JayDee's Movie Musings (latest review - Midnight Cowboy)
 

Thought I'd start up this thread and give it a go, hope that's ok. You don't have to pay your dues and put in a lot of time before you're permitted to do this are you? :D

I decided against JayDee's Reviews as I don't think they will be knowledgeable or detailed enough to have such a worthy title, will most likely not come across as a true critic's view. I considered JayDee's Ramblings as that is what I will mostly be doing, just going on and on until I run out of things to say. But I settled for Musings.

I'm the kind of person where I'll perhaps either become obsessed and do reviews all the time, or I'll do one and then never get round to it again

Whenever I do post reviews though hopefully they will be appreciated and I will welcome any agreement or criticisms of them. Just to warn you though my views may not always go with the norm. For example in recent months I have had my first viewings of Casablanca, Maltese Falcon and 2001: Space Odyssey. While I could appreciate elements of them none of them really grabbed me. None of them really made me care.

And in terms of just sheer entertainment I would rate them lower than my first film (which I'm sure will horrify many of you) :D ...

This film could so easily have been bad. I mean really, really bad! With it's large sets, garish costumes and Shakespearean dialogue it could have been a camp mess, enjoyable only as a guilty pleasure. And yet somehow not only does it not come across as cheesy or but it's actually a wonderfully enjoyable film. While many have failed of late (Prince of Persia, Transformers, Indy 4 etc) I'd put this up there with Iron Man, Star Trek and the first Pirates of the Caribbean film as a summer blockbuster that just perfectly captures the fun that you expect from this type of film.

The reason for this really does seem to be a group effort. The script and Kenneth Brannagh's direction get the tone just right, not tongue in cheek but at the same time not trying to take itself terribly seriously (a problem with the Pirates... sequels). While the performances throughout all fill their purpose whether it be as a heroic Asgardian warrior or as comic relief. It is just as successful in it's attempts as a fantasy epic as it is just as a fun popcorn film.

There really is a split between the two worlds. The action set on Asgard has a majestic, epic feel with moments that bring Lord of the Rings to mind. The character elements are very Shakespearean which does make the initially surprising choice of Branagh a bit of inspiration. The dialogue and story of two brothers battling for the trust of their father so they may ascend to the throne upon his death could have been taken from many a Shakespeare play.

When we get onto Earth it becomes more of a standard action adventure with comedy coming from a classic fish out of water story. Thor's actions and words bring great bemusement and indeed amusement to all those around him

Performance wise Chris Hemsworth really looks like a star here. Trying to find someone imposing enough to convincingly play the god of thunder, but who can also handle the comedic, dramatic and romantic moments must have been a tough task and they certainly came up trumps with the big Aussie. I'm already looking forward to see how he and Robert Downey Jnr. interact next summer.

Natalie Portman doesn't have to greatly stretch herself but is certainly adorable and sweet enough to convince that a God would fall almost instantly for her. Anthony Hopkins brings strength and gravitas as Odin while Tom Hiddleston as Loki is wonderfully conniving as a villain that is pleasantly layered compared to some of the recent Marvel villains.

And smartly they have cut down on the set-ups for the Avengers movie (bar one wonderfully forced and unneeded Hawkeye cameo) so those who felt Iron Man 2 came across more like an extended Avengers trailer should be happier.

This really is a huge success for Marvel. It is by far the most unique and ambitious superhero film yet when you take into account the elements of fantasy and mythology. And the fact that it's about a God! Not a human who happens to get bit by a spider or someone rich enough to build arm themselves with a suit or gadgets. As well as raising my hopes for The Avengers it also makes me very interested to see what happens with both Captain America and X-Men: First Class, two other superhero films with a difference, this time a period setting


Conclusion – A gloriously entertaining film that works against the odds to emerge as one of the best superhero films so far committed to the screen. A great start to the summer season.

I put off seeing this film for a long time as I just thought it sounded so grim and depressing. And while it is at times, it also emerges as something very touching and at times very funny. How it was ever made though is a bit of a mystery to me, it's not exactly the easiest of sells. “Come see a film about a prospective gigolo who becomes friends with an ill tramp while they try to earn money just to survive, doing whatever they have to do.”

The film is a very interesting look at the underground scene of New York and those living in poverty, just struggling to get through. It makes the city look glitzy and exciting for an outsider before presenting the seedier underbelly of the city, the depressing and terrifying elements that can lurk about for those in situations such as those of the two characters.

The main point of the film is developing the friendship between these two characters who are at odds when they meet and just going by their words nothing much seems to change. Through their actions however we see a warmth and friendship developing, perhaps out of necessity as they battle very rough times and great loneliness. The film can at times feel a bit slow as they really dedicate a lot of time to building up the friendship/dependence they have for each other.

I'm also unsure of the psychedelic aspects of the story. I swayed between feeling that they helped reflect the time and effects of the drugs, and feeling that it just dated the film quite badly.

Where the film truly succeeds are in the performances of both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who are incredible. Voight as the slightly dim-witted, naive country bumpkin, Joe Buck, who comes to New York with grand dreams but slowly has them crushed. And Hoffman as the hustler Rizzo who has been worn down by the city, dreaming of heading to Florida for a better life. Together they form (or at least attempt to) an unlikely pimp-gigolo partnership

I know that Hoffman gets a lot of praise for his performance, and rightly so, but I think I was actually more impressed with Voight. He's not an actor that's ever really made a great impression on me but I thought he was fantastic in this, his performance giving real heart to the film.

The film becomes very emotional as it reaches its conclusion. Rizzo's health deteriorates to the point where he can no longer walk. But despite this he believes that if he can still get to Florida it will be ok. Joe wants to believe this and decides to do whatever he can to get him there. He commits a violent attack on a prospective customer who backs out, and steals the required money for their bus ride. But Rizzo isn't going to make it. The final scene with Joe sitting on the bus, holding Rizzo is a very poignant, emotional moment.


Conclusion – A touching, moving film with two tremendous performances. Worthy of its Oscar win? Yes probably. Will it win a place in my heart? Not quite I don't think






PS – Before anyone gets too furious (mark f for example who I know loves this :D) at my ratings, I am in no way saying that Thor is a 'better' film than Midnight Cowboy. These scores are just my personal views of the films and for me a large element of me liking a film is for it to be very enjoyable. While this was a brilliant film, it's tone and story made it harder for me to truly love it. I imagine I will be a lot more likely to watch Thor more often than Midnight Cowboy. But that's just me. And who knows my opinion may change after repeat viewings of both

Oh and it also lost half a mark for getting Harry Nilsson's “Everybody's Talking” stuck in my head for the last few days! I can't get rid of it! :D

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Is there any way to edit the title of a thread by the way?

I was going to edit it to "JayDee's Movie Musings (latest film - Midnight Cowboy)" and just update it every time I looked at a new film

Not sure whether I'm actually going to keep this going or not (may actually prefer just posting in the movie tab thread) but we have at least one more anyway





I adore this film. I think it's charming, funny, sweet, sad, touching and just wonderful. As someone with OCD and elements of social phobia I can certainly identify and sympathise with Ryan Gosling's character.

Gosling plays Lars, a reclusive man just about crippled by fear. While his brother and sister-in-law do what they can to help him there doesn't seem to be much hope for him. Until he learns about 'real dolls', incredibly life like dolls available on the internet. And before you know it he has Bianca in his life, a beautiful wheelchair-bound girl from Brazil. Except he doesn't see her as a doll.

The doll helps bring Lars out of his shell, making him a more confident and sociable person. As a result his brother and sister-in-law are encouraged to go along with his delusion by the doctor who is treating Lars.


And it's not just them. The whole town get together and play along with Lars, accepting Bianca as a part of the community. And while you do rather have to suspend your sense of disbelief when it comes to the idea that the whole community while go along with it just to help him, it is a very sweet, endearing, Capra-esque idea.

While Ryan Gosling's performance as Lars is excellent; full of depth and pain with touches of hope coming through, the real heart of the film for me comes from Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider, as his sister-in-law and brother respectively. His brother is completely out of his depth, unsure how to handle the situation and worried about the embarrassment. While Emily Mortimer's character does all she can to help Lars and even begins to build a bond and feelings for the doll.

