, Christian (McGregor) with its promise of the Bohemian revolution that is sweeping the city's streets. And the Mecca for this revolution is the Moulin Rouge, a nightclub where the rich and poor alike come to be entertained by the Diamond Dog dancers led by the club's star courtesan, Satine (Kidman). Things become complicated for Christian when he falls in love with Satine, whose affections are also courted by a wealthy Duke (Roxburgh) who is considering investing in the club. A dangerous love triangle ensues as Satine and Christian attempt to keep alive their love in secret. Satine however is keeping a dark secret of her own, one that spells doom for the couple's potential happiness.
This film really wasn't high on my watch list. In fact I'm not sure when or even if I would have gotten round to it. However last Sunday was Mother's Day here in the UK, so when it came to watching a film with my mum at night it was completely her choice. No matter what she wanted to go with, that's what we'd watch. Well she wanted to finally give Moulin Rouge a go after having the DVD kicking about for years and years.
My viewing experience actually bore a strong resemblance to the previous musical I watched – Les Miserables. This was due to me finding Moulin Rogue to be a similarly mixed bag. I was actually surprised at how much I was able to enjoy the film when it was being played straight, and how much I engaged with the romantic storyline that Kidman and McGregor shared. Very tragic and Shakespearean in design, I found their romance to have quite a degree of beauty and sincerity about it, helped supremely by a nice chemistry shared by the two. So that was the positive. On the negative side however, I absolutely detested the film when it moved off into screwball territory! Whenever it engaged in the slapstick and the goofy I just felt like gouging out my eyes and then using them as makeshift earplugs; that way I could neither see or hear what was being inflicted upon me! I just found it so immensely grating and cringy whenever the film all of a sudden descended into a cartoon. The songs they sing become ludicrous, the logic and sound effects are right out of a Looney Tunes short and everyone just acts like a clown.
Despite being a worshipper of redheads, Nicole Kidman isn't someone that I've really been that enamoured with. Here however, decked out in a series of burlesque-like outfits, that changed. Damn she is absolutely smoking in this! Sexy, elegant and effervescent, at times she appears to actually glow on the screen. It's not just her physical appearance that is so striking but the attitude with which she carries herself throughout the film. Evoking a great confidence and sexuality she is just magnetic as Satine. Stunning! I know he seems to be an actor who splits audiences right down the middle (I've got a friend who cannot stand him!) but I've got to say that I've always quite liked Ewan McGregor. Perhaps its my Scottish bias but I've always found him quite a cheery, likeable presence on the screen. And again here I found myself supporting and sympathising with his character as a result of his performance. I was not as infatuated with the performances of Jim Broadbent and John Leguizamo however. Though to be fair to them, I personally felt they were rather sabotaged by the characters foisted upon them which required quite camp, flamboyant showings; and that just fed into the silly, slapstick element of the film which irritated me so. Oh and it's a shame that Richard Roxburgh's duke is relegated to little more than a sneering, one dimensional villain. The only surprise was that he didn't constantly use his fingers to twirl his little pencil moustache; that would just have completed his silent movie villain vibe. He seems to exist purely to provide an inconvenience for the lovers.
Film trivia - Several big names were linked with the role of Satine before it eventually went the way of Kidman. These included Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger and Courtney Love. Love in particular was very bitter about losing out, calling it one of the biggest disappointments of her career. She has also stated publicly her resentment towards Kidman. In an interview for Vanity Fair, Luhrmann characterized the difference between the two by saying that “Courtney is fire and Nicole is ice.” In response to this, Love described Kidman as “a puddle” and on her 1999 tour with Hole dedicated the song “Miss World” (a song about a self-loathing beauty queen) to Kidman. Miaow!Most of the film's highlights come as a result of the songs that are featured. The large majority of them are covers of classic songs which are given a slight twist, many of them successfully I have to say. And thankfully McGregor and Kidman both prove quite capable of delivering them with a fair degree of talent and flair. The standout moment would probably have to be the 'Elephant Love Medley' which features McGregor and Kidman atop a stunning elephant statue, trading lines from classic love songs back and forth; utilizing the likes of “All You Need Is Love” by the Beatles, “In the Name of Love” by U2 and “Heroes” by David Bowie amongst countless others. It's just as well that the musical instances hit such heights on occasion as the plot itself left a bit to be desired. While I may have bought into the romance between Christian and Satine it's not exactly the most original or creative storyline. In fact I think I might be right in saying that it's the plot to just about every opera ever made! :D And at times it becomes a bit of a convoluted mess with little rhyme or reason to proceedings.
Eli Roth is a purveyor of torture porn. The Fifty Shades of Grey books have been referred to as mommy porn. Well I would like to christen Baz Luhrmann as the master of 'sequin porn'. The film really is quite astonishing to look at, just a constant assault of colour and glitz, with Luhrmann's darting, inventive camerawork capturing it beautifully. He revels in the gorgeous costumes and the staggering sets. The scenes set in the Moulin Rouge itself are immense, just a cavalcade of dancers invading the screen. The large rendition/performance of “Diamons Are a Girl's Best Friend” is absolutely spectacular to witness. What was unfortunate then was the film's penchant for rather scattershot editing, which at times sabotaged the ability to appreciate what was on screen for the simple fact that it was actually tough to see and work out what was going on. It feels like a frenzied mess at times, overloading the senses.
Conclusion – Gaudy. Opulent. Kitschy. Garish. Decadent. Moulin Rouge is all those things and more! I've seen this film dubbed as one of those real 'love it or hate it' films, and I certainly found that to be the case, even if it wasn't in the conventional sense. Some bits of it I loved, others I absolutely hated! As a result it was tough to really stay in the film, I kept getting taken out of it whenever it descended into silliness. As a piece of visual entertainment however there is no doubt that it is quite astonishing, like very little I've ever seen before. I don't think it's a film I could ever bring myself to watch again in full. However I could perhaps pop in the DVD and fast forward through it to some of the big songs, and certainly past the bits that infuriated me so.
honeykid
03-21-13, 05:03 PM
Glad you enjoyed it, JD. :)
I've not seen this in forever. In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched it. Ten years ago, maybe? I don't know, but I do know I got punched on the arm by the friend I went to see this with because I didn't warn her that it was sad at the end and her makeup had all run. :D I'd already seen it a few times, by nefarious means, before it was released, so, naturally, this was all my fault.
:eek: Wow you like Moulin Rouge HK? Would certainly not have called that one.
Aww the poor girl, how could you do that to her? :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
2001
Directed by
Baz Luhrmann
Written by
Baz Luhrmann
Craig Pearce
Starring
Nicole Kidman
Ewan McGregor
Jim Broadbent
John Leguizamo
Richard Roxburgh
Moulin Rouge
3 -
On the negative side however, I just felt like gouging out my eyes and then using them as makeshift earplugs;
:laugh:
mirror mirror
Year of release
1994
Directed by
Jan de Bont
Written by
Graham Yost
Starring
Keanu Reeves
Sandra Bullock
Dennis Hopper
Jeff Daniels
Alan Ruck
Joe Morton
Speed
5
Plot - A crazed and dangerous man by the name of Howard Payne (Hopper) attempts to extort money with threats of killing people trapped inside an elevator by setting off a series of explosions. Much to his chagrin his plans are foiled by young SWAT officer Jack Traven (Reeves) and his partner Harry Temple (Daniels). It was believed that he had been killed in the confrontation but he was actually able to escape, and now he's out for revenge. He still wants his money, but now he also wants to play with Jack like a puppet. He blows up one bus and places a bomb on another. Payne contacts Traven personally to taunt him and inform him that if the bus' speed drops below 50 mph it will explode. In his attempts to save the commuters on board, Traven himself actually boards the bus. When the bus driver is accidentally shot; a young female commuter, Annie Porter (Bullock) takes over at the wheel. Together she and Jack work in tandem to try and keep the bus going at all costs until a solution can be found.
“There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up.”
What a premise that is! How could you possibly go wrong with such a tantalising concept to work from? I've got no idea, and thankfully it appears that neither did Jan de Bont. A few weeks back I had the misfortune to finally watch the awful Speed 2: Cruise Control. I was so insulted and hurt by it that I knew I just had to go back to the original in an attempt to wipe it from my memory. And thankfully I found this film to still be brilliant. Speed is one of the absolutely definitive entries into the action genre in my eyes, and one of my absolute favourites.
Speed actually has a rather sedate opening. The first two or three minutes is nothing but the camera panning down an elevator shaft, with the credits rolling onto the screen against the grey and repetitive background. After that though the film really does come flying right out of the gate, and is basically just three extended set-pieces smashed together for the next two hours of its running time. It really is just an unending adrenaline rush that barely gives you a single pause for breath. There's a Jason Statham film from a few years back now called Crank. Now I've not actually seen it myself but I am aware of its plot - Statham's character is injected with a poison that will result in his death if his heart dropped below a certain level. To avoid this he must do all he can to maintain a high adrenaline level. So his character takes drugs, gets in fight, commits crimes and has sex in public all in an effort to keep the adrenaline flowing. All he really had to do was sit down, pop a DVD of Speed in and he'd be set! :D
Film trivia – While Speed may have been the film that really made Sandra Bullock's career, no-one else apparently saw the potential. It seems like the film-makers couldn't give the role of Annie away. Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Sigourney Weaver, Cameron Diaz, Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster, Kim Basinger, Halle Berry, Geena Davis, Carrie Fisher, Michelle Pfeiffer, Emma Thompson, Rosanna Arquette, Meg Ryan, Ally Sheedy, Maris Tomei and Sarah Jessica Parker are just some of the dozens of actresses who all turned down the role. And thank goodness they did!Jan de Bont's creative, and at times inventive, direction helps to deliver an absolutely frenzied pace and is responsible for so much of the film's relentless energy. The achievement that he was able to pull of really is highly impressive. Creating a sequence that entails numerous vehicles and activities for just one scene can be a tricky thing to pull off. To manage it for a whole film is pretty damn incredible. A while back I watched the rather great To Live and Die in LA; that featured a fantastic chase sequence helmed by William Friedkin. Here de Bont pretty much takes that and just stretches it out to a whole film. His ability to choreograph so many cars and trucks and create thrilling scenes with them, all while keeping things coherent and not overwhelming the viewer, is quite a feat and he does it with great aplomb. The film also features some immense practical stunt work, with Keanu Reeves performing about 90% of the stunts himself. Doing so just adds such a level of authenticity and danger to proceedings. And the fact that de Bont was able to deliver such endless thrills on a relatively paltry budget of between $25 and $30 million I find to be just staggering.
The film was written by Graham Yost, and going by his script I feel safe in saying that he is one sadistic b**tard!! :D He just doesn't give these characters a break, piling on one complication after another. I just picture him writing this script and cackling away maniacally to himself as he comes up with each new predicament. “I'll stick people on a bus with a bomb.”, “Oh and then I'll have the driver get shot, leaving no-one qualified to drive the bus.”, “Oh and then there will be heavy LA traffic to deal with of course.”; “Hell let's also put a big chasm in the road they'll have to job over!” Given it's pretty lurid and over-the-top concept you'd be forgiven for not expecting much from the script outself outside of that ludicrous starting point. However it actually proves to be a surprisingly smart and witty script, really mining the premise for every amount of tension and thrills possible. Thought some credit should apparently go to the god of the geeks that is Joss Whedon. He rewrote the script uncredited and according to Graham Yost provided much of the film's dialogue. And Whedon's touch was vital in bringing Reeves on board. He had initially turned down the role as he found the script to be too much of a Die Hard clone. After Whedon re-tooled the script Reeves agreed.to sign on.
The plot and action are king here, leaving the characters to be little more than one dimensional fodder for Yost and de Bont to mess with. Very importantly however they are all very well played by the cast. No-one is ever going to accuse Keanu Reeves of possessing great acting talent but when he's placed in the right role he can be very effective, as seen in the likes of Bill & Ted, The Matrix and here in Speed. He brings a nice sense of authority and swagger to the role, resulting in a certain charisma and charm. And while he may not have much more than standard villain tropes to work with, Dennis Hopper gives a deliciously nasty performance as the maniacal psycho with a grudge. He sneers and barks his way through the film, given the chance to spew out some terrifically colourful dialogue with glee.
Film trivia - I mentioned earlier that the film had a rather paltry budget in terms of action-packed blockbusters and the film did actually run out of money before it was completed. As a result when the first preview screening was held for an audience, the closing subway scenes appeared only in the form of animated storyboards. The audience loved the sequences so much though that the studio immediately came up with the additional funds to shoot the scenes properly.
The star for me however would probably have to be the delightful Sandra Bullock. She is an actress I've always really liked and unless I'm getting mixed up I believe this was the first film where I fell in love with her. I just find her to be immensely likeable in general, and particularly here as the strong and feisty Annie. A real part of the appeal is that she doesn't really inhabit the classic female lead role and love interest. The character comes across as a very natural and realistic character, acting and reacting the way you would really expect someone to. And cursing all the way! :D Handling both the serious and comedic moments wonderfully, she just brings the heart to the film. Together she and Reeves have a really nice, easy-going chemistry that provides the film with many of its lighter moments and helps to keep the characters from being dwarfed by the larger than life premise.
Speed is just so superior to its sequel in every single way. One such element is in its ability to flesh out the characters that are in peril to a point where we actually like and care about them. In Cruise Control I honestly couldn't care about a single one of them. Here it's achieved thanks to a combination of the writing and the performances of some very capable character actors. You've got the great Alan Ruck as a hapless tourist who provides a lot of laughs and generates a good deal of empathy. Joe Morton is tough and ballsy as Reeves' lieutenant. There are a couple of people who have a really distinct look and lots of character such as Beth Grant (who I feel I've seen in just about every TV show ever) and Hawthorne Jones as Sam the bus driver. And then of course you have the wonderful Jeff Daniels who never fails to entertain in my opinion. Playing Reeves' injured partner he runs Ruck close in terms of laughs generated.
So an excellent film then. All of that said though; when you consider the amount of damage that the bus does to numerous cars, buildings, planes etc wouldn't it just have been cheaper to pay the guy his ransom! :D
Conclusion - Absolutely fantastic!!! I had actually forgotten just how much I loved this film. It's everything that Speed 2 isn't; it's chock-full of thrills, it's got a lot of humour, it has a degree of intelligence, it features a series of great performances and all in all is just one of the most purely entertaining films I've ever come across. More than that, I actually think this is just an absolutely brilliant film in general!
honeykid
03-23-13, 08:55 PM
Good review, JD. If I was still in touch with my old Film Studies tutor, I'd send him this as I repeatedly told him he should watch Speed, while he couldn't think why.
Godoggo
03-23-13, 10:37 PM
Sequin porn! I love it. I'm so stealing that from you. That could become very popular amoung my more flamboyant friends. I love Moulin Rouge for the very reasons you list in your conclusion.
Speed is enjoyable as well, but I don't love it.
The Rodent
03-24-13, 09:32 AM
Love Speed. I've noticed there's been some love recently for it. TD99 has recently put it in his Top 100, I recently added it too to mine. I reviewed it a couple weeks ago and now JayDee has made a proper decent review of it too...
Yes, it's a good job Bullock took the role, love her in this movie.
Very not bad JayDee! :up: ;)
Good review, JD. If I was still in touch with my old Film Studies tutor, I'd send him this as I repeatedly told him he should watch Speed, while he couldn't think why.
Wow did you feel that? Felt like an earthquake as a result of all the MoFos falling off their chairs at the shock of you being in a Film Studies class! "How could he have been in a Film Studies class and still have Charlie's Angels as his third favourite film of all time?!" :p
^ That's not me talking by the way. I'm just voicing the interal thoughts of all the other MoFos out there who don't appreciate the quality of Charlie's Angels. ;)
Anyway thank you. I'm touched that you think so much of the review you'd use it as an arguement for watching it.
Sequin porn! I love it. I'm so stealing that from you. That could become very popular amoung my more flamboyant friends.
:laugh: Well have at it then. I gift the term 'sequin porn' to you, as long as I get some credit when you tell your flamboyant friends. :D
Love Speed. I've noticed there's been some love recently for it. TD99 has recently put it in his Top 100, I recently added it too to mine. I reviewed it a couple weeks ago and now JayDee has made a proper decent review of it too...
Well I included it in my top 100 nearly a couple of years back (though shamefully low) so I'm going to take credit for its renaissance on the forum! :D
And yeah I saw your poxy attempt at reviewing Speed before I came along and showed you how to do it properly! :p
^ Sorry mate but you've started a war with your little 'king of reviews' caption! :D
The Rodent
03-24-13, 05:30 PM
Mine had more pictures... and had Speed 2 in the same review too.
Edit: More notes too.
Brodinski
03-25-13, 04:19 PM
mirror mirror
Year of release
1996
Directed by
Leon Gast
Featuring
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Don King
Norman Mailer
James Brown
When We Were Kings
4
As a huge Muhammad Ali fan this one already had a lot going for it coming in. And the film is successful on a number of fronts. It works as an examination of why Muhammad Ali is such a famous and beloved figure; showing him as the fascinating, charismatic, poetic and hilarious man that he was. It shows him as the boxer, as the activist, as the political leader and as the out and out entertainer. It also works as a behind the scenes look at one of the biggest, if not the biggest fight of all time - the Rumble in the Jungle battle between Ali and George Foreman, who up to this point had been deemed unstoppable. It's great just to see the build-up and all the hype that went into the event. And the moment where Ali pops off the ropes to put Foreman on the mat has got to be one of the greatest moments in sporting history. The film also provides a political and social view of life in Zaire at the time, but also back at home in America, and how powerfully Ali felt about these issues and the plans he had to try and combat them. The film has a terrific amount of fantastic archive footage, combined with great interviews with the likes of Norman Mailer and George Plimpton, two respected journalists and great storytellers. When We Were Kings also features a pretty cool soundtrack which captures the spirit of the time, featuring artists who performed at the music festival Don King organised as part of the huge event that was going on in Zaire around the fight; the likes of James Brown, B.B. King and the Spinners amongst others. The film is just a great snapshot of both sporting and cultural history.
Wholeheartedly concur that this is a great, great documentary. Still, the greatest moment in boxing history is probably Frazier smoking Ali with that left hook from hell in their first fight.
Frazier was an introvert, no-nonsense person who did his talking in the ring, whereas Ali was very brash, outspoken. Ali had called him 'the other type negro' and even an Uncle Tom in the build-up to their first fight. Frazier could never understand that Ali said those things to build up the fight and took them very personal. He almost went to his grave hating Ali.
Nice quote about this: when Ali was banned from boxing, Frazier met President Nixon and asked to give Ali a license. So Nixon asked him why. Frazier just smiled and said: 'Cause I wanna dust him off'.
And did he ever. Only one man can lay claim to winning the biggest fight in boxing history and it's not the man they call The Greatest.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1990
Directed by
Allan Moyle
Written by
Allan Moyle
Starring
Chrisian Slater
Samantha Mathis
Mimi Kennedy
Annie Ross
Pump Up the Volume
4 -
Plot – Mark Hunter (Slater) has recently been forced to relocate to Arizona from the East Coast. His parents give him a short-wave radio so that he can keep in touch with his old friends. Except that Mark uses it for very different reasons. During the day at school Mark is a shy, reserved student but at night he becomes the anarchic pirate DJ, Happy Harry Hard-on. Things go much further than Mark could ever have imagined however, as his rantings make him a cult hero amongst his fellow students (who have no idea of his true identity) and a poison in the eyes of teachers and parents. When he inspires scenes of chaos at school, and when one of his listeners commits suicide a media frenzy swirls up and the authorities are called in to put a stop to the broadcasts.
Up front I have to admit that I don't believe I had ever heard of this film before signing up to the forum. After discovering that it was a real favourite of a number of members on the site (Honeykid, Sexy Celebrity, Used Future, TylerDurden99 etc) I felt I had to track it down and give it a shot. And I'm glad I did. It proved to be a highly entertaining angst powered teen anthem. To flesh this review out I thought I'd do a little something different. Part of Pump Up the Volume entails Christian Slater's character talking about his life and his problems, and encouraging listeners to do the same by either writing or phoning in. So I thought I'd talk about my teenage years and school days a bit, and try to relate it to the film.
Pump Up the Volume shows that for a whole lot of people their school days were not in fact the 'greatest time of your life' as so many TV shows and films would lead you to believe. And I was certainly one of those people. Truth is I'm kinda f**ked up! :D I suffer from social phobia and have done for my whole life basically. The place that really precipitated that was certainly at school. Every morning before school I would be in the bathroom feeling sick and every day was just an immense struggle. It got to the point where it was making my whole life miserable, and making me so depressed that I even considered taking the most drastic of actions. I was saved from that when at 14/15 it just got too much and I was advised to stop going to school. From then on I just studied at home with tutors popping in every so often. Was still a very tough time though even after that so I could certainly appreciate the struggles of the students in this film, even if the problems may not have been the same; I departed school before immense peer pressure over drugs and sex etc began to rear its head.
I felt the film was very successful at providing a snapshot of being a teenager, at portraying the highs and lows of teenage life. At that age when something bad happens in your life it's the worst thing ever! I mean it's the absolute end of the world! And yet on the flipside, the things that you love - you really love, and become incredibly important to you. In a lot of the cases the music, the films and the books that you absorb in this time mean more to you than anything else ever will. It's where you formulate who you are and what you like. It also shows how important it is to find that 'voice' that really talks to you at that age. The 'voice' that feels its talking right to you. For these kids it's turning on their radios and listening to Happy Harry Hard-on. For me it was sitting in my room listening to the songs of Nirvana on repeat over and over, listening to Kurt Cobain talk directly to me. Or so it felt at the time. Oh and the film also takes the time to throw in a touch of satire about how the media can whip up a frenzy over a story and blow it all out of proportion. They take the suicide of a student that listened to Harry's show, and instead of examining what was going in his life to drive him to such lengths, they turn it into an attack on Harry and the kids in general, talking about how dangerous they are. It's very easy to see the links to attacks on movies, video games and rap music when some outrage occurs.
Film trivia - Pump up the Volume features a pretty corrupt principal who expels so called 'trouble' students to help the school's grade average. The film's writer/director Allan Moyles based the school, Hubert Humphrey Hugh, on a Montreal high school where his sister used to teach. According to his sister the school had a principal "who had a pact with the staff to enhance the credibility of the school scholastically at the expense of the students who were immigrants or culturally disabled in some way or another."While I don't imagine I've seen a huge number of his films, Christian Slater is an actor I've always really enjoyed watching. I've always been quite taken by his edgy intensity; and that edgy, spiky demeanour that he appears to naturally possess makes him a perfect fit for the role of Mark 'Hard Harry' Hunter. Indeed in many ways the Hard Harry persona of his character fells rather similar to the role of J.D., the character that Slater memorably portrayed in the wonderful pitch-black comedy, Heathers. Except that here he isn't quite as homicidal! :D In a way Slater actually plays two characters here; the shy, withdrawn Mark Hunter that barely a single person notices, and then his manic alter ego, Happy Harry Hard-on. His Mark is very one-note, and it doesn't really seem to fit Slater all that well. As Happy Harry however he is fantastic! His on-air performance is fantastically wild, jumping manically from smooth-talking ladies man to a raging revolutionary in the blink of an eye. It really is Slater's intensity and charisma that drives the film. The great power and passion he puts into his dialogue heavy on-air speeches are great fun, and really stirred the anti-establishment anarchist in me! :D
As Mark's love interest, and the sole person to know the truth about him, Samantha Mathis is alluring as hell as Nora. She really is exceptionally sexy in a dangerous, bad girl kind of way. And as someone who very much identified with Mark's shy, geeky side she was the kind of girl you dreamed of. A girl who was really cool to come along, see you for who you were and bring you out of your shell. Admittedly outside of these two some of the acting may not be up to the highest of standards but it doesn't overly hurt the film for me.
As you would hope, and indeed expect from a film about a pirate DJ, Pump Up the Volume proves to have a pretty awesome soundtrack, featuring the likes of The Pixies, Liquid Jesus, Soundgarden and Sonic Youth. The film also features the excellent “Everybody Knows” by Leonard Cohen as Harry's signature song that he kicks off each broadcast with. It's actually the second great film I've seen which features the song prominently; the other being the ace documentary, The King of Kong.
It would actually make for quite a fun double-bill alongside Class of 1984, which I watched a few weeks back. Both films feature a fairly hellish school but points the finger at different individuals; Class of 1984 painted the kids as scum whereas in Pump up the Volume its the teachers who are the problem.
Conclusion - The film may be a little rough around the edges, and appear a bit dated in our internet age, but it's got an honesty and a sincerity about it that I was drawn to. And at least it's a film that attempts to say something. While I still greatly enjoyed this film, I just wish I had seen it back in my mid to late teens. If I had I think I would have absolutely loved it! It would have been one of those I really considered 'my films'.
Nice review. Thanks for the personal glimpse. I think most people vastly underestimate how our personal experiences inform how we watch and enjoy film.
honeykid
03-25-13, 11:17 PM
So pleased to see you enjoyed this, JD. It's a great review and I completely agree with you about Samantha Mathis as Nora. I fell for her completely in this and have done so ever since.
I also think you'd have loved this as I do if you'd seen it then. I think I was 18 or 19 when I saw it for the first time.
Whilst I agree that Class Of '84 would be a good double bill, I think a better one would be Pump Up The Volume and Over The Edge... Which just happens to also be in my top 100. ;)
Just out of interest does anyone even read my reviews?!!!! :D I just realised that I had somehow replaced Dennis Hopper with Dennis Weaver in my Speed review, and had done so three times! And not a single person noticed!!! Clearly you're all paying a great deal of attention to my musings! :p
The Rodent
03-26-13, 06:25 PM
Damn... we've been rumbled.
:D
honeykid
03-27-13, 08:53 AM
I guess we all just spellchecked it mentally and made the correction for you. :)
TylerDurden99
03-27-13, 05:39 PM
Pump Up The Volume is brilliant, one of my all-time favourites. Great review, Jaydee!
mirror mirror
Year of release
1998
Directed by
Martin Campbell
Written by
Ted Elliott
Terry Rossio
John Eskow
Starring
Antonio Banderas
Anthony Hopkins
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Stuart Wilson
Matt Letscher
The Mask of Zorro
4
Plot – In the early 19th century, the people of California are subjugated under Spanish rule led by Don Rafael Montero (Wilson). The people have a hero however in the form of a masked swordsman named Zorro. His true identity of Don Diego de la Vega (Hopkins) is unfortunately discovered and when attempts are made to apprehend him his wife is killed, and his daughter taken and raised as Montero's daughter Eléna (Zeta-Jones). Thrown in prison, de la Vega is left to rot for twenty years. After that period of time Montero returns with plans to bring California under his control. With Montero back de la Vega escapes from his prison intent on revenge. Part of this revenge includes training a new man to take on the Zorro mantle, Alejandro Murrieta (Banderas).
I can't believe how little this film seems to get talked about these days. Back when it was released in 1998 I'm sure I remember it being quite a big deal and being very popular. But it seems to be one of those films that has slipped very quickly from the minds of many people. And as a result I think it's now in 'very under-rated' territory. Perhaps it's a result of Zorro's old school charms being blown away by effects-heavy adventure films that followed in its wake, films such as the The Mummy, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Pirates of the Caribbean. Or perhaps the lacklustre 2005 sequel, Legend of Zorro, has to take some of the blame; tainting the original in the minds of viewers. Whatever the reason I think it's real shame, as if the first Pirates of the Caribbean film hadn't come along I think this may well be the best pure adventure film of the last 15-20 years.
Quite often these days when a film is released, during the publicity for it those involved will talk about how they couldn't have made the film even ten years ago; they needed the technology to catch up. The likes of Avatar, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Sin City come to mind amongst others. Well Zorro is the exact opposite of that. This film could easily have been made 70 or 80 years ago and it would have been done so with the exact same techniques. This is just an example of honest too goodness, old-fashioned film-making. Lacking in any CGI, the action and stunts are achieved through practical means, and its locations are made of stone. It really is a film that flies in the face of the old “they don't make 'em like that anymore” adage. Well back in 1998 at least, they did make em like they used to.
Film trivia – The film could have turned out very different from the final version that made it to cinemas. Originally Robert Rodriguez was attached to direct the film, and he had plans for a much more violent, R-rated Zorro. The studio had serious reservations about this approach however and when they tried to reign in the budget to limit the risk Rodrigquez dropped out.With his natural charisma and swarthy Latin charms Antonio Banderas is a perfect fit as our masked hero, Zorro. He delivers moments of genuine heroism but Banderas has no problem when it comes to not taking himself all that seriously. There's a lot of self-deprecation in his showing and he's not afraid to look the fool. Catherine Zeta-Jones is not greatly taxed by her role. It asks little more of her than to look beautiful and display the type of charms that would entice Banderas' Zorro so. The star turn however undoubtedly arrives in the form of Anthony Hopkins. And in general I'd say it's amongst the best performances you're likely to see in this kind of fare. I'm not saying he should have been nominated for an Oscar or anything but as far as blockbusters go this is a very affecting and nuanced showing. For the majority of the film he wears a mask of class, charm and great wit but beneath lies a great sense of pain and a longing for revenge. The relationship between Hopkins' mentor and Banderas' student is a real highlight of the film; their training sequences and their witty banter providing great fun. I'll admit that the fact there are no actual Mexican actors in the roles of Mexican characters may perhaps be a bit of a troubling issue but it's not one I really feel in a position to comment on so I'll just skirt around it.
The film features some terrifically rousing action, again all achieved through practical means. There are some skilfully orchestrated swordfights which are choreographed with a real sense of fun and creativity. And some impressive stuntwork is able to create some fantastic, rip-roaring action sequences. Some highly impressive sets also provide a magnificent backdrop for these proceedings. The action and indeed everything about the film are captured with some lavish photography, and soundtracked by a suitably heroic and old school score.
As well as being produced in an old-fashioned way, the film's story details some of the oldest emotions around - love and revenge. Perhaps a great deal of effort isn't put into establishing the romance between Zorro and Eléna, but the smouldering looks that the couple share throughout go a long way to selling the romance all by itself. It's also helped along greatly by a couple of very fun and sexy sequences. The first is a terrifically charged and immensely sexy dance scene. And the other is the sword fight the two engage in which became the film's signature moment, as Zorro uses his immense talents to slice Eléna's dress clean off her shoulders. Outside of that, the story's other driving force is the duelling tales of revenge that our two heroes engage in; both very powerful ones at that involving the deaths of loved ones and the theft of a daughter.
Film trivia – Initial plans to make the film kicked off in 1994 and included Sean Connery being cast in the role of Don Diego de la Vega. As time rumbled on Connery eventually dropped out, but even then it took a bit of time before Hopkins signed on. He was initially forced to reject the role because of severe pain he was suffering in his neck. A laser operation brought an end to the problem however and made it possible for Hopkins to accept the role. There are some flaws with the film however. Neither of the film's villains really deliver the threat necessary I felt. Stuart Wilson and Matt Letscher both put in fine performances actually, but I just feel that up against the larger-than-life Zorro they perhaps required 'bigger' characters to make an impact up against him. And I would say the film is probably 15 or so minutes overlong, bypassing the optimal point at which to conclude the movie to add in an extra ending or two.
I'll admit that I am perhaps being a little bit generous with my rating for the film. These days, after numerous viewings when I was younger, I perhaps don't enjoy it quite that much anymore. But I do still have a lot of love for it from when I was younger and fond memories of it, including going to see it with my mum when we were on holiday back in 1998.
Conclusion – A wonderfully old-fashioned slice of swashbuckling adventure. It's got action, adventure, romance, laughs throughout....what more could you want? A film that really should be held in higher esteem than it currently is in my eyes. Or is it just me?
Sexy Celebrity
03-28-13, 07:14 PM
JayDee, did I inspire you to watch Pump Up The Volume?
I hope you'll put the movie on your list for the Best of the 1990's (the one Harry Lime is collecting, of course). LET'S GET IT ON THERE! PUT IT HIGH ON THERE!
Edit: Nevermind. I see you mentioned my name in the review.
Loved your review of it.
And did he ever. Only one man can lay claim to winning the biggest fight in boxing history and it's not the man they call The Greatest.
I'll admit that I'm not a boxing fan so not really knowledgeable about it but is that really the biggest fight in boxing history? At the time perhaps but surely now the biggest ever fights are considered to be the Rumble in the Jungle, the brutal Thrilla in Manilla, and perhaps the Tyson-Hollyfield fight because of the ear biting.
Mine had more pictures... and had Speed 2 in the same review too.
Edit: More notes too.
"More pictures"?!!! Is that a George W Bush recommendation or something?! :D "Well I like this review because it has more pictures."
So pleased to see you enjoyed this, JD. It's a great review and I completely agree with you about Samantha Mathis as Nora. I fell for her completely in this and have done so ever since.
Whilst I agree that Class Of '84 would be a good double bill, I think a better one would be Pump Up The Volume and Over The Edge... Which just happens to also be in my top 100. ;)
Has Samantha Mathis been in anything else worthwhile?
And I'll need to track down Over the Edge someday.
Pump Up The Volume is brilliant, one of my all-time favourites. Great review, Jaydee!
Thanks Tyler. :up:
JayDee, did I inspire you to watch Pump Up The Volume?
I hope you'll put the movie on your list for the Best of the 1990's (the one Harry Lime is collecting, of course). LET'S GET IT ON THERE! PUT IT HIGH ON THERE!
Edit: Nevermind. I see you mentioned my name in the review.
Loved your review of it.
Qute a coincidence that. At pretty much the exact same moment as you were posting in my review asking if you inspired my Pump Up the Volume viewing, I was posting in your reviews thread saying how you had indeed been part of the inspiration. :D
Sorry Sexy, really enjoyed it but not enough to make my Best of the 90s list. Maybe someday in the future but not close right now.
And thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Oh and for anyone who missed it and is interested there's a Mask of Zorro review hidden at the bottom of the previous page.
honeykid
03-29-13, 07:19 PM
Has Samantha Mathis been in anything else worthwhile?
Broken Arrow, obviously, and Jack & Sarah are both much loved by me. She plays the older Amy in Little Women. Also, mum favourite The American President and The Music Of Chance. I liked How to Make an American Quilt, which also boasts the attraction of Winona Ryder, but I don't think Samantha Mathis is in it that much, from memory. She's really good in The Thing Called Love, but I found the film quite a snooze.
http://www.samantha-mathis.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/samantha-mathis-13.jpg
And I'll need to track down Over the Edge someday.
Yes. Yes, you do. :D
Broken Arrow, obviously, and Jack & Sarah are both much loved by me. She plays the older Amy in Little Women. Also, mum favourite The American President and The Music Of Chance. I liked How to Make an American Quilt, which also boasts the attraction of Winona Ryder, but I don't think Samantha Mathis is in it that much, from memory. She's really good in The Thing Called Love, but I found the film quite a snooze.
Oh was she in Broken Arrow? Don't remember her, obviously been too long since I've watched it. Don't think I know Jack & Sarah. What do you mean the attraction of Winona Ryder? I thought I just saw you said somewhere she looked awful! :p
Oh and as I said in Godoggo's top films thread you may want to avoid my next upcoming review. Following a few films you like/love (Moulin Rouge, Speed, Pump Up the Volume) the next is indeed one you've described in the past as hideous! :D
He's talking about the blonde wig.
honeykid
03-30-13, 05:36 PM
Yes. The blonde was horrible. However, having gone and looked at some pics, not as bad as I thought at the time. Still, not good, though. Especially when you consider just how attractive Winona Ryder is.
Samantha Mathis is the park ranger in Broken Arrow.
http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1996_Broken_Arrow/996BAR_Samantha_Mathis_053.jpg
mirror mirror
Year of release
1986
Directed by
Rob Reiner
Written by
Raynold Gideon
Bruce A. Evans
Stephen King (short story – “The Body”)
Starring
Wil Wheaton
River Phoenix
Corey Feldman
Jerry O'Connell
Kiefer Sutherland
Stand by Me
4.5 +
Plot – When author Gordie Lachance reads about the death of a friend, he recounts a tale from his childhood. After discovering the possible location of a boy their age who is missing and presumed dead, a close knit group of young kids go on an adventure to try and find the body. The group includes the young Gordie (Wheaton), the group's leader Chris Chambers (Phoenix), the wild Teddy Duchamp (Feldman) and Vern Tessio (O'Connell). Along the way the boys run into a number of obstacles, not the least of which is another group of older boys led by the local bully 'Ace' Merrill (Sutherland).
I think Stand by Me is just a wonderful slice of nostalgia and a terrific coming-of-age flick. A film that beautifully captures the highs and lows of childhood friendships. Told in flashback it is presented in that lovely nostalgic, rose tinted tone that I always find quite endearing.
I think it really is one of the best ever kids films in terms of the performances of the child actors and how realistically they interact with each other. I think that anyone who was a young boy once will be able to recognise themselves in this quartet of characters. When we were kids this is who we were; we did some extremely dumb stuff, we talked about stuff in a crude manner and we seemed to fight with each other more often than not. The dialogue that they share feels so realistic and beautifully observed. And whenever I watch Stand by Me it always sparks little memories of my childhood; stupid discussions I had with my friends, idiotic stunts that we would pull and the fact that no day was complete without at least one fight or argument, which would then be forgotten about within minutes. Oh and that line that closes out the film about never having friends like those you had when you were twelve is such a fantastic line and so very, very true.
Film trivia – Keifer Sutherland later claimed in an interview that at one of the locations they filmed at, a Renaissance Fair was taking place and that many of the film's cast and crew attended and bought some cookies. Unfortunately, the cookies turned out to be pot cookies and two hours later, the crew found Jerry O'Connell high on cookies and crying in the park. And I think the characters and their disparate problems mean that it will do likewise for many viewers. Many people will be able to see something in the characters or their lives that they can identify with. Gordie is an intelligent and creative kid who has a near non-existent relationship with his father and is dealing with the tragic death of his big brother whom he idolised. Chris Chambers is the leader of the group, a tough kid who also possesses a surprising level of intelligence and sensitivity. He is someone who cannot escape the shadow of his family however and is judged on their past indiscretions, restricting what he is able to do because of the way people see him. Teddy Duchamp is the wild child (which Feldman feels a perfect fit for) who is scarred both physically and mentally as a result of his unstable and abusive father. And lastly you've got Jerry O'Donnell as Vern Tessio; slightly overweight, slightly dim and the frequent butt of the group's jokes.
The kids are all excellent and huge kudos must go to Reiner for being able to mine such performances from such a young cast. They are all great but undoubtedly it is River Phoenix who truly shines above the rest, just highlighting what an immense young talent he was. While his Star Trek character of Wesley Crusher may be the bane of trekkies the world over, and the butt of many a joke, Will Wheaton is terrific as Gordie Lachance, bringing a real heart and sympathy to the character. And Corey Feldman is a lot of the fun as wild, out of control Teddy Duchamp. The four kids are great separately but its as a group that they really come to life, forming a very believable bond and rapport with each other. I can see so much in here that reminds me of moments and incidents from my childhood involving my old friends. All the hopes, dreams, dares, arguments, regrets and memories. Alongside Phoenix the other turn that really stands out is delivered by Keifer Sutherland who is excellent as the menacing and darkly charismatic hood, Ace, who runs the town of Castle Rock.
