JayDee's Movie Musings

[Brodinski]

Ok, boss.

You could say that Raging Bull is a boxing film and you would be right. Yet categorizing this film as just that, would be an insult to the drama of Jake LaMotta’s life that is retold in Raging Bull. In essence, Raging Bull is a character study of an insecure man. In fact, LaMotta is so insecure about himself, his sexuality and what others think of him, that he constantly feels the need to prove to everyone that he is a real man; a force to be reckoned with. Let me ask you this: why do kids fight? They mostly don’t fight because they want to hurt each other per se, but rather to make a point: “I’m the boss around here!”

Jake LaMotta had everything a young man could dream of. With every fight, he was seemingly unstoppably inching closer to the coveted World Title. He was married to a beautiful woman. His family loved him; his brother Joey stood by him through thick and thin. It seems like the best a young kid from the Bronx could hope for. And yet, throughout the film, we never see Jake be truly happy. Sure, he will occasionally laugh or smile, but there is always this underlying uneasiness when he interacts with other people. It’s as if he’s afraid that they are judging him. So, Jake acts like a child that has to make it clear to everyone who’s boss. And LaMotta does not spare anyone from his violent outbursts: he hits his wife, his brother and the few friends he has. I believe that he doesn’t do this to hurt them, but rather to keep them close to him: Stay with me and love me, or else… In reality, Jake isn’t only fighting his opponents in the ring, he is also fighting his own demons and unlike most of his opponents, these he cannot overcome. Because LaMotta is so afraid that the people close to him will leave him or betray him, he resorts to the one argument that always tips the scale into his advantage: violence.

This is also where LaMotta’s fights in the ring can be interpreted on a meta-level. You can look at them in a twofold way. Firstly, they serve as an outlet for LaMotta’s violent nature. In the ring, he can beat up guys all he wants and he does a splendid job at it. Vicky once made a remark that she found a certain boxer to be quite pretty. Later, LaMotta has to fight this man. He gave the kid a hellacious beating. In slow motion, we see the blood gushing from his face. We literally see his nose break from one of Jake’s power punches. The Bronx Bull shows us how he earned his nickname and we hear one of the ringside commentators say: “he ain’t pretty no more.” This was exactly LaMotta’s intention and Scorsese inserts a meaningful close-up of Vicky’s face. She got the message all too well.

Secondly, juxtaposed to the punishment LaMotta dishes out to his opponents, he isn’t scared of taking a punch either. It seems that in the ring, Jake penances for his sins by absorbing terrible punishment at the hands of Sugar Ray Robinson. It is a well-known fact in boxing that LaMotta’s chin was the stuff of legends. His defense remains underrated throughout history, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he was able to shake off punches that would’ve laid out just about any other man. As Scorsese once named the ring “an allegory for life”, it seems as if he and his screenwriter Paul Schrader wanted to make it look like Jake’s ability to absorb huge punches like a sponge isn’t just a case of toughness, but also a means of being punished for his sins. It’s like he’s saying in the ring: “I know what I do is wrong on some level, but I just can’t express it so I’ll do my penance in the ring.”

What Scorsese realized on a visual level, especially the fight scenes, in Raging Bull is – for lack of a better word – achingly beautiful. Before Raging Bull, boxing matches were pretty much always filmed from outside the ring. Scorsese not only brings the camera into the ring, but turns LaMotta’s fights into a sort of ballet through the use of slow-motion and Thelma Schoonmaker’s grand editing. Just watch the scene where we see the steam raise from Jake’s body. He really does look like a Raging Bull. Time and time again, in slow-mo, we see the punches make contact with his opponent’s body. The blood and sweat flies all over the place. During the final boxing scene of the film, we see a ray of blood splatter the people sitting on the first row. Subsequently, Scorsese slowly moves his camera upward, from Jake’s feet to his face. His entire body – even his legs – is covered in blood, his eye is swollen shut. There is no air of glamour attached to the sweet science in Raging Bull. It’s man against man in there. I have never seen the physical aspect of boxing, the pain and bloodshed that is an essential part of the sport, reproduced in such a realistic and believable manner as it was in Raging Bull. Michael Mann made a decent effort with Ali, where he managed to give the viewer a good sense of the intensity of the sport of boxing, but the film lacked the poetic beauty of Michael Chapman’s black-and-white cinematography.

The team that was responsible for the realization of Taxi Driver is largely the same for Raging Bull. Naturally, there are the usual suspects: Scorsese directing, Schrader writing the screenplay and DeNiro acting. But there’s another man that deserves special praise: Michael Chapman, the director of photography. He did an extraordinary job in Raging Bull and I’m not just talking about the virtuoso boxing scenes. My favourite scene of the entire film comes near the end. Jake LaMotta is arrested in Florida for intercourse with a minor. We see LaMotta in his cell, a single ray of light on him. As a result, LaMotta is a mere silhouette, a shell of the fighter he once was. He is pounding his hands and head to the wall while lamenting: “stupid, stupid, stupid…” Once again, LaMotta punishes himself for his acts. And I think the minimalist photography adds a lot to the emotional impact of that scene.

I’ve not yet gotten around to speaking about the performances. DeNiro, who portrays Jake LaMotta, actually came up with the idea of making the biopic. He became infatuated with LaMotta’s life after having read the man’s autobiography. As soon as Scorsese and Schrader came aboard, the project went into production and DeNiro immersed himself in the persona of The Bronx Bull. He met extensively with the man himself, his brother Joey and even his ex-wife Vicki. I’ve read that DeNiro even trained boxing with LaMotta and trainer Al Silvani, so as to make the fights look more realistic.

However, it is not DeNiro’s acting when in the ring that makes his performance so memorable. It’s his ability to communicate LaMotta’s mental issues. Like I said, there’s always this undercurrent of fear of being left or betrayed running through Jake’s head. The fact that DeNiro is able to effectively communicate this in a genuine way is a testament to his terrific acting skills. To this day, some of the scenes deeply unsettle me. When Jake starts beating his brother, convinced that he had a relationship with Vicki, I just cringe. This is the Robert DeNiro that I’ll remember, not the man making a clown of himself in Analyze This or Meet the Parents.

The other standout role is that of Joe Pesci as Jake’s brother Joey. He is as loyal a brother as he can be, training Jake, making him watch out for his weight and keeping the mafia at bay as best he can. It’s heartbreaking to see him get almost nothing in return from Jake, except distrust and a beating. You can think of Pesci what you want, but at his best, he is one of the finest actors I’ve seen on the screen.

Raging Bull not only captured LaMotta’s pugilist expertise, but also his violent, mentally uncertain persona, beautifully elucidating his success and adversity both inside and outside of the ring.

[Captain Spaulding]

Wow. Amazing analysis, Brodinski. You make me want to drop everything I'm doing right now and re-watch Raging Bull.

[JayDee]

I shall perhaps try and respond to all those many posts on the previous page at some point but right now I just can't be bothered! :D From now on if I don't like a film that is highly regarded and loved around here I'm just going to do what others do and simply say that it sucks, or that it's boring or that it just isn't for me. That seems to be let go a lot more. By trying to actually explain my reasonings it's made people question it all the more. That or I'll just keep them to myself! :D So for the time being let's have a moratorium on all discussion of Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese. If people want to talk about Scorsese there are plenty of other threads. And likewise if people want to talk about talentless, neurotic, lecherous, brutally unfunny little imps I'm sure there are threads for that as well! :p

Anyway back to clearing out the micro musings. The next bunch I have were from a couple of months back. It was inspired by the 80s Countdown and also my attempts at making my own list of 80s favourites. In addition it was one of the many spells this year when I was feeling really under the weather, so just looking for daft, light-hearted films. Many of the films I watched aren't necessarily all that great, with the ratings influenced predominantly by my enjoyment of them with a heavy dose of nostalgic fondness thrown in for good measure as the large majority are rewatches of old favourites.


Micro Musings - 80s Nostalgia Fest part 1


mirror mirror
Year of release
1980

Directed by
Robert Zemeckis

Starring
Kurt Russell
Jack Warden
Gerrit Graham
Frank McRae
Deborah Harmon

Used Cars

rating_3_5

Lewd, crude and very funny. Much of the humour may be fairly low-brow but the pace and energy with which its delivered is really strong. The large majority of the laughs come from Kurt Russell who is on terrific form as unscrupulous car salesman Rudolph Russo. It's a role that perfectly exploits the persona of douchebag arrogance mixed with immense charisma that characterised many of Russell's best performances. And while he's definitely the star here, the whole cast seem to be having a great time as they work through the film's wild antics. The film is directed by the great Robert Zemeckis, and as he would show throughout his career, Zemeckis proves to be a dab hand when it comes to constructing energetic and impressive set-pieces. On this particular occasion it's an epic driving set-piece that sees dozens and dozens of cars racing through the desert with lots of mayhem and stunts along the way.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1989

Directed by
Danny DeVito

Starring
Michael Douglas
Kathleen Turner
Danny DeVito
Marianne Sagebrecht
Sean Astin
Heather Fairfield

The War of the Roses

rating_4

A deliciously dark slice of suburban hell. Despite its standing as a comedy, admittedly a very dark comedy but a comedy none the less, the film also proves to be quite an insightful look at the volcanic nature of relationships; the battle between love and hate, and a look at why and how such relationships fail. Oh and it also just happens to be very funny, with much of the credit owed to the cast. Just as was the case in Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner make for a fantastic double act, sharing as they do a terrific chemistry in their contentious, love/hate relationship. Douglas is greatly amusing and man Turner really was one sexy femme fatale in the 80s. I always loved her smokey, sultry voice. And then in addition to serving as director, Danny DeVito also stars in fine style as the lawyer who acts as our guide through their story. While I've always enjoyed the film purely from a comedic point of view, returning to it now what really struck me was the classy direction of Danny DeVito. It's not often you see such controlled and stylish direction in a comedy. He also does a terrific job of creating a sense of foreboding, almost Hitchcockian atmosphere which means that even though the film is playing it for laughs it also proves to be rather uncomfortable and apprehensive viewing. A great under-rated little gem.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1987

Directed by
Tibor Takács

Starring
Stephen Dorff
Christa Denton
Louis Tripp
Kelly Rowan
Jennifer Irwin

The Gate

rating_3

This slice of kiddie supernatural horror/thriller fare certainly isn't a great film but one that still has a decent amount of fun to be found, although you certainly have to wait for it. This is because the first half of The Gate is exceptionally dull, mostly revolving around a couple of kids just talking and messing about. The film certainly redeems itself however with its second half where it becomes a sort of junior Poltergeist as the kids come under attack from a series of demons and creatures. Helping to bring all of those creatures to life are some really quite impressive practical special effects and stop-motion animation. Together that impressive work creates quite the sense of atmosphere with the film being really quite creepy on occasion.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
Ron Howard

Starring
Don Ameche
Wilford Brimley
Hume Cronyn
Brian Dennehy
Steve Guttenberg

Cocoon

rating_3_5

A really sweet, warm-hearted and gentle science fiction fairytale. The 80s was a decade marked by the boom in high concept, explosive action and the teen movie. So by comparison this really is a world away but makes for a welcome departure. It is without a doubt pretty corny stuff but is saved from straying too far into that territory by a series of engaging and touching performances from its geriatric cast, with Don Ameche, Wilford Brimley, Hume Cronyn and Brian Denehy in particular standing out. And while it may not dwell heavily on them there is also a deeper, more melancholic thread at play about the fear of ageing and the pain that comes with losing those you love. Just a lovely feel-good flick.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1986

Directed by
Michael Ritchie

Starring
Eddie Murphy
Charles Dance
Charlotte Lewis
Victor Wong
J.L. Reate

The Golden Child

rating_3_5 -

I'm not sure I can really put up much of an argument in defence of this film, but what the heck I'll give it a go! :D As could become the official motto for this batch of films, this is not a particularly good film but one that I still really enjoy and find very funny on occasion. In this case much of that is down to the presence of Eddie Murphy. This was back when he was at the absolute top of his game, when he could take even the weakest of films and make them funny and entertaining. Here he just attacks the material with such incredible, unboundless energy. And most importantly he seems to get precisely what the film is all about. I constantly get the feeling that he's winking right at the audience, aware of just how silly the whole thing is. Silly but really good fun. I've always had a soft spot for mystical, Eastern-infused adventures and this is very similar to the likes of Big Trouble in Little China. Considering its age some of the film's effects are actually still quite good fun, as is Charles Dance's villainous turn as Sardo Numspa; Brother Numpsay! And it deserves at least one or two popcorn buckets for the dancing Pepsi can scene alone -

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/GoldenChildPepsican_zps9a3e26e9.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/GoldenChildPepsican_zps9a3e26e9.gif.html)

Now THAT is how you do product placement.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Although I admit I have not seen any of them. :D

[seanc]

Shhhh. No talking around here Gunslinger.;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1987

Directed by
Tibor Takács

Starring
Stephen Dorff
Christa Denton
Louis Tripp
Kelly Rowan
Jennifer Irwin

The Gate

rating_3 +

This slice of kiddie supernatural horror/thriller fare certainly isn't a great film but one that still has a decent amount of fun to be found, although you certainly have to wait for it. This is because the first half of The Gate is exceptionally dull, mostly revolving around a couple of kids just talking and messing about. The film certainly redeems itself however with its second half where it becomes a sort of junior Poltergeist as the kids come under attack from a series of demons and creatures. Helping to bring all of those creatures to life are some really quite impressive practical special effects and stop-motion animation. Together that impressive work creates quite the sense of atmosphere with the film being really quite creepy on occasion.

YUCK, YUCK, YUCK.

Tried watching this recently and it was just horrid.

I remember seeing it as a kid and liking it, but I hadn't seen it since. I don't know what Little Sexy Celebrity was thinking at the time. This movie was awful.

[JayDee]

Yeah it's not great, and as I said the first half is dreadfully dull, but I still found it quite good fun. Although thanks for quoting it as it made me notice that it was only meant to be a 3, don't know where the + came from

[rauldc14]

It's a good analysis by Brodinksi, but still not convincing enough for me to put Raging Bull near the top of my Scorsese list either. Though it would probably beat many of the films I haven't seen, which is a pretty long list in it of itself.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yeah it's not great, and as I said the first half is dreadfully dull, but I still found it quite good fun. Although thanks for quoting it as it made me notice that it was only meant to be a 3, don't know where the + came from

There's actually a sequel -- Gate II. Came out a couple of years after the first and stars Stephen Dorff's friend as a teenager. It's on Youtube.

[Sexy Celebrity]

BTW, thanks for making your Gate review extremely short (for you).

[JayDee]

You're very welcome Sexy, my micro musings must be a real treat for you. :D

Speaking of review length by the way I'm just wondering what people think about my recent reviews of Bringing out the Dead and Age of Innocence. They were considerably shorter than my normal reviews and came in at about 750-800 words each. Do people think that's enough for them to be classed amongst my main reviews? Or do I need to come up with another category in between that and my micro musings? :D

[seanc]

They are long enough for regular reviews IMO.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Or do I need to come up with another category in between that and my micro musings? :D

Medium Musings.

[JayDee]

I'm trying to come up with a system. I'm thinking 0 to either 300 or 350 words will be Micro Musings. 300/350 up to 600 or 650 will either by Medium or Moderate Musings. And then over 600/650 words (maybe 700?) I could perhaps count as Maxi or Major Musings.

In fact just for Sexy who hates having to read I'll also perhaps institute Miniscule Musings which would look something like this -

The Terminator - Awesome (rating_5)

Man of Steel - Not awesome (rating_2)

Hugo - Magical (rating_4)

Used Cars - Fun (rating_3_5)

How does that grab you Sexy? Or are they still too long? :p

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'd hate to see what your Extra Large Musings are like.

And -- Medium Musings. Not Moderate Musings.

[cricket]

I'd have to pretty much agree with everything in your 80's micro musings post, although I haven't seen those movies in several years.

[honeykid]

I really didn't care for Used Cars. I watched it for the second time a week or so ago and I was struggling for the first 15-20 minutes. I was going to switch it off, but I know how much mark likes it and, as I hadn't seen it since I was about 10 or 11, I thought I'd stay with it. Didn't like it much. It's not funny and I really hated the end set piece. It reminded me greatly of those live action Disney films of the 70's and I hated those, too. Actually, Kurt Russell being part of it also helped give it that feel.

Cocoon, on the other hand, is wonderful. Love that film.

I think you should include SC ratings on all your reviews. :D

[JayDee]

Micro Musings - 80s Nostalgia Fest part 2


mirror mirror
Year of release
1985

Directed by
Jeff Kanew

Starring
Anthony Edwards
Linda Fiorentino
Nick Corri
Alex Rocco
Marla Adams

Gotcha!

rating_3 ++

An old favourite, this is not a particularly good film but it's one I still have a bit of a soft spot for. The film is basically your classic Hitchcock wrong man film but at its most Hollywood-ised and its most 80s; as if Hitchcock had made a teen movie. The pacing may be a bit of a problem at times but for the most part its a fairly breezy experience. The performances aren't the most skilled but not to the great detriment of the film, and in the case of Anthony Edwards it actually helps to build the naivety of his character. His character is a real 80s archetype; the likeable, slightly geeky and awkward guy that was often played by the likes of Matthew Broderick. In fact the whole movie just reeks of the 80s, right from its Cold War influenced story. Perhaps the most 80s element however is its music, a mix of score music right out of MacGyver and cheesy pop songs that even includes Frankie Goes to Hollywood's “Relax.” Oh and Linda Fiorentino is pretty damn smoking as the older woman who gets Edwards involved in the whole case of espionage to begin with.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1985

Directed by
Barry Levinson

Starring
Nicholas Rowe
Alan Cox
Sophie Ward
Anthony Higgins
Susan Fleetwood

Young Sherlock Holmes

rating_3_5 +

This film has always felt very reminiscent to me of the River Phoenix-starring prologue in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Just as that brief sequence established all of that character's trademarks (the fedora, the whip, the scar, the fear of snakes etc), Young Sherlock Holmes takes place during the character's formative years and helps to establish all of the little touches that would come to define the character; the pipe, the deerstalker, the violin, his friendship with Dr. Watson etc. That continues with the film's fantastic post credits sequence which features a great pay-off that actually improves the whole film that proceeded it in just a couple of seconds. It also provides a tantalising hint at a possible sequel or franchise which sadly never materialised. My favourite aspect of the film was certainly the various hallucination scenes that strike down many of its characters and how they were depicted by some impressive and terrifically creative special effects - great scenes. The film actually holds a place in cinematic history because of its special effects; it was the first film ever to blend CG and live action seamlessly. Much like many films of this type during the 80s, Young Sherlock Holmes certainly feels like it has been inspired by the work of Steven Spielberg and Amblin (it was indeed produced by Amblin); it has that sense of warmth and magic but at the same time it's accompanied by a darker, more sinister edge. The performances may not be of the highest standard but certainly do the job. Nicholas Rowe makes for a lanky, mercurial Sherlock while Alan Cox is rather endearing as the bumbling Watson. With a witty and occasionally tongue-in-cheek script this is a little bit of a gem.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1983

Directed by
Douglas Trumbull

Starring
Christopher Walken
Natalie Wood
Louise Fletcher
Cliff Robertson
Joe Dorsey

Brainstorm

rating_3 +

While it may have its limitations and its flaws, this slice of 80s sci-fi is just about able to overcome those issues with the end result being a rather intriguing one. The technology at the heart of its plot allows the film to address some interesting issues and look at some interesting questions, including the biggest questions of all such as what happens when you die and is there an afterlife. Despite its 1983 release date the film still feels very much like a product of the 70s, from both its aesthetic to its narrative which is informed by the conspiracy and anti-establishment sentiments that were so prevalent during both that decade and its films. The latter occurs when the technology in question is exploited by the military for purposes of warfare, raising ethical questions about its use. I found Brainstorm to have a slightly ponderous nature and pace which prevented me from truly getting passionate about it, but it did draw me in. And a large factor in doing so was certainly the strong cast; a cast that included Natalie Wood in her final performance having died during shooting. Particularly strong was Christopher Walken, toning down his eccentricities a touch but still maintaining his unique charisma and magnetism.

It's not often that I'm the one calling for remakes, but if Hollywood really is so set on the continuous conveyor belt of remakes/reboots/re-imagingings/whatever they're calling it this week, then I think this is the kind of project they should be looking at. Instead of remaking films that are still beloved classics such as RoboCop and Total Recall, why not a film like this? As far as I can tell it's not a particularly well-known film these days, it has an interesting premise to work from, while its reliance on computers and technology mean that it looks extremely dated these days so I don't think that updating it would be the worst thing in the world. And for once it may even be worth having it in 3D, or at least part of it. The machine that the scientists create allows for virtual reality style experiences which are supposed to be unbelievably real. So if 3D kicked in for those sequences to mimic the 'reality' I think it would be a nice touch.

[JayDee]

My season of 80s nostalgia and cheese quickly segued into a season of John Hughes films. As someone who dearly loves his films it had been way too long since I had watched many of them


Micro Musings - 80s Nostalgia Fest part 3
(John Hughes special)


mirror mirror
Year of release
1985

Directed by
John Hughes

Starring
Anthony Michael Hall
Ilan Mitchell-Smith
Kelly LeBrock
Bill Paxton
Robert Downey Jr.

Weird Science

rating_3_5 -

Only in the 80s! Weird Science is a fine example of the really stupid, high concept comedies that were so prevalent and popular during the decade; films that refused to adhere to logic as long as there were some laughs to be mined from it. And it certainly does find its share of laughs. Once again fulfilling the role of a loveable geek is Anthony Michael Hall, and once again doing a fine job of it. While as his brother Chet, Bill Paxton is a riot. And then of course there's Kelly LeBrock as Lisa, the embodiment of the boys wish-fufilment. What can I say but phwoar!!! She is just sex on legs. The only drawback in the cast for me is Ilan Mitchell-Smith who I find slightly irritating. One of the most fun aspects of the film are a large number of special effects which remain surprisingly fun and impressive given their age. Other fun stuff of note includes an attack on the house by a Mad Max style gang and an early appearance for a baby-faced Robert Downey Jr. Who could ever have predicted this guy wearing a bra on his head would go on to star as Iron Man and become one of the biggest stars in the world.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1986

Directed by
Howard Deutch

Starring
Molly Ringwald
Jon Cryer
Andrew McCarthy
Annie Potts
James Spader
Harry Dean Stanton

Pretty in Pink

rating_4

I'm aware this isn't the manliest of films to show your affection for but I've got to admit to having a great deal of love for this seminal 80s hit from Hughes. Much of that is down to he presence of Molly Ringwald. I used to just absolutely love her, and I think this is probably her at her most adorable and enchanting. She's not the only success amongst the cast however, with many putting in great performances. Jon Cryer fills Anthony Michael Hall's shoes as the geek in fine fashion, extremely endearing as Duckie. Annie Potts brings energy and laughs as Iona, while Harry Dean Stanton brings a degree of gravitas as Ringwald's father. And then there's the wonderful James Spader. Admittedly he looks way too old to be playing this role but he just nails it, making Steff into this sneering and detestable figure that you can't wait to see fall on his face. It's sweet and it's very funny, with another great 80s soundtrack. Classic 80s. Classic John Hughes.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1984

Directed by
John Hughes

Starring
Molly Ringwald
Anthony Michael Hall
Justin Henry
Michael Schoeffling
Haviland Morris
Gedde Watanabe

Sixteen Candles

rating_3_5 +

Released in 1984 this was the film where John Hughes really established the formula that would serve him so well throughout the rest of the decade, particularly in regards to his 'teen movies.' Just as those that would follow, Sixteen Candles is not exactly the most realistic depiction of teen life; its young characters often talking and acting in a manner that doesn't always ring true in his heightened, almost fairytale-like world. While it may not always sound or look like we remember our teen years, it most certainly feels like it. And that is something Hughes was always able to do, perhaps better than anyone else ever has, certainly on such a consistent basis. It takes you back to precisely how you felt during your teenage years, accounting for a large amount of the film's charms. In addition to that though there are also a couple of very endearing and entertaining performances from Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall, a witty script from Hughes and just an immense amount of heart and charm.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1987

Directed by
John Hughes

Starring
Eric Stoltz
Mary Stuart Masterson
Lea Thompson
Craig Sheffer
Elias Koteas

Some Kind of Wonderful

rating_3_5

Almost a complete remake of Pretty in Pink, this is perhaps not vintage John Hughes (lacking in some of his usual sharpness) but it still has its treats to offer. Chief amongst them would have to be the beautiful Lea Thompson. I've not seen her much of late but man in the 80s and 90s she was just so gorgeous and loveable! Though running her close for my affections this time out would be Mary Stuart Masterson, who I found so endearing as tomboy Watts. Oh and there is also a wonderful, scene-stealing turn from Elias Koteas (always Mr Casey Jones in my eyes). The only slight negative amongst the cast would be Eric Stoltz who I found to be a little bit of a bland lead. While I don't have as much love for this film as I do for Pretty in Pink it does at least address the issues of that film's ending and this time gets it right. Great soundtrack as well.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1987

Directed by
John Hughes

Starring
Steve Martin
John Candy
Laila Robbins
Michael McKean
Dylan Baker

Plains, Trains and Automobiles

rating_4 +

Following a slew of films that focused on teenagers and families this marked John Hughes' first real foray into 'grown-up' films. As such it may lack some of the heart and nostalgic charm of his previous work, but it certainly makes up for those particular shortfalls with a large number of laughs. To generate those laughs Hughes crafted a script that crossed many comedy genres, taking in the buddy comedy and the road movie while mining humour from both witty wordplay, broad slapstick and even the occasional detour into the surreal and absurd; see for example the moment where both characters turn into skeletons. Steve Martin and John Candy both deliver one of their best ever performances and have a great rapport together. Perhaps the only problem I have with the film is that for the majority of its running time I don't find either character to be particularly likeable. Martin's Neal Page is a bitter, cynical grouch while Candy's Del Griffith really is as infuriating as Neal finds him to be. That remains a minor flaw however in what remains as one of the 80s best comedies.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Planes Trains and Automobiles is a fun comedy. I could not believe I waited so long to see it.

[JayDee]

A few more 80s films, this time as part of my new category. Although as you can see I'm still not 100% sure on the title. Any thoughts are appreciated. :)


Medium/Middling/Moderate Musings


mirror mirror

Year of release
1989

Directed by
John Hughes

Written by
John Hughes

Starring
John Candy
Jean Louisa Kelly
Macaulay Culkin
Gaby Hoffman
Amy Madigan
Jay Underwood

Uncle Buck

rating_4_5

Well this one threw me a little bit. While I had seen it before and remembered really enjoying it, it wasn't anywhere near to how much I LOVED it this time. I just had an absolute blast with it, probably laughing more than I have at a film in a good long while. I'll need to revisit it at some point in the future to see if this was an aberration because if not this could be top 100 material. While Hughes may have created films that were 'better' than Uncle Buck, I'm not sure if he made any that were ever funnier than this. This is largely thanks to John Candy in perhaps his best performance; he's just on fire as Buck Russell, consistently killing it throughout the whole film. I loved pretty much everything he was involved in, particularly his confrontations with Tia's boyfriend Bug. While I've always liked Candy I could also find him rather irritating and over-the-top on occasion, but Hughes had the ability to cast him in a sympathetic light as someone with sensitivity and heart.

As Tia, Jean Louisa Kelly was also very good at being very bad! Her character was just so evil, so much so that you could argue her character was poorly written as no sense of sympathy or understanding was generated for her. The film also does a great job of utilising its child actors, limiting their exposure so they remain entertaining without crossing over into the territory of being precocious and irritating. Gaby Hoffman is absolutely adorable while Macaulay Culkin shows the charisma that would later be put to great use in the Home Alone films; I love the scene where he interrogates Buck with a series of questions - “I'm a kid, it's my job!” Whatever you want to say about him once he grew up, he was a great child actor. There's also some great support from Amy Madigan as Buck's beleaguered girlfriend and Laurie Metcalf as the crazed sexpot from across the street.

While I had a great, laugh-filled time watching this film there was also a rather melancholic under current to it, brought about by the untimely deaths of the two men most responsible for the film's success, John Hughes and John Candy. That both of these great comic talents would be taken from us before their time, Hughes before he was 60 and Candy at the tragically young age of 43, is truly sad. The one consolation we have however is that both men left behind a great collection of their work that we can remember them by, with this film serving as one of the best examples of both men's respective talents.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1988

Directed by
George Sluizer

Written by
George Sluizer
Tim Krabbe

Starring
Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu
Gene Bervoets
Johanna ter Steege
Gwen Eckhaus

The Vanishing
(aka Spoorloos)

rating_3_5 +

I've been aware of this film's existence and been interested in it for quite a while now, with its placing on the board's 80s list finally giving me the push to track it down. While I didn't love this film, certainly not as much as others clearly do, I did admire its quality and have to admit to finding it pretty damn compelling. While scary wouldn't be the right word, it's these kind of films that I generally find to be more creepy and unsettling than your big over-the-top horror films. A film like this, or 10 Rillington Place which I reviewed a year or two ago, plays out more like a reconstruction rather than a piece of entertainment. There is no hammy villain, no intrusive or overpowering score and no jump scares. Instead it gets under your skin with its downplayed, realistic depiction of the crime. The film presents a realistic and terrifying prospect that we can all imagine and relate to, has no violence whatsoever but still builds terrific menace and dread and most worryingly of all presents a villain who is just about the most normal and seemingly harmless individual you could imagine.

The film has quite an unusual structure which you'd imagine could easily kill the suspense but it actually works and helps to create a wonderfully atmospheric tone. In addition to examining the crime and its effects the film also explores the impact that obsession can have on one's life. We flash forward three years after the event and find that the guy's life has pretty much come to a standstill. He has been unable to move on and it has severely affected his life. It also examines the question of just how far would you go in such a situation to learn the truth. Frequently in press conferences you will see family members ask the person responsible to come forward and reveal the truth. They are not interested in them facing justice, they just have to know.

In line with its realistic stance the performances are quite restrained but impressive. As the sociopathic killer, Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu pitches his performance perfectly between being a run-of-the-mill everyman while still giving hints of his dark nature. Gene Bervoets suitably conveys the greatly detrimental impact that the event and his subsequent obsession has upon him, while Johanna ter Steege is delightfully sweet and likeable as the victim of the heinous act.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1984

Directed by
John Carpenter

Written by
Bruce A. Evans
Raynold Gideon

Starring
Jeff Bridges
Karen Allen
Charles Martin Smith
Richard Jaeckel
Robert Phalen

Starman

rating_4 +

I can't believe it took me so long to get round to watching this film, especially as someone who considers themselves a fan of John Carpenter. I just loved this, finding it absolutely delightful. The film mixes together three rather disparate genres that you don't often see brought together; science fiction, romance and the road movie. It may be rare but in this instance Carpenter blends them into an intoxicating and beguiling experience. The film presents a bit of a unique spin on the bodysnatcher genre, having its character come into being by cloning the DNA of a dead person; in this case the late husband of Karen Allen's character. And this cloning element actually proves very fitting as in many ways Starman plays out like a clone of the Spielberg classic, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Both films feature an alien stranded on Earth who must accomplish a task if they are to be saved and return home. The only real difference here is that it's a more adult version of the story, both in terms of the alien and the person whose life they crash into.

Despite its out-there and high concept nature the film is grounded and made oddly believable by two terrific performances at its heart. In the role of the alien entity is Jeff Bridges giving an Oscar nominated turn, and he is just tremendous. From his very first moments on screen you just completely believe that he is not of this Earth, with his awkward ways and childlike naivety proving to be just absolutely endearing. And opposite him you have the lovely Karen Allen as Jenny Hayden, initially his captive who eventually finds herself falling for and helping him. She does a tremendous job as the tragedy-struck and vulnerable Jenny who is given the chance to grieve and to achieve closure thanks to this odd situation. She's just enchanting and her performance is wonderful.

Marking a bit of a departure from his usual fare, Carpenter does a solid job on directing duties in quite a restrained fashion. And given his great experience in the field of special effects-heavy films it comes as no surprise that on the few occasions where special effects do come into play Carpenter proves himself more than capable of handling them. And the road movie element of the film allows for some lovely cinematography of the landscapes that the unlikely duo travel across.

[seanc]

I never realized Uncle Buck was John Hughes. I really liked that movie 20 years ago.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Love Uncle Buck. Was fortunate to see it at a movie theater when it came out in '89. I think it was a week or so before I started kindergarten.

[cricket]

I actually always loved Gotcha; it's a big 80's guilty pleasure for me. I didn't care for Young Sherlock Holmes but I haven't seen it since it was out. I'm not sure if I've seen Uncle Buck or Brainstorm, I loved Starman, and The Vanishing is on my to see list. I love that whole set with all John Hughes movies-classic 80's awesomeness.