The setting for the movie helps a great deal. It's hard to imagine this film working in a sunny LA setting. Instead it is set in a very grey world, giving the film an almost Scandanavian tone.

Conclusion - This movie could have played out as an awful one-joke movie, like some extended Saturday Night Live skit. But the film is played straight, and with such warmth and charm that I can't help but to be touched and entertained by it.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

How do you do spoilers? When I'm trying it the words just vanish

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Great Reviews, would love to see what you don't like though!

Lars and the Real Girls looks interesting based on your review. I've heard of the title, but have never bothered to look into it. I might now.

Thank you very much. Well it takes a bit of time and effort (for me at least) to try and write up a proper review, and with films I don't like or even aren't that keen on in I find it hard to get up the motivation to write about them. For example I found the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie to be decent but nothing special (maybe 2.5/3 out of 5) and felt I'd perhaps struggle to write enough to be worthy of posting.

At most for films like that I'll post a little mini review in the movie tab thread.

It's also quite rare for me to really dislike a film. I've always been that way, enjoying most films I see. Whether I'm just good at avoiding films I know I won't like, or it's just a quirk of some sort that I like most films I see.


Thank you very much. I think that's about the best compliment you can get from one of these reviews, if you're able to interest someone who hadn't been previously.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Keep it up JayDee

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Awesome reviews! Smart and enjoyable to read, and not stuffy or pretentious! I really dig your style. Hope to see some more soon!

I rate this review thread 9/10. :D

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Thank you Marky and Deadlite. Very kind of you.

Thanks again. I'm not sure I have enough film knowledge or talent to do stuffy and pretentious! :D Nice to hear you like my style

9? 9?! 9?!!! Only 9? What's going on here? How dare you insult me like that! :laugh:

I'm not really a big horror fan. There are only a few I own on DVD, and they have to have a dark streak of comedy or satire in them for me to enjoy them. Thankfully this falls into that category.

Two American backpackers are attacked on the English moors by a wild creature. One of them, Jack, is killed but David survives, but not before being bitten. In London he experiences one of life's great highs by falling in love with the nurse treating him, Alex. And also the unfortunate lows of being haunted by a decomposing Jack, and turning into a werewolf. Don't ya just hate when that happens?

It's the classic werewolf tale; but infused with a slick script, engaging performances, excellent choice of music, some big laughs and suspense-filled moments and scenes, it rises above your standard fare to become something rather wonderful.


And then on top of all that there are the effects. Revolutionary in their time and still damn impressive today, the effects help bring horror and comedy to proceedings. The transformation scene is truly something to behold as David's body stretches and elongates, with gruesome sounding bone cracks which made me wince with each snap. It really captures the horror and pain of what is happening. I also enjoyed the effects used to create the ever changing face of Jack. And while I'm not sure if I was meant to or not I found the continuing decay of Jack's face to be morbidly entertaining!

A number of scenes stood out and made an impression, either for the tension or laughs they generated. There were those that were actually happening – the gloriously weird patrons and behaviour at the Slaughtered Lamb pub, a commuter being hunted through the tunnels of the London Underground and the incredible finale set in Piccadilly circus. And then there were David's enthralling nightmarish dreams. The horrifying Nazi demons in particular is one of the more wow-inducing scenes I've seen in quite a while.

The film is also quite a sexy thrill, mostly as a result of Jenny Agutter's alluring turn as Alex. She is something rather special. Alongside David Naughton's charming performance as David they make for a great combination.


Conclusion – A ghoulish treat. A film that is just wonderfully entertaining. Hats off to Mr John Landis. If there were more horror films like this it would be a genre I would most likely fall in love with.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Good review of a brilliant film that I love.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Thanks HK. :) I just wish the review was better; the film deserves more. But I just couldn't think what else to write.

It's funny, some films that I didn't enjoy as much as that I could write loads about and yet others that I really love I struggle. I think it's noticeable on my top 100 list. Some films in the 90-100 positions I was able to write more about than a film in the 30s or 40s. No idea why

Just a shame I didn't see the film before making my list as I think it would have a very good chance of sneaking in there

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Well, it's always easier (I think) to bitch and moan about something than it is to get over just how much you love or enjoy something.

I found this film to be absolutely hilarious! One of the funniest I have seen in quite some time. I can certainly see why it became a sitcom, as at times it can feel like you're just watching 5 episodes of a sitcom back to back rather than a film, but wonderfully so.

Adapted from his own stage play Neil Simon's script is a piece of genius, wonderfully witty and with a number of cracking one-liners. And it is performed beautifully by Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, each man having their individual moments of glory as well as coming together with great chemistry for some wonderful back and forth interaction.

I have to say I kinda love Jack Lemmon! This is now the 5th or 6th film featuring him that I've seen and I like him more every time. He's just about perfect here as the neurotic, hapless, cleanliness-obsessed Felix, who has just split from his wife and nothing in his life is going right; he can't even commit suicide successfully. And when you team him up with Matthau's classic slobby, guy's guy, they make for a classic mismatched pair as they become a makeshift marriage of sorts.

In terms of directing this has to be one of the easiest, laziest gigs of all time. Gene Saks pretty much just seems to point the camera at Lemmon and Matthau, then walks off and just leaves them to it.

Performance wise there are also no failures amongst the support cast, with all the actors portraying the fellow card players and the two English sisters all bringing the goods when called upon. Great fun.





This is a cracking film! Fantastically entertaining. It is extremely cleverly made, with the special effects and inventive tricks a real joy to behold. They are what give the film a large degree of its charm, making it much more engaging than any new CGI-heavy remake would likely be. The director, Jack Arnold, deserves a lot of credit for this. One scene that deserves particular applause is the fight between the now minuscule Scott Carey, and the spider who has become his great nemesis. Considering it was made in 1957 it is a fine achievement, one that still created a real buzz of excitement for me

Richard Matheson's scipt does a great job of realising the sheer horror and terror such an event would create. It also shows however mankind's great will to survive in a world that we have no control over. It's just that in this world those obstacles include cats and spiders. And I really admired that it didn't just drop into a piece of schlocky fun, but aimed for much more in terms of intelligence and being thought-provoking. As a result it reminded me a touch of a Twilight Zone episode.

And after praising the director and writer, I can't end this without paying tribute to Grant Williams. He puts in an excellent performance. All these elements come together to create an excellent piece of science fiction.





I found this to be a highly enjoyable and at times hilarious film. Like How to Marry... it's very light and fluffy but on a different level from that film, much funnier and much more enjoyable.

Tom Ewell is magnificent as Richard Sherman, a man whose imagination is too large for his nerves to cope with. The fantasy sequences that his mind creates are wonderfully entertaining and provide the large majority of the laughs. From imagining his potential flirtations with Monroe, to the nightmare of his wife coming home they're very amusing.

While Tom Ewell is the main player here Monroe is also excellent. I have to say this is the first time that I really 'got' Marilyn Monroe; the first time I really saw the great appeal of her and why she is still the icon that she is. She is very charismatic as the dim, naïve object of Ewell's affection. Just insanely sweet and likeable.

While it's perhaps not one of Billy Wilder's truly iconic films (Sunset Blvd, Some Like it Hot, The Apartment etc more fit that bill) it is still an extremely funny and well done film.



To call this film Hitchcock-lite; while perhaps an accurate description, would also be a tad harsh as it's rather enjoyable in its own right. With a sensual, brooding look to the cinematography and some nice twists its good fun.

Up until this film I had only seen Marilyn Monroe in full on comedy mood in her classic dumb blonde role, but here she is the slinky, sexy femme fatale. And she is rather glamorous at it! The performances of Monroe and Joseph Cotton, combined with some impressive location shooting were the definite highlights for me.

The film actually reminded me a touch of Hitchcock's own Vertigo. Both films feature a mentally unstable man who is obsessed with a beautiful blonde femme fatale, both prominently feature a bell tower as a large element of the film and its finale, and even just the aesthetic look of both films seemed rather similar.