The film features some beautiful photography of America's country roads. And with the constant sunshine and the hazy nature events unfold in I always get reminded of those summer days that as a kid you felt would never end. And what an awesome soundtrack! One that just transports you right back to the 50s, full of bouncy, toe-tapping tunes like “Lollipop” and “Yakety Yak”. And it's all topped off by Ben E. King's “Stand by Me”, the title of which inspired the name of the film. It's a beautiful, heartfelt song which just works perfectly for the film.
Film trivia – In an attempt to keep in character while off-set, Keifer Sutherland would very often pick on the young quartet of Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O'Connell. And things didn't exactly get much better for the young actors when Phoenix, spurred on by the other boys, covered a car in mud without realising that it actually belonged to Sutherland; only realising later on when Sutherland confronted a scared Phoenix.There is a lingering sense of sadness and wistfulness throughout the whole film, with the journey representing for the boys the stage of growing up and leaving behind their days of being little carefree kids. The tragic circumstances that would later befall River Phoenix just adds a further level of undeniable poignancy to proceedings. The moment where the fate of his character is revealed and Phoenix just fades away is one that I always find to be extremely moving; a touching finale that should be capable of putting a lump in the throat of anyone who sees it.
When people talk about the best screen translations of Stephen King's stories, the go-to answers typically include The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile and The Shining. I think it would be a huge mistake however to overlook this one. Based on King's short story, “The Body”, the story was inspired by Stephen King's own childhood experiences, and as such you can really feel the passion and heart with which its told.
Conclusion - Well apparently this isn't exactly a favourite film for a number of people on here, but it certainly is for me. I consider it to just be one of those terrific touchstone films that just takes you back to a certain time in your life, and one that just really has a huge place in my heart. Funny, touching, exciting and terrifically acted I don't see this dropping out of my top 100 anytime soon.
The Rodent
04-01-13, 05:41 PM
Love Stand By Me.
Something nostalgic about it, even though you only met the characters once.
Really loved this one at the time. I should watch to see how it holds up. Good review as per usual.
Brodinski
04-02-13, 02:19 PM
I'll admit that I'm not a boxing fan so not really knowledgeable about it but is that really the biggest fight in boxing history? At the time perhaps but surely now the biggest ever fights are considered to be the Rumble in the Jungle, the brutal Thrilla in Manilla, and perhaps the Tyson-Hollyfield fight because of the ear biting.
?
Almost everyone expected Foreman to destroy Ali. Ratings were lower than Fight of the Century, because Ali struggled to create hype for the fight, as he was viewed as a fairly big underdog.
Thrilla in Manilla was a great fight, but didn't draw bigger ratings than Fight of the Century. Lots of people thought Joe was washed up and Ali would win handily.
Tyson-Holyfield II did worse numbers than Tyson-Lewis.
I think the only matches that come close are Louis-Schmeling II and Hearns - Hagler.
?
Almost everyone expected Foreman to destroy Ali. Ratings were lower than Fight of the Century, because Ali struggled to create hype for the fight, as he was viewed as a fairly big underdog.
Thrilla in Manilla was a great fight, but didn't draw bigger ratings than Fight of the Century. Lots of people thought Joe was washed up and Ali would win handily.
Tyson-Holyfield II did worse numbers than Tyson-Lewis.
I think the only matches that come close are Louis-Schmeling II and Hearns - Hagler.
I wasn't talking in terms of ratings at the time. I just mean in terms of their significance and how famous they've become. For example most people would have no clue who Louis, Schmeling, Hearns or Hagler are. But even my mum knows about Rumble in the Jungle and Tyson biting Hollyfield's ear etc.
Really loved this one at the time. I should watch to see how it holds up. Good review as per usual.
Thanks sean. :up: Although just for future reference I only accept compliments of 'great review' and better. You're still quite new though so will cut you some slack. :p
Just a little message for all my regular readers, as I know there are so many of you and my reviews mean so much to you. :p
My reviews output for the time being and the near future may be rather limited. Just at the moment I'm revisiting loads and loads of films as I try to work on my new favourite films list. I'm flying through at a rate that would be impossible to keep up with in reviews, and even some that I write something about I may save for the new list just to keep them a surprise.
There are a few reviews I'm doing a little work on just now however which may see the light of day. Though there's a good chance that any reviews I do churn out just now will be a bit shorter than the norm just due to time constraints.
Oh and I noticed that I recently passed 40 pages and was curious if I had the longest running reviews thread (in terms of posts) or not. Well the good news is that I am in the lofty position of 2nd. The bad news is that I am still 20 pages behind meatwadsprite's reviews thread. :eek:
Masterman
04-06-13, 04:47 PM
Just a little message for all my regular readers, as I know there are so many of you and my reviews mean so much to you. :p
My reviews output for the time being and the near future may be rather limited. Just at the moment I'm revisiting loads and loads of films as I try to work on my new favourite films list. I'm flying through at a rate that would be impossible to keep up with in reviews, and even some that I write something about I may save for the new list just to keep them a surprise.
There are a few reviews I'm doing a little work on just now however which may see the light of day. Though there's a good chance that any reviews I do churn out just now will be a bit shorter than the norm just due to time constraints.
Oh and I noticed that I recently passed 40 pages and was curious if I had the longest running reviews thread (in terms of posts) or not. Well the good news is that I am in the lofty position of 2nd. The bad news is that I am still 20 pages behind meatwadsprite's reviews thread. :eek:
Looking forward to your favourites list. Ime currently working on mine, it takes alot of time up so i can see where your coming from. I've got a list of 20+ films I want to watch before I start my new list.
Mingusings
04-06-13, 04:56 PM
Stand by Me was my first R rated film. Watched it with my dad when I was probably about 8 years old. I should really revisit it.
Mark Rodriguez
04-07-13, 02:14 AM
I like your reviews, especially the ones related to superheroes. That Lars movie did make me curious. It musta been one hell of a super tight-knit community to have the entire town play along with Lar's delusion.
Can't wait for your list of favourites :yup:
Looking forward to your favourites list. Ime currently working on mine, it takes alot of time up so i can see where your coming from. I've got a list of 20+ films I want to watch before I start my new list.
Wow is that all? I've got a list of about 100, and that's after I cut it way down! Not saying I'll get to all of them before posting my list but want to get a good few of them.
I like your reviews, especially the ones related to superheroes.
Thanks mate. :up:
Can't wait for your list of favourites :yup:
Well you'll have to! :D Given the number of films I would like to revisit it's going to be a while. And that's not even including getting it all together in terms of photos and write-ups etc.
While you are waiting why not make up a top 100 list of your own! ;) :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1979
Directed by
Francis Ford Coppola
Written by
Francis Ford Coppola
John Milius
Michael Herr
Starring
Martin Sheen
Robert Duvall
Marlon Brando
Frederic Forrest
Apocalypse Now
3
Plot - Vietnam, 1969. A Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz (Brando), has gone insane in the eyes of the United States army. So concerned are they by his actions that they delegate a Special Forces officer with a covert mission - to find and assassinate Kurtz. That officer is Captain Willard (Sheen). Sent up the Nung River on a US Navy patrol boat, Willard investigates Kurtz's military history and discovers he is one of the most decorated officers in the army, making him question his mission. As Willard and the crew descend deeper and deeper into the jungle they begin to fall prey to the insanity all around them.
Apocalypse Now is an occasionally splendid, but frequently flawed film in my eyes. I guess it's pretty much what you'd expect given the struggles that occurred during its infamous production. I just felt the film had more than an occasional air of pomposity and pretentiousness. This was achieved through a mixture of things; beats on the soundtrack, the continuous narration, the ponderous pace, some forced and overwrought moments such as when a soldier lies dead as a recorded message from his mother plays telling him to watch out for bullets. I just found it to have quite a grand sense of self-congratulation.
The boat that Willard and his fellow soldiers are aboard meanders very steadily along the river towards Kurtz; and it's a suitable representation of the film's pace as whole, just meandering along. It really is quite a curiously paced film. After some thrilling sparks of action early on, more often than not the film seems content to settle into a slow trudge towards its destination. I just felt the story lacked direction, which may sound strange given its straight-ahead linear nature, but the main crux of the story didn't greatly interest me, and I failed to really engage with any of the characters. I also felt that the film didn't really tie itself to the Vietnam war in a way. I want a war film to really place me in the war its tackling and the issues that went along with it. This felt like it could have taken place during any war.
Martin Sheen I think gives a very solid performance, but I feel that he is sabotaged from giving a truly great performance by the style of the film itself; he's sent up the river if you will. ;) He is handed an almost continuous amount of narration to deliver, meaning that on screen he is left with little more to do than glare menacingly. Some of his fellow soldiers on the boat I felt were created with some hammy performances but were generally solid. The real star for me would have to be Robert Duvall, even in his limited role. He just absolutely pops off the screen when he appears as Bill Kilgore, the terrifyingly colourful Lieutenant Colonel with a penchant for surfing, and for napalm in the morning. Considering what, and who they find at the end of the river I was left wishing that the film had just dropped us off with Kilgore; I imagine it would have made for a much more interesting and entertaining experience.
So indeed quite a few flaws, but even then it was still going along rather well. The real nail in the film's coffin however in terms of my really liking it? It's third act. Drawn out and just flat out dull. After so much build-up to meeting this apparently monstrous god of a man, what do we get? A fat, bald guy who hides in the shadows and recites poetry. :confused: It fell tremendously short of what my mind had been creating. And it was most certainly not helped by Brando's hammy mugging. The film tries to sell the repugnance of Kurtz's character with his lair. I get they were going for horrific with all the bodies dotted around the temple like buildings, but for me personally it felt pretty gaudy and pulpy. I wondered whether Sheen had been on that damn river for so long that he had ended up arriving on the set of Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I just found the whole thing to be a spectacularly underwhelming conclusion.
One place where I can have no criticism whatsoever however is in the film's visuals. The sheer scale of the canvas that Coppola told his tale on is epic, leading to some truly spectacular scenes and striking images. I can just picture Coppola's way of thinking at times - “why settle for just a few helicopters when we can have ten of them?”, “why have dozens of extras when I could have hundreds?” The ultimate culmination of this occurs during the tremendous Ride of the Valkyries sequence. Further heightening the visuals is some absolutely beautiful cinematography from Vittorio Storaro. The scenes with the boat floating down the river, the orange sun bouncing off the water with lush wilderness all around are gorgeous. And its the visuals which also prove the saving grace of that conclusion; the use of lighting is terrific, creating a cavernous setting that makes it feel like the characters are down in the very depths of hell itself. Even if the lack of lighting was merely a device to try and hide Brando's immense weight gain!
Conclusion - Overlong, self-indulgent and with a weak finale that leaves a sour taste in the mouth, I found this very far from the masterpiece that many people paint it as. In terms of numerous technical aspects (direction, editing, cinematography) however I do think that it is an exceptionally well-made film; it's just that I wasn't particularly taken with the film that ended up getting made. However some of the extraordinary visuals mean that I certainly wouldn't have a problem recommending people give it a try.
I agree with all your criticisms, but it's still a must-see. Yeah, i give it 3 too but I think it's a broken-back masterpiece. I can see some people hating its schizophrenia. Some advocates try to say that Coppola made it intentionally the way he did to reflect what was happening in Vietnam. If you know the history of the film, that's poppycock. The film basically ruined him financially and to a lesser degree, artistically.
Brodinski
04-09-13, 04:58 PM
Conclusion - Overlong, self-indulgent and with a weak finale that leaves a sour taste in the mouth, I found this very far from the masterpiece that many people paint it as. In terms of numerous technical aspects (direction, editing, cinematography) however I do think that it is an exceptionally well-made film; it's just that I wasn't particularly taken with the film that ended up getting made. However some of the extraordinary visuals mean that I certainly wouldn't have a problem recommending people give it a try.
You didn't read anything into it? Watched the Redux version?
The Rodent
04-09-13, 05:10 PM
I have to agree with both sides here.
Apocalypse is a decent movie overall if you allow the good points to outweigh the bad, basically if you take the whole thing as, well, whole, it's a decent film.
But like JayDee, I found it quite bland and unappealing story wise.
Visually it's a great film, storytelling though... it just sorta, well, is. To be brutally honest, I was a little bored at times too.
I get the whole point of the film and I get the attraction... but I didn't like it much either.
Daniel M
04-09-13, 05:14 PM
I have to disagree with your rating and assessment here JayDee, in my opinion Apocalypse Now is definitely a masterpiece.
I've seen it a number of times, both the original version and the redux version, and I have been amazed by it every time.
I just felt the story lacked direction, which may sound strange given its straight-ahead linear nature, but the main crux of the story didn't greatly interest me, and I failed to really engage with any of the characters. I also felt that the film didn't really tie itself to the Vietnam war in a way. I want a war film to really place me in the war its tackling and the issues that went along with it. This felt like it could have taken place during any war.
Don't really see how this is much of a criticism, just because the film wasn't what you expected in terms of a war film, doesn't mean it's not great for me. In fact I was almost the opposite you, because it focussed more on the horrors of humans rather than war I felt it was much stronger.
The slow, dreary trip down the river was great for me, and allowed us to really get in to the mind of the exhausted Sheen who finds himself become increasingly 'insane' as he gets further down, it starts off all fast and fun but he soon begins to realise just why a man might become insane, when they meet the fellow officers just before the Kurtz plantation, he sees the mess and state the soldiers are in with no control and no proper organisation, he can see everything is a mess.
And the ending I love too, this is a constant complaint that I always hear but I really don't know why they hate it so much. Kurtz is brilliantly protrayed by Brando for me, and his simplistic character makes it even more horrifying, this is just a normal man who has seized an opportunity of power, he's no superman or psychopath at all, just a man. I loved his lair too, the fact that it was so casual for me was what made it great, loved Dennis Hopper's crazy little character as well.
And the end certainly didn't leave a sour taste in my mouth, the part where he walks out, everyone drops their weapons and bow down to him is horryfing, for a split second you could imagine how easily it would be for him to takeover these people and establish himself as leader, how he has the people at his fingertips and really adds something to the whole story of Kurtz going insane and setting up this camp, then there's the music at the end which is brilliant as well.
Gabrielle947
04-09-13, 07:03 PM
I can agree with you about the ending.It wasn't bad for me but it is worse than the rest of the film.But with such a build up,it's not so surprising that the end didn't met many viewer's expectations. ;)
BlueLion
04-09-13, 07:19 PM
That is a very good review. I kinda felt the same way about Apocalypse Now. I really liked the movie until the final half hour (and it was like one of those out-of-body experiences, when you really feel you're inside the movie and you're living with the characters), but the ending disappointed me.
However, I feel that I will love this film after another viewing, because unlike the first time (during which I couldn't wait for Sheen's character to finally meet Colonel Kurtz), during the second viewing I will try to analyze the horror, which is what the movie is about. This is why after another viewing, I think I will fully appreciate this film. Because I will not be looking forward to 'meeting' Kurtz anymore. I will not be looking forward to the ending. I believe that the reason why this film is considered a masterpiece, is because of what it is about, and it is about what war causes to people, therefore the ending shouldn't really be seen as a disappointing one.
Speaking from experience and with apologies to those who love it unconditionally, the third act is more about Brando overeating and adlibbing up the wazoo. :)
:eek: Wow. Well that review certainly stirred up a reaction. I return to 7 responses and 7 reps. I was anticipating a bit of a backlash as I know Apocalypse Now is quite a sacred cow for numerous people, but buoyed to see quite a bit of support for my throughts as well.
That is a very good review.
Thanks Blue. :up: And welcome to the thread. Same goes to Mingusings and Mark Rodriguez. And perhaps Masterman, not sure if you maybe posted once before.
I have to disagree with your rating and assessment here JayDee, in my opinion Apocalypse Now is definitely a masterpiece.
Fair enough. As always this is merely my opinion, not like I'm presenting this as a cast iron assessment which should now be the standard, go-to opinion of the film. Not everyone is going to be in agreement, even people that generally are. For example honeykid liked/loved much of my top 100 list but hated a good deal of my top 10. Rodent and I seem to have very similar taste but I didn't like Starship Troopers which is one of his absolute favourites. And Mark and I agree on quite a bit, but I remember leaving him baffled with my Van Damme love. Of course I love people telling me 'great review' and agreeing with my views, but opposing views are also welcome. Will perhaps try and address some of your points later but ran out of time for the moment.
I seem to remember you writing a review of your own for Apocalypse Now. Feel free to post it here as a rebuttal of sorts if you like.
Oh and Brodinski, should have made it clear it was the 'normal' version, not Redux.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1994
Directed by
Peter Jackson
Written by
Fran Walsh
Peter Jackson
Starring
Kate Winslet
Melanie Lynskey
Sarah Peirse
Diane Kent
Clive Merrison
Heavenly Creatures
4.5
Plot – Heavenly Creatures details a true life murder that rocked the nation of New Zealand, and made headlines all over the world in 1954. Two young girls, Pauline Parker (Lynskey) and Juliet Hulme (Winslet), form an intensely close friendship in 1950s New Zealand which would eventually result in the murder of Parker's mother. The two girls formed a vividly real and elaborate fantasy world where they felt happier than they did in normal life. When their friendship and the fantasy are threatened by the possibility of them being parted, the two girls come up with an unspeakably disturbing idea that would ensure they remained together - to remove the obstacle that was Pauline's mother.
I think Heavenly Creatures is really quite a rare film. It's a film that achieves the rare accomplishment of being both beautiful and horrific. Telling the true story of close friends Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme; two teenage girls who murdered Pauline's mother in an attempt to keep them from being separated, it takes a potentially difficult and undoubtedly troubling subject but tells it wonderfully with a real grace and artistry. I always find a case like this to be darkly fascinating, a case where you get that incredible phenomenon of folie a deux. I'm always amazed when such unique and troubled individuals are able to find each other, and form a connection; whether it be friend or lovers or whatever. And sadly when they do so it usually spells trouble for anyone in their path.
Given the nature of its subject matter it's a film that could very easily fall apart if the young actresses portraying the two central roles weren't up the task. Thankfully Heavenly Creatures has no need to worry about that, featuring as it does two terrific showings from Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey. Both just teenagers at the time, what they were able to accomplish is really very impressive. Amazingly it was the feature film debut for both actresses, and for Lynskey (just 16 at the time) this was actually her first acting gig whatsoever. As well as great credit for the two ladies themselves, credit must go to Jackson and whoever else was involved in unearthing such two gems.
Film trivia – Peter Jackson employed a number of factors as he strived for authenticity where possible. The voice-over readings that Melanie Lynskey provided from her character's diary were actually word for word extracts from Pauline Parker's own diary from that time, uncovered during the police investigation and a large part of the trial. The film was also shot almost exclusively at genuine locations were the real events actually transpired. This included visiting the actual spot where the murder occurred. According to Jackson, when they got there it was eerily quiet; all of the birds stopped singing and the place just did not feel right. As a result they moved the filming a couple of hundred yards along the path.Inhabiting two quite disparate characters, Winslet and Lynskey deliver two dynamic and fearless performances. Winslet imbues Juliet with quite an ebullient and dramatic character, full of charisma; someone comfortable as the centre of attention. While Lynskey's Pauline is a much more moody, sour faced and brooding individual; the classic outcast. Together however they find in each other a kindred spirit, or even a soulmate of sorts. The friendship they create is alluring, and we really feel for them when they display the hysterical pain they feel when the threat of losing each other looms over them. Indeed in many ways Jackson eschews the typical crime film facets that you may expect to find here, instead choosing to focus on the incredible friendship that these two characters shared and how dark a direction it sadly took.
The film's greatest success (amongst its many successes) is in its ability to place us in the minds of these two girls who committed such an unspeakable act. While we never get to the stage of sympathising with the girls the film successfully relates and helps us understand why it happened. By contrasting their real lives with the fantasy world that they have created, we understand why the fantasy world begins to bleed through into reality for the girls, and why they go to such lengths to try and realise it. We are made to see events through the eyes of the girls; to see how harsh and cruel the treatment at the hands of their parents appears to them, and how welcome a refuge their fantasy world is for these two unique souls. Bonded by similar experiences in childhood (Juliet suffered from tuberculosis, while Pauline suffered from osteomyelitis) which left both of them bedridden for much of their early years, they struggle to find their place in the world until they meet each other and create their own religion of a sort, constructing a fantasy world they call The Fourth World. They believed that they could enter this dimension through a spiritual enlightenment they gained as a result of the friendship.
Peter Jackson does a terrific job at presenting the contrast of these worlds through his visuals. The fantasy scenes are just as the girls would see them; beautiful, enchanting and really quite ethereal. The world is classic fairytale stuff. And inhabiting this world are the archetypal characters and situations of such a world – kings and queens, marriages and murders. The girls write down these stories and create the characters in clay. Jackson follows suit by giving us full-size clay figures for the girls to interact with in their delusions; giving them quite a quaint and fanciful feel to the scenes. Back in 1994 the special effects may have been a fine example of the current technology but now look a little dated. But I actually think that helps the film. It gives them more of a homemade vibe which fits with the idea of it being creations of the girls, just as the clay figures are.
Film trivia – Well not so much film trivia, as the facts of the true case. Following a sensational and high-profile trial, the girls were both convicted of the murder and spent five years in prison. A condition of their release was that they would never see each other again. At the time of the film's release it was discovered that Juliet Hulme had actually achieved a highly successful career as a crime novelist, using the name Anne Perry. Both ladies now live thousands of miles away from the location where the murder took place, and yet apparently and amazingly live just 90 miles apart by pure coincidence; both in Scotland. Perry lives in the village of Portmahomack, while Parker (who now goes by Hilary Nathan) lives on one of the Orkney islands. In absolute contrast to this beautiful fantasy however is the grim reality of what actually happened, and that likewise is presented in a stirring fashion by Jackson. The sequence which depicts the actual murder of Pauline's murder is powerful, disturbing and immensely affecting. It sees the two girls and Pauline's mother walking along a wildlife trail, and is a very eerie and tense experience. The wait is absolutely brutal. With the characters walking in silence as a beautiful but haunting piece of score music plays, the scene seems to take an absolute age before arriving at its inevitable conclusion. And the sounds that the mother makes after she is cracked over the head are bone-chilling; a mix of pain, shock and the stupefying effect of the blow. It's a unnervingly animal like shriek. And the scene has so much more impact than any gory, convoluted death in trash like Saw or Hostel ever could.
1994 is a highly revered year in cinema. A year often listed as one of the the absolute greats, certainly in the modern era at least. It was a year that saw the release of numerous big hitters and perennial favourites - Pulp Fiction, Leon, Shawshank Redemption, Ed Wood, Forrest Gump, Lion King, Speed, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Hoop Dreams etc. Well I certainly feel that Heavenly Creatures deserves its place amongst those.
Conclusion - This was the film that proved to be Peter Jackson's calling card for Hollywood, and it isn't hard to see why. It's a bold and visionary piece of film-making. The first time I saw this film it was one of those that really stuck with me for a considerable time, and while its effect may have slightly lessened on repeated viewings, that still holds true. A powerful film.
honeykid
04-12-13, 01:34 AM
I remember when this came out and everyone who saw it seemed to be completely blown away by Winslet and Lynskey. I don't know if it was just because she was British, but all the talk of Winslet was just how big she could be.
I know I'm not a fan of the LOTR films (and would expect those to be favoured) but I still think this is Jackson's best, as well as his most interesting film.
Obviously this is a good review, but I'll mention it just because I know you get a kick out of it, JD. :D
Great review :yup: own this one :yup:
Thanks nebbit. :up:
I know I'm not a fan of the LOTR films
:eek: No way!!!!! Seriously?!!! I would never have guessed! :D
You're getting as bad as Sexy with his Whoopi pictures when it comes to throwing in little shots at the LotR films! :p The only surprise is that you passed up a chance at also taking a shot at Scotland! Something along the lines of "well it's no wonder that two people of questionable sanity were attracted to Scotland!" :D
Obviously this is a good review, but I'll mention it just because I know you get a kick out of it, JD. :D
Well thank you kind sir. All the time and effort I put in I appreciate hearing it. :up: And while I don't think I'm brilliant at it or anything I do think I've improved sufficiently to a point where I'm actually rather proud of many of my reviews.
CelluloidChild
04-12-13, 04:47 PM
Re: Apocalypse Now.
It's a fantastic movie I've seen several times, including the Redux version, although it's been over ten years since my last viewing.
I feel it's one of the most original and creative film adaptations of a novel I've ever seen.
There's many ways of viewing Apocalypse Now. I don't feel that seeing it as a 'straight-ahead linear' narrative, as you suggest, is the best way to approach or appreciate it.
Just as Conrad's Heart of Darkness was an exploration of the crazy savagery of the European colonial project in Africa, Apocalypse Now is an exploration of the absurdity, the bizarre, the craziness, the savagery, and the futility of the Vietnam War.
It is a contemplation of the ways that people cope, try to stay sane, or even perversely thrive in such an extreme situation. Or, as in Kurtz's case, fully embrace the extremity and go over the edge into insanity.
The scenes and characters variously depict patriotic jingoism; escape into sex, drugs and rock n roll (what a fantastic soundtrack!); corruption; and of course the fear and terror that underlie it all - and the denial of that terror.
Rather than a linear narrative, I see the film as more of a series of portraits and vignettes. That's why Apocalypse Now stands equally well as the version released in 1979 or the Redux version. The 1979 release eliminated three long scenes, but there is no understanding lost or confusion added by these omissions.
I do think that the Redux version adds an extra dimension, particularly to the theme of denial; specifically, the time Willard spends with the French colonial family, who, despite the impending doom of their lifestyle, are still doing their best to live it up in the jungle.....As well as an additional great scene involving the Playboy bunnies.
There's much more to say about the film, but those are the main things that strike me at the moment.
Skepsis93
04-12-13, 10:02 PM
JayDee - Your review gave me the push to finally see Heavenly Creatures. Not sure what was stopping me, but thank you. Blown away. Absolutely blown away.
Thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts CelluloidChild. :up: Welcome to the thread.
JayDee - Your review gave me the push to finally see Heavenly Creatures. Not sure what was stopping me, but thank you. Blown away. Absolutely blown away.
Delighted to hear it man. And you're welcome. Always great when you encourage people to watch a film and it ends up being a big hit. Think that's quite a few films now you've watched due to my reviews that you've either liked or loved.
And exactly how 'blown away' were you? Enough that your top 100 list is already out of date? :p
Skepsis93
04-13-13, 05:13 PM
Delighted to hear it man. And you're welcome. Always great when you encourage people to watch a film and it ends up being a big hit. Think that's quite a few films now you've watched due to my reviews that you've either liked or loved.
There's been a few, yeah. All the President's Men, Searching for Sugar Man and Heavenly Creatures, from what I remember, and I'm sure there's a couple more I'm forgetting.
And exactly how 'blown away' were you? Enough that your top 100 list is already out of date? :p
Enough that with a rewatch or two, my top 20 could already be out of date. Damn you! :p
There's been a few, yeah. All the President's Men, Searching for Sugar Man and Heavenly Creatures, from what I remember, and I'm sure there's a couple more I'm forgetting.
Enough that with a rewatch or two, my top 20 could already be out of date. Damn you! :p
Well there was Lars and the Real Girl which was the first one. I remember you also contacting and repping me a long while after I posted about The King of Kong but can't remember if you actually watched it as a result of me, or if you were just congratulating me after the fact for also being a fan. Did you actually read my review of Heavenly Creatures first to inspire you to watch it? Or was it just seeing the name put it in your mind?
And wow! I didn't realise it was that big a hit. Top 20 huh? I had been quite happy just with your thanks, but hearing how big an impact it made I think I deserve more than just a thank you. How about cash?! :p That way I can also claim to be a professional critic who has been paid for my reviews! :D
I'm annoyed though that in just two lines in the movie tab you covered something I forgot to in some 1000 words or so - the fact that even in this film Jackson was able to include his streak of black humour that is so prevalent throughout his films.
And I also saw that you watched and liked The Mighty Ducks. :up: Oh Skepsy, this really could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :D
Skepsis93
04-14-13, 03:58 PM
Well there was Lars and the Real Girl which was the first one. I remember you also contacting and repping me a long while after I posted about The King of Kong but can't remember if you actually watched it as a result of me, or if you were just congratulating me after the fact for also being a fan. Did you actually read my review of Heavenly Creatures first to inspire you to watch it? Or was it just seeing the name put it in your mind?
Ah yes. Pretty sure King of Kong was thanks to you as well. So five altogether and plenty more we agree on.
I tend not to read reviews before I see the film but I did read your conclusion, and after seeing the rating I felt I needed to watch it. I read the whole review afterwards.
And wow! I didn't realise it was that big a hit. Top 20 huh? I had been quite happy just with your thanks, but hearing how big an impact it made I think I deserve more than just a thank you. How about cash?! :p That way I can also claim to be a professional critic who has been paid for my reviews! :D
I can pay you in hugs or monopoly money, your call.
And I also saw that you watched and liked The Mighty Ducks. :up: Oh Skepsy, this really could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :D
Haha, yeah, I did. It seems to get a lot of stick but I thought it was a great way to wile away a mindless couple hours. Lots of fun.
Are you a fan of the sport? I got into it big time about two years ago but this is the first Hockey movie I've seen. Want to try and see Mystery, Alaska, Slap Shot and Miracle soon too.
Ah yes. Pretty sure King of Kong was thanks to you as well. So five altogether and plenty more we agree on.
That's not bad at all considering two have made your top 100 list (King of Kong and Lars) with Heavenly Creatures seeming set to follow. You really owe me big time buddy! Will need to perhaps get a few from your top 100 list to start the pay back.
I read the whole review afterwards.
.......and absolutely loved it yes?! :p
I can pay you in hugs or monopoly money, your call.
Hmmm.....I'm not sure about that. Though I'm a little concerned you listed hugs as the top option. :suspicious:
Haha, yeah, I did. It seems to get a lot of stick but I thought it was a great way to wile away a mindless couple hours. Lots of fun.
Are you a fan of the sport? I got into it big time about two years ago but this is the first Hockey movie I've seen. Want to try and see Mystery, Alaska, Slap Shot and Miracle soon too.
Well that's good to hear. Been a while since I've revisited the Mighty Ducks films but I've loved them for a long, long time. Did you actually seek it out or did you just happen to catch it on TV or what?
Not really. Tried a few times but a tough sport to keep track of on TV I found. Did go to a few games here in Glasgow though and quite enjoyed it. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw Mystery, Alaska but I do remember really enjoying it at the time. And you've got the Mighty Ducks sequels of course! :D
Skepsis93
04-14-13, 10:05 PM
Will need to perhaps get a few from your top 100 list to start the pay back.
Yeah! Get to it. :p
.......and absolutely loved it yes?! :p
No, it was awful.
Hmmm.....I'm not sure about that. Though I'm a little concerned you listed hugs as the top option. :suspicious:
:kiss:
Well that's good to hear. Been a while since I've revisited the Mighty Ducks films but I've loved them for a long, long time. Did you actually seek it out or did you just happen to catch it on TV or what?
Just wanted something fun and a not too strenuous watch, I guess. Plus I realised I'd never seen a Hockey movie so I was kinda drawn to it.
Not really. Tried a few times but a tough sport to keep track of on TV I found. Did go to a few games here in Glasgow though and quite enjoyed it. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw Mystery, Alaska but I do remember really enjoying it at the time. And you've got the Mighty Ducks sequels of course! :D
Can't say that I enjoyed it so much it inspired me to rush out and get the sequels. :p But maybe someday.
It's the only sport I'm really into so I make the effort to keep up. I saw a game in Nottingham last year and had a blast, and I'm hoping to get to see a Rangers game when I'm in New York in October.
No, it was awful.
:bored: You damned cake-eater you!
^ And for those confused it's a Mighty Ducks reference. And just about the lamest insult I've ever heard! :D
I had actually been wondering whether Heavenly Creatures would inspire you to resurrect your own reviews thread but what would be the point? In the wake of my review it would be like the guy that paints lines on the roads following Van Gogh! :p
:kiss:
For someone who likes to throw out a :randy: whenever someone talks about a great member or loving a member you're being rather forward! :D
Well enough of this one on one conversation, back to the reviews. And yes this post is merely so the next reviews aren't hidden at the bottom of a page! :D
This is a review that I had been considering saving for the top 100 list like I mentioned recently, but just decided to post it anyway as it's no surprise that I love it. It was on my previous list after all. Though as a result the style may not be quite the same.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1984
Directed by
Joe Dante
Written by
Chris Columbus
Starring
Zach Galligan
Phoebe Cates
Hoyt Axton
Frances Lee McCain
Corey Feldman
Gremlins
5
Plot – While searching for a Christmas gift for his son Billy, Randall Peltzer stumbles across a mysterious antique store of oddities in Chinatown. There he finds a unique creature called a mogwai. Despite his desperation to purchase it, the store's owner, Mr Wing, refuses to sell the creature as it is too much responsibility. Mr Wing's grandson does however sell it to him, but with three rules. 1) Never expose it to bright light, especially sunlight. 2) Never get it wet. And 3) Never feed it after midnight. Billy is delighted with his new pet whom he names Gizmo, but when an accident occurs an incredible event takes place; the mogwai starts to replicate. And before long there are an army of new gremlins on the loose, and these mogwai are very different from the loveable little Gizmo.
Gremlins is a film that sets itself up with all the classic elements of Christmas films of years gone-by, and then gleefully sets about ripping them to shreds! Set in a Capra-esque little town that appears to be a carbon copy of It's a Wonderful Life's Bedford Falls, there is snow on the ground and lights strung up all around. The initial cuteness of the Mogwai and the goofy inventions of the father certainly seem to have us heading down the road of light-hearted family fare. And then all of a sudden at around the hour mark, bang! The gremlins are unleashed and it all goes to hell! The film completely changes into something almost resembling a horror flick, complete with a series of gory deaths. From then on it becomes less about the charming fantasy of it all, and becomes a blacker than black comedy. The humour is terrifically dark and wicked, with a good deal of satire to be found. And you may even find a genuine scare or two for yourself.
The gremlins themselves are of course the stars here; so much so that they, and Gizmo in particular would become pop culture icons and remain so to this day. They are wonderful little creations, brought to life thanks to an excellent design from Chris Walas and some awesome puppetry. I just absolutely adore little Gizmo. Every little thing he does; every expression, every sound, every movement just brings a little smile to my face whenever he pops up on screen. I probably look pretty goofy actually, just constantly having a daft grin plastered on my face. His eyes and face are just so emotive. On the flipside, Stripe and his band of evil followers are also a great design but at the completely different end of the spectrum; they are nasty, disgusting little creatures! Though they're so devilishly playful that it's impossible not to enjoy their antics.
Film trivia – It's common to find links between some of your favourite movies. They may be linked by the studio that financed them, the director that created them or the writer that dreamt them up. What is rare though is to find two of your personal favourites where filmed on the same set. The set for the town of Kingston Falls is the same that gave life to Hill Valley in Back to the Future. And in both films the town's cinema suffers an unfortunate fate. It is blown up in Gremlins, and has its entrance smashed by Marty McFly and his DeLorean in Back to the Future.Joe Dante is a director I have a great deal of admiration for. I place him in a similar echelon to John Carpenter; neither man is likely to ever appear on the shortlist for a Best Director Oscar, but man they knew how to make immensely fun movies. Dante is a man responsible for a number of fantastical, offbeat little gems. Gremlins however has to still maintain its spot as his absolute stand-out effort. His direction, particularly when the gremlins come out to play is so jam-packed with energy and devilish fun. As always with the cinematic output of Joe Dante, his great passion for film is on display for all to see with numerous homages and references sprinkled throughout to classic films of the past, particularly those of the sci-fi and horror nature. The film references everything from Forbidden Planet to E.T., and in two memorable scenes Flashdance and Snow White. Indeed it's so jam-packed with allusions and visual jokes, that it's the type of film that no matter how often you watch it, you may be likely to spot something you had never seen before.
The gremlins may have a tendency to show up their human counterparts but there are still some nice performances to be found, especially from the supporting cast; Dick Miller in particular stands out. What the film is very successful at achieving is fleshing out the characters and making us care for them, even if its achieved merely by assigning them a single characteristic. Billy's dad is a very endearing goofball with his ludicrous and constantly failing inventions; while his mum makes a terrific switch from classic housewife to a bit of a badass when the gremlins arrive on the scene. It's a similar case with some the town's residents; highlights being the horrible Mrs Deagle and her running feud with Billy's dog, and Murray Futterman; the ultimate xenophobe with a distrust in anything foreign. Oh and Phoebe Cates certainly deserves a mention on the strength of one scene alone. Her infamous recounting of a childhood tale that explains why she hates Christmas is absolutely hilarious in its dark tragedy.
While many people may deem it as the decade where cinema collapsed under the weight of the high-concept blockbuster, I personally love the 80s as far as movies are concerned. One of the large reasons for this was the huge abundance of sci-fi/fantasy films the decade featured that mixed adventure and laughs. Films like Innerspace, Flight of th Navigator, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Back to the Future, Goonies, Big, Batteries not Included, Princess Bride, ET, Ghostbusters, War Games, Dreamscape etc. This is one of the absolute best. One of my favourites from that, or indeed any decade. The film's only negative? That every single time I watch it, it makes me want my own little mogwai, and it breaks my heart that it can never happen. :bawling:
Conclusion – Gremlins is a true childhood favourite of mine. And while some films from that time no longer entertain me like they once did, I continue to find Gremlins to be an absolute delight. Its glorious mix of mischievous horror and smart comedy mean that this still holds a strong place in my heart. Just wonderful.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1990
Directed by
Joe Dante
Written by
Charles S. Haas
Starring
Zach Galligan
Phoebe Cates
John Glover
Robert Picardo
Christopher Lee
Gremlins 2: The New Batch
4 ++
Plot – The gremlins are back baby! When a large, soulless corporation attempts to take over the shop of Mr. Wing the stress contributes to his death. When his store is destroyed to make way for a new venture of Clamp Enterprises our furry hero, Gizmo, is discovered and taken into the company's hi-tech headquarters to be studied at an animal research facility. Thankfully for little Gizmo, his old friend Billy Peltzer happens to work at Clamp Enterprises. Billy attempts to rescue Gizmo, but before he is able to smuggle him out of the building the gremlins are unleashed and once again all hell breaks loose!
I think The New Batch has got to be on the most under-rated sequels out there. It really does seem to get rather over-looked, sitting in the shadow of the superior original outing. Though it's perhaps not a great surprise that it isn't as loved, as I didn't use to be a particularly big fan of it myself; but over time, with repeated viewings and growing as a person and a movie viewer I've been able to appreciate it a great deal more, to appreciate just how smart it actually is. This is no simple rehash of the original, with those in charge seemingly believing that if you're going to so a sequel you may as well try and do something a little different, and if nothing else Dante and Haas should be congratulated for not simply re-treading the same territory as in the first film.