[Deadite]

Glad you got some enjoyment out of The Gate, JayDee. I can understand your criticism of the slow first half. Personally it's one of my favorite 80's horrors and I love the creature work in the second half.

[JayDee]

Micro Musings



mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Phil Lord
Chris Miller

Starring
Channing Tatum
Jonah Hill
Brie Larson
Dave Franco
Ice Cube

21 Jump Street

rating_3_5

A very pleasant surprise. When this was released back in March of last year it had absolutely no impact on me; I took absolutely no notice. I don't remember a single trailer or TV spot grabbing my interest, while in general it didn't have a lot going for it in my eyes. Up until now the career of Channing Tatum had completely passed me by, in fact I can't think of a single film of his that I've actually seen. Although that was better than my relationship with Jonah Hill, who up until now I've had quite a strong dislike of. And in fact that's true of most current comedies, particularly those of Judd Apatow that frequently include the likes of Hill and Seth Rogen. So with all that going against it, it was a nice treat just how much I enjoyed it. Although to begin with I felt my instincts about it were going to be proved right as it didn't have the most auspicious of starts. During the opening stretch the film throws us a slew of curse words. Now I don't care or get offended by that (I've been completely desensitised to bad language, violence etc) but I feared it was going to be like so many comedies these days that think they can be funny just by constantly swearing.

After that however things turned around. I wouldn't say it was a laugh riot of a comedy but on the whole I found it to really quite enjoyable, with Hill and especially Tatum doing well in my eyes. The majority of the more recent comedies that I've liked (I Love You Man, Role Models, Baby Mama, Easy A, Pitch Perfect etc) have had one thing that's lifted them above all the other drek - heart. And 21 Jump Street also has a bit of heart in the friendship that develops between Hill and Tatum, Hill finally finding his place at school and Tatum's sensitive performance at being excluded. The film also takes the chance to poke some fun both at the conventions of the action genre and at the film itself. I loved the little bits about the explosions and about recycling old ideas from the 80s. Oh and there's also a really fun little cameo towards the film's conclusion.


mirror mirror
Year of release
2013

Directed by
Don Scardino

Starring
Steve Carrel
Steve Buscemi
Olivia Wilde
Jim Carrey
Alan Arkin

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

rating_2_5 -

What a flat, insipid film. And when you take into account the talent that is involved (Carrel, Carrey, Buscemi, Arkin), and the potential to be found in its premise then I found it to be exceptionally disappointing. A large part of the reason why it failed so much in my eyes was how it utilised the aforementioned talent at its disposal. I really like Steve Carrel when he's playing naïve, simple-minded and sweet-hearted characters in the likes of Date Night, Get Smart and 40-Year-Old Virgin. I don't find him anywhere near as entertaining when he's playing douchebags however. I just don't feel he has that in his locker the way a Will Ferrell or Jim Carrey does. Speaking of Carrey, he is by far the best thing about the film in his David Blaine/Criss Angel inspired role, stealing every scene he is in and grabbing about 95% of the laughs. It's such a shame then to find that he's in the film substantially less than I thought. The same can also be said of Steve Buscemi, with the script sadly conspiring to remove his character from proceedings for a large degree of the time. This leaves Carrel and Olivia Wilde to carry the majority of the film, and I just didn't find a trace of chemistry between them. A large part of the film revolves around Carrel's character losing his passion for magic, meaning that he has no joy or energy to impart to it. It also feels like the film has been made under similar circumstances; there's a lot of just going through the motions. When you consider the rich pickings that should be produced from the rather pompous world of magicians, and the ridiculous nature of street magicians like Blaine, it comes off as a very lame, lazy approach. It's storytelling is all so predictable, telegraphing every move it's going to make long before it actually happens. Sits alongside Elysium as the most disappointing film of 2013.


mirror mirror
Year of release
2012

Directed by
Jake Schreier

Starring
Frank Langella
Peter Sarsgaard (voice)
James Marsden
Liv Tyler
Susan Sarandon

Robot & Frank

rating_4

I found this to be really quite delightful little film. On the one hand it's a fun, quirky little indie, while on the other it's a deep, bitter-sweet film about ageing. I found the whole thing to be entertaining, wryly funny and really very touching. The laughs come from Frank and his robot companion who make for a very amusing double act, with the robot proving to be the straightest of straight men. The one reason why I'd recommend this film to anyone is the exceptional performance of Frank Langella. In the role of Frank Weld he is just fantastic. Some of the little moments that capture the ailing condition of his character are just heartbreakingly beautiful. Early on we see him talking to his children but there is just no sign of recognition or emotional connection there, he doesn't realise who they are. We see him walking through town with a baffled look on his face as if he's landed on an alien world. My gran has dementia and is getting really bad now and I thought the film captured a lot of it really well, such as the frustration and anger that it causes for both the individual suffering from it and their family around them. It's a truly horrible thing. And because Langella's performance was so affecting it really drew me into the story and made sure that a couple of the emotional punches carried quite a wallop. Through Frank's relationship with the robot the film is able to relate to and comment about father-son relationships. In the role of his kids, both James Marsden and Liv Tyler also impress. Susan Sarandon is a very warm presence, while Peter Sarsgaard's voice works wonderfully for the robot. Greatly recommended.

[Captain Spaulding]

I agree that 21 Jump Street was a pleasant surprise. I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. As for The Incredible Burt Wonderstone---:sick: Terrible, terrible, terrible movie. Your rating for it is way too kind.

I still need to see Robot and Frank.

[gandalf26]

You're wasting your reviewing talent on some "meh" films. How about.................Zatoichi?

[honeykid]

You're wasting your reviewing talent on some "meh" films. How about.................Zatoichi?
Yeah, speaking of meh films. :p CGI blood? I can't forgive it. :nope:

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I have not seen Robot & Frank but I have been meaning too. Also I think it is over due to see Uncle Buck.

[Sexy Celebrity]

You're wasting your reviewing talent on some "meh" films. How about.................Zatoichi?

Uh oh, JayDee. Don't sleep. The pods are coming for you.

[Daniel M]

Can't beliveve you found Burt Wonderstone to be one of the biggest 'disappointments', I could have told you it was going to be ***** :p

[honeykid]

Yeah, I've not seen it (naturally) but I could've told you that, too.

[JayDee]

Well I didn't think it would be a great film that way I hoped Elysium would be. But I thought there was a chance it could have been a really fun comedy and had done ever since hearing about it for the first time a few years back. And I actually think it should have been fun. It had a really good cast (at least for my personal tastes) with Carrey, Carrell, Buscemi and Arkin and was set in a world (magic and magicians) that should have provided some prime material for p*ss-taking. But it just didn't happen. Perhaps it would have been better had it arrived 5-10 years ago when people like David Blaine where really at their height.

As for The Incredible Burt Wonderstone---:sick: Terrible, terrible, terrible movie. Your rating for it is way too kind.


That's strange. There was a line in the review that I meant to write and was sure I had. It was how about how the only reason I did score it so 'highly' was because of Carrey's efforts and my fanboy obsession for him. His involvement aside yes the rating is probably too kind

[Daniel M]

Yeah I know you are a big fan of Carrey I guess, I find he his good in the right role, same with Carrel really, although they produce some stinkers as well. Buscemi seems to appear in quite a few of these silly comedies, normally Sandler ones though, like the brilliant Grown Ups :D

[edarsenal]

Robot and Frank is WONDERFUL movie and you really brought forth its essence and it's charm. BRAVO


Great 80's mini, micro, middle, marvelous reviews. Always loved Young Sherlock and haven't seen Starman since it came out in the theaters, need to see it again.


firmly agree about huges and candy, and again, bravo

[JayDee]

Thanks for the gushing compliments ed. :up: :D

Buscemi seems to appear in quite a few of these silly comedies, normally Sandler ones though, like the brilliant Grown Ups :D

I didn't realise that. I've not seen any of Sandler's films for a while so didn't know Buscemi had become a bit of a regular in them. I thought this was something a little different for him

[JayDee]

Micro Musings


mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Steven Soderbergh

Starring
Channing Tatum
Alex Pettyfer
Cody Horn
Matthew McConaughey
Olivia Munn

Magic Mike

rating_2 +

Very disappointing. This just was not at all what I was expecting. Just going on the basis of its setting within the world of male stripping I thought there were a few directions that Magic Mike could have gone in. I thought there would be a lot more bawdy comedy involved. I thought it may perhaps be quite trashy like a male version of Showgirls. I thought it could act as a warts-and-all expose of the male stripping business. Well it was none of those. Instead the film plays the whole thing disappointingly straight, basically just giving us a drama comprised of one cliché after another. It really is a story we've seen many times before and done so much better; the only thing that sets this film aside is the world its set in. Other than that there is hardly anything of interest here. About the only thing the film can hang its hat on in terms of interest are the scenes of stripping, which are fairly entertaining and creative, and filmed with a decent level of energy by Soderbergh. Outside of that the only thing the film has going for it are a couple of decent performances, although Alex Pettyfer is exceptionally bland and forgettable. Him aside though there were a few success stories to be found. Matthew McConaughey breezes through the film on a wave of his natural charisma and swagger while I found Cody Horn to be really likeable and engaging as the sister of Pettyfer's character. The biggest surprise for me however was Channing Tatum who I felt made for a very strong and commanding lead as the eponymous 'Magic' Mike. Oh and any film that features a topless Olivia Munn can't be completely without merit. :D


mirror mirror
Year of release
1995

Directed by
Stephen Herek

Starring
Richard Dreyfuss
Glenne Hedly
Jay Thomas
Olympia Dukakis
William H. Macy

Mr Holland's Opus

rating_3_5 +

I don't know that I'd say this is a particularly great film; it's something we've seen many times before and it certainly treads over a lot of familiar territory. Despite that however I still really liked it. For the large part it's quite a light-hearted and feel-good exercise, highlighting the impact that a single man can have on so many people. However there is also an underlying current of melancholy and regret throughout, brought about by having to put your dreams on the back burner because life gets in the way and having to make sacrifices to take care of the ones you love. Throughout the film the passage of time is highlighted by numerous montages of iconic stories and events, and yet for all the upheaval and change in the world we keep returning to Mr. Holland and find that his life has not changed at all. Maybe it's just me but I found something rather sad about that. What I really enjoyed about the film where the stretches were it was attempting to be uplifting and life-affirming. I wasn't quite as keen when it attempted to go serious and sentimental. Its handling really was rather melodramatic and ham-fisted, right down to the heavy-handed irony of this music lover having a deaf son. Much of the reason that I did enjoy the film was down to the touching and sincere performance of Richard Dreyfuss who really was very good. Solid support comes in the form of several familiar faces including William H. Macy, Olympia Dukakis and a rather baby-faced Terrence Howard. Oh and the film's rousing finale was really quite heart-warming.


mirror mirror
Year of release
2013

Directed by
Jack Villeneuve

Starring
Hugh Jackman
Jake Gyllenhaal
Paul Dano
Melissa Leo
Terrence Howard
Maria Bello

Prisoners

rating_3

I know this film has already generated quite a lot of love on here but I just didn't really see it. I'll admit to it being well-made technically and featuring some strong performances but I was never really compelled by it like I expected. I think I was expecting more of an eventful thriller. Instead a large portion of the film is dedicated to being more of a sombre drama detailing the impact such an event can have on your life, and examining the rights and wrongs of the actions that it can inspire you to undertake. I just felt that the film was too slow and plodding, meaning that the level of tension was allowed to slacken too often. I think it needed some tightening up either at the script stage or in the editing bay. Some of the story's logic was also a problem for me, presenting moments that I just wasn't able to really go with. The fact that I was also able to predict fairly early on where the film was heading certainly didn't help.

The most impressive aspect of the film was probably the mood and tone that was created throughout by the direction of Denis Villeneuve and especially the cinematography of Roger Deakins (well deserving of his Oscar nomination); just setting a really bleak and ominous world. The performances were generally very impressive. In the lead roles both Gyllenhaal and Jackman were strong, as was Melissa Leo. And Paul Dano, one of the more intriguing and quirky actors working today, proved to be great casting in the role of the potentially devious child snatcher. I've seen several people calling this the best thriller to come out of Hollywood since David Fincher's Se7en. For me however it never came close, too often just a bit flat and lacking in the plethora of memorable moments that Se7en had up its sleeve.

[gandalf26]

Haven't seen Magic Mike and I've never heard of Mr Holland's Opus but I'll look out for it now that you like it. Magic Mike seems to generate an 8/10 ish sort of rating everywhere so I'm surprised you rate it so low.


I like Prisoners though, watched it twice recently, it never quite rises to "greatness" but it's still very solid, kept you guessing for 80% then became a little obvious who the culprit was going to be. 8/10

[Captain Spaulding]

I enjoyed Magic Mike. If you were expecting a bawdy comedy or a male-stripper version of Showgirls, then you were setting yourself up for disappointment, because it's much more than either of those.

Never seen Mr. Holland's Opus, but it doesn't sound like something I would like.

Prisoners stumbled a bit in the final act, but overall I thought it was a well-executed thriller. Great performances by Jackman, Gyllenhaal, and Dano. And I liked that the movie made me question my own morality, since one second I was rooting for Jackman, feeling that his actions were justified given the desperate circumstances, then later I just felt dirty and guilty.

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

I'm not too keen on Prisoners either. To put it simply: good start, good ending.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I really like Prisoners. Pity you did not like it.

Magic Mike on the other hand I did not see. A few of my squad mates and one squad leader were VERY excited however to see this movie. Why a bunch of grunts were rushing out to see Channing Tatum do a strip tease I have no idea. Nor am I one to judge. But since I am not getting a catty male version of Showgirls I will continue to pass.

[seanc]

I mostly agree with your take on prisoners. I think I liked it a tad more than you but not nearly as much as some. The characters do some things that are just unforgivable from a story telling stand point for me.

I love Mr. Hollands Opus, always have.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Urgh. Prisoners is so much better than Se7en. I sort of hate that film.

Agree with you totally about Magic Mike, though. Except for Matthew McConaughey and Channing Tatum's dance sequences, it was a void. The ending had me going, "THAT'S IT?! THAT'S ALL?!"

[Yoda]

Whew. I just went through and tagged all the untagged reviews in this thread--you've now got 233 total (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/search/any/higher/any/JayDee), good for the second-most on the site (for now--we'll see how it shakes out when we finish adding all the others). Nice job! :up:

Great job! Now please excuse me while I go soak my clicking hand in ice for a few hours. :D

[honeykid]

+ rep for Mr. Holland's Opus. It's everything you said it was in your review and I really liked it.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yoda, you know you do way too much for this website.

[Yoda]

I know. I slave all day over a hot keyboard for you people.

[JayDee]

Apologise for being MIA for a while. Will hopefully be back to reviewing duties soon.

Magic Mike seems to generate an 8/10 ish sort of rating everywhere so I'm surprised you rate it so low.


It's a strange one, and one of those films that seems to highlight the gap between critics and audiences. Somehow Magic Mike stands at a very impressive 80% with critics on rottentomatoes, but only has a fairly low rating of 6.1 on imdb. And in addition to myself I think there are a few others on here who really didn't like it all that much; Sexy, Godoggo, nebbit, mark etc.

I enjoyed Magic Mike. If you were expecting a bawdy comedy or a male-stripper version of Showgirls, then you were setting yourself up for disappointment, because it's much more than either of those.

Really? :confused: Well what is it exactly? Because for me it was just your standard story of a guy trying to get out of a life he doesn't like and realise his dreams; like the male stripping version of Rocky or 8 Mile or any other number of films, just not told with the same compelling nature as many of them.

Whew. I just went through and tagged all the untagged reviews in this thread--you've now got 233 total (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/search/any/higher/any/JayDee), good for the second-most on the site (for now--we'll see how it shakes out when we finish adding all the others). Nice job! :up:

Great job! Now please excuse me while I go soak my clicking hand in ice for a few hours. :D

So that's what you were doing. I noticed you'd been going through and repping a whole bunch of reviews all the way back to the start of the thread. Thanks for that Yoda, I really appreciate the effort. :up: Though I thought I was actually at 235, perhaps I'm going a double or something. And I now have the number to aim for to overtake TUS. :D

[Daniel M]

I just felt that the film was too slow and plodding, meaning that the level of tension was allowed to slacken too often. .

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Yoda]

Though I thought I was actually at 235, perhaps I'm going a double or something.
Yeah, usually any discrepancies have to do with two reviews or more in a single post. Let me know if you notice any singles that got missed, though. :)

[JayDee]

Good news/bad news (delete as applicable :D) everyone! It's time for yet another of my infamous, epic, rambling, fanboy write-ups.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg

mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Bryan Singer

Written by
Simon Kinberg

Starring
Hugh Jackman
James McAvoy
Michael Fassbender
Jennifer Lawrence
Peter Dinklage
Ellen Page

X-Men: Days of Future Past

rating_4 ++

Plot - In a dystopian future of 2023 where mutant-kind has been all but wiped out by powerful robots known as Sentinels the last surviving mutants launch one final attempt to save their species from extinction. Hiding out in a monastery in China, Kitty Pryde (Page) sends Wolverine's (Jackman) consciousness back in time to 1973. His task is to prevent Mystique (Lawrence) from murdering the Sentinels' creator Bolivar Trask (Dinklage). His murder made him a martyr and ensured that his destructive creation went into production. In addition, Mystique is captured in the process and her DNA used to engineer even more powerful machines. By stopping the murder the hope is that they will change the future and save their species. Seeking out the young Charles Xavier (McAvoy) Wolverine is despondent to find that he is not the man he will come to know decades later. With Xavier a broken man, Wolverine's first challenge is to help him find his old strength. The next challenge isn't one that sits all that well with Xavier; they must break Magneto (Fassbender) out of a prison cell beneath the Pentagon. To do so they enlist the aid of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), a mutant with superhuman speed. With Magneto and Xavier once again standing side-by-side they head to Paris to attempt to stop Trask's murder at Mystique's hands, but will they make it in time?

In a fitting move considering the storyline of this film allow me to go back in time to the year 2000 where I can still remember going to see the first X-Men film in August of that year. Hard as it may be to believe, the big superhero film was not the guaranteed box office success they are nowadays. Following the disastrous reception that met 1997's Batman & Robin the superhero genre was on life support, and another big failure could have seen the plug pulled. Thankfully for all us fanboys out there the film proved to be both a critical and commercial success, kicking off a surge in comic book films which has seen them come to dominate the box-office. Well somehow 14 years have passed since then (and I can't quite believe that :eek:) and we now have the 7th film in the X-Men franchise. Now since the solid start of X-Men the series hasn't exactly been the most reliable in terms of quality and has been rather overshadowed by the Batman's, Spider-Man's, Iron Man's and Avengers' of this world. In truth you could probably split the previous 6 films evenly into 'the good' and 'the not so good'; though to be fair to The Wolverine which I'd put in the latter category it's pretty decent. Well as the 7th film in the series this was always set to break the tie and the good news is that it has swung the pendulum very much towards the positive side of things.

That said however I didn't find that I was quite as high on the film as many other people seem to be. As seems to be the case for just about every other superhero film these days, the release of DoFP has seen many people instantly jump on the bandwagon of proclaiming this the best superhero film ever. While I certainly wouldn't go that far this is an extremely entertaining entry into the X-Men franchise, and one that continues the upswing of First Class. The film does open in absolutely thrilling fashion and ends quite strongly as well. In between these wonderful bursts of action though I just found that the film had a tendency to fall into a lull on a couple of occasions. With its complicated story the film has to spend a lot of time trying to keep things clear for the audience, which sadly results in the situation and the stakes being reiterated time and time again. It just threatens to get bogged down by becoming overly talky, derailing the momentum and in general I didn't feel it was as well paced as Captain America: The Winter Soldier for example. An additional action sequence or two I don't think would have gone amiss. I also feel that it perhaps lacked the colour, energy and sense of fun of X-Men: First Class. Some of that comes from the fact that I didn't feel DoFP embraced its period setting to the degree that First Class did which on more than one occasion felt like a Sean Connery Bond film. A few snazzy outfits and some brief touches upon the Vietnam War aside I don't think it really exploited the 70s era to the fullest. And I think the Vietnam sequence was actually amongst the film's weaker moments; an unnecessary detour which could easily have been left on cutting room floor.

As I mentioned, the opening sequence of DoFP is a terrific way to kick the film off; in fact I think its got to be one of the best opening gambits of any superhero film. The film instantly drops us right into the middle of a Sentinel attack upon the X-Men in the future; making for an absolutely thrilling opening. It's a wonderfully creative sequence that features some genius choreography as the hitherto unknown Blink (played by Fan Bingbing), with her ability to create teleportation portals, emerges as one of the most visually dazzling mutants we've seen so far throughout the series. It's a terrific set-piece that the film arguably never matches for the next two hours, at least in terms of action and excitement; there is a sequence however that is fantastically entertaining which we'll get to later. The big finale then aims to be and mostly achieves feeling like a suitably epic affair that encapsulates Sentinels, the White House and the RFK sports stadium. At the same time the film is also jumping back and forth between this and the future where the Sentinels have once again launched an assault upon the X-Men. The only problem, and one that is in complete contrast to other superhero films such as Man of Steel, is that I didn't feel its concluding battle was quite long enough. The two competing sequences feel like they are slightly lacking in action and drama, and are over too soon.

Film Trivia Snippets - In reference to the X-Men member Kitty Pryde, and her importance to this particular film, DoFP was shot under the working title of “Hello Kitty.” /// Days of Future Past is based on a storyline of the same name that appeared across two issues of Uncanny X-Men in 1981, and was written by Chris Claremont. It is now the fourth film to be based on a story penned by legendary X-Men writer Claremont. X2 was adapted from 'God Loves, Man Kills'; X-Men: The Last Stand was based on his 'Dark Phoenix Saga'; and The Wolverine was based on his comic of the same name. In the comic the future world was set in the year 2013, the same year in which filming for the movie version began. /// The bullet wounds that appear on Wolverine's chest on his arrival to the 1970s is in the form of the Big Dipper. This is an homage to the 1980s anime series, Fist of the North Star, whose protagonist Kenshiro has the same scar pattern on his chest. /// Prior to making the film, Bryan Singer had a two-hour discussion with James Cameron abut how to make a time-travel concept feasible and workable within the film. Thanks to Cameron's experience as the director of The Terminator and Terminator 2 the two discussed concepts including alternate universes and string theory (a field of quantum physics that define multiple universes). /// It's quite clear just by looking at the credits that this is one hell of a cast that's been assembled. If you're looking for more proof however then how about this; the four main female X-Men in the principal cast (Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen Page and Anna Paquin) are all Academy Award nominess, while the six principle male cast members (Hugh Jackman, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart and Peter Dinklage) are all Golden Globe nominees.

With such a prestigious cast at Bryan Singer's disposal it's no surprise to find that performances across the board are generally of a high standard. Though the sizeable cast means that not everyone gets an equal chance to shine; Halle Berry's involvement for example is little more than a cameo. In fact I'm struggling to think if she even had a single line throughout the whole film or if all she did was make it rain a little bit. And the whole future ensemble are almost completely sidelined, meaning that the established regulars are given little to do other than spout some exposition, while the various new additions (Bishop, Blink, Warpath, Sunspot etc) are given absolutely no introduction whatsoever so we have little reason to care about them or mourn their demise. In fact for the majority of them I'm not even sure there names are known until we get to the closing credits. The lack of exposure given to the future timeline was certainly a disappointment. As a result it's in the past where the most noteable performances come from with solid efforts coming from Lawrence, Fassbender, Jackman etc. However the one individual who is able to stand out from the crowd for me would have to be James McAvoy who I thought was just excellent as the young Charles Xavier. The fact that he is given the strongest characterisation and the most to work with certainly helps. We initially find him as this supremely broken individual who is in great pain both physically and emotionally, but with help from Wolverine he is able to find his way back onto his path.

The two most notable additions to the X-Men world this time out were Evan Peters' Quicksilver and Peter Dinklage's Bolivar Trask. And as it turns out the end result for both was completely flipped from what many were predicting beforehand. The promo images for Quicksilver had fanboys already sharpening their knives before the film had even hit cinemas, ready to tear into him with the kind of fervour reserved for Batsuit nipples and Ben Affleck. And yes I have to say that his appearance still comes across as rather bizarre and stupid, kind of like Julian Assange as styled by Lady Gaga. As a character however he kind of kicks ass, his introduction arguably being the coolest addition to the franchise since Alan Cumming's Nightcrawler back in X2. And just like Nightcrawler had with his incursion into the White House, Quicksilver is given the spotlight all to himself at one point to really make a name for himself. This time it's a break-out from the Pentagon where his incredible speed comes into its own with a terrifically fun and inventive set-piece that allows him to steal the film from his more illustrious co-stars before sadly disappearing shortly afterwards. The way he is just written out is rather disappointing and feels like it's only been done to help free up space for everyone else. It does however leave the audience wanting more, so it's good news that he's going to be starring in X-Men: Apocalypse. My only concern about the character is whether they've actually made him too powerful. They show his abilities as being so strong that you imagine he could destroy any mutants, even the likes of Magneto and Xavier, before they even had the chance to respond.

The real disappointment amongst the cast is Dinklage's Trask. Now Dinklage is a great actor, no doubt about that, and I think he personally does good work here. It's just that the character he is lumbered with here I felt was a little bit dull to be honest (particularly for the film's supposed 'big bad'), giving him very little to really sink his teeth into. That also creates one of the film's few main flaws in my eyes; the lack of a strong villain. Trask kind of takes the place of Senator Kelly from the first X-Men film, but that film also had Magneto and his Brotherhood of Mutants as villains. While the future X-Men do face off against the considerable threat of the Sentinels they are a fairly blank entity devoid of an actual character or personality that can interact with the X-Men. Which is not to say they are not effective foils for our mutant heroes, you just get the feeling that there should be big bad in charge of deploying and controlling those machines. In terms of design the Sentinels may disappoint and likely anger the real X-Men fanboys out there, baring little resemblance to their comic book counterparts. In fact they aren't a million miles away from The Destroyer as seen in the first Thor film. However I don't think there's any denying that they most certainly do make an impact; in fact they are rather chilling, unsettling creations. The fact that the X-Men suffer some very violent, nasty deaths certainly heightens that feeling.

Film Trivia Snippets - Bryan Singer talked about "changing history" in an interview with Empire Magazine(May 2014). The director stated "I don't want people to panic about us erasing the movies. I believe in multiverses," explaining the possibility of certain events as they would be part of the history of alternate universes. /// In the "Days of Future Past" comic it was Shadowcat (Kitty Pryde) who went back in time; in the film it's Wolverine. According to writer Simon Kinberg, Kitty was intended to be the time-traveller but it didn't work out: "Kitty in the era of young Magneto and Xavier, would have been negative 20 years old. The reflex response to that was a character who doesn't age. Wolverine is the only character who would look the same in 1973 as he does in the future." Thus, Wolverine was picked for being an ageless immortal character who would bridge past and future. /// To create the sensation of Quicksilver's incredible speed ability Bryan Singer filmed his scenes in a special format of 3600 frames per second. This means that Quicksilver will be moving 150 times faster than normal. /// Josh Helman was originally going to be cast as a young Cain Marko/Juggernaut. But Juggernaut was written out of the film, and Helman was offered the role of a young William Styker. /// Bryan Singer based Bolivar Trask on Adolg Hitler; “As Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat to bond the darker parts of Europe, he's doing the same thing with mutants. But he wasn't a six foot, perfect blond Aryan - he was a short, funny looking fellow!”

Now considering the fairly dense and complicated storyline that encompasses two timelines and what feels like dozens of characters I think that the film's writer, Simon Kinberg, actually does a fairly commendable job of keeping everything in some kind of balance and managing to just about ensure that it all makes some kind of sense. And considering the twisted mess of continuity that he has had to deal with it would perhaps be unfair to poke holes at it. But hey these are films for comic book fanboys, what do you expect but for us to nitpick! :D The film is still unable to address a few niggling questions, perhaps because that continuity mess makes it almost impossible to actually do so. However questions still linger such as how exactly is Charles Xavier still alive after being killed off in X-Men: The Last Stand? What's the deal with Wolverine's claws and their constant shifting back and forth between adamantium and bone? Still no explanation as to why Xavier and Mystique didn't appear to know each other in the original trilogy, but were so incredibly close according to these films etc. The script has to spend so much time just trying to establish the story that there is little chance to focus on the actual characters at its heart. As someone who loved the Magneto-Xavier relationship and interaction in First Class that's a shame. And it feels like there is barely a single line of dialogue in the whole film that isn't exposition

The script also fails to address a few new issues, just completely glossing over them perhaps in the hopes that we just won't notice. For example when and how exactly did Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde get the ability to send people's consciousness through time? And perhaps it's just me but the whole plot point (and it's a very important one) about Mystique's blood being so vital in the development of the Sentinels seems rather vague and questionable in its logic. If they were going to go down that route I feel Rogue would have been a somewhat more logical choice given that her ability is to replicate the powers of other mutants, not just change her physical appearance. It kind of came across as them just trying to shoehorn Mystique into being as important as possible to the film, largely inspired you suspect by the meteoric rise of Jennifer Lawrence since First Class. In fact with Hugh Jackman getting on in years, and his days as Wolverine coming to an end, the search is on to perhaps try and find the new face of the franchise. With Channing Tatum set to take on the character of Gambit he seems like a decent bet to take over that mantle. However with Days of Future Past they certainly seem to be positioning Jennifer Lawrence as another possibility to take on the role if she were to extend her current deal. I doubt anyone would ever have predicted Mystique being pushed to the fore in such fashion. Oh and just as another little nit-pick; was I the only one who thought the make-up job for Mystique looked rather s*itty this time out? I think it looks a lot more fake now than it ever did even 14 years ago.

Just a few more thoughts to wrap up. After the fresh start that was First Class, bringing Wolverine back and once again making him a central figure feels like a little bit of a step back. While he's only had two official solo films this almost films like the 6th Wolverine-focused film we've now had in the series. And if you're going to bring him back I think you should at least use him correctly. His strongest feature for me is as a brutal, kick-ass warrior, but DoFP actually gives him surprisingly little opportunity to unsheathe those iconic claws of his, placing him more in the role of a diplomat trying to keep the peace between Magneto and Xavier. The fact that the film kills so many of the mutants introduced in First Class offscreen I found quite disappointing. And the use of Blink's portals aside I didn't think the film quite captured the same team dynamic that was present in First Class, with several of the team going off on solo missions or taking their enemies out all by themselves. And now a couple of other little things that I liked. While we get to see very little of it the wasteland that the Earth has become in the future dystopia is a very effective and stirring touch, and one that evokes the future war as seen in the Terminator films. Oh and one little touch that I really loved was the film recreating newreel footage of the decade to match actual footage from the era. It comes off looking like the Zapruder JFK film.

Amongst fans of superhero films, 2008 is seen as a bit of a holy grail for the genre; the release of both The Dark Knight and Iron Man, two of the most acclaimed and loved entries so far, gaining it that reputation. 2014 has so far seen the release of two great efforts (The Winter Soldier and Days of Future Past); if Guardians of the Galaxy lives up to the promise of its trailers then we could have a new contender for that title of comic book movie's holy grail year.

Conclusion - I know I've been pointing out a lot of flaws with the film in this review (perhaps as a response to all the gushing over it) but the truth is I did still find it to be an extremely entertaining addition to the X-Men series. As a result of some of those flaws however I'm not quite as high on it as many other people seem to be. For the moment I would have it in 2nd place amongst 2014's superhero flicks behind the excellent Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and after one viewing it would slot into 3rd place amongst the X-Men films.

One thing I should definitely add however is my condition when watching it. As I have been for a great deal of time recently I wasn't feeling particularly great when I went to watch it; feeling rather run-down and a bit yuck. So that perhaps hindered my enjoyment slightly,meaning there's a chance that score could rise on a repeat viewing.


Bonus Film Trivia - Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were performing in a touring production of "Waiting for Godot" when Bryan Singer approached the actors about reprising their respective roles as Professor X and Magneto. According to McKellen, both men were utterly shocked as they thought they'd passed their roles on to James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, and would never play the characters again. Both Stewart and McKellen were delighted to return to two of their most popular roles, and to work with the younger actors playing the same characters as well. /// When Matthew Vaughn was going to direct, he was going to make the film a direct sequel to X-Men First Class and have it set in the 1970s. Early ideas included an opening with the Kennedy assassination being caused by Magneto, and mutant encounters set in the Civil rights movement/the Vietnam War. When Singer took over, he integrated these concepts into a viral marketing campaign to set up the action of the film. In this alternate history, Magneto is arrested and imprisoned for the assassination of Kennedy, but maintains his innocence. The "Bent Bullet" Theory (a reference to the real life "Magic Bullet" Theory criticized by conspiracy theorists) holds that the Warren Commission determined that Magneto manipulated Lee Harvey Osawld's bullets to kill the President in retribution for the murder of the mutants Azazel and Tempest by the CIA. Conspiracy theorists, based on Magneto's testimony, insist however that Magneto had tried to prevent the murder of Kennedy, and that the true shooter was not Oswald, but Mystique in disguise who, with the help of Emma Frost framed Magneto, and manipulated Jack Ruby into later murdering Oswald. The theory also posits that Mystique offered to double as Kennedy in an attempt to grab power, all of which backfired horribly, leading to anti-mutant hostilities.