An old fashioned and dated film but fairly enjoyable all the same. The film has a trio of huge, legendary names (Monroe, Grable and Bacall) at its disposal, and as a result it's a little disappointing that the final product isn't better.

Bacall and William Powell make for an engaging duo (Powell particularly is very good), but for me the main thing it has going for it is definitely Marilyn Monroe's turn as Pola, the lovably ditzy blonde who is almost completely blind without her glasses.

A lot of the humour does feel quite dated but there are still a few good laughs sprinkled throughout. It's very light, fluffy and forgettable; but in it's own way a 'classic' piece of old Hollywood, showcasing some of the biggest stars the big screen had ever seen.


My main interest in seeing this film was to see the fabled, single 90 minute take for myself. And while it is impressive that was about the only element that really caught my attention whatsoever here. It is a real artistic accomplishment, I'll give it that. You just stop and look at what's going on at times and it's amazing. There are hundreds of extras on screen, all decked in wonderful costumes, and the whole things is skilfully orchestrated and choreographed.

However I found the film to be a bit of a trial to get through, and came close to giving up a few times. I thought this may be down to my pretty much complete lack of knowledge concerning Russian history. However I talked to a friend of mine who is Russian and he felt the exact same way about it.

As a technical achievement this perhaps deserves a score of 3 or 4, somewhere in there. But my ratings are based on their entertainment value to me, and on that basis I can't bring myself to go any higher than a...

This is one of those classic British films that are frequently shown on lazy Sunday afternoons and during holidays. I'm talking of films like The Great Escape, Zulu, The Dambusters and The Italian Job. And like all of those films, I had somehow avoided catching this one up until now. And what a great film I've been missing out on

It's a fantastically riveting film. A film which is the true embodiment of the term 'epic'. Too many are graced with that title undeservedly, but based on its size, scale and ambition this is certainly worthy. It truly is a thrilling spectacle helmed by David Lean, the first of his proclaimed 'epics' (Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, Ryan's Daughter and A Passage to India would follow)

While this is technically a 'war film' there is actually very little combat or violence on show. Instead the main confrontation is a psychological battle between two opposing colonels; prison camp commandant, Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) and commander of the captured British soldiers, Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness). Neither man feels he can afford to lose his ground to the other, and will do whatever they feel is necessary. Nicholson in particular willingly endures great torture for his principals. It is surely greater pain and hardship than he could possibly have suffered if he had just agreed to build the bridge, but that doesn't matter to Nicholson.

And the reason this battle of wits is so engrossing is the performances of both Hayakawa and Guinness. Alec Guinness gives a wonderful, powerhouse performance as Colonel Nicholson. He really creates a very believable 'hero.' He is extremely determined, a heroic leader and is willing to suffer great pain for what he believes is right. I put hero in quotations however as I wonder at times if he crosses the line between heroic and determined, into selfish and demented. To stick to the principals of the Geneva Convention he puts the health of his fellow officers at risk, even resulting in the death of one of them. While he may in some ways be a great example of what a colonel should be, he is also a very flawed individual. Guinness is just about matched step for step by Hayakawa's turn as Saito.


By the end the relationship between Nicholson and Saito has developed so much that there now seems to be a kind of understanding and respect between them. It's also a little bit heartbreaking when you realise that Nicholson actually has been pushed over the edge into madness. What was once a noble undertaking, aimed at keeping up the spirits of the men and showing off the strength of the British spirit, has now become a dangerous obsession for Nicholson. There is a thin line between courage and insanity, and a thin line between doing solid, professional job and aiding the enemy. Sadly Nicholson crosses both.

The film also has an absolutely thrilling conclusion. Before the explosive finale, mounting tension is built as first the plan is put into motion, and then Nicholson starts to uncover the planned bombing of the bridge. And after so much building of tension throughout most of the film it finally explodes.

There is some truly gorgeous cinematography on show here, courtesy of Jack Hildyard. Through a mixture of some stunning locations and lush colours it looks tremendous; it creates a very dirty, dusty aspect as well as feeling rather claustrophobic at times. And last but not least all of these elements help to bring to life a fantastically written script.

The film garnered 8 nominations, eventually scooping 7, and for me each was richly deserved. Along with the Best Picture prize the individual winners included Alec Guinness, Jack Hildyard and David Lean himself.


Conclusion – A tremendous film and an amazing accomplishment by Lean. With great direction, writing and acting I can certainly see why it rates as one of the all time great war films. It's so close to a 4.5 rating but as it's the first viewing I'm going to be a little harsh.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Check out Lawrence of Arabia. Personally, I think it's Lean's best, but The Bridge on the River Kwai would probably be my second favorite.

I certainly plan to at some point, thank for the recommendation.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Very nice reviews JayDee :up: Keep it up ;)

Was The Incredible Shrinking Man the first of the Sci-Fi boxset that you've watched? If so, I'm looking forward to your reviews of the others. :)

I love Niagara. It's probably my favourite Monroe film. That, and The Seven Year Itch.

Yeah it was the first I watched. Thought I'd mentioned to you in PM about it, must be mistaken. Since then I've watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Another very good film though I wouldn't rate it as highly as Shrinking Man.

Though I enjoyed Niagara I felt I should have enjoyed it even more. Maybe wasn't quite in the right mood. Will give it another shot at some point in the nearish future. And Seven Year Itch was great.

A delightful and enchanting film. As I mentioned in my top 100 list I think it was I really don't know why I haven't seen this film before. It's a film I've fancied for a long time and even blind bought it on DVD a few years ago. And yet I still hadn't seen it until just a few days ago

It's a great little fantasy film which could easily pass for a classic Twilight Zone episode. It tells the tale of siblings, David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) and the amazing events that happens to them. Pleasantville is a gentle sitcom right out of the 50s in the tradition of Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best. After an encounter with a mysterious man they find themselves somehow transported straight into the black and white world of Pleasantville; a world of picket fences, milk shakes, unbeaten basketball teams, eternal sunshine and proclamations of “swell” and “gee-whiz!” Before long however their influence begins to have a profound effect on the people and the town of Pleasantville.

The film is full of lovely moments. Each time a little bit of colour drips into the monochrome world is a magical moment. Just such a simple moment like the red of a rose has so much more effect than you could imagine. It's quite a rare beast in that it's a film that uses special effects for something more than just visual amazement. And the moment where Jeff Daniels' character is introduced to the beauty of art is just wonderful.


While it is the visuals that capture the imagination the most, there is also some truly lovely music here as well. Throughout I was reminded of the kind of music that featured in similar dark-tinged fairytales; films like Edward Scissorhands. And there were some points in particular which reminded my heavily of Toy Story, so it came as no real surprise that when the end credits rolled Randy Newman was revealed as the man responsible for the stirring score.

The film is propelled by a well written and creative script by Gary Ross, the man responsible for another of my favourite fantasy films, Big. And there are definite similarities. While both come off as gentle and feelgood for large portions of the film, it also uses the fantastical incidents that have occurred to tackle deeper issues.

Gary Ross recreates the world perfectly in all its grating mawkishness before slowly tearing it down. It mocks it gently and affectionately however, much like Galaxy Quest mocked sci-fi shows and fans. There are some lovely touches that play into the classic sitcom ideas and set-up. For example the fact that the whole place consists of just two streets (as taught in geography class) and at the end of Main Street comes...Main Street again! Another great moment is when a player on the unbeaten basketball team actually misses a shot for once. The confusion and horror it creates for the coach and players is rather brilliant - “Don't touch it!” Oh and the firemen not reacting to calls of fire but leaping into action at the shout of "Cat!"

Maguire and Witherspoon both make for good, likeable leads but for me where the film really comes alive is with the excellent performances of the supporting cast. With William H Macy, Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels and the late J.T. Walsh you're pretty much assured of some strong acting, and here they all deliver. Quite importantly none of them really try to steal the show with anything showy, they all give fairly understated performances which just help with the development of their characters and to move the story along.