Where the first Gremlins film was content just mainly ripping into the harmless target that was Christmas films, The New Batch sets its satirical sights a good deal higher. This time it goes after corporate America; the big corporations and their extreme greed in their quest for success, how they take advantage of the working man while removing all sense of character to create a uniform existence. It achieves this satire through a number of little touches, from the soul-crushing lack of character allowed in the company offices, right down to the logo of the Clamp company itself; a clamp literally squishing the world between its pincers. And when watched today in the current social climate, Gremlins 2 still feels spectacularly relevant.
The film turns the tables in terms of characters this time out. In the original Gremlins the human characters for the most part were lovely small town folk up against the monstrous gremlins. In the sequel however, more often that not its the humans who are painted negatively while the gremlins are imbued with a somewhat sympathetic light which makes us actually care for them in a way. Outside of the characters we had already come to know in the original, the new additions are generally those involved in big business who care about nothing but money and status. A huge factor in creating this are some strong performances from those inhabiting these villainous human roles. Robert Picardo is great as the slimy suit, while Christopher Lee appears to be having a whole lot of fun as the amoral genetic scientist. And then there's John Glover who is terrifically entertaining as Daniel Clamp, a rather Donald Trump like creation.
Film trivia – After the surprise success of Gremlins, Warner Bros. Immediately wanted a sequel but Joe Dante was not interested at the time and declined. Work on the sequel went ahead without him, with the studio approaching various writers and directors for the project. Potential storylines included relocating the gremlins to a large city such as Las Vegas, or even to the planet Mars! When these ideas failed to satisfy, the studio returned to Dante, who this time agreed on the condition that he be allowed to do anything he wanted. Part of making the gremlins more sympathetic comes from expanding the amount of different characteristics the creatures can possess. Alongside some high concept creations (Bat Gremlin, Spider Gremlin, Electric Gremlin) there's Daffy; the goofy cross-eyed one who is just really silly and childish. There's Greta (aka Lady Gremlina), the sole female gremlin with her shapely figure and pouting red lips. And then of course there is Brain, the intellectual gremlin who is brought to life wonderfully through the voice of Tony Randall. He's a fantastically entertaining addition to the gremlins, and my personal favourite. And their actions are even goofier and broader this time out; reaching their pinnacle with their wonderful musical production of New York, New York.
Following on in the same vein of the original, The New Batch is also chock full of homages and allusions to numerous films; my favourite would have to be Gizmo's adorable attempts at following in the footsteps of Ramob, complete with headband, and bow and arrow. And this time out it even goes so far that it starts to parody its predecessor. It all gets very meta on us at times, even acknowledging some of the criticisms that the original film came in for. It breaks the fourth wall to acknowledge the existence of Gremlins as a movie, with a parent complaining this sequel is just as tasteless as the original. It also features a neat little cameo from film critic Leonard Maltin who had been negative of the first outing's content. He is seen reviewing the VHS release of Gremlins and is again criticising it when a group of gremlins attack him. As I said The New Batch even parodies itself, with Phoebe Cates again delivering a ridiculously dark story about why she hates Lincoln's birthday this time, only to be cut off.
All of this satire and meta musings is certainly not to say that The New Batch doesn't include its own considerable dash of manic laughs and outlandish violence. After a slightly slow start the film packs the same energy and fun that made the original such a delight. And at times this one proves to be even more surreal and outlandish.
Conclusion – The gremlins are back and almost as fun as ever. To echo the sentiment with which I started this review, I really do think The New Batch is one of the most under-rated sequels around. There's enough chaos and visual creativity to satisfy fans of the original, whilst adding in some new dimensions which ensure it feels fresh. A lot of the time with a sequel you really can't see why they bothered, except for purely financial reasons. By taking a slightly different approach however this certainly is a worthwhile experience.
The Rodent
04-15-13, 08:31 PM
Gremlins... one of the few films that makes me laugh, cringe, squirm and cheer every single time...
Excellent film, excellent review!
The Rodent
04-15-13, 08:32 PM
Bit of a high rating for Gremlins 2 though. Hated the sequel... too cartoony and toned down for kids.
Gremlins... one of the few films that makes me laugh, cringe, squirm and cheer every single time...
Excellent film, excellent review!
Thanks man. Always glad to be of service. :up:
Bit of a high rating for Gremlins 2 though. Hated the sequel... too cartoony and toned down for kids.
As I said I used to feel the same way but it's certainly grown on me over the years and I know appreciate the smarts of it. And perhaps the score is a little high but I really enjoy it. Though I'd say it was certainly helped by following on straight after the first, so the love and affinity for the characters/creatures carried over.
gandalf26
04-16-13, 06:33 PM
Gremlins has been on TV loads recently but I can never be arsed to watch it. It was a childhood fav aswell.
Will perhaps have to watch it one time given the fabled Jaydee 5 star certificate of approval.
Micro Musings
mirror mirror
Year of release
1977
Directed by
Steven Spielberg
Starring
Richard Dreyfuss
Melinda Dillon
Teri Garr
Francois Truffaut
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
3.5 ++
Why it took me so long to get to this film I have no real idea. Despite being a huge fan of science fiction and the work of Steven Spielberg, this one never greatly appealed to me for some reason. So I was very happy to find it a very engaging and likeable experience after ignoring it for so long. One of my favourite elements of the film was the novelty factor I found in its approach. It was nice to see an alien 'visitation' film as opposed to a classic 'invasion' film. And it was interesting to see the government painted in such a rare positive light. Usually we would expect the government to be trigger-happy and un-trusting (a la The Day the Earth Stood Still) but here they are merely inquisitive and welcoming. I really enjoyed the performance of Richard Dreyfuss, excellent and very likeable as Roy Neary. I perhaps found it a touch slow and lacking in sci-fi thrills at stages, but that was compensated for by the intriguing thread about how Roy's obsession was driving him crazy and driving away those closest to him. Oh and I also liked the design of the alien crafts. They were a bit of a break from the normal sleek, hi-tech style that is so common, having more of a fantasy/dreamlike appearance to them. It may be a touch lacking in excitement and thrills for some, but I enjoyed its warm, comforting and hopeful tone; something vaguely similar to the tone of Spielberg's other classic slice of sci-fi, E.T.
mirrormirror
Year of release
2007
Directed by
Adam Shankman
Starring
Nikki Blonsky
John Travolta
Michelle Pfeiffer
Christopher Walken
Hairspray
3.5
I found Hairspray to be a massive improvement on Adam Shankman's other piece of musical fluff, the flat and disappointing Rock of Ages. This one just has so much more life about it, and easily won me round with its infectious sense of energy and fun. In pretty much every possible way I found this superior to RoA. Whereas that one just grabbed a bunch of 80s anthems and tacked on some weak story to link them, the story here is actually a very interesting and involving one, detailing racial issues in 1960s America and doing so with a good degree of satire. The impressive cast are almost uniformly great, with debutant Nikki Blonsky the undoubted standout. Bubbly and joyous she is just delightful. And the actual musical numbers have so much vibrancy to them. I frequently glanced down and just found that my toes were tapping along to the tunes to my complete oblivion. Oh and great credit to John Travolta for really throwing himself into the role of Blonsky's mother with such abandon. Even if he does make for just about the ugliest woman I've ever seen! :D Just rather joyful.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1938
Directed by
Howard Hawks
Starring
Cary Grant
Katharine Hepburn
May Robson
Charles Ruggles
Walter Catlett
Bringing Up Baby
3.5 -
I think I've mentioned on here before that I struggle at times with the classic screwball comedies that were so prevalent in the 30s and 40s. I can often find them rather irritating; the constant assault on the funny bone becoming rather tiresome and draining. I'm left wishing that they would just take a little break from the joke-a-second approach, give me a little respite and spend some time on character or plot. While the films may have a good number of laughs I struggle to really care about the film or its characters. And initially this film felt it may have been going down the same path. I was won over however before too long, largely down to the charms of Grant and Hepburn, and their shared chemistry. Hepburn in particular was wonderful, though my feelings towards her mirrored that of Grant's character. Initially I found her daffy behaviour rather annoying, but eventually I found that I had fallen for the character. And by the time we got to her wonderfully impersonating a gangster's moll I think I was completely in love with the character. And the film featured a dog in a prominent role, something that will always earn a film an extra star/popcorn bucket or two.
Its plot and much of the humour really is spectacularly daft. And one thing I did find quite funny and ironic about Bringing Up Baby is that if tomorrow a trailer appeared online for a new Adam Sandler or Rob Schneider film whose plot entailed dinosaur bones and chasing after a leopard, many people would likely be howling in derision, comparing it to the likes of The Zookeeper or Jack and Jill in terms of stupidity and absolutely scraping the barrel in terms of ideas. And yet with Grant and Hepburn at the helm, its considered one of the classic comedies of all time.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1985
Directed by
Joe Dante
Starring
Ethan Hawke
River Phoenix
Jason Presson
Dick Miller
Explorers
2.5 +
While this was a fairly harmless and occasionally entertaining flick it certainly disappointed me as a Joe Dante fan. I just found it lacked the usual energy and spark that I associate with his work. It's the kind of film that if I had seen it as a kid I can imagine loving and holding an affection that would still be able to influence viewings today. But seeing it for the first time as a grumpy 26 year old I just found it rather slight, and even pretty dull for a large stretch of the running time. It was only when the kids ended up on the spaceship that I became really interested. I got a kick out of the manic behaviour of the aliens they find there, and I really enjoyed the little twist that is thrown into the story. The kids are good value, and Dick Miller is always worth a watch. A nice enough little film but not up there with Dante's other work – Gremlins, Innerspace, The Burbs, Small Soldiers etc.
honeykid
04-18-13, 09:10 AM
I've not seen Gremins 2 in forever, but I used to really love it. Like you, I liked the more satirical edge, Brain and the brilliant Christopher Lee. To me, he was always that bloke from the Hammer films and I think this was probably one of, if not, the first non-horror film I'd seen him in, so to see him having such a good time was a riot.
BTW, have you ever seen the John Walters original Hairspray?
Gremlins has been on TV loads recently but I can never be arsed to watch it. It was a childhood fav aswell.
Will perhaps have to watch it one time given the fabled Jaydee 5 star certificate of approval.
Oh you should definitely watch it again. :yup:
Is it still fabled? It took a long while to get my first 5 star review, but in the last 5 months or so the 5 stars have been handed out to all the Lord of the Rings flicks, Speed and now Gremlins. Though they were all films I loved beforehand however. It's still only one new film that's got the top score so far.
BTW, have you ever seen the John Walters original Hairspray?
No I haven't. Do you think I'd enjoy it?
Also I'm a little disappointed with the response to Gremlins in terms of rep. Not meaning in terms of being a rep whore :p but it's a good way to gauge the popularity. Heavenly Creatures scored 8 or 9 reps just within a couple of days but poor old Gremlins is still at 4. :( :D
OK, Rep Whore!!! Pot Kettle Black.
OK, Rep Whore!!! Pot Kettle Black.
Eh...what? I don't know if I'm being insulted here or not! :p
gandalf26
04-18-13, 08:39 PM
Just bought Close Encounters the other week, and it's still sitting with the plastic wrapper on. Your review doesn't bode well for that wrapper coming off any time soon.
Never actually sat and watched the whole way through, only caught bits and pieces on TV over the years.
CelluloidChild
04-18-13, 08:59 PM
Just bought Close Encounters the other week, and it's still sitting with the plastic wrapper on. Your review doesn't bode well for that wrapper coming off any time soon.
Never actually sat and watched the whole way through, only caught bits and pieces on TV over the years.
I love Close Encounters. It was the first ET movie I ever watched, and I'm glad that it holds up just as well in re-watches.
I like how the movie weaves a few touching, inspiring personal stories into these occurrences from beginning to end. And, as JayDee says, it draws on the higher aspirations of both humans and ETs.
Great performances by Richard Dreyfuss, Teri Garr......and Francois Truffaut!
mirror mirror
Year of release
2012
Directed by
Rich Moore
Written by
Phil Johnston // Jennifer Lee
Rich Moore // Jim Reardon
Starring
John C. Reilly
Sarah Silverman
Jane Lynch
Jack McBrayer
Wreck-It Ralph
3.5 ++
Plot – When the arcade closes at night, the characters who reside within the games come to life and embark on their own lives. One such character is Wreck-It Ralph, the villain of retro game, Fix-It Felix. He's been the ultimate bad guy for over 30 years, but that is no longer what he wants from his life. Attempting to win a medal to prove his heroism Ralph 'game-jumps' to Hero's Duty, a modern first person shooter. While he does get the medal he seeks, Ralph unwittingly unleashes a deadly enemy that could wipe out every game in the arcade. Ralph does however have a more immediate concern; he has lost his medal to a glitch named Vanellope von Schweetz who is a character in the racing game Sugar Rush. Despite the irritation that she causes him, Ralph will come to rely on Vanellope if he is to embrace his inner good guy and save the day.
Many people have noted the similarity Ralph bears to the Toy Story trilogy, and its certainly an accurate observation. Indeed for a while I felt the film seemed happy merely just to stick to that formula and be done with it, but it did eventually step out of the substantial shadow of Woody & Buzz to stand on its own two feet.
Following in the footsteps of Toy Story I enjoyed the way that the film took real-life problems and placed them on to these fictional playthings - midlife crisis, dissatisfaction with your life, bullying etc. And I liked the relationships that were formed, from the touching friendship between Ralph and Vanellope to the ridiculous but winning romance shared by Calhoun and Felix. Though the film does perhaps retreat a little bit too much to that familiar Disney trait of 'be yourself' that they've been doling out in films for decades. And in general it perhaps adheres a little too strictly to the formula and structure Disney has firmly established over countless animation classics. As a result with this conventional approach there is a slight lull around the half-way mark. However the film is able to put this aside to deliver a large scale and thrilling conclusion that plays out like a big alien invasion shoot-em-up.
Personally I found John C. Reilly's performance to be a little bit lifeless, but perhaps that's just my hang-up as not many people appear to share it. Outside of that however the film should be congratulated for some spot-on voice casting. Jack McBrayer's Southern geniality was a perfect fit for the perennial do-gooder that was Fix-It Felix. It's a similar story with Jane Lynch as the kick-ass Sergeant Calhoun. However the star voice definitely belongs to Sarah Silverman; perfectly capturing the the equal parts bratty, equal parts adorable traits of her character, Vanellope von Schweetz. I just loved her character.
Film trivia – Wreck-It Ralph may seem like quite a modern idea but it has actually been in development hell for some three decades. The idea of it was originally conceived of in the 1980s under the working title of High Score. Since then the idea has been revisited several times and redeveloped. In the late 1990s it became Joe Jump, and then in mid-2000s it was developed under the name of Reboot Ralph.As a bit of an old time gamer there were lots of little touches for me to enjoy, lots of visual and audio in-jokes and cameos from games of years gone by. Aside from Fix-It Felix Jr. itself being a bit of a Donkey Kong tribute the likes of Street Fighter, Sonic, Super Mario and Metal Gear Solid all get a little nod amongst countless others. Characters such as Bowser, Dr Eggman, Blanka, Q*bert and Pac-man all get a showing. While the films even includes some more out-there references such as an exclamation mark from Metal Gear Solid. My favourite was perhaps the little cameo from Ken and Ryu from Street Fighter. And on top of that there's references to some more obscure, geeky stuff such as kill screens, mini games and cheat codes. Computer geeks will be in heaven as they attempt to best each other by spotting the most allusions.
The film's designers deserve great credit for being able to capture the look and tone of various games, from the sleek, modern Halo-like world of Hero's Duty to the retro delight of Fix-It Felix Jr. And then of course there is the bold and sickeningly sweet Sugar Rush where Vanellope resides. It's an incredible burst of bright colour that I imagine was created when a unicorn threw up! And I love just some of the little touches they included, such as the movement of the residents of Fix-It Felix Jr. Even outside of the game their movement is very jerky and awkward, imitating that of old games and lacking the fluidity of characters from modern gaming. Overall the film's visuals are really quite dazzling.
Oh and the film also scores highly for its short film, Paperman, which precedes Ralph. It may lack the imagination of some of the best Pixar shorts but it's a tremendously sweet, adorable little tale. Presented in gorgeous black and white animation, it is beautifully constructed and is able to build the story, and convey the emotions without a single world being spoken. It really does create a lovely warm feeling, just setting the table nicely for Ralph to follow on. And here it actually is -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pDbVPL6YTw
Conclusion – It may not break much new ground in terms of its plot or character arcs, but it's all so bubbly and entertaining that it's tough to judge it all that harshly. Kids will likely love it for its sugar-coated, candy floss aesthetic; while old gamers like myself will get a nostalgic kick out of trying to spot as many in-jokes as possible. Already I'm looking forward to getting the DVD and trying to pick out the numerous ones I'm sure I missed. It may not prove a match for the Toy Story films which appeared to inspire it, or much of Pixar's catalogue for that matter, but it's a delightful slice of fun all the same.
Skepsis93
04-22-13, 07:20 PM
I really enjoyed this one. Great review as usual. :cool: Now hold up your end of the bargain. :p
Great review. Saw Wreck It Ralph with my 5 and 4 year old, and it was just fun. Been a long time since I enjoyed an animated film that much.
Crystal
04-22-13, 07:28 PM
ET and the Gremlins are on the top of my remake wish list. I could definitely see a Gremlins 3D being a big money maker.
Great review as usual. :cool:
Great review.
Thanks guys. :up:
ET and the Gremlins are on the top of my remake wish list. I could definitely see a Gremlins 3D being a big money maker.
:eek: What?!!! Those are amongst the last films I'd ever want to see remade. They are already pretty much perfect as is. Absolutely no need for remakes in my eyes
A couple of weeks back I said that I'd be easing off on my reviews, then promptly delivered 5 reviews and a set of micro musings! :D However I really do believe that will be the case for the time being. Or maybe it won't and I'll churn out another pile of reviews! :D
Anyway to tide over all my loyal fans :p here's one they may have missed, that I previously posted in the movie trade-off thread.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1992
Directed by
Neil Jordan
Written by
Neil Jordan
Starring
Stephen Rea
Jaye Davidson
Forest Whitaker
Miranda Richardson
Adrian Dunbar
The Crying Game
3.5 +
SPOILER WARNING – I know this film is over 20 years old now but still want to give a warning about major spoilers in my review. It's impossible for me to review it without talking about the huge twist.Plot – When a British soldier named Jody (Whitaker) is kidnapped by IRA terrorists, he ends up forming an unlikely sort of friendship with Fergus (Rea), an IRA volunteer who is watching over him, even though there is a good chance that Fergus will be forced to kill Jody. Jody asks a favour of Fergus; that if Jody dies, Fergus goes to London, finds his girl and tells her that Jody was thinking of her when he died. When things go horribly wrong, Fergus is able to escape and heads to London where he seeks out Jody's lover, a hairdresser named Dil. Adopting the name Jimmy he beings dating Dil, all the while keeping his involvement with the IRA and her past lover a secret. As it turns out however Dil is keeping a large secret of her own.
Ok......well I wasn't expecting that! :D Whatever website I checked quickly and got a brief plot summary from made this sound like an intriguing thriller/drama. While that was certainly part of the equation the film moved off into directions that I never saw coming or could possibly have predicted. Let's just get it out of the way up front – Dil turns out to be a man! :eek:
I actually struggled to get into the film all that much for the the opening 30/40 minutes. A large deal of that was down to the presence of Forest Whitaker. Now I think in general he's a talented actor; and he has some nice chemistry here with Stephen Rea, but what in the name of all that is holy was going on with his accent?! Now I'll admit to not having a great ear when it comes to accents but I thought it was one of the most atrocious attempts I've ever heard! For the opening ten minutes I was actually debating with myself whether it was truly Whitaker's voice, or if it had been dubbed over. It just seemed such an unnatural fit for him and it took me out of the film whenever he opened his mouth.
Film trivia – A few weeks into film, Jaye Davidson fell ill with the flu. A doctor was called to the set to examine him in Davidson's tiny trailer. After the examination the doctor came out, and asked director Neil Jordan if he had considered the possibility that she might be pregnant! This was the cause for much laughter from Jordan and the crew, leaving the doctor very confused. When he was let in on the secret a few minutes later the doctor was left feeling very foolish.For those first 40 or so minutes the film was heading very much in one direction, but then a shocking turn of events occurs that just pulls the rug out from under the viewer and dismantles the characters and the situation that had been built up until that point. It rather reminded me of Psycho which to begin with appears to be focusing on Janet Leigh's character and her attempts to escape with some stolen loot, but then veers off completely down another avenue. After that the film becomes very much a romantic drama, one that desperately tries to cling to the old adage of love conquering all. Despite the unusual quirks it entails, I actually found it be a very sensitive, touching romance; one that just goes to show we can't choose who we fall in love with. And that ideally it really shouldn't matter.
Stephen Rea was very impressive as the constantly tormented Fergus/Jimmy. His initial torment is over the predicament with Whitaker's Jody; he becomes friendly with him despite knowing that there's a very good he will have to kill him. An IRA terrorist, he believes in what he is fighting for, but doesn't seem all that keen on the actions he has to undertake. When he then goes to meet Jody's girl to tell her Jody was thinking of her when he died, he begins to fall for her but is tormented by a sense of guilt. And lastly when he finds out the truth about Dil he is left tormented about what to do. He finds the whole thing troubling and indeed disturbing, and yet he can't deny the feelings that he has for Dil.
Film trivia – The film was turned down by every American studio as they were sure the film's twist would be a huge turn off to the audience. In reality that was the reason many people went to the film, and how it became such a sleeper hit. Speaking of the twist, it was actually given away very subtly by film critic Richard Corliss in his review. The first letter of each paragraph spelled out the phrase, “She is a he.”I was a little bit more on the fence in regards to Jaye Davidson. Some of his acting I found to be rather stiff but at the same time he was somehow able to create a real air of sensuality about the character of Dil. A large part of that was down to the script giving Del some quite atypical dialogue and actions, imbuing the character with quite a sense of enigmatic mystery. And the fact that I wasn't sure until checking online whether the actor was a he or a she has to be worth a certain level of credit for Davidson. I knew right from Dil's first appearance that the character was going to turn out to be a man, but it was so convincingly portrayed that I wasn't sure if it was a female actress just acting like a man, or an actual man. And while I may have seen it coming the fact that the revelation is presented in such a frank, in your face manner meant that it still retained a bit of its shock value. The character of Dil was in some ways quite a tragic one, admitting that she falls for anyone who is the least bit nice to her; likely stemming from being so unhappy with her body when she was a man, and fear of being rejected in her current state.
One of the most impressive aspects of the film was how damn atmospheric it was. The film really is thick with a very gloomy, seedy atmosphere. Created through a mix of the lighting, the cinematography and the brooding soundtrack you just know that things aren't going to run smoothly, that there are going to be some dark twists and turns ahead. And that atmosphere stuck with me after the film, haunting me somewhat.
Conclusion - I felt that at times the film had a tendency to feel forced and heavy-handed on occasion, but I certainly found it to be an extremely fascinating movie; very well written and presenting one of the more unusual love stories I've ever come across. Despite the numerous plot twists and turns, the film is able to stay on track and present a look at issues including sexuality and identity, present portraits of two intriguing characters, and also makes the viewer ask some possibly difficult questions of themselves.
Just tidying up my reviews index and found that I currently stand at 147 reviews!!! Not too shabby me thinks. Oh and it looks like my 148th review is actually going to be longest ever.
Still working away on my new top 100 and man is it causing me some aggravation! :D As most people who've done a favourite films list will perhaps attest to, trying to work out the order to put the films in can drive you mad. And right now it's driving me crazy! My current problem is Pulp Fiction. It was sitting around about the 40 spot when I watched it a month or so back and initially felt that it deserved to remain there. Since then however I've been struggling to figure out how much I love it, despite still finding it a terrific film. There are inferior films which I care more about. Was going back and forth about whether to leave it or drop it into the 50s or 60s, or even lower. And now I'm completely flummoxed about it.
Ok so here we have what I believe is my longest ever review. And no it's not a deep, artistic film with lots of facets to investigate. And no it's not a highly acclaimed Oscar winner. It's a superhero flick! :D And just as with my Avengers review I feel I should qualify it by saying this is not a standard unbiased review. This is me in full-on comic book fanboy mode. My reviews of superhero flicks really are in a different realm than all my other reviews.
And no before anyone asks I don't really expect anyone to read the whole thing! :p
mirror mirror
Year of release
2013
Directed by
Shane Black
Written by
Shane Black
Drew Pearce
Starring
Robert Downey Jr.
Guy Pearce
Ben Kingsley
Gwyneth Paltrow
Don Cheadle
Iron Man 3
4.5
Plot – Following on from the Avengers' epic battle in New York, and his vital role in the victory, you would expect that Tony Stark's (Downey Jr.) ego would be bigger than ever. Except that he appears haunted by what he has experienced; struggling to sleep, having nightmares and suffering from anxiety attacks. When a terrorist attack leaves his friend Happy Hogan battling for life, Tony may just be pushed over the edge. The man responsible for orchestrating the attack was The Mandarin (Kingsley), a maniac terrorist hell-bent on bringing chaos to America. When Tony issues a personal challenge to him, The Mandarin brings the fight to his doorstep. Literally. It is a battle that will test his body and mind to their utmost, but it's not his only problem. He also has to deal with problems in his relationship with Pepper (Paltrow) and the return of an old acquaintance in Aldrich Killian (Pearce), who it turns out is not a particularly big fan of Tony.
When it comes to sequels, and indeed threequels if a franchise is lucky enough to make it that far, it's pretty common to find the film staying on very safe ground; not taking too many risks and just sticking with what has already worked thus far. So it's rather refreshing to find that Iron Man 3 proves to be one of the boldest and bravest of superhero films that has so far appeared on the market. It's bold in the way it grants its hero a sense of fear and uncertainty, and brave in the way it makes a huge break from the Iron Man mythology that has been established in the comic books. It's a move that is likely to incur the wrath of numerous die hard fans, but more on that later.
When it comes to the third film in a franchise it seems to be a concrete rule that you have to go darker. And while there may be some truth in that here I'm not sure darker is the word I would necessarily go for, perhaps deeper and more complex would be more apt. As a result it is probably not as consistently funny as the previous outings for the character, though it still does have a good number of laughs.
In terms of stories told on the page, Demon in a Bottle is amongst the most famous and revered tales in Iron Man's comic book history. It was a story arc which detailed Tony Stark's battle with alcoholism. Despite its iconic status in the Iron Man legacy it's not really a surprise that it has not been directly tackled on the screen, I'm not sure it's really the medium to try and tell such a narrative. This third entry in the series does replace his alcoholism with some other demons however. Tony Stark is one of the the smartest, if not the smartest men on the planet. He is a man who can understand and build just about anything. But since his last solo outing, Tony Stark has encountered aliens and gods, and been to another dimension. He now struggles to deal with everything he has seen and encountered. He finds it almost impossible to sleep and when he does he is plagued by nightmares. He also suffers from a form of PTSD in the form of anxiety attacks which befall him when he things about what happened to him. His arrogance now seems like merely a front, attempting to hide the shadow that he now is of his former self.
Film Trivia Snippets - For the role of Maya Hansen various people were considered including Gemma Arterton, Diane Kruger and Isla Fisher. Jessica Chastain was actually cast but had to drop out as a result of scheduling conflicts, with Rebecca Hall eventually landing the role. /// While for the role of Aldrich Killian, Downey's Sherlock co-star Jude Law was considere. /// On their first day together on set, Robert Downey Jr. and Ben Kingsley took and photo together and sent it to their mutual friend Richard Attenborough. Now let's move onto what will undoubtedly be the main topic of conversation for many people, and indeed the main bone of contention for a number of people I would imagine; the film's villain - The Mandarin. In the land of the comic book, The Mandarin is Tony Stark's most formidable foe. Batman has The Joker. Superman has Lex Luthor. Thor has Loki. Captain America has the Red Skull. And Iron Man has The Mandarin as his arch nemesis. As with all those hero-arch enemy relationships, The Mandarin represents the completely opposite viewpoint of Iron Man. Now the problem with The Mandarin is that when he was introduced back in the 60s it was a very stereotypical, Fu Manchu-like creation. And in this day and age it has come in for many accusations of being racist. Indeed none other than Shane Black himself called the character a “racist caricature”. So despite being the most recognisable foe from Iron Man's rogues gallery it's no real surprise that they decided against taking on the character in the first two films.
*****MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS ARE REVEALED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH*****
When it was announced that he would indeed feature in this third instalment there was quite a lot of questioning and reservations about it. How exactly would they tackle the character on screen? Well I personally think they came up with a rather ingenious solution to a potentially tricky proposition. They played into the unique manner of the character, revealing that Ben Kingsley is not actually The Mandarin that we've come to know on the page. He is actually a British actor named Trevor Slattery and the whole thing has been a fraud orchestrated by Guy Pearce's Aldrich Killian. The reveal left me completely rocking for a couple of minutes, but after I got past the shock I kind of loved it. He is revealed to be a hammy and frequently drunken actor and Kingsley plays it perfectly, producing a lot of laughs with his behaviour and his interaction with the bemused Tony. It does however risk bringing the narrative to a halt for some people, and I certainly imagine that such a massive twist on an iconic character will not sit well with a number of die-hard comic book fans. In fact I think I can hear the fanboy howls of derision right now! :D I however thought it was a highly creative way to try and avoid a potentially dangerous pitfall for the film. It also allows the film to work as a satire, and a relevant commentary both on the impact of the media on our lives, our prejudices and the fear that such characters can create in our lives. It shows how the media can create such threats through fearmongering. It shows that through a manipulation of footage a completely different narrative can be created. And it plays into the prejudices and expectations that exist the world over, and certainly here in the West. Indeed Pearce's Killian even states at one point that he gave the people the villain they were expecting in Kingsley's extremist terrorist. Kingsley is rather fantastic. For the initial period under the guise of The Mandarin he appears only in video messages that are broadcast on TV, and does so in a very eccentric and enigmatic manner. It's a tough character to get a bead on which works in the film's favour, creating fear through the uncertainty and creepiness. Then after the rather shocking revelation he proves to be extremely spirited and entertaining as Trevor Slattery.
In Their Own Words - “Our ambitions were to make sure that we had the movie that felt like a worthy successor to the two previous Favreau films. To Marvel’s credit, they said, “We’ve done The Avengers. We made a lot of money. But, let’s not do that again, right now. Let’s do something different.” And they allowed for a different, stand-alone film, where we got to be more character-centric and go back-to-basics with what Tony Stark would do next and what was left to tell of his story. That was very appealing to me. To make it more of a thriller and to make it more about Tony, and less otherworldly and grounded more, was our intention. I hope we succeeded.” ~ Shane Black Opposite him it's no surprise to find Robert Downey Jr. still in sparkling form as Tony Stark. I think Downey remains the most perfect piece of casting yet to grace a superhero flick. With his charm, charisma, willingness to play into the arrogant nature he sometimes gives off and his own past of personal demons, RDJ really is Tony Stark. As Stark's other nemesis this time out is Guy Pearce in the role of Aldrich Killian. The character itself may be a little limited and standard for this type of fare, but to be fair to the film I think the purpose of the character is more how he works in relation to Stark than as a character in his own right. He is created as a result of Tony's past actions and serves as a reflection of the man he may become if he is unable to reign in his obsession. As you would expect from Guy Pearce however he gives it his all to bring as much as possible to the character and does a fine job. He excels both as the slick, slimy suit character that Killian initially inhaibts; and as the more extreme, insane adversary that he becomes. His later incarnation and all of his Extremis enhanced soldiers owe a lot to Terminator 2 in terms of design. There really is an air of Robert Patrick's T-1000 about them. No matter what you do to them they reform, they heal and they just keep coming at you.
As has become rather common in superhero flicks these days, our hero spends much of his time out of his suit. So in terms of the number of action set-pieces its not an overwhelming amount. When they do arrive however they are massive and pretty epic in their scope. There is of course the attack on Tony's home which results in it sliding into the ocean; the scene which got everyone drooling when it featured prominently in the trailer. It's certainly an explosive way to initiate the Iron Man-Mandarin rivalry, and you may assume that it's the biggest set-piece IM3 has to offer but the film has some more tricks up its sleeve. There's a quite ridiculous mid-air rescue from Air Force One in a scene which will likely adopt the shorthand of the 'barrel of monkeys sequence'. It sees Tony remotely piloting one of his suits in an attempt to catch 13 people falling from the sky. Jarvis informs him that he is only capable of carrying four people so he needs the people to work together and hold onto each other. It's an incredible scene which amazingly was achieved not through any CGI, but through practical means. They really did throw 13 people out of a plane, 10 times a day for 8 days and just filmed it. Using a Red Bull stunt team it really is one of the most amazing pieces of stunt work I've seen in quite a long time. And then to close out the film they saved the biggest battle of all, a huge face-off between dozens of Iron Man suits and numerous Extremis-infused villains aboard an oil drilling platform. This will seem like a strange reference but I actually found it reminiscent of Monsters Inc's bedroom door sequence, taking place as it does across numerous levels, rising and falling aboard bits of machinery and Iron Man's suits. And the scene rather literally results in fireworks.
With each subsequent appearance for the character, Iron Man's tech has gotten more advanced, more creative and quite simply just cooler. And Iron Man 3 holds true to that tradition. The big advance here is in Tony's ability to control his suits remotely, and a suit which assembles onto him piece by piece. These upgrades allow for some entertaining and wonderfully creative moments throughout the film. In the action sequences there are several innovative uses of the suits, with highlights including him battling a series of suited goons with just half a suit, and his suit assisting him in an underwater rescue. And the suits also generate some laughs in his relationship with Pepper, with a particularly great comic beat when the suit turns it head and looks judgementally at Pepper during an argument she is having with Tony.
Film Trivia Snippets - The original budget for Iron Man 3 was $140 million, but after after The Avengers was such a massive hit, Marvel Studios upped it to $200 million to allow Shane Black to make the best movie he could. /// According to Kevin Feige (the President of Marvel Studios), the Mandarin character was partly inspired by Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. “He wants to represent this sort of prototypical terrorist, someone who worked for the intelligence community, who went nuts in the field and became this sort of devotee of war tactics." When it comes to a Shane Black film there are a few elements that you can quite safely rely on showing up - sharp and witty dialogue, lots of action, a Christmas time setting and a buddy relationship. They're all present, and in terms of the last aspect there it is achieved through a couple of relationships, one of them somewhat of a surprise. After the Mandarin's initial attack leaves him beaten, battered and stranded in a rural area of Tennessee, Tony is found and befriended by a precocious young boy named Harley. I had some initial fears that we may be heading down some corny and hokey territory but they were quickly dispelled. In fact it proved to be one of the most entertaining stretches of the whole film. The reason it works so well is that the script does not change Tony into some cuddly uncle figure. He remains his usual smug, irreverent self; and what develops is a unique father-son like relationship which felt somewhat reminiscent of Eastwood's A Perfect World. It provides the film with a degree of heart, and proves to be a nice breather in between the large scale action set-pieces. I don't think it's purely done for the laughs and emotion however, I think it works in terms of the story and Tony's character development. As I noted earlier Tony is a man struggling with his place in the universe, who has become completely obsessed with his suits. The youthful tinkerer that is Harley is like a young Tony Stark, proving to be a reminder of who Tony was as a boy and helps him to find himself again. It's a similar case with Guy Pearce's Killian who is like a glimpse into the potential insanity that resides in Tony's future if he continues his obsession with technology and the suits.
The other 'buddy' relationship is a much easier one to predict, that between Tony and his friend, Colonel James Rhodes. Shane Black's most famous creation to this point has been the Lethal Weapon series, and in the friendship between these two there is a definite echo of the Riggs and Murtaugh relationship. You've got the wild, unpredictable Riggs-like character in Tony, and the more uptight, harassed figure of Murtaugh in Cheadle's Rhodey. Anytime they appear together on screen is pretty much a guarantee of laughs, with the War Machine/Iron Patriot issue proving a fun running joke. This also allows Rhodey to finally come into his own a bit more. Perhaps they've not done quite enough yet to justify handing Cheadle a spin-off outing, but it's getting there.
Oh and as has become commonplace for Marvel's output, and superhero films in general, IM3 does feature an after-credits scene. Unlike those found in other Marvel efforts however it doesn't really have any importance to the plot of either this film or any future film. Nothing important is revealed, no hints are dropped. It is purely there as an extra little slice of entertainment featuring a cameo from one of his Avengers buddies. And it's a neat little coda that I got a nice kick out of.
Conclusion - There have been a number of stories going around for a while about whether we will see a fourth entry in the Iron Man series or not. If this does indeed prove to be the last outing for old shellhead, at least with RDJ occupying the suit, then I think this film brings it to a nice and appropriate close. It brings a sense of resolution to both the character and his story. It may not quite top the character's 2008 debut but that's certainly more of a comment on how much I loved the first film, as opposed to any negative views I have for this film. As a way to kick off Phase II of Marvel's assault on cinemas, it's hard to think of a much better way to do so than this film accomplishes. Though with its surprising twists on the established Iron Man mythology and break from being a purely standard popcorn flick I can certainly see this being perhaps the most polarizing film of the Iron Man series. Already looking around and while most critics love it, fans appear pretty split.
cinemaafficionado
05-03-13, 04:15 PM
A couple of weeks back I said that I'd be easing off on my reviews, then promptly delivered 5 reviews and a set of micro musings! :D However I really do believe that will be the case for the time being. Or maybe it won't and I'll churn out another pile of reviews! :D
Anyway to tide over all my loyal fans :p here's one they may have missed, that I previously posted in the movie trade-off thread.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1992
Directed by
Neil Jordan
Written by
Neil Jordan
Starring
Stephen Rea
Jaye Davidson
Forest Whitaker
Miranda Richardson
Adrian Dunbar
The Crying Game
3.5 +
Plot – When a British soldier named Jody (Whitaker) is kidnapped by IRA terrorists, he ends up forming an unlikely sort of friendship with Fergus (Rea), an IRA volunteer who is watching over him, even though there is a good chance that Fergus will be forced to kill Jody. Jody asks a favour of Fergus; that if Jody dies, Fergus goes to London, finds his girl and tells her that Jody was thinking of her when he died. When things go horribly wrong, Fergus is able to escape and heads to London where he seeks out Jody's lover, a hairdresser named Dil. Adopting the name Jimmy he beings dating Dil, all the while keeping his involvement with the IRA and her past lover a secret. As it turns out however Dil is keeping a large secret of her own.
Ok......well I wasn't expecting that! :D Whatever website I checked quickly and got a brief plot summary from made this sound like an intriguing thriller/drama. While that was certainly part of the equation the film moved off into directions that I never saw coming or could possibly have predicted. Let's just get it out of the way up front – Dil turns out to be a man! :eek:
I actually struggled to get into the film all that much for the the opening 30/40 minutes. A large deal of that was down to the presence of Forest Whitaker. Now I think in general he's a talented actor; and he has some nice chemistry here with Stephen Rea, but what in the name of all that is holy was going on with his accent?! Now I'll admit to not having a great ear when it comes to accents but I thought it was one of the most atrocious attempts I've ever heard! For the opening ten minutes I was actually debating with myself whether it was truly Whitaker's voice, or if it had been dubbed over. It just seemed such an unnatural fit for him and it took me out of the film whenever he opened his mouth.