[The Rodent]

Nice review... but if you'd hung around at the end of Last Stand, you'll see how Xavier survives.


As for Wolverine's claws, it's never actually shown whether he's all Adamantium or not at the end of the film.

[The Rodent]

Oh, the shifting of Wolverine's claws from bone to adamantium is the times that the film takes place in. DOFP takes place before he gets experimented on.

[Captain Spaulding]

Nice review... but if you'd hung around at the end of Last Stand, you'll see how Xavier survives.

If I remember correctly, all it showed was that he transferred his consciousness into someone else. That still doesn't explain how he's back in his own body after Jean Grey disintegrated it.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I like you JayDee prefer Captain America: The Winter Soldier to the most recent X-Men movie. And like you I did raise a few questions like how did Kitty get her new powers and the retcon for Mystique and Xavier growing up together mucks up the first few X-Men movies a bit. But certain questions were answered. Xavier's survival was explained in a bonus end credit scene at the end of X3, and Wolvie did not get his adamantium yet in 73. Course how they expect to transition the end of DoFP into X-Men Origins: Wolverine makes new plot holes. Unless you wish to write that out of continuity, which I am more then willing to do.

[gandalf26]

Is it not something like Xavier has a twin brother born brain dead but kept alive, I think that comes from the comic lore.

Jaydee there were times I thought that Mystiques body paint looked basically bad.

I'm disappointed we didn't get some sort of prologue linking X3 to the present day, like a 10minute montage of here is what happened and now is the result. we are left to fill in the blanks on our own.

Peter Dinklage just had a dull character, no real acting for him to do.

I agree with you about Quicksilver, I immediately realised that he was perhaps too powerful, like you say he seems like he could defeat anyone so like Xavier they are going to have to always look for a way to tone him down, remove him. Xavier get poisoned in 1, captured in 2, killed in 3 because he is literally too powerful to be able to write into an entertaining story. That's why they barely used Quicksilver, because he could literally beat any scenario.

Old Magneto in the future was a big letdown for me though, It should have been a much more epic battle between Magneto and the Sentinels, like may Magneto should have brought a load of metal so he could defend the XMen properly. could have been so epic.

Also I couldn't help but think how useful Jean Grey/Phoenix would have been for fighting Sentinels, bet Wolverine was wishing he just knocked her the **** out at the end of X3.

[gandalf26]

On the Mystique/Xavier relationship from first 3 movies, they literally shared no screen time to have any kind of relationship so I have never been bothered by that.

[JayDee]

I had written this in response to Rodent before a few others weighed in, will look at those posts in a moment

Nice review... but if you'd hung around at the end of Last Stand, you'll see how Xavier survives.


Thanks buddy. I'd have said the same about your review but...well it would have been a lie. :p

And oh aren't you a bit arrogant in your assumptions! :D I did stick around until the end of The Last Stand and saw the post-credits sequence but all it did was show that his consciosness had survived, not his actual body. Looking around and it seems that on the DVD commentary of all places a writer suggests that the brain-dead man could actually be Xavier's comatose twin brother, thus allowing Patrick Stewart to continue in the role. Even ignoring the convenient and contrived nature of that. it then still doesn't explain why exactly he is still in a wheelchair in the future; after all his brother wasn't also shot in the spine. Unless it's then to do with atrophied muslces or something.

Oh, the shifting of Wolverine's claws from bone to adamantium is the times that the film takes place in. DOFP takes place before he gets experimented on.

Sorry maybe I wasn't clear with this one. I understood why in this particular film they shifted from bone to adamantium because the 1973 timeline was before the Weapon X experiment and the 2023 timeline was afterwards. What I meant was how they jump about in the series at large. We left him in The Wolverine with bone claws, and yet in the future scenes of DoFP he once again has adamantium claws. So in the intervening 10 years or so has he somehow had adamntium rebonded to them again?

[The Rodent]

Magneto could have repaired them for him...

[JayDee]

Magneto could have repaired them for him...

Perhaps. But again it's just one of many story strands where you're having to make guesses as to what exactly is going on.

[JayDee]

I think this is the last batch of Micro Musings for the moment, with this group focusing on films of the 70s. And as you can see from a couple of the scores it's not always been very positive. With the 70s list coming up I had a few weeks of films from that decade and found that a lot of the time I was really struggling. I don't know if I'm perhaps paying the price for a cinematic upbringing that comprimised almost entirely of films from the 80s, 90s and 00s; decades that were powered by high-concept and the need to cater to short attention spans. In comparison I'm finding a lot of the 70s films very slowly paced and tough to really connect with. Though perhaps my health issues and constant feeling of being run down also affected my enjoyment; meaning I just wasn't in the mood for these largely serious films.

So I apologise to the many people I'm likely to upset, particularly to Daniel; I promise I'm not just trying to wind you up! :D As I mentioned after my Woody Allen reviews perhaps I should just have said "it wasn't for me" and left it at that. Or just said nothing at all!!!


Micro Musings


mirror mirror
Year of release
1972

Directed by
Werner Herzog

Starring
Klaus Kinski
Helena Rojo Ruy Guerra
Del Negro
Peter Berling

Aguirre, the Wrath of God

rating_2 +

I wanted to like this film. I really, really, really did....but I just didn't. And that was made all the more disappointing for me by the fact that there were a few things about it that I admired. There were some astonishing images throughout with the cinematography of Thomas Mauch capturing the incredible scenery that engulfs the characters. This was true right from the first image of a whole brigade of conquistadors marching down an immense mountain. And the camera work from Herzog was at times quite striking, especially the closing image as he wildly circles the crazed Aguirre. Considering the shoestring budget it was made on it is really quite impressive for the most part, though on occasion some of the film did feel a touch cheap and clumsy. And while I wasn't as blown away by his performance as I was prepared to be I thought Kinski did a good job at portraying his descent into madness due to his obsession for power and wealth. There were also a couple of funny moments thanks to some very dark, farcical humour. For all of this however I just could not connect with the film in any manner and I've got to admit that I found the whole thing (and I hate saying this about a film) rather boring. One of the main problems that the soldiers encounter is the slow speed of the river and the meandering nature their journey takes on. That quite aptly sums up my experience of watching this film. I didn't care about any of the characters and the story unfolded too slowly to hold my interest. And perhaps it's just me but I found the treatment of animals to be quite distressing at times. However as there was so much I admired about it I do plan on giving it another go someday in the hopes that I'm in a better mood for it.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1979

Directed by
Hal Ashby

Starring
Peter Sellers
Shirley MacLaine
Melvyn Douglas
Jack Warden
Richard A. Dysart

Being There

rating_2_5

I usually love a slice of sweetness and whimsy but this one just didn't really do it for me. I think there is perhaps a film in here that I would enjoy, certainly more than I did, but I think it rather got lost in its running time. I just felt that at over 130 minutes long the film seemed to go on for way too long, creating a number of lifeless stretches throughout. I think a good deal of the film could have been trimmed; the President's impotency for example and even Shirely MacLaine's attempts at seducing Sellers' character. Peter Sellers is decent I guess although his performance is about the most one-note I have ever seen. I just never connected with his character whatsoever. As a result I was more impressed by the showings from Shirley MacLaine and Melvyn Douglas, with those two bringing heart to the film and MacLaine providing some humour. As for the objective of the film I wasn't sure whether it was meant to be a rallying call for the wonder and wisdom to be found in innocence, or if it was more of a satirical bent. A satire of the rich, of high society and of politics and how that in those circles stupidity can often be taken for and excused as eccentricity and on occasion even genius. Either way I just could not make myself go with the whole premise however. I just found myself becoming more and more irritated with the increasing amount of people who don't see the character for what he really is. I also wasn't really a fan of the blooper reel at the film's conclusion. I enjoy outtakes in the credits of a comedy film or a Jackie Chan flick, but here it just felt completely out of place with the rest of the film's tone.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1974

Directed by
Steven Spielberg

Starring
Goldie Hawn
Ben Johnson
Michael Sacks
William Atherton
Gregory Walcott

Sugarland Express

rating_3 +

Sugarland Express was Steven Spielberg's first ever theatrical endeavour (with Duel being a TV movie production that later gained cinema release) and as Spielberg films go it's fairly low key stuff. That said you can still see a number of touches that would go on to become hallmarks of his work on his way to becoming one of the most popular directors of all time. We see his ability to get as many thrills out of a set-piece as possible, even if they are quite small-scale and restrained. We see his inclination to be overly sentimental on occasion. We also see how well he can achieve a sense of scope, and indeed a sense of place; right from the opening shot we can tell right away that we are in the American South. Given the film's straightforward, A to B structure I feel the film could have done with just a little tightening up; losing 10 or 15 minutes would perhaps not have been the worst thing in the world. Though Spielberg does give us a series of additional small story threads to try and keep up the level of interest; the Stockholm syndrome-like relationship that the kidnapped cop develops with his kidnappers, the compassionate police Captain who does his best to end the chase peacefully, the idiotic reservists, the fact that the actions of the two characters capture the imaginations of the public who line the streets to cheer them on (evoking other 70s films like Dog Day Afternoon and Vanishing Point). Both Goldie Hawn and William Atherton give strong performances that generate great sympathy for the characters despite the crime they have committed. Perhaps Spielberg's lack of experience can most be seen in his handling of tone. For 99% of its running time this is a fairly light-hearted, occasionally farcical film which threatens to head into the territory of a screwball comedy. So when it ends on a very sombre tone it feels rather jarring. People could argue, perhaps quite rightly, that it accurately reflects the mindframe of the two fugitives but I just felt it could have been balanced better.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1975

Directed by
Walter Hill

Starring
Charles Bronson
James Coburn
Jill Ireland
Strother Martin
Robert Tessier

Hard Times

rating_4 -

Another tough, hard-nosed genre flick from Walter Hill. Another winner. This was Walter Hill's first ever film but already you can see elements that would become his trademarks. Like the majority of his films Hard Times is a tough, macho film comprising of a series of tough, macho characters that takes place in urban environments. In fact most of the fights that Bronson's character engages in take place in very urban, working class locations - garage, the docks, warehouses etc. Also as was the case for much of his work Hard Times features a bit of a fairytale vibe to it, with Charles Bronson's Chaney coming across as a somewhat mythic character. He's a simple man of simple means who just sort of wanders and drifts across America. He may not be the smartest of men but he seems to have a great sense of peace within himself. An old-timer who seems well past his prime he's got a bit of a Cinderella Man vibe to him and his successes.

The film has an absolutely tremendous atmosphere and mood, generated largely by its excellent sense of time and place. It fantastically evokes the despair and desperation of its Depression era setting, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit that it sparked amongst some people. The people, the places, the music; absolutely everything is just a perfect fit. There's some lovely peroid detail with the cars and fashion of the time. And special praise has to go to the casting of the film. In addition to the main cast (Bronson, Coburn, Tessier) absolutely everyone feels like they just belong in this time and this world; their craggy, weathered faces just bringing such a rich sense of character to proceedings. In particular Charles Bronson is very well-suited to his role as Chaney. He may not have the most skill or range of an actor but he does have a substantial screen presence and it's put to great use as the rugged, taciturn drifter-cum-fighter.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1973

Directed by
Robert Altman

Starring
Elliott Gould
Nina Van Pallandt
Sterling Hayden
Mark Rydell
Henry Gibson

The Long Goodybe

rating_3_5 -

I've been left in two minds over this one, with both a series of positives and negatives to be found throughout the film. On the positive side of things I really liked the moody, neo-noir atmosphere that the film generates right from the first moment. And I found the Phillip Marlowe character to be quite engaging and strangely likeable, even if he did break away from the established Marlowe personality. He's got a bit of a shabby, bumbling Columbo vibe to him coupled with an aloof, f*ck the world kind of attitude. And I was quite taken aback by the finale which was a bit of shock. As for negatives, my biggest problem would probably be the actual mystery itself which I thought was really weak, especially for a Phillip Marlowe film. For much of the time the film didn't even seem all that interested in the mystery aspect, preferring to instead meander amongst some quirky little interludes involving Marlowe's cat or the bizarre scene where he and group of gangsters all strip naked. It's almost like the film realises every so often that it has neglected the plot and has to reluctantly throw the audience a bone. And in addition I also wasn't a fan of much of the film's acting, generally finding it to be stiff, self-conscious and contrived. At no point did I ever feel that the actors were inhabiting these roles, merely just spouting off their lines. The film sort of reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive from a few years ago; very cool but fairly shallow and very cold and uninvolving. In fact given how conflicted I was I feel I've gone a touch high on the score.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I too was a tad let down by Aguirre, but I liked it just a bit more then you did. I have not seen the others but I will say I want to see Sugarland Express.

[mark f]

Aguirre is far more-interesting and faster-moving than The Loooonnng Goodbye (your second fave and my least fave), and The Sugarland Express has wonderful tone.

[seanc]

The only one I have seen from the group is The Long Goodbye and I loved it. I could meander with 70's Altman anytime, there hasn't been a movie of his from the 70's I have disliked yet and three that I love. I grew up watching 80's movies as well being born in '76 but I have found that I love 70's movies. Maybe it is that I pick and choose the best from the decade to watch, but it seems like I watch very few duds from the decade.

[Swan]

I have seen Aguirre, the Wrath of God. I hate it. Horrible film.

[Daniel M]

I have seen Aguire, the Wrath of God. I hate it. Horrible film.

Pretty surprised by this :( Very harsh words even if you disliked it, I find it hard to hate a film that has been filmed so passionately by someone like Herzog, in every single frame you can feel what has gone into the movie and what he's trying (and succeeded) to create.

At least you liked The Long Goodbye JayDee, whilst it doesn't really have a plot, it doesn't need to, don't really understand your complaints about the acting though :p

[Swan]

Look at my top ten. :p

[Daniel M]

Oh God. Was thinking that was strange considering your tastes, and I have looked at your top ten many times, silly me :p

[Miss Vicky]

Shame you didn't like The Long Goodbye more, Jaydee. I really liked it when I watched it and my opinion of it has only grown in retrospect. It's by far my favorite of the movies I've watched so far in preparation for the 70s countdown and it'll definitely rank high on my personal list.

Haven't seen the others.

[JayDee]

Just about ready to get back to my normal reviews but first a few more bits and pieces I've had kicking about to post.

A while back I posted a bunch of alternative Captain America posters including a lot of fan-made stuff. While these aren't posters I did think they were quite cool little designs that should delight anyone who likes both Cap and Game of Thrones

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Ma_zps5915c0b5.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Ma_zps5915c0b5.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/WinterSoldier_zps4da6761c.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/WinterSoldier_zps4da6761c.jpg.html)

And then I just stumbled across these alternative posters for Dallas Buyers Club; they had been hiding away in a dark corner of my documents folder

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DallasBuyersClub3_zpsf5f678b3.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DallasBuyersClub3_zpsf5f678b3.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DallasBuyersClub2_zps69c2a56d.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DallasBuyersClub2_zps69c2a56d.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DallasBuyersClub_zps1c6adb4d.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DallasBuyersClub_zps1c6adb4d.jpg.html)

[Skepsis93]

Well, at least you're watching some interesting films. :p I really like both Aguirre and Being There, sorry you didn't.

[JayDee]

Well, at least you're watching some interesting films.

I think that's actually the nicest and most positive thing you've said about my reviews in years! :D

[Sexy Celebrity]

I like this poster for Dallas Buyers Club:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=15266&stc=1&d=1401398752

I also like this poster for The Wolf of Wall Street:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=15267&stc=1&d=1401398786

[JayDee]

Really like that Dallas Buyers Club one. :yup: The Wolf of Wall Street one is pretty damn weird; like a piece of 60s pop art.

[Cobpyth]

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=15267&stc=1&d=1401398786

Perfect!

PER-FECT!

[Daniel M]

Leonardo Di Caprio is a lego figure?

[Cobpyth]

The Long Goodybe

rating_3_5 -

I've been left in two minds over this one, with both a series of positives and negatives to be found throughout the film. On the positive side of things I really liked the moody, neo-noir atmosphere that the film generates right from the first moment. And I found the Phillip Marlowe character to be quite engaging and strangely likeable, even if he did break away from the established Marlowe personality. He's got a bit of a shabby, bumbling Columbo vibe to him coupled with an aloof, f*ck the world kind of attitude. And I was quite taken aback by the finale which was a bit of shock. As for negatives, my biggest problem would probably be the actual mystery itself which I thought was really weak, especially for a Phillip Marlowe film. For much of the time the film didn't even seem all that interested in the mystery aspect, preferring to instead meander amongst some quirky little interludes involving Marlowe's cat or the bizarre scene where he and group of gangsters all strip naked. It's almost like the film realises every so often that it has neglected the plot and has to reluctantly throw the audience a bone. And in addition I also wasn't a fan of much of the film's acting, generally finding it to be stiff, self-conscious and contrived. At no point did I ever feel that the actors were inhabiting these roles, merely just spouting off their lines. The film sort of reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive from a few years ago; very cool but fairly shallow and very cold and uninvolving. In fact given how conflicted I was I feel I've gone a touch high on the score.

Well, that's Altman for you. He's not interested in transferring a typical, generic detective plot to his viewers. He just gives you a slice of his main character's peculiar life in a cool and unique way. I personally love that!

Unlike you, I actually think this makes the film more involving and less cold. Altman doesn't try to manipulate his audience emotionally. He doesn't tell you what to feel or what to think. He just creates a unique and detailed vision of a certain lifestyle, based on a movie genre in this case, and cynically twists a little bit with the usual expectations that come with the kind of story he's telling. It makes his films more surprising, more limitless and therefore more involving.

Altman just knows how to make everything look interesting and intriguing. His films are always alive, they feel real to me (even though there's often a lot of odd and comical stuff happening) and at the end, I always have the feeling that I witnessed a good, meaningful story with typical plot turns and twists, even though I experienced it all in a much more "free" way than a typical plot-driven genre movie.
There's something about the atmosphere of his films, the cinematic environments he creates and the characters he portrays that make his movies much more resonant, relevant and memorable than most other pictures for me. Altman films have spirit and soul. They somehow make me feel more "aware".

It's very difficult to accurately explain my feelings for The Long Goodbye (and most of Altman's other work) because they're so extremely metaphysical, but I hope I at least make some sense.

Let's just conclude that Robert Altman's directing style and way of storytelling totally works for me. :p

P.S. Too bad you couldn't get into Aguirre and Being There either. :(

[mark f]

Well, that makes about as much sense as Altman does with this movie - the low end of fair to middling. :)

[Captain Spaulding]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1710055/aguirre-o.gif
". . . And I am coming for you, JayDee!"

[cricket]

I liked Aguirre a good deal more than you, JayDee, but as far as the other 4, I'm with you.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Paul Greengrass

Written by
Billy Ray

Starring
Tom Hanks
Barkhad Abdi
Faysel Ahmed
Barkhad Abdirahman
Michael Chernus
David Washofsky

Captain Phillips

rating_3_5

Plot - The true story of Captain Richard Phillips (Hanks) who in 2009 was the captain of the American container ship Maersk Alabama which was hijacked by a crew of Somali pirates, and who subsequently found himself taken hostage by the pirates on board one of the ship's lifeboats. Leading the pirates is their Somalian captain Muse (Abdi), a former fisherman now forced into the world of piracy. When the pirates are able to board the ship a battle of both wills and wits unfolds between the two captains, a battle that eventually sees Captain Phillips captured and placed on a lifeboat heading for Somalia. Between the small lifeboat and its desired destination however stands the United States Navy who cannot afford to let them reach Somalia under any costs.

In terms of quality I'm aware that I'm probably undervaluing Captain Phillips. It's an exceptionally well-made film that features two tremendous performances, and yet for whatever reason I just wasn't as passionate about it as I expected and hoped I would be.

One of the things about Captain Phillips that I most admired was its multi-layered approach to the story. For a story such as this it would have been so easy to deliver a really jingoistic, rah-rah 'yay America!' type of film that painted the Somalian pirates as these evil, faceless villains and Phillips as this great American hero. It's a move we've seen several times before from Hollywood. Instead the script takes the time to showcase the actual character of the Somali pirates, and attempts to highlight just why these men feel like they have to resort to such actions. The film takes the perhaps brave move of making the characters, particularly Abdi's Muse, both relatable and sympathetic. Across the film he tells Phillips that he doesn't want to hurt anyone. It's a line we hear time and time again in films from characters in similar situations, but this time we really believe it. He doesn't intend harm on anyone, he is just trying to make do given the situation he finds himself in. Once a fisherman, his former profession is no longer viable due to the over-fishing by large ships from foreign, Western countries. And he now works under the thumb of a Somali warlord who will force the poor people of Somalia at gun-point to work for him.

At its heart Captain Phillips features two excellent performances, although they really couldn't have come from two more vastly different sources. On the one hand you've got Tom Hanks, one of the most revered and beloved actors of all time. And opposite him you have a completely untested novice in the form of Barkhad Abdi, a man with no acting experience whatsoever or even any desires to become an actor. So two individuals from completely different worlds, and yet Greengrass utilises these two contrasting characters and their abilities superbly. In a long career that has comprised numerous show-stopping performances, this is just another one for the collection for Tom Hanks. How exactly he didn't receive an Oscar nomination for his work is just baffling to me, especially when Christian Bale did for his work in American Hustle, that while very entertaining was a little superficial by comparison.

The only explanation I can come up with to explain his omission is that it's due to him underplaying the part for the majority of the film. He acts very much within himself, ignoring the temptation to showboat, and allowing Abdi to dominate their scenes together. And great respect to him for that as I think a lot of other big name actors would not have been willing to do so. If that wasn't enough to get him a nomination then surely the last 5/10 minutes should be. A while back on here we had a thread about the greatest 60 seconds of acting, looking for people's suggestions of brief snatches of incredible acting. Well Hanks' contribution at the film's conclusion would be well-deserving of mention in that thread. Having played the character with such courage, wit and strength to this point we finally see the great impact that the ordeal has had upon him. It is just heart-wrenching to watch, and even if it only lasts a few minutes you really feel that you've been put through the emotional wringer. And it's made all the more amazing by the fact that the scene in the infirmary was not scripted or even planned. It was improvised on the spot with a real-life Navy doctor. Just an incredible bit of acting. I really do think it's one the most powerful and affecting pieces of acting I've ever seen. I just can't say enough about it.

Film Trivia Snippets - Tom Hanks claimed that all the interior lifeboat scenes were filmed inside a scale model that was actually on water at all times, resulting in him being vomited on by crew members in the cramped space. /// During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air", Tom Hanks said the first time he met the actors playing the Somali pirates was when they started filming the pirates taking over the bridge. Paul Greengrass mentioned he did this intentionally to build up tension between the actors on board the ship and the actors playing the Somaili pirates. /// Tom Hanks claimed that the scene of Captain Philips' medical examination was improvised on the spot with real-life Navy Corpsman Danielle Albert, who was told to simply follow her usual procedure. However, Albert was so star-struck by Hanks that she froze during the first take. Hanks joked to her that he was supposed to be the one in shock during the scene. /// Sony Pictures tried on several occasions to meet with the real Abduwali Muse in prison, but he declined, feeling they'd just portray him as the bad guy. /// In real life, as shown in the film, Captain Phillips gave the pirates $30,000 dollars in an attempt to get the pirates off the ship. What is not addressed in the film however is that the money was never recovered, with the Navy men who searched the lifeboat finding no trace of it. In an attempt to locate it, all members of the SEAL team who boarded the lifeboat and even Captain Phillips himself were given a lie detector test. Its disappearance remains a mystery.

If the film benefits greatly from Hanks' experience and class, then it benefits just as strongly from Barkhad Abdi's standing as a complete novice. Lacking in any experience or training whatsoever his performance is extremely rough and raw, but the film channels it perfectly into his character of Muse. Along with adding a great degree of authenticity, his rawness brings a great energy to proceedings as well as a sense of unpredictability which works well for the story, meaning that we are never entirely sure what actions his character is going to take next. You know, there's a lot of cynicism about Hollywood and its workings, and rightly so in many respects. However a young man who fled to America to escape civil war being plucked out of complete obscurity to star in his first ever film, a film that earned him a Bafta award and an Oscar nomination? That's a fantastic story. One that illuminates both the American dream and the magic of the movies. While the film is largely a two-hander between Hanks and Abdi, a nice job was done filling out the cast with individuals who really look and feel right in their roles, whether that be of the crewmen on board the hijacked ship or the Somalian pirates.

If Hanks and Abdi thrive in front of the camera then just as impressive is the man behind the camera, Paul Greengrass. At the time of watching Captain Phillips I had just finished writing my review for Man of Steel. In it I criticized the film's use of techniques aimed at giving the film a realistic documentary-like style, but noted that it's a style that can prove fruitful in the right situation. Well this is one of those occasions. Having already proved a dab hand at the shaky cam, docu-realism style with the likes of the Jason Bourne films it's no surprise to find Greengrass revelling in it once again. His frantic, handheld camera really does give a sense of documentary reality that just heightens the tension. In fact the only thing that really pops the illusion of reality is Tom Hanks. Remove his identifiable face for proceeding and you could almost believe you were watching an episode of Deadliest Catch that had just gone horribly wrong! Alongside Hanks' omission, the Academy's decision to overlook Greengrass in the Best Director category is another surprise.

The film actually begins in quite a relaxed fashion for its opening 20 minutes. At the twenty minute mark however we get the pirates' first assault on the ship, and from then on Greengrass barely gives us a moment to breathe for the next 100 minutes. If his intention was to have the audience sitting in a pool of their own sweat then I think he succeeded. The film keeps you forever on edge with its harrowing nature, and on occasion proves to be almost unbearably tense. The final showdown between the pirates and the Navy in particular, with Hanks caught in the middle, is such an uneasy sequence. I actually found myself getting really caught up in the action to the point where my heart was racing a little. In conjunction with his cinematographer (Barry Ackroyd) and editor (Christopher Rouse), Paul Greengrass is able to conceive some thrilling sequences. The attacks on the ship by the pirates are exhilarating scenes, highlighted by Ackroyd's crisp photography of the ships out on the open sea and Rouse's frantic editing that intercuts between the pirates and the crew members. While the sequences later on that are set in the lifeboat are exceptionally uncomfortable in their claustrophobic nature.

While the central story is of course the fascinating and compelling tale of Captain's Phillips' capture, there are also a few other interesting threads to be found. When the pirates capture Captain Phillips and make their way to Somalia in the lifeboat the Naval response initially seems absolutely excessive. You have this tiny little boat with just 4 pirates on board being pursued by a fleet of massive Navy warships, and the extreme contrast in size and power is completely ridiculous. Until you realise that under no circumstances can they allow the pirates to make it back on to Somalian shores, even if that means risking Phillips' life in the process to stop them. Where they to make it back to Somalia they would have to go in to retrieve Phillips. The main viewpoint that I came away with regarding the situation in Somalia and of pirates is that the answer does not necessarily seem to be better defences for the ships or more Navy patrol ships. If you really want to improve the situation the best way to do so would be to improve things on the ground in Somalia; make sure that the people of the country have more options other than to become pirates and hold ships/individuals for ransom.

Conclusion - When it comes to the type of films that are frequently nominated for the Best Picture award at the Oscars there's a phrase I often use to describe them - 'easy to admire, tough to love.' And I think there's definitely a case of that with Captain Phillips, at least for me personally. Except for perhaps a slight lull during the film's second act there is really very little about the film that I could criticise it for. Greengrass' direction is excellent and there is also impressive work in the cinematography, editing and sound departments, while there are two highly impressive performances from Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi. And yet for as much as I admired it, I never felt that I really came close to loving it. I didn't stoke a great passion in me.

[Sexy Celebrity]

No rep from me. You asked Miss Vicky to the prom.

[Miss Vicky]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I agree with pretty much all you've said. Good movie and that last scene after Hanks' character is rescued was really heart wrenching.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I too thought Captain Phillips was a good but not great movie.

[Daniel M]

Your review is pretty much on the money here, and I couldn't disagree with anything you've said, great analysis that highlights the strong points and I too find it a little odd that either Hanks or Greengrass did not get a nomination.

[Jack1]

Good review. I liked Captain Phillips a bit more than you did, thought it was a terrific, well-made film.

[Cobpyth]

Your review is pretty much on the money here, and I couldn't disagree with anything you've said, great analysis that highlights the strong points and I too find it a little odd that either Hanks or Greengrass did not get a nomination.

The competition was too good. ;)

[Captain Spaulding]

I'd rate Captain Phillips just a tad higher, but I pretty much agree with all of your points. However, I'm not here to talk about Captain Phillips or Tom Hanks. I'm here to talk about this guy:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3nx4-KZGDkI/UFh-l0KJf4I/AAAAAAAABXI/5njhGdOlVWY/s640/Aguirre+the+Wrath+of+God+4.JPG
Since Yoda renovated the Reviews section, I've been browsing through some of your reviews, and I see that you rated Apocalypse Now a 3, which makes your low rating for Aguirre much less surprising. You misunderstood Apocalypse Now to be a movie about the Vietnam War, when the Vietnam War is only the setting. Apocalypse Now isn't a war movie, it just happens to take place during one. Thematically, Apocalypse Now is essentially an unofficial sequel to Aguirre, the Wrath of God. In 1560, there was Aguirre. 400 years later: Colonel Kurtz. Two different men from two different centuries, yet both men share the same heart of darkness.

I can assure you that both movies improve exponentially on re-watches, so I encourage you to revisit them at some point. I didn't love Aguirre the first time I watched it, because it was so different from what I was expecting, yet months later I still couldn't stop thinking about it. Something about the movie haunted me, so I eventually re-watched it and I was blown away by it. Then I proceeded to explore the majority of Herzog's filmography and I now consider him one of my favorite directors. There's a level of authenticity and realism in his movies that is unrivaled. The Francis Ford Coppola that was nearly driven mad with ambition during the filming of Apocalypse Now? That's Werner Herzog's entire career. He'll never take the easy way out. He isn't going to film a movie on a sound stage in Hollywood. Instead he's going to film on location, even if that means traveling to a dangerous, unforgiving part of the world where the risk of injury or death is magnified.

Fizcarraldo, my personal favorite, is about a man who transported a steamship over a mountain, so what does Herzog do? He transports a 320-ton steamship over a mountain! No special effects, no camera trickery. In the pursuit of authenticity and realism and artistic perfection, Herzog accomplished something that was nearly impossible, mirroring the man whom he was making a film about. There's an excellent documentary called A Burden of Dreams that documents the numerous troubles, trials and tribulations that were involved with the making of Fitzcarraldo. In the documentary, Herzog is encouraged to abandon the pulley system because the risk of death or serious injury to crew members was very high. But Herzog just asks how many people may die if something were to go wrong. That's how consumed the man is with his art, and I admire the hell out of him for that. He's basically a mad genius, willing to risk his life or the life of others to get that one perfect shot. And Klaus Kinski, his on-screen counterpart, was the perfect Herzog lead, since Kinski was certifiably insane in real life. So when I watch Aguirre, the Wrath of God, I don't feel like I'm watching a fictionalization. Instead it feels like Herzog traveled back in time and filmed a documentary about a real-life conquistador's obsessive pursuit of El Dorado, giving us lucky viewers a window into another man's soul.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/3cb0ba4c3a2e855b215af030669fe876/tumblr_mojfplGYps1snmmclo1_500.gif

[cricket]

I agree with your Captain Phillips review, JayDee. I also found it to be very impressive and enjoyable. Yet I have no desire to see it again and I'll probably completely forget about it. I have no idea why that is.

[JayDee]

For a while I've been meaning to ask people about the format of my reviews. I've been settled on this particular layout for a while and wondered if there's anything people think I should either add or bring back. Instead of just listing all the possibles I decided to integrate them into the Captain Phillips review. So I've added/brought back a tagline, a quote, the Oscar noms/awards it received, a couple of photos, a trailer, standout moment and see this if you liked. So any opinions on all the little touches and whether I should keep any of them are appreciated. As well as any additional ideas.