Going in to the film I was expecting just a gentle, whimsical fairytale throughout so was very surprised by the depth of the film, and the darker ideas that were explored. While I doubt I have the intelligence to fully grasp everything on offer, for me it was a film about the wonder of self-expression and allowing yourself to experience new things. When the characters begin to discover things about life and within themselves, colour begins to appear in and around them. As with all social changes however there are those who resent and rail against it, bringing in themes of fascism and censorship, none more so than when it comes to crushing the artistic expression of Jeff Daniels' character.

Then of course there is the obvious issue of racial prejudice and conflicts, tackled cleverly by pitting the black and white characters against the 'coloreds' – those people who have had colour seep into their lives. A great scene in particular is the echoing of the classic To Kill a Mockingbird court scene. In this instance those of a monochrome persuasion control the floor of the courtroom with those of 'colour' relegated to the upstairs.

It's also quite interesting in a world that is apparently on a downward slide, that “wasn't like this in the old days”, to have a film that argues for the great progress we have made. For a number of people the 50s seem to be this idyllic haven, but here those times are re-evaluated. While our current world may have its fair share of problems it also has a lot more opportunities and freedom for people.


Conclusion – Fantastic film. A real gem. I get the feeling that I will mostly likely be saying “welcome to my top 100 list Pleasantville” very soon.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Easily up in the top 20 or 15, for me. Absolutely phenomenal stuff, can't really say much else you haven't already included! :D

Not surprised at that. I did rather waffle on didn't I? :D

Shockingly excellent. For me this film was a massive surprise. When I first heard about the film I think I actually sighed; I just really didn't see the need for it. I was pretty sure it would be awful; I mean Razzie award winning levels of awful. Then I saw the trailer and TV spots and I become intrigued. They seemed to show a bit of promise, and the final product certainly matched and far exceeded my expectations.

I just really wasn't sure how they would do it. I had assumed from the original film that man had wiped itself out in a nuclear war, and that in the wasteland the apes had evolved to fill the gap. So I was interested to see what role the humans played in the evolution of the apes, but still struggled to comprehend how they could make a handful of apes a threat to 6 billion humans. By the end of the film however I was convinced. We see how the humans are going to dwindle away, and how the apes will rise to replace them. In those terms it's a great success. It's very well written and planned out. The path they go down to explain the evolution of the apes is not just all about that, it allows them to look at a number of issues such as nature v nurture, animal testing and the ethical questions that go along with DNA manipulation; just what do we have the right to do?


For a big summer blockbuster it was quite rare in that it wasn't constantly rushing to throw in another bit of action. It takes it's time to really build up and flesh out the story, giving us a reason to care when the action does show up. Other than a couple of ape v ape scraps the action is mostly withheld until the last 20-30 minutes, and when it arrives it certainly delivers. What we get is a fantastic action set-piece set on the Golden Gate Bridge, pitting the army of apes against police officers trying to stop them. It's one of the most enjoyable and gripping action set-pieces I've seen in quite a while. For his first shot at a film on this scale, director Rupert Wyatt deserves a lot of credit. He brings a lot of style and energy.

The special effects and technology on show are truly stunning. The creation of the apes has got to be one of the most impressive achievements to date in the field of CGI. In particular the large gorilla and the former circus orangutan are just amazing in their realisation. As for Caesar himself I'm a little torn. I wouldn't say he looks like a real-life ape, but he is still a wonderful creation. His face just seems a little too human, though perhaps that was a choice made by the makers of the film to show how in many ways he was more human than ape.

James Franco is a decent, watchable lead and it's always a treat to see John Lithgow in absolutely anything, he certainly gives the best of the 'human' performances. But this is certainly Andy Serkis' show, no doubt about it. Just as with Gollum the character he brings to life is just incredible; full of expressions and mannerisms that are all his own, not quite fully human but also not ape. He fills the character with heart, soul and yes, humanity. You really end up caring about and rooting for this little ape to rise up. It's a mesmerising performance, and the relationship that builds up between Franco, Lithgow and Caesar is a very touching and tender one. In many ways Caesar becomes a part of the family. I don't know if a motion capture performance will ever win an Oscar, but if someone ever does I'd be very surprised if it wasn't Serkis.


Serkis is helped to create the character by the script which provides Caesar with some lovely moments. The moment where he recreates the window from his home by drawing on the walls of his cage is a very touching visual. And the fact that he did not want to hurt people if he could avoid it, people who were just doing their job, was a nice touch. Only those who had committed cruel acts towards them were killed. Oh and despite expecting it throughout the film, the moment where Caesar finally speaks is still able to carry great power.

As a massive fan of the original 1968 Apes film I got a real kick out of the little nods made to it. So the references to the space flight that Heston's character would have been involved in, and Caesar playing with a little toy replica of the Statue of Liberty produced a little smile for me.

What I think makes the film work really well is the fact that instead of being about the humans, this film is more about the apes, Caesar in particular. It just gives it a fresh feeling and perspective.

As for weak points I really don't think there are a great deal of them. There are a couple of characters that are a bit weak and simplistic perhaps. Franco's boss, Jacobs, comes across as a bit of a panto villain, totally consumed by money, money, money! Another review I saw somewhere had the line “he's such an obvious bad guy that he might as well come on twirling a moustache.” Then at the complete polar opposite there is Franco's girlfriend, Caroline, the moral compass of the film. She only seems to be there so she can constantly tell us how some things aren't meant to be messed with, not meant to be changed. I just found her to be very irritating.


It was also one of those films that perhaps suffered a bit from most of the major moments already popping up in the trailer. A lot of the moments which could have been 'wow moments' I had already seen numerous times. I understand why they did it however. After the, shall we say, lukewarm reception (and yes that is being really quite kind) for Tim Burton's Apes film, the studio had good reason to fear audiences may not have great interest in returning to the franchise, so they jam-packed the trailer with as much kick-ass stuff as they could to grab the attention of cinema-goers.

Oh and the famous line from the original film - “Get your stinkin' paws off me you damn dirty ape!”- is resurrected here, and for me it just felt a little forced and cringey. But other than that it's just fantastic entertainment.


Conclusion – A complete and utter success. One of the most pleasantly surprising films I've seen in quite a while. For me personally it's the film of the summer, and one of the films of the year so far.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

nice review jaydee.

Very late in the game but just wanted to say thank you. :)

I just love this little film. It's not possible to rate this documentary in terms of great footage or in depth research or anything like that. It's just a simple little film without any really flash or tricks so my rating is purely for how enjoyable I found the subject matter. And I enjoyed it immensely.

The story of two guys vying for the top score on an old arcade game really doesn't sound like it should be all that exciting, but it just ends up as a cracking story. It turns into an epic battle between good and evil; full of conspiracies, twists and turns.

Just a fantastically entertaining film. I think I remember I made it my number 4 film of 2007.






A stunningly affecting film. Beautiful and enchanting, while at the same time haunting and etheral. With two really impressive central performances from Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey it takes a difficult and troubling subject and tells it wonderfully.

While we never get to the stage of sympathising with the girls the film successfully relates and helps us understand why it happened. By contrasting their real lives with the fantasy world that they have created, we understand why the fantasy world begins to bleed through into reality for the girls, and why they go to such lengths to try and realise it.

Peter Jackson does an excellent job. The scene where the murder is actually depicted is truly powerful and disturbing; brought about through the music, the silence of the characters and the long pause which seems to last for an age before it finally happens. And the fantasy sequences work tremendously. Back in 1994 the effects may have been the pinnacle of the current technology but now look a little dated. But I actually think that helps the film. It gives them more of a homemade vibe which fits with the idea of it being creations of the girls, just as the clay figures are.





A fantastic little film. Just a real joy. Unlike most of the other Ealing comedies I've seen which feel quaint, old fashioned and twee with few laughs, this actually still feels nice and fresh and very funny. Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway make for a great double act

There are lots of great moments but my favourite would have to be when Guinness and Holloway descend the stairs on the Eiffel Tower. It's wonderfully filmed, and they just descend into a fit of giggles through a mixture of dizziness and also just the sheer giddiness of the whole thing. These two men are just about the last people you would expect to be criminal masterminds, and as such they seem to get a massive kick out of it – finally a bit of excitement in their lives.