For those first 40 or so minutes the film was heading very much in one direction, but then a shocking turn of events occurs that just pulls the rug out from under the viewer and dismantles the characters and the situation that had been built up until that point. It rather reminded me of Psycho which to begin with appears to be focusing on Janet Leigh's character and her attempts to escape with some stolen loot, but then veers off completely down another avenue. After that the film becomes very much a romantic drama, one that desperately tries to cling to the old adage of love conquering all. Despite the unusual quirks it entails, I actually found it be a very sensitive, touching romance; one that just goes to show we can't choose who we fall in love with. And that ideally it really shouldn't matter.
Stephen Rea was very impressive as the constantly tormented Fergus/Jimmy. His initial torment is over the predicament with Whitaker's Jody; he becomes friendly with him despite knowing that there's a very good he will have to kill him. An IRA terrorist, he believes in what he is fighting for, but doesn't seem all that keen on the actions he has to undertake. When he then goes to meet Jody's girl to tell her Jody was thinking of her when he died, he begins to fall for her but is tormented by a sense of guilt. And lastly when he finds out the truth about Dil he is left tormented about what to do. He finds the whole thing troubling and indeed disturbing, and yet he can't deny the feelings that he has for Dil.
I was a little bit more on the fence in regards to Jaye Davidson. Some of his acting I found to be rather stiff but at the same time he was somehow able to create a real air of sensuality about the character of Dil. A large part of that was down to the script giving Del some quite atypical dialogue and actions, imbuing the character with quite a sense of enigmatic mystery. And the fact that I wasn't sure until checking online whether the actor was a he or a she has to be worth a certain level of credit for Davidson. I knew right from Dil's first appearance that the character was going to turn out to be a man, but it was so convincingly portrayed that I wasn't sure if it was a female actress just acting like a man, or an actual man. And while I may have seen it coming the fact that the revelation is presented in such a frank, in your face manner meant that it still retained a bit of its shock value. The character of Dil was in some ways quite a tragic one, admitting that she falls for anyone who is the least bit nice to her; likely stemming from being so unhappy with her body when she was a man, and fear of being rejected in her current state.
One of the most impressive aspects of the film was how damn atmospheric it was. The film really is thick with a very gloomy, seedy atmosphere. Created through a mix of the lighting, the cinematography and the brooding soundtrack you just know that things aren't going to run smoothly, that there are going to be some dark twists and turns ahead. And that atmosphere stuck with me after the film, haunting me somewhat.
Conclusion - I felt that at times the film had a tendency to feel forced and heavy-handed on occasion, but I certainly found it to be an extremely fascinating movie; very well written and presenting one of the more unusual love stories I've ever come across. Despite the numerous plot twists and turns, the film is able to stay on track and present a look at issues including sexuality and identity, present portraits of two intriguing characters, and also makes the viewer ask some possibly difficult questions of themselves.
Whereas Hitchcock had that tendency to build up suspense, Jordan quite smootlhly transitions into a shocker. I thought that Dil's performance was so convincing that her sexualty had me fooled at the start. That vulnerability was truly haunting and compeling.
You are right that the movie makes some viewers ask some possibly difficult questions of themselves.
I guess, I'm fortunate that I've never been in a similiar situation, but for me the answer is clear.
Iron Man 3 marked my 148th review, so to hit the milestone of 150 I've decided to follow Gremlins and use a couple of write-ups I had considered saving for my top 100 list. Here's the first...
mirror mirror
Year of release
1991
Directed by
Katherine Bigelow
Written by
W. Peter Iliff
Starring
Keanu Reeves
Patrick Swayze
Gary Busey
Lori Petty
Point Break
4.5 +
Plot - For the last three years Los Angeles has been plagued by a string of bank robberies committed by a group called the Ex-Presidents. They are a highly skilled crew of four individuals who wear masks of former US Presidents to hide their identity. When FBI agent Angelo Pappas (Busey) is assigned a new rookie partner, Johnny Utah (Reeves), he tells him of his theory that the Ex-Presidents are a group of surfers. They hatch a plan to send Utah undercover as a surfer in hopes that he will learn the identities of the bank robbers. In his attempts to blend in to the surfer scene, Johnny falls for Tyler (Petty) and befriends a surf god by the name of Bodi (Swayze). Through these growing relationships he finds himself being drawn deeper and deeper into this new world and lifestyle
Point Break is a film that really does come across as goofy and corny at points, but I think it's done very much on purpose. Some of the dialogue and in particular the surfer spirituality are roll your eyes cheesy but it works. Yes the film feels pretty dumb, but it's smart dumb. Bigelow may not quite be going for a full-on deconstruction or spoof of the action genre but she certainly knows what she is doing. And one thing that cannot be ignored is the film's rather camp and homoerotic overtones, very much in line with the likes of Top Gun. Again however I think it's very knowing and indeed deliberate when it comes to taking this direction. The relationship that Bodhi and Johnny share is a very interesting one, with Reeves and Swayze sharing a real chemistry. And there are a few quotes which make it damn clear that the film is deliberately aiming for such campness, lines such as “I know you want me so bad, it’s like acid in your mouth.”
Now I know Keanu Reeves is a favourite punching bag for many a movie watcher, and I'm not going to put up an argument for him possessing great acting ability. However I do find that he has a certain something about him that allows him to flourish in certain ventures, even if I'm not entirely sure if I'm able to put my finger on it. He has a very easy-going, relaxed nature about him (almost akin to the stereotypical surfer dude in fact), and doesn't seem particularly desperate to really show off and make the camera pay attention to him. Sometimes it results in some pretty dreadful outcomes, however in the likes of Speed, Bill & Ted, The Matrix and here in Point Break it gives him a sort of effortless charm and affability. The other individual that makes up the film's bromance is Bodhi; leader of the bank robbers, expert surfer and a spiritual preacher of sorts. And in the role, Swayze is pretty bad ass! Initially he may seem like an unusual choice but he pulls it off; succeeding both at capturing the strong, athletic aspect of the character and the hippyish, surder dude schtick.
Film Trivia Snippets – It may be tough to imagine but the role of Johnny Utah was initially offered to Matthew Broderick. Other people to turn down the role where Val Kilmer and Willem Dafoe, while both Johnny Depp and Charlie Sheen were among those to audition. /// When explaining to Johnny who Bodhi is Tyler tells him "That's Bodhi. They call him the Bodhisattva." Bodhisattva is a term in the Buddhist religion which means an enlightened being who, out of compassion, forgoes nirvana in order to save others. In the potentially dull and tricky role of 'the love interest', Lori Petty provides a strong showing and a pleasantly surprising character. Her Tyler is about as far as you could possibly imagine from your typical surfer chick; there's not a strand of blonde hair in sight. The strength and attitude that Petty imbues the character with make her a very sexy and very appealing proposition. It really does provide a nice contrast against the stereotypical surfer chick you may be expecting. And then of course there is the enigma that is Gary Busey. He may be better known these days for his unique behaviour, and as a favourite punch-line for many a chat show host, but no matter what you want to say about him I don't think you can deny that there are very few actors who have ever commanded your attention the way that he does when he is on screen. You just can't help but be fascinated by what he is doing. Indeed you're never really sure what he's going to do next, a likely result of the fact that he probably doesn't know himself! I honestly believe that at any point during this film he could have suddenly donned a purple wig and started quoting lines from North by Northwest, and you still would have accepted it as part of the character; as Busey just being Busey! Oh and lastly, props to John C. McGinley for making a huge impression in the fairly minor role of FBI Director Ben Harp. His interaction with Reeves and Swayze, and the frustration it causes him, make for some great moments.
The film is excellently directed and edited throughout, particularly when it comes to the action. The sequences of surfing and skydiving are filmed in two disparate styles, capturing the duelling aspects of the activities. At times the camera just caresses what is in frame in beautiful slow-mo, creating the resplendent and spiritual nature of the enterprise; while at other moments it is presented in a fast and furious manner, mimicking the sheer adrenaline rush of these extreme pursuits. And then of course there is the film's rather famous chase scene which sees Reeves chasing one of the Ex-President bankrobbers through the houses, gardens and alleys of suburban California. It is far and away the greatest foot chase I've ever seen, and is well worth a place up amongst its vehicular counterparts in a list of the best cinematic chases period. The camera has so much life about it, and just places you right there in amidst the action. Oh and the film also looks terrific, featuring as it does some gorgeous photography of the surfing and skydiving.
Conclusion - I just think this is one of the best action flicks out there, an absolutely macho adrenaline rush of football, surfing, skydiving, guns and bank robberies. The central bromance and its surfer-dude teachings just adds to it. It's a wonderfully fast-paced flick with some great action sequences and stunts. It's got a series of engaging and charming performances, and all in all is just a terrific slice of fun. It's a film that has developed a bit of a cult following, and well deserving of it.
Point Break is one of the few action films from high school that hold up for me. I know a lot of these films borrow from each other, but Fast And Furious seemed like such a blatant rip-off of this film. I think that is why I never enjoyed that series. Good review as per usual.
honeykid
05-07-13, 10:16 PM
You know you're getting + rep for that. :) However, I think you've underrated it. ;)
Going against all my better judgement, a friend got me to watch The Fast And The Furious by telling me it was Point Break with cars. It's not, but I could say why he said so. What I couldn't understand was, as he'd seen Point Break, why he thought it was. F&F is to Point Break as Charmed is to Buffy. You can see why someone would compare them, but you can't really understand why anyone would think they're alike.
Agree 100% HK well said. I hate F&F. Glad to know I wasn't off base calling it a Point Break rip-off, any other time I have said that people look at me like I'm growing a second head.
Brodinski
05-08-13, 03:10 PM
Only seen Point Break once. Is that the movie in which Keanu fires his gun in the air whilst doing his 'I'm a ridiculously lousy actor'-schtick?
honeykid
05-08-13, 03:49 PM
It's the one where Keanu is "AN F.B.I. AGENT!!!!" :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1994
Directed by
Robert Zemeckis
Written by
Eric Roth (script)
Winston Groom (novel)
Starring
Tom Hanks
Robin Wright
Gary Sinise
Sally Field
Mykelti Williamson
Forrest Gump
5
Plot - Forrest Gump (Hanks) is a simple man with a low IQ, but with a big heart. Sitting at a bus stop he relays his life story to the strangers who happen to be sharing the bench with him. And what a life story it has been! He has been present at some of the most important events that have shaped America and indeed the world from the 50s through to the early 80s, and met some of the men who helped to shape the world. He has met Presidents, fought in wars and and changed the world in which we live in today. And yet the one thing that continued to elude him is th only thing that was truly important to him; the love of his lifelong friend, Jenny (Wright).
Now we come to one of the more seemingly divisive films on the board. It's a common addition on numerous favourite film lists, but at the same time it would probably appear on a few people's least favourite film lists. While I obviously love it I can perhaps understand why some people don't like this film. Quite often it's the type of film I'd probably hate, turned off its manipulative and schmaltzy nature. You just have to go into it without any trace of cynicism or bitterness about you, and you should be able to love it and its saccharine ways. Yes the arguments that its schmaltzy and overly sentimental may hold some water, but for me it all just comes across as a lovely, warm-hearted, whimsical little fable. With Tom Hanks once again providing an incredible performance.
Hanks is right up there amongst my favourite ever actors, and he is fantastic here as the simple-minded titular character. It's performance of great comic timing and a vulnerability which makes the character easy to love. Some people may accuse his performance of simply being a gimmicky showing, composed of nothing but catchphrases. In amongst his utterances of “stupid is as stupid does” and “life is like a box of chocolates” however lie some truly wonderful moments of acting which made his Best Actor Oscar well deserved. My absolute favourite snippet is the point where Forrest learns about his son, and the way that Hanks conveys it. Initially clueless, the knowledge slowly begins to dawn on him and we see a wave of fear and trepidation sweep across his face as he wonders whether his son is 'normal'. And when he learns that he is, the sense of relief and joy that replaces those feelings is heart-warming. A beautiful piece of acting. A real snapshot and showcase of his talents. Hanks really does completely create this character; one of the most iconic characters of 90s cinema. He does such an amazing job that it's all but impossible to imagine anyone else in the role, but that almost was the case. John Travolta was the first choice but turned it down, as did Bill Murray and amazingly Chevy Chase!
While it would be easy to remember the film as a completely one man show, Hanks does have some more than adequate support. This is never more evident than with the contribution from Gary Sinise. He is terrific as Forrest's Commanding Officer in Vietnam, Lieutenant Dan. Vibrant, wild, aggressive and at times downright hilarious his character goes on quite the journey and Sinise's performances ensures that we go right along with him. Sally Field also proves a charming presence as Forrest's mother and in many ways its a shame that her role is so limited. The only performance that I still struggle to really warm to is that of Robin Wright. Though in all fairness to her I believe a lot of that is down to her character. Her Jenny is a very flawed, tragic individual who more often than not just seems to be dragging Forrest down and bringing strife into his life. I understand Jenny has been tremendously damaged by her childhood traumas but Forrest is such a good guy that I just want him to be happy.
Film Trivia - Following the film's success, Winston Groom wrote a sequel to his original novel. Titled 'Gump & Co.' it actually referenced the movie as if it had been released in Forrest's world; he mentions that the movie was inaccurate and brought him unwanted press attention. Amongst his new adventures Forrest goes on The David Letterman Show, attends the Oscars and at one point actually meets Tom Hanks. A film version has been mooted for many years but has yet to materialise. A large obstacle to the production was the horrific attacks in New York on 9/11. A finished script was actually delivered the night before that infamous day, but afterwards it was felt that the world had completely changed and it would not now be relevant. I think that even for those people who don't like the film, they will be able to admire how well made the film is in a lot of technical departments. The film spans some thirty or so years, and to bring life to the numerous eras and events featured Forrest Gump is blessed with some beautiful cinematography, great sound design and a tremendous soundtrack that is just overflowing with recognisable and iconic tunes of the times. They all go a long way to immersing us in the world of Forrest and all that it entails. I mentioned the beautiful cinematography and it really does create some gorgeous images throughout, such as the landscape shots of America when Forrest is running across the country. The absolute triumph of the cinematography however would have to be the stretch detailing Forrest's stretch in the Vietnam War. It is beautifully presented and scores higher than many actual war films. It is also during this period that the soundtrack of iconic songs really comes to life. The film also benefits hugely from impeccable visual effects work from Industrial Light & Magic, used not only to digitally place Tom Hanks into archive footage but allowing him to interact with characters and objects within the footage. These scenes are fantastically effective and endearing. It's a trick that was put to similarly positive use in the previous year's In the Line of Fire. The effects are also used to digitally remove Gary Sinise's legs when Lieutenant Dan becomes an amputee. It's a tremendously convincing piece of trickery, so much so that if I didn't know who Sinise was and that he was not actually an amputee I may have wondered if he really was.
Forget about all your comedies and cult flicks, if you're looking for the most quotable film of all time then this one has certainly got to be in contention. Through a combination of the scipt and Hanks' delivery, the film just has so many lines that have permeated into popular culture and remained there. And come on, is there really anyone who's seen this film and not tried to imitate at least one or two of his lines? Surely even the most miserable of us has busted out a “stupid is as stupid does” or a “life is like a box of chocolates” every once in a while. The script also triumphs in an avenue where Rain Man succeeded; it is able to find a large amount of humour in the character without it ever actually being at the character's expense. We are never laughing at him. Yes the laughs come from things that Forrest says or does but we're laughing at the situation and at others reaction to him.
Film Trivia Snippets - Forrest and Dan's Shrimp Emporium “Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.” is now a theme restaurant with outlets in 40 locations around the world in countries such as America, Japan, China, Mexico and Malaysia. /// Six years previous to Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks and Sally Field co-starred in Punchline. In that film they played love interests, while here Field plays Hanks' mother. /// Inspired by his character in the film, Gary Sinise co-founded a rock and roll cover band called “The Lt. Dan Band.” The band often goes on USO tours to play for military personnel stationed around the world, and also plays various benefits for veteran-related causes. /// Warner Bros. were actually the initial holders of the film's rights but gave them up in 1988 in exchange for Executive Decision. They felt that the project had lost its commercial potential following the release of Rain Man. The film would go on to gross close to $700 million. Oops!One of my favourite aspects of Forrest Gump is in its connections and allusions to real-life events and slices of popular culture. One of my all-time favourite TV shows is the brilliant Quantum Leap. And that had a very similar concept; something they called 'kisses with history'. It was a term used for when the main character, Sam Beckett, interacted with historical characters (perhaps shaping their future), introduced a piece of popular culture or was present at the birth of something important. In this film, Gump has met numerous historical figures of huge importance and affected so much of the world we live in today. Amongst numerous other events he helped create the icon of Elvis Pressley, gave John Lennon the lyrics for “Imagine”, uncovered the Watergate scandal, gave birth to the phrase 'sh*t happens' and the smiley face icon, was involved in the Vietnam War and met one President after another.
So for all its quirks and its decades-spanning story, what exactly is Forrest Gump all about? I don't know that I'm entirely sure. Is it perhaps saying that for all of the world's kings and queens, presidents and prime ministers, more often than not it's the small, everyman that Gump represents who finds themselves changing the world. Or is it understanding that for all the amazing things that happens in his life, the things that are most important to Gump are friends, family and love; as it should be for all of us. Is it merely a fly-by, cliff notes style telling of a tumultuous period in America which did much to shape the country and indeed the world that remains today? Or is the film quite simply just saying that its nice to be nice?
Forrest Gump is a man who has been at the centre of one historical event after another, has captured the hearts and minds of America over and over again, met one President after another and has affected so much of the world we live in today; but all he cares about is a girl. About love. He may not be a smart man but when it comes to priorities in life, he may just be a bit of a god-damned genius!
Conclusion - There have been a few discussions on the board about future classics, and films which will still be watched 60, 70, 80 years from now. Well I think that Forrest Gump is a very strong contender for such a category. As part of my argument I would cite the work of Frank Capra. In terms of films from Hollywood's Golden Age, Capra's efforts remain amongst the most fondly remembered and popular. And I think Forrest Gump shares numerous similarities with his output. There is something of an indefinable magic about it; a sense of wonder. It's old-fashioned, fantastical, whimsical and timeless stuff. A film that truly touches people. Utterly charming.
Perfect film, love Forrest Gump. This is the film that made me a Hanks and Sinise fan. Ironically there are two films from '94 that I love just a bit more. By far my fave year in film.
gandalf26
05-10-13, 05:16 PM
It's the one where Keanu is "AN F.B.I. AGENT!!!!" :D
Yeah, like totally dude!
The Rodent
05-10-13, 05:41 PM
Forrest Gump... one of a few blockbusters I've yet to review.
Decent film, but not one that has me rushing out to buy. Not sure what it is really, just not my sort of thing.
I felt it was kinda twee in places.
Nice review too JayDee as always.
Used Future
05-10-13, 06:02 PM
Decent film, but not one that has me rushing out to buy. Not sure what it is really, just not my sort of thing.
stupid is as stupid does ;)
The Rodent
05-10-13, 06:09 PM
You know me... I prefer things like JP3, Matrix Revolutions and 2012.
Sexy Celebrity
05-10-13, 06:42 PM
You know me... I prefer things like JP3, Matrix Revolutions and 2012.
The last two Matrix movies are better than the first movie, in my opinion, but I prefer Reloaded a lot more.
Used Future
05-10-13, 06:56 PM
I prefer not caring. But I do think The Matrix sequels are abysmal, whilst JP3 is an abbreviation I've never heard of, and 2012 was shat out of a flea bitten Pug's arse. When the sh*t's been shat as they say...
The Rodent
05-10-13, 06:58 PM
Jurassic Park 3
Used Future
05-10-13, 07:03 PM
Holy shat sh*t Jurassic Park 3 is the best one...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/12/31/1325334477594/Kim-Jong-un-salutes-durin-007.jpg
Daniel M
05-11-13, 08:50 AM
I read all of that review JayDee, even though it's a film I have mixed thoughts about and right now would probably rate around 3, reading your review it's great to see how so many people find this a 'magical film' and I know Skepsis had it high up in his top 100 too, but unfortunately in the one time I watched it I just wasn't able to connect with the film and go on a two hour journey of enjoyment. The next time I see it on TV I will definitely give it a record and watch it again and see if I can enjoy it any more.
One thing I noticed from your review though:
impeccable visual effects work from Industrial Light & Magic, used not only to digitally place Tom Hanks into archive footage but allowing him to interact with characters and objects within the footage. These scenes are fantastically effective and endearing.
That doesn't surprise me as my favourite animation, Rango, is the first (and likely only) full-length feature animated film from ILM, and I honestly think it is has the best visual design I have seen in an animation.
Skepsis93
05-11-13, 09:05 AM
Forrest and Dan's Shrimp Emporium “Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.” is now a theme restaurant with outlets in 40 locations around the world in countries such as America, Japan, China, Mexico and Malaysia.
I went to one. They ask you questions about the movie and give you free stuff if you get them all right. The food is awesome too, from what I remember.
Forrest Gump is quintessential blockbuster filmmaking, for me. Grandiose is every way, rousing music, great performances. Maybe a little manipulative emotionally, but I'm on board with that all day long.
Only seen Point Break once. Is that the movie in which Keanu fires his gun in the air whilst doing his 'I'm a ridiculously lousy actor'-schtick?
Yeah that's the one. And that is indeed one of the film's many awesome moments. Always got a real sexual frustration vibe from that moment, seeing him empty his clip, or blow his load if you will. :p
I went to one. They ask you questions about the movie and give you free stuff if you get them all right.
Sounds quite cool. Where was the one you went to?
Decent film, but not one that has me rushing out to buy.
Run Rodent run......to the shops and buy it! :D
reading your review it's great to see how so many people find this a 'magical film' and I know Skepsis had it high up in his top 100 too
Yeah it was on Skepsis' top 100, my top 100, Mark's, Sexy's and a few others as well I think. Don't think honeykid had it on his but I think he likes/loves Forrest Gump as well.
Skepsis93
05-13-13, 06:31 PM
Sounds quite cool. Where was the one you went to?
'Twas. Times Square, New York.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2013
Directed by
J.J. Abrams
Written by
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof
Starring
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban
Star Trek Into Darkness
4 -
Plot - After breaking the Prime Directive on a distant planet, Captain James T. Kirk (Pine) is relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise. This proves to be a short-lived development however. When a destructive force of terrorism emerges from within Starfleet itself, Kirk is reinstated and tasked with tracking down this terrorist. The terrorist in question is John Harrison (Cumberbatch); a darkly mysterious and extremely powerful force waging a one-man war against Starfleet. When the score between them becomes personal, a vengeful Kirk follows Harrison into dangerous territory, risking a war in the process. As it turns out however, things are not what they seem. With events and revelations turning the world of Kirk and his crew upside down, loyalties are going to be questioned and sacrifices demanded.
Whatever your opinion was of J.J. Abrams' first stab at the world of Star Trek, I think you're very likely to feel the exact same way about this; his return trip aboard the USS Enterprise which I found very similar. I found his 2009 reboot of the franchise to be a very fun, if flawed film. I had hoped this sequel would take the foundation laid out and realise the potential hinted at. While I would give this film the edge over its predecessor, sadly I don't feel that it quite lived up to my hopes. It was able to retain all the things I enjoyed about the first film, but unfortunately it did likewise in terms of its flaws.
Up front I feel I should admit to not being a devout follower of the Church of J.J.; I'm not one for worshipping the ground that the man walks upon. Which would be fine, I wouldn't feel strongly either way, except for the fact that so many people seem to adore and rave about the man; thus creating in me a sort of irrational contempt towards him. I think he certainly knows how to deliver on spectacle and thrills, but on the strength of his two Trek films and the underwhelming Super 8, I'm not so sure about his abilities to deliver heart and emotion. The two Star Trek films he has delivered have scored high as slices of big-ass action, but to me they don't feel like classic Trek. I imagine they're missing the adventure, the derring do, the sense of exploration, the warmth and the level of character that has made me love the franchise over the years. He's in danger of turning the franchise into nothing but a special effects bonanza.
I also have a problem with Abrams' presentation at times, though whether I can expound upon why exactly this is I'm not sure. His direction entails a frequently moving camera, numerous whips and pans and really likes to get up close and personal to his subjects. At times it is suitable and indeed successful at breeding a lively and energetic mood, however there are times (particularly on the bridge) where I wish he would just settle down for a moment, pull back and allow the moment and the characters to breathe a little. His approach creates a bit of a TV feel for me, perhaps a leftover stemming from his time working on the small screen. Oh and when it comes time to adding the visual effects in post-production, can someone please hide the 'add lens flare' button from the man!
However the one area where this film truly does improve upon Abrams' first attempt is in its villain, who this time around is given a much more fleshed-out character and interesting story. In Star Trek, Eric Bana was given very little opportunity to make an impression as Nero; his character felt like it existed merely as a plot device to get the crew involved in time travel and alternate realities. In John Harrison however, Benedict Cumberbatch is given greater scope to work with and truly makes the most of it. His terrorist foe oozes menace and charisma. It's a fantastically gripping and magnetic performance which just cements his growing reputation as one of the hottest young talents around. He absolutely dominates the screen and your attention whenever he appears, and for me is the best thing this sequel has going for it. All of which makes it rather unfortunate then that I don't feel he is really utilised to the fullest, with the script conspiring to have him off screen for more time than would have been ideal. Abrams' main focus remains the occasionally strained dynamic between Spock and Kirk, and on the action. The script flirts with some more complex issues such as morality and the rights of a terrorist, but quickly dismisses them to blow some more stuff up. It also opts for quite a rushed and clumsy conclusion which seems to ignore the consequences created. The script just feels rather lazy at times.
When it comes to the Enterprise crew the undoubted star amongst the cast remains Zachinary Quinto who continues to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Leonard Nimoy. It's actually rather eerie and unnerving just how similar they are; it's the same voice, the same face, the same mannerisms, the same nuances - everything! In fact, were it not for the small issue that the original Spock is still alive I'd be tempted to believe Quinto was actually Leonard Nimoy reincarnated! As in the first outing, Chris Pine proves to be a solid and decent Kirk but I've still to truly warm to him and the character. I just don't feel like he has truly inhabited the character and made it his own, or that he has the suitable natural star power. As a result, in the scenes where Kirk goes face to face with Harrison, I personally felt that he paled in comparison to the magnetic and over-powering gravitas of Cumberbatch. So much so that I rather found myself cheering for the villain which I don't think is a particularly good thing to feel for this type of venture. And Pine is not helped by the fact that the script often conspires to make his Kirk flawed, weak and not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I read another review which criticised the film for having supporting characters presented as little more than window dressing, and that really is the case when it comes to much of the Enterprise's crew; with the likes of Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Uhura all suffering. Basically everyone but Spock, Kirk and Scotty. The actors are given pitifully little to work with outside of basic traits imitated after the men and women who first brought these characters to life. As McCoy, all the script allots Urban is the chance to deliver grumpy one-liners. Anton Yelchin remains an endearing presence as Chekov, but is relegated to basically mispronouncing his v's and his w's. As a result I've still to really take to any of the supporting cast in any great manner. Oh and as I've mentioned on here a few times before, I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and take umbrage at him portraying a Scotsman. I found him annoying in the first film, and so was rather despondent to find his role had been increased this time around.
One of the main flaws in Abrams' first trip into space aboard the Enterprise was the romance between Spock and Uhura. Revealed out of the blue late on in proceedings, no development or explanation was really put forward. It came across as nothing more than a flimsy gimmick; as if Abrams & co had merely included it for a bit of controversy, just to get people talking and create some buzz. I had hoped that they would take the opportunity to expand upon it in the sequel but sadly that is not the case. Very little progress is made on that front, and they decline the chance to address issues such as how a relationship between a human and a vulcan actually works, or even why they're together. We've had two movies now and still have no real clue why these two have hooked up.
As with the first film, the one area where the film is a pretty much unreserved success is in its effects and the sheer spectacle they create. It looks spectacular and remains a great theme park ride of a movie, full of large scale space battles and thrilling set-pieces. Though the battle on Kronos suffers from the manic, quick-fire editing that hurts many modern films, making it almost incomprehensible to figure out what the hell is happening at times. One problem with so much action however is that I began to suffer peril fatigue (a term borrowed from another review). With Kirk & co in danger every five minutes it begins to wear on you a bit. Again as with its predecessor, Into Darkness features numerous nods to classic Trek, and near its conclusion this is particularly true of Wrath of Khan. This blatant callback will likely work fine for newcomers to the world, but for trekkies (well this one at least) the scene felt incredibly forced and cheesy, even verging on being cringeworthy, and completely sabotaged any potential emotion in the scene. For a film trying to breathe new life into a franchise it seems overly obsessed with the past.
And lastly, another thing that wasn't so much a flaw with the film as just a personal nitpick is the fact that I was disappointed with just how much of the running time was spent aboard the Enterprise or on Earth. That was fine on TV when you only had to wait another week for a new episode, but with a potential wait of a few years between instalments I feel its a shame not to spend more time exploring “strange new worlds” and interacting with alien races. Outside of the film's prologue our only real exposure to the wider universe is a brief visit to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, but much of it is shrouded in darkness preventing us from really getting an idea of its aesthetic, and the Klingons themselves I found to be a disappointing creation; not really evoking their look from any previous outings.
As seems pretty typical for this type of fair these days, the film does have its share of plot holes. Quite a large share actually. But I won't get too bogged down in them right now (perhaps later :D). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it.
Conclusion - Given how many flaws I've pointed out it may seem strange that I've still given it such a high rating, indeed even I think it looks generous! But for all its problems, as a big summer blockbuster it remains a highly entertaining (if disposable) popcorn flick, and as a result of Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion it is an improvement on the first film. And my inner Trekkie is pretty damn strong which is always going to help anything carrying the Trek name. However with more screentime for Cumberbatch, more attention paid to the script and better use of its supporting cast this could have been something special.
Oh and another interesting aspect, which perhaps hurt my enjoyment of this, was just how similar this was to Iron Man 3 in terms of sharing similar themes and story beats. I found IM3 to be a much smarter, wittier and overall a far more thrilling experience however.
Ill read your review saturday after I see the film. Glad to see a 4, gets me a little more excited to see it.
Ill read your review saturday after I see the film. Glad to see a 4, gets me a little more excited to see it.
It's one of those where you really need to combine the score with the actual review to get the full picture of how I felt about it. While I did greatly enjoy it as a summer blockbuster, there were a heap of flaws with it. And to be honest I may have been a little bit generous with the score.
But I certainly hope you enjoy it and look forward to seeing what you've got to say.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2000
Directed by
M. Night Shyamalan
Written by
M. Night Shyamalan
Starring
Bruce Willis
Samuel L. Jackson
Robin Wright Penn
Spencer Treat Clark
Unbreakable
4.5 ++
Plot – A train derails in Philadelphia. 131 people die. One man lives. And he doesn't even have a scratch on him. That man is David Dunn (Willis); a security guard and seemingly normal individual. Trying to understand how exactly he survived he is given a possible answer from Elijah Price (Jackson); a comic book enthusiast and art gallery owner specialising in comic book art. Born with a rare disease that makes his bones incredibly brittle and fragile, and earned him the nickname of Mr Glass, Elijah purposes that there must be someone at the opposite scale from him; a man stronger than everyone else, a man who cannot be hurt, a man who is unbreakable. Initially dismissing his suggestion as being ridiculous, David's way of thinking begins to change when more and more of the things Elijah says prove to be true - David has never been sick or ill in his life, he discovers that he possesses greater strength than average and that he has a special intuition which allows him to pinpoint people who have done wrong. Could David Dunn really be a true-life superhero?
It's a pretty much accepted fact that it was X-Men, released in 2000, which kick-started the revival of superhero flicks which has continued to this day. However I think that Unbreakable, released just a few months later, also deserves a slice of the credit for creating a one-two punch that brought the genre back into vogue following the disastrous reception that met Batman & Robin. After all what is this but a classic superhero origin tale, complete with various tropes of the medium. The film gives to him a backstory, powers, a weakness, a nemesis and even a costume of a sort in the form of a windbreaker/raincoat which turns him into your classic caped crusader.. And as a nice little touch he even has an alliterative name (David Dunn) in line with many of the real life identities of comic heroes - Reed Richards, Matt Murdoch, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker etc.
It's a surprisingly offbeat film for what could very easily have taken the route of being a big blockbuster. It's certainly a film in no great rush to reveal its secrets, but its slow pace allows the film to build a terrific atmosphere; it's tense, suspenseful, eerie and wonderfully moody. It may not be as flashy or attention-grabbing as the likes of The Sixth Sense or Signs but I believe it to be Shyamalan's most intelligent and mature film that he has so far delivered. Along the way the film drops several hints about what is to come in terms of its surprise ending. Elijah's mother gives him a comic book which apparently has a 'surprise ending', while throughout Elijah talks about himself and David being at opposite ends of the spectrum. Shyamalan's penchant for twists may now come in more for ridicule than praise, but I find the twist in this one very interesting, very satisfying and one that certainly holds up to repeat viewings.
I love the direction and visual design of the film, completely immersed in the world of comic books. It's very smartly done. Throughout the film there are examples of shots that feel uncommon for the medium, the camera angles and framing make them more reminiscent of the panels found in comic books. I could constantly have paused the film and the image on screen would seem like it had been lifted straight out of the pages of the latest offering from Marvel or DC. It's not the only trick used to mimic the tone of that world. Colour schemes are used throughout to differentiate between the characters. David's colour is green, while Elijah's is purple. This is reflected in numerous objects such as items of clothing and personal effects, and in the design features of their homes. Colour is also used to highlight the 'villains' he sees in his visions at the train station, making them jump out from the rest of the world. And the first villain that David tackles wears a bright orange jumpsuit, about as close to an identifiable costume as you could possibly get in the real world. Oh and there is also a lovely glass motif spread over the course of the film in relation to Elijah; alongside the obvious factor of his glass walking cane the character's image is frequently caught in reflective surfaces. And in terms specifically relating to the direction, the film is peppered with numerous fine examples of Shyamalan's eye for great shots, but the absolute epitome as far as I am concerned would be David's showdown with the man in orange. From the Orange Man appearing out of the curtains to the underwater horror, culminating in a terrific and brutal fight scene its a beautifully conceived sequence. Oh and the music that accompanies it is tremendous.
I've never quite understood the praise that Christopher Nolan receives for making his 'realistic' Batman films. No matter how grounded he tries to make them when you boil it all down what you still basically have is a guy dressing as a bat, battling guys dressed as clowns and scarecrows, and doing so in a car that can fly across rooftops. If you want a 'realistic' take on the superhero mythology then this is the film for you. It takes the classic superhero template and sets it against a real world environment. Basically its a retelling of the Superman mythos, but with the tremendous premise of 'what if Superman didn't know that he was Superman?” I also love the idea Elijah holds that comic books are actually the latest way of recording mythology, that they are merely exaggerated stories based on fact.
Film Trivia – The original script was actually a much more expansive story, in fact the completed film only covered the first third of that original script. M Night Shyamalan apparently felt no connection with the other two thirds of the story so discarded them, deciding to tackle only the origin part of the story.In the lead role, Bruce Willis gives a very quiet and restrained performance; in fact it almost seems like he is sleep-walking through the film for spells of it. But it works for the character. There is a real sense of sadness and loneliness that he gives to the character, fitting for a man who appears to be a bit of a lost soul. He is haunted by the knowledge that something isn't right in his life, but is unable to fathom what exactly it is. It is a much more subtle showing than we have become accustomed to over his career; usually he has to do a lot of shouting just to be heard above all the explosions that are typically going off all around him. David Dunn is a very flawed hero, indeed he's pretty much the complete opposite of the classic superhero archetype. He seems completely dissatisfied with his life but has no idea how to fix it, he keeps his family at a distance but doesn't know why. Willis conveys this excellently in occasionally heartbreaking fashion.
As the counterpart to David, I find the character of Elijah to be immensely fascinating. He's a very tragic and sympathetic character who has suffered a life of pain and fear, and who found a refuge in the escapist world of comic books. And yet within the pages of these superhero tales he finds much more meaning than your normal reader. He is such a fragile, at-risk individual that he theorises there must be someone at the opposite end of the scale to him; someone to protect the vulnerable and damaged people like him. So he goes on a quest to find such an individual, and when he does it provides a purpose to his life. It gives a meaning to why he was cursed with such a traumatic condition. When he learns the truth he tells David that “now that we know who you are...I know who I am.” Being born this way was not just a cruel twist of fate, it made him an instigator in a cosmic, universal plan; to find and give birth to a hero. It's a concept I've always been very intrigued by; that sort of yin and yang balancing act. In this case that good cannot exist without evil, and that evil cannot exist without good.
And fulfilling the role we have Samuel L Jackson; and well, Samuel L is Samuel L Jackson! It's a style of performance we've seen from the man many times before, with numerous moments feeling reminiscent of a past outing for him. For example, early on in the film he berates a man who is trying to buy a piece of comic book art for his four year old child. He asks, “Do you see any toys in here? Do you see a slender plastic tag clipped to my shirt with my name printed on it? Do you see a little Asian child with a blank expression on his face sitting outside on a mechanical helicopter that shakes when you put quarters in it?” It really does feel like Shyamalan stumbled across some deleted footage from Pulp Fiction, as the words seem like they are coming right out of the mouth of Jules when he confronts Frank Whaley's character in the film - “What does Marcellus Wallace look like?!” He fits the character to a tee, perfectly inhabiting the eccentric and unique aspect of the character he has been handed. I also have to give great credit to Spencer Treat Clark, who portrays Willis' son, Joseph. It's one of the most impressive and underplayed performances that I can think of from a child actor. He wonderfully portrays that feeling that all children have when they're young, that their parents are invulnerable and better than everyone else. We want to believe they are super; so when Elijah tells him a story that may in fact prove it, it breeds a desperation in him for it to be true.
Oh and I couldn't possibly end this review without mentioning the fantastic score provided to the film by James Newton Howard.
Conclusion - It's actually quite hard now to remember just how hot M. Night Shyamalan was back in the late 90s/early 00s. With The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs he had started his career off with three critical and commercial hits. Of the three, this is my favourite, At the time of its release there were rumours abounding that Unbreakable was just the first piece in a potential trilogy. While the promised sequel(s) never materialised, I certainly hope that M. Night can find his feet and once again deliver a film of this quality some day. He may have become a favourite whipping boy for many, but I certainly feel he has shown that he has a creative mind and no small amount of talent; culminating in this film, his personal masterpiece.
The Rodent
05-19-13, 07:13 PM
Agreed, Unbreakable is a hell of a film and always gets underrated.
I had it on DVD years ago but it got scratched... still haven't gotten round to buying it again, must do it at some point.