Oh and even though I'm a shameless rep whore :p I'm not looking for or expecting people to rep this twice. If you already repped it the first time I don't expect you to do so again. And if you didn't rep it but want to just rep the first.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Paul Greengrass

Written by
Billy Ray

Starring
Tom Hanks
Barkhad Abdi
Faysel Ahmed
Barkhad Abdirahman
Michael Chernus
David Washofsky

Captain Phillips

Out here survival is everything.

rating_3_5
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Oscarstatue.png
Oscar nominations: Best Picture / Best Supporting Actor (Abdi) / Best Film Editing /
Best Sound Editing / Best Sound Mixing / Best Adapted Screenplay

“Listen up, we have been boarded by armed pirates. If they find you, remember, you know this ship, they don't. Stick together and we'll be all right. Good luck.”

Plot - The true story of Captain Richard Phillips (Hanks) who in 2009 was the captain of the American container ship Maersk Alabama which was hijacked by a crew of Somali pirates, and who subsequently found himself taken hostage by the pirates on board one of the ship's lifeboats. Leading the pirates is their Somalian captain Muse (Abdi), a former fisherman now forced into the world of piracy. When the pirates are able to board the ship a battle of both wills and wits unfolds between the two captains, a battle that eventually sees Captain Phillips captured and placed on a lifeboat heading for Somalia. Between the small lifeboat and its desired destination however stands the United States Navy who cannot afford to let them reach Somalia under any costs.

In terms of quality I'm aware that I'm probably undervaluing Captain Phillips. It's an exceptionally well-made film that features two tremendous performances, and yet for whatever reason I just wasn't as passionate about it as I expected and hoped I would be.

One of the things about Captain Phillips that I most admired was its multi-layered approach to the story. For a story such as this it would have been so easy to deliver a really jingoistic, rah-rah 'yay America!' type of film that painted the Somalian pirates as these evil, faceless villains and Phillips as this great American hero. It's a move we've seen several times before from Hollywood. Instead the script takes the time to showcase the actual character of the Somali pirates, and attempts to highlight just why these men feel like they have to resort to such actions. The film takes the perhaps brave move of making the characters, particularly Abdi's Muse, both relatable and sympathetic. Across the film he tells Phillips that he doesn't want to hurt anyone. It's a line we hear time and time again in films from characters in similar situations, but this time we really believe it. He doesn't intend harm on anyone, he is just trying to make do given the situation he finds himself in. Once a fisherman, his former profession is no longer viable due to the over-fishing by large ships from foreign, Western countries. And he now works under the thumb of a Somali warlord who will force the poor people of Somalia at gun-point to work for him.

mirror At its heart Captain Phillips features two excellent performances, although they really couldn't have come from two more vastly different sources. On the one hand you've got Tom Hanks, one of the most revered and beloved actors of all time. And opposite him you have a completely untested novice in the form of Barkhad Abdi, a man with no acting experience whatsoever or even any desires to become an actor. So two individuals from completely different worlds, and yet Greengrass utilises these two contrasting characters and their abilities superbly. In a long career that has comprised numerous show-stopping performances, this is just another one for the collection for Tom Hanks. How exactly he didn't receive an Oscar nomination for his work is just baffling to me, especially when Christian Bale did for his work in American Hustle, that while very entertaining was a little superficial by comparison.

The only explanation I can come up with to explain his omission is that it's due to him underplaying the part for the majority of the film. He acts very much within himself, ignoring the temptation to showboat, and allowing Abdi to dominate their scenes together. And great respect to him for that as I think a lot of other big name actors would not have been willing to do so. If that wasn't enough to get him a nomination then surely the last 5/10 minutes should be. A while back on here we had a thread about the greatest 60 seconds of acting, looking for people's suggestions of brief snatches of incredible acting. Well Hanks' contribution at the film's conclusion would be well-deserving of mention in that thread. Having played the character with such courage, wit and strength to this point we finally see the great impact that the ordeal has had upon him. It is just heart-wrenching to watch, and even if it only lasts a few minutes you really feel that you've been put through the emotional wringer. And it's made all the more amazing by the fact that the scene in the infirmary was not scripted or even planned. It was improvised on the spot with a real-life Navy doctor. Just an incredible bit of acting. I really do think it's one the most powerful and affecting pieces of acting I've ever seen. I just can't say enough about it.

Film Trivia Snippets - Tom Hanks claimed that all the interior lifeboat scenes were filmed inside a scale model that was actually on water at all times, resulting in him being vomited on by crew members in the cramped space. /// During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air", Tom Hanks said the first time he met the actors playing the Somali pirates was when they started filming the pirates taking over the bridge. Paul Greengrass mentioned he did this intentionally to build up tension between the actors on board the ship and the actors playing the Somaili pirates. /// Tom Hanks claimed that the scene of Captain Philips' medical examination was improvised on the spot with real-life Navy Corpsman Danielle Albert, who was told to simply follow her usual procedure. However, Albert was so star-struck by Hanks that she froze during the first take. Hanks joked to her that he was supposed to be the one in shock during the scene. /// Sony Pictures tried on several occasions to meet with the real Abduwali Muse in prison, but he declined, feeling they'd just portray him as the bad guy. /// In real life, as shown in the film, Captain Phillips gave the pirates $30,000 dollars in an attempt to get the pirates off the ship. What is not addressed in the film however is that the money was never recovered, with the Navy men who searched the lifeboat finding no trace of it. In an attempt to locate it, all members of the SEAL team who boarded the lifeboat and even Captain Phillips himself were given a lie detector test. Its disappearance remains a mystery.

If the film benefits greatly from Hanks' experience and class, then it benefits just as strongly from Barkhad Abdi's standing as a complete novice. Lacking in any experience or training whatsoever his performance is extremely rough and raw, but the film channels it perfectly into his character of Muse. Along with adding a great degree of authenticity, his rawness brings a great energy to proceedings as well as a sense of unpredictability which works well for the story, meaning that we are never entirely sure what actions his character is going to take next. You know, there's a lot of cynicism about Hollywood and its workings, and rightly so in many respects. However a young man who fled to America to escape civil war being plucked out of complete obscurity to star in his first ever film, a film that earned him a Bafta award and an Oscar nomination? That's a fantastic story. One that illuminates both the American dream and the magic of the movies. While the film is largely a two-hander between Hanks and Abdi, a nice job was done filling out the cast with individuals who really look and feel right in their roles, whether that be of the crewmen on board the hijacked ship or the Somalian pirates.

mirror If Hanks and Abdi thrive in front of the camera then just as impressive is the man behind the camera, Paul Greengrass. At the time of watching Captain Phillips I had just finished writing my review for Man of Steel. In it I criticized the film's use of techniques aimed at giving the film a realistic documentary-like style, but noted that it's a style that can prove fruitful in the right situation. Well this is one of those occasions. Having already proved a dab hand at the shaky cam, docu-realism style with the likes of the Jason Bourne films it's no surprise to find Greengrass revelling in it once again. His frantic, handheld camera really does give a sense of documentary reality that just heightens the tension. In fact the only thing that really pops the illusion of reality is Tom Hanks. Remove his identifiable face from proceeding and you could almost believe you were watching an episode of Deadliest Catch that had just gone horribly wrong! Alongside Hanks' omission, the Academy's decision to overlook Greengrass in the Best Director category is another surprise.

The film actually begins in quite a relaxed fashion for its opening 20 minutes. At the twenty minute mark however we get the pirates' first assault on the ship, and from then on Greengrass barely gives us a moment to breathe for the next 100 minutes. If his intention was to have the audience sitting in a pool of their own sweat then I think he succeeded. The film keeps you forever on edge with its harrowing nature, and on occasion proves to be almost unbearably tense. The final showdown between the pirates and the Navy in particular, with Hanks caught in the middle, is such an uneasy sequence. I actually found myself getting really caught up in the action to the point where my heart was racing a little. In conjunction with his cinematographer (Barry Ackroyd) and editor (Christopher Rouse), Paul Greengrass is able to conceive some thrilling sequences. The attacks on the ship by the pirates are exhilarating scenes, highlighted by Ackroyd's crisp photography of the ships out on the open sea and Rouse's frantic editing that intercuts between the pirates and the crew members. While the sequences later on that are set in the lifeboat are exceptionally uncomfortable in their claustrophobic nature.

While the central story is of course the fascinating and compelling tale of Captain's Phillips' capture, there are also a few other interesting threads to be found. When the pirates capture Captain Phillips and make their way to Somalia in the lifeboat the Naval response initially seems absolutely excessive. You have this tiny little boat with just 4 pirates on board being pursued by a fleet of massive Navy warships, and the extreme contrast in size and power is completely ridiculous. Until you realise that under no circumstances can they allow the pirates to make it back on to Somalian shores, even if that means risking Phillips' life in the process to stop them. Where they to make it back to Somalia they would have to go in to retrieve Phillips. The main viewpoint that I came away with regarding the situation in Somalia and of pirates is that the answer does not necessarily seem to be better defences for the ships or more Navy patrol ships. If you really want to improve the situation the best way to do so would be to improve things on the ground in Somalia; make sure that the people of the country have more options other than to become pirates and hold ships/individuals for ransom.

Conclusion - When it comes to the type of films that are frequently nominated for the Best Picture award at the Oscars there's a phrase I often use to describe them - 'easy to admire, tough to love.' And I think there's definitely a case of that with Captain Phillips, at least for me personally. Except for perhaps a slight lull during the film's second act there is really very little about the film that I could criticise it for. Greengrass' direction is excellent and there is also impressive work in the cinematography, editing and sound departments, while there are two highly impressive performances from Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi. And yet for as much as I admired it, I never felt that I really came close to loving it. I didn't stoke a great passion in me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ASoBrFGlc


Standout Moment -The last two minutes of the film which features some of the most incredible acting I've ever seen courtesy of the great Tom Hanks.

See This If You Liked

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/AHijackingmini_zps3c41e81d.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/AHijackingmini_zps3c41e81d.jpg.html) ... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/United93mini_zps9bf9e8c9.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/United93mini_zps9bf9e8c9.jpg.html) ... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/CastAwaymini_zps662918df.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/CastAwaymini_zps662918df.jpg.html)

[seanc]

Like this format Jaydee. Pretty slick looking.

[Daniel M]

Looks sh*t

[JayDee]

Looks sh*t

Well that's very constructive!


Anyone else got something a little bit more helpful perhaps in terms of what elements (if any) I should try to incorporate into my reviews, or which elements definitely don't work?

[Yoda]

Shorter paragraphs almost always make things more readable. Maybe break the trivia up a bit more so it's easier to distinguish each one (IE: bolding the slashes). Other than that, I think they look great. :)

[Captain Spaulding]

I'll be honest, I always skip over the film trivia.

[The Rodent]

Just my input...


I break mine into paragraphs as much as possible, but one thing I try to remember...


My layout goes:
First Part: Synopsis
Second Part: General Construction Of The Film
Third Part: Acting/Actors
Fourth Part: Effects/Action
Fifth Part: All In All Roundup


When I go from one part to the next, I put in two empty lines rather than just the usual one line that's between the regular paragraphs... it shows the reader you're on to the next part, and doesn't busy the eye with what looks like endless text.
I find that simple extra gap makes a massive difference.

[Nostromo87]

I'd rate Captain Phillips just a tad higher, but I pretty much agree with all of your points. However, I'm not here to talk about Captain Phillips or Tom Hanks. I'm here to talk about this guy:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3nx4-KZGDkI/UFh-l0KJf4I/AAAAAAAABXI/5njhGdOlVWY/s640/Aguirre+the+Wrath+of+God+4.JPG
Since Yoda renovated the Reviews section, I've been browsing through some of your reviews, and I see that you rated Apocalypse Now a rating_3, which makes your low rating for Aguirre much less surprising. You misunderstood Apocalypse Now to be a movie about the Vietnam War, when the Vietnam War is only the setting. Apocalypse Now isn't a war movie, it just happens to take place during one. Thematically, Apocalypse Now is essentially an unofficial sequel to Aguirre, the Wrath of God. In 1560, there was Aguirre. 400 years later: Colonel Kurtz. Two different men from two different centuries, yet both men share the same heart of darkness.

I can assure you that both movies improve exponentially on re-watches, so I encourage you to revisit them at some point. I didn't love Aguirre the first time I watched it, because it was so different from what I was expecting, yet months later I still couldn't stop thinking about it. Something about the movie haunted me, so I eventually re-watched it and I was blown away by it. Then I proceeded to explore the majority of Herzog's filmography and I now consider him one of my favorite directors. There's a level of authenticity and realism in his movies that is unrivaled. The Francis Ford Coppola that was nearly driven mad with ambition during the filming of Apocalypse Now? That's Werner Herzog's entire career. He'll never take the easy way out. He isn't going to film a movie on a sound stage in Hollywood. Instead he's going to film on location, even if that means traveling to a dangerous, unforgiving part of the world where the risk of injury or death is magnified.

Fizcarraldo, my personal favorite, is about a man who transported a steamship over a mountain, so what does Herzog do? He transports a 320-ton steamship over a mountain! No special effects, no camera trickery. In the pursuit of authenticity and realism and artistic perfection, Herzog accomplished something that was nearly impossible, mirroring the man whom he was making a film about. There's an excellent documentary called A Burden of Dreams that documents the numerous troubles, trials and tribulations that were involved with the making of Fitzcarraldo. In the documentary, Herzog is encouraged to abandon the pulley system because the risk of death or serious injury to crew members was very high. But Herzog just asks how many people may die if something were to go wrong. That's how consumed the man is with his art, and I admire the hell out of him for that. He's basically a mad genius, willing to risk his life or the life of others to get that one perfect shot. And Klaus Kinski, his on-screen counterpart, was the perfect Herzog lead, since Kinski was certifiably insane in real life. So when I watch Aguirre, the Wrath of God, I don't feel like I'm watching a fictionalization. Instead it feels like Herzog traveled back in time and filmed a documentary about a real-life conquistador's obsessive pursuit of El Dorado, giving us lucky viewers a window into another man's soul.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/3cb0ba4c3a2e855b215af030669fe876/tumblr_mojfplGYps1snmmclo1_500.gif

one helluva awesome post Spaulding :up::up::up:

[Captain Spaulding]

I'd leave the format the same as it was, but just incorporate a couple of pictures into the review itself, as you did when you re-posted the Captain Phillips review. All the other stuff--- the trailer, the See This If You Liked, etc.--- is superfluous.

The amount of time you put into these reviews---- from the length to the formatting to the trivia and everything else--- is very admirable. I can't imagine how much time you must spend on some of these.

[honeykid]

It looks great, JD, but I think you're giving too much. Review, a poster or two and the cast is more than enough. Depending on how interested I am in the film (or just bored and wanting something else to read) will determine whether I read the trivia or not, but I can't think that I'll watch the trailer.

[mark f]

Do you post these reviews anywhere else?

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2006

Directed by
Edward Zwick

Written by
Marshall Herskovitz
Edward Zwick

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Djimon Hounsou
Jennifer Connelly
Arnold Vosloo
David Harewood

Blood Diamond

rating_4 -

Plot - Sierra Leone, 1999. Fisherman Solomon Vandy (Hounsou) has his life torn apart when his village is attacked by the RUF rebel militia. Kidnapped and taken away from his family, he is forced to work in the diamond mines. Whilst there he uncovers a huge pink diamond which he attempts to keep secret from his captors. During his attempts to hide it, he is caught by the rebel's leader Captain Poison (Harewood). Solomon's skin is saved however when at that very moment the rebel camp is attacked and Solomon is arrested by the army. As he waits in prison, Poison informs all of their fellow prisoners about the diamond that Solomon has in his possession and places a price upon his head. Amongst the prisoners there is a very interested party in the form of Danny Archer (DiCaprio), a mercenary and diamond smuggler. Arranging Solomon's release from prison Archer confronts him about the diamond, proposing that they work together. Solomon agrees, on the condition that Archer helps him locate his missing family. When they do so with the help of American journalist Maddy Bowen (Connelly) they discover that his son Dia has been recruited by the RUF rebels. Together the two men embark on their respective quests; one for the fortune he has always dreamed of, and the other for the life of his son.

There's a tragic irony at the heart of Blood Diamond's story. As a result of the whims and desires of the very rich and the quest for wealth, it is the very poor who suffer. The film itself spells this out at the very start with a message on the screen; “Sierra Leone, 1999. Civil War rages for control of the diamond mines. Thousands have died and millions have become refugees. None of whom has ever seen a diamond.” Further evidence of this can be seen during a sequence which intercuts back and forth between these two very different worlds. On the one hand we have the experiences of Hounsou's Solomon Vandy; we see his village brutally overrun and its inhabitants slaughtered, followed by his enforced servitude working in the diamond mines. While playing against this we see a bunch of rich white guys in suits sitting around discussing the situation in comfort.

Much like the continent of Africa itself, there is a conflict to be found in Blood Diamond; a conflict of beauty and horror. It is a continent of stunning beauty, which all too often is lost under the rivers of blood that cover its lands. The horror comes from the action sequences (more on them in a moment) that convey the horrific events that scar this area, and the scenes that depict the young boys stolen from their families and transformed into these bloodthirsty soldiers. During the breathers from this chaos however we are shown the other side of Africa; the sheer beauty of its land. The cinematography of Eduardo Serra successfully captures some truly astonishing images of Africa's bewitchingly harsh, almost mystical landscape, frequently shot during the so-called 'magic hour' of dawn or dusk to further enhance the drama of the image, taking place as they do under a searing orange sun. And you can certainly tell at all times that this was filmed on location in Africa. There's no sign of any Hollywood studio backlots, or of some Eastern European country acting as a cheaper substitute. Blood Diamond was filmed on location across South Africa and Mozambique, and doing so just adds so much more substance to the experience. Throw in James Newton Howard's poignant and rousing score that matches the journey of the characters and you have an exotic experience of flair and flavour.

On the evidence of the action in Blood Diamond I would be very surprised if Edward Zwick had never been considered or even contacted for films in the superhero and action genres, perhaps even a James Bond film. The action sequences throughout the film are quite excellent; the direction, editing and sound design proving a real assault on the senses that are a suitable match for what must be a truly terrifying situation in real life. They are frantic and chaotic instances which are very thrilling until the reality of the situation sets in, until it dawns on us that we are watching young boys indiscriminately gunning down innocent women and children who are running for their lives. The sequences really show how this is a world where your whole life can change in a mere instant. We see Solomon and his son Dia sharing a touching father-son moment as they laugh and joke with each other; and then with the appearance of a single truck on the horizon carrying armed soldiers of the RUF, they are forced to start running for their lives.

Film Trivia Snippets - The name of Solomon Vandy's son in the film is Dia, which actually means 'expensive' in Krio, the adopted language of Sierra Leone. /// At the end of the film, Solomon Vandy addresses a conference on blood diamonds in Kimberley, South Africa, describing his experiences. This conference actually took place in Kimberley in 2000. The conference resulted in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a system now used by diamond traders to certify the origin of diamonds, in order to curb the trade and sale of conflict diamonds. /// During pre-production Edward Zwick had two top choices for the role of Danny Archer, Leonardo DiCaprio who did eventually get the role and Russell Crowe. /// Blood Diamond was nominated for five Oscars at the 2007 Academy Awards - Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actor (Hounsou), Film Editing, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. The film came away empty-handed however. /// In the scene where Danny Archer arrives in South Africa, there are two women standing in front of the airport and he walks by them. These women are Leonardo DiCaprio's mother and grandmother. /// Blood Diamond went on to amass a total box-office gross of $171407,179. While its DVD release saw it shift 3,620,038 units which added a furter $62,723,329.

Rather unwittingly I've had myself quite the season of Leonardo DiCaprio films of late (thanks to my season of Scorsese films), and yet again I thought he gave another very strong showing. I can certainly see why he is so highly thought of as an actor. The most notable element of this performance is certainly to be found in his Rhodesian accent. I personally cannot judge its authenticity as I have no idea what it is meant to sound like. What I will say though is that certainly in the initial stages it came across as so odd to me. It's just so different from what you expect him to sound like that it took me out of the film a little early on; not helped by the fact it gave me some Jar Jar Binks flashbacks! :D In Djimon Hounsou we have quite a strong example of typecasting. In Gladiator he played a slave who fought in the gladiatorial arena, in Amistad he played a slave aboard a slave ship and here once more he plays a slave, forced into service in the diamond mines of Africa. However I'm really not surprised he has found himself called upon so often for such a role. Beyond the obvious colour of his skin and his physical build I think he just has some of the perfect attributes required for such a tough task. For a start I think he has the talent needed to depict the pain and anguish of the situation but it's more than that. Through both his noble face and just his inner nature he gives off this aura of dignity, perseverance and a great inner strength which makes you buy into the character, his struggles and the notion that he can overcome them. His impassioned quest to find and save his son provides the real driving force for the film. I don't feel that the film is quite as successful with its other main performer, Jennifer Connelly. She takes on the role of Maddy Bowen, a hard-hitting journalist trying to mine a story concerning the sale of blood diamonds. I just did not buy into her being this character however; I didn't feel she had the required strength or grit for this supposedly tough, hard-as-nails reporter who will do anything for a story. I think the film could very easily have existed without her involvement which would have tightened up the film and kept the focus on Solomon's quest to save his son.

Admittedly there are a few concessions to Hollywood convention which perhaps hurt the film slightly. Once Hounsou and DiCaprio form their uneasy alliance the film does take on the more classic (or clichéd if you prefer) approach of a formulaic thriller, while the potential romance that blooms between DiCaprio and Connelly never really convinces. However I do feel that both elements are explored to add depth to both the story and the characters. By putting Solomon and Archer side-by-side the film is able to examine the characters and provide the contrast between their priorities in life, and make us ask what is truly important in life. Both men are willing to put their lives on the line but for very different reasons. For Solomon all he cares about is his family and in particular the fate of his son. While for Archer it is about nothing but money. He himself admits that he has no friends, no family and not even a home to call his own; he believes that with enough money however he can sort out his life and be happy. While the romance of a sorts that develops with Connelly's character, and in combination with his growing relationship with Solomon, is what sends Archer on his path to redemption.

Some people will complain about situations and dialogue being too heavy-handed, manipulative and clichéd, and those complaints may have some merit. On the whole however I personally can forgive the film for this as I feel it certainly had its heart in the right place. And by approaching the film largely as a by-the-books thriller meant that the project was able to command a budget of $100 million, and that it was in turn able to attach the considerable name of DiCaprio. In doing so the film ensured a much wider audience for its message. The film eventually grossed $171 million at the box office; had the film gone for a more searing, purely dramatic take it's hard to imagine it doing similar business. And I certainly don't feel that the film glosses over the issues at any point; showing the situation for the horrific and heartbreaking event that it is, and ending on the sobering note of how 200,000 child soldiers still remain in Africa to this day. It retains this as its core and just builds the thriller mainframe around it, making it more digestible for mainstream audiences.

Conclusion - It's adherence to traditional Hollywood values may turn some people off but I think Blood Diamond focuses on an important story that needed to be told, and if this is the style in which it needed to be told then fair enough. It's classic thriller template opens it up to a larger audience who will be able to enjoy it as a purely thrilling experience, and hopefully learn a thing or two along the way. I found it to be a powerful film with some impressive direction and two exceptionally strong performances at its core.

[cricket]

I've put off seeing Blood Diamond for so long; I think I'd like it. Super Duper review JayDee

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I love Blood Diamond. It is also a special movie that made me shed my preconception that DiCaprio was just the dweeb from Titanic. After this movie however I became a fan. And then I saw his work with Scorsese which propelled him into one of my top 10 favorite actors.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Still not giving you rep for taking Miss Vicky to the prom instead of me.

[JayDee]

length to the formatting to the trivia and everything else--- is very admirable.

Thanks Cap. :up:

It looks great, JD, but I think you're giving too much.

You know what, you're right. You guys don't deserve all that effort! :p

Do you post these reviews anywhere else?

Not really no. I have however been looking to post them somewhere else just as a back-up in case this site ever closed or it crashed and they were lost or something. So I've posted one or two in a bunch of different places just to test them. And then just recently I started a blog to archive them to see how that would work.

http://jaydeesmoviemusings.blogspot.co.uk/

Why do you ask?

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
John Moore

Written by
Skip Woods

Starring
Bruce Willis
Jai Courtney
Sebastian Koch
Yuliya Snigir
Mary Elizabeth Winstead


A Good Day to Die Hard

rating_2

Plot - Iconic New York cop John McClane (Willis) is back and this time he's off to old mother Russia. He heads there when he learns that his son Jack (Courtney), whom he's been estranged from for years, has been arrested in Russia, charged with killing someone. Proceeding to the court house where his trial is set to take place, McClane finds himself just in time to experience an explosion that levels the court house. Using the explosion as a distraction, Jack helps a political prisoner named Komarov (Koch) escape. With Jack and Komarov being chased by the same men who blew up the court house, John follows in pursuit and aids in their escape. At this point he discovers that his son is actually an undercover CIA operative, tasked with saving Komarov who has evidence against a corrupt Russian official. Komarov agrees to turn over the evidence in exchange for the freedom of both himself and his daughter. While it may seem like a straight-forward plan, things will take some very unexpected turns that not only threatens the life of John and his son, but also threatens all-out nuclear war.

Oh Johnny boy what have they done to you? How can they take John McClane, one of the great action heroes of all time, and deposit him in this pile of sh*t?! I am a huge fan of the Die Hard franchise and of the McClane character. Up until now I'd have thought it unimaginable that I would pass up the opportunity to watch a new Die Hard film at the cinema. As soon as word began to leak out about this film however I instantly started to get some pretty negative vibes about it. I mean sending him to Russia? That's one of the sure signs of desperation for a franchise. About the only move they have left that is more desperate is to send him into space; I'm thinking "In Space No-One Can Hear You Die Hard." I'm guessing that the only reason they took the character in such a direction is that someone came up with the tagline “Yippee ki-yay Mother Russia” and thought that 'oh we've got to use that!' And sadly my inclinations proved to well founded. This is just such a flat and turgid affair, completely devoid of just about everything that made the original film and for the most part its sequels so much fun.

While there is a lot wrong here, what really ensures that this film flops is its rather woeful script. To start with, the story is a real mess, with a needlessly complicated plot and a whole series of characters who pass by without making any sort of impression whatsoever. As the closing credits began to roll I realised that I would have real trouble trying to explain to people what exactly it was all about; something about Chernobyl and uranium, and that's about all I got. The other area where the script comes up way short is in the dialogue, specifically in regards to the continuous series of creaking wisecracks that Willis is given. All they can think of is to have him complain about how he's on holiday every 5 minutes or so. The script completely misses out on the charm and wit that was so present in the previous instalments. The most irritating aspect of the script however is in how it chooses to detail the relationship between McClane and his son. To show us how strained their relationship is they have Courtney forcibly and clumsily refer to his dad as "John." Fair enough, it's not too subtle but I could let it slide. If it wasn't for the fact that he does it constantly throughout the entire film! I'm pretty sure that no-one in history has ever referred to someone by their name so often when they're actually having a face-to-face conversation. I would advise using it as a drinking game except for the fact that many people would most likely die. The whole family dynamic that the film goes for is so forced and heavy-handed.

And sadly Bruce Willis was unable to take the aforementioned wisecracks and imbue them with any life. I don't know if Willis is coming down with a case of the Murtaugh's (i.e. he's getting too old for this s*it!) or if he just realised what a turkey the script was and just couldn't muster the enthusiasm required to try and salvage it. His delivery is severely lacking in any snap or energy, meaning that for the most part his supposedly hilarious lines elicit nothing but groans and a roll of the eyes. Thanks to the dearth of talent around him however, Willis still remains the best thing about the film by quite a distance. In the role of his son we have Jai Courtney. I have to say that before this film I had never heard of Jai Courtney, and based on the strength of this performance I wouldn't be surprised if I was to never hear about him again. It's the kind of performance that could easily see someone slip into obscurity. He comes across very much like a poor man's Channing Tatum/ Tom Hardy/ Chris Hemsworth etc. In appearance terms he may fit the bill physically but he is just completely lacking in any charisma or presence. He is so bland it's unbelievable.

Film Trivia Snippets - When it came to the role of John McClane's son a whole host of actors were considered. The list included Aaron Paul, Liam Hemsworth, James Badge Dale, Paul Walker, Ben Foster, Shiloh Fernandez, Milo Ventimiglia, Paul Dano, Steven R. McQueen and D.J. Cotrona. Sadly for all of us it ultimately went to Jai Courtney. /// Even though McClane takes on a Russian gang in this film, not a single one of them was actually Russian. All of the actors who portrayed members of the gang were either Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Mongolian or Ukrainian. /// The film's original director was to be Noam Murro. He had to leave the project however due to his involvement with 300: Rise of an Empire. Other directors who were considered before John Moore was hired included Joe Cornish, Justin Lin and Nicolas Winding Refn. /// In the next paragraph I mention how this doesn't even feel like a Die Hard film. Well believe it or not but this was the first time in the whole Die Hard franchise where the original script was explicitly written as a Die Hard film. The first Die Hard film was based on a novel and a screenplay that was meant for Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sequel to Commando. Die Hard 2 was based on the Walter Wager novel 58 Minustes. Die Hard: With a Vengeance took its premise from a Jonathan Hensleigh script called Simon Says. While Die Hard 4.0 (aka Live Free or Die Hard) was retro-fitted from the original screenplay WW3.com, which was nearly filmed on its own merits before the 9/11 terrorist attacks caused it to be shelved.

As an action film this is really disappointing. As a Die Hard film however it's almost inexcusable. And it's not just that this is poor Die Hard film, it actually doesn't even feel or look like a Die Hard film. I love the Jason Bourne series of films but I hate the fact that since they appeared on the scene it seems that every action film that has followed in its wake feels the need to try and replicate its look. That grey, grubby aesthetic works well for the Bourne films which attempt to set themselves within the real world, but for something as stupid and bombastic as this it doesn't really fit. Although it's actually a lot more preferable than the grubby darkness that the film descends into in it's final act, when it gets so dark that occasionally it is very difficult to tell just what the hell is going on. In fact in terms of both how it looks and feels it more closely resembles one of those straight-to-DVD cheapos starring Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. And to be honest I think I'd have had a lot more fun watching one of them

Part of the reason that the original Die Hard became so loved is that it presented audiences with a new kind of hero. This wasn't the invincible killing machine so often portrayed by the likes of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. He was a flawed and vulnerable individual, both mentally and physically, quite often getting the absolute hell beat out of him and you always felt that he may well croak. While that facet of the character perhaps became more exaggerated as the series moved along, in this latest chapter the filmmakers completely throw that out the window, and with it any sense of realism. Even though he is now older than every before he has somehow became a hell of a lot stronger, almost to the point of being indestructible. On a couple of occasions McClane is involved in extraordinary car crashes; crashes that send his vehicle tumbling end over end countless times. And yet he instantly pops up like nothing has happened. He also survives being flung a considerable distance from a helicopter through a window with very little effect. I was half expecting him to peel back his skin at some point to reveal that he was actually the new model Terminator. There's no reason to care about the well-being of the character anymore, we know he's going to be just fine.

With all these massive flaws you're really left with only the action as the film's last hope. And while it may deliver a couple of impressive thrills it is nowhere close to being enough to make up for all the other shortfalls. Near the beginning of the film there's a fairly epic car chase through the streets of Moscow which does have a couple of neat moments thanks to its choreography and stunt work. They are completely undermined however by the fact that it seems to go on for an absolute age! I was left wondering if it was ever going to end. After that it's just a series of unimaginative set-pieces one after another with little to distinguish them from each other. And for the most part the film's director John Moore seemed to follow the rules laid out by Michael Bay's Transformers films - if in doubt, make it loud!

Conclusion - This was really quite painful to watch. It was tough seeing a character and a franchise that I have loved sink to such depressing depths. Its script is poor, the direction workman-like at best, the performances are flat and many of the characters are almost non-existent. If you were to compile a list of the top 20 moments from the Die Hard franchise I highly doubt that this film would gain a single place on that list. Hell even if you were to extend it to a top 50 it might still struggle! Based on this evidence I think it may well be time for Willis to open up his wardrobe and hang up his old blood-stained vest for good. A Good Day to Die Hard sadly marks a very bad day for the Die Hard franchise.

[seanc]

Skipped the last two Die Hard movies because I dont care about the first three. I know I am a horrible film lover.

[rauldc14]

Skipped the last two Die Hard movies because I dont care about the first three. I know I am a horrible film lover.

I haven't seen any so I guess I'm worse :p

[The Rodent]

Die Hard and Die Hard With A Vengeance are really the only ones worth watching.
2 and 4 were ok for action-ups... nothing more. 2 was better than 4 though, fun and at least felt like Die Hard compared to 4.
Die Hard 5, as JayDee has just said, was utter cack.
Absolutely right though, McClane has gone from fallible cop with a bit of muscle and a lot of will power (1st, 2nd and 3rd films)... to an invincible Terminator style character in the 4th and 5th films, who you don't feel any peril for as you know he won't even chip a tooth after he falls 300 storeys and lands on his face on the concrete below.