I just absolutely loved this film. I just found it to be a really cool, quirky little film. Funny but also a little sad and touching at points. The two young actors, Craig Roberts and Yasmin Paige, are both very impressive and make a loveable oddball couple. And then there is Paddy Considine who is just wonderful in his bizarre role.

Ayoade was referenced many times as being the 'new Wes Anderson' or the 'British Wes Anderson.' While it's an easy and perhaps lazy comparison it is also very justified. For me rhe film felt very reminiscent of Anderson's work, Rushmore in particular.








Another cracking thriller from the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. With twists and turns galore, moments of high tension but with traces of humour throughout it's just a really fun ride from start to finish. In the central roles James Stewart and Doris Day both give engaging performances, whilst having a lovely chemistry and relationship with each other.

One of Hitchcock's trademarks was staging rousing and spectacular set pieces at the finale of his films, and this is another that continues that tradition; this time a fantastic 12 minute sequence at the Albert Hall. For those 12 minutes not a single word of dialogue is spoken. Instead we get the London Symphony Orchestra playing, we get the assassin preparing his shot and we get Doris Day torturing herself over what she should do all expertly pieced together.





I found this to be an immensely engaging film, even if I'm not entirely sure why. It's very low key and not a lot happens but there is just something about it that really got under my skin. The two main actors are very charming and realistic and while the aliens are not on screen for much time they are very well realised.












An oddball but very charming little documentary. It tells the story of the world's most prolific director that you've never heard of, Danirl Burmeister. He travels from village to village in Argentina, making films using the locals which is then given it's premier at a gathering of the community. And all he asks for is room and board, no additional money.

The reason the film worked so well for me is Daniel Burmeister himself. I never had a grandfather but he acts like I think one would do, thanks to how they are presented in numerous American films and sitcoms. He is a kindly and eccentric old man who seems to know how to do everything. He is an extremely likeable person.

The documentary details the making of one film in a small, rural village. As such it actually feels a lot like a behind the scenes 'making of' DVD extra but is so much more entertaining than you would imagine from that. The real result of the film, as one of the villagers says, is that it brings the community together, getting people talking who wouldn't normally





Enjoyable but ultimately disappointing. I was wanting to love this. I wanted an absolute classic. But it just didn't happen. It had some good performances from Kyle Chandler and the kids, and some entertaining and realistic dialogue between the kids but just lacked the magic I was hoping for.

There were too many stretches where the film just seemed to drag for me. I wanted more action, more excitement, more charm...just more! It's a good film but nowhere close to the fantastic spectacle I was hoping for and even expecting. Perhaps my expectations were just too high.







A fun and exceptionally creative film from the mind of Michael Gondry. There really are some moments that have to be seen to be believed. With very little plot to speak of it is definitely an example of style over substance film-making. The relationship between Gael Garcia Bernal and the adorable Charlotte Gainsbourg's characters is very sweet, but too often the film just seems to be trying to hard; straying into pretentious territory.

A nice film but certainly no Eternal Sunshine...








A solid, very strongly acted film although I'm a little miffed as to how it got an Oscar nomination for best film. It's a well written study of family, with some fantastic performances from pretty much the whole cast. While Annette Bening seemed to get most of the acting nominations I was actually most engaged by the performance of Julianne Moore.

I do plan on revisiting the film sometime and may actually enjoy it more. The reason is that I was expecting more quirky, indie style moments and was a little surprised it was more of a family drama.








Surprisingly fun little comedy. I really wasn't expecting much but I really enjoyed it. Maybe it's just the mood I was in at the time because it certainly isn't regarded highly very generally. While it doesn't offer anything new I just found it to be a funny film. Jane Fonda steals the film any time she's on screen and as a fan of Alias it's always fun for me to see Michael Vartan.











A completely mindless blockbuster, but as mindless blockbusters go it's harmless and actually rather enjoyable at times. And at least it doesn't seem to have any pretensions about being taken seriously. When you have your heroes escape in a flying tank you realise the makers of the film have no desire about making the film especially believable. Although the plot is so much more convoluted and confusing that it needs to be.

All of the cast pretty much join in and just go along with the fun. As required of him Bradley Cooper oozes charm and charisma, but it's Sharlto Copley that is the real star here. His performance as the unhinged Murdoch is wonderful fun and provides a number of laughs. The other star performer is Patrick Wilson as the horrible, sleazy . He really is someone that you just want to punch right in the face! Always a sign of a good villain.





This film has an absolutely cracking story as it's premise but at no point did I really feel it lived up to its promise. It's strength and indeed its weakness was that it's a 'nice film.' It's a nice pleasant watch; that very cosy, twee feel common in British films, but I don't think I see myself having a desire to ever revisit it. I know it's considered a classic and I may upset some people on here but it just didn't do it for me really











Last year there were two sperm donor romantic comedies, this film and The Switch with Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston. I highly enjoyed The Switch but this is a real clunker. Not a single laugh was to be found, not a trace of chemistry between the two leads was evident and not one line of remotely memorable or inventive dialogue was written. Just awful!

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I like quite a few movies out of that batch, especially The Kids Are Alright. I usually hate Mark Ruffalo, but his performance in thisis great.

An absolutely adorable film. From just about the first minute of it starting I felt myself falling in love with it. Just utterly charming.

It's a fairly simple, low-key little movie but works all the better for it. The understated, natural performances of the two lead actors and the lovely, engaging folksy songs mean I just loved it.

Just wonderful








An absolutely cracking thriller. It's a film with one great scene after another, full of interesting and memorable characters. Perhaps not as polished as Hitchcock's best but still immensely good fun. And the whole thing ends with another of Hitchcock's thrilling, trademark last reel set-pieces; this time atop the Statue of Liberty.












A very fun piece of adventure this. It reminded me a lot of Guy Ritchie's recent version of Sherlock Holmes; as well the investigation angle it has the action, the thrills, the big effects and a touch of the paranormal about it.

There are moments throughout the film which just feel so epic and sumptous; it looks spectacular. And with a number of interesting, memorable characters all interacting with each other in scenes of romance, comedy, adventure and incredible action scenes, it really is a cracking, rip-roaring piece of entertainment.









A really classy offering from the Master of Suspense this. From very early on I was gripped by the mysterious, brooding tone that just drew me right in. It's very haunting. For the whole film my mind was creating possible scenarios about the outcome.

Despite the big name of Lawrence Olivier being involved the acting honours must go to Judith Anderson as the deliciously sinister housekeeper Mrs Danvers, who torments and tortures the new lady of Manderley.









Not usually my kind of film but I just found it to be a lovely, touching effort. Beautifully and tenderly acted it completely pulled me in. Really beautiful.

And I found the ending to be really heartbreaking as the couple are denied the goodbye they so desire, all due to a chatty friend who won't shut up










I don't know how right or wrong this film is, whether it's in poor taste or not. The one thing I do know however is that I found it absolutely hysterical at times. There are just some hilarious moments scattered throughout, mostly of a daft and slapstick nature.

All of the main characters have their moments but most certainly stealing the show is Nigel Lindsay as Barry, an angry white convert to Islam. He is just fantastic.









It took me a while to really get into this film, mostly due to my expectations being wrong. I was expecting an espionage thriller, but instead found that was more of a background element to the relationship between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. Their scenes together are a treat as they lie to each other and indeed each other about how they feel. And Hitchcock's directing is fantastic.

The last scene in particular is a fabulous ending, very suspenseful and intelligently played out. As I said it took a while to get into but by the end it had hooked me in. I can definitely see it getting a higher rating on a repeat viewing when I know what I'm getting.






A sweet, touching little film that is elevated by a standout turn from Hugh Dancy, and a nice understated performance by Rose Byrne. There are a few really nice scenes which come across as very romantic even if Adam perhaps doesn't perceive them as so.

I don't know much at all about Asperger's Syndrome, so I don't know how accurate the portrayla of the disorder is, but it certainly felt like it was presented sensitively and with respect. I felt like it was also successful in presenting the problems such a relationship may have honestly, but without taking it too far into dark and depressing territory.