Nice review!
Great review :yup: I :love: and own Unbreakable :yup:
honeykid
05-19-13, 09:20 PM
I'm with everyone else here with the Unbreakable love. Easily Shyamalan''s best film.
BTW, that was an excellent review, JD.
Nice review!
Great review :yup:
BTW, that was an excellent review, JD.
Thanks everyone. I appreciate it. Especially you HK seeing as you went highest with your praise. :D I actually thought it was pretty good myself. In general I think my reviews are pretty decent but every so often a review just clicks and is quite easy to write. Helps when you get a quality film like Unbreakable with lots of facets to talk about.
Awesome review. One of the best I think I've read on this site, and I've read more than a few.
Love the film, love the review. :up:
Awesome review. One of the best I think I've read on this site, and I've read more than a few.
Love the film, love the review. :up:
:eek: Wow thanks man. Now that is some high praise. I really appreciate it. :up: Although I feel I should now perhaps call it a day, it will all be downhill from here. I should retire at the top. :D
Though despite all this praise I just realised a mistake I made. When I was pretty much done with the review I realised I hadn't wrote anything about the wonderful score, so put that little bit about not being able to end the review without talking about it as a reminder of sorts myself. I was meant to come back, see it and remember that I wanted to write a few lines about it. But I forgot.
Had a look around at some of the bits and pieces you've written about Unbreakable and we certainly seem to feel very similarly. And you pinpointed a few of the scenes I also really like - the scene in the hospital with the bleeding man in the foreground, the moment where he lets his son know what he is doing at the kitchen table etc. And you're right about the DVD and its deleted scenes being excellent.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2012
Directed by
Ben Lewin
Written by
Ben Lewin
Based on “On Seeing a Sex Surrogate” by Mark O'Brien
Starring
John Hawkes
Helen Hunt
William H. Macy
Moon Bloodgood
The Sessions
3.5
Plot – After suffering from polio as a child which left him paralysed from the neck down, Mark O'Brien (Hawkes) has spent his whole life in an iron lung. Despite this he was still able to graduate from college, become a writer and a poet. At the age of 38 however he sets himself a new goal - to lose his virginity. This longing comes around as a result of two factors; he falls in love with his assistant and proposes marriage to her, a gesture which chased her away. And he takes on a writing assignment about the sex lives of disabled people. Fascinated by the prospect the devout catholic visits his priest, Father Brendan (Macy), for advice on whether it would be a sin or not. After being given the thumbs up he gets in contact with a sex surrogate named Cheryl Cohen-Greene (Hunt). The film follows the journey the two characters go on and the relationship that develops. Based on a true story
Given its subject matter this film could very easily have gone in several polar opposite directions. It could have chosen to embrace the unusual and ridiculous nature of the situation and played it up purely for laughs, a 40 Year Old Virgin In An Iron Lung if you will. Or it could have moved off into cheap and trashy territory had it chosen to sensationalise the events depicted. How refreshing it is then to find this story tackled in such an adult manner. The true life story of Mark O'Brien is treated with intelligence, respect, an honesty and a tenderness. It may not sensationalise what occurs but nor does it gloss over them. It addresses them in a forthright and mature manner.
However when you take into account that the film is basically the story of a man who spends the whole running time either in bed, on a gurney or in an iron lung, it comes as no real surprise that it's not exactly a dynamic film. It is a low key film which instead focuses itself as an acting showcase, and in that respect it is a great success. The film is basically comprised of numerous one one one conversations between Mark and the people who are drawn into his life. As a result I get the feeling that it could work just as successfully, if not even more so, were it to be transformed for the stage.
We feel great sympathy for the character of Mark O'Brien, but it does not come about as a result of Hawkes playing the role for the miserable tragedy that his life is, as the film could easily have had him do. Instead he imbues the character with wit and a dry, self-deprecating humour, making him someone who tackles life with a great strength and spirit. As a result we come to like and care for the character, and it is this that makes us wish this was not his life. It is an incredible transformation from Hawkes, so much so that I didn't actually recognise him while watching the film. It was only while watching the interviews on the DVD that I went 'oh that guy!'. He gifts Mark with such a inner strength and positive outlook that the film proves to be really quite life-affirming. Thanks to him the film also proves to be a surprisingly funny affair, with his droll delivery generating a good few laughs. My favourite line, concerning his faith, would certainly have to be “I believe in a God with a sense of humour. I would find it absolutely intolerable not to be to able blame someone for all this.” It also proved to be a physical challenge for him. In order for him to achieve the appearance of having a distorted spine, Hawkes spent the whole film with a solid cushion under one side of his back, said to be quite the uncomfortable experience.
A large part of the reason I wanted to see this film was the participation of Helen Hunt. Ever since the days of her portraying Jamie Buchman in the 90s sitcom, Mad About You, she is someone I have always liked, not just as an actress but as someone I always had a bit of a crush on. And yes I will admit that the horny 12 year old inside me wanted to see this film when I heard that she spent a good degree of it completely naked. Despite this proving to be true, as a result of the film's tasteful approach this does not come across as cheap or titillating. She is however a vision of beauty and elegance. As for her actual performance, she is terrific. She brings so much warmth and sensitivity to the character, and an amazing lack of self-consciousness. It's just such a frank and undaunted showing from her, well worthy of the Oscar nomination she received. The only real mystery is how John Hawkes didn't follow suit. Saying that someone delivers a 'brave performance' is perhaps an overused term these days but in the case of The Sessions that really is true. Hawkes and Hunt are just so completely exposed here, not just physically but emotionally.
Excellent support comes in the form of William H Macy as Father Brendan, a liberal catholic priest who is conflicted between following the bible to the letter of the law and between what he believes to be right. The conclusion that he comes to? That “I think God would say, 'Go for it'” Between them, Macy and Hawkes build a really sweet friendship. However when you consider that it's Macy, one of the most dependable actors around, it comes as no real surprise that he is such a success in the film. Something that is also true of Hunt and Hawkes. So the real surprise amongst the cast proves to be Moon Bloodgood. I have seen her numerous times, either on TV (Falling Skies, Journeyman) or in rather brainless films (Terminator Salvation, Faster) and had never taken all that much notice of her as an actress. Here however she dresses down to play a 'plain Jane' character and proves to be a genial and wryly humorous addition to the film.
Conclusion - The Sessions is a commendable and very fine film, but one that struggled to really stoke up the passion in me that I had been hoping for. I just felt it resembled a trite TV movie a little too often, though one with a much higher standard of acting on show. If however you are looking for an uplifting, grown-up film from Hollywood, or a showcase for fine acting, then I would certainly have no hesitation in recommending this sweet little film.
honeykid
05-29-13, 09:02 PM
Good review, JD. I'm looking forward to seeing this one day. Of course, I've been saying that since last year and I may well do so for a long time to come. :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1950
Directed by
Billy Wilder
Written by
Billy Wilder
Charles Bracket
D.M. Marshman Jr.
Starring
Gloria Swanson
William Holden
Erich von Stroheim
Nancy Olson
Sunset Boulevard
4.5 +
Plot - Sunset Boulevard opens with a bullet-ridden corpse floating in a pool. The pool is located on the grounds of a large Hollywood mansion owned by Norma Desmond (Swanson), a once famous silent movie star whose career dried up with the invention of the talkies. The corpse belongs to Joe Gillis (Holden), a jaded screenwriter who falls under her control. Gillis' voice comes from beyond the grave to guide us through the film. This is the story of his demise.
A couple of years ago, The Artist won the hearts of film fans all over the world as a much loved film that covered the transition from silent films to talkies in a fairly hopeful and uplifting manner. Sunset Blvd. covers similar territory but is about as far from those sentiments as possible. That doesn't stop it from being a truly wonderful film however. It's a film considered to be one of the all time classics and it's certainly worthy of such an accolade. It is a biting, darkly funny film that rips apart the golden dream of Hollywood. It is also a truly sad, slightly haunting story as the once famous star, Norma Desmond, descends into desperation, depression and finally madness. Along the way she drags a struggling screenwriter, Joe Gillis, down along with her as he becomes trapped in her web
It is a brutal, scathing assault on Hollywood and those who reside within it. It crushes Hollywood as this soulless brute that destroys creativity and heart in favour of profit and a safe bet. As this fickle entity that will milk someone dry when they are on top, but then spit them out and forgot about them when there time has passed. It is also not particularly kind to the stars that populate Hollywood's output. Norma Desmond is a complete diva, complete with outlandish behaviour and eccentricities - for example she has a pet monkey whom she demands receives a proper funeral upon his death. She is spectacularly vain and narcissistic; watching nothing but her own films and going to insane lengths to prepare herself for her return to the screen.
Sunset Boulevard is privileged with a terrifically written script, complete with both a classic opening and closing scene. It is chock-full of sharp and witty dialogue, gifting William Holden in particular with some fantastic lines to deliver, especially in his voice-over narration from beyond the grave. And he seems to revel in delivering such scathing sarcasm. Though that is not to say that Gloria Swanson is given short shrift in this department. She is given the opportunity to spout some truly classic quotes. Even before I had any knowledge of this film's existence, I already knew of lines such as “I'm ready for my close-up Mr DeMille” and “It's the pictures that got small.”
Film Trivia – Despite her legendary performance, Gloria Swanson was far from Billy Wilder's first choice for the role. He had offered the role to Mae West, who rejected it as she felt she was too young to play a silent film star. Mary Pickford also rejected it as she felt it would destroy her wholesome image. In fact Wilder and fellow writer, Charles Bracket, actually went to pitch the story to Pickford but her horrified reaction as the tale unfolded made the men stop halfway through and apologise to her. While another of Wilder's original choices was another silent star, Nora Pegri. However when he contacted her, he found her Polish accent too harsh for such a dialogue heavy film. Ironically it was her accent that had killed her career in the first place when the talkies were introduced. The main cast are universally excellent. Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond is incredible, perfectly capturing the desperation of the faded star and the unshakeable belief that she is still 'big'. It's a hammy style of performance that probably wouldn't work 99% of the time. However for this film, and this character, it is perfect. Her showing is gaudy, camp, overpowering and oh so melodramatic. In fact she is actually a rather terrifying prospect, one I imagine even the bravest of men would be likely to quiver in the presence of. Her demeanour can change in the blink of an eye; from fierce predator to a simpering and insecure weakling and back again within mere moments. And her descent down the stairs has to be one of the great scenes in film. By this point she has become completely delusional and believes that instead of being in her home she is on a film set. And that the news cameras, reporters and policemen are the cast, the crew and her adoring fans. She is just completely gone!
Swanson's expressive face and large gestures really are something to behold, completely what you would expect from a former silent movie star. And that comes as no surprise really as Gloria Swanson herself was a legendary silent film star whose career faded with the introduction of the talkies. In fact there are so many layers and context to the film, drawing directly from real life. As I said Swanson is very much the Norma Desmond character, at least in their career history if not the delusional nature. She made numerous pictures with Cecil B. DeMille, the legendary director who appears here as himself as the man Norma Desmond wants to helm her big comeback. While Eric von Stroheim actually was a director of silent films just as his butler character once was. And he actually directed Gloria Swanson in Queen Kelly; footage of which is used as one of the films Desmond is watching. There are just so many parallels and so much depth going on here.
Film Trivia Snippets – The role of Joe Gillis had originally gone to Montgomery Clift, but he dropped out before filming began for a very specific reason. At the time he was in a similar situation to the character; engaged in an affair with Libby Holman, a former actress who was 16 years his senior. At her behest he quit the production. /// Cecil B. DeMille agreed to film his cameo for a fee of $10,000 and a brand new Cadillac. When Billy Wilder returned to him later to secure a close-up, DeMille demanded a further $10,000! /// Unsurprisingly the film didn't go down too well with many people involved in the industry. After a preview screening at Paramount, MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer screamed at Wilder that he sould be tarred, feathered and horse-whipped for brining his profession into such disrespute.Norma's palatial manson is a perfect setting for her, a representation of her character in brick form. Like her it is old, past its best and surviving on its past glories. You can see its former glory still lurking in there somewhere but it is now a mere hint of what was once there. The place is like a haunted house, with the ghosts being her career and the roles she once inhabited. Her home is brought to life by some wonderful set design; the place is damn near drowning under a mountain of photos of herself. And that set design is captured by some terrifically gloomy, atmospheric lighting and gorgeous black & white photography.
Opposite her, William Holden convinces fully as the screenwriter who knows he should leave but just can't bring himself to. He is a condemned man. From the moment he turns into that driveway, hears the siren-like voice of Norma calling him and crosses the threshold of that house he is doomed. Like a little fly caught in a web, he has no chance of escaping unharmed. His Joe Gillis is the archetypal protagonist of the noir genre, a man who inhabits the murky grey area of morality. We find him willing to sell his creative soul in the search for profit, attempting to manipulate everything and everyone for his own benefit and saying goodbye to his dignity to become Norma's kept man. For the most part he's a rather pathetic, cynical and unlikable individual who is however able to salvage his character right at the film's conclusion with a selfless act. He knows that it's too late for him, his fate has already been sealed. He is however able to save Betty by getting her out of the situation before she too is caught up.
The film does also have some real heart however in the shape of Erich von Stroheim's wonderful performance as Norma's butler. While he may be a cold, grave presence who feels like he could be the grim reaper himself, he also brings a humanity to that house; everyone else may have deserted her but he has stuck with her throughout, now doing all he can to protect the diva's fragile mind; protecting her from the truth of her downfall. While Nancy Olson provides a lovely contrast as the cheery, optimistic Betty Shaefer. Significantly younger than her contemporaries in the film, she has not yet been ground down by the Hollywood machine. Give it time my dear! :D
Conclusion - It's a film that can be enjoyed on a few different levels; either as a pitch-black comedy/drama, a brooding noir or even as a makeshift, quasi-horror film. The script, direction, set design, photography and acting are all top notch, as are the tone and atmosphere they create. 'Masterpiece' may be an over-used term these days but I think this is a film truly deserving of such billing.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2008
Directed by
Andrew Stanton
Written by
Andrew Stanton
Pete Docter
Starring
Ben Burtt
Elissa Knight
Jeff Garlin
Fred Willard
WALL·E
5
Plot - In the distant future mankind has abandoned the Earth after it became an unsustainable place to live. Covered in trash as a result of mass consumerism, the only being still residing on Earth is WALL-E, a garbage collecting robot left to clean up the mess. Despite being all alone WALL-E still finds joys in his life, such as collecting trinkets from Earth's past or watching a tape of Hello Dolly! One day however another robot lands on the planet, a reconnaisance robot named EVE who is in search of proof that life on Earth is once again sustainable. Immediately smitten with her, WALL-E sets out to win her affections. And together they go on an incredible journey which will take them to the stars and to the new home of humanity, a mammoth spaceship named Axiom.
38:05. According to the read-out on my DVD player that is how long WALL-E runs for before the first human character is properly introduced. Up until that point WALL-E is an almost exclusively silent film. And those 38 minutes and 5 seconds may by the most magical and perfect 38 minutes and 5 seconds of cinema that I have ever had the privilege of experiencing. It is a thrilling experience. After that the film may resort to a more traditional story and method for telling that story, but it's still a wonderful piece of film-making. In those 38 minutes, despite nary a word being spoken, the film is able to convey the story, establish a truly delightful and lovable character who steals our hearts and create one of the most touching and heartfelt romances I've ever witnessed on the screen. The way it does this is through smart storytelling, astounding animation and some pitch-perfect sound design.
More than any other film they've yet made, WALL-E gives Pixar the chance to truly show off their incredible genius with a number of stunning visuals and touches which illuminate the story, create this world, make us laugh and makes us truly care for this little robot. WALL-E really is a wonderful creation, a little being that I find impossible not to love. I was going to say that I fell in love with the character of WALL-E within the first two minutes of this film, but that would be a lie. I had pretty much fallen in love with that delightful robot before I even made it into the cinema. As soon as I saw the first trailer and caught my first glimpse of WALL-E's little face I was smitten. I just think that he and the film as a whole are adorable.
Despite their almost complete lack of dialogue and the fact that they are two robots in an animated movie, I find the relationship between Wall-e and Eve to be one of the most beautiful and touching romances I've ever seen on screen. In fact is it going too far to ask the question; WALL-E and Eve - the romance of a generation? With the action almost completely bereft of dialogue, it all comes down to little looks and gestures (holding hands, putting up an umbrella) and it is irresistibly sweet. His attempts at wooing Eve are utterly endearing, particularly his attempts at impressing her with the various trinkets that populate his trailer. And the fire extinguisher-aided flight/dance through space is just spellbinding. While the rare words and sounds that they do share are wonderfully judged and orchestrated by Ben Burtt and Elissa Knight respectively. Oh and the moment where it seems like WALL-E has lost his personality and lost Eve is a truly heartbreaking one which almost had me blubbering like a baby in the cinema the first time I saw it.
Film Trivia Snippets - To try and create the visual aesthetic for the scenes set on Earth, the concept artists studied images of Chernobyl, Ukraine and the city of Sofia in Bulgaria. They did so in an attempt to generate ideas for the ruined world that the Earth had become in WALL-E. Art director Anthony Christov actually hails from Bulgaria and knew only too well the problems that Sofia had in terms of storing its garbage. /// For the typical Pixar film, the average number of storyboards would be 75,000. For WALL-E however a mind-boggling 125,000 storyboards were created. /// WALL-E holds Pixar's personal record for Academy Award nominations with 6. This ties it with the only other animated film to receive so many nominations; Beauty and the Beast. Part of the reason that WALL-E is so irresistible is that despite being a robotic machine, he really is very human in his behaviour. He is a clumsy, shy and nervous little fella who like so many of us has this grand, pure idea of love that has been developed by watching the output of Hollywood. He's even a bit of a packrat as evidenced by his trailer of knick-knacks. The scenes of him searching through the trash to find items that intrigue him are very sweet. He is able to express more emotion than any actor ever could merely through the slightest of movement, such as tilting his eyes. He has a real personality to him. This is also true of Eve. I love the moments where you see her being entertained and touched by WALL-E's actions, expressed through her eyes or her charming laugh. She also has quite a temper on her, as seen by her frustration at the lack of plant life in her search.
The visuals that Pixar were able to create for this film are probably the best I've ever seen. That opening stretch on Earth in particular is astonishing. At times the landscape and the close-ups of WALL-E are almost photo-real in their execution. While the scope and ambition of the film calls on the animators to create not one, but two intricate and detailed worlds. And they couldn't really be more disparate worlds at that. Earth is a desolate, scarred and grimy vista where we feel like we are almost choking on the dust that covers the place. While when the action moves onto the Axium spaceship it is a more traditional aesthetic for a computer animated film; bright, colourful and dynamic. In fact I just realised I'm doing the film a disservice as there are really three separate worlds. I was forgetting about the stretch that bridges these two worlds; the gorgeous and majestic scenes of outer space and the solar systrem. The moment where WALL-E travels on the back of the rocket as it heads towards the spaceship is a magical moment. Just one of many that this film has to offer the viewer.
Film Trivia Snippets - The design for Eve is very slick and modern when compared to WALL-E, very much in line with current technology. As a result it comes as no surprise that she was actually co-designed by Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Jonnathan Ive, the man responsible for the design of the iPod. /// To try and capture the sensibilities of classic silent films, Andrew Stanton and the Pixar team watched every single Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton movie (short films and full-length features) during lunch for about a year and a half. They wanted to inspire the possibilities of purely visual storytelling. In amongst all the romance and the laughs the film does also have a few big messages at its core. Messages of conservation and our detrimental impact on the environment; messages of consumerism, large corporations and how our life can pass us by if we get lost in technology. I'm aware that some people felt overwhelmed by the messages, as if they were being forced down their throat. I however felt that Pixar found the perfect balance. They give the issues enough depth that they add to the film, but without suffocating the film's sense of fun. And while I understand some people may find the film just a tad hypocritical with its messages, considering the amount of merchandising the film spawned (consumerism) and that Pixar films have become the ideal babysitters for numerous parents (the abundance of technology in our lives), it's not something I feel the need to really comment on.
The film's end credits are just one final slice of brilliance; the icing on top of the already stunning cake. They show the further continuation of the story; of the reintegration of humanity on Earth, through a series of paintings and sketches which themselves mirror the evolution of mankind and the arts. Beginning with cave paintings and taking in styles as diverse as Egyptian hieroglyphics, pointilism and 8 bit computer art; with special attention given to Vincent Van Gogh, the sequence engulfs the stone age all the way through to the computer age. If you were looking for just one example of why Pixar are so highly regarded in the landscape of cinema this would be a prime candidate. It just shows them going that extra mile, creating something that isn't necessary and is all the more wonderful for it. It is a fine piece of art in its own right. I would have to say they are probably the most creative and inspired closing credits I have ever come across. And while I'm aware that there is no category for end credits at the Academy Awards, they should have made an exception and presented those responsible with an Oscar for their incredible contribution.
And lastly here are a few more random thoughts about this magnificent film. WALL-E has got to feature one of my most favourite ever minor characters in the little cleaning robot, Mo. His feud with Wall-e, his OCD personality and the vocal contribution of Ben Burtt once again make him a delightful addition to the film. The film's score, provided by Thomas Newman, is an enchanting creation. Occasionally evoking a sort of fairy tale vibe it hits numerous tones with songs that are beautiful, songs that are exciting, songs that are very touching and songs that are just downright fun. And finally as a little accompaniment to the film was the delightful short film, Presto. Pixar have delivered many wonderful shorts but this has to be my favourite. It may not be as deep as some of their other shorts, or have a message at its foundation, but man is it funny. It recalls a classic Looney Tunes short with its wild and slapstick nature, giving it a nostalgic feel. It is just teeming with imagination and humour.
Conclusion - I'm aware that no matter the film, I know it's impossible for every single person to love a film. However I have a hard time believing that anyone could possibly take an active dislike to WALL-E. And if I were ever to meet such a person I don't think I would be able to trust them! :D It's a funny, touching, enthralling film. A true Pixar masterpiece.
The Rodent
06-01-13, 05:20 PM
Aaaah... WALL-E...
I've rated a number of filsm at 100%, WALL-E is one of 3 that broke my into my 101% rating...
Simply excellent filmmaking, full of lots of subtle messages and as a simple film just to sit and watch, it works perfectly that way too.
It's one of only a couple of films that actually made me 'ooh and ah' when stuff was going on... just an enthralling film.
I agree with M-O too... best backup character ever.
Love the detailed review JayDee!
Mr Minio
06-01-13, 05:31 PM
I've rated a number of filsm at 100%, WALL-E is one of 3 that broke my into my 101% rating... Well, F*ck Maths!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/3dffcfe4c40896fea24a36307f74264d/tumblr_mhjaw8IQVe1rutmq0o1_500.gif
Daniel M
06-01-13, 05:37 PM
I've gave you rep for your last three films because of the massive effort you have put into your reviews, but I haven't read all and can't really comment on The Sessions and Sunset Boulevard yet as they are very much films I want to see, the former because it has John Hawkes and the latter because it's just mean to be great, and I saw on it on TV so I was able to record it.
I can however comment on Wall-E and your wonderful review of it, it really is a fantastic and beautiful film, and the relationship at the centre of it can also be described as such. I know it's easy to say but your review really does sum up my thoughts on the film, and I can't really expand or disagree with anything you have wrote, it's a film that I think you can struggle to find a flaw or improve on, and one of my all time favourite animations, I think it's my favourite Pixar.
Skepsis93
06-02-13, 02:40 PM
I'm just here because the rep whore told me to be...
I really like all of the last three especially Sunset Boulevard and Wall-E
Frightened Inmate No. 2
06-02-13, 11:19 PM
I really need to rewatch WALL-E. I haven't seen it since it came out, and I found it kind of boring at the time. My tastes have matured a lot since then, and I'm sure I would appreciate it more now.
Mr Minio
06-03-13, 09:33 AM
My tastes have matured a lot since then, and I'm sure I would appreciate it more now.
Talking about matured taste while it's an animaton. :rolleyes:
Love the detailed review JayDee!
Thanks man. :up:
I can however comment on Wall-E and your wonderful review of it.....I know it's easy to say but your review really does sum up my thoughts on the film
Thanks Daniel. :up:
:love: WALL.E :yup:
Pleased to hear it. Hope you enjoyed my review.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1982
Directed by
Ted Kotcheff
Written by
Michael Kozoll / William Sackheim
Sylvester Stallone / David Morrell (novel)
Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Richard Crenna
Brian Denehy
Bill McKinney
Jack Starrett
First Blood
5
Plot - John Rambo (Stallone), a Vietnam veteran and former Green Beret, has struggled to adjust to life back in America following the end of the war. Drifting from place to place he find himself in the town of Hope, Washington. Just attempting to get some food he instead finds himself being run out of town by the local sheriff, Will Teasle (Denehy). When he disregards the sheriff's instructions he finds himself arrested and thrown in jail. Harsh treatment at the hands of the local cops bring traumatic memories of his Vietnam past bubbling to the surface, and he snaps. Assaulting the police and escaping the precinct, he goes on the run and finds himself holed up in the forest surrounding the town. When events continue to escalate a large manhunt is put into operation, attracting the attention of news reporters and a certain Colonel Trautman (Crenna); the man who trained Rambo to be the warrior that he is.
First Blood is just such an awesome movie. It's a film which works as a great action flick, one of the best of the genre in fact, but there's also more to it than that. It works as a character study of this man who has been pushed to his limit as he realises he's in a world that doesn't want him anymore. Some people probably dismiss this film because of the dumb, over the top sequels that followed and forget that this film is a lot more, a real mix of action and heart. Or as I seem to remember reading somewhere, it's a film which has 'a moral behind its mayhem.'
John Rambo is a supremely scarred individual, both physically and mentally, who is right on the edge of his sanity. And unfortunately for him and anyone who gets in his way, he stumbles upon the perfect storm of circumstances that will just push him over that edge. The film is quite clearly a metaphor for the Vietnam War and its fallout. The United States government trained young men to kill and then sent them to hell to do just that. The big question, and one that proved difficult to answer, is what do you do when you bring them back home? Veterans of that particular war returned him to find that the people they thought they were fighting for despised them. They struggled to readjust to life in the States, struggled to find a job and struggled to find a place where they felt welcome. And most of all struggled with the psychological after-effects of warfare.
Many people dismiss Sylvester Stallone as an actor, and place him firmly in the category of 'action star' alongside the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal. In my eyes however that is doing him a great dis-service. While the aforementioned may have degrees of charm and screen presence, in terms of acting ability Stallone is definitely on another level to them. Yes he may not always have shown it, but to be fair many of his films haven't called for it. However in the likes of Copland, the Rocky series and here in First Blood he was able to show that he can actually act, despite what many may think. He is excellent here, almost on a par with Rocky as his most touching and heartfelt performance. He brings a terrifically wild intensity to the role of John Rambo, making him less of a man at times and more of a wild, wounded animal. But at the same time he imbues the character with a real sense of sympathy, particularly at the end where he breaks down and ends up babbling almost incoherently. It's just one of those occasions now where it is impossible to picture anyone else having played the part.
Film trivia – As the first non-Rocky film of his career not to bomb, this film was hugely important for Stallone. It could very easily not have happened for him however as numerous other actors were initially offered the role but turned it down. This included James Garner, Nick Nolte, Al Pacino, Michael Douglas and Dustin Hoffman. Other actors considered for the role included Jeff Bridges, Robert de Niro, Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino and John Travolta; while at one point the studio were interested in making the film with Kris Kristofferson as Rambo, Gene Hackman as the sheriff and Lee Marvin as Col. Troutman. And the fact that Stallone does so much of the heavy lifting by himself, and that we can clearly see it, just adds so much to immerse you in the film. His training in survival skills and hand-to-hand combat give the character and the film a real air of authenticity and excitement. Though if the film were to be made these days I think those insuring the film wouldn't be all that keen on him undertaking so much. I mean at one point when he is navigating his way through the caves with a handmade torch he literally is playing with fire. Although while it may have worked for the film, doing his own stunts didn't always work out that well for Sly. While filming his part of the stunt which sees Rambo leap from a cliff into a tree, Stallone actually broke one of his ribs when he hit the branch. As a result not much acting was required when it came to expressing the character's pain. He also gave himself a fright when he placed his hand on top of a gunfire squib. The pain was so intense that he didn't want to look at his hand for fear it had blown his thumb off.
Perhaps his level of performance was lifted here as a result of those surrounding him, as he does have some terrific support in the forms of Brian Denehy and Richard Crenna. This is particularly true of Denehy who lifts the character above its rather one dimensional nature. It is perhaps one of the film's only weaknesses that we never really get to understand the motivation of the sheriff and the other cops. We can understand why the sheriff perhaps doesn't want his kind around the town but why does he have such intense hatred for Rambo? It's the same case for every one of the town's cops, save for David Caruso's rookie; you could accuse them of being stereotypical small time cops. Apparently the original novel did give a reason why Denehy's Teasle had such contempt for Rambo, that he had been a veteran of the Korean war which had been all but forgotten while the Vietnam war had garnered such attention. This plot point was dropped from the movie however.
Film Trivia – If Sylvester Stallone had his way originally then this film would not even exist today. He hated the film's first cut so much they he tried to buy the film back and destroy it; he was sure it would damage his career that much. When he was unable to do so however, he suggested to the producers that they cut much of his part and allow the rest of the characters to tell the story. As such the film's running time was cut in half from that first cut, and set a precedent for many future action movies. The whole episode could easily have been avoided had it not been for the male ego and 'pride' of the characters, particularly of Deputy Galt. Infuriated by the demeanour and attitude of Rambo he assaults him in his cell, kick-starting the whole incident. And then his personal quest for vengeance is what escalates a simple escaped prisoner into an all-out war. So all in all, very much avoidable. So perhaps this too is also a comment on the Vietnam War? Though in a way I wonder was Rambo happy somewhat for this war to commence. The character was a bit of a lost soul, wandering aimlessly. This battle however places him back in his element, doing what he has been created to do. In a tragic way it's like going back home for the character. The character only knows how to be a warrior, even one no one wants one.
I love the rural setting that is provided for First Blood, indeed it's probably one of my favourites in all of cinema. The dense forest, the rugged terrain, the nightmarish caverns - they are all so evocative and full of character, and handsomely photographed. While at the same time they work as a way of transporting Rambo's mind back to the hell of Vietnam. And then there is the town of Hope itself, a classic slice of small town America. As such it proves a perfect representative for America as a whole and the feelings that plagued the country post-Vietnam.
All of this is not to say that the film doesn't work as a piece of pure action. Indeed I'd rank it amongst the best the genre has to offer. It's a lean, mean piece that features some excellent set-pieces and stuntwork. The violence is realistic and visceral but without being over the top. It is a truly riveting film and as action movies go, is just about perfect. It also features a fantastic score from Jerry Goldsmith, especially the signature First Blood theme. Oh and lastly I love the song that closes the film out, a tremendously 80s-style power ballad by the name of “It's a Long Road” by Dan Hill. I just love the moment where that kicks in as the character is led away, before freeze framing on his face.
Conclusion - I knew that I loved First Blood but it's only with a couple of recent rewatches that I remembered just how much. It's tremendous stuff; a tense and enthralling film that works as an ultimate example of the action film, but one that also has a degree of smarts to it and a sociopolitical message at its core. With a strong trio of central performances at its heart and gripping action I imagine this is a film I will continue to enjoy time and time again.
The Rodent
06-06-13, 05:24 PM
Love First Blood... the second and third films not so much but Rambo was watchable. One of a couple franchises I need to get round to reviewing.
:up:
Masterman
06-06-13, 05:28 PM
Another great review.
honeykid
06-06-13, 08:56 PM
You know how much I love this film. I think we both feel very similarly about this film and get similar feelings while watching it.
However, for me, this is also one of my childhood 'comfort films', like Convoy or Dawn Of The Dead. I think I love watching it more than I actually enjoy watching it, if you know what I mean.
Godoggo
06-06-13, 09:33 PM
I need to see First Blood again ( which is why I'm not reading your review, JayDee. You know my rule.) It's not typically my type of movie, but I did like it and I was pretty invested in it. Lots I can't remember which would be my reason for the need to see it again.:D
One of a couple franchises I need to get round to reviewing.
Huh. For some reason I was sure you had already reviewed the Rambo flicks. Must just be getting mixed up with appearances on your top 100 list or best of the genre lists.
Another great review.
Thanks fella. :up: And he's a master people! So what he says is the truth!
You know how much I love this film.
However, for me, this is also one of my childhood 'comfort films', like Convoy or Dawn Of The Dead. I think I love watching it more than I actually enjoy watching it, if you know what I mean.
Indeed I do. I knew you were going to be happy with it while I was writing. :D
I'm with you there. It maybe came a little later than the likes of Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills Cop for me but it's in that kind of group. I think I'd be lying if I said I knew what you meant! :D But I'll give it a shot. Do you mean that while you 'enjoy' the film itself what you really 'love' is the sensation it gives you; a sort of warm, comfortable, nostalgic feeling?
Although considering how much you love the film I'm hurt that there was no mention of the review's quality. I know it was no Unbreakable but come on man!!! :p
Oh and also, this is something I've only done 2 or 3 times before, but First Blood was one of those films (usually from the 70s and 80s) that was blessed with a huge amount of awesome poster designs from all over the world when it was initially released. It has also been the subject of several alternative designs in recent years.
So just for you HK here's a selection of other First Blood posters that I could have gone with
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood7_zps5db694d1.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood7_zps5db694d1.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood10_zps5c5daedb.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood10_zps5c5daedb.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood9_zpsab618f11.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood9_zpsab618f11.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood5_zps8dfb8cf3.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood5_zps8dfb8cf3.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood4_zps6abbc96f.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood4_zps6abbc96f.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood3_zps8cc74bc2.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood3_zps8cc74bc2.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood2_zps9ad0203e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood2_zps9ad0203e.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood_zpsf7ca53d4.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood_zpsf7ca53d4.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood6_zpse622d79c.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood6_zpse622d79c.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood12_zpsa654997e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood12_zpsa654997e.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood11_zps2425b3cb.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood11_zps2425b3cb.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood13_zps2be0fcab.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood13_zps2be0fcab.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood15_zpsf84faa2f.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood15_zpsf84faa2f.jpg.html) --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood2_zps04a78c0f.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood2_zps04a78c0f.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/FirstBlood14_zps90da69a0.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/FirstBlood14_zps90da69a0.jpg.html)
Sexy Celebrity
06-07-13, 03:38 PM
It's for Sexy too! :)
Seriously -- my heart jumped for joy when it saw all that Sylvester Stallone.
Honeykid would never do things to Sylvester Stallone that I would. (I don't think...)
Guaporense
06-07-13, 05:51 PM
First Blood is a very underrated film.
Masterman
06-07-13, 05:55 PM
First Blood is a very underrated film.
I wouldn't say it was underrated, it's a great movie but not underated.
gandalf26
06-07-13, 06:13 PM
Great review JD. One of my favs aswell. Definitely much more than just an action movie.
Kris Kristofferson as Rambo, Gene Hackman as the sheriff and Lee Marvin as Col. Troutman.
Dare I say that this combo may have made the film even better? except perhaps Kristofferson as Rambo.
Wow that was certainly popular. Think I set a new personal record for hitting double figures in terms of rep - a mere 24 hours. I love when I hit 10 reps because it's a nice number but in a Mr. Monk kind of way it appeals to my OCD. A nice round number. :D I've got a couple of films (The Sessions, Wall-e) sitting on 9 if anyone wants to help out. :p
Great review JD. One of my favs aswell.
Thanks Gandalf. :up:
First Blood is a very underrated film.
Welcome to the thread Guap. And I agree that it's underrated. As an action film it's well regarded but just as a film in general I don't think it gets enough credit.
It's for Sexy too! :)
No it's not! HK read, repped and responded to my review so this was a reward for him. Sexy did not of that so I'm sorry Sexy, but no Stallone for you! :D Although I can't actually do anything to stop you so I need you to do the honourable thing and ignore the posters.
honeykid
06-08-13, 09:16 PM
Do you mean that while you 'enjoy' the film itself what you really 'love' is the sensation it gives you; a sort of warm, comfortable, nostalgic feeling?
Yes, I think that's pretty close.
Although considering how much you love the film I'm hurt that there was no mention of the review's quality. I know it was no Unbreakable but come on man!!! :p
Do I have to pat you on the head every time you do something well? :p I mean, I will, and it was a good review, but then, you knew that already.
Sexy Celebrity
06-08-13, 09:21 PM
No it's not! HK read, repped and responded to my review so this was a reward for him. Sexy did not of that so I'm sorry Sexy, but no Stallone for you! :D Although I can't actually do anything to stop you so I need you to do the honourable thing and ignore the posters.
I repped your reviews.
Just a little note by the way for anyone who is new to the thread or didn't see me mention in the past - I am currently revisiting many of my favourite films as I work on my new top 100 lists. That's why there are so many films rated 4.5 and 5 just now. Just in case people thought I was the most insanely generous rater ever, that no matter what I watched I happened to love.
Do I have to pat you on the head every time you do something well? :p I mean, I will, and it was a good review, but then, you knew that already.
Yes. Yes you do! I'm very insecure and in need of constant reassurance. :D Just good? :( You said Unbreakable was excellent. :p
I repped your reviews.
Really? I noticed you repped Sunset Boulevard but didn't think you'd done any others. Well assuming I've made a mistake (or just to be nice) here's a gesture to make it up to you.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Stallone2_zpsdea3c8e9.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Stallone2_zpsdea3c8e9.jpg.html)
Sexy Celebrity
06-09-13, 10:03 PM
Thank you... I don't think I repped Sunset Boulevard, though.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1999
Directed by
Milos Forman
Written by
Scott Alexander
Larry Karaszewski
Starring
Jim Carrey
Courtney Love
Danny DeVito
Paul Giamatti
Vincent Schiavelli
Man on the Moon
4.5 ++
Plot - A biopic chronicling the short but highly noteworthy career of the late comedian, Andy Kaufman (Carrey). Or a 'song and dance man' as he preferred to call himself. Earning a reputation as a unique and eccentric performer at comedy clubs, he found himself flung into the celebrity stratosphere when he joined the cast of classic sitcom, Taxi; playing the character of Latka Gravas. His new found fame didn't exactly sit well with Kaufman however, and his bizarre and disruptive antics soon rankled just about anyone and everyone around him. The film covers events in his career such as his stint wrestling women and infamous chat show appearances, as well as his personal life and relationships with his manager George Shapiro (DeVito), his friend and creative partner Bob Zmuda (Giamatti) and his girlfriend Lynne Marguiles (Love).