Meh. I'm done with Die Hard. I'll stick to the first three.


Nice review, JayDee! :D

[Sexy Celebrity]

I still haven't finished A Good Day to Die Hard. I couldn't. That is really, really bad. I love the Die Hard movies. I loved Live Free and Die Hard. But this last one was depressingly awful. Two popcorn boxes seems like you're being too nice to it.

[JayDee]

Two popcorn boxes seems like you're being too nice to it.

There was actually a bit I meant to include at the end of the review that I forgot about. I was going to say that I was actually being a touch generous with the score but that the John McClane character had given me so much joy over the years that I couldn't bear to stick the knife in any deeper than I had already done.

[cricket]

This was a crap Die Hard movie; it was the only one of the series I didn't either love, or like an awful lot.

[gandalf26]

Wonder what the next one will be called?

Die Hard: Die Already!

Die Hard: dying for this franchise to end!

Die Hard: This **** should've ended with the third one

Die Hard: I want the old John Mclane back

Die Hard: What ever happened to Holly

Die Hard: it only works when Germans are the bad guys

Die Hardon (legit German porno)

Die Hard: Seriously how many times can this happen to one guy

Die Hard: Dying to stay Alive

Die Hard: The German accents in 1 are lol bad

Die Hard: Is there ever a good day to resurrect a dead franchise

Die Hard: We need John Mctiernan

Die Hard 6.0, no not just 6, but 6.0.........

[JayDee]

Dead Hard: the Joys of Viagra

after the disgrace that was the last film how about "Die Hard-ly Trying Anymore"

Old Habits Die Hard (actually that ones not bad. It plays into the fact that he's now old, that it keeps on happening to him like a habit)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Die Limp.

[honeykid]

Die Bart Die

[mark f]

Die Any Which Way You Can

Dirty Harry can kill him. :cool:

[honeykid]

Maybe they should call it Dye Hard and have a plot where John opens a hair salon.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Jeff Nichols

Written by
Jeff Nichols

Starring
Matthew McConaughey
Tye Sheridan
Jacob Lofland
Reese Witherspoon
Michael Shannon
Joe Don Baker

Mud

rating_3_5 ++

Plot - 14 year old Ellis (Sheridan) lives on a makeshift houseboat on the banks of a river in Arkansas with his parents. Sneaking out one day with his best friend Neckbone (Lofland) they head to an island on the Mississippi River to investigate an unusual sight; a boat sitting at the top of a tree, the two boys discover someone else has already claimed the boat; a man going by the name of Mud (McConnaughey). Mud enlists the boys to gather supplies for him, promising them the boat in return. As time goes by the boys learn that Mud is hiding out from the law because he killed a man back in Texas. He did so in defence of his great love, Juniper (Witherspoon). With Juniper waiting in town Mud has plans for both of them to make a clean break. Making this a more difficult prospect however is the fact that the father of the man he killed has hired a group of bounty hunters to track down and kill Mud.

On the face of things this may seem like an odd thing to say but I believe that Mud is one of the best fairytales to hit the big screen in many a year. For anyone who has not seen the film that may cause a furrow of the brow, but in a whole host of ways this really is classic fairytale material. It's a story of a great but seemingly doomed romance. It's a great love between the characters of Mud and Juniper , but there's a man determined to keep them apart; King. So determined is he that he tasks a group of men (the king's men if you will ;)) to kill Mud and keep them apart. This is classic Disney; not a million miles away from something like Aladdin, minus the flying carpets and genies of course. Which is not to say that the film doesn't have its own dose of magic sprinkled throughout. The initial event that sparks the whole story into life, a boat sitting at the top of a tree, is quite the fantastical image that could be straight out of a children's fairytale book. Then there's the character of Mud himself, a rather mercurial and even mystical entity who has a bit of an otherworldly quality to him. When the boys first encounter him he seems to appear out of thin air and he is a character driven by superstition. He constantly wears the same shirt over and over again (a supposedly lucky shirt that has a wolf's eye sewn into the sleeve) and he has put nails in the heels of his shoes in the shape of a cross because he was told that it wards off evil spirits and that it will make him turn into a werewolf. Sadly that never actually happens during the movie.

Taking on the role of this unique character, the titular Mud, we have the shirtless wonder that is Matthew McConaughey and he proves to be a very smart piece of casting. His charisma and easygoing charm prove a nice fit for the character whose words could either be the product of a wise man or a bum. Those qualities also help to explain why the young boys would find themselves so ready to help him. There has been much talk of late about McConaughey's rise from the world of the rom-com to being one of the hottest actors currently plying his trade; a rise that has coined the term 'The McConnaisance', and reached its zenith recently when he was awarded the Best Actor Oscar for Dallas Buyer's Club. While Mud does serve as another cog in this recent renaissance I don't think it's his performance that is the real story here. While McConaughey does impress, the absolute stand-outs in my eyes would have to be the two young kids at the heart of the story, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. Both boys are just so natural in the roles, bringing a great sense of richness to their performances. I think a large part of the reason for this is down to the fact that they aren't really 'screen kids.' They've not grown up in Hollywood and acquired the traits of child actors so their showings are exceptionally genuine. Sheridan had only one previous credit under his belt, Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, while for Jacob Lofland this was his first ever stab at acting. Sheridan is so sweet and endearing as the well-meaning and honest Ellis while Lofland provides a nice counterbalance as the foul-mouthed and extremely forthright Neckbone. He provides much of the film's comic relief and elicits strong memories of River Phoenix's turn as Chris Chambers in Stand by Me. In fact coincidentally I even felt there was also quite the strong physical resemblance between the two. There is strong support across the board from the rest of their adult co-stars, with Ray McKinnon being particularly impressive as Ellis' father.

The crux of the story which sets everything in motion is how Ellis reacts to and deals with the news about his parents' impending divorce. As a young boy who is experiencing his own first taste of love he finds it to be a crushing development, one that he cannot comprehend. It is why Ellis is so ready to help Mud in his quest for love; he is trying to hold on to this romantic, ideological and rather naïve view of love. While he may be young in years his ideals are very much that of an old school romantic. We see him twice coming to the defence of a damsel in distress, one of whom then becomes his girlfriend, at least in his mind. On their first date he gives her a gift of a pearl bracelet and asks so sweetly, “want to be my girlfriend?” Just like Mud however, his is a doomed romance. In fact Mud and Ellis are alike in a great number of ways; so much alike in fact that if this were a sci-fi film it would likely culminate with the revelation that Mud was actually the future version of Ellis! In fact throw in his parents' crumbling relationship and the film is a tale of three doomed romances; with Ellis caught in the middle of the differing views of Mud and his father. He hears Mud tell of his epic, unending love for Juniper while at the same time listening to the warnings of his father running down love, telling him that he can't trust women and that “you can't trust love.”

Film Trivia Snippets - The film was quite the boon for the Arkansas economy and its people. Of the film's 1000 strong crew about half of it was made up by Arkansas residents, while the production also hired over 400 locals to act as extras. In fact at the time of shooting Mud was the largest production ever to be filmed in Arkansas. /// Prior to the start of shooting Jeff Nichols described the film as Sam Peckinpah directing a short story by Mark Twain. /// Jeff Nichols started work on Mud's script back in the 1990s and ever since then Matthew McConaughey was always his first choice for the role after seeing him in Lone Star. Despite this Chris Pine was actually in talks to take the title role in May 2011. /// Having worked together on both of Nichols' previous films, Shotgun Stories and Take Shelter, Nichols was desperate to once again cast Michael Shannon. Shannon's involvement with Man of Steel almost made it impossible, but he was eventually able to clear a few days in his schedule to take on the role of Galen. /// The film features a character called Tom Blankenship in a nod to Mark Twain. Tom Blankenship was the name of the real person that Twain based Huckleberry Finn on. /// When it came to the role of the two boys Nichols wanted to cast kids who already knew how to ride dirt bikes and pilot a boat. For the role of Neckbone over 2000 boys auditioned before Jacob Lofland landed the part. /// At the Independent Spirit Awards Mud received the Robert Altman Award which recognises the film's director, casting director and ensemble cast.

In addition to the crumbling of his parent's marriage, the film in its entirety really is about the theme of transition. It's a coming-of-age film about growing up and the unavoidable changes that will affect your life. In the film Ellis is 14 years old, and while most people would argue that it's 12 years old, that age really does feel like the last bastion of childhood. The passing of his childhood is represented symbolically by the passing of a particular way of life; the time of the river is passing, as his father puts it, “this way of life isn't long for this world.” The film places great emphasis on the river throughout, its fluid nature representing that of love and life. The camera frequently takes the opportunity for loving gazes across the river; a river that people call home but where they also earn their living. With its coming-of-age narrative and Southern setting there are a number of touchstones for the film, with Mark Twain's Huck Finn and the classic 80s film Stand by Me perhaps being the most obvious. Beyond that I found the film summoning up memories of the Harper Lee masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird. It's quite a famous fact that Lee only ever wrote that one classic tale. Had she ever written a second book, you could easily imagine it may have looked something like this.

Following on from the rather excellent Take Shelter this is another terrifically impressive and assured effort behind the camera from Jeff Nichols. Just as with that film, Mud often unfolds at quite a leisurely, sedate pace with Nichols taking his time to lovingly gaze at the film's surroundings. In general that would most likely be an issue for me but in Nichols' hands he is able to turn it into a captivating, almost hypnotic experience. The most impressive aspect of Mud I felt was just how wonderfully Nichols was able evoke a particular sense of place. Events unfold in a small town in Arkansas, and there really is no mistaking the setting for anywhere else other than the Deep South of America. The two young actors, including Arkansas native Lofland, and the dialogue in Nichols' script ensure that the film has such an authentic flavour to it. Nichols is also able to capture the tone of such an area, or at least how I've always imagined it. With its swamps, dense forests and vast rivers there is something beautiful but also haunting about it; a mythical vibe but tinged with a darkness. Coincidentally it's a similar vibe currently being exploited by Matthew McConaughey's TV show, True Detective. So the film evokes a particular place but the same certainly cannot be said however of it evoking a particular time. Aside from the modern cars that populate the town this is a world and a story that feels pretty much timeless. Remove the cars from proceedings and this really could be taking place at any point during the last 100 years. In a rare instance these days there's also not a single mobile phone in sight, with the two boys communicating in that most old-school of ways - walkie talkies.

Between the direction of Nichols and Adam Stone's beautiful cinematography the film really is just gorgeous to look at. Stone brings a terrific crispness and clarity to the images as he really revels in the beauty of the surroundings, delivering a series of lush greens and earthy browns as he builds up this wonderful sense of nature. The film is set almost exclusively during the day with Stone utilizing natural light predominantly for proceedings. The sun is shining just about constantly across the film's running time but Stone shoots it in such a way that it always feels like a hazy sunshine, which certainly for me at least evokes memories of childhood. I'm probably remembering it wrong (hell I grew up in Scotland so I'm definitely remembering it incorrectly! :D) but in my mind every tale and adventure I embarked upon as a child was set to sunshine, largely during those summers away from school that felt as if they were never-ending.

Conclusion - While it may not have had quite the powerful impact upon first viewing that Take Shelter did for me, this is still one terrifically crafted film from Jeff Nichols. And when taken in conjunction with Take Shelter this film confirms Nichols as one of the most interesting directors plying his trade today, and marks him out as someone who could potentially be very special. The film is supremely well-acted, features a series of deep and complex characters and looks quite gorgeous. Its pace may be rather quiet and slumbersome for some (though it does explode into action at the end) but for me Mud is an extremely rich film. While it may not have floored me like Take Shelter did off the bat, I could certainly see this one growing on me.

[seanc]

Good review jaydee. I agree with every word you said. Mud just had the impact on me that Take Shelter did on you so our ratings are probably flip flopped.

[cricket]

I agree with you JayDee; a pretty good movie mostly because of the performances of the 2 kids, and I also really liked Reese in this. It reminded me of Stand by Me also, and I think I prefer it over Take Shelter just a little.

[Yoda]

Nice. Can't wait to see this--should be seeing it this week. I adore Take Shelter, so I'm quite excited to see it.

[Captain Spaulding]

Mud is one of my favorite movies from last year.

I think McConaughey's performance in The Dallas Buyers Club is obviously superior, but, as a whole, I think Mud is the stronger movie. Too bad it didn't get the same kind of attention.

[JayDee]

Just to prove that I'm not hating on all 70s cinema



mirror mirror
Year of release
1977

Directed by
Ridley Scott

Written by
Gerald Vaughan-Hughes

Starring
Keith Carradine
Harvey Keitel
Albert Finney
Edward Fox
Cristina Raines
Robert Stephens

The Duellists

rating_3_5 +

Plot - Set in France during the early 1800s, with the Napoleonic War as its backdrop, The Duellists details the epic feud that erupted between Armand d'Hubert (Carradine) and Gabriel Feraud (Keitel), two officers in the French army. When an innocuous incident leads to a duel between the two men, it sets off a rivalry that will consume the next 15 years of their lives. Across a series of duels the two men continue to fight in an attempt to preserve their honour.

The Duellists marked Ridley Scott's first outing behind the camera on a feature length film. In general it's an accomplished debut with only the odd touch perhaps highlighting his lack of experience. On occasion his direction can feel just a touch over-bearing with a few too many extreme close-ups. I think the film would have benefitted from him just taking a step back and allowing the film to breathe a little bit more. I think the most impressive aspect of his direction can be found in how he presents the five duels that are spread across the film, and the storytelling characteristics that he is able to discern from them thanks to his ability to change his style to match proceedings. The first duel the two engage in is a fairly impromptu affair, with Scott's direction reflecting this. It's very on the hoof and clumsy even, as if the fight has just broken out and Scott has had to scramble to pick up his camera if he wants to catch the action. He employs a touch of shaky-cam and often shoots over their shoulders, creating a bit of a first person perspective. The second duel has been arranged and is a more professional, gentlemanly event. This time Scott's direction exudes a lot more control, setting up in one position for a single shot. By the time the third duel has rolled around the rivalry has become increasingly personal. Whereas the previous two duels had been brief affairs this is clearly a much more epic, lengthy battle. For the only time in the film we join the duel already in progress, finding both men to be absolutely exhausted and bleeding profusely.

When it comes time for their fourth duel, this time on horseback, it has now dawned on D'Hubert that this is never going to end, at least not until one of them is dead. He now recognises Feraud's obsession and realises that he will continue to come at him. So for D'Hubert a great fear now begins to set in as he becomes aware of the great peril his life is in. Scott highlights this by again changing up his style, now plumping for a burst of rapid editing to build up the tension and pressure that D'Hubert is experiencing. He assaults us with a relentless mix of images from the fight itself, from their past encounters and images of Carradine which focus upon his trembling hands, shallow breathing and nervous disposition; all backed by an intense, throbbing score. To further heighten the ominous drama of the situation, the duel is engulfed by a thick mist. The final duel is a tense cat-and-mouse episode that unfolds in a much more calculated, orchestrated manner to mirror the pre-conceived plans that Carradine's d'Hubert holds. The conclusion to both the final duel and the film itself may initially feel a little anti-climactic. It does however make perfect sense within the confines of the story. d'Hubert has the chance to kill Feraud and finally end the whole thing for good, but he allows the opportunity to pass. By the gentlemanly code of the duel however the fact that he still holds a bullet from this duel means that he will forever hold the advantage; he now owns his life. If Feraud ever comes in contact with him he will be a dead man. So while he Feraud is still breathing, in all other respects d'Hubert has killed him. He has taken away his reason for living. For the first time I actually felt a touch of sympathy for the character as Feraud realises that he has wasted 15 years of life for nothing.

In my eyes the most striking facet of the film was certainly to be found in its visuals and photography. Were I to crown an MVP for the film it would be a neck and neck race between its cinematographer and its location scout. The Duellists was filmed on location across France, England and in my very own Scotland. And at no point, never on a single occasion, did I find myself questioning their authenticity, that they were anything other than locations of early 19th century France. The exteriors are a series of beautiful expanses of rugged nature; extensive landscapes of rolling hills that often include dramatic and picturesque locales and buildings (a derelict house on stilts and grand country homes for example), all backed by sweeping skyscapes. The brief sequences set in small towns also emit a rich personality thanks to some characterful back alleys, streets and taverns. In addition to these vivid exteriors, the film's interiors are just thriving with character and atmosphere thanks to the meticulous eye for detail in the production design and the evocative use of lighting. They are frequently grand and expansive sites brought to life with ornate costumes and furnishings. So many of the film's images, particularly those interiors, feel like snapshots of classical paintings from the era. And these images are captured by some gorgeous photography courtesy of Frank Tidy. He revels in the harshness and beauty of the surroundings, with an almost constant amount of thick fog and swirling mist just adding to the sheer drama of the images. There is also a tremendous episode set in Russia, with its snow-covered landscapes and the sound of the howling wind making for a really savage and brutal sequence that leaves you shivering alongside its characters. While the way it looks is certainly the highlight I was also a fan of how The Duellists sounded. Actual use of music is fairly sparse for large stretches, with the film instead relying on a soundtrack comprised of natural sounds such as the calls of birds and other assorted animals, the slashing and clanging of blades and the aforementioned howling winds during that Russian sequence.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film's source material, a short-story by Joseph Conrad, was based on a true story of two real life French Hussar officers who regularly fought real duels together during the reign of 'Napoleon Bonaparte'. The two duellists were named Dupont and Fournier. As a young officer in Napoleon's Army, Dupont was ordered to deliver a disagreeable message to a fellow officer, Fournier, a rabid duelist. Fournier, taking out his subsequent rage on the messenger, challenged Dupont to a duel. This sparked a succession of encounters, waged with sword and pistol, that spanned 19 years. The contest was eventually resolved when Dupont was able to overcome Fournier in a pistol duel, forcing him to promise never to bother him again. In total the two men competed in over thirty duels. /// The scene in which d'Hubert asks Adele to marry him has a very natural feel to it and there's a reason for that; the scene did not go as intended whatsoever. The actress playing Adele, Cristina Raines, begins laughing during the proposal. The reason for this is that one of the horses they shared the scene with had a massive erection and was beginning to get rather horny. /// The film was made on a severely tight budget, just $900,000 to be exact. This dictated much of how the film panned out. In order to receive financing from Paramount, Scott had to agree to choose from a list of just four actors for the two leads. The limited budget also necessitated that the film be shot entirely on location in France, England and Scotland. Not a single set or building was constructed for the shoot. Scott also found a rather unique way to save money; on one occasion he actually used footage from an Australian toothpaste commercial that he had shot five years previously.

Before starting the film I have to admit to having some reservations about it in regards to the casting. The fact that two American actors had been cast in the roles of French soldiers didn't particularly bother me all that much; this is Hollywood after all, I've seen it plenty of times before. I don't have any problems personally with either Keith Carradine or Harvey Keitel, I think they are both fine actors. However were I the one put in charge of casting a historical, period piece those two names would certainly not be amongst the first that I would think of. In my mind I think of them as very contemporary figures both in terms of appearance and essence who are much more suited to urban environments and exploits. So I was a little wary about their participation. And those apprehensions did bear out somewhat. At no point did they ever really feel like a natural fit in this world for me, like someone who truly belonged. I was certainly never going to mistake them for anything other than an actor playing a part. On those terms however I did think that both men put in fairly impressive turns in their respective roles. Harvey Keitel's naturally aggressive, combative nature is smartly channelled into the character of the brash Gabriel Feraud. He may put on the initial guise of being honourable and noble but before long he more closely resembles a modern day boxer; wild, with a short fuse and a proclivity for trash-talking. Opposite him Keith Carradine is more tactful and reserved in the role of Armand d'Hubert. I also thought Carradine did a commendable job of conveying the growth of his character. While he may not have been looking to engage in this feud, and fear what fate may await him at its conclusion, in some ways he does seem to actually benefit from it. He becomes a stronger, more confident individual who displays a new-found courage and skill in the face of war.

The story is undeniably quite slim and simplistic. I feel that more focus could have been given to expanding the characters of both men, as well as fleshing out the era and the Napoleonic War which acts as the backdrop for this personal rivalry. Instead its focus is purely on the escalating series of duels between the two warring soldiers, though I believe the film does utilise them to make various points. Set at the turn of the 19th century this is a story set in olden times that is fittingly driven by old values, namely those of pride and honour. For an exploit that can easily result in the deaths of its combatants, the act of duelling was an incredibly gentlemanly sport. In one instance a duel is actually halted as one of the combatants needs to sneeze. The longer that their feud goes however these noble virtues of pride and honour are replaced by more unsavoury traits, particularly that of the male ego. With their duels frequently brought to abrupt ends no man feels that he has really proved himself as the other's superior. Both men also become increasingly aware of their growing fame, and how their reputations amongst the people of France and their fellow soldiers have become tied to the duel and its outcome. And while its never explicitly stated at any point I also got a vibe of class to their rivalry. d'Hubert feels very much like a socialite who has grown up with money whereas Feraud feels much more working class, someone who would get down and dirty in the muck.

Now I have to admit that I am not a history buff whatsoever; to put it simply I know jack *****. And that is definitely true of the Napoleonic War so perhaps their are allusions to that particular war that went right over my head. And considering that Feraud sports the classic bicorne throughout, Napoleon's iconic hat of choice, I really wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of connection. However I certainly don't think it takes a great deal of effort to see their foolish, futile conflict as a metaphor for and an attack on the pointless nature of all wars. Their whole long-running feud originates from such a small, innocuous issue that the whole thing, to put it bluntly, is just stupid. It gets to the point where the actual reason for their fighting becomes almost forgotten; they now fight just because they fight. For both men, particularly Feraud, it seems to become a test of their manliness. They need to prove their masculinity while at the same time it becomes a quest for power; two traits that you feel are sadly common in the world of war. It's an old adage that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. Watch this film and you may tend to agree.

Conclusion - I may not see a lot of people truly loving this film. I can however see a great number of people admiring it. It's got some solid performances from a couple of surprising sources, some striking direction from Ridley Scott and fine swordplay. The absolute star attraction though, and why I would recommend it to people, is undoubtedly to be found in its dazzling photography and the incredibly palpable atmosphere it creates. The story, characters and themes may not be anything revolutionary but the imagery alone makes this debut effort from Ridley Scott worth checking out.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/TheDuellists_zpsf423d213.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/TheDuellists_zpsf423d213.jpg.html)
One of the many striking images to be found in The Duellists.

[seanc]

You interchanged your Scotts in the conclusion jaydee. Im letting you know just to prove I read all the way through. I know you need that validation sometimes. :D Good review of a movie I have never even heard of.

[The Gunslinger45]

Just caught up on your reviews JayDee so here is an overdue

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

[gandalf26]

If women ran the world there would be more wars, fought over petty nonsense.

[JayDee]

Well The Duellists was a new discovery as 70s films go. Now I think we'll go with a few favourites of mine. These were films I was planning on revisiting for my top 100 list anyway; the fact they coincided with the 70s list was just a bonus.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1974

Directed by
Joseph Sargent

Written by
Peter Stone

Starring
Walter Matthau
Robert Shaw
Martin Balsam
Hector Elizondo
Dick O'Neill
Jerry Stiller


The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

rating_4_5

Plot - A seemingly normal, run-of-the-mill day on the New York Subway system will turn out to be anything but. The Pelham 123 subway train is running to a standard schedule when four men, all brandishing submachine guns, board the train who have their own very unique ideas for the train. With each man donning code names, Mr. Blue (Shaw) leads the group of Mr. Green (Balsam), Mr. Grey (Elizondo) and Mr. Brown, as they hijack one of the train cars and hold its 18 passengers hostage, demanding a ransom of $1 million from the city for their release. With Mr. Blue taking the lead in negotiations, he begins conversing with the New York transit police in the form of Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau), informing him that he has one hour to deliver the ransom or he will start killing the hostages. As the negotiations continue in an attempt to safeguard the safety of the passengers, Garber becomes fascinated with trying to work out how exactly the gunmen plan to escape given that they're in a tunnel and surrounded by the police on all sides. Surely the men are trapped. Or are they?

Something that was rather common amongst the thrillers of the 1970s is that very often they made for great city movies. While there were a few exceptions (San Francisco in Dirty Harry for example) the city in question was frequently New York, with films such as Marathon Man, Serpico and The French Connection being prime examples. Well The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is another you can add to that list. Now that may sound strange given that the large majority of the film is set on a train underneath the city itself, but it most certainly still manages it. There are only a few rare examples of scenes set on New York's streets but they still manage to capture a great deal of atmosphere despite their limited use. While Joseph Sargent does a great job with the subway, managing to extract a great deal of interest and character from the limited surroundings. I also really like the look of the film. Aesthetically it's certainly not a 'beautiful' film to look at, but with Owen Roizman's cinematography taking on a very grim and grubby appearance it feels very fitting as it highlights the urban nature of the film and even gives it a bit of a documentary/docu-drama vibe.

Further enhancing its credentials as a great city movie are a number of little subtexts spread throughout the film. The main thrust of the story remains the hijacking and subsequent negotiations, and the film never forgets that. However it does drop in several other connotations, sometimes rather subtly, that reflect issue both social and economic that were affecting both New York and America at large during the 1970s. The negativity in relations to politics at the time can be seen in Lee Wallace's mayor. A bit of an incompetent, bumbling and indecisive fool he certainly doesn't inspire confidence, he's not exactly a leader amongst men. Even the fact that he is sick with the flu could be viewed as a metaphor for the ineptitude of government. Onboard the train we see minor examples of racial tensions flare up. Gender equality in the workplace can also be seen throughout the film. In the transit system itself we see there's a recently hired female member of the staff, much to the consternation of Tom Pedi's Caz Dolowicz. And then when it's learned that there is an undercover cop on board the train there is a discussion about whether they are male or female, and if they're female that it's not going to do much good. Even Walter Matthau's Lieutenant Garber, the good guy of the piece, is shown to be perhaps not a bigot, but someone who has very clear ways of thinking in regards to people, and has not adjusted his views to contemporary times. When he first meets Chief Inspector Daniels, the police officer in charge he had been conversing with on the radio, we can see that he is very taken aback to discover that he is actually black. Similarly when he sees the undercover cop (credited as 'The Hippie') lying face-down on the track he instantly assumes he's a woman just because of his long hair. And of course early on in the film there is the very humorous incident where he is giving a tour to a group of visiting Japanese individuals from the Tokyo Metro system, and begins to insult them because he believes they don't understand English, only to be left dumbfounded when he discovers they understand him perfectly well.

The film also reflects the general apathy that seemed to overtake the country following the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, domestic riots etc. Here it is most noticeably reflected by Dick O'Neill's transit operator who seemingly couldn't give a s*it about the fate of the hostages, instead just concerned with how difficult the whole event is making his job. His attitude is most aptly summed up by his exclamation of “Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?”There are also several quotes, commonly little more than throwaway remarks, that allude to issues that were affecting the city during the era. At one point, when discussing how to deal with the situation, the police commissioner remarks, “We don't want another Attica do we?”,referring to the police response to a prison riot that resulted in dozens of deaths. When the mayor is first informed that there's a problem, his initial response is to ask, “There's another strike taking place?”, referring to the numerous strikes that plagued the city during the decade. There are also little allusions to the Vietnam war and to the fact that the city is completely broke.

Where the film really comes into its own as a New York movie is on the train itself, with the 18 passengers taken as hostages acting as a sample, or a petri dish if you will, of the people of New York as a whole. Admittedly you could accuse some of those on board as being little more than stereotypes, classic stock New York characters, but it works to get the idea across of this city populated by all manner of races, colours, sexes, ages, cultures etc. So amongst the 18 people you've got a young black man dressed like Huggy Bear sitting alongside an old Jewish man. You've got a scantily dressed prostitute sitting beside a single mother of two kids. And you've got a a businessman in a sharply dressed suit sitting alongside a drunken bum. It's a real cross-section of the population. In fact the actual credited characters include 'The Hooker', 'The Homosexual', 'Old Man', 'Spanish Woman', 'The Alcoholic', 'The Pimp', 'The Hippie' and 'The Wasp'. The film actually embraces the notion of stereotypes so that it can then show no matter how different we may be, in such a situation we're all the same. So for all the differences that may divide them, when placed in the middle of a hijacking they all react the same; with great fear.

Film Trivia Snippets - During an interview for Canadian TV, the film's producer revealed that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three did terrific box-office in New York, Toronto, London and Paris; all cities with substantial subway facilites. The film was considered a bit of a flop around the rest of the world however. /// At one point Steven Spielberg was under consideration to direct. /// In a delightful slice of coincidence, the actor who played the role of Subway Guard was named Jim Pelham. /// After firmly establishing himself in a series of comedies, Walter Matthau all of a sudden became a bit of an action star, appearing in Charley Varrick and The Laughing Policeman in 1973 and this film the following year. When he had to undergo bypass surgery in 1976 however it prevented him from taking on such roles anymore. /// In the film's title, 'Pelham One Two Three' refers to the New York subway timetable terminus and time of departure schedule radio call sign. As explained in the movie, "Pelham" is the name of the station of origin where the subway train departs whereas "One Two Three" refers to the time of departure i.e. 1.23 pm. Following the film's release it became the operating practice of the New York City Transit Authority never to have a train leave the Pelham Bay Park Station at either 13:23 or 01:23. The policy was subsequently discontinued after many years. However both as a tradition and a cautionary measure, dispatchers still generally avoid scheduling a train to leave Pelham at either 1.23 am or pm. /// David Shire's score was chosen as one of the top 10 film scores of all time by NPR film music expert Andy Trudeau.

There can be very films ever produced that have had so damn many character actors all collected in the one place; I don't think I've ever seen so many wrinkles, scowls and craggy faces. It's an absolute joy to bask in all of the character and colour they bring to proceedings. Leading the film with great aplomb is one of my favourite 'classic' actors Walter Matthau. I honestly don't think I've ever seen any other actor who can do curmudgeonly or world-weary as well as he can. Going purely by appearances, his Lieutenant Garber doesn't seem like a man who is going to pose much of a threat to the hijackers' plans. His wrinkled and crumpled face, slumping frame and the hangdog expression that he constantly wears just giving him such a richness. At the same time however there is a real doggedness to the character, his face belying the intelligence that lies behind it. Indeed had the iconic Peter Falk not landed the role of Lieutenant Columbo, then it's tough to think of a more suitable alternative than Matthau. Additionally he is also responsible for a number of laughs thanks to his dry, sardonic demeanour and line delivery. As the main antagonist that Matthau pits his wits against is Robert Shaw. In the role of the group's leader, Mr. Blue, Shaw is able to create a chilling presence without resorting to any histrionics. Instead he plays the part very calmly but with a great intensity. He creates a great sense of composure for the character, conveying the fact that he is in complete control of the situation. At the same time however he has no qualms about getting his hands dirty. This is a man with ice running through his veins, prepared to put a bullet through anyone who gets in his way, be they friend or foe. As Mr. Green, the motorman without who the plan would not work, is Martin Balsam who is strangely sympathetic as the fairly hapless and out-of-his-depth train driver. Hector Elizondo is terrifically despicable as the psychotic Mr. Grey, a man so violent and out of control that even the mafia kicked him out. He is very much a man from a time before the term 'political correctness' came into existence. In addition to those already mentioned there are just so many character-filled faces stacked from top to bottom of the whole film, all of them feeling like 'real people', with Dick O'Neill (Frank Correll), Tom Pedi (Caz Dolowicz) and Jerry Stiller (Rico Patrone) making particular impressions.

In comparison to many of its fellow thriller films from that decade,Pelham is perhaps not the most action-packed or obviously thrilling film. Instead it concentrates more on being interesting and goes more for a great level of intrigue, which thanks to the razor-sharp script from Peter Stone results in a thrilling film all the same. The storytelling is exceptionally strong, keeping us in the dark right alongside its characters as to how exactly the hijackers plan to get out of this situation. Stone's script is full of sharp, witty and natural dialogue and a fair few surprises; with a electrifying suicide proving particularly shocking. Thanks to the attention to detail in the script in regards to the transit system it's also rather interesting just to see its inner workings with the large control board and all that. Stone's script, Sargent's direction and the editing deserve a lot of credit for being able to maintain the thrills despite the fact that the film is largely stationary, taking place predominantly on the claustrophobic train or in the offices of the transit system. The editing during the sequence where the ransom is being arranged is especially impressive with the film cutting to and fro between the several different aspects to create a thrilling episode; the hijackers, the cops, the transit officials, the mayor and the money counters.