I know a lot of people love this film so I may step on a few toes here. It's certainly a very interesting and at times very entertaining film. It's an absolutely brutal satire of television, the media, news reporting and big business companies in general. It has a couple of great scenes and a few laughs. And there is no doubt it's very prescient. Watching it for the first time just now with the investigation into press ethics going on over here in the UK it felt very resonant. There are a couple of great performances, especially from William Holden, but there are others which I felt were just too hammy and overblown.

However I just found it a bit overwrought; too desperate to hammer home the point. It crossed the line into being just too silly and completely ridiculous, making it impossible for me to buy. Perhaps you could argue that as it's a satire that's ok but I'd prefer something just a little more subtle. I'd say the same for much of the dialogue which just seemed so unrealistic and heavily scripted. Instead of characters actually talking, the film just felt like a series of monologues.

I just feel that such heavy-handed and over the top satire perhaps works better as a 20 minute episode of South Park than a two hour long feature film. But I know a lot of people on here will disagree. And to be fair there were points were I felt myself teetering on a tightrope, close to thinking 'this is great' so maybe on a repeat viewing I'll like it more.





A fairly decent little film. The lack of laughs is disappointing and it's quite slow to get going but its reprieved by the heist itself. It's quite fun and rather creative in it's preposterousness. The film's main attraction for me was its cast and its certainly one of, if not its main strength. As a fan of Eddie Murphy, Ben Stiller (sorry HoneyKid if you're reading! :D), Matthew Broderick, Tea Leoni, Alan Alda and Judd Hirsch there was a lot for me to enjoy. Alda for me is the star of the show, going from kindly old man to a real sleeze fantastically.

And the film also gets bonus points for bringing Eddie Murphy somewhat back to his old form. It's the closest I've seen him to the fun, edgy energy of 48Hrs, Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places etc for a long time.






I was sure this would be a real winner with me. The concept sounded fun and it stars two classic actors who I've really taken to in a big way (Jack Lemmon and James Stewart). And it reteamed Stewart with his Vertigo co-star Kim Novak which I was interested to see. But in the end it just felt really flat for me. The romance didn't really appeal to me and I found it very low on laughs. I'll maybe give it another shot someday and will hopefully 'get it' that time, but for now disappointing.










I wanted to love this. It's a part of Scottish history when it comes to popular culture and I like to support anything related to the country I love, but I just couldn't when it came to this. I just found it slow, dull and just painfully quaint and twee. And for a classic, acclaimed comedy I'm not sure there was a single laugh for me to be found.

For about 70/80 minutes I was absolutely loving this. It was well on its way to at the very least a 4.5 rating, and I was already considering where it may place on my top 100 list. And then it just started to slip away. Up until then it had been a cracking, edge of the seat thriller with a series of excellent performances.

It's a classic cat and mouse tale. Or I suppose dog, cat and mouse tale would be more accurate, as we follow the paths of three characters to the inevitable points where they will come crashing together. We have a clear villian, the obvious hero and then a man who lies somewhere in between. That man in the middle is Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a blue collar everyman who stumbles across a cache of $2 million following a disastrously failed drug deal. His decision to take this money however makes him a wanted man; and he is pursued by the hero, Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) and the villain of the piece, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem).

While Brolin's character Llewelyn Moss isn't exactly the greatest of human beings I did find myself rooting for him in a way. I think it's just because he's such a nobody who takes a chance to make it big, only to find himself so far out of his depth. He just becomes such an underdog in the shadow of Chigurh.


The reason I felt it slip away is the lack of resolution. After moving at a breakneck speed for much of it's running time, the film just seemed to slow right down and then come to a halt. Sheriff Bell just kind of throws in the towel. Chigurh just wanders off into the sunset. And then most frustratingly of all is the death of Moss. It happens off screen and we don't even really get a decent look at his body. Yes I guess Bell's character gets a resolution, but I just felt the situation that had been created didn't.

I understand that the film is actually the story of Tommy Lee Jones' character and I get how his pondering retirement and his dreams and everything all tie together. Just because I 'get it' doesn't mean I can't dislike it. And I don't understand why that can be used as the reasoning we don't see Moss' death on screen. I've seen it written that we don't see it because it's not what is important, it's all about Bell. But why then bother showing us any of Moss' actions?

While I'm sure the Coens would prefer I appreciated the elements of character study, and the musings on moral choices, fate, human nature etc I was just loving it as a great thriller and chase movie, and in that respect I felt let down.


Anyway back to positives. As I said earlier I thought the performances were fantastic. Javier Bardem is excellent, creating a truly chilling and memorable character. He seems unstoppable, like a damn terminator. He actually reminded me of a recurring nightmare I had as a kid of being chased with no way of escape. Brolin is a great foil for him, though his performance perhaps doesn't really stand out. In some ways it's actually quite a restrained and quiet showing, while still portraying power and desperation. Oh and Kelly McDonald is amazing. Unless I knew beforehand I would find it almost impossible to believe that she was a fellow Scot, and not a genuine Texas gal.

And then there is the just about always excellent Tommy Lee Jones. While you could argue that he's not exactly stretching himself to play the character, and he's played similar many times before (particularly in The Three Burials of Melquadies Estrada) he is still very effective and engaging.

Of the Coen's canon of films I'd rank this as one of their most naturalistic. They go for a much more down to earth feel when it comes to images and dialogue, abandoning their usual 'look how clever we are' style; a style that comes across as either very creative or a bit smug, depending on your point of view. As a result a number of scenes of great dialogue are created (most notably between Tommy Lee Jones and Barry Corbin), as well as some thrilling and hard-hitting moments of action; violence that feels real and brutal rather than over-stylised Hollywood action.


Going back to Bardem for a moment. While his performance is very good, I'm not 100% sure if I'd say it was an Oscar-worthy performance or not. For the most part he speaks in a monotone voice throughout and does nothing much else other than glare menacingly (though to be fair it does feel like he's staring right into my soul! :D). I just think that a lot of the power of the character is down to his creation by Cormac McCarthy, and then how he was realised for the screen by the Coens.

It's a film full of standout scenes and moments that stuck in my mind long after the film had ended. The one scene however that stood out above all the rest was definitely the coin flip scene in the gas station. It's a scene that just felt so awkward and uncomfortable. It's a prime example of that old cliché of wanting to look away but finding yourself unable to. Special mention must go to Bardem's co-star is this scene, Gene Jones. Together they create a scene of incredible tension. Perhaps that scene alone is enough to warrant Bardem his Oscar.


Oh and I rarely single out the cinematography in these little rantings and ravings of mine but I have to give special mention to Roger Deakins. Some of the images he frames are just beautiful, in particular the desert landscapes. They feel both otherworldly but also like the oldest thing on Earth, always here. Beautiful but also haunting.

I can certainly understand why the film won the Oscar for best film as on many technical levels it can be argued to be a perfect film. The acting, directing, cinematography and editing are all top notch. However, for me it was a film that started with a bang (Chigurh's violence) but ended with a bit of a whimper. Perhaps on a repeat viewing it won't disappoint and bother me as much. A friend of mine felt let down on first viewing, but after that just fell totally in love with it

Conclusion - A film that seemed on it's way to something special, but ultimately fell just a little bit short. At least for me.

Two highly enjoyable films from Akira Kurosawa as he reunites with one of the stars from The Seven Samurai, Toshiro Mifune.

Smartly written, wonderfully directed and with charismatic turns from Mifune as Sanjuro they are another couple of cracking samurai efforts from Kurosawa. They are both very good films but I would perhaps slightly give the edge to Sanjuro. Yojimbo is perhaps the 'better' film but with Sanjuro emphasising more comedy than its predecessor I found it more 'enjoyable.' I was actually quite surprised by just how much comedy there was, especially the odd moment where it approaches something slightly slapstick.

Oh and Yojimbo has a wonderful scene that I just loved. It's a fairly small moment but there was just something about it that put a big smile on my face. It's actually the opening scene where this wandering ronin comes to a crossroads and chooses his path by throwing a stick in the air, following the direction that it points him in. Just a small moment but which I felt perfectly captured the character and his motivations.





I don't know how well known this film is, or what the general feeling about it is, however I absolutely loved it! I just found it to be a fantastic, absorbing story right from the first moments.