The late Andy Kaufman was a very unique and original entertainer. Love him or loathe him, consider him an oafish clown or a comedic genius, there's no denying that he was a real one of a kind. So who better to portray him than Jim Carrey; a man even Roger Ebert recognised as a “true original.” And Carrey gives an exceptional performance in the role. He is magnificent; recreating Kaufman's mannerisms and affectations down to an absolute tee. It's almost spookily accurate. But this is no mere impersonation. He may nail the character that most people know from stage and screen, but he also goes further, delving deeper into this flawed and enigmatic man. A man who finds no great pleasure in fame, who just wants to elicit a reaction whether it be positive or negative and who suffers immense frustration when he feels that he is either being typecast or is being denied the chance to do what he loves. Not only does Carrey inhabit the role of Andy Kaufman, but of the numerous alternate personalities that Kaufman inhabited - Tony Clifton, Foreign Guy and of course his iconic Taxi character, Latka Gravas. The moments where he brings that character to life are just uncanny in their semblance. It truly is one of my favourite performances from any actor I've ever seen, and how he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar still surprises me. At least the Golden Globes had the good sense to recognise his skill and reward him for it.
The film certainly isn't your typical by the numbers biopic. Alongside Carrey's performance the film itself plays into the unorthodox nature of Kaufman, adopting some strange approaches for its storytelling. The film opens with Carrey in character, breaking the fourth wall to give an address straight to the audience about how he was unhappy with the film because it didn't tell the truth about his life. He had all of the lies removed, which resulted in a drastically reduced running time. In fact this is the end of the movie so the credits begin to roll. For a few seconds the screen fades to black before Carrey pops his head back into view, explaining that it was to get rid of the viewers who would not understand him. And the film closes with a scene that throws any semblance of sense or plausibility out of the window. It cheekily hints at and plays into the rumour that Kaufman faked his death, a belief some of his fans still hold onto to this day. It is a silly little end to the film, but one that makes sure the viewer leaves the film with a smile on their face. And of that I think Andy would have wholeheartedly approved.
While it may be Carrey's performance that lingers long in the memory this is actually a strong ensemble effort. The always entertaining Danny Devito delights as Andy's agent, George Shapiro, playing him with a nice bluster and gusto. I also have great sympathy for the character and that man in real life; what a task it must have been at times trying to deal with and corral the mind of Andy Kaufman. Though it is rather strange that with the complete cast of Taxi (excluding Tony Danza) playing themselves, you've got the most famous member of that cast playing another character! However given Kaufman's propensity for multiple personas and for messing about with the reality of who he was and they were, it actually feels rather fitting. Paul Giamatti also chips in some strong support in the form of Bob Zmuda, Kaufman's creative partner and cohort in his wacky schemes. While as Andy's love interest, Lynne Marguiles, there is a very nice showing from Courtney Love. She may not be in the film for a huge amount of time but her sweet and breezy demeanour make her a pleasant addition, and helps create a winning romance with Carrey despite little time being dedicated to it. She really was quite a talented actress, and when you couple this with her turn in The People vs Larry Flynt, then it seems a real shame how little other work she has done in the years since.
Film Trivia - As a massive fan of Andy Kaufman, Jim Carrey wanted to really get into character to do him justice. As a result he refused to respond to his real name, insisting that he be treated as Andy Kaufman at all times, both on and off set. Though this perhaps went a little far on one occasion, when a real medic had to be brought on to the set to evaluate Carrey after he showed up for filming with a bloody nose, claiming that Tony Clifton (one of Kaufman's personalities and a character that Carrey portrayed in the film) had punched him out backstage.I can't exactly remember the first time I saw this film (I didn't catch it in the cinemas) but ever since that first viewing it's one I've always loved. I know I think higher of this film than most people, but there's just something about it that has always got to me. It almost feels like Man on the Moon is a film that was designed specifically for me and my tastes. To begin with you've got Jim Carrey. While a couple of other actors may run him close (Tom Hanks, Michael J. Fox) he would most likely take the no.1 spot in terms of my favourite actors. At 7 years old when he had his breakthrough year (1994 saw the release of The Mask, Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber) I was probably at about the perfect age for the brand of humour he was peddling at the time; talking out of his butt for example. And since then I've grown up with him in movie terms. I've continued to enjoy his comedic work whilst also watching him grow and develop into a highly talented serious performer.
Then you've got the Taxi factor. An absolutely classic slice of TV comedy, I'd rank it amongst my top 5 favourite sitcoms of all time. So to see the set and iconic moments from the show recreated, and the cast reassembled was a huge treat for me. And lastly there is the wrestling angle. While it may be something that no longer appeals to me, wrestling was something that resided in my heart for many, many years. So I get a huge kick out of the wrestling scenes, particularly the big fight against Jerry Lawler, for its inclusion of real-life wrestling icons in the form of the aforementioned Jerry Lawler and legendary commentator, Jim Ross. So yeah there is a lot here that appeals to me personally. And all in all it's quite an impressive production that Milos Forman orchestrated, particularly in terms of recreating numerous sets, locations and events from that era; most notably the likes of the big wrestling match, the set of Taxi, the scenes at Carnegie Hall and Andy's appearances on various talk shows.
The film doesn't gloss over the more negative aspect to his character in an attempt to paint an overly rosy picture of Kaufman. It highlights just how difficult he could be to work with and how hated he was by his fellow castmates on Taxi; making for an honest and fascinating film. It's also a film which isn't afraid of being unfunny. It doesn't try and cover up the fact that what Kaufman did didn't always work, indeed the film seems to revel in the awkwardness of moments where Andy is on stage and no-one is laughing. I also find the film to be a surprisingly affecting and moving experience as it nears its conclusion. With the character diagnosed with terminal cancer it's quite emotional to see the effects it has on him, and I love the little moment where he goes to the Philippines for psychic surgery. When he notices the sleight of hand at play and realises that it's a scam, all a complete act, he laughs at the sheer irony of it. And then it fades to his lifeless body at the funeral which I think is an excellent scene, a really touching mix of laughs and tears.
Conclusion – In its own peculiar ways I find this to be a rather beautiful film; a film which is in equal parts very humorous but also very moving. A film which features an astounding performance from Jim Carrey. While it may play fast and loose with the truth at times in regards to Kaufman's life, the result feels like an appropriate representation of Kaufman's unique and frequently anarchic personality. As an offbeat story about a unique individual I think it would actually work as quite a nice companion piece to Ed Wood.
honeykid
06-11-13, 11:54 PM
I only saw this once, a year or two after it was released, but I was surprised by how much I liked it. It's quite a sweet little film, in its own way.
I agree with you about Courtney Love, as well.
Lastly, it's a good review. I'm sticking with good. ;)
Lastly, it's a good review. I'm sticking with good. ;)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/7-1_zps507674b6.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/7-1_zps507674b6.gif.html)
You're so mean!!! :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1988
Directed by
John McTiernan
Written by
Jeb Stuart
Steven E. de Souza
Starring
Bruce Willis
Alan Rickman
Bonnie Bedelia
Reginald VelJohnson
Die Hard
5
Plot - A New York cop, John McClane (Willis), arrives off the plane in Los Angeles with a fairly simple objective; to spend time with his kids at Christmas and attempt to reconnect with his wife, Holly (Bedelia). Things don't exactly go according to any such plan however. While visiting her at her offices; the large Nakatomi Plaza skyscraper, McClane finds himself in the middle of what appears to be a terrorist attack. The group, led by Hans Gruber (Rickman), comprises of individuals. They take all of the people remaining in the building, including Holly, hostage on the 30th floor, except for our man McClane. He manages to escape their clutches and goes about waging a one man war, picking the terrorists off one by one. Except are they really terrorists? Or is that all a front for a more basic desire - money?
Now we come to the ultimate and definitive action film. For me this film had never been bettered in terms of action movies, and still hasn't in the 25 years since Die Hard was released. And a whole lot of films have attempted it, many even mimicking Die Hard's template and just adapting it for a different location or setting; Die Hard on a Bus (Speed), Die Hard on a Navy vessel (Under Siege), Die Hard on a plane (Executive Decision) etc. None have succeeded quite as well as the innovator however; never mixing the ingredients of action, humour and character to such a high standard.
Most of the action heroes of the time where more of the testosterone-fuelled, muscle-bound variety (Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Norris, Lundgren etc) but Willis' John McClane came along and changed the mould for the action hero; more of an everyman who just happened to get caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was a relatable and vulnerable hero. I don't think it's any mistake that the first time the film-makers show us McClane we find him sitting on a plane looking nervous and uptight, suffering from the fact that he's not a good flyer. This is not an indestructible killing machine we're dealing with here, he's a flawed human with fears and a mess of a personal life. He doesn't go looking for trouble. All he wants to do is to try and heal the rift with his wife and spend time with his kids at Christmas. But when trouble finds him he tackles it out of a sense of right, and also just out of an instinct of self-preservation. The film takes its time to try and build the character and his situation, and it actually feels like the film cares. A lot of the time in an action film they just slap on the most basic, clichéd backstory for the character; seemingly desperate to just get it out of the way so they can move onto the explosions and the gunshots. It achieves this through little touches such as his frustration and pain when he discovers that Holli has discarded the McClane name and has been using her maiden name instead. The character really is about as far removed from the likes of Dutch (Predator) and Cobra (eh...Cobra. :D) as possible. I imagine the biggest problem in their lives runs something along the lines of “I wish my gun was bigger and more deadly!”
Film Trivia - It may have become the role that defined him but Willis was far from the first choice. It was apparently turned down by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Richard Gere, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Nick Nolte and Tom Berenger. While before they settled on Willis the producers also considered Charles Bronson, Don Johnson and Richard Dean Anderson.All of this isn't too say that McClane doesn't share some of the same qualities however; he could still kick ass and he could still throw out a joke or two at the same time. It's just that he was a more believable hero; he wasn't indestructible and he wouldn't just wade into a large group of guys and take them out, he would use his brain to try and outwit them as much as he could to make his task as easy as possible. He employed stealth tactics and wasn't afraid to just turn and run when the odds weren't in his favour. I'm sure that had it been Schwarzenegger starring in Die Hard the film would have been about 10 minutes long - “The villains are all cooped up in a single location and my character knows this? Well I should just go in guns blazing and kill them all!” And you get the feeling that the humour is more McClane just trying to defuse the situation and keep himself calm, than trying to be funny and cruel in the way a Schwarzenegger would. I love his sarcastic line, born out of frustration, when he's in the ventilation shaft, “Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs.” While he also uses humour to get inside the heads of the villains; never more so than sending them the dead body of a comrade with “Now I Have a Machine Gun. Ho Ho Ho” scrawled across his chest. McClane's character is further enhanced with the introduction of a sidekick of sorts in the form of Reginald Veljohnson's Sgt. Powell. Their scenes are responsible for a large amount of the film's humour and Powell also acts as a sounding board for McClane to discuss his fears and personal life. It's a really fun buddy pairing with Veljohnson giving a really likeable performance.
And in the role of the relatable John McClane you've got Bruce Willis on top form. He may have given technically 'better' performances (Unbreakable and Twelve Monkeys for example) but this is the iconic performance and character for which he will forever be associated with, and my personal favourite performance of his. His perfectly pitches McClane between the type of heroes a Schwarzenegger would play, and his own character of David Addison from the classic TV show Moonlighting, which he was still filming for during the making of Die Hard incidentally. He takes ingredients from both camps and gifts the character with a great deal of charm and vulnerability, while using his spot-on comic timing to maximise McClane's appeal. Willis also walked that perfect fine-line for the character in terms of appearance, being attractive enough to fulfil the role of 'movie star' but not in a pretty boy kind of way; more of a blue collar, regular joe that we could identify with.
If you're to have a truly classic action film, then every great hero needs a great villain. And in Hans Gruber, Alan Rickman created an absolute cracker. Switching from charming gentlemen to psychotic nutter at the drop of the hat, the character is an absolute treat. And incredibly it was Rickman's feature film debut. Talk about coming out of the gates strong. He gives a wonderfully over the top, boo hiss performance that just oozes sleeze and menace. And his line delivery is just impeccable; “Mr Takagi won't be joining us...for the rest of his life.” He really did make Hans Gruber into one of the all time great screen villains. The film goes the extra mile in terms of its villains, not content to merely settle with just building up the character of Hans. It instead makes a number of Hans' goons into memorable characters in their own right, and not just the faceless henchman/cannon fodder they frequently are in films of this type. On a very simple level it differentiates between the characters in terms of their appearance, making them distinct in your mind. You've got the black techy guy (Theo), the Nordic Thor look-alike (Karl) and the Asian looking henchman, Uli. The latter there being played by Al Leong, a bit of a cult legend amongst action movie fans having almost made appearances in Big Trouble in Little China, Lethal Weapon, Death Warrant, Rapid Fire and Black Rain to name just a few. It's hard to imagine anyone else could have inspired such a following when they only play characters with names like Wing Kong Hatchet Man (Big Trouble in Little China), Asian Revolutionary (They Live) and Car Mechanic (Beverly Hills Cop III)
Film Trivia - Die Hard has some wonderfully translated titles around the world. In Spain its title meant “Crystal Jungle”; in Poland the title was “The Glass Trap”; in Germany it was “Die Slowly”; n Serbia, Croati and Bosnia it was translated as “Die Manly!”, while the pirated VHS was "Skupo Prodaj Svoju Kozu" ("Sell Your Skin At High Price"). The Hungarian title came out as “Give your life expensive", the title of the sequel is "Your life is more expensive", and the third part is "The life is always expensive" All this talk of character building and establishing a new action hero template is really just me padding out the review and attempting to look smart. Because above all of it, Die Hard remains an action-packed thrill ride of a film and in my eyes still the best offering that the action genre has at its disposal. It kicks some major ass! A feat even more impressive given the limited scope that the film saddled itself with of having a single location, and a fairly dull one at that, the film deserves a lot of credit for being able to mine such variety for the action. We are presented with numerous different forms of action and combat; the hand to hand battle with Karl, big shootouts and running gun battles, massive explosions, large scale vehicle-based destruction and thrilling stunts. All of which are staged throughout a series of locations, whether it be plush executive offices, on the rooftop, in the elevator shaft, in the ventilation ducts or on floors under renovation. It may be resigned to a single building but it keeps things fresh with a constantly shifting backdrop for proceedings. It really does utilise every single inch of that building.
And with John McTiernan at the reins the whole thing flies along at a terrific pace and very little of the running time is wasted in any way whatsoever. In amongst all the action any break we get serves a purpose, whether it be to provide comic relief, build character, enhance the tension or create emotion. Tremendous!
Conclusion - In the classic sitcom Friends, Die Hard was the favourite film of the three male characters - Joey, Ross and Chandler. I remember an episode where after their umpteenth viewing of it Chandler says “Die Hard...still great!” And you know what, it kind of is. With some enthralling action, lots of humour, an iconic villain and a hero to really root for this is a fantastic film.
The Rodent
06-13-13, 07:48 PM
^ Agree... just a shame Die Hard 4 & 5 went OTT...
Nice review!! :up:
The Gunslinger45
06-13-13, 07:55 PM
Excellent review to one of my favorite movies!
Daniel M
06-13-13, 08:35 PM
Awesome review JayDee, you know I watched Die Hard for the first time last year and it's my only viewing of the film, but I thought it was a brilliant film. Definitely one of the best action films I have seen, and you've hit all the key points about the film in the review, great at providing us with the usual action scenes, the plot is fairly simple but the film is respectful to all its characters, makes them truly memorable, likeable, connectible etc.
Other than this I have only seen the fourth film in the series, does not come close for me, the characters in the film are not memorable or treated with any respect, instead we just get over the top action scenes.
Johnson & Johnson (not related). "We're gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess." :cool:
honeykid
06-13-13, 10:20 PM
+ rep for the Friends reference. :up:
Thanks to Rodent, Gunslinger and Daniel for the compliments.
And with regards to the later sequels I enjoyed the 4th film in terms of being a daft, OTT action flick but didn't really feel essentially like a Die Hard film. Avoided seeing the 5th at the cinemas as I just had a really bad vibe about it.
Johnson & Johnson (not related). "We're gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess." :cool:
I always forget something! No matter how much I write something always gets overlooks. Should have given a little mention to some great minor characters such as Johnson & Johnson, the douchebag reporter played by William Atherton and the sleezy Harry Ellis. Makes me so happy everytime that Hans blows him away.
+ rep for the Friends reference. :up:
All that work I put into the review and I only get the rep for mentioning Friends?! :mad: That's it. I'm replacing you with Daniel as my best friend on here. He uses words like "awesome" to describe my reviews. He makes me feel appreciated. :p
Also I'm still surprised that you're such a big fan of Friends. I assumed that would have been way too mainstream and for you. :D
Daniel M
06-14-13, 08:47 PM
I'm replacing you with Daniel as my best friend on here. He uses words like "awesome" to describe my reviews. He makes me feel appreciated. :p
:D
You'll be even happier to know I watched Sunset Boulevard the other night, so just went back and read your review (I had already repped it, before you panic ;) ), which I pretty much all agree with too.
The film had me hooked from the very start with the fantastic opening scene giving a sense of mystery with the narration, and fantastic sweeping shots along the roads of Hollywood, however this energetic feel soon disappeared once Holden's character becomes trapped within the household of Norma Desmond. 'Haunting' is the most fitting word I would use to describe this film, at times it felt incredibly frustrating and difficult to watch, you have people like Max and even DeMille carrying on this illusion for her and I began to really develop a hatred for her character, I just wanted it her to stop and realise the truth, for Holden's character to become free again, there was nothing he could do and like him I felt trapped, frustrating, angered. Norma's character is among the most scary I have seen on screen, honestly, her performance I just thought was superb and in every scene she felt strangely threatening, dangerous, she was delusional and felt capable of anything - the final few scenes captured this 'madness' perfectly.
honeykid
06-15-13, 02:26 AM
All that work I put into the review and I only get the rep for mentioning Friends?! :mad: That's it. I'm replacing you with Daniel as my best friend on here. He uses words like "awesome" to describe my reviews. He makes me feel appreciated. :p
Well, you can be given praise or you can earn it. :p Actually, I should've said that I'd given extra rep for the Friends reference.
Also I'm still surprised that you're such a big fan of Friends. I assumed that would have been way too mainstream and for you. :D
I thought you'd know me better than that by now. I don't hate things because they're mainstream, I hate them because I hate them or, as often as not, think I will. :D That there happens to be a rather large crossover in that particular Venn diagram is just the way it goes. I wish the things I liked were more mainstream or that there were more of them. Firstly, it'd be easier to find stuff I liked or was excited about and, secondly, it'd mean you people had better taste. :p:D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1998
Directed by
Peter Weir
Written by
Andrew Niccol
Starring
Jim Carrey
Ed Harris
Laura Linney
Noah Emmerich
Natascha McElhone
The Truman Show
5
Plot - Truman Burbank (Carrey) is the biggest TV star in the entire world. He just doesn't know it. He is the unwitting star of a TV experiment which developed into a reality show of immense proportions. He lives in Seahaven, a quaint town which in reality is the world's biggest studio set, monitored by thousands of cameras and overseen by the show's creator, Christof (Harris). Every single person in the town is an actor, even his family and closest friends. His whole existence is an illusion. A staggering fact that Truman slowly begins to awaken to. When he attempts to leave the town, a series of highly coincidental roadblocks pop up in his way, but Truman won't let that stop him.
While this is generally a very well thought of film I realise I love it a lot more than most people and I'm not entirely sure why. There's just something about it that I find rather special. I think it's a really well written, intelligent story which is both funny and touching, and has a number of scenes which I think are just beautifully executed and which just stick in my mind. Working from a terrific concept it's an intriguing film which is also surprisingly moving and thought-provoking.
As will have become quite obvious to those who have stuck with me throughout this list I am a huge Jim Carrey fan, so obviously his presence here helps with my love for the film. Once more I think he is excellent here, very funny but also portraying a real emotional honesty when it comes to thinking of the mysterious girl from his past. His Truman Burbank is such a sweet, loveable everyman in a Tom Hanks/James Stewart kind of way that you can buy people wanting to spend their lives watching his exploits. He also excellently portrays Truman's growing paranoia and disconcertion as the walls of his reality begin to come crumbling down. And while it certainly is Carrey's show (no pun intended), he's not alone however, with great support coming from Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich and Ed Harris. Linney does this great thing where she appears to be constantly posing for a catalogue photo shoot or a TV commercial. Her character is just so completely fake and forced; and its got to be about the only occasion where seeing how hard someone is acting is a good thing. Noah Emmerich is very impressive as Truman's best pal, Marlon, and everytime I watch the film it always surprises me how little I've seen of him since. While Ed Harris is an inspired choice to play the creator of Truman's world who is pretty much playing God. At times he appears to genuinely care for Truman but I think it's only as a creator in a “look what I've created, look how special he and by extension I am.”
When it comes to favourite scenes there are so many the jump to mind. Even if they are just quite small scenes they are delicately and wonderfully created. Truman being followed by the cloud, orchestrating the traffic with just a movement of his hand, becoming exasperated as his wife advertises a product while talking to him and then the touching finale. Christof's continuing attempts at throwing obstacles in Truman's way are also highly entertaining. I admire the creative and unique way that Peter Weir shot the film, playing into and mimicking the hidden camera style of the TV show within the movie. So we get no tracking shots, cameras hidden in objects such as a pencil sharpener, surveillance-style filming and numerous examples of awkward framing which are done completely on purpose.
Film Trivia Snippets - Dennis Hopper was originally cast in the role of Christof, but walked off set after the first day of shooting. /// People on the set were forbidden from uttering catchphrases from the 'silly movies' of Jim Carrey's past. /// Several other directors were in the frame for directing duties. Sam Raimi was considered while David Cronenberg turned down the chance to direct. At one point Andrew Niccol was set to talk the helm with Gary Oldman taking on the role of Truman.
And it's amazing (and sad) just how prescient the movie is when it comes to detailing the obsession with reality shows and celebrity in our current culture. Who'd have ever thought that within such a short span of time we've come so close to our own Truman Show? At the time of its release, such an idea may have seemed completely far-fetched but these it is worryingly plausible. I mean let's be honest, would anyone really be all that surprised if some TV channel had a press conference tomorrow to announce that they actually had plans for such a show? I think Billy Connolly sums up my views on reality shows perfectly - “The world's gone crazy. You've got people sitting in their house...watching people sitting in a house!!! I mean, what's going on here?” In later years Peter Weir remarked that at the time "This was a dangerous film to make because it couldn't happen. How ironic."
And while it may skewer television producers and the era of celebrity-obsessed reality shows we currently find ourselves in, if anything it is a film that is harsher on the viewing public with its criticisms. No matter how pervasive and manipulative the show becomes the viewers never turn off, they never abandon the show. In that way Truman's situation works as a symbol of our own cultural imprisonment at the hands of the media and consumerism. And the film utilises its final moment to hammer home the fact. Eskewing the chance to fade out on the happy ending of Truman's freedom, we are instead shown an example of we the viewing public in the form of two security guards. After an initial and brief burst of celebration at Truman's achievement, what does the audience do - turn off the TV, go out and experience life, muse on what was done to Truman Burbank in the aid of entertainment? No, they change the channel to see “what else is on.” How very, very sad.
Film Trivia – The Truman Show has actually inspired a condition called 'Truman Syndrome' or 'the Truman Show delusion'. The term, coined in 2008, concerns the occasion when people hold the belief that they and their life are the unwitting stars of their own TV reality show or staged play. Over 40 cases have been reported so far in the US, the UK and around the world, with many of the people affected having specifically name-checked the film while in therapy. These include a man who travelled to New York following 9/11 who thought the attack may just be a plot twist in his own personal TV show. Another individual entered a Manhattan Federal building seeking asylum from his show, while another man wanted to climb the Statue of Liberty in the belief that doing so would provide him with his own personal escape from his 'show.' He described it like this, “I realized that I was and am the center, the focus of attention by millions and millions of people ... My family and everyone I knew were and are actors in a script, a charade whose entire purpose is to make me the focus of the world's attention.” While in 2009 a man in Australia tragically killed his father and sister, because he believed they were broadcasting his life to the world as part of a game show to either murder him or convince him to kill himself. The setting and design of Seahaven is fantastic. Amazingly it actually is a real town that proceedings were filmed in. Seaside in Florida is a 'master-planned community' where members of the cast and crew actually lived during filming. So the production designers had a great basis with which to work but they added so much on top of it. The fashion and colour schemes gave it a highly stylised and hyper-real appearance, rather akin to a classic 1950s sitcom; capturing that cosy and comfortable feel of picket fences and friendly neighbours. As a city boy I may find it lacking in character, and even feel it has a sort of Twilight Zone creepiness to it, but had someone been raised there I can see how they would find it like a paradise and never want to leave.
I also find The Truman Show to be extremely, and perhaps surprisingly, moving as it approaches its conclusion. With Truman sailing across the sea in search of escape he really is on a journey that acts as a rite of passage. He's on a road to discovery, moving from being a boy to becoming a man. It's almost like he's a teenager for much of the film, feeling isolated and confused, before he eventually rejects the way things are and embarks on his own life. It is just perfectly shot by Weir, holding on Carrey's back as we see his crushed demeanour through his body language before revealing his anguished face. It's another great piece of acting from Carrey which is accompanied by a wonderful piece of music from the film's composers, Burkhard Dallwitz and Philip Glass. In fact the whole score is fantastic, beautifully complimenting the film throughout.
While the film can easily be enjoyed for its humour and thought-provoking concept, there are other layers to it. Alongside the obvious media satire, the most notable being the theme of religion, though I suppose there are two different views you could take of it. You could easily see the film as a journey to becoming atheist. You've got this man in the sky named Christof who has created this world below; who talks to his subjects and instructs them how to go about their lives; who orchestrates every little event and outcome to his whims, removing free will from the life of Truman, pushing him towards a pre-ordained destiny. He is a God-like figure in every way. As the one individual he does not communicate with, Truman eventually begins to challenge and reject his thoughts and his reality, resulting in him stepping through the door to enlightenment and escaping. Or you could take the more pro-religion stance and see it as a story about the folly of man trying to play God when there can be only one. Or that he is even an anti-Christ figure of a sort, manipulating Truman for his own nefarious means.
Conclusion - I just adore The Truman Show. I think it's a wonderful, beautiful little film. It's an intelligent, witty, funny and terrifically uplifting experience for me every time I watch it. A commentary on media manipulation and those of us who consume it, and featuring a tremendous performance from the man who I'd class as my favourite actor, this is a film that I've enjoyed time and time again. And imagine that I will continue to do so.
JoeHorrorFanatic
06-17-13, 06:10 PM
I haven't seen The Truman Show, but it's in my stack of unwatched movies. I've been a long-time Jim Carrey fan since watching The Mask and Ace Ventura when I was a kid. It was just within the past year that I saw Liar Liar and Dumb and Dumber for the first time.
I imagine this would have been a very different movie with Gary Oldman starring. As for David Cronenberg directing...all I see is Carrey mutilating himself at the end. Still would have been way better than The Number 23, though.
The Gunslinger45
06-17-13, 06:36 PM
Excellent review dude! While I cannot call myself a big Jim Carrey fan, I can respect his chops for more then talking out of his bum after this movie and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
I really like this film, though as you stated prob not as much as you. When I was a kid I always thought, what if my life is a joke and everyone is in on it but me? I remember the first time I saw the trailer thinking I'm not the only one who thought that. Good movie, great review.
Sexy Celebrity
06-17-13, 07:10 PM
I loved Man on the Moon when I was 16. Don't know if it would still hold up with me now, but I've got the DVD.
It was just within the past year that I saw Liar Liar and Dumb and Dumber for the first time.
What did you make of them?
Excellent review dude!
Thanks dude! Most excellent! :D
I loved Man on the Moon when I was 16. Don't know if it would still hold up with me now, but I've got the DVD.
You should dig it out and give it a watch sometime
JoeHorrorFanatic
06-20-13, 05:24 PM
What did you make of them?
Oh, I thought they were fantastic. Without a doubt some of Carrey's best.
I also have The Majestic in my stack, which I have yet to watch. If you've seen that movie, is it any good? I'm a big fan of the director.
Brodinski
06-21-13, 07:35 AM
Bridge Over the River Kwai is probably one of the best five war films ever made. Everything about that film is great, and your review certainly highlights its magnificence greatly.
I gotta ask though, there's some films you rated even higher. First Blood and Man on the Moon come to mind. Do you really think those films are better than BOtRK? I mean in terms of technicalities, acting, soundtrack, cinematography, set pieces,...
Don't get me wrong, I don't think those are bad films at all, but tbh, if you compare them to BOtRK, it's a no contest imo.
Also, I know we've had our differences in the past (and will continue to have them, because are tastes differ), but your thread here is hall-of-fame worthy. Almost as awesome as my Best of the Year-thread :cool:.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2005
Directed by
Shane Black
Written by
Shane Black
Starring
Robert Downey Jr.
Val Kiler
Michelle Monaghan
Larry Miller
Corbin Bernsen
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
4.5 ++
Plot - Harry Lockhart (Downey Jr.) is a petty criminal on the run from the police after a botched robbery attempt. In his attempt to escape he stumbles across a film audition and unwittingly lands the part of a private detective in a new Hollywood movie. Flown out to LA, he is teamed up with a real private eye for the experience. The investigator in question is Gay Perry (Kilmer). While attending a showbiz party, Harry meets up with an old childhood friend in the form of Harmony Faith Lane (Monaghan), now an aspiring actress. Later, on an apparently routine case with Perry, Harry finds himself embroiled in a dark and mysterious tale when a body falls into their laps. And then Harmony's little sister turns up dead of an apparent suicide. Harry is having a hell of a time in Hollywood.
I consider Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to be one of the absolute overlooked gems of 21st century cinema. One of the most underrated films of the 00s, and most certainly one of my favourites. A dark, gritty noir-comedy it is full of action, laughs and a decent detective story. It also doesn't take itself dreadfully seriously; a lot of the time it has tongue placed firmly in cheek while giving a knowing little wink to the audience. I couldn't call it a spoof however, it's way too good in its own right for that. So we'll go with a smart, knowledgeable homage.
It certainly feels like there is more than a trace of Sunset Boulevard in the film's DNA. Just as with Sunset it uses the classic noir template to satirically skewer the workings of Hollywood, presenting LA and the film scene as this sleezy, degenerate place where the only thing more f*cked-up than the people who reside there, are the parties that they throw. I love the scene where Downey attends a Christmas party whose entertainment is provided by some bizarre performance art; namely half naked individuals locked in cages and glass boxes, dressed up in various Christmas themed outfits including a slutty Virgin Mary and a naked woman dressed as a reindeer complete with hooves and antlers. I imagine it's the kind of Christmas party Lady Gaga might throw! Harry's fish out of water bemusement at the ridiculous excesses of Hollywood is a treat to behold. And his speech about girls in LA is priceless. While through the presence of Monaghan's aspiring actress, the film is able to take plenty of swipes at the film business and its treatment of aspiring actors; how it just casts them aside once they've passed their prime or in the case of Harry, misleads him purely as a ploy to cast Colin Farrell. Indeed the story even opens in a similar fashion to Billy Wilder's 1950 classic; the camera underwater, shooting upwards to the obscured figure of our antagonist as he launches into a narration that will explain how he ended up here. So yeah, kind of like Sunset Boulevard; a contemporary, expletive-laden Sunset Boulevard.
The humour on show is a bit of a mix. While it largely veers towards the very dark and offbeat, it also has a tendency to deviate off into the realm of slapstick. The laughs are generated mainly as a result of Shane Black's cracking script which is overflowing with wit, invention and sharp one-liners. It presents Kilmer and Downey with dialogue that just drips off the tongue and they certainly make the most of it, with their back and forth banter being one of the film's absolute strong points. It's not all about the dialogue however with the film also setting up a number of set-pieces and visual jokes, though admittedly they may not be to everyone's tastes. For me the absolute epitome of these sequences has to be the Russian roulette scene and Harry's dreadful grasp of maths! You'll know what I'm taking about if you've seen it. The film's only slight misstep perhaps comes in the form of the film's post-modern narration which is provided by Downey. While it does contribute a number of laughs throughout the running time, I do feel that occasionally it comes off as trying just a little bit too hard to be 'cool.' Just occasionally.
Film Trivia Snippets - Originally the film had the rather brilliant title of “You'll Never Die In This Town Again” /// In the early stages of production Hugh Grant and Benicio del Toro were considered for the lead roles. While Johnny Knoxville was actually set to star as Harry Lockhart before being replaced by Robert Downey Jr. /// Robert Downey Jr. was still in the early stages of recovering from his problems with alcohol and drugs, and as a sign of solidarity Val Kilmer refused to drink a single drop during the entire production. /// The phrase 'kiss kiss bang bang' originated in the 1960s as overseas slang for James Bond films, coined either by Japanese audiences or an Italian journalist. The moniker proved so popular that John Barry actually recorded a title song for Thunderball titled “Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” but the producers dropped it at the last minute. It was popularised by film critic, Pauline Kael, who used it as the title of her 1968 book of reviews. She chose it as the phrase was “perhaps the briefest statement imaginable of the basic appeal of movies.”Having been a pioneer of such films in the late 80s and throughout the 90s, who better to recognise and send up the conventions and clichés of such fare than Shane Black. With the likes of Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout and The Long Kiss Goodnight he had regularly delivered stories that lurked in dark shadows but were still able to deliver a series of thrills and laughs. So while he knows his way around this type of tale, he also knows how to send it up. So he creates a parody of the buddy-cop movie, and makes Kiss Kiss Bang Bang a movie which knows it's a movie; complete with breakings of the fourth wall, manipulating the action on screen and a self-conscious commentary on the ways of such films, such as the studio's desire for a happy ending which sees numerous individuals return from the dead, even Abraham Lincoln! Black had also proved over his career that he was possessing of a great talent for writing dialogue, and based on his work up to this point, had you been going to draw up a shortlist of writers ideally suited to tackle the noir genre; and the sharp, hard boiled, mile a minute dialogue it entails, then he would have most likely been right up there at the top of the list.
And while he may be poking fun at the genre and the conventions of film in general, he actually does deliver a very strong mystery in its own right, complete with all the requisite twists, turns, red herrings, bluffs and double bluffs you could ever want. Black clearly mired himself in the works of Raymond Chandler and the like, with each day given its own title, each taken from titles of Chandler novels - “Trouble is My Business”, “The Lady in the Lake”, “The Little Sister”, “The Simple Act of Murder” and “Farewell, My Lovely.” While he may have had a lot of experience of the genre as a writer, as a first-time director Black deserves a lot of credit for how he handles the action. The film goes out on a strong note thanks to an excellently conceived action sequence that comprises of car crashes, shoot-outs and a runaway coffin. It's not merely a great piece of entertainment to close out the film however, it is also an emotionally engaging sequence, putting the characters in peril and making us care about them.
Robert Downey Jr and Val Kilmer make for a tremendous double act, their chemistry and interplay responsible for so much of the film's enjoyment. It was the best performance that either actor had given in years. With his sharp delivery, quick wit and sly persona Downey really does feel like a perfect fit for the noir genre. And it doesn't require much of a leap to get from Harry Lockhart to Tony Stark; the character that really completed his career resurrection. They share the same kind of arrogance and the same flaws, with Harry just being a poorer, more twitchy version. It's also not hard to see the film and Downey's character as an attempt at making a personal amends. When Harry is admitting to his criminal past and talking about how he always messes things up, you do feel for a minute as if he has dropped this whole acting charade and is really just being himself, laying himself bare. It's a great, hilarious showing from him. Though Kilmer runs him very close in terms of laughs. He's exceptionally entertaining as Gay Perry, a very forthright and to the point individual, very comfortable and up front with his sexuality. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang helped set Downey on the road to his eventual comeback as a superstar. It's just a shame that Kilmer didn't follow suit. In fact what the hell did happen to Kilmer? I feel it's been years since I've seen or even heard about him. Michelle Monaghan also impresses as Harmony, and while I've never particularly found her to be so previously or since, but she is damn sexy in this. The scenes with her wearing her little Santa outfit with the red fishnet stockings? http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/drool_zps36b46fd2.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/drool_zps36b46fd2.gif.html)
Conclusion - I find that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang works on a few different levels. It entertains as a delightfully dark comedy, intrigues as a noirish mystery, bites as a Hollywood satire, delights as a buddy flick and works as a deconstruction of the genre. Oh and a couple of final thoughts. The film is further heightened by a great jazzy score from John Ottman, and an immensely cool animated title sequence in the vein of vintage Saul Bass. To this day I feel that it still remains a bit of a cult gem; hopefully one day it will grow to become a much wider appreciated film. I just love it!
Oh, I thought they were fantastic. Without a doubt some of Carrey's best.
I also have The Majestic in my stack, which I have yet to watch. If you've seen that movie, is it any good? I'm a big fan of the director.
Liar Liar I used to really love but watched it so much when I was younger that I think I've kind of killed some of my love for it. Dumb and Dumber however I still absolutely adore! I have seen The Majestic but not for a long while so I remember very little of it. Actually been meaning to revisit myself of late. Other great Carrey flicks I love - Man on the Moon, Eternal Sunshine, I Love You Phillip Morris, Cable Guy, Bruce Almighty etc etc
Bridge Over the River Kwai is probably one of the best five war films ever made. Everything about that film is great, and your review certainly highlights its magnificence greatly.
I gotta ask though, there's some films you rated even higher. First Blood and Man on the Moon come to mind. Do you really think those films are better than BOtRK? I mean in terms of technicalities, acting, soundtrack, cinematography, set pieces,...
Don't get me wrong, I don't think those are bad films at all, but tbh, if you compare them to BOtRK, it's a no contest imo.
Also, I know we've had our differences in the past (and will continue to have them, because are tastes differ), but your thread here is hall-of-fame worthy. Almost as awesome as my Best of the Year-thread :cool:.
:eek: Bridge on the the River Kwai?!!! Man alive you're behind the times! :D That was back on the first or second page was it not? Don't even remember a thing of what I wrote. And thanks for the compliments on the review. Nice to know you're still floating about
Well as I've said a few times before, when it comes to the rating it's a mix of and trying to find the balance between how good the film is and how much I personally just liked/loved it, but for the most part it does lean towards just my personal feeling. I think Rodent still rates his stuff on different elements (certain percentages for direction, acting, writing etc) bu for me it really is just a gut feeling. After I watch a film I ask myself what seems a reasonable rating and just throw it out there. And I'll admit they certainly aren't the most reliable or scientific of ratings. QUite often later on I'll look at them and think they should either have been slightly lower or highter.
Which is why I have plenty of inferior films rated above excellent films. BotRK is a tremendous film but it was the first time I had seen it and wouldn't say I deeply loved it right away; that may change with repeat viewings. However films like Man on the Moon or even some of the Jean Claude Van Damme films which I rated higher, are films I've seen numerous times (with the first time being when I was quite young) and as such I've built up a great affinity for them. I would not say they are better films by any means, but they are films I enjoy more and which mean more to me.