And to end the review it seems only appropriate to talk about the film's terrific ending. Again breaking away from many of its 70s thrillers brethren the film does not end with a massive explosion, an epic car chase or a big shoot-out. Instead it ends on a quiet moment that plays back into what has gone before; Balsam's Mr. Green sneezing to give the game away. A moment made all the more satisfying by the fact that he would not have been caught had he not felt the need to gloat and harangue Matthau's Garber and Stiller's Patrone for daring to question him. It's such a lovely, subtle and very clever conclusion. To paraphrase the classic cliché; the film ends not with a bang, but with a sneeze. And it's all the better for it. Gesundheit!

Conclusion - Too often it seems that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three gets overlooked when it comes to discussions about the best films of the 1970s, and I think that's a real shame as it's a little bit of a gem. With its taut script, sharp direction, fine work in both editing and cinematography and a slew of entertaining performances, there really is very few areas where the film does not impress. Oh and the score! How could I forget David Shire's wonderful score; it's dirty, jazzy sounds fitting the surroundings like a glove.

[honeykid]

Great review of a great film you know I love. :) I loved that you got my favourite quote in the review, too.

Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?

Such a great line. :D

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

This is one of those movies long over due to be seen.

[rauldc14]

I only saw the weak remake.

[honeykid]

The remake's OK, but it's an excellent example of contemporary Hollywood cinema. A fast edited, colour enhanced remake of a better film which took its time to build to a satisfying climax. No one seems to be arrested anymore. They either get away or they die.

[JayDee]

Great review of a great film you know I love. :) I loved that you got my favourite quote in the review, too.


Thanks HK. I knew you'd approve of the positivity but glad to see you appreciated the quality of the review as well. :D


This is one of those movies long over due to be seen.

Well obviously I certainly recommend you give it a watch. :yup:

The remake's OK, but it's an excellent example of contemporary Hollywood cinema. A fast edited, colour enhanced remake of a better film which took its time to build to a satisfying climax. No one seems to be arrested anymore. They either get away or they die.

I actually watched the remake recently as well, just after watching the original. Like you I thought it was ok (would rate slightly higher than you did in the movie tab) but no comparison. I think their respective endings tell you everything you need to know about the films really. As I pointed out in the review the original ends on a really clever, novel little note. The remake goes more for your standard big action chase and shoot out.

[JayDee]

Following on from The Taking of Pelham One Two Three we have this, just my second ever reprised review. As on that first occasion (Lars and the Real Girl) I used the original review as a template and then built on that.


mirror mirror
Year of release
1971

Directed by
Don Siegel

Written by
Harry Julian Fink
R.M. Fink
Dean Riesner

Starring
Clint Eastwood
Andy Robinson
Harry Guardino
Reni Santoni
John Larch
John Vernon

Dirty Harry

rating_4_5

Plot - Bang! With the shot of a rifle, a crazed killer by the name of Scorpio (Robinson) announces his presence to the city of San Francisco. Threatening to strike and kill again unless the city pays his ransom demands, Scorpio also comes to the attention of SFPD Homicide Inspector Harry Callahan (Eastwood). Callahan; known to his peers by the nickname 'Dirty Harry' because he gets every dirty job going, is not your standard police officer. His view of the law and of justice is very black and white; if you break the law he will bring you to justice, and he's not overly concerned about sticking to the letter of the law to achieve said justice. Assigned to the case alongside his new partner Chico Gonzalez (Santoni), Callahan's pursuit of Scorpio turns into an ever more personal game of cat-and-mouse.

“I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?”

A terrific and truly iconic piece of dialogue right there. One of the most iconic and oft-imitated movies quotes of all time in fact. Would it have carried quite as much power, and proved so long-lasting however had Frank Sinatra been the man delivering it? Unlikely. As the first choice for the role however it could very easily have happened. Well all I can say is thank goodness it didn't. The reason that I say that is that every so often there is a performance that comes along, that after you've seen it you just can't imagine how anyone else could have possibly inhabited the role. Well this is most certainly one of those performances. In the role of renegade San Francisco homicide detective Harry Callahan, Clint Eastwood just oozes cool, charisma and a ruthless machismo that allows him to completely own the role. As a man whose policing methods and attitudes would seem more at home in the Wild West, Harry is a man struggling to find a place in this modern society for his unique approach to the law, with Eastwood playing this frustrating struggle with a terrific intensity. And quite simply the man is bad-ass. With his sarcastic drawl, imposing stance and tough-as-nails glare he's not someone you'd be in a hurry to get into a fight with.

As a film, Dirty Harry is a terrifically taut and spartan offering from Don Siegel. It's a relatively simple story, told in an extremely straightforward manner which barely wastes a minute. We open with the killer's first strike against the city, and from then on the film is almost solely concerned with the ever escalating conflict between Scorpio and Dirty Harry. Outside of a single line about his late wife we don't really learn anything about Harry's personal life. We don't get to see his home life, we don't see what motivates and drives him, what it is that has crafted his current character. And to be honest it doesn't really feel like we have to see any of it. The character is just so unshakable and determined in his actions that we accept it without having to wonder why exactly he is like this. Throughout the film we only get a few breathers from the main story revolving around the hunt for Scorpio to see what kind of cop Harry is, and the actions he takes in the line of his work. We see his unique involvement in a bank robbery and at an attempted suicide. These brief sequences establish that the man is pretty much the ultimate bad-ass who doesn't care who he upsets along as he gets the job done. Oh and even though the story and character aren't given a great deal of exposure in terms of screen time, I enjoy how the relationship between him and Callahan is handled as Gonzalez goes from a useless rookie in Harry's eyes to a cop who has earned his respect and gratitude.

Film Trivia - In 2012, the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant.” As is often the case with such iconic films however, things could so easily have turned out very differently. When Harry Julian Fink and Rita M. Fink originally wrote the script they had John Wayne in mind for the character. Wayne wasn't interested however, feeling that the violence was unjustified and glorified. In addition the film was initially set in New York city, only switching to San Francisco when Easywood and Siegel came onboard. Though it took a while before it got to that stage. For a while Frank Sinatra seemed set to star in the role of Harry Callahan with Irvin Kershner directing. At this point James Caan was under consideration for the role of Scorpio. When Sinatra dropped out however, Kershner followed. Warner Bros. considered Marlon Brando to take over from Sinatra but never offered it to him. They did however put an offer to, and were rejected, by Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Burt Lancaster and Paul Newman. Though it was Newman who suggested Eastwood as a possible alternative. And Eastwood in turn approached Don Siegel about directing. He gave Siegel four different drafts of the script, including one written by Terrence Malick of all people. Malick's script altered Scorpio from being a mindless psychopath killing only because he likes it, to being a vigilante who killed wealthy criminals who had escaped justice. Siegel didn't like Malick's script, but Eastwood did, and Malick's ideas formed the basis for the sequel, Magnum Force.

The film shares a lot of the same qualities that can be found in many of Don Siegel's other genre films. He just brings such a vibrant energy and style to proceedings, particularly the action scenes. His directing style is not overly fussy or ostentatious; it is very direct and to the point, just delivering a piece of captivating cinema with some dynamic action. Though there are a couple of impressive pieces of camera work including a vast and epic zoom out at the end of the stadium set-piece, which also includes some atmospheric use of shadows to create a strangely eerie aura. It makes for a very vivid and exhilarating ambience, and helping Siegel to establish this atmosphere is the script from Dean Riesner and husband-and-wife team, Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. The plot is very straightforward and treads over greatly familiar ground, while you could accuse the script of delivering a weakly written villain in the form of Scorpio as we never get any semblance of his background or his motivations to commit such horrible acts. Where the script is most impressive is in its creation of a series of colourful characters, and in its rich, vibrant dialogue; both of which add a great flavour. The tough, hard-boiled dialogue is a particular highlight, with Eastwood given most of the film's best lines to growl in his distinctive tones. Alongside the iconic “do you feel lucky?” speech, other personal favourites would be Harry's response to the accusation that he was the man who assaulted Scorpio; “Anyone can tell I didn't do that to him...cause he looks too damn good!”, and when explaining his actions on a previous case; “When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.” Further enhancing the moody and sordid tone is a funky, jazzy and occasionally psychedelic score from Lalo Schifrin, some gratuitous sex

While Clint Eastwood might be the one who truly owns this film and who will forever be associated with it, he certainly doesn't get things all his own way. Fulfilling the other half of this cat-and-mouse battle is Andy Robinson in the role of the psychotic Scorpio, and he certainly makes for one hell of a memorable antagonist. While the character was actually based (albeit loosely) on the real-life Zodiac killer who was terrifying the streets of San Francisco at the time, the character of Scorpio actually feels a lot more reminiscent of a comic book-style villain; his 'cool' moniker and over-the-top nature evoking the serial killers who populated the TV show, “Dexter.” Robinson takes those ingredients and creates a truly vile monster who is extremely hateful. When he's the one on the hunt he is this vicious, sadistic killer; and yet when the tables are turned and he's forced to accept the role of prey he becomes this pathetic, snivelling little creep; begging for his legal rights to be respected and for Harry to be left alone. Robinson makes him into this crazed and lurid creation, all wild eyes and dramatic, exaggerated outbursts and characteristics. The scene where he has taken a bus full of school kids hostage is really rather disturbing as we see him ranting, raving and singing children's songs in a demented fashion. As I said he may not be a very well-crafted villain in terms of depth, so it's left to his actions to power the character and there are a number of striking and disturbing scenes which do so. Perhaps the most powerful being when he pays a man to beat him to a bloody, swollen pulp which really makes a striking impression.

While he obviously establishes the Scorpio character, Robinson also plays quite an important factor in the success of the Dirty Harry character. By creating such a despicable and heinous villain it makes us root for Callahan without question. Scorpio is so horrible that he makes it easy for us to cheer on Harry, overlooking his extreme and dubious actions and penchant to ignore the subtleties of the law. If you were to take the Dirty Harry character and place him in a different context then he could easily be the dirty, villainous cop of another film, representative of everything that is wrong with those in law enforcement. For example if this was Serpico, Harry would be the bad guy of the piece. In fact in addition to being just a great piece of blistering action, Dirty Harry is also an interesting look at the issue of justice and the ridiculous nature of politics. It shows that when justice is served to the letter of the law it can often result in giving criminals too many rights to the detriment of the rights of the victim. In an attempt to apprehend the criminal before they can commit further crimes or cause further harm, the cops may step over the line and do something that allows the criminal to subsequently walk free. We share Harry's frustration and bewilderment at the situation. It's a funny thing when it comes to film and TV. In real-life I am immensely left-wing and liberal, and yet in a pursuit like this where we are shown for definite that the suspect is guilty, I want the f*cker to suffer! :D I guess it's like some kind of twisted wish-fulfilment. However where the film was once considered controversial and indeed fascist, now it feels like very standard and clichéd fare. Any cop worth his salt these days, whether it be on the big screen or small, has to be a maverick who plays by his own rules. A man not frightened to play 'dirty' as long as achieves the right results.

Film Trivia Snippets - During the bank robbery scene a movie theatre is in shot across the street. On the marquee is Play Misty For Me, another 1971 film starring Clint Eastwood that was released earlier that year. /// In 2009, MTV News held a poll to find the “Greatest Movie Badass of All Time.” The character of Harry Callahan took the top spot ahead of the likes of Rambo, John McClane and Ellen Ripley. /// The film was initially set to feature a car chase at one point but the idea was dropped because Bullitt, another cop thriller set on the streets of San Francisco, had already set the bar for car chases a few years previously. /// Scorpio's real name is never revealed through out the entire movie, and in the ending credits he is simply listed as "killer". However after the film's release, a novelization gave his real name as Charles Davis. /// For his portrayal of Scorpio, you could say that Andrew Robinson received rather unwelcome 'praise' for his performance. Such was the strength of his showing (and it must be said the stupidity of people) that after the film was released he received several death threats, and had to get an unlisted number. /// Scorpio wears a belt with a peace symbol buckle throughout the film. According to Don Siegel it “reminds us that no matter how vicious a person is, when he looks in the mirror he is still blind to what he truly is.”

One of the most distinctive elements of 1970s cinema were the copious amount of thrillers that populated the decades, with many of them still regarded as classics. While Dirty Harry is one of those films that holds such a reputation, it actually stands out from many of its contemporaries however. Whereas most thrillers of the 1970s tended to lean to the left and be critical of authority/establishment, Dirty Harry goes in the opposite direction. In a landscape of anti-nuclear (The China Syndrome), anti-government (All the President's Men) and anti-establishment (Dog Day Afternoon) sentiments this film certainly seems to stand out as a bit of a wet dream for those of a right wing persuasion. Perhaps the fact that the film was produced and released before the events of Watergate and Attica, and before the end of the Vietnam war, means that while there may only be a few years difference between this film and most of its cinematic peers, it's a product of a very different time.

Another area in which Dirty Harry excels is as a 'city movie.' As I've mentioned a few times on here, when it comes to city movies my favourite location would have to be San Francisco. I just love the city's iconic steep hills, unique architecture, eternal sunshine, diverse population and the cool, artistic vibe that the place has. And Dirty Harry proves to be a great example. Though it does actually eschew your typical example of the San Francisco flick. The large majority of films make use of the city's climate to showcase it in perennial sunlight, and the film does do so on occasion to show off some great scenery and shots of the cityscape. In general however this film goes the opposite way by spending a large degree of its time on the streets at night, revelling in the city's lesser-seen, seamy underbelly of undesirable characters and grimy locales. This just adds to the film's atmosphere and sense of menace. It transforms the city from this place of beauty and culture into a place where evil like Scorpio can be lurking round every corner. The film also finds success by avoiding the tourist traps and utilising some lesser-used locations as the settings for its set-pieces; the football stadium where Scorpio lives and the rock quarry where the final face-off takes place for example. With the city populated by a melting p of various ethnicities, sexual preferences and subcultures (gotta love those hippies!) it adds a great deal of colour and character to proceedings, as well as feeling like a real time capsule of the city from that period.

And to cap things off I love the film's finale where the final face-off with Scorpio really highlights the old-fashioned values of Harry Callahan. In fact the sequence could just have easily taken place in any of the numerous westerns Eastwood has appeared in over the years, such is its strong Wild West vibe. Even the setting of a rock quarry makes the film feel of a different time. After we see Harry gun down his target he takes his badge and throws it into the river; a badge that looks tremendously like an old sheriff's star-shaped badge. He then walks off into the sunset never to be seen again. Except for you know, the four subsequent sequels he appeared in! :D The knowledge of the sequels may dilute the power of its ending slightly but it still resonates. Even the movement of the camera seems to allude to the fact he is a man out of time, that he would be more comfortable in the environment and era of the old West. Having been out in the middle of nowhere at the quarry, the camera then pulls back and lifts into the sky to reveal the civilisation that has encroached all around; the freeways, the skyscrapers, the automobiles etc which show this is a modern world where Harry's brand of justice no longer belongs.

Conclusion - Dirty Harry is a thrilling, searing slice of action. It remains one of the truly great cop movie, well deserving of its iconic status. It's a film that set the benchmark and template for so many cop and action films to follow, particularly in the 80s with the arrival of Stallone, Schwarzenngger, Seagal etc. When it came to portraying a loose cannon cop who plays by his own rules however, arguably no-one did it better than Clint Eastwood and Harry Callahan.


Bonus Trivia Snippets - In 1972, a copycat crime took place in the state of Victoria in Australia, in which two men kidnapped a teacher and six pupils at gunpoint and demanded a $1 million ransom. The state government agreed to pay but the children managed to escape and the kidnappers were subsequently jailed. Coincidentally one of the men had the surname Eastwood. /// Clint Eastwood performed all his own stunts, including the stunt where he jumps onto the roof of the hijacked school bus from a bridge. His face is clearly visible throughout the shot. /// For the iconic final shot when Dirty Harry tosses away his badge, Don Siegel was dismayed to discover that they had only brought one badge to the location shoot, so Eastwood had to throw it perfectly in just one take. /// While I like Dirty Harry as a fictional character, I'm not sure I want him standing as an example for real members of law enforcement. So it's a little worrying that the film's success meant that Eastwood and Siegel found themselves invited to address police gatherings, while of even more concern is that a police department in the Philippines ordered a print of the movie as a training film!

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I LOVE Dirty Harry! One of my all time favorite films! And a classic with my favorite actor of all time!

[seanc]

I have never watched a Dirty Harry film. Something I should remedy at some point, I have just never gotten interested enough.

[Captain Spaulding]

Two months ago, Dirty Harry probably would've made my 70's list, but I've seen too many great movies since then that have bumped it down a bit.

Anyways, great review of a great film!

[cricket]

Two months ago, Dirty Harry probably would've made my 70's list, but I've seen too many great movies since then that have bumped it down a bit.

Anyways, great review of a great film!

Ditto

[honeykid]

Great review of a film I really like. :up:

[Optimus]

Wow. Are these the movies scripts, or reviews :).

[Jack1]

This review thread is terrific. Such well-written reviews - must take an age to prepare and write them all. My reviews pale into insignificance when compared to yours.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three and Dirty Harry are two of my favourite films as well, so great taste with those! :D

[JayDee]

Hey everyone

sorry for not being about for quite along while. As I've mentioned quite a few times on here I've been feeling very poorly for much of the year. I've had stomach pains, a constant feeling of nausea, really bad heartburn and indigestion, some headaches and just a complete lack of energy. The last few weeks it's been especially bad with those symptoms just constantly about pretty much, particularly the extreme lethargy. In addition to that it's also started to have a real impact upon my mood. My mood can be fragile at the best of times and I'm just so run down and fed up of feeling this way that my mood has rather plummeted, resulting in me feeling very low. And that's the main reason why I've not really been online much of late, and why I've not been on here. I've just not felt up to posting and communicating really (no offence to any of you.)

I've had a number of blood tests and a number of medications to try without any luck. A couple of weeks back I then had an ultrasound just to check my gallbladder, liver,intestines etc. Was at the doctors today for results and unfortunately still got no answer. So the next thing that is being arranged is an endoscopy; a camera down my nose or throat into my stomach? Really not looking forward to that! Hopefully it can help to get an answer though.

Hopefully I can try and be about a bit more in the near future (and get back to posting reviews!) but no promises unfortunately.

[mark f]

Get well soon!

[seanc]

Feel better my MoFo brother. I hate hearing that.

[The Rodent]

Pregnant?


Get well soon JayDee!

[The Gunslinger45]

Glad to hear from you! Hope you get better soon dude!

[Cobpyth]

I hope you'll get better soon, JayDee! Keep eating healthy and listen to some good, relaxing music that you like. Maybe that will at least take a tiny bit of the pain away, temporarily... Glad to hear from you! :)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Well, that's it for The Days of JayDee around here.

I will have to be your favorite movie reviewer now.

[seanc]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEjp5BLlp4vB9MXJ5rlOMg0-KJgwHY0sMxHF0DZQhnILQKIjoKnw

You stay classy Sexy.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I was hoping that would stir JayDee into coming back.

I have this hunch that his health issues are really nothing serious. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that JayDee is just out of it emotionally and needs to center himself. Or at least take a break from here.

[seanc]

I was hoping that would stir JayDee into coming back.

I have this hunch that his health issues are really nothing serious. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that JayDee is just out of it emotionally and needs to center himself. Or at least take a break from here.

I think Jaydee knows how to take you by now. Otherwise we would form a MoFo mob and come and get you.

[Sexy Celebrity]

JayDee doesn't have the energy to take me right now. Don't burden him.

[cricket]

I've been thinking about you JayDee and I hope you feel much better soon. Try staying away from them dirty girls for a while.

[Godoggo]

Thanks for keeping us updated. I was just asking about you the other day.

Have your doctors mentioned anything about Crohn's disease? If you remember me telling you about it, those are the exact symptoms my dad had.

Feel better and we miss you.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Try staying away from them dirty girls for a while.

Now, see, that's the wrong thing to say. That sounds like you're saying JayDee's been sleeping with the wrong people and is coming down with AIDS. You're turning this thread into JayDee's Buyers Club.

[Yoda]

Sorry to hear about your health problems, JayDee, but thanks for filling us in. Get well soon! We need more of your awesome reviews. :up:

[JayDee]

Typical Movie Forums response. Why did I expect anything else? I come on and open my heart about how miserable I've been feeling and what do I get? Potential diagnoses including pregnancy, AIDS and an STD from hanging around "dirty girls". Hell Sexy even seemed to be predicting my death and how he'd have to take my place!!!

Bloody typical! :D

Get well soon!

Unsurprisingly it's left to Mark to be the last bastion of class around here!


Anyone thanks for all the well wishes people. I'll try and pop by over the weekend a bit more.

Oh and when I was talking about symptoms I've been suffering from I forgot about diarrhea; oh the diarrhea!!! :eek: If you want an idea of what it's been like, remember that scene from Trainspotting? You know with the drugs in the toilet?.........I'll say no more. :p

[The Rodent]

So, your toilet is the worst toilet in Scotland?

[Sexy Celebrity]

GHOST!

GHOST!

GHOST!

JAYDEE'S GHOST JUST POSTED IN THIS THREAD!

[Godoggo]

What in the hell did I do? Why is Mark the only one with class? :D

I was the one that said I had been thinking about you and there are posts to prove it. :D

[The Gunslinger45]

Dude, seriously. Too much info. But still glad to hear from ya!

Just try not to get to the point of that one toilet in Dogma. Lord knows who don't need giant poop monsters running around. :D

[cricket]

You seem in better spirits, JayDee, very nice to see:)

[Miss Vicky]

What in the hell did I do? Why is Mark the only one with class? :D

I was the one that said I had been thinking about you and there are posts to prove it. :D

Yeah, what gives? I don't have posts to prove anything, but you got my PMs!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yeah, what gives? I don't have posts to prove anything, but you got my PMs!

JayDee has Miss Vicky's PMS? Is that why he's so sick?

[Godoggo]

It might be why he is grouchy, but PMS doesn't give you explosive diarrhea. :D

[Skepsis93]

Sorry I haven't seen this 'til now. Get well mate and hope to see you back around here soon.

[JayDee]

Well here's my first review in a good long while. Still wasn't feeling great but last Thursday I was able to drag myself to the cinema to see Marvel's latest cinematic offering. As you can see it's taken a while to get the review written up, again as a result of how I've been feeling. As for the film itself I certainly greatly enjoyed it but feel my enjoyment was still slightly inhibited by my health. Coming out of the cinema my instinct was rating_4 + but in reliving the film through the review I've felt it was more of a rating_4_5. I've stuck with my initial score but feel the chances of it going up are very good. More often than not my score for a film goes down on repeat viewings, but I think it will be the opposite in the case.



mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
James Gunn

Written by
James Gunn
Nicole Perlman

Starring
Chris Pratt
Zoe Saldana
Dave Bautista
Bradley Cooper
Vin Diesel
Lee Pace

Guardians of the Galaxy

rating_4 +

Plot - Earth, 1988. A young Peter Quill stands by his mother's hospital bedside as she passes away from cancer. Distraught, he runs out of the hospital and is promptly abducted by a spaceship. Jump forward 26 years and we now find the adult Peter Quill (Pratt) out amongst the stars. More specifically we find him on the planet Morag in search of a mysterious orb. When he locates and steals it he believes he's in for a large cash windfall; instead he finds a bullseye painted on his back as all manner of individuals start hunting him down for the orb. The main danger to Quill's life lies in the form of Ronan the Accuser (Pace) who desires the orb so that he can see his mortal enemies, the Xandarians, eradicated. Arrested by the Nova Corp, Quill finds himself thrown in prison. To escape the prison and still profit from the orb he forms an uneasy alliance with a band of his fellow prisoners. His new allies are the deadly assassin Gamora (Saldana), vengeful warrior Drax the Destroyer (Bautista) and the bounty hunting duo of Rocket (Cooper), a gun-totting raccoon, and Groot (Diesel, a tree-like humanoid. With a plan to sell the orb and split the profits the group are successful in their prison break, but still have to deal with Ronan. When Quill discovers the true power of the orb however and the threat it poses to the entire galaxy he realises that no-one should possess it. He is unable to stop Ronan alone however; can he somehow galvanise this group of misfits into joining together to save the day? This is a galaxy in need of some Guardians.

Guardians of the Galaxy was billed as being Marvel's biggest risk to date. A film based on an almost unknown property, one that even within the comic community is considered fairly cult, and whose lead characters include a talking tree and a psychotic raccoon with an unquenchable thirst for violence? Not obvious blockbusters material. After their excellent run it was predicted to be the film that could be the studio's first major flop both critically and commercially. So the film was a gamble and the pressure was seemingly on. Well apparently no-one told that to Marvel or to James Gunn because there's no sign of it whatsoever; from start to finish Guardians of the Galaxy exhibits just an incredible swagger of assurance and self-confidence, rarely if ever putting a foot wrong. For those contemplating its possible failure one of the main issues working against it was that it would prove to be just too 'weird' to find a large audience. If that was a concern for the filmmakers it certainly doesn't show. At no point does the film ever come across as if it is shying away from the weirdness, in fact it is actively embracing it. After all, what other blockbuster would have a climactic battle that sees the hero attempt to instigate a dance off?

Much of the film's success can be attributed to the efforts of its cast. Prior to the film's release, the cast of Guardians of the Galaxy had thrown up a number of questions and issues for rabid fanboys to pore over. Could Chris Pratt, a novice when it comes to blockbusters, carry such a big film? Could Bradley Cooper find the voice that would somehow bring to life and make plausible a gun-toting raccoon? With a vocabulary of just three words at his disposal could Vin Diesel make a talking tree into anything more than a gimmick? Well as tough as it may be to imagine the answer to all three of these queries is a resounding yes. It seems that the Hollywood powers-that-be are positioning Chris Pratt for a run at the A-list, and on this evidence he seems set to grasp that opportunity with both hands. A rookie he may be to headlining big movies but you never doubt he's capable of it. From his first moments on screen, strutting and dancing on a desolate planet to the strains of Redbone's “Come and Get Your Love”, you just feel “oh he's got this.” And whether it be through Indiana Jones or Han Solo it's not difficult to trace Pratt's turn back to Harrison Ford. Like those two iconic characters his portrayal of Peter Quill, aka Starlord, is one full of arrogance, ego and a smart mouth whose bluster you feel is very much a front to hide the pain and the good heart that beats below that façade. While he's good at what he does, he's not as good as he thinks he is. More often than not he just seems to bumble about and fall ass backwards into success. With an immense amount of charm, Pratt makes Quill an incredibly likeable leader for this bizarre group and a character that has the chance to perhaps become almost as iconic as those Harrison Ford creations that came before it.

The main topic of conversation going into the film was definitely the character of Rocket Raccoon. It was with that hot-tempered, bloodthirsty furball that much of the movie's success was predicted to lie. Get it right and he would be the breakout star of the series; get it wrong and the whole film could collapse upon itself. Now the voice may not be exactly what I imagined for Rocket, and it maybe didn't work 100% of the time for me, but for the large majority of the time Bradley Cooper pretty much nails it, making him into a sort of New York, Joe Pesci-like wise guy. Brimming with sarcasm to burn he brings lots of laughs, but also a surprisingly sorrowful edge. He really is quite a tragic little character, stung by the pain of being a lab experiment which sees him labelled as a monster or vermin.

Film Trivia Snippets - The role of Peter Quill/Star Lord was quite the coveted proposition. Amongst the many individuals that auditioned and screen tested were Joel Edgerton, Eddie Redmayne, Jensen Ackles, Lee Pace, Wes Bentley, Garrett Hedlund, James Marsden, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Aaron Paul, Michael Rosenbaum and John Krasinski. /// And in fact James Gunn didn't even want to see Chris Pratt audition. He was convinced later by his assistant, at the end of the auditions. After Pratt read for 30 seconds, Gunn stated that then he knew that Pratt was perfect for the role. In fact his audition was so good that Gunn said he was prepared to offer him the role even if Pratt did not lose weight and get in shape in time. Gunn joked that he was willing to CGI a six pack on Pratt's body. However, Pratt asked him to give him 6 months to lose 50 pounds and he ended up losing 60 pounds. /// Djimon Hounsou wanted to be part of a comic book film for the sake of his son, saying that "I have a son who loves superheroes from Spider-Man to Iron Man to Batman. One day he looks at me and says 'Dad, I want to be light-skinned so I could be Spider-Man. Spider-Man has light skin.' That was sort of a shock." He actually auditioned for the role of Drax but lost that to Dave Bautista. After seeing Bautista and how ripped he was, Hounsou said that he knew why he wasn't cast and admitted Bautista was the perfect choice. /// Peyton Reed was considered as a possible director for the film before James Gunn was signed up. Reed has however been chosen to replace Edgar Wright and direct Ant-Man.

So Rocket pretty much lived up to expectations. The biggest surprise for me though was the character of Groot, and just how much I ended up loving him. In fact he ended up being my favourite character. For someone with such a limited vocabulary that is an incredible achievement. The film was able to achieve this through a mixture of Vin Diesel's vocal efforts, the incredible CGI of ILM and by giving him some wonderful character moments. ILM's animation really is extraordinary, giving Groot's face so much character and room for expression. As for Vin Diesel, he's able to do a hell of a lot with just three words of dialogue for the entire film, imbuing his utterances with unique cadences and tones. In fact towards the end of the film I could almost begin to understand the character myself, no longer requiring the translation of Rocket. And the character of Groot is given several of the film's best character moments that really make us take him to our hearts; the moment he grows and hands a flower to a young girl, the moment he releases luminescent blossoms to light the darkness or his great moment of heroism at the film's conclusion. There's a wonderful dichotomy to Groot in that he's this really gentle, almost childlike soul who just also happens to be capable of incredibly vicious brutality. That is most evident in perhaps my favourite moment of the whole movie where Groot eviscerates a horde of enemies in one of the film's most violent outbursts, and follows it up by turning around to his comrades with wide eyes and a big beaming smile as if to ask, “did I do good?”

So you had those three questions dominating the cast discussion. As it turns out however the film had a bit of a secret weapon hidden up its sleeve, something that had not really been glimpsed in any of the film's promotional material, and that is the character of Drax as played by Dave Bautista, a man known for his time not on the big screen but in the wrestling ring. Now I remember Bautista back from my days of watching WWE, and based on that I wasn't exactly too positive about what he may bring to the film. He wasn't exactly the strongest when it came to his mic work, not coming close to the charisma or skill of the likes of The Rock. And yet here he kind of knocks his contribution out of the park, displaying pretty fine line delivery and comic timing which allows him to steal many of the film's biggest laughs thanks to his character's very literal approach to language. Last but by no means...oh no wait it actually is least! :D No lastly we have Zoe Saldana as the green-skinner assassin, Gamora. Saldana is lumped with the least interesting character of the group, forced to play the straight man throughout. What makes it even more disappointing is that you feel real drama should be mined from her situation given that she has turned her back on her father, Thanos, and is battling her sister, Nebula. Despite this, Saldana does give a game performance which promises she could deliver in the future if given more to work with, and she has quite nice chemistry with Chris Pratt. And on a side note I have to mention that this is the second time I've found her attractive in alien form. In Avatar I found her rather attractive as a 9ft tall blue cat, and here her beauty still shines through as a green-skinned alien.

If there's one area where the film does admittedly come up short to an extent that will put off 'proper' filmgoers and not just comic book fans then it's perhaps the plot. The actual story about a mystical orb and the power it holds is extremely slight but I don't think it really matters all that much, because I don't believe that was the real story here. No the real story was just the introduction and assembling of these characters into this peculiar group. And on those terms Guardians is a terrifically well written effort by James Gunn. He introduces each of these characters so well that every single one of them becomes likeable/loveable as separate entities, whilst also managing to form little bonds between them. The whole orb nonsense was merely the catalyst to bring these five misfits together. We are in pure, 100% unadulterated MacGuffin territory, and the film seems completely aware of this. In fact at one point the film pretty much flat out acknowledges it, with Quill describing the orb as having an “Ark of the Covenent, Maltese Falcon vibe” to it. Likewise the villains may come up short, not making anything close to the impact of our heroes. We only get to know them and their motivations on the most basic of levels. The villains, particularly Lee Pace's Ronan and Karen Gillan's Nebula, are still able to make an impression however thanks to some terrifically striking character design and make-up. In fact the biggest impression made by a non-Guardian would have to be their sometime-villain/ sometime-ally, Yondu. Played with great strength and colour by Michael Rooker he is a pretty bad ass character; one that I hope to see more of in the future. Oh and that whistle-controlled arrow weapon of his? So freaking cool!