Filmed in black and white and in location in New York city the film certainly looks great, really evoking the city in the 60s. The film also earns itself at least one or two stars for Walter Matthau alone. His performance as a quirky private detective is wonderful, an absolute joy. Sadly that means the film takes a big hit when he departs.

While it perhaps lacks the sophistication of a Hitchcock film it is certainly made in that same vein, and I just thought it was great fun.







While I still found this enjoyable I have to admit to being a bit disappointed as well. It didn't live up to my memory of it. I had even been thinking this was perhaps a film that could/should have just snuck into my top 100 but after going back to sadly not. It still has some funny moments and some great performances from the cast, Eddie Murphy in particular, but just not the classic comedy I remembered.









While this film still suffered from some of the same problems as Whisky Galore and Passport to Pimlico (old-fashioned, twee) it was on a different level to those two. It's not quite as cosy and quaint, bringing in a bit of clever satire. And it has a great finale as Guinness' character is chased through the streets by what has become essentially a lynch mob. What elevated this particular film however was probably the performance of Alec Guinness.

Mark told me I had to see some more of Alec Guinness' work. Having seen Bridge on River Kwai, Lavender Hill Mob and now this over the last few months I think you may be on to something Mark.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Great review of No Country, pretty much sums up my feelings about it exactly. Absolutely amazing technically and a completely awesome first two acts, then falls almost flat on its face. In my opinion, anyway. Disappointing but the first part gives it an 8 from me, too.

Thanks Skepsis. Always nice to feel appreciated. :D Though if you liked it so much where's my +rep?!!! :p

Just out of interest will you be gracing us with any more of your reviews some time soon? Seems like it's been a good long while

You have to admire Paul Thomas Anderson. With There Will Be Blood he didn't just set out to make another film, it appears that he set out to make an epic. His aim was to produce an American masterpiece. Now whether you believe he achieved it or not, I think you at least have to admire the aspirations he had.

Anderson tells the story of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), a silver prospector who stumbles into the world of oil and becomes determined to conquer that world, and crush all those who dare stand against him. Following a tip he heads out to a small town which hides an ocean of oil beneath it, looking to make his fortune with his son H.W. along for the ride. All is not plain sailing however as he clashes with a young, charismatic preacher (Paul Dano) and has to deal with an accident that leaves his son deaf. An incident that drives a wedge between the two.

Daniel Day Lewis gives a truly great performance as Daniel Plainview. Along with just his general performance he imbues the character with both a great voice and a really distinctive walk. However after all the praise and awards it earned him I was expecting it. So as a result the performance that really grabbed and surprised me was Paul Dano's as the young preacher, Eli Sunday. So much so that I consider it a shame he did not receive more nominations for his work. From the looks of him it might not seem like much of a rivalry can be had against the imposing character that is Daniel Plainview, but his performance makes Eli seem like a worthy adversary and protagonist; someone who is able to get under Plainview's skin. I particularly enjoyed when the character gets in front of his congregation and gets into the full swing of his showman persona, when he starts preaching and healing. It's just a shame for him he isn't around in the age of TV; he's a born televangelist. “Send me your money and you shall be saved!”


And it's just as well that these two central performances are so strong, as there are very few other significant roles to be found. For a film whose running time goes for more than two and a half hours that's quite surprising, and quite an achievement. It may not quite be a strict two-hander but it's not far off.

For long stretches the film can actually be quite quiet and subdued (for example for the first 15 minutes there is hardly a word spoken) but it doesn't matter due to the combination of the beautiful cinematography, stirring score and Lewis' strong, charismatic performance. All of which keeps your attention gripped to the screen.

The film can be seen both as a rather small personal tale, but also as something more epic in scope. While it is a story of greed, religion, family and in many ways how America was built on enterprise and religion it is also the story of two men, both dangerously ambitious. Though they seem set up to be polar opposites they are actually like two peas in a pod. You have the greedy oilman; a cynical capitalist who is driven by pride and a sheer contempt for everyone, leading him down a road of loneliness and misery. And opposing him you have the supposedly righteous man of God: a slick, sanctimonious young man who just loves his own voice, and is willing to denounce his faith in the end for his own financial well-being.


And when their respective egos clash there are fireworks each and every time. What really shows their similarity is the replaying of specific moments, but with the roles reversed – slapping each other, and their forced declarations to God. Both men revelling in their power over the other at the time, relishing seeing their opponent in a weak position.

By tying these characters so closely together it certainly isn't the most pro-religion film you'll ever see. In this story we see no difference between the greedy, competition-driven oilman and the healing preacher spreading the word of God. They are both snake-oil salesman promising a better world for the people they meet; as long as they either allow the oil business into their territory, or accept God into their lives.


At about the halfway stage the character of Daniel Plainview changes, as does the whole tone and direction of the film. Having appeared to be a fairly normal businessman who just has a drive to succeed up till this point: he then reveals himself to be a horrific, ruthless monster. A man who seems disgusted with anyone he meets; anyone who isn't him. A fact he himself admits. And I personally saw this as the reason for the fracture that occurs in his relationship with H.W. While he does appear to exploit H.W. predominantly as a prop at times to sell his business and himself to people, he did appear to care for him. However I think he saw H.W. as a chance to mould another version of himself, so that there would be at least one more person he could admire and relate to. And I think he wants and indeed needs this, as is showed by his very quick acceptance of his 'brother'. But when his son became deaf not only did he lose his prop but he saw that chance disappear. H.W. was now destined to be just like everybody else.

There are some truly wonderful scenes throughout, whether it be due to the visuals on show or the acting. For me the best and most powerful scene however is the accident and subsequent fire at the derrick. It's an incredible scene both for how it looks and what it tells us about the character of Daniel Plainview. When his son is thrown through the air he is genuinely concerned for H.W.'s wellbeing. He quickly leaves however to return to the scene of the fire. Now at first this can be seen as purely just trying to stop a possible catastrophe, one that could cost the lives of more people. But even after the fire is put out he does not rush back to his son's side as you would expect, he stays to relish in the discovery of the oil and his future wealth, and to bathe in the glory. As the sky turns black with smoke the light that it creates is incredible, creating a truly surreal and unique atmosphere. The eerie orange glow makes it feel like the very fires of hell itself are surrounding Plainview. And perhaps they are, as from here on out Daniel seems to be on a downward spiral.


Another of the great successes of the film is how it wonderfully evokes the early 1900s era in which it is set. The sets, scenery and costumes are all magnificent. Even all of the actors look like they just belong in that period. And the in-depth attention to detail given to the workings of the oil drilling just help to fully immerse us in this world that Anderson has created.

I now come to the ending which I am still a little conflicted about. The vocal sparring between Lewis and Dano is absolutely fantastic, one of the best dialogue scenes I've seen in a long time. However it then comes to the incident that ends the movie (won't reveal it here for anyone who hasn't seen it). On the plus side it is extremely memorable and powerful finale, as well as surprising. And it's always nice to be surprised by the ending to a film. On the negative side however I wondered if it just felt a little too cartoonish. I'm unsure if it works tonally with everything that has come before or if I find it a little bit jarring. I've been going back and forth about it for the last few days since seeing the film, and for the moment I think I've come down on the positive side of things..


Conclusion – At the start of this review I mentioned that Anderson appeared to be aspiring to create a masterpiece. So did he succeed? I'm not sure, and I'm certainly not going to state definitively whether he did or not after just one viewing. What I will say is that it's one hell of an effort, and a hell of a good film. One that I would have given the edge to over No Country for Old Men in the Oscar race.

Jesse James was an outlaw. A robber of trains and banks. A gang leader. And a murderer. And yet somehow many people still idolise him as a great anti-hero. An almost mythical American outlaw. This film attempts to answer the question of why this is. And it does a very good job of helping us understand it.