Our tastes differ in that I actually have some! :p But thanks man. Very kind of you to say. :up: Even if you did have to thrown in the little 'almost as awesome' in regards to your thread. :D Which reminds me that I have been meaning to go throught that for absolute ages. Don't know if I'd quite describe it as hall of fame worthy but yeah not too shabby at all. That's me nearly at 50 pages and I've posted 160 reviews. And while they may tend more towards the mainstream (certainly compared to someone like Mr Minio) I think I've thrown in a little bit of variety over the time as well with some more obscure films, some cult flicks and a small dose of world cinema, both contempary (Lives of Others, Oldboy) and classic (Rashomon, Throne of Blood)
JoeHorrorFanatic
06-22-13, 06:16 PM
Liar Liar I used to really love but watched it so much when I was younger that I think I've kind of killed some of my love for it. Dumb and Dumber however I still absolutely adore! I have seen The Majestic but not for a long while so I remember very little of it. Actually been meaning to revisit myself of late. Other great Carrey flicks I love - Man on the Moon, Eternal Sunshine, I Love You Phillip Morris, Cable Guy, Bruce Almighty etc etc
I love The Cable Guy. It's one of Jim Carrey's most underrated movies.
gandalf26
06-22-13, 06:29 PM
3 super reviews of 3 of my favourite movies, Die Hard, Man on The Moon and The Truman Show. Glad you found them all worthy of top or nearly top marks.
Special mention should be given to the character "Tony Clifton" from Man on the Moon. One of the funniest and greatest side characters in ANY movie and I defy anyone to say otherwise.
"Oh yaaayyyyyyy, I drive a Taxxiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" and " I need this place like a need a shotgun blast to the face".
Of late I've been feeling rather burnt out by my epic rewatch marathon for my new favourite films list. At times I feel I've been sabotaging my enjoyment of these films by over-analysing and critiquing them, and trying to work out the rankings which has been driving me crazy. And then trying to write up about them. So I decided to take a break and go with a bunch of films I'd never seen before, mostly unchallenging fare. So daft comedies, mindless action and trashy cult flicks were the order of the day. Me being me however I couldn't go without writing nothing about them so here are the first set of micro musings. There have actually been a couple which unexpectedly inspired a fuller review, one for positive reasons, the other not so.
Micro Musings
mirror mirror
Year of release
1984
Directed by
Steve Barron
Starring
Lenny Von Dohlen
Virginia Madsen
Maxwell Caulfield
Bud Cort
Don Fellows
Electric Dreams
3 +
Only in the 80s! This film just oozes so much 80s-ness from every pore that as the film finished I looked down and I found myself somehow wearing legwarmers, and discovered my hair had styled itself into a mullet! :D It's really daft stuff but in quite a cheesy, endearing kind of way. Very much an updating of the Cyrano de Bergerac story for the technological age. I imagine the film was capitalising on a fair degree of ignorance about computers at the time because even today some of the stuff the computer seems capable of is pretty far-fetched. And that's before it even gets its magical upgrade. Very often the film resembles the kind of cheesy 80s pop video that would have dominated MTV at the time. Both Von Dohlen and Madsen put in some quite likeable showings to create a decently crafted romance, even if they are shown up by the computer of the piece. Best thing about the film though would certainly have to be the its soundtrack of cheesy 80s pop and power ballads from the likes of Culture Club and Heaven 17. The absolute highlight though being the classic “Together in Electric Dreams.”
mirror mirror
Year of release
1995
Directed by
Iain Softley
Starring
Johnny Lee Miller
Angelina Jolie
Matthew Lillard
Fisher Stevens
Renoly Santiago
Hackers
3.5
A really kitschy and overblown look into the hacker subculture, but one I found to be unashamedly entertaining. I certainly wouldn't say it's an especially great film but I did think it was quite a lot of fun. It's a film packed with really outlandish characters, none more so than Fisher Stevens' villain of the piece. With his facial hair, flowing leather jacket and skateboard he felt like one of the vampires straight out of The Lost Boys. The film has got to be one of the most recent films that I've ever found to be really quite dated. With its leather-heavy fashion, technology that now looks decidedly retro and the whole hacker subculture in general there is no way you could mistake this for anything other than a product of the 90s. It's the same when it comes to the look of the film. If Electric Dreams was reminiscent of music videos of the 80s, then Hackers looks a lot like a rock music video you'd likewise find on TV, this time in the 90s. I've got to say that I've never really subscribed to the adoration of Angelina Jolie but man oh man is she sexy in this film! With her character's rebel attitude and her short pixie-style haircut, I found myself for just about the first time falling under her spell.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2005
Directed by
John Singleton
Starring
Mark Wahlberg
Tyrese Gibson
Andre Benjamin
Garrett Hedlund
Terrence Howard
Four Brothers
3.5 -
I found this to be a really solid revenge actioner, one that actually feels immensely like an old-fashioned western just updated and moved to the inner city. Its convoluted storyline allows it to hit upon just about every cliché of the conspiracy thriller - dirty cops, corrupt politicians and monstrous gangsters. And while it rarely brings anything new to the table for the genre, Four Brothers did do a few things really well. I felt it did a nice job utilising its location to create a distinctly Detroit movie. The film's soundtrack embraces the music genres that defined the city, namely motown blues and rock. It also makes use of both the city's harsh climate, and the social problems that plague its streets to help flesh out the story. And the other element in which I felt the film really succeeded was in building the relationships between the four brothers of the piece. While none of the performances are truly stunning they are all strong and believable, and together they create a really nice chemistry and camaraderie between the characters, convincing me of the bond between the characters. Oh and an extra bonus was the surprise of seeing Sofia Vergara in the film. I had never seen in her anything outside of Modern Family and kind of assumed that was her first foray into film and TV.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2004
Directed by
Angela Robinson
Starring
Sara Foster
Jordana Brewster
Meagan Good
Devon Aoki
Jill Ritchie
D.E.B.S.
3.5
Ok, I know this may not be a particularly good movie, but damn if I didn't have a really good time watching it. It's basically a spoof of spy films, particularly Charlie's Angels, and at times reminded me of the daftness of the 1960s Batman show and film. Right from the start I found myself falling under its charms. I loved the way that the film just delivered a massive exposition dump for its opening. Most films would take 20 to 30 minutes to set up the story and its characters, DEBS accomplished it in a 30 second montage! While the film gave me quite a few laughs, mostly from its stupidity but also the occasionally inspired moment, what I really enjoyed about the film was its lesbian romance between Jordana Brewster and Sarah Foster. As opposed to everything else which is played for laughs in a broad and over-the-top manner, the romance is actually played completely straight (no pun intended). There's no 'wink wink, nudge nudge' business going on with it, it's done completely earnestly and I actually found it to be really quite adorable and touching. And I just found the central idea of having a master criminal whose only desire in life is to find love to be really rather sweet. And damn Jordana Brewster is pretty sexy in this as said master criminal, Lucy Diamond. It may not really have enough material to cover its running time but I just found it to be good fun. Could become a real little guilty pleasure.
JoeHorrorFanatic
06-24-13, 09:52 PM
Four Brothers was a really good flick. Yes it was cliched in some places, but like you said it told a solid story with believable characters.
honeykid
06-24-13, 10:58 PM
Now that's an HK approved selection. :up: As you know, Hackers is/was ridiculously close to being in my top 100 and I'm still not sure I shouldn't have included it.
Obviously, I have to do this now, because I have it in my head, so I've got to head to youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1lzqJCeJ0
The Rodent
06-25-13, 06:11 AM
Funnily enough, Four Brother was a remake of a John Wayne western... The Sons Of Katie Elder.
Preferred the Wayne version tbh.
JoeHorrorFanatic
06-25-13, 05:11 PM
Funnily enough, Four Brother was a remake of a John Wayne western... The Sons Of Katie Elder.
Preferred the Wayne version tbh.
I didn't know that. I might check it out sometime.
The Gunslinger45
06-25-13, 06:23 PM
Four Brothers is a very fun film. Way better then some of the stuff that came out in those days.
Masterman
06-26-13, 10:36 AM
Yep, I enjoyed Four Brothers aswell.
mirror mirror
Year of release
2007
Directed by
Quentin Tarantino
Written by
Quentin Tarantino
Starring
Kurt Russell
Rosario Dawson
Zoe Bell
Vanessa Ferlito
Tracie Thomas
Death Proof
2
Plot - A bunch of girls talk a lot. And I mean a LOT!!! Then a psychotic stuntman named Stuntman Mike (Russell) enters their lives with the goal of ending said lives. His weapon of choice is his car, which as all good stuntmen would do, he has had death-proofed. And that's pretty much it. Onto my aggravated rant about it! :D
Wow, did this movie really not do it for me! I've got to say I felt it was pretty much garbage, and not the good kind of garbage that I was expecting. While it does have the rare cool moment, for large stretches I found this to be exceptionally dull. And I have no idea how Tarantino managed that! I mean how can you possibly make a grindhouse film about a demented stuntman who uses a deathcar to terrify and kill innocent girls, and yet make it one of the dullest movie experiences I've had in quite some time? I'll admit that I have no real exposure to the 'grindhouse' scene other than through reputation, but this really is not what I thought I was in for. It is a brutally slow experience with so much time dedicated to nothing but the girls just chatting amongst themselves, and not even about important stuff relevant to the plot, just inane prattle! It felt more like a piece of independent or arthouse cinema than the trashy exploitation I was expecting. I haven't got round to watching the other half of the Grindhouse package, Planet Terror, as of yet but at least that looks like it might be quite fun and isn't taking itself too seriously. This however has a paper thin plot that it somehow stretches to a painful 100 minutes, the most self indulgent dialogue imaginable and a group of female characters so irritating and obnoxious (and seemingly unable to manage three words without cursing) that I actually couldn't wait for Russell to show up and smash their brains in. Some of the performances from his female cast are actually quite lively and charismatic, but are just completely sabotaged by the characters. And even when Kurt Russell does finally come along to put the first group of girls and the audience out of its misery, Tarantino immediately introduces another band of four cackling girls to infuriate me! AAARGH!!!! :furious:
Tarantino utilises a few tricks and techniques to try and visually grasp the feel of the grindhouse film; tricks like grainy film stock, scratches, reel jumps and clumsy editing. Initially they may come across as quite fun and cute but I found that the novelty quickly wore off. At least the visuals worked for a brief period, the film's dialogue however just got on on my last nerve right from the off. As I said I've not seen Planet Terror but at least it appears like Robert Rodriguez may just have embraced the idea to make a stupid, trashy film. It almost feels like Tarantino however couldn't bring himself to just make a dumb film, he had to try and make it 'cool' by dumping a s*it-load of his self conscious dialogue onto it. And while it works in some of his work, most notably Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, I just found it so indulgent and narcissistic here. I found Inglourious Basterds to have a similar problem and films like this just make me wish a strong producer, or editor, or script editor or whatever would come in and really reign in such tendencies. After such a stunning start to his career I just feel that too often he is doing stuff just because he wants to, rather than it actually lending anything to the films themselves. But that's just me, and I'm aware it's not a opinion shared by all that many people. Oh and also it annoyed me a little that we never got any resolution for Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character. Her friends and in turn the film just abandon her in a decidedly dodgy situation. It feels like we should either see some horror befall her, or that Tarantino should play off our expectations; delivering either a moment of dark comedy such as reversing our expectations and have her rape him, or just have something very innocent like the girls return to find them drinking tea together and watching an episode of Murder She Wrote. Oh or Pretty in Pink seeing as she name-checked that film earlier.
There were however a few (very few) things which stopped me from truly despising this film, though it was a close run thing. For a start it features what has become very much a staple of Tarantino's work; a pretty cool and eclectic little soundtrack, this time comprising a mixture of musical cues from Morricone alongside some semi-obscure rock and R&B from the 60s and 70s. And even if the big car chase finale felt rather underwhelming and conventional, it does feature some truly astonishing stuntwork from Zoe Bell. Watching her clinging on to the hood of the car for all she's worth is a decent little thrill. Oh and Vanessa Ferlito's damn sexy lap dance. That was certainly a highlight. :D But all of that only makes up for like 5 minutes of a numbingly long 110 minutes.
However, the film's absolute star attraction is most certainly to be found in the form of Kurt Russell. I found him to an absolute hoot as Stuntman Mike, just terrifically sleezy in the first half of the story and then a hilariously pathetic crybaby in the second half. The film just comes alive whenever he appears on the screen, not that he has much competition to be fair. When he's not there I found myself slipping off into a bit of a coma, making it all the more unfortunate just how little screentime he actually gets. He's the best thing about the whole film by a mile, and he's also present for every one of its best moments - his unsettling first abduction and kill, his crash with the four girls and its gloriously excessive limb-ripping results and lastly the film's brutal exclamation mark at the hands of Rosario Dawson's boot heel. That final scene created the kind of silly grin I had expected to be sporting throughout the film, but just really, really didn't.
I just really didn't understand this film. I don't understand its purpose or what it was aiming for. I'd say there's a fine line between paying homage to a bad movie, and then simply just making a bad movie. And I personally felt that Tarantino crossed that line. I know some people on here really like, or even love this film; including people whose opinion I have a lot of respect for (honeykid, Godoggo, Gabrielle etc) but after now seeing it I've rather baffled as to how. I'm struggling to understand what they or anyone sees in it.
Conclusion - Quentin Tarantino himself has named this as his worst film to date. And now that I've seen it I'm certainly not going to disagree with him. Personally I thought it was an immensely poor film with extremely little in terms of redeeming features. Tarantino has made some truly great films but at times he completely bewilders and even annoys me with his self-indulgent, egotistical ways. And from what I've seen so far, I don't think he's ever been more guilty than he was here. And to be honest I think I've been highly generous with my rating. Thankfully he had Kurt Russell in tow to ever so slightly save the day.
Daniel M
06-26-13, 06:28 PM
I know some people on here really like, or even love this film; including people whose opinion I have a lot of respect for (honeykid, Godoggo, Gabrielle etc)
Now I know what you really think of me :(
But I have to disagree with your rating here JayDee, all the parts you've highlighted as the film's strengths I loved especially Stuntman Mike, I loved everything about the first half of the film, the gritty, sleazy feel, the physically created poor aesthetic/editing, and from the moment the girl gets in Mike's car the crash sequence is terrific. The second half I agree has too much girls talking with not much point, I didn't like the second half much, but the ending made up for it for me, and made the film a positive experience overall.
I give it 3.5 now, trying to tighten up my ratings up a little bit so it's a good rating for me, if you haven't seen it already click the Tarantino link in my sig and read the Death Proof section :)
A great review as normal though, I can't fault the quality, a little mistake to show that I read it all, the second paragraph first 'those' should by 'this' :)
The Gunslinger45
06-26-13, 09:17 PM
Since I have become a fan of your movie reviews, and after reading many a glowing review of many great films, it is always nice for a change of pace. And yes I share most of your thoughts on Tarantino's Death Proof. It is just a dull film. I walked away from seeing both these movies in the double feature feeling that the fake trailers were the best part about the movies. And I was right as it lead to the creation of one of my favorite "just for fun" titles Hobo With a Shotgun. Another excellent review and always entertaining.
honeykid
06-26-13, 10:41 PM
Sorry you didn't get much out of the film, JD. I liked your review, though.
With a few exceptions, I don't think grindhouse will be your thing. Not that it necessarily follows, but I feel Death Proof is the essence of a grindhouse, whereas Planet Terror is very much like the neo-grindhouse that's been churned out for the last 5 years or so. That's not to say they're all bad, but they're not really grindhouse, IMO, they just don't have the 'feel' or authenticity of the originals. Maybe it's because they're often too tongue-in-cheek.
Now I know what you really think of me :(
Aw Daniel I'm sorry man. Let's hug it out. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/hug-1_zps21251001.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/hug-1_zps21251001.gif.html)
:D The reason you weren't included is I didn't associate you with liking Death Proof. Honeykid has mentioned a few times how it's one of Tarantino's rare recent films that he's liked. And I remembered both Gabrielle and Godog had it on their top 100 lists.
if you haven't seen it already click the Tarantino link in my sig and read the Death Proof section :)
A great review as normal though, I can't fault the quality, a little mistake to show that I read it all, the second paragraph first 'those' should by 'this' :)
Damn that looks like quite a read. Will need to try and tackle it at some point.
Thanks Danny boy. I'm pleased that you were able to enjoy it despite obviously not agreeing. And I shall rectify it immediately. :) Oh and "those should by this" should be 'be'! :D
Since I have become a fan of your movie reviews, and after reading many a glowing review of many great films, it is always nice for a change of pace.....Another excellent review and always entertaining.
Thanks GS. :up: I'm pleased and touched that you've taken to my reviews so much. And I'll be honest, you don't get many negative reviews from me. For the most part I'm easily entertained and can find something to latch on to in any film. And I'm pretty good at choosing which movies to go with, ones I feel I will like.
Sorry you didn't get much out of the film, JD. I liked your review, though.
With a few exceptions, I don't think grindhouse will be your thing.
Thanks man. Glad to hear you still enjoyed it even if you didn't agree with my opinion. Just to give you a little teaser though, the next review should make it up to you. Think you'll be pleased with it. ;)
Why, do you not think I'm 'cool' enough for grindhouse? :(
:p
The Gunslinger45
06-27-13, 05:42 PM
Thanks GS. :up: I'm pleased and touched that you've taken to my reviews so much. And I'll be honest, you don't get many negative reviews from me. For the most part I'm easily entertained and can find something to latch on to in any film. And I'm pretty good at choosing which movies to go with, ones I feel I will like.
That is good. I am getting old and cynical. :p So I can go negative easy.
honeykid
06-27-13, 08:05 PM
Just to give you a little teaser though, the next review should make it up to you. Think you'll be pleased with it. ;)
http://www.scancrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/excellent-4689_preview.png
Why, do you not think I'm 'cool' enough for grindhouse? :(
lol... God knows it's ain't cool. :D It's just that nothing really happening, punctuated with the 'extreme' is what most/much 'grindhouse' actually is.
God knows it's ain't cool. :D
Really? I thought it was considered kinda cool and edgy.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1975
Directed by
Paul Bartel
Written by
Robert Thom
Charles P. Griffith
Starring
David Carradine
Sylvester Stallone
Simone Griffith
Sandy McCallum
Louisa Moritz
Death Race 2000
4 +
Plot – In a dystopian future, America has collapsed and is now a fascist state ruled by Mr President. The country's residents are kept entertained and in check by a series of violent, gladiatorial sporting exploits, including the annual Transcontinental Road Race. The race is a 3 day, coast-to-coast affair where its entrants are scored not just on time but on the amount of points they can gain for killing innocent people along the way. The competitors include Frankenstein (Carradine), a legendary racer and the government's champion; with his main competition coming in the form of 'Machine Gun' Joe Viterbo (Stallone), a man jealous of the attention Frankenstein gets and obsessed with defeating him. It is the 20th annual race, but this one will not run as smoothly as normal. At least not if a resistance group have their way; they plan to sabotage the race and lead a rebellion against Mr President's rule.
That's right ladies and gentlmen. The reviews thread which has brought you such esteemed cinematic classics as Rashomon, All the President's Men, Apocalypse Now, Bridge on the River Kwai, Rear Window and Some Like It Hot now tackles the 1975 Roger Corman B-movie classic, Death Race 2000.
And want an absolute blast it is! A demented, ghoulish delight which is actually rather camp and gloriously un-PC. With its excessive violence, gratuitous nudity and “let's just p*ss people off” attitude this is a film most certainly in exploitation territory. In fact this is the kind of thing I was expecting of grindhouse cinema but failed to get with Death Proof. And while it is as cheap and trashy as you'd expect, I also found it to be a smarter and overall better film than I was anticipating. I'm not going to make any great arguments for it being an immensely deep film it actually does have a few issues at its core, mostly highlighted as a result of its often surrealist satirical humour. It highlights how politicians can utilise sports as a way to try and control the public, an opium for the masses if you will. While at the same time perhaps criticising the bloodlust of the public for sports where the objective is pain - boxing, MMA, even motorsports when the only reason for watching is the crashes. It also has a bit of commentary on celebrity and its fandom, leading to a surprisingly touching and poignant moment where a girl sacrifices herself to help Frankenstein gain points as a way of proving how deep her love for him is.
David Carradine's Frankenstein is a giddy treat, and in terms of appearance I'm pretty sure is the b*stard offspring of Batman and the gimp from Pulp Fiction! However the star for me would have to be Stallone and his 'Machine Gun' Joe Viterbo character. Playing out like a stereotypical Italian-American hood (I was expecting him to throw out a “you mooks” at any moment) he is the big-mouthed, trash-talking villain of the piece. And Stallone seems to be having a great time as he hams it up in fine style, spouting out such ridiculous lines as “I think you're one very large baked potato.” He steals the show and it actually makes me wish he had taken on more villainous roles throughout his subsequent career. His showing makes for a really nice contrast when combined with Carradine's attempts at imbuing Franenstein with an almost Shakespearean gravitas.
Film Trivia Snippets - Originally the role of Frankenstein was actually offered to Peter Fonda. He rejected it however as he considered it to be too ridiculous for words. /// Sylvester Stallone actually wrote a good deal of his character's dialogue himself, including that fantastic 'baked potato' line which he ad-libbed. /// In a great representation of the film's tiny budget, most of the time the cars didn't actually work. So in order to get them to actually move they had to be pushed down hills! While the cameras were undercranked in an effort to create the illusion that the cars were moving a lot faster than they actually were. /// Along with David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone doing much of their own driving, the film's producer, Roger Corman, also did a lot of the driving in the scenes that were shot on streets. The custom cars built for the movie were not street legal and the stunt drivers didn't want to drive them for fear of being caught by the police, so Corman stepped in.Oh and I almost forgot to mention the characters in the media who are brilliant, perfectly capturing the various archetypes you find there. There's the grizzled, stoic old-timer who takes things very seriously (Carle Bensen); the completely fake and disingenuous reporter played by Joyce Jameson who tries to make us believe every single person is “a dear friend” of hers and who goes by the none-too-subtle but brilliant name of Grace Pander. And then finally you've got Don Steele as the hilarious Junior Bruce, the main race commentator. Steele, a real life DJ, is so overzealous, excitable and downright smarmy; he really does act as the mouthpiece for the President.
I get the feeling this film probably came into existence as a rejected Wacky Races script. I can just picture it being written in the writer's room while they were all off their heads on acid. It really is immensely reminiscent of that classic Hanna Barbara cartoon, from its tricked out cars to its gimmicky contestants with names like Calamity Jane and Matilda the Hun. For goodness sake it even has the old 'fake tunnel leading over a cliff' gag! :D It just embraces the sheer stupidity and outlandish nature of its concept with such wild abandon. And it's a film which is unable to hide its low budget roots but is all the more charming for it. Though rather surprisingly given its budget the film does have some fine cinematography at times of the landscapes they drive through provided by Tak Fujimoto, a man who had already worked on Badlands and would go on to great success with films like The Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense.
Though I am aware that with material like this there is a fine line between what some people will find to be titillating and devilishly entertaining, and what others will find to be excessive and distasteful. Roger Ebert for example actually gave this film 0 stars! and criticised it for its bloodshed and worried about what it would do to the children who saw it. However I just found the violence all too cartoonish, comic-book and obviously played for laughs to imagine how someone could get all that upset or turned off by it. The film's numerous deaths are all just so entertaining, and its humour so dark and mischievous. The absolute stand-out moment for me though would have to be the scene that takes place at a hospital on 'Euthanasia Day.' Every year when the race is taking place, doctors and nurses wheel out these old invalid patients and leave them like sitting ducks to be taken out by the drivers for points. I was already laughing at that perverse idea when the film put a twist on it; instead of going after the patients Frankenstein instead chooses to mow down the cruel doctors and nurses. A move that Junior Bruce sees as showing Frankenstein possesses “one hundred percent red-blooded American sense of humor.”
Conclusion - Cheap, trashy, camp, ridiculous.....and just a little bit brilliant! From its evocative, pulpy title to its pitch-black humour and pitch-perfect performances Death Race 2000 is an absolute joy. When honeykid placed this in his top 10 films I thought he may have been a little nuts. Now that I've seen the film however I no longer think this. It's a fantastically entertaining enterprise, one which I may actually have under-rated considering just how much I enjoyed it. My concern over rewatch value perhaps hampered its score, but if it holds up on repeat viewings then who knows, maybe I'll be joining honeykid I having it on my own list. I certainly found it to be a lot more entertaining than the Mad Max films which it apparently helped to inspire.
honeykid
06-28-13, 10:18 PM
So glad to see you loved it so. :)
A great review, as always, and I agree with everything you say, with the exception that I'm pretty sure it's Carle Bensen who's says the line about Frankenstein's sense of humour. I can still hear his stilted chuckle after he says the line.
I just love everything about this film and I'll be quite surprised if subsequent viewings don't hold up for you. I've been watching this since I was about 9 and I'm yet to tire of it. In fact, I love it even more now than I did back then.
gandalf26
06-29-13, 06:50 PM
It almost feels like Tarantino however couldn't bring himself to just make a dumb film, he had to try and make it 'cool' by dumping a s*it-load of his self conscious dialogue onto it. And while it works in some of his work, most notably Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, I just found it so indulgent and narcissistic here. I found Inglourious Basterds to have a similar problem and films like this just make me wish a strong producer, or editor, or script editor or whatever would come in and really reign in such tendencies. After such a stunning start to his career I just feel that too often he is doing stuff just because he wants to, rather than it actually lending anything to the films themselves. But that's just me, and I'm aware it's not a opinion shared by all that many people.
Great Comment!
That is an opinion shared and championed by myself for a long time. It's why you wont find Tarantino's work so highly rated by me or reaching the top of my lists.
Masterman
06-29-13, 07:00 PM
I loved Death Proof, I thought it was cool, fun, and great entertainment. This really is Tarantino's love or hate it movie, but I actually prefer it over Inglorious Basterds and Jackie Brown.
The Gunslinger45
06-29-13, 07:03 PM
I watched Death Race 2000 a few months ago, and it was a very enjoyable movie! And yes Stallone was excellent as the villain. Another great review dude.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1968
Directed by
Peter Bogdanovich
Written by
Peter Bogdanovich
Starring
Boris Karloff
Tim O'Kelly
Arthur Peterson
Nancy Hsueh
Peter Bogdanovich
Targets
3.5
Plot - Byron Orlok (Karloff) is an elderly and legendary horror movie star who feels his career coming to an end and decides to retire. He feels that his once scary films can no longer compete with the real-life horrors to be found on the streets. Bobby Thompson (O'Kelly) meanwhile is a young Vietnam veteran with a seemingly normal life who one day snaps, killing his mother and his wife before embarking on a killing spree. The two men seem to have nothing in common until their lives intersect at a drive-in movie theatre showing one of Orlok's old pictures. Orlok is there to make a personal appearance, while Thompson has chosen this as the location for his last stand.
Quite a unique and intriguing film this one, detailing the shifting face of horror both in the movies and in society at large. For a large amount of the time this film actually plays like two completely separate entities, which are only brought crashing together in the closing moments. Legendary horror actor Boris Karloff plays Byron Orlok, a thinly veiled version of himself. He is a rather morose individual who believes his time has come and gone. His films which once struck terror into the hearts of audiences are now considered high camp. He cannot compete with the real horrors that have seeped into our everyday lives. As an example of this is Bobby Thompson, played to understated chilling effect by Tim O'Kelly. It is clear right from the start that he is a troubled young man. His life seems fairly normal and pleasant but you can just sense a hollowness and an emptiness about it. He is disturbed by the thoughts which are rattling around his mind but is unable to communicate this to those who love him. The film teases his descent into homicidal madness a few times before eventually he snaps and goes on a killing spree.
And those moments where Bobby loses it and begins killing really are exceptionally disturbing scenes, largely as it doesn't feel like we are really watching a film in these instances. The music drops out, meaning they play in complete silence except for the repeated sound of gunshots. Combined with some stark imagery from Bogdanovich and cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs they don't feel all that excessive, with O'Kelly's emotionless reactions there's something disturbingly run of the mill about them. It all seems just so easy and casual an exercise for Bobby, no more taxing than any simple household chore. It's very disturbing whenever the film places us in the character's shoes, giving us his point of view, having us look through the same crosshairs as the character, viewing his innocent and oblivious potential victims. With some impressive direction, cinematography and sound design they are startlingly effective sequences.
Indeed the film is impressively directed throughout by the debuting Peter Bogdanovich, delivering a series of striking scenes and compositions. This is never more true than when it comes to Target's conclusion. Set at a drive-in theatre which is reopening with an Orlok picture, and featuring a personal appearance by him, it sees Bobby climb high up behind the screen to pick off members of the audience. Bobby uses a hole in the large screen to aim his rifle barrel through and fire his shots at the unsuspecting audience. It's a very symbolic image; the fiction has been punctured and the horrors have seeped out into real life. The monsters are no longer to be found up on the big screen, but out on the same streets that we walk every day.
Film Trivia Snippets – Targets had a rather unique origin. It came about as a result of Boris Karloff owing Roger Corman two days of filming. So Corman told Bogdanovich that he could make any film he wanted, but with two conditions. He had to hire Karloff for two of the days, and he had to use stock footage from The Terror; a film Corman and Karloff had made together 5 years previously. Karloff was so impressed with Bogdanovich's efforts that he actually worked a total of five days and refused any pay for his participation. /// At the time of the film being made Karloff was in very poor health; he was suffering from emphysema and rheumatoid arthritis, had only half of one lung remaining and spent the time between takes in a wheelchair with an oxygen mask. He had braces on both legs, and had difficulty standing or walking without the aid of his cane. Targets was a film tapping into the societal shift and troubled times of America during the 60s, both abroad and at home on its own streets. You had the Vietnam War raging overseas, while America had been rocked throughout the decade by numerous high-profile assassinations, race riots and race-related hate crimes. People all over America were feeling powerless and disenfranchised with their government and their country. The film also took specific inspiration from several real-life tragedies, most notably the story of Charles Whitman who killed his wife and mother before going on a shooting spree from the bell tower of the University of Texas; eventually resulting in a death toll of 17 people. While another of the film's sequences mirrors the Highway 101 Sniper Attack, where Michael Andrew Clark started firing at passing cars, killing 3 people. And sadly the film feels just as relevant as ever, and indeed prescient in the wake of such American tragedies as the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary and Virgina Tech, and the Boston Marathon bombing to name just a few. And now of course there is the immensely disturbing and dark parallel between Target's conclusion and what happened at the cinema in Aurora during the showing of The Dark Knight Rises.
There's no doubt that the film does have its flaws. Working from an absolutely minuscule budget, some of the acting is a tad amateurish and the film as a whole can feel rather slow burning. While many of the characters are never really developed beyond very basic one-dimensional portraits. Oh and also the fate of Bobby's father is left rather unresolved and unreferenced. Are we to assume that Bobby was unable to stand up to his father and challenge him, so waited until he was out of the way and Bobby wouldn't have to deal with him. I suppose there was that scene where the two men are out doing some target practice and Bobby actually traps his father in the sights of his gun but doesn't pull the trigger. Perhaps that shows us his inability to confront his father. Sorry just having a conversation with myself. :D Back to the review.
Targets was one of Boris Karloff's last ever films prior to his passing; indeed it was Karloff's final appearance in a major Hollywood production. And the film acts as a truly suitable tribute to the man, and a fitting farewell. Karloff gives a terrific performance as Orlok, delivering a real sense of weary tiredness and despair at his situation while at the same time still proving to be dryly humorous. It's really quite a sensitive and indeed a moving performance. And the man who was best known for portraying Frankenstein's Monster proves that even at the stage of his career, and in failing health, he still had a real presence to him. The closing scene where Orlok marches purposely towards the shooter, disregarding his own safety and with a grim determination on his face is quite a moment. At this point Bobby has so completely lost touch with reality that he is unable to differentiate between the Orlok on screen, and the Orlok in real life who is coming right at him; with Bobby shooting at both of them. With a conclusion that denounces Bobby as the coward that he is as Orlok asks “Is that what I was afraid of?”
Conclusion - Targets may be a touch dated now; a little bit slow and rough around the edges, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a very captivating and effective film, one that is well handled throughout by Bogdanovich and features a poignant, effective showing from acting legend, Boris Karloff. This could be a film that grows on me over time.
The Gunslinger45
07-01-13, 06:04 PM
Dude you have me very interested to see this movie! Sounds like something I would enjoy. Another informative review indeed.
honeykid
07-02-13, 03:08 AM
This has been in my to-see pile for a while now and, along with UF's review of it, you both have me convinced that I'm really going to like it.
Dude you have me very interested to see this movie! Sounds like something I would enjoy. Another informative review indeed.
An "informative review"? Well that sounds sexy! What happened to my customary "excellent review dude!"? I miss that. :(
:p
A great review, as always, and I agree with everything you say, with the exception that I'm pretty sure it's Carle Bensen who's says the line about Frankenstein's sense of humour. I can still hear his stilted chuckle after he says the line.
Ah-ha! You've revealed your true feelings. If they are always great, that means whenever you say they're merely good you're just messing with my mind! :D And thanks for that. I'll rectify that little error
This has been in my to-see pile for a while now and, along with UF's review of it, you both have me convinced that I'm really going to like it.
Oh no the pressure! I don't want to be in the bad books if you hate it! :shifty: Especially as you're not just interested to see it, you're convinced you will like it. Well if you don't like it blame UF, he reviewed it first and gave it a higher rating. :D
The Gunslinger45
07-02-13, 08:23 PM
HAHA! You crack me up little buddy!
I've actually got a few reviews on the conveyer belt which I've been saving to dole out in regulation for you all, but one review has jumped ahead of all of them. When I came across the sad news yesterday that Jim Kelly had passed away it felt like the right occasion to revisit the classic Enter the Dragon, in which Kelly starred as Williams. It's perhaps a little different than my norm; it's kind of half Enter the Dragon review - half Bruce Lee retrospective/tribute
mirror mirror
Year of release
1973
Directed by
Robert Clouse
Written by
Michael Allin
Starring
Bruce Lee
Shih Kien
John Saxon
Jim Kelly
Enter the Dragon
4.5
Plot - A martial artist at the Shaolin temple named Lee (Lee) is recruited by an investigative agency to look into the activities of a suspected crime boss named Han (Kien). His way in will be a martial arts tournament that Han holds on his private island every three years. And Lee has plenty of motivation. Not only was Han a former student at the temple who has now brought shame to it, but Lee discovers that Han's men were responsible for the death of his sister. Other participants invited to take part include Roper (Saxon) and Williams (Kelly), old friends and former army buddies. Both men are on the run and use the tournament as a way of hiding out. Roper is running from the Mafia whom he owes large debts to, while Williams assaulted two police officers who were racially harassing him.
Out off all the B-movies, exploitation flicks and grindhouse films that have ever been produced you would be hard pressed to come up with another film which has had such an impact on cinema and popular culture as Enter the Dragon. Even today, 40 years after its release, the film is still revered by fans all over the world and continues to have a lasting impact and legacy both on cinema and in the land of merchandising. And when you really examine it, perhaps it may seem a bit surprising. After all what is Enter the Dragon but a cheap Hong Kong pastiche of the James Bond film series, with Dr. No seeming to be of particular inspiration. While it may very well be an “AWESOME film, man!”, is it really that great a film? No, not especially. Its standing in the history of film is a lot higher than its actual quality would merit. However Enter the Dragon has the ultimate ace up its sleeve; it has the considerable presence of one Bruce Lee.
It is Lee's exceptional screen presence which lifts this film to truly iconic levels. The moments where Lee is allowed to cut loose and engage in combat are impossible to take your eyes off. With his lightning speed, unusual yelps and the sheer intensity on his face there has been little that has ever been able to match the scenes in terms of their electricity. The fight sequences, which Lee choreographed himself, are all a thrill to behold. From his brutal dispatching of O'Hara to his stunning battle with dozens of Han's henchmen in the underground caverns, from the massive battle royale in the courtyard to the hall of mirrors sequence which closes the film they are wonderful spectacles to behold. It's one of the great “what ifs” in all of film history that has been discussed by fans and critics alike; how big a star would Bruce Lee have been were it not for his tragic death at such a young age? What other movies would he have made which are now lost for all time? I don't think it's too far of a stretch to posit that he could have joined the likes of Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charles Bronson etc in becoming one of the biggest film stars of the 70s and 80s. Like those men he may not have been the most gifted of actors, but he had an immense and unmistakable screen presence which has rarely been matched.
And while it's Bruce Lee that has made the film so enduring, and which continues to bring people to it, when you actually get to the film there is a lot more to enjoy here than just that. At one point in the film Williams remarks to Han that “man, you come right out of a comic book.” It's an apt description for Han, and is also true for just about every other character and the film as a whole. The whole thing is a very colourful experience with vivid character and lurid moments. Han is a striking and bold villain, created through a combination of Shih Kien's grandiose showing and the violent accessories he can add to his person. His claw hands are absolutely classic! They are amongst the film's most outlandish additions and help to create some truly memorable moments. Indeed there can be very few images in all of cinema as indelible or iconic as the sight of a shirtless Lee with cuts across his face and torso. And while it may have become a cliché over the years, the hall of mirrors sequence is still fantastic and rightly remains one of the most famous fight scenes in film history.
Film Trivia Snippets - In the film's famous Hall of Mirrors finale over 8000 mirrors were used to set it up. /// At one point during filming, Lee accidentally struck Jackie Chan in the face with one of his fighting sticks. Lee immediately apologised profusely, and told Chan that he could work on all of his movies after that. This of course proved to be Lee's final film, but imagine the possibilities had these two made a movie together when Chan became a star. /// Warner Brothers considered calling the film “Han's Island” as they thought international audiences may be confused by an action film called Enter the Dragon. Other alternative titles put forward where “Blood and Steel” and “The Deadly Three.” /// During filming, Lee was frequently challenged on set by extras and triad punks looking to make a name for themselves. He would normally ignore them but did fight one time, beating the hell out of two men, one after another. They weren't the only ones to suffer at his hands. During his battle with O'Hara he delivered a running thrust kick to Bob Wall which broke his sternum, and broke the arms of two extras in the crowd who attempted to catch Wall as he was sent flying backwards. Enter the Dragon isn't just your classic single hero v villain set-up, with Jim Kelly and John Saxon joining Lee to form a heroic trio, even if neither of the characters appear to be especially noble. Jim Kelly is great as Williams. With his considerable height and large afro he cuts quite the imposing figure and has charisma to burn. Seemingly plucked straight out of a blaxploitation flick his Williams is so self-assured and arrogant; just one really cool cat. I love the moment where he explains why he doesn't even consider the possibility of losing, and that when it comes he won't even notice. He'll be to “busy looking gooood.” While John Saxon is also a lot of fun as Roper, a womaniser and compulsive gambler who probably has never met someone he didn't think he could outsmart or con. On the run from the mob the man is a real playboy. And even when it comes to background performers who don't even speak, you've got colourful participants. As Han's main henchman, Bolo Yeung is an intimidating figure with a face that would make you cross the road if you saw him on your side of the street. He's a foreboding presence who would later be put to great use opposite Jean-Claude Van Damme in 1988's Bloodsport.