In the wake of the Alfonso Cuaron technical marvel that was Gravity, I'm sure that a lot of people will feel for a while that any other space-faring film that comes along is going to pale in comparison when it comes to the visuals that brought to vivid life the stars, galaxies and solar systems that surround us. And that may be true, perhaps nothing will come along for a considerable time that can match Gravity for its authenticity and for making you feel like you're truly there. That does not however stop Guardians from still excelling with its visuals because it is a frequently gorgeous film to look at. From the first moment to the last the CGI is absolutely flawless, with not a single instance where it looks ropey even for the briefest of moments. While the CGI's main achievement may be in its realisation of Groot and Rocket it also helps to deliver some absolutely beautiful spacescapes and planets.

Film Trivia Snippets - According to Vin Diesel, he recorded Groot's iconic line, "I am Groot," over 1,000 times. He also recorded all of the lines in several different languages, including Russian, Mandarin, Spanish, Portugese and French so they could use his real voice around the world. /// When Dave Bautista found out he got the role of Drax the Destroyer, he broke down in tears, overjoyed at getting a Marvel comic-book role. He immediately signed up for extra acting classes in order to prepare for the role. /// In the film, Peter Quill's ship is named The Milano. James Gunn has confirmed that Peter named it that after his childhood crush, Alyssa Milano, who he watched on the TV show, Who's the Boss? /// Jason Momoa auditioned for the role of Drax the Destroyer and was actually offered it, but turned ir down because he didn't want himself to be pigeonholed as a brute by the audience (having played several action roles) and to free himself up to direct Road to Paloma. /// When Vin Diesel started recording his lines for Groot, he was pleasantly surprised to find himself working with an old friend - the sme sound technician he'd worked with on The Iron Giant. /// Bradley Cooper was eventually chosen to voice Rocket Raccoon but before that Adam Sandler, David Tennant, Sharlto Copley and Jim Carrey were all considered. /// Zoe Saldana only landed the role of Gamora after Olivia Wilde turned it down, while Gina Carano, Rachel Nichols and Adrianne Palicki all auditioned for it.

If the film looks great then it perhaps sounds even better, it's excellent soundtrack just continuing the film's great sense of fun. We were given a hint of the musical tone it was going to adopt from the trailers and its a vibe that continues in the film itself. Its collection of 70s rock songs is just a perfect fit. For a film set in the modern day, and in space no less, it's an eccentric choice that mirrors the eccentric nature of the whole film. And for a film that doesn't play by the normal rules of the superhero film the pleasingly anarchic vibe of 70s rock feels very fitting. But importantly it never comes across as a mere gimmick. The reason being that beyond just how fun it is the soundtrack also has a rare connection with the actual story and character played by Chris Pratt. With the songs sourced from a mixtape his mother made for him; the last connection he has to her, the soundtrack also has an emotional resonance that makes it a poignant and touching addition.

Going on the strengths of its concept and its trailers we could predict that we were in for lots of action and lots of humour. What came as more of a surprise was just how much unexpected heart the film has. In fact it arguably has a stronger emotional core than just about any Marvel film before it, strange as that may be to imagine. In general it doesn't achieve these moments through big, sweeping moments but through smaller beats and character interactions; moments such as Quill noticing the mass of scars that adorn Rocket's back from his origins as a lab experiment. I've already talked about the emotion found in the characters of Groot, Rocket and Peter Quill elsewhere in this review. These five characters are all pretty broken individuals, but when brought together they forge an eccentric but touching family. And it's a unique film that makes you empathise with a raccoon or weep for a tree.

And then there is the film's post-credits sequence. These sequences have gotten to the point now where they almost feel like they're as big a deal as the films themselves, and as such they generate a huge amount of fascination and discussion. In the past we've perhaps had an inkling what these sequences were going to be beforehand. That was not the case with this one however and had led to numerous predictions across the web as to what it would be. Well I think I can pretty much guarantee that no one would have called that particular scene. These scenes pretty much fall into two categories; a fun little send-off or a set-up for a future film. While Marvel may surprise me by following on from this scene I imagine it is one of those purely for a laugh scenes. It's a scene that I imagine will leave many people puzzled and asking just “what the f*ck was that?!!!”, but I think it was just about perfect for this particular film. It ensured that the film ended just as it began, as an irreverent and unique escapade unlike anything so far seen in the superhero genre.

Conclusion - As far as big blockbusters go it's hard to think of anything that Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't deliver. It looks great, it sounds great, the performances are strong, its exciting, it's action-packed, it's funny, it's even got an emotional pull and never for a single second is it dull. In fact Marvel and James Gunn have perhaps delivered one of the most purely, unashamedly fun pieces of escapism since the first Pirates of the Caribbean film hit cinemas all the way back in 2003.

Oh yeah and this is one just for the people who have seen the film and will know what I'm on about. The release of the film has seen a whole slew of merchandise released in conjunction with its arrival in cinemas - action figures, T-shirts, Lego, pyjamas, costumes etc. Well all I can say to those in charge of merchandising is that I need a dancing Groot figure in my life! :D



Easter Eggs - The Collector's museum of treasures is quite fittingly the treasure trove of easter eggs for fans. Amongst the creatures glimpsed in cages are a Dark Elf from Thor: The Dark World, a Chitauri alien from The Avengers and a slug creature from James Gunn's previous movie, Slither. / The dog in an astronaut suit is Cosmo, a Russian dog sent into space who developed psychic powers. In the comics he was an ally of the Guardians and at one point a fully fledged member of the group. He does however have an ongoing feud with Rocket, perhaps not surprisingly given the whole dog-raccoon thing. / Another interesting object in the museum, and one that could turn out to have major impact in future films is a cocoon. James Gunn has confirmed fan theories that it is the cocoon of Adam Warlock, an artificially engineered 'perfect human' and one time member of the Guardians. The character also plays an important part in the Infinity Gauntlet storyline which is rumoured to be a future storyline for the third Avengers film. In the post-credits scene we see that the cocoon is damaged and now empty, apparently indicating that Adam Warlock is now running around the MCU.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Everybody say goodbye to JayDee. Looks like the Sexy Curse is taking him next. I'm mortified. :(

Did you hear about Deadite, JayDee? Dead.

We love you, JayDee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::whoopi:

[seanc]

Good to have you back reviewing Jaydee. Great job as always. I agree with most everything you said although I rated it a half star lower than you. Good point about the stinger kind of being irreverent like the rest of the movie. I didn't think of it that way, I just thought it was dumb. You made me re-think that though.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Glad to see you back! Equally good to see you making your way to the cinema. Glad to see you liked the film and had a good time! Now get back to bed and get healthy!

[Miss Vicky]

I can't say I have any interest in Guardians, but it's great to see you posting again.

[Captain Spaulding]

Excellent review.

Guardians of the Galaxy has been received much more favorably than I expected it to be. My problem with a lot of comic book movies lately is that they take themselves far too seriously (here's looking at you, Man of Steel), so Guardians of the Galaxy sounds like a welcome respite.

[cricket]

Now we know where you've been-writing that friggin book you call a review. Glad you're back bud:)

[honeykid]

I can't say I have any interest in Guardians, but it's great to see you posting again.
This.

Hope things are getting better, mate. :up: We miss you round here. :yup:

[Yoda]

Great review--tagged, and it's the top review on the Reviews page.

Glad to have you back! :)

[nebbit]

Great review :yup: glad you are feeling better :kiss:

[JayDee]

Thanks for the replies, well wishes and compliments on my Guardians review everyone. I'll respond to some of them at a later point, however there is one thing I had to check right now


Did you hear about Deadite, JayDee? Dead.


Are you serious? Is that real?

[The Gunslinger45]

Thanks for the replies, well wishes and compliments on my Guardians review everyone. I'll respond to some of them at a later point, however there is one thing I had to check right now



Are you serious? Is that real?

It is true.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=36608

[JayDee]

Just one more thing about Guardians of the Galaxy. In the lead up to the film being released and in several reviews since it was often referred to as Marvel's attempts at doing Star Wars. However what I was more reminded of was Farscape. To begin with the whole aesthetical look and tone were quite reminiscent but where it really happened was with the characters. Just as with Farscape crew the Guardians are made up of a group of misfits who were supposed criminals and who break out of prison. The group consists of a charismatic, misplaced Earther (John Crichton / Peter Quill); a dangerous assassin who started as an enemy but switched sides (Aeryn / Gamora); a brutish warrior out for revenge after the killing of his family (D'Argo / Drax); a small creature with a big mouth (Rygel / Rocket); and an alien of plant origins with a connection to nature (Zhaan / Groot). Just found it quite interesting


And lastly just as with Captain America: The Winter Soldier I was spoiled for choice when it came to the posters. So along with the two I already posted with the review here a bunch of additional designs


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians2_zpsea001be0.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians2_zpsea001be0.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians5_zps61ec48e0.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians5_zps61ec48e0.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians7_zpsd83f14aa.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians7_zpsd83f14aa.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians8_zpsdd1135aa.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians8_zpsdd1135aa.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians9_zps04235230.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians9_zps04235230.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians10_zps55dbe2b6.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians10_zps55dbe2b6.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians13_zpsaa84d222.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians13_zpsaa84d222.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians11_zps417c3254.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians11_zps417c3254.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians22_zps1ab8494b.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians22_zps1ab8494b.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians21_zps4e5a4dfe.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians21_zps4e5a4dfe.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians35_zpsab786a3b.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians35_zpsab786a3b.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians20_zps79732c4c.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians20_zps79732c4c.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians26_zpsa9320dfb.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians26_zpsa9320dfb.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians24_zpsf1e79342.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians24_zpsf1e79342.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians12_zpsb5138585.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians12_zpsb5138585.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians16_zps86db34a8.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians16_zps86db34a8.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians19_zps41feacf4.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians19_zps41feacf4.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians25_zps77cd2a82.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians25_zps77cd2a82.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians27_zps0f15f838.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians27_zps0f15f838.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians29_zpsb3df9791.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians29_zpsb3df9791.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians40_zps78991954.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians40_zps78991954.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians15_zps1bf172f7.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians15_zps1bf172f7.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians_zps661a8d41.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians_zps661a8d41.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians30_zps1baed276.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians30_zps1baed276.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians28_zpsa2ee8ad2.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians28_zpsa2ee8ad2.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians37_zps84da94ee.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians37_zps84da94ee.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians36_zpsef2e08d8.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians36_zpsef2e08d8.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians17_zps0db09789.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians17_zps0db09789.png.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians33_zpsf5ba1c1d.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians33_zpsf5ba1c1d.jpg.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Guardians38_zpsb7e1a263.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians38_zpsb7e1a263.jpg.html)[/URL]
[URL="http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians38_zpsb7e1a263.jpg.html"]

(http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/Guardians38_zpsb7e1a263.jpg.html)

[honeykid]

]And lastly just as with Captain America: The Winter Soldier I was spoiled for choice when it came to the posters.

When are you going to post the good ones. :D

[JayDee]

Wow I just noticed this has actually fallen out of the top 9 members' reviews threads. :eek: Can't have that! :D

[Sexy Celebrity]

Hey, JayDee. How's your health?

[seanc]

Wow I just noticed this has actually fallen out of the top 9 members' reviews threads. :eek: Can't have that! :D

Your still getting all the noms for best reviewer. Meanwhile I was told I had to post more to get a nom, what is up with that.:D Glad to see you around buddy, we miss you.

[JayDee]

Hey, JayDee. How's your health?

Not too bad actually, thanks for asking. I've been trying a new medication of late which has taken the edge off some of my symptoms. As a result it's also helped my overall mood. Under normal circumstances I'd describe myself as still feeling fairly crappy, but compared to how I have been it's actually been a bit of a relief.

Your still getting all the noms for best reviewer. Meanwhile I was told I had to post more to get a nom, what is up with that.:D Glad to see you around buddy, we miss you.

What are you talking about? Are we doing the Mofies again? And it's like the old saying tells us, 'quality over quantity.' :p

And thanks.


I would ask what I've been missing but last time it turned out we'd lost Deadite :( so I'm kind of afraid to.

[seanc]

I would ask what I've been missing but last time

Mofie noms and the end of the 70's list have been the main thing. There was another Survivor as well. Put in your picks for the next Box Office challenge if you feel up to it. No deaths in the family thankfully.

[Skepsis93]

Glad to hear you're feeling better. :up:

[The Gunslinger45]

Glad to hear you are feeling better. Hopefully all will be good soon.

[edarsenal]

echo the sentiments of you feeling less crappy
take care, bro!!

[Yoda]

Keep getting better! :) And then come back and write more awesome reviews.

[gandalf26]

I echo this sentiment ^^^^.

[JayDee]

Just want to say thank you to everyone again for all the well wishes and kind words. It's very appreciated. :up: You guys rock. Oh and I know I've got lots of top film lists to catch up on reading and linking to and a number of PMs to reply to, I'll try and get to them soon.

As for my health it's a bit up and down. As I said I had been feeling a bit better for a short while there (was even able to drag myself out to the cinema), however the last few days I've kind of slipped back again.

Just a couple of things to pick up on -

Keep getting better! :)And then come back and write more awesome reviews.

I've actually got dozens of reviews already written just waiting to be posted. I just need to find the time/energy for organising, formatting and posting them.

Great review--tagged, and it's the top reviewon the Reviews page.


Thanks Yoda. I'm honoured to see it's still there. Out of interest how is it decided what is the top review? Do you just pick it or does the site automatically select it based on views/reps/awesomeness :D or whatever?


So what else have I been missing? How many squabbles has Sexy been responsible for? Any hot new threads I should check out? Any new members that have made a big impact? Any new would-be reviewers after my crown? :D

[The Gunslinger45]

The MoFo Chill Club has taken off.

[honeykid]

Just make it here for the Mofies. :) Other than that, it's been the same. I've been great, some have caught on and SC has gotten jealous. :p:D

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=17319&stc=1&d=1410742629

[Sexy Celebrity]

That was meant for JayDee, but it can be meant for Honeykid, too.

[Yoda]

Thanks Yoda. I'm honoured to see it's still there. Out of interest how is it decided what is the top review? Do you just pick it or does the site automatically select it based on views/reps/awesomeness :D or whatever?
I flag certain major releases, and the most recent one (in terms of release date) gets priority. And if there are multiple reviews (and for major releases there usually are), yeah, the one with the most rep goes up in the main spot. :)

I might mix things up a little soon, but I'll probably keep similar criteria, or mostly just change the row of posters below the featured review.

[JayDee]

I mentioned how I had managed to drag myself out to the cinema last week. It was to finally see the new entry in the Planet of the Apes series, and here's the result of that trip



mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Matt Reeves

Written by
Mark Bomback
Rick Jaffa
Amanda Silver

Starring
Andy Serkis
Jason Clarke
Gary Oldman
Toby Kebbell
Keri Russell

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

rating_4 +

Plot - 2026. Ten years after the ALZ-113 virus (now commonly known as Simian Flu) was unleashed upon the world and mankind is on the verge of extinction, with just a small band of survivors holed up in the ruins of San Francisco. Up in the woods outside the city however, the colony of apes led by Caesar (Serkis) is thriving. They now number in the thousands, have built their own community and live self-sufficiently. These two communities are brought crashing together however when the humans go into the woods in search of an old hydro-electric dam which they hope will be able to restore power to the city. After an initial confrontation that results in the death of an ape, Caesar and the the leader of the human group, Malcolm (Clarke), are able to agree to a fragile peace. With simmering tensions on both sides it seems like it will be a short-lived peace however, and this proves to be the case, largely down to Caesar's embittered lieutenant Koba (Kebbel) who has a deep hatred for humanity following his time in experimentation labs. Attempting to usurp Caesar's rule Koba desires to launch a full-scale attack on the remaining human inhabitants on the city. It seems like the only chance for any kind of peace is if Caesar and Malcolm can somehow calm the tensions and find some kind of neutral ground.

When it comes to blockbusters and their approach to story there are two main pitfalls they can stumble into. They can either go down the route of having barely any story at all so that you have a really quick pace but you don't really care about what's going on. Or they can pack the story and slow down the action to the point where the film loses what is the essence of a blockbuster. Personally I felt that Dawn just had a tendency to fall foul of the latter approach every so often. It's admirable to want to try and give your story and characters a slow build and time to breathe but I just feel it goes too far on occasion, resulting in some pacing issues throughout its first two acts. There is not a lot of development in the grand scheme of the Planet of the Apes mythology and yet the film runs for over two hours, and unlike some films I would say that at times it does feel like it. Rise ended with the apes and mankind on the verge of war, and Dawn ends...well with apes and mankind on the verge of war actually. I do have to credit the filmmakers however for having the confidence that its audience would be able to accept not just such a bleak undertaking, but that it would accept the apes as characters in their own right and their extensive use of sign language and subtitles.

This film really does do its best to subvert your expectations of a summer blockbuster. It's a really bleak enterprise, both thematically and aesthetically, with almost nothing in the way of relief. For much of its running time this is more akin to a Greek or Shakespearian tragedy than a big summer tentpole film; a film about war, betrayal, fear and the tragic nature of conflict. It's only really in its third act that the film reverts to something more resembling a traditional blockbuster as the action ramps up towards the climactic scrap atop that old film favourite - scaffolding. Koba in particular is a spectacularly tragic character, one who has been left terrifically scarred both physically and emotionally by the horrific treatment he suffered at the hands of humans in labs. While through the human characters portrayed by Gary Oldman and Kirk Acevedo we see the power that fear can have upon an individual and what humans are capable of when the survival instinct kicks in. The film spends a lot more time than you'd perhaps expect on the apes themselves, looking at the family drama and group dynamic aspects within the ape community.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was all about the follies of man and how they would result in the near destruction of the human race. Now ironically this sequel continues to shine a spotlight on the frailties of man, this time it just happens to be through the guise of the apes. Through the character of Koba we can recognise man's prevalence towards anger, bitterness and vengeance; something also witnessed through the characters of Dreyfus and Carver on the human side of things. The film shows how difficult it is to achieve any sort of lasting peace between two rival factions. To achieve peace requires the efforts of everyone to succeed. However it only takes one or two individuals with negative aspirations to ensure that all those good intentions are lost. The two communities act very much as a reflection of each other. In the form of Caesar and Malcolm respectively each group has a strong, compassionate leader doing their best to keep the peace in difficult circumstances; attempting to keep disruptive comrades in check and trying to connect with troubled sons.

Replacing the departing Rupert Wyatt in the director's chair is the Cloverfield helmer Matt Reeves, and I feel that he does a pretty good job of carrying on the momentum that Wyatt was able to generate with Rise. He does a particularly impressive job at building the tense and oppressive atmosphere. And while the film may lack a sequence capable of matching the terrific Golden Gate Bridge battle of its predecessor, Reeves is able to employ those superlative visual effects from Weta to create some bursts of action that are strong and thrilling on their own merits. Now as an overall film I wasn't a massive fan of Clovefield but I did feel that Reeves displayed an eye for a great shot and it's something that's in evidence again here. There is one touch of visual flair in particular that stands out. It's a bravura moment that occurs during the large scale skirmish between the apes and humans when Koba has commandeered a tank and sits atop it, in charge of its gun turret. As he begins to rain bullets upon the human defences the turret does a 360° revolution, revealing scenes of chaos all around as the apes rampage towards the human base, taking heavy fire in the process. It's an incredible visual assault of apes, explosions and gunfire.

Film Trivia Snippets - The director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Rupert Wyatt, declined the opportunity to return for this sequel because he was uncomfortable with the original locked release date of May 23rd. He did not believe it would allow him enough time to work on the film so he dropped out. Following his departure the release date was pushed back two months. /// Following his departure a number of directors were considered to take his place including Guillermo del Toro, Jeff Nichols, Juan Carlos Freshnadillo, J.A. Bayona and J Blakeson. In the end it was Matt Reeves who would replace him, putting aside his plans for a new Twilight Zone film. /// Gary Oldman makes his first appearance in the Apes franchise as the leader of the remaining humans, Dreyfus. However he had previously been considered for the role of General Thade in Tim Burton's 2001 version. /// With her performance as Cornelia, Judy Greer fulfilled her husband's dream of appearing in an Apes film. She revealed in interviews that she and her husband, a massive fan of the films, had a chimp husband-and-wife cake topper at their wedding, while the original 1968 film and Rise of the Planet of the Apes played on two seperate televisions in the bar area at the reception. /// The name Koba was actually the nickname of Joseph Stalin. Quite fitting given that their personalities are somewhat similar, and that Koba's ascent to power bears a resemblance to Stalin's. /// This film does not end with the original ending. After a lukewarm reception from preview audiences Matt Reeves re-shot a new ending just several weeks before release, directing the scene with Jason Clarke and Andy Serkis via Skype conference call.

In the lead-up to the film's release I had seen a lot of talk about how this was going to be a ground-breaking film in regards to its motion capture and visual effects. For the first time ever the filmmakers would actually be able to utilise motion capture technology out in the real world on location, as opposed to a studio decked out in green screen. To be honest it's not something that you're likely to instantly recognise and appreciate as it's happening but it certainly does help to create the ever increasing sense of immersion in this world. What you can't fail to appreciate and what is truly astonishing however are the visual effects and the incredible level of detail they are able to bring to the creation of the apes. You feel that you can see every single hair on their bodies, even more impressive given the fact that the apes are constantly being lashed by rain, an element that notoriously and historically has always proven to be a problem for computer effects to deal with. And the level of expression and emotion they are able to bring to the faces and eyes of the apes is just extraordinary. The apes truly would have to rank as one of the greatest CGI creations cinema audiences have ever seen; the level of realism they bring is just remarkable. At this moment in time I would certainly put this down as the clear leader in the race for this year's Oscar for Best Visual Effects. This is the film to beat, laying down a substantial gauntlet to the likes of Interstellar and The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.

Even up against the superlative visual effects, what is arguably the most impressive aspect of Dawn is just how much depth they are able to give the character of the apes and how distinctive they are able to make them from each other; after a while you forget that you are watching apes as opposed to humans, never mind that you're watching computer generated apes. And once again the visual effects do help in this respect, making them so real that you forget their computer origins and just become completely immersed with them. As the head of the simian community is Andy Serkis' Caesar who I continue to find to be a fascinating and compelling character, one worthy of being in ownership of such a historically evocative name. In a way he feels like an unwilling leader; he perhaps doesn't want to lead but realises that he has to. He strives for peace with humanity but has the strength to defend and fight for his home and his family if required. In addition to Caesar we also have the angry and vicious Koba whose emotions are consistently ruled by the awful treatment he suffered at the hands of humans and his inability to forget. Now a monstrous, psychopathic warmonger he is a truly frightening character; arguably up there alongside the likes of The Joker and Loki as one of the best movie villains of the 21st century so far. There is also a welcome return for the wise and intelligent orangutan Maurice.

After a number of astonishing mo-cap turns it is with this film that Andy Serkis finally achieves top billing and it is well deserved. And with another excellent performance to add to his growing motion capture resume it really does raise the question of when exactly we're going to get our first Oscar acting nomination awarded to a motion performance. Whenever it does happen the odds must be pretty good on it being Serkis on the receiving end. He really has perfected the craft of this specialist skill. For just about the first time however Serkis does have to share some of the motion capture spotlight; the reason for that being Toby Kebbell. Taking on the role of Koba he is terrific and absolutely chilling. There's one real standout moment from Kebbel where he finds himself at the barrel end of two guns. To ensure his survival he begins to clown around like a dumb circus ape for the entertainment of the humans. They allow him to go and as soon as his back is to them the furious scowl that comes across his face chills you to the bone. It's a look of sheer disgust, both at the humans and at himself for how he just had to demean himself. You just know that sooner or later those two are going to pay a heavy price for that. As Caesar's human counterpart is Jason Clarke in the role of Malcolm. An actor I'm not particularly familiar with him but I was impressed with his very natural performance of quiet strength. The other big addition to the cast is Gary Oldman who delivers pretty much the performance you'd expect him to give. So he stares intensely and shouts a lot. There's not a great deal more to it than that, although to be fair the character doesn't really require anything else. Prior to casting, the filmmakers would likely have described the character/performance they needed as being a 'Gary Oldman type'....so why not just get Gary Oldman.

Oh and just as one final little tidbit I have to praise the excellent production design. The creation of both the apes' refuge and mankind's sanctuary amongst its overgrown, wild city streets are terrifically realised.

Conclusion - In many ways Dawn is perhaps just as good as, if not even better than the excellent Rise, but on first viewing I feel like I certainly liked the first film more. A lot of that is just down to the fact it was a more fun film than this darker sequel which I feel lacks the heart and warmth of Rise, as well as having issues with slow pace. On a lot of fronts (visual effects, production design, its confidence in the audience) Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a very ambitious movie. It's just a shame the same cannot really be said of its story. It doesn't feel like a massive amount of development has really occurred. We all know where this new series of Apes films is going to end; with Apes running the planet and the Statue of Liberty lying in ruins. And yet I don't feel we're really all that much further along to discovering how exactly we get there.

[gandalf26]

Yay Jaydee reviews are back!!


Personally I thought both Planet of Apes are awesome, Dawn slightly better.

[Sexy Celebrity]

You are not sick. Sick people do not write Bibles.

[gandalf26]

"Rise ended with the apes and mankind on the verge of war"


Have to disagree here, Rise ended with a couple of hundred apes/gorillas etc escaping into the woods and a still fully populated planet for them to contend with.


More like the beginnings of an Ape civilisation, as opposed to the two species on the verge of war.

[honeykid]

Good work, JD. Nice to see you reviewing again. :)

BTW, have you seen the previous Ape movies? These news films sound a lot like the last three, to me. That's a good thing, BTW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4OQqg-oL2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_eK6Qd3OAE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6VDA3bzihM

[cricket]

Rise of the Apes was the last movie I saw at the cinema, not including the drive-in. I loved it and I'm really looking forward to Dawn. Great review JayDee and very happy to see you back in action:)

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Glad to see you doing reviews again!

[seanc]

Yeah, a Jaydee and a damn good one. Loved Rise and rated it the same. I wasn't so high on Dawn like others.

[Captain Spaulding]

It's good to see you're back and providing us with avalanches of words.

Nobody expected much from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and it turned out to be a huge surprise. It's one of my favorite summer blockbusters in recent memory. Now the sequel carries the burden of expectations, which, for me, it didn't quite meet. I still enjoyed Dawn, and it's certainly better than most summer blockbusters, but I prefer Rise by a sizable margin. Nothing in the sequel engaged me as much as Caesar's arc in Rise, for instance.

[Daniel M]

Good to see you back JayDee and a great review. You should know that having read my own, that I agree with most of what you say. I think this paragraph hits the nail on the head:

When it comes to blockbusters and their approach to story there are two main pitfalls they can stumble into. They can either go down the route of having barely any story at all so that you have a really quick pace but you don't really care about what's going on. Or they can pack the story and slow down the action to the point where the film loses what is the essence of a blockbuster. Personally I felt that Dawn just had a tendency to fall foul of the latter approach every so often. It's admirable to want to try and give your story and characters a slow build and time to breathe but I just feel it goes too far on occasion, resulting in some pacing issues throughout its first two acts. There is not a lot of development in the grand scheme of the Planet of the Apes mythology and yet the film runs for over two hours, and unlike some films I would say that at times it does feel like it. Rise ended with the apes and mankind on the verge of war, and Dawn ends...well with apes and mankind on the verge of war actually. I do have to credit the filmmakers however for having the confidence that its audience would be able to accept not just such a bleak undertaking, but that it would accept the apes as characters in their own right and their extensive use of sign language and subtitles.

I do feel that despite its blockbuster feel for most the part it doesn't take the opportunity it has to advance the saga in terms of complexity and such, it's a good 'war' film with your usual good and evil characters like Kobe and Gary Oldman, but beyond that, it doesn't really take a massive leap from the series' perspective.

I think I was perhaps a little underwhelmed given all the hype, but I still thought it was a very good film nonetheless.

Just one mistake I noticed though:

Now a monstrous, psychopathic warmonger he is a truly frightening character; arguably up there alongside the likes of The Joker and Loki as one of the best movie villains of the 21st century so far.

:p

[JayDee]

You are not sick. Sick people do not write Bibles.

That's not a bible Sexy. It's not even 2000 words! I really half-assed this one. :p

Also just me typing "That's not a bible" brought Crocodile Dundee to mind :D

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/CrocDundeeBible_zps636d7200.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/CrocDundeeBible_zps636d7200.jpg.html)

"Rise ended with the apes and mankind on the verge of war"

Have to disagree here, Rise ended with a couple of hundred apes/gorillas etc escaping into the woods and a still fully populated planet for them to contend with.

More like the beginnings of an Ape civilisation, as opposed to the two species on the verge of war.

Fair point. I just felt that with apes having risen up, overthrown their human oppressors and the battle on the Golden Gate bridge the war would have been just around the corner.


BTW, have you seen the previous Ape movies? These news films sound a lot like the last three, to me. That's a good thing, BTW.


I've not actually. Despite growing up loving the classic original I've never seen any of the sequels. I got the DVD boxset of all the original films years and years ago but still never got round to them. I do however plan on watching them sometime soon. A week or two prior to going to the cinema I rewatched Rise of the Planet of the Apes and plan on watching all of them in order.

Rise of the Apes was the last movie I saw at the cinema, not including the drive-in. I loved it and I'm really looking forward to Dawn. Great review JayDee and very happy to see you back in action:)

Wow I knew from before that you didn't like going to the cinema but I didn't realise it had been so long.

I still enjoyed Dawn, and it's certainly better than most summer blockbusters, but I prefer Rise by a sizable margin. Nothing in the sequel engaged me as much as Caesar's arc in Rise, for instance.

Pretty much how I felt about it. :yup: It was Caesar's arc that gave Rise its heart, and his relationship with James Franco's character its warmth.


Just one mistake I noticed though:

Now a monstrous, psychopathic warmonger he is a truly frightening character; arguably up there alongside the likes of The Joker and Loki as one of the best movie villains of the 21st century so far.

:p

You're right Daniel, thanks for that. The part you've bolded is indeed the accurate part of that sentence. :p Why I threw in a mention for The Joker is beyond me.

[JayDee]

A while back I mentioned how there were a few 70s favourites I had revisited for the 70s countdown and written reviews for. At the time I posted my reviews for Dirty Harry and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Well here's another -


mirror mirror

Year of release
1975

Directed by
John Schlesinger

Written by
William Goldman

Starring
Dustin Hoffman
Laurence Olivier
Roy Scheider
William Devane
Marthe Keller

Marathon Man

rating_4_5

Plot - Nazi war criminal Dr. Christian Szell (Olivier) is a former SS dentist who committed countless atrocities during the second world war, earning himself the nickname 'the White Angel of Auschwitz.' When his brother is killed in a car accident, a covert US government agency called 'The Division' believe that he will come out of hiding to retrieve a valuable diamond collection he amassed during the war. Following the accident, members of the agency are targeted and killed off one by one. One such agent is Henry 'Doc' Levy (Scheider), who finds himself killed at the hands of Szell, who dies in the arms of his brother Babe (Hoffman). Babe, who up until now had been completely oblivious to his brother's true profession, now finds himself unwittingly drawn into this madness when he is kidnapped by Szell and his men.

I'm a big fan of the 70s thriller. And while there are a couple that I perhaps love more than this film, I don't think there are many, if any, better or more thrilling than Marathon Man. And if this were indeed the standard bearer for the genre it would be a suitable fit as it features just about every ingredient that was so common during the decade; conspiracies, cover-ups, secret government agencies, double crosses, paranoia etc. The story that propels Marathon Man along is really quite preposterous when you stop to consider its tale of Nazis and secret government agencies, and even when it's over you're left scratching your head trying to work some of it out. But the script by William Goldman and the direction of Schlesinger are both so strong that they help to gloss over the fact so that you don't really notice or become concerned by it. Together they construct a series of fantastically tense and suspenseful sequences. In fact had he been able to replicate such anxious thrills throughout the rest of his career Schlesinger may have been able to challenge Alfred Hitchcock for the 'Master of Suspense' title.

Following an explosive road rage incident to open proceedings, the film actually then takes its time to set up the story. Goldman's script establishes the separate story threads of Babe's character, his brother's involvement in a covert government agency and the Nazi element before smashing them all together for the tense and thrilling second half of the film. And as I mentioned these emotions are elicited through a series of terrific sequences and set-pieces. There's a thrilling attempt on the life of Roy Scheider's Doc. There's a highly suspenseful moment which sees Hoffman having a bath when he becomes aware that individuals have broken into his apartment. There is the absolutely classic, iconic dental torture scene which I'll get onto later that is enough to make anyone squirm in their seat. Following a wonderfully manipulative double-cross, Babe's escape from that predicament then leads into a fantastic foot chase through the deserted, derelict and rain-slicked streets of New York. And then before the final face-off between Babe and Szell they are still able to squeeze in another tense sequence when Szell is visiting Manhattan's diamond district, surrounded by Jewish people, when one of his former concentration camp victims recognises him and attempts to stop him. So as you can see there is a whole slew of terrific scenes to get you on the edge of your seat and get your heart racing. And they are all set to the backdrop of a terrifically sinister and disconcerting score from Michael Small.

The real selling point of this film is the chance to see Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Oliver go head-to-head. While it's always a treat to see two legendary actors share the screen in such a manner, on this occasion it goes somewhat deeper than that. With both men being exponents of two very different acting styles it makes for a fascinating clash. On one hand you've got Hoffman who believed very much in the method style of acting, while on the other hand you've got Olivier who was theatrically trained and believed in the more classic, traditional style. As well as just the interest in seeing how the styles mesh, their respective approaches actually work well for their individual characters. Hoffman's edgy, natural style works for his character's bewildered, out of his depth persona. While Olivier's more deliberate, measured style creates a sense of control and calm in his character that makes him unnerving. In fact the combination of the two men and their contrasting styles brought about one of the most famous actorly anecdotes/quotes of all time. On one occasion Hoffman's character is supposed to have stayed awake for three straight days. To emulate this sensation Hoffman did actually stay up for three days prior to filming the scene. When Olivier learned of this his response was the classic, “why don't you just try acting, dear boy?”

Film Trivia Snippets - Laurence Olivier took the part of Szell in part to leave a great deal of money to his wife and children, as he expected to die from the cancer that afflicted him throughout production. He performed the role while undergoing treatment for his cancer, which included heavy doses of painkillers to allow him to work every day. The pain medication affected his memory and at times the actor couldn't remember more than one or two of his lines at a time. In a testament to the actor's fierce concentration, his performance garnered rave reviews and an Oscar nomination and despite working under such aggressive medical treatment, the actor experienced a full recovery allowing him to enjoy the success of this film and a series of leading roles that followed. /// Marathon Man has proved rather popular with the American Film Institute when it comes to their lists. Dr Szell was ranked as villain #34 on the American Film Institute's "100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains" list. The film itself was ranked #50 on the "100 Years...100 Thrills List." And the line "Is it safe?" was voted as the #70 movie quote by the American Film Institute (out of 100). In addition the torture scene was named #65 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments. /// Marathon Man was the first theatrically released film to use Steadicam. /// Although he was playing a graduate student, Dustin Hoffman was actually 38 at the time of filming. /// Laurence Olivier was so afraid that he would accidentally hurt Dustin Hoffman while filming the torture scene that he would constantly ask Hoffman if he was all right after shooting a take. As a joke, Hoffman tried to make Olivier think that he had really hurt him by screaming in a very convincing and unexpected manner.

And the trademark scene where they are both brought together is most certainly the classic dental scene. In an effort to learn what Hoffman's character knows, Olivier indulges in some dental torture to get him to talk. Between Hoffman's anguished screams of pure agony and the chilling sound of the dentist drill it's an exceptionally unsettling and uncomfortable scene. And Olivier is so incredibly menacing in the sequence, turning three simple words (“is it safe”) into just about the most unsettling sentence I've ever heard. Though both men may have employed different methods to get there, in the end they both delivered great performances. In the role of Thomas Levy, commonly known as Babe, Dustin Hoffman is just terrific at conveying the character's traumatic and nightmarish journey. He takes him from this initially meek and slightly boyish character; someone so unassertive that he doesn't even answer a question in his History class even though he absolutely knows the answer, to someone almost unrecognisable by film's end. In the film's final scenes we see Hoffman battered, drained and fuelled by anger and vengeance. After what he was put through earlier in the dentist's chair the scene is a great turn-around of roles as he gets his revenge by making Szell swallow the diamonds if he wants to keep them. And in the role of Nazi war criminal Dr. Christian Szell, Olivier just chills you to the bone. Displaying an incredible cruelty, a unrelenting drive to accomplish his goals and absolutely no remorse he completely brings to life this character who is the absolute embodiment of pure evil. The character of Dr. Szell was ranked at #34 in the AFI's list of greatest villains and it's not hard to see why.

While the clash between Hoffman and Olivier might be the main event, the cast's under-card isn't too shabby either. As Hoffman's brother, Doc, you've got a real icon of the 70s, Roy Scheider, on fine form. In fact Marathon Man almost feels like his own personal audition tape to take over the role of James Bond. He's cool, he's suave, he's tough, he's hard-nosed and he's also pretty bad-ass as we see in a rather brutal close-quarters fight in a hotel room which feels like it could have been lifted straight from one of Sean Connery's outings as 007. Further strong support comes in the form of William Devane as the mercurial, crafty and composed Janeway. And while she might be hampered by her cryptic character and confusing motivations, Marthe Keller is able to give Elsa a fairly sensual and seductive quality.

One of my favourite things about Marathon Man is how every single second of it seems to have been shot on location. There's very little if anything at all of sets or backlots on display here. Much of it occurs right on the real streets of New York, with real New Yorkers all around, with the film shooting throughout Manhattan, in Central Park and in Central Park Zoo. It adds a great deal of atmosphere and life to proceedings. The film also utilises some fantastic locations, both recognisable and not, as the settings for many of its scenes; the grand Paris Opera, the columns of Jardin de Palais Royal and the Acro Plaza in Los Angeles really getting across the idea that this is a story and conspiracy that spans the world. And I also love the location they used for the conclusion. The South Gate House waterworks in Central Park may not be the most glamorous of locations but I found it to be an exceptionally interesting one.

Conclusion - Its story may be convoluted and on occasion downright baffling, but that doesn't stop Marathon Man from being one of the most thrilling and captivating films I've ever seen from the 70s, or any other decade for that matter. That arises due to William Goldman's cracking script, John Schlesinger's dynamic direction and two terrific performances from screen legends Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Saw Marathon Man before the 70's list was ended. Not sure if it would have made my top 25, but it was fantastic!

[Captain Spaulding]

I don't love Marathon Man as much as you or the people who voted for it in the 70's Countdown, but there's no denying that it's an extremely well-made thriller.

BTW, did you ever share your 70's list? I'd be curious to see which movies received your votes.

[JayDee]

Thanks guys.

And no Cap I didn't post my 70s list anywhere. I'll need to hunt it out

[nebbit]

Great review JD :yup: I love the trivia :yup:

[cricket]

Great review as always JayDee, Marathon Man was on my 70's list. I was also interested in seeing yours.

[JayDee]

Great review JD :yup: I love the trivia :yup:

Susan!!! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/hug-1_zps21251001.gif Great to see you stopping by. And thank you.


Anyway guys here is the list I sent in for the 70s countdown. At least I think this is it. I can't remember if when it came to sending the PM if I slightly altered the order of one or two of them at the last minute but I don't think so

1. Rocky
2. Enter the Dragon
3. Young Frankenstein
4. The Taking of Pelham 123
5. Dirty Harry
6. The Muppet Movie
7. Assault on Precinct 13
8. Marathon Man
9. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
10. The Night Strangler
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
12. Rocky II
13. Charley Varrick
14. The Spy Who Loved Me
15. The Night Stalker
16. The Beguiled
17. Star Wars
18. Silent Partner
19. Serpico
20. The Warriors
21. Bad News Bears
22. The Enforcer
23. Hard Times
24. Three Days of the Condor
25. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

[Sexy Celebrity]

Thank you, JayDee. You helped Rocky and Rocky II.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I kinda like the Hemingway character. Best thing about the movie so far. But I'm still bored and not fully watching.

EDIT: Whoops. Wrong thread. *leaves*

[seanc]

I like Rocky at 1 and your inclusion of Serpico. No Godfather and #17 Star Wars makes me sad though.:(

[honeykid]

You got 4 of those correct. :D

It's a nice list though, JD. :up: Shame about The Muppet Movie. :p

[Miss Vicky]

1. Rocky
2. Enter the Dragon
3. Young Frankenstein
4. The Taking of Pelham 123
5. Dirty Harry
6. The Muppet Movie
7. Assault on Precinct 13
8. Marathon Man
9. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
10. The Night Strangler
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
12. Rocky II
13. Charley Varrick
14. The Spy Who Loved Me
15. The Night Stalker
16. The Beguiled
17. Star Wars
18. Silent Partner
19. Serpico
20. The Warriors
21. Bad News Bears
22. The Enforcer
23. Hard Times
24. Three Days of the Condor
25. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

We had three in common.

BTW, you are going to submit a ballot for the animation list, right?

[cricket]

1. Rocky
2. Enter the Dragon
3. Young Frankenstein
4. The Taking of Pelham 123
5. Dirty Harry
6. The Muppet Movie
7. Assault on Precinct 13
8. Marathon Man
9. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
10. The Night Strangler
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
12. Rocky II
13. Charley Varrick
14. The Spy Who Loved Me
15. The Night Stalker
16. The Beguiled
17. Star Wars
18. Silent Partner
19. Serpico
20. The Warriors
21. Bad News Bears
22. The Enforcer
23. Hard Times
24. Three Days of the Condor
25. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Great list JayDee, I also voted for The Warriors, Marathon Man, and The Beguiled(go vote for it in the movie tournament). A lot of other great ones there too.

[JayDee]

Another film I rewatched for the 70s list. It's not one of my real favourites like the others were but a pretty great film nonetheless.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1973

Directed by
Sidney Lumet

Written by
Waldo Salt
Norman Wexler
Peter Mass (book)

Starring
Al Pacino
John Randolph
Jack Kehoe
Biff McGuire
Barbara Eda-Young
Tony Roberts

Serpico

rating_4

Plot - New York City, 1960, and the idealistic young Frank Serpico (Pacino) joins the New York Police Department full of enthusiasm. Excelling as a patrolman he finds himself transferred to the plain clothes division, where he quickly discovers that just about every single one of his colleagues is dirty, sharing money that they get from extorting criminals. When he refuses to accept his share of the money he finds himself ostracised by the department, becoming a pariah. He reports the rampant corruption to his superiors but is disheartened to find that nothing is done about it even as years begin rolling by. And as the years go by the attitude of his colleagues becomes ever more negative towards him as they begin to harass and even threaten him. When stories begin to swirl through the department that Serpico has agreed to testify at a commission into police corruption he finds his life in great peril.

I've always been fascinated and quite frankly confused about the attitude that those in law enforcement have towards cops who inform on their colleagues. When their job is to enforce and uphold the law it baffles me that they would hold such resentment towards their fellow officers who attempt to weed out corruption and crime within their own department. To me their just seems to be no logic to such acrimony towards honest cops and Internal Affairs. But that certainly is the case, at least if films and TV shows are to be believed. And Serpico is another in that long line and arguably amongst the finest that cinema has to offer. The double standards and hypocrisy found amongst Frank Serpico's fellow officers is just incredible, he's treated with suspicion because he isn't dirty! I mean how can you begin to get your head around the fact that he is told in all seriousness, “who can trust a cop who don't take money?”

Frank Serpico was a man who always dreamed of being a police officer. And I think that is probably an aspiration that many of us can relate to. Alongside growing up to be the likes of an astronaut or a cowboy it's one of those common dreams of childhood. And just as with those two aforementioned professions much of that desire is created by their portrayal in popular entertainment. No matter what age you are every generation has its own icons of law enforcement and crime solving, whether that be Columbo, Starsky and Hutch, Crockett and Tubbs, Joe Friday, Inspector Gadget, Kojak, Gil Grissom, Thomas Magnum, Jessica Fletcher, Jim Rockford, Steve McGarrett, Cagney and Lacey - all characters who are fine examples of the nobility and heroic nature that should be a part of the profession. And those are the ideals that Frank Serpico wants to live up to. So imagine how crushed he must have been to find that he was just about the only one. With his unruly mass of facial hair and a wardrobe seemingly more fit for Woodstock than a police station he certainly doesn't look like any of his fellow cops, and as it turns out he doesn't seem to think the same way either. He arrives with such enthusiasm for the job but quickly finds himself shocked at the sheer apathy of his colleagues and the politics involved. Everywhere he turns he just finds more and more corruption and more dirty cops, yet none of his superiors seem to care. He becomes so disillusioned by the whole thing. There's one small little moment that feels like a perfect snapshot to sum up his situation. Clearly returning from an undercover assignment he walks into the station dressed as a Hasidic Jew, complete with massive beard. It's a humorous moment that is done in such a matter-of-fact manner that it just highlights the sheer absurdity of Serpico's situation.

While the film is an examination of the kind of corruption that was running rife in police departments of the time, the heart of the film comes from the emotional journey that Serpico goes through as his dream job becomes a nightmare and he realises that he can't do the job that he loves. In addition to ruining his professional life the corruption that engulfs him also takes its toll on his personal life. Early in the film we see him establishing a normal life; finding a home to call his own, getting a dog and forming romantic attachments. He is unable to leave his job at the police station, taking the immense strain home with him and killing his relationship with two women in the process. The longer the film goes, without a single friend on the force to call his own, the more solitary a figure he becomes. Lumet frequently shoots Pacino on his own in wide shots just to highlight the exceptional isolation he finds himself experiencing. I also have to give some special mention to the production department for their part in helping to establish Serpico's character, with both his costume design and the set design of his apartment helping to set him very much apart from his contemporaries, showing him to be a much more artistic and cultured individual who has somewhat embraced the hippie movement.

Film Trivia Snippets - Serpico was shot in reverse order to aid Pacino in building his character's appearance. Al Pacino began filming with long hair and a thick beard and then for each individual scene his hair and beard were trimmed back bit by but until he was short-haired and clean shaven for the film's opening scenes. /// The film was originally set to be directed by John G. Avildsen of Rocky and Karate Kid fame until he was replaced just before filming due to creative differences with the producer. /// Serpico was not always envisaged as a star vehicle for Al Pacino. The original plan was for it to be another double act picture for Robert Redford and Paul Newman following Butch Cassidy and the Sundances Kid. Redford would have played Frank Serpico with Newman playing his lawyer friend David Durk (a character that was renamed Bob Blair in the final film and played by Tony Roberts). /// The film was shot exclusively on the streets of New York, utilising a total of 104 different locations spread across every borough of New York City except for Staten Island. /// After he decided to make the film Al Pacino invited Frank Serpico to stay with him at a house that Pacino had rented in Montauk, New York. When Pacino asked Serpico, "Why did you do it?" Serpico replied, "Well, Al, I don't know. I guess I would have to say it would be because... if I didn't, who would I be when I listened to a piece of music?"

Taking on the lead role of Frank Serpico is Al Pacino, who despite his standing amongst the majority of film fans and his undoubted talent I've never been completely sold on. When his name is in the credits I tend to approach with a sense of caution, fearful of being treated to another one of his hammy, larger-than-life, scenery chewing turns that for me personally can just bring the whole film crashing down around him. There's that old phrase, “Go big or go home”; well when Pacino goes big I tend to go home. There's no denying however that when Pacino is good he is very, very good. And his performance here certainly falls into that category. He is excellent. He just attacks the role of Serpico with such incredible fire and conviction, really bringing this complex and conflicted character to life. He just convinces completely in the part; you absolutely believe 100% that he is a cop, and that he is Frank Serpico. As such it's hard to imagine anyone else taking on and inhabiting the role with such force and assurance. While Serpico is most assuredly Pacino's show he is given some solid back-up from a fine cast of character performers that includes the likes of Tony Roberts, John Randolph and Jack Kehoe.

Serpico is very much a film of its time, and I don't mean that in a negative way. Like many of its fellow thrillers from the same decade Serpico shares that same gritty aesthetic and feel that was put to such fine use in police procedurals of the time such as Dirty Harry and The French Connection, and it is yet another example in a long line of great city movies to roll off the 70s thriller conveyor belt. And while the film actually begins in 1960 its story is one that very much captures the sentiment of the 1970s in terms of the negative attitude that American people had towards establishments such as the government and law enforcement. And with its tale of corruption rife within the police force the film shows why exactly Americans felt this way about those in charge. It's a sentiment that Pacino and Lumet would re-team to again tackle a couple of years later on Dog Day Afternoon when Pacino's Sonny Wortzik takes on what feels like the entire New York Police Department and finds himself getting great support from the man on the street. While corruption within law enforcement is the main thrust of Serpico's story it does also find time to touch upon other touchpaper issues of the time such as racial tensions and homophobia.

While it would be nice to think that this was merely a piece of fiction to escape into and be enthralled by, the sad truth is that Serpico is based on a very real man and a very real case of corruption. And with Sidney Lumet in the director's chair he ensures that the film adopts a docu-drama approach that plays into its true-life inspiration, heightening the realism and senes of authenticity. At times it really does feel like we're watching a documentary, with Lumet's camera feeling very kinetic and unstructured as it darts around in the wake of its characters. It comes across like Lumet doesn't know where the film is going and that he is reacting very much on the hoof to follow the action. Further enhancing the film's verisimilitude is its exceptionally minimal use of Mikis Theodorakis' score. In fact I don't believe that a single note of music is employed during the scenes set in police stations whatsoever. Instead the rare examples of the melodic, Italian-tinged score are reserved more for the personal aspects of Serpico's life

Conclusion - Powerful, incendiary and troubling, Serpico is also able to emerge out the other side as a rousing and inspirational tale of one honest man and his courageous battle against widespread corruption throughout the New York Police Department. Much of that is down to the true heroism of the real Frank Serpico on which the film is based, but a tremendous and ferocious showing from Al Pacino and strong direction from Sidney Lumet certainly aid in creating such an experience. Engrossing.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I didn't care for Serpico. I thought it was boring.

[cricket]

I thought Serpico was very good in pretty much every way, but I didn't love it in any way.

[gandalf26]

Susan!!! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/hug-1_zps21251001.gif Great to see you stopping by. And thank you.


Anyway guys here is the list I sent in for the 70s countdown. At least I think this is it. I can't remember if when it came to sending the PM if I slightly altered the order of one or two of them at the last minute but I don't think so

1. Rocky
2. Enter the Dragon
3. Young Frankenstein
4. The Taking of Pelham 123
5. Dirty Harry
6. The Muppet Movie
7. Assault on Precinct 13
8. Marathon Man
9. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
10. The Night Strangler
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
12. Rocky II
13. Charley Varrick
14. The Spy Who Loved Me
15. The Night Stalker
16. The Beguiled
17. Star Wars
18. Silent Partner
19. Serpico
20. The Warriors
21. Bad News Bears
22. The Enforcer
23. Hard Times
24. Three Days of the Condor
25. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Yay for Assault on Precinct 13! I had it quite high on my list too. Just made the 100 because of us I think. Also must have been me and you that voted for Spy Who Loved Me because that didn't quite make the list.

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Though I admit, I have not seen this movie.

[Captain Spaulding]

We don't share a single 70's film in common, although Dirty Harry very nearly made my list.

Serpico is a good movie, but I admire the performances and the direction more than the movie itself. I had a much stronger reaction to Dog Day Afternoon. One day I'll give Serpico another go and hopefully enjoy it a little more.

[honeykid]

You don't share a movie with the Captain? See, JD, this is why we're such good friends. :):up:

[Captain Spaulding]

You don't share a movie with the Captain? See, JD, this is why we're such good friends. :):up:

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s451/captainspaulding87/spauldinggif6_zpsd49d55a5.gif

[honeykid]

There's a lot of bird on this site the last couple of days. I always thought it wasn't allowed/frowned upon?

[Captain Spaulding]

There's a lot of bird on this site the last couple of days. I always thought it wasn't allowed/frowned upon?

http://www.communitymediaworkshop.org/images/bigbird-nonprofit-communications.jpg

[Sexy Celebrity]

Captain Spaulding, do you need a bird bath?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=17849&stc=1&d=1411817055

[JayDee]

I like Rocky at 1 and your inclusion of Serpico. No Godfather and #17 Star Wars makes me sad though.:(

Regarding Godfather, I didn't get round to rewatching it before submitting a list and I wanted every film on their to have been watched at least twice.

And when it comes to Star Wars I like it, but don't absolutely love it. I know it's pretty rare but it's actually my least favourite of the original trilogy. Perhaps it's because I didn't grow up with the films and have that great fondness for them and the characters. So Empire Strikes Back and Jedi I love just because they're just a massive amount of fun. For people who love the characters and that world Star Wars perhaps means more to them because it's where it all started and because it probably has the most amount of story and character work in it. But for me the films and their appeal is really just about the action and adventure. While I certainly wouldn't say that Star Wars is boring in any way I just think the two sequels are more entertaining and exciting.


It's a nice list though, JD. :up: Shame about The Muppet Movie. :p

For some reason I imagined that of any of them it would be Willy Wonka you'd have a real problem with.


BTW, you are going to submit a ballot for the animation list, right?

Mayyyyybe. ;)

[JayDee]

Just remembered that I still had a few bonus Dawn of the Planet of the Apes posters kicking about, just ones that weren't the main ones the studio had plastered everywhere


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes3_zps0be4b266.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes3_zps0be4b266.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes2_zps7c30e2b8.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes2_zps7c30e2b8.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes5_zps703cd8bc.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes5_zps703cd8bc.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes9_zpsd4900821.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes9_zpsd4900821.jpg.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes4_zps0699bb63.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes4_zps0699bb63.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes7_zpsd8252a17.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes7_zpsd8252a17.png.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes10_zpsfde71d65.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes10_zpsfde71d65.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/DawnofApes11_zpsdfe4905f.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/DawnofApes11_zpsdfe4905f.jpg.html)

[JayDee]

Just to let everyone know I will try and be back to posting my reviews in the next day or two. Got a new laptop and just trying to get the hang of it and all my files, documents etc transferred. Once I've done that will start getting them posted again

[honeykid]

:cool:

[JayDee]

Next page please. Move it along. Nothing to see here.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror
Year of release
1981

Directed by
Walter Hill

Written by
Michael Kane
Walter Hill
David Giler

Starring
Keith Carradine
Powers Boothe
Fred Ward
Franklyn Seales
T.K. Carter
Lewis Smith

Southern Comfort

rating_4 +


Plot - A squad of National Guardsmen are on a weekend exercise in the Louisiana swamps when things go horribly wrong. Crossing the path of some local Cajun poachers, the reckless actions of the men infuriate the poachers to such an extent that they shoot and kill the squad's leader, Staff Sergeant Poole. This initiates a war between the two parties that continues to escalate, particularly once the soldiers have found and captured one of the poachers. Finding themselves under fire from all directions by their near-invisible enemy, the men begin to crumble under the pressure and turn upon one another. Only by retaining their sanity will any of them stand a chance of getting out of the swamp alive.

Set in the backwoods of America's Deep South, and concerning a group of individuals being hunted by the local inhabitants, it seems that the most natural reference point for this film should be John Boorman's 70s classic, Deliverance. In cinematic terms however I actually think that the film's closest cousin may well be First Blood; admittedly with a strong dash of Deliverance thrown in for good measure. Just as was the case with the Stallone classic, which would be released the following year, Southern Comfort is a film which can be viewed and enjoyed on two different levels. On the one hand you can enjoy this film on the level that you can enjoy just about every Walter Hill film; as a purely kick-ass action film. Go further than that though and just like First Blood, hidden underneath its macho façade the film really acts as an allegorical tale for the Vietnam War. Beyond the obvious geographical similarities offered up by Louisiana's forest and swamps it really is like the entire conflict boiled down and summed up in a nutshell.

At the core of the film there is a platoon of soldiers from the Louisiana National Guard. The patrol may only consist of 9 men but they really do act as a small scale representation of the half a million US soldiers who were deployed to Vietnam between the years of 1965 and 1972. Led by Peter Coyote's Staff Sergeant Poole, the men are completely out of their element. Unruly and undisciplined, the majority of the men more closely resemble frat boys than soldiers. And when the situation escalates they are completely unprepared to deal with the fallout. As they find themselves heading further and further into the bayou swamps, they find themselves more and more out of their depth. They find themselves lost in an unfamiliar location where the knowledge that the locals possess of the area places the soldiers at a great disadvantage. It's obviously not much of a stretch to see the similarities to America's doomed campaign. More than any other war the conflict in Vietnam was one populated by the very young. While it's a claim disputed by some, the average age of an American soldier during that war was just 19 years of age. These were mere kids just out of high school; they were ill-equipped, unprepared and had no business being involved in such an undertaking. There is a moment just before he is gunned down where one of the young soldiers breaks down crying, yelling out that “I didn't do anything wrong...I'm not supposed to be here...I'm not supposed to be here!” As soon as he said it I couldn't help but wonder how many young men uttered the exact same words over in Vietnam.

One of the most contentious issues of the Vietnam War was whether American forces should even be there in the first place. It was an issue that sparked protests across America. And it's a similar case here. It is the foolish behaviour of the soldiers that sparks the dispute in the first place and it then becomes a question as to what right they have to be there, at least in the eyes of the Cajuns. As one of the poachers informs them, “This is our home and no one going to f*ck with us!” Standing in for the Vietcong soldiers in this instance are this group of Cajun poachers who begin to pick the Guardsmen off one by one. Like the Vietcong their ways and practices are rather alien to the soldiers. Also like the Vietcong, the Cajuns rely on their knowledge of the surroundings to their great advantage as well as employing guerilla tactics to counteract the greater number of soldiers. These tactics include both physical and mental assaults. On one occasion the poachers sick a pack of wild hunting dogs on the soldiers, while later on the soldiers come across the corpses of their fallen comrades strung up to a tree; corpses that the Cajuns have dug up and put on display like some grotesque art installation.

Film Trivia Snippets - Southern Comfort marked the second occasion where Walter Hill and Ry Cooder collaborated together. The first film they worked on together was The Long Riders, and Cooder would eventually go on to score a total of 9 films for Hill. /// To use the phrase 'Southern Comfort' as the title of the film the filmmakers first had to get permission from the Brown-Forman Corporation, who own the rights to the phrase. They make a liqueur of the same name. /// The movie has been read by many people, including myself, as a metaphor or an allergy for the Vietnam War. Walter Hill however has stated that this was never his intent. On the day where they had the cast read-through Hill told them that “People are going to say this is about Vietnam. They can say whatever they want, but I don’t want to hear another word about it.” /// As I noted earlier there are several similarities between this film and 1972's Deliverance, and it was a similarity that the PR department jumped on. Some movie posters actually ran with the tagline 'Not since Deliverance...' /// The storyline for this film is actually extremely similar to Walter Hill's previous film, The Warriors. Both movies feature a group of characters undertaking a perilious journey to find their way home and encountering various dangerous obstacles, a hostile environment and aversive enemies along the way. The nature of the film's narrative dictates that Southern Comfort is more about the situation and the men as a group rather than as individuals, and therefore no great depth or growth can really be attributed to the characters by the actors inhabiting the roles. Fortunately however a rather strong cast was assembled for the film, a cast comprising of several fine and noteable character actors. And just about the entire cast do a fine job of crafting a series of strong and macho individuals with considerable intensity, with Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine distinguishing themselves from the pack as the two voices of reason. Fred Ward also impresses as the bully of the group while Peter Coyote makes an impression despite his limited time on screen. Walter Hill uses all of these individual characters to portray the varying effects that war can have upon a man and upon a group dynamic. Some men panic and crumble in such situations, while others completely shut down mentally. Some men resort to their most basest instincts and commit atrocious acts, while others attempt to hold on to both their sanity and humanity and lead those around them. Just as this is true in war so it is true here for these men. We see some of the men go on an unquenchable thirst for revenge after the Cajuns have killed their Staff Sergeant while other men in the platoon attempt to retain a sense of right and obey the military rules. We see some men attempt to take command and help the group while others begin to care only for their own well-being. As time goes on we witness the patrol tear itself apart through rage and fear which sparks infighting and splinters the groups into factions. Alongside the Vietnam allegory the film seems to be a damning indictment of the macho behavior that men often succumb to, particularly in a group dynamic.

Given that the action genre has been Hill's meal-ticket throughout his career it will come as no real surprise that he provides a more than capable hand for the several action sequences that populate the film. They are generally thrilling and immersive scenes, with a sequence where the Cajuns weaponise the very forest itself by felling a series of trees all around the soldiers arguably being the most impressive and striking. More than the action sequences though, I'd say the most impressive aspect of Hill's direction is the wonderful sense of mood and atmosphere that he creates. Consistently shooting in very tight quarters and close in on his actors, the action never emerges out of the dense forest of the swamp into open spaces, ensuring that Southern Comfort is an extremely claustrophobic experience from the first minute to the last. Hill also makes sure to pace the film just right. Films of this nature will often come unstuck by blowing their load early on, delivering big rushes of adrenaline then falling away for a while until the next rush. While Hill does deliver these rushes early and often he keeps the level of intrigue strong throughout, continually turning the screws so that he builds the tension to greater and greater heights all the way until its conclusion. It makes for a nervy and uncomfortable experience. And this is never more true than in its finale. The concluding 20 or so minutes of the film are almost unbearably tense, probably amongst the most tense and suspenseful sequences I've seen in a film for quite some time actually; perhaps even ever. When two of the soldiers are able to escape out of swamp and find their way to a small Cajun shanty town they should be safe. But at no point do you ever get that sense; the feeling of anxiety and paranoia remains. The editing in this stretch is tremendous. The film cuts back and forth breathlessly from images of a wild Cajun party that they find themselves a part of, images of one of the soldiers being stalked by the poachers and harrowing images of two pigs being shot in the head, strung up, skinned and gutted; obviously acting as a possible foreshadowing of their own fate. It's such an intense, torturous sequence which then explodes with bursts of violence.

Aiding him in establishing this atmosphere Hill has the assistance of two very talented collaborators. Beyond the similarities that I have already laid out between the two films Southern Comfort does feature another link to First Blood; they both share the same cinematographer in Andrew Laszlo. And just as he would do the following year for Rambo's first outing, Laszlo impresses immensely and adds so much to the finished product. He wraps the film in a series of gloomy and imposing tones, draping proceeding in a palette of dark greens, greys and browns which builds on the foreboding and ominous atmosphere as well as highlighting the rural, primal landscape in which the soldiers find themselves trapped. Throw in a substantial amount of swirling mist and you've got one unnerving environment where a considerable sense of dread hangs heavy in the air. It's the kind of swampy forest you frequently see in fantasy films. It would have a name like The Dread Woods or The Black Woods and a sign at its entrance warning that death awaits all men who enter here. As strong as Laszlo's work is he is arguably outshone by the film's excellent score; an eerie and haunting creation delivered by guitar legend Ry Cooder, a score infused with a Cajun flavour throughout. It's a score that is made all the more effective by its relatively minimal use. Much of the film unfolds without any music, but instead relies upon the deathly silence and stillness of the bayou to create its menace, with a great soundtrack of natural sounds creating the atmosphere; the squawking of birds, the droning of cicadas and the splashing of boots in the swamp.

Conclusion - Southern Comfort may not have acquired the iconic standing or fanbase that has benefitted either First Blood or Deliverance; taken on its own merits however this is a damn fine film, and one that I would recommend to fans of either of those more well-known efforts. It's an exhilarating action film which morphs into a slice of survival horror, one that has an incredibly stark and menacing atmosphere of claustrophobia and paranoia. With strong direction, evocative cinematography, a fantastically macabre score and an excellent conclusion this is a film that deserves a much larger following than it currently has. Could become quite the favourite of mine.

[seanc]

Next page please. Move it along. Nothing to see here.

Your so calculating.;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Interesting. I had never heard of it before.

[cricket]

Great review JayDee; I've always loved that movie. I saw it before Deliverance, but after First Blood, and I never thought of the comparison, but what you say makes plenty of sense. I remember when I first saw it and I thought Peter Coyote would be the star of the movie, and then bam-that's a memorable moment.

[honeykid]

It's a great film and one I enjoy watching a lot because of the atmosphere it creates (as you know, I do like an atmosphere) and sustains throughout. Glad you liked it so much. :)

[Tyler1]

What a masterpiece! :up: All this while I haven't been paying attention to Walter Hill ever since I saw The Warriors. I'm looking forward to watching Extreme Prejudice.

[christine]

JayDee, enjoyed reading your thoughtful review. Excellent work!

[The Gunslinger45]

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I have not seen it, but I think I should.

[Miss Vicky]

^What he said.

[honeykid]

You both should. I think it'd be something you'd both like.

[gandalf26]

Nice review! It's been n TV a couple of times late at night and I've fallen asleep after around an hour both times. Have to try and watch it next time time the end.

[edarsenal]

Southern Comfort is an EXCELLENT movie that I had seen multiple times when it first came out and really need to see again
THANKS for the review, jay!

[edarsenal]

reading this review got me to go a-searchin on youtube and watched this movie again. Just as damn good as i remember it when it came out.
I'd post a secondary review but jay did it excellent justice so i'll simply agree and rate it 4

i did forget the poacher in this movie was the same actor who'd played countless baddies throughout the eighties : Brion James

http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/2727-3.jpg http://www.blade-runner.it/images/leon-firing.jpg