While Enter the Dragon may still be a little rough and shonky in places, its production values are certainly higher than the standard for a film like this. Yes it's plot may be minimal to the point of it barely being worth mentioning, but it accomplishes its goal; namely to get us from one showdown to the next. And alongside those superbly staged fight scenes the film is also nicely photographed and featured some rich visuals from Clouse and cinematographer Gil Hubbs. Before the characters arrive on Han's island we get a few sequences which depict Hong Kong and add a bit of flavour to proceedings, moments such as Williams walking through its crowded city streets and the main trio arriving by boat in the bustling harbour. And then you've got the highly expressive set design in Han's compound, most notable in the large party room which is garishly and colourfully decorated and complete with two sumo wrestlers in the middle of the room. Enter the Dragon also features a thumping score from Lalo Schifrin which mixes jazz and funk beats with more traditional Chinese music, resulting in an entertaining fusion of cultures.
Enter the Dragon was the film which introduced martial arts cinema to the masses outside of Asia. It made Bruce Lee a worldwide star, even if it was posthumously, and paved the way for the likes of Jackie Chan and Jet Li to achieve success around the world and become stars in Hollywood. Indeed the film even features two young men in minor roles who would carry on Lee's legacy; Sammo Hung as Lee's sparring partner at the film's beginning and Jackie Chan as one of Han's henchmen who has his neck broken. More than any of his other work, it is this film that has ensured Lee has remained an icon and one of the most recognisable stars in the world despite the small fact that he died 40 years ago. He is arguably still the biggest star to emerge from the world of martial arts; so much so that even to this day anytime a new star arrives on the scene, be it Tony Jaa or Iko Uwais, it isn't long before they are invariably cited as his possible successor; as the 'new Bruce Lee.' But I think that fruitless search will continue for many years to come. There will never be another Bruce Lee.
Conclusion - Enter the Dragon is the absolute epitome of Bruce Lee's tragically short career and life. With its minimal plot, prominent focus on the visuals, those tremendous fight sequences and Lee's charisma I find it an exceptionally easy watch everytime. Throw in its fun, diverse cast and its real mishmash of styles and cultures (chop socky, blaxploitation, Bond-style espionage, revenge flick) and you've got one of the most purely entertaining action flicks you're ever likely to come across.
The Gunslinger45
07-03-13, 08:12 PM
Awesome review to an awesome movie! Enter the Dragon is a movie that inspired thousands to start taking up the martial arts! And you are right when you say there will never be another Bruce Lee. And yes Jim Kelly's death is sad as he was a big star in a lot of Blaxploitation films. May he rest in peace.
honeykid
07-04-13, 08:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0
mirror mirror
Year of release
1975
Directed by
Norman Jewison
Written by
William Harrison
Starring
James Caan
John Houseman
John Beck
Moses Gunn
Maud Adams
Rollerball
3.5 +
Plot - In a future where countries have crumbled and large corporations now control every aspect of our lives, the people are given an outlet in the form of rollerball; an ultra violent sport which pits corporate-run teams from around the world against each other. One man, Jonathan E (Caan) of the Houston rollerball team, has played the game with such distinction and longevity that he has become the face of the sport, and a hero to people all over the world. This defeats the true purpose of the sport in the eyes of the corporations; to demonstrate to the people that individuality is futile. Led by the chairman of Houston's corporation, Mr Bartholomew (Houseman), Energy Corporation attempts to convince Jonathan to retire. Jonathan however does not feel ready to retire, with his reluctance proving a problem for the corporation.
This one is an old childhood favourite, but one I don't think I've watched for a good 15+ years. The first thing that struck me however was a sense of surprise about the fact that I actually liked it as a kid. Aside from the rollerball matches themselves it's actually quite a dry, slow-moving film. I assume that back in the day I either fazed out during those bits or maybe even fast-forwarded through them. And while the sequences depicting the matches remain by far the best bit about the film, I did actually enjoy the stretches in between. While it may not tackle them in the most compelling of ways, it does address quite a very interesting ideas. And the other thing that struck was just how incredibly similar the film is to Death Race 2000, with both films actually being released in the same year. Both films deal with a violent sport which is orchestrated and run by higher officials as a way to control the public. In this case, rollerball was created not merely to quench the public's bloodlust but as a way to demonstrate the pointless nature of individualism. But when Jonathan becomes a legend in the sport, and arguably bigger than the sport itself, he begins to disprove this notion. By becoming a hero to people all over the world the corporations fear he may become some kind of leader or martyr.
It tackles many similar themes to Death Race 2000; about how the individual can't succeed against the corporation, how sport is used to control the masses, about the public's bloodlust etc. It also asks some questions about what it means to be free, and about the control of information. The people who make up this society have accepted being ruled by the corporations in return for being provided for and taken care of. It may be a more 'pleasant' form of imprisonment, but surely it's still a prison. The way that the corporations control information also keeps the people uninformed and in check. Books have been done away with, and libraries are now large, impenetrable computer centres which only provide 'summaries' of literary works and records of history. And they're not exactly the most reliable of databases as I will detail later. In reality, the corporations 'own' history if such a thing is possible, and by doing so plan to control the future. Rollerball also details a world where in the eyes of the corporations everyone is replaceable; for example James Caan's character is given a new woman every six months. And these corporations do everything they can to stop one man from becoming bigger than the game, and in turn bigger than these corporations. It captures the addiction of powerful people who seem to become obsessed with controlling the lives of anyone they can. And there's a great scene where a bunch of executives, drunk on alcohol and on power, leave a party and head outside into nature where they use a gun to shots at a series of trees; resulting in huge explosions. Along with the party it just shows the ridiculous excesses of these individuals and how they feel entitled to do whatever they care to.
Film Trivia Snippets - The game of rollerball was so realistic and proved to be such fun, that in between takes the cast, extras and stunt performers actually played it for real. /// When someone inquired of him what the movie was about, James Caan reportedly answered, “It's about 90 minutes.” /// Much to the horror of the director Norman Jewison, there was actually some talk of forming real-life rollerball leagues following the film's release. The games had been filmed in the Olympic Basketball Arena in Munich with citizens invited to serve as spectators during filming. The action proved so entertaining to those audiences and audiences around the world in cinemas that it really was considered, completely ignoring the film's anti-violence message of such escapades. The one major difference between Rollerball and Death Race 2000 however certainly comes in its tone. Whereas Death Race played it purely for silly laughs, Rollerball takes itself very, very seriously. Meaning that it does have a tendency to come across as rather stuffy and pretentious at times, bogging the film down with a heavy dose of dialogue and exposition and feeling quite heavy-handed with its messages. I really do feel that they could have accomplished the same goals but in a more streamlined manner. However even if it is not tackled in the most dynamic of fashion it still does have some interesting ideas at its core. Perhaps for a first time viewer it might be a bit of a slog; I certainly think my childhood fondness helped out. However I suppose that you could put forward an argument that these scenes act as being symbolic of the apathetic, passive existence that is now the accepted norm for the public. And that by contrasting it with the wild, chaotic matches it highlights why they are so passionate about the sport, and why Jonathan is so reluctant to leave such a violent exploit; it's the only time he feels alive.
But enough about all these issues and messages, onto the real reason for watching this film - the rollerball! :D The games themselves really are brutal, gladiatorial affairs. The action is spread across three matches, with each one escalating both in terms of the stakes and the violent carnage. They fly along at a great pace, with some breakneck editing, and quickly descend into bloodbaths. There doesn't seem to be anything fake or choreographed about them, they look and sound intensely realistic and painful. In amongst the chaotic scenes the blood flows and bones crack. There's no CGI or wire-work on show here, this is just good old-fashioned stuntwork. And I imagine that many an injury was racked up on the set. Indeed it was once rumoured that a stuntman had actually died on the set as a result of the 'game', but that has since been debunked. Whatever the physical cost to those involved it was well worth it as they are thrilling affairs. In fact the film's director, Norman Jewison, was so impressed by the monumental effort that the stunt performers put forward he insisted on having each of them given an individual credit. This was the first time that had ever been done, up to this point their work would have gone uncredited.
In the lead role, James Caan gives a very decent performance as the strong, silent Jonathan E; giving a naïve innocence to the conflicted character who only wants to play the sport he loves, but finds himself caught up in a larger conspiracy. Though he does perhaps play it a little too reserved and passive at points, meaning he has a tendency to be outshone in his confrontations with John Houseman, who plays the part of the villainous Mr. Bartholomew with an apparent glee. There is also some effective work done by the rest of the supporting cast. John Beck is a colourful addition as Jonathan's team-mate and friend, the wild madman Moonpie. While in a minor role, Ralph Richardson delivers a scene-stealing turn as The Librarian, a rather eccentric fellow in charge of handling the transcribing of information. I love his frustration at 'losing the 13th century.'
Conclusion - As much as I still enjoy this film I'm not sure is one I would readily go about recommending to other people. I can see a number of reasons for not liking it but for some reason it still works for me, perhaps largely down to the nostalgic fondness I have for it from childhood. The fantastic rollerball matches themselves are enough to ensure that I will likely continue to enjoy it.
Good review. Have never seen this movie but the way you talk about it reminds me of the way I felt about Running Man. I have never revisited it. Perhaps I shouldn't.
The Gunslinger45
07-06-13, 06:49 PM
Another great review. I have not seen this movie, but I want to. Seeing how I have any seen the McTiernan remake.
gandalf26
07-06-13, 07:05 PM
Love Rollerball and Enter the Dragon. 40 years later "Enter the Dragon" is still widely considered the greatest martial arts movie.
Rollerball is about 40 years old too and it isn't far away from the Corporate mess we find ourselves in today.
The Rodent
07-06-13, 07:31 PM
The 2002 remake is pants... one of McTiernan's weakest...
The '75 version was a bit of a 50/50 for me... I liked some of it, but didn't like other parts... been years since I saw it though so really need to give it another go.
honeykid
07-06-13, 09:01 PM
The remake is horrible. Truly horrible. Even as a stand alone film, not connected to this in any way, shape or form, it's horrible. This version, however, is on my 100 and I love it. Like JD, this is a childhood favourite. It also introduced me to one of my favourite pieces of music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu1cDksmwKs
BTW, this might be the best page of your entire thread, JD. Three of my all-time favourites and two in my top 100.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGAMegijE
Brodinski
07-07-13, 05:42 PM
Interesting last couple of entries, JD. Will give Targets and Rollerball a try once I find the time for it. Like that you're going a bit more off the grid.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1987
Directed by
Jack Sholder
Written by
Jim Kouf
Starring
Kyle MacLachlan
Michael Nouri
Claudia Christian
William Boyett
Clarence Feldder
The Hidden
4 +
Plot - A crazed individual goes on a manic spree of robbing banks and killing numerous people along the way. Given that up until recently he had been a perfectly normal citizen with nothing but a speeding ticket to his name, the whole thing seems rather unusual to detective Tom Beck (Nouri). Though he could not possibly imagine just how unusual things are going to get. When the suspect is captured and confined to a hospital bed it seems like the end of the case, until that is the man, who should technically be dead, gets up and walks over to the patient sharing his room. The patient is Jonathan Miller (Boyett). He opens the man's mouth, leans over him and all of a sudden some kind of creature begins to escape from his own mouth and into Miller's. This whole spree was not the work of any run-of-the-mill human, but an alien!!! Hot on the tail of this alien parasite is FBI agent Lloyd Gallagher (MacLachlan). When Gallagher and Nouri are partnered together on the case it's clear that Gallagher knows a lot more than he is letting on. But when Gallagher finally tells him the truth, will Beck be ready to listen?
Now this one was a LOT of fun! A real little gem of a film. And yet another film for which I owe thanks to MovieForums. Until I joined this forum I had never even heard of The Hidden, but since then I've seen it on a few top 100 lists and seem to remember Holden raving about it at one point. However the person I really owe my thanks to is Used Future. It was one of the many films that jumped out at me from his top 100 list, and that inspired a blind buy. And it was certainly worth it.
The Hidden really is quite the genre mash-up, melding together the action/thriller, buddy movie and sci-fi genres to create a massively entertaining experience; something akin to Terminator crossed with The Thing and any number of buddy cop flicks. Given that those are amongst my absolute favourite genres, this was a little slice of movie heaven for me. They come together to create a package of fast cars, sexy girls, loud music, aliens and heavy weaponry. And really, what else does a growing boy need? :D And I think that the film succeeds on each of these distinctive fronts. As an action/thriller it delivers lots of thrills, and that's true right from the off courtesy of a pretty awesome care chase. The chase sets the tone for the film right from the start. After he brutally slays a couple of security guards during a bank robbery, the man responsible jumps into a sleek black Ferrari. Heavy metal starts pounding from the radio as he tears off with a number of police cars in tow. They thrash around the streets of Los Angeles at high speed with lots of contact between the cars. The villain of the piece then ploughs straight into an elderly, wheelchair-bound individual and sends him flying into the air. Next up is that old classic - two men carrying a pane of glass. Except that The Hidden gives it a brutal twist. He crashes into one of the men in a disturbing manner, sending him up onto and over the roof before landing with a sickening bump. It's got to be one of more astonishing and brutal-looking pieces of stuntwork I've seen in quite a while. The race finally reaches its conclusion with the Ferrari driving head long into a hail of bullets, before eventually being turned into a large fireball. The chase lasts about five or six minutes and let's you know that the film is going to deliver a lot of thrills, but also a lot of dark comedy while keeping it firmly tongue in cheek. It may not be one of the all time great car chases, but it's certainly not a million miles away. And I'm struggling to think of any chase better to ever open up a movie. Usually if a film is going to include such a sequence it will save it and make it a real centre piece as in Bullitt or The French Connection. It's a violent, reckless thrillride executed with impressive precision. In fact here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad52RbO-BEc
The film also features a large number of big shootouts, with the film perhaps setting a record for its amount of squib work. With the alien akin to the unstoppable T-1000 it gets shot over and over again but just keeps coming, meaning that the blood is certainly flying. As an alien film it really is a lot of fun, presenting quite a unique and small-scale spin on the genre. Well small-scale in terms of it not being a full-on alien invasion flick, though I'm guessing the dozens of people killed don't necessarily consider its scale all that small. Probably as a result of the film's very modest budget we rarely get a glimpse of the alien itself. However on the rare occasions where we do get a good look at the alien it is pretty coolly realised; with good old-fashioned practical effects creating a slug/anteater like parasite with tentacles. There's a pretty awesome scene where we see the parasite transfer from one host to another in impressively schlocky fashion thanks to latex heads and puppets.
And lastly as a buddy movie it is very funny stuff, with MacLachlan and Nouri creating a nice chemistry in their oddest of odd couple pairings. Their developing relationship is nicely handled, and forms a pleasing bond. MacLachlan in particular is excellent in this, giving his character a suitably quirky and otherworldly appeal. I love the way that he plays the character so stiff and awkward, conveying that sense of having to overly control his actions as this body is so foreign to him. He's just trying to get a hold on it. Considering where he could easily have taken it, he actually delivers quite a subtle little showing. The script also gives him the chance to elicit a number of laughs, either through his deadpan delivery or some physical humour. There are a few scenes that do a nice job of showing us his unusual nature, and have us beginning to suspect that something is a little off here. He's quite an endearing creation. And opposite him, Nouri is suitably charismatic as the slick and charming Sgt. Beck, a by-the-book if occasionally hot-headed cop who finds himself on a case like nothing he's ever seen before.
Also doing a really nice job are all the people cast to portray the possessed individuals that fall victim to the alien parasite; their combined efforts creating a uniform creation. In terms of performance the star would have to be William Boyett who is a bit of a riot. His awkward, uncomfortable, lurching performance and bugging eyes really does make you believe he is inhabited by something not of this world, and certainly feels like it could easily have been the inspiration for Vincent D'Onofrio bizarre mannerisms as the alien in Men in Black. From memory I'd say they are exceptionally similar in style. While Boyett may provide the best performance, the most impactful and memorable showing certainly belongs to Claudia Christian as stripper, Brenda Lee. She is insanely sexy in this, and when we see her in a backless dress which reveals a g-string? Wow, absolutely smoking! When she becomes the latest of the alien's hosts, she makes for a very sultry vixen. The character of the alien parasite as a whole is really good fun. It seems particularly taken with flash cars, excessive violence and fast women. In fact it's very easy to see the parasite as a bit of a satirical swipe at the 'greed is good' sentiment of the 80s.
The script may not exactly be the pinnacle of humanity's literary works but is a strong work in its own right, aware of it's B-movie standing and keeping its focus on what's important. The script has some hard-boiled dialogue, a lot of funny lines and even the odd moment of unexpected intelligence and originality in regards to its plot and subject matter. It may keep things rather vague and under-developed in terms of its exposition, the motivation of the characters, the fleshing out of the whole background etc but it makes sure to keep the laughs and thrills coming along at regular intervals and creates a briskly paced experience. Such a frenetic pace ensures that you never really have a chance to linger on any of its more implausible elements. I'd say it's a similar story when it comes to Jack Sholder's direction. It's not an amazing technical achievement but it is an assured and satisfying effort. It's pleasantly shot, the action scenes are all handled impressively and as with the script he keeps the pace churning along at a frantic rate. And given the film's rather small budget he deserves a lot of credit for the fact that it never looks cheap; you'd swear it had a much larger budget than it actually did. And save for the soundtrack of 80s heavy metal the film has actually aged extremely well. Again credit to Sholder as it still looks fresh and vibrant.
If there is one sticking point I have with The Hidden, it's in its ending. After such ballsy fun and mischievous humour throughout, all of a sudden the film seems to get serious on us and the ending does feel a little downbeat and maudlin. It is a fairly satisfying ending which provides a logical conclusion and a sense of closure, but I just felt it came across as little out of place. Although I suppose I should give it some credit for subverting my expectations and not going down the typically clichéd route.
Conclusion - As I said at the start I had never seen or even heard of this film until arriving on this forum. If you're in a similar situation and think this may be up your street, then I highly recommend you tracking it down someday and giving it a watch. It's an extremely spirited film that crashes along at an unrelenting pace, embracing the sheer improbability of it all; delivering action, laughs and sex along the way. All in all just an exceptionally entertaining B-movie. And one that is quite aptly named as it really is a bit of a hidden gem. It's a film I imagine would make a really fun double-bill companion to John Carpenter's cult classic They Live. And as with Death Race 2000 I could see it perhaps becoming a really big favourite in the future.
honeykid
07-09-13, 04:49 PM
I love The Hidden, as with Death Race 2000, it just never gets old. If you love this now, you'll probably love it 20 years from now and 20 after that, and so on. Another than maybe/should've made my own 100. I'm not surprised you enjoyed it, JD.
Deadite
07-09-13, 05:07 PM
Yeah, The Hidden was a great B-movie. Sequel sucked, though.
The Gunslinger45
07-09-13, 09:48 PM
I remember seeing this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel when I was a kid! Good lord I feel old. Excellent review! And congrats on getting to the 50th page!
Interesting last couple of entries, JD. Will give Targets and Rollerball a try once I find the time for it. Like that you're going a bit more off the grid.
Thanks Brods. :up: I can imagine you liking Targets as in general it seems to be quite a well thought of film, not sure I can quite picture you watching Rollerball though. Well I do like to mix it up a bit between the mainstream and going off the grid as you say. It's just that of late with me reviewing so many of my absolute favourites they tend to be very popular flicks.
Excellent review! And congrats on getting to the 50th page!
Thank you very much on both points mate. :up: You're very much the gentleman. :p
BTW, this might be the best page of your entire thread, JD. Three of my all-time favourites and two in my top 100.
Thanks HK. Glad you enjoyed it. And I actually thought all 3 were in your top 100. Death Race and Enter the Dragon are obviously in your top 10 but I thought Rollerball made it as well.
As you didn't mention anything about them I was going to ask what you thought of my last couple of reviews but we've already established that they're always great! :D
Cobpyth
07-10-13, 09:23 PM
I haven't seen your last couple of entries, but I really appreciate your rich reviews. They are a pleasure to read. Keep up the good writing!
Skepsis93
07-10-13, 09:56 PM
It's been a while since you reviewed it, but I wanted to comment quickly on what you wrote about The Crying Game, since I just saw it.
WHAT TWIST?! Now, I'm not the kind of person who likes to brag about having "seen it coming", in fact I love to be surprised, but I just find it incredible that this is regarded as a shocking turn of events. I was honestly pretty underwhelmed anyway - I found the direction and performances flat for the most part - so for me the movie was relying on this central event to make it worth sitting through. Dil was so clearly a man I just thought Fergus was an idiot for not realising and had to look up what the twist was supposed to be afterwards.
Too bad you couldn't say that in 1992. :)
honeykid
07-11-13, 10:06 AM
Yes, you have to remember that 10 years before that, there were people who honestly weren't sure/were surprised that Boy George was a man.
Skepsis93
07-11-13, 10:09 AM
Yes, you have to remember that 10 years before that, there were people who honestly weren't sure/were surprised that Boy George was a man.
Good point. I guess we're more used to seeing that sort of thing these days.
Here's my next set of Micro Musings. Although just looking at the first one and could probably have extended it slightly into a full-on extended review. Will perhaps do that later.
Micro Musings
mirror mirror
Year of release
1989
Directed by
Rowdy Herrington
Starring
Patrick Swayze
Kelly Lynch
Sam Elliott
Ben Gazzara
Road House
3.5
Well finally got round to watching Road House, or Bar Fight: The Movie as it could easily be titled. That's most definitely a cult/camp rating as this is such a cheesy, stupid film. But as much as I tried I couldn't help but enjoy it. To me the film felt rather like an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, with Walker taking on the job of a bar bouncer, or 'cooler.' What I didn't realise coming into it is that Road House acts rather like a prequel to Point Break, at least in terms of Swayze's character. His Dalton feels very much like a forerunner to his surfing guru Bodhi. They share the same sort of deep, philosophical nature. Oh and some of the gems of wisdom that Swayze gets to spout - “Pain don't hurt”, “I want you to be nice...until it's time...not to be nice”, "My way....or the highway." - priceless! Even if they don't prove quite as deep as the words of Mr Miyagi. Some of the best entertainment actually comes in the form of the supporting cast. As his sensei of sorts, Sam Elliott is pretty awesome as legendary cooler, Wade Garrett. While Ben Gazzara gives a deliciously snide showing as the insanely evil Brad Wesley, the man who runs the whole town. It's certainly a film where I'd advise you to check your brain at the door if you're to get any great enjoyment out of it. The film can barely go two minutes without some kind of altercation; frequently in the shape of fun huge-scale fights, and on the rare occasion it does it throws in a bit of sex for good measure! Oh and Jasper, Missouri has got to be the worst place to live in the world! Not matter how small the infringement anytime someone gets annoyed their immediate reaction is to pull a knife on you. I did really enjoy the ending though where all the townspeople that have been wronged finally stand up for themselves and take their revenge. Resulting in what is perhaps my new favourite line in any film ever - “A polar bear fell on me.” Cheesy, hokey and pretty bad. But also a lot of fun. I'm so ashamed of myself! :D
mirror mirror
Year of release
1971
Directed by
Gordon Parks
Starring
Richard Roundtree
Moses Gunn
Charles Cioffi
Christopher St. John
Shaft
2.5
Given how iconic and supposedly influential this film is I've got to say I was really quite disappointed. Its plot is pretty mediocre, and something I'd expect could easily have been the basis for an episode of Starsky & Hutch or something similar. That could be fine if it weren't for the fact that it unfolds at a fairly snail-like pace. I felt that it only had a few really good moments spread too sparsely across its running time. The character of Shaft was pretty cool with a few great lines, and I liked his friendship of sorts with Charles Cioffi's Lieutenant Androzzi. It also ends fairly strongly with a nicely staged and executed sequence depicting an attempted rescue mission. Best thing about the film though would certainly have to be its great soundtrack, particularly its classic theme tune courtesy of Isaac Hayes. “Who's the black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks? SHAFT! Ya damn right!” This was my first real foray into the blaxploitation genre so perhaps I just need a bit of time to become accustomed.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1974
Directed by
Michael Winner
Starring
Charles Bronson
Vincent Gardenia
Hope Lange
Steven Keats
Death Wish
3
I'm a little bit torn on how to feel about this film, and in turn how to rate it. I certainly feel it's a rather gripping, rock solid thriller. However I was left a little uneasy over its attitude towards vigilantism, and by Bronson's character. To me anyway the film certainly seems to be immensely pro-vigilante and almost like a piece of propaganda for gun ownership. It shows such vigilante justice to be an effective crime-fighting tool and deterrent, so much so that even the police and the district attorney don't want him caught. Yes they want him to stop killing, but they still want the spectre of his presence out on the streets. I could go along with it happily for a while as a result of the attack on his wife and daughter being such a harrowing scene, but the longer it ran the more unsure I became. And it seems to make Bronson's life happier. His wife has just been killed and his daughter is in a mental hospital from the experience, but because he's killing punks he goes about humming a tune and painting his living room walls orange because it's cheery. And I found the film's final image, that of Bronson firing a finger gun at some young punks while grinning, to be really quite disturbing. I understand it may seem very similar to Dirty Harry (a film I love) but I just felt it had a different vibe about it. As for Bronson I thought he proved a suitably tough, menacing figure when the character turned vigilante, but that he struggled to convey any real emotion despite the traumatic events that happen to him.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1972
Directed by
Michael Winner
Starring
Charles Bronson
Jan-Michael
Vincent Keenan Wynn
Jill Ireland
The Mechanic
3
A solid if unremarkable thriller. The film has its moments, but they come too few and far between to really lift this to the level of must-see. It does have a few interesting facets to it though. In a move similar to The Day of the Jackal it gives a bit of an in-depth look at the preparations of a hitman. And also in a bit of an unusual move the film never puts any great effort into having us like Bronson's character. We don't see him being overly troubled by his duties, nor are his targets shown to be particularly evil and people we should gladly be rid of. Winner's direction is a mixed bag. The action scenes and any moments to be played for tension are well handled, but scenes heavy on dialogue or requiring emotion feel ham-fisted and clumsy, with neither Bronson or Vincent exactly covering themselves in glory with a couple of stilted performances, though Brosnan does at least have a strong screen presence. And even if you do see it coming it has quite a cool ending.
honeykid
07-11-13, 10:30 PM
Ah, three films I love... And Death Wish. :D Actually, I don't mind Death Wish, but it's not a patch on my love for the other three.
There's certainly more fun Blaxploitation films than Shaft, in fact, Issac Hayes stars as Truck Turner and I think you'd love that, but it was the first to really breakthrough into the mainstream, helped hugely my Hayes' score, I'm sure. I'd also point out that while it could've been a basis for a Starsky & Hutch episode, no bad thing in itself, may I add, it was made four years before they hit the small screen and S&H owed a huge debt to Shaft and the genre it broke.
Surely Road House is worth another half popcorn, at least? Can you see why it's on my 100? :D
Here we are with my first ever Review Revisit. This is the only film so far to be reviewed twice by me. The first time was all the way back on the first page, in fact it was just my 3rd ever review. If you want to compare them to see how far I've come (or perhaps regressed :D) here's the original review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=728449)
mirror mirror
Year of release
2007
Directed by
Craig Gillespie
Written by
Nancy Oliver
Starring
Ryan Gosling
Emily Mortimer
Paul Schneider
Kelli Garner
Patricia Clarkson
Lars and the Real Girl
5
Plot - Lars Lindstrom (Gosling) is a reclusive individual living in a small town. Living in the garage of his brother and sister-in-law he has withdrawn from society, just about crippled by his shyness and fears. While his brother and sister-in-law do what they can to help him there doesn't seem to be much hope for him. Until he learns about 'real dolls', incredibly life like dolls available on the internet. And before you know it he has Bianca in his life, a beautiful wheelchair-bound girl from Brazil. Except that he doesn't see her as a doll. In his deluded mind she is as real as everyone else in his life.
I just adore this film. I think it's charming, funny, sweet, sad, touching and really just quite wonderful. As someone who suffers with OCD and elements of social phobia I can certainly identify and sympathise with the character of Lars, even if I am not quite as far along the spectrum as he is. I'll admit that the film perhaps isn't 100% realistic. You have to open up your mind and go along with the film and its rather fable-like nature. In the film everyone around Lars, from his brother and sister-in-law to all of the town''s residents, are encouraged to along with Lars' delusion by the local doctor. They accept Bianca as a part of the community. And while you do rather have to suspend your sense of disbelief when it comes to the idea that the whole community while go along with it just to help him, it is a very sweet, endearing, Capra-esque idea. If only the whole world could have such a progressive and supportive attitude to mental health, what a much nicer place it would be to live in. It's a beautiful example of tolerance and understanding.
Bianca acts as a blank slate for Lars, and eventually everyone else, to project their fears and feelings onto; who then interact with her in their own personal way. For Lars, Bianca helps him to tackle the lonely and reclusive nature that has overtaken his life; helping him deal with romantic feelings that he feels towards a new co-worker, as well as the pregnancy of his sister-in-law which stirs up memories and fears of abandonment and isolation as a result of his own mother dying while giving birth to him. Bianca helps him to tackle and deal with his problems, getting him to a better place. She helps to bring Lars out of his shell, making him a more confident and sociable person. It reintegrates him into the community he had become so isolated from It allows him to face and deal with the grief of his past, and gets him to a position where he might be able to have a relationship with Margo. And I have to ask the question, what exactly is so bad about that? Ok yes it may be a bit weird but who is he hurting? The world can be a f*cking tough place to live in at times, so why shouldn't you do whatever it takes to make it through? Any coping mechanism you can come up with to deal with your problems, more power to you.
The script, penned by Nancy Oliver, really has to be one of the most impressive I've come across, perfectly navigating the precarious tightrope between finding the unavoidable humour in such a situation but without taking it to the level of ridicule and mocking; and mining a real sense of heart and emotion for the characters and the situation without crossing over into mawkishness. Amazingly given its out-there concept, the film actually is quite a heart-felt experience. I even found myself coming to care for Bianca in a strange kind of way. With everyone treating her like a real person, and Lars believing it with all his heart, I kind of went along with it. And I couldn't help but enjoy and admire the fact that the film didn't opt for any big clichéd Hollywood triumph for its conclusion. It doesn't end with Lars being miraculously 'cured' of his troubles. Instead we see only the merest example of progress for Lars, offering a little brief glimmer of hope for the character. There is no guarantee whatsoever that things will work out for him, but the film gives him a chance and for that I was eternally grateful.
Film Trivia - To help Ryan Gosling to stay in character, the real doll was treated by the cast and crew like an actual person, just as is done by the characters in the movie. She was dressed privately in her own trailer, and would only 'arrive' on set for the scenes that she was in. What a diva! :DGosling's performance as the titular Lars is just amazing. He creates such a loveable character with his tender, moving performance. I just come to care for the character so much as a result of what Gosling does with him; I just want to give the guy a hug. The best decision Gosling makes is not to play anything too big. It's quite a restrained performance, not going over-the-top in terms of the character's sombre, depressed state or his quirks or his sugary sweetness. He is such a nice, respectful character you can't help but love. There are just so many lovely little moments for the character throughout. One of my favourites would have to be his nervousness and trepidation at getting ready to meet Bianca for the first time. And the fact that it's not about sex for Lars makes it all the sweeter. For Lars, and the film, it is not about sex; it's about love, intimacy and companionship.
While Ryan Gosling's performance as Lars is excellent; full of depth and pain with touches of hope coming through, in a way the real heart of the film for me comes from Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider, as his sister-in-law and brother respectively. His brother is completely out of his depth, unsure how to handle the situation and worried about the embarrassment that Lars' condition will bring upon the family. He is also suffering from and dealing with a sense of guilt that is plaguing him that he is in some way responsible for Lars' predicament. While Emily Mortimer's character is just insanely nice, doing all she can to help Lars, even to the extent that she begins to build a bond and develop a caring for Bianca. Having to bathe and dress her, it almost acts like a dress rehearsal for her maternal instincts with her baby on the way. Though to be fair the whole ensemble work at creating a town full of likeable characters that make for a magical place. Kelli Garner is immensely sweet as Margo, Lars' awkward and dorky co-worker who is nevertheless absolutely adorable. While Patricia Clarkson is a warm, compassionate presence as Dr. Dagmar.
The film features a delightfully melodic, flighty score which feels like it is verging right on the edge of fairytale; a suitable fit for the film. And it's the same case with the film's setting. A small town, covered by a seemingly perennial snowfall, it is a charming and rather whimsical place. Somewhere you can imagine a fairytale occurring, or in this case, perhaps a slightly implausible little fable. While it perhaps may be an incorrect ideal held by this city boy, born out of too many movies and TV shows featuring small towns, I can easily imagine it to be the kind of place that would breed such a sense of community. The kind of community needed to pull off such an undertaking. And it is beautifully presented by the cinematography of Adam Kimmel. The setting really is massively important to proceedings. I really don't think there's any way the film could have worked with a sunny LA setting for example. Somehow it does make it all a strangely convincing experience.
Conclusion - This movie could have played out as an awful one-joke movie, like some extended Saturday Night Live skit. But the film is played straight, and with such warmth and charm that I can't help but to be touched and entertained by it. It is a very funny film at times, featuring a strangely touching romance and just has so much warmth and heart. Wonderful.
The Gunslinger45
07-13-13, 05:30 PM
I have not seen Lars and the Real Girl, and given the nature of the movie I probably won't.
Now Death Wish and Shaft I have seen. And Shaft I agree completely was a big disappointment. Death Wish I did enjoy. As for the whole "pro vigilante thing" I think that is taking the movie a tad too seriously. It is an exploitation movie, I always just sat back, relaxed and tried to have fun with it. Though for flat out fun in the vigilante genre I still say The Boondock Saints reigns supreme.
Either way excellent reviews.
Skepsis93
07-13-13, 06:08 PM
You know how much I love this movie. :up:
Masterman
07-14-13, 05:38 PM
I was actually thinking of writing a review for Road House, fantastic movie.
A little sci-fi special of micro musings
Micro Musings
mirror mirror
Year of release
1992
Directed by
Geoff Murphy
Starring
Emilio Estevez
Mick Jagger
Rene Russo
Anthony Hopkins
Freejack
3 +
Here's a prime example of a film that is so bad that it's good. Or is at least approaching it. It's a really dumb, cheesy flick that does however have some interesting ideas. The cast is certainly very interesting with Mick Jagger being the standout, even if not for positive reasons. He hams it up to some extreme levels and is pretty dreadful, so much so that it's in an entertaining manner however. And I've always liked Emilio Estevez since growing up with him in the Mighty Ducks flicks. While it appears that Anthony Hopkins really couldn't give a s*it about the film! :D It feels like a pretty obvious money grab coming just a year after Silence of the Lambs. The film has some decent effects and production design, some entertaining chase sequences and is basically rather fun. If immensely flawed! Oh and it's got one of my favourite minor characters I've come across in a long while - a nun who is introduced wielding a shotgun, who has a cache of weapons, frequently curses and responds to an interrogation by kicking her interrogator in the groin. She's awesome!
mirror mirror
Year of release
1976
Directed by
Michael Anderson
Starring
Michael York
Jenny Agutter
Richard Jordan
Peter Ustinov
Logan's Run
3 ++
Hoo boy is this a dated and hokey flick. If a film where to try really hard to spoof the 70s I don't think it could come up with something even half as effective. From the hairstyles to the costumes, to the design of the domed city it reeks of a 70s disco vibe. Oh and Box the robot! :D So bad but so brilliant all at once. I have to say that I struggled to really warm to the main character of Logan 5 played by Michael York. I just found him so arrogant and sleezy. Though I couldn't help but laugh at his great line, “You're beautiful. Let's have sex.” So direct. And even if the film loses a little steam when his character is introduced, Peter Ustinov gives a very endearing and amusing performance as The Old Man. Given how insanely dated it feels, for once I do think a remake might be welcome. Though I'm sure they will make it a much more action-packed affair as the film is actually surprisingly slow and low-key for most of the time. It's all so breezy and colourful though that I couldn't help but like it.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1985
Directed by
Charles Band
Starring
Tim Thomerson
Helen Hunt
Michael Stefani
Art LaFleur
Trancers
3.5
Another cheap, trashy slice of sci-fi, and another winner. With it's rather noirish take on the sci-fi genre it feels very much in Blade Runner/Terminator territory and is just a load of fun. It has barely any budget to its name but still comes up with some decent effects and an imaginative little story. In the lead role Thomerson is just absolutely perfect as Jack Deth, giving the character the feel of an old-school gruff private detective of the 30s or 40s. While I found the whole film to be a fun viewing experience, the undoubted star attraction was to be found in an exceptionally young Helen Hunt, looking unbelievably cute and adorable as the punk-rockish Leena. Just a lot of fun.
mirror mirror
Year of release
1984
Directed by
Michael Crichton
Starring
Tom Selleck
Gene Simmons
Cynthia Rhodes
Kirstie Alley
Runaway
3
A heavy old slice of 80s cheese right here! I mean you've got Kirstie Alley, robotic spiders, bullets that can go round corners and Gene Simmons from KISS as the bad guy - what more could you possibly want? :D The film came out just a couple of months after Terminator, and was just blown away! By comparison you'd imagine this is either a much older film or one with a miniscule, TV-movie budget. The script and direction are very workmanlike and uninspired, and immensely obvious. At the start of the film it is revealed that Selleck's character has a crippling fear of heights. The finale couldn't possibly play into that could it? ;) A lot of the film, such as Selleck's robot housekeeper/makeshift wife, is pretty corny and the film as a whole is pretty poor but also kind of fun, largely helped by Tom Selleck. He is someone I've always liked so his presence is a plus. While Gene Simmons is makes for an enjoyably sleezy villain, and Kirstie Allie is a lively presence for her brief screentime.
The Rodent
07-16-13, 05:29 PM
Freejack is one of those that borders so-bad-it's-good... just the right side of the border though... cheesy and camp especially when Jagger starts with his funny dialogue delivery.
Love Logan's Run... just, well... love it. Yeah it kinda deserves a remake/update... as long is it doesn't go stupid like other Hollywood remakes recently like Total Recall etc or end up with some daft talentless actress trying to replace Agutter.
The other two I'm not keen on and I've never been a fan of Selleck either tbh.
honeykid
07-16-13, 06:09 PM
You know I'm loving this. Runaway and Logan's Run? That's a double feature right there. :cool:
And, as this has prompted me to think of Kirstie Alley.
http://cdn-premiere.ladmedia.fr/var/premiere/storage/images/cinema/photos-film/photos-acteur/images/runaway-l-evade-du-futur-runaway-19842/17620933-1-fre-FR/RUNAWAY-L-EVADE-DU-FUTUR-RUNAWAY-1984_portrait_w858.jpg
http://cdn-premiere.ladmedia.fr/var/premiere/storage/images/cinema/photos-film/photos-acteur/images/runaway-l-evade-du-futur-runaway-19844/17620951-1-fre-FR/RUNAWAY-L-EVADE-DU-FUTUR-RUNAWAY-1984_portrait_w858.jpg
And a non-Runaway pic.
http://cabinetsecret.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/kirstie-alley.jpg?w=1000
The Gunslinger45
07-16-13, 11:24 PM
Logan's Run is a classic sci fi flick! I love it!
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.