The main strength of the film is undoubtedly the two lead performances of Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt. Though they are playing two very different characters both give very effective showings. Brad Pitt as James proves to be one cold bastard! It's a performance that reminds me a touch of Tom Cruise's turn in Collateral; all piercing eyes and glowering stares, which he occasionally interrupts with an insincere laugh or smile. It's a character that really is flirting on the edge of sanity, seemingly ready to cross over at any point. And when the wheels come off Pitt delivers a truly terrifying, cackling laugh. For all his movie star looks and squeeky clean, nice guy image these seem to be the kind of roles that actually suit Pitt best, at least for me. Up to this the most impressed I had been with him was in Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club. Again two characters who were slightly unhinged

As good as Pitt is however, for me he is outshone by Casey Affleck. His Robert Ford is a twitchy, neurotic oddball; a bit of a weakling who at the same time comes across as quite cunning and calculating at times. It really is quite an impressively layered performance. I have to say I found myself having great empathy with the character of Robert Ford (a lot of it due to Affleck's performance), and as such found it a really quite sad, melancholic film.


Following my recent viewing of No Country for Old Men, cinematographer Roger Deakins yet again produces some truly stunning work. The landscapes and horizons he shows us are truly beautiful. They just come across as such desolate and sad places. The muted and at times washed out tones give the film the look of those old, faded photos that exist from the time of the Old West.

The film also works as an early example of celebrity. You have the charismatic and famous James, the obsessive fan in Ford and what eventually happens between the two, as the fan turns on the man who once idolised. We then see the classic 15 minutes of fame play out, the waning of celebrity. Ford goes from packing out houses where the audience rapturously applaud his actions, to being called a coward. As he himself says, “You know what I expected...applause.” The fact that Jesse is played by celebrity superstar Brad Pitt, and Ford by the relatively unknown Casey Affleck just works perfectly for it.

The psychology between James and Ford is really quite fascinating. James seems to come to the realisation that he is not long for this world. With all the enemies on his tail and even a lack of trust in those around him he knows he is a hunted man, he knows his fate. And as such it seems like he wants to be the one who engineers his death. He pokes and prods at Ford, almost encouraging him to take matters into his own hands, in a way moulding him. And then he sets up his actual death. He lays down his guns and allows himself to get shot in the back, ensuring that he would be remembered as a sympathetic martyr, and Ford a cowardly villain.


The film frequently takes on an almost dreamlike state The camera goes to soft focus, the clouds move across the sky in time lapse, the ethereal mournful score plays as the lyrical narration plays over. It all feels very fitting for a film about a man who has crossed that threshold into something of myth and legend. It all feels very meditative and languid, evoking the feel of a Terrence Mallick picture.

The film generated minuscule business at the box office and was not universally adored and I can understand why. It certainly takes its time to tell its story (or is painfully slow depending on your view :D) and has a distinct lack of action when compared to many westerns, and other versions of the Jesse James story in particular. I think that actually helps to get across the idea that these killers, and Jesse especially, were able to go on and become something of a mythology. It would be hard to understand it if every five minutes you saw him blow away some helpless innocent.

Conclusion - An impressive, laudable film. Perhaps not the action-packed feature some may originally thought they'd get when they heard about Brad Pitt starring in a Western as Jesse James, but it turns out for the best. In terms of the 2008 Oscar ceremony for best film I'd have placed this second behind There Will Be Blood, but ahead of No Country for Old Men.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Nice write-up. People really like this film, but I still don't know why. I guess I'll paraphrase Gordon Gecko in Wall Street here: "Boring is Good!" But Boring is in the Eye of the Beholder, isn't it? I can't help but think it would be twice as good if there was an hour less. Sorry. I'd nominate it for Cinematography obviously (although I actually thought that Deakins' work in No Country For Old Men was worthier that year), but not much else.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Good reviews, Jaydee. :)

I thought Assassination of Jesse James was one of the best westerns I've ever seen. The beauty of the film itself and the subtlety of the performances really grabbed me and held me. I didn't have a problem with pacing or lack of action myself, and felt the film was a pitch-perfect balance between being lyrical and realistic.

No Country was excellent but I also was let down by the ending. It was okay but compared to the rest of the film, anti-climactic. Otherwise, it was very suspenseful and full of memorable characters.

Lastly, TWBB. I also liked that film very much, though I did feel it was a bit slow at times. I also was taken aback by the ending but in its case, I think it fits the descent into paranoia and madness that seemed to define the lead character. Daniel Day-Lewis was awesome as usual.

Thank you very much

Thanks Mark. Coming from you I take that as a great compliment. Even if the film itself isn't a big hit with you. And I can understand you finding it boring. I thought I might, and was surprised to see just how much I engaged with it. There was just something about it that drew me in. Although I'm not sure it's a film I'd watch all that often. And could perhaps find it boring in future.

And yes you're right about that. One person can find something a masterpiece, for another person boring. For example I'd be close to calling 2001 boring but I know you're a great admirer of that. On your top 100 list I think

Certainly, but I think if 2001 were an hour shorter, it would probably be less than half as good..:cool:

By the way, I did watch Jesse James three times the first time around.

How do you mean? 3 times back to back, or three times when it was at the cinema or what?

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Three times in three days on DVD.

Wow and that's a film you didn't even particularly like. Don't think I'd ever do that even with a film I was a massive fan of

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Some good reviews there JayDee. Particularly liked your look at Pleasantville.

Really? I can remember a couple of films which I bought, sat and watched and then rewound (yes, it was video) and watched again straight away.

There's one film, which is on my list so I won't name it here, which I saw twice at the cinema, bought on its first day of release and then watched every day (sometimes twice a day) for a month and, when I was a kid, when I got Star Wars I watched it almost every day for the whole of the school summer holidays.

Not that I'm calling that normal, of course. My mum can't understand why anyone would buy a film, especially if they've already seen it. :D

Lol! You remind me of myself when I was a nipper.
As you can tell from my avatar and my top 10, Young Guns is my favourite movie. I watched it every day without fail for about 5 years running from the age of 10 till I was 15.
Works out at well over 1800 times I've watched it.
Being as I'm now 30, It's probably closer to 1900.

Ah video. How retro of you! :D

As a kid yeah I would do that but nowadays I find that if I watch something too often (films or tv shows) their impact and enjoyment are lessened. I like too try and keep them as fresh as possible so that I don't remember every single line and scene.
Thanks Rodent. (I feel like I'm insulting you just by calling you your username. :D)

Jar Jar Binks was in Young Guns?!!! Wow I really need to watch that movie some time! :p

He was the plucky comic relief that the director put in after post production.
He was intended to be in the original movie. They just didn't have the powerful enough technology at the time of originally making the film.

Just bringing over a load of my mini reviews from the movie tab thread. I just like to have them all in the one place, nice and organised. Also arranged the first post to include links to all the reviews, and went back and changed the format for some of the reviews.





I think this is just a deliriously entertaining piece of nonsense. If you want an idea of plot, it's pretty much a gaudy, camp, glam rock take on Phantom of the Opera

Not all of its ideas work, and it's quite dated at points but that just adds to its charm and cultiness. It has a number of truly memorable characters, and a number of wonderful striking scenes; including it's own fantastic take on the shower scene from Psycho.

There are some great performances from Paul Williams (as Swan) and Gerrit Graham (as Beef), but by far the star here is William Finley, who is just excellent as The Phantom. It's got to be some of the best emoting with just one eye acting I've ever seen! :D

Quite why the film doesn't have a bigger cult following is a bit of a mystery to me. It doesn't even come close to that of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, the film you could probably most obviously connect it with. I actually feel that I should be following the example of Mark and others by classifying this with a cult or camp rating.

Just damn good fun. If you get the chance give it a shot. You may hate it, but it could also become one of your very favourites.

You Can't Take It With You

++

An engaging little charmer of a film; pretty much exactly what you'd expect from Frank Capra. A film full of kooky and goofball characters it's just all so sweet and fun, and all exists in that so very Capra-esque world. It's also a great example of the phrase “they don't make them like that anymore”, and with good reason. If someone tried to make a film like this today the critics would probably crucify it. The story itself is not exactly the most creative, a lot of the time coming across as little more than just a device to get us from one set-piece to another.

James Stewart is, well, James Stewart, and all that entails. It's another of his trademark likable, slightly bumbling everyman roles. And following her delightful showing in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Jean Arthur is just adorable again and I am very quickly finding myself falling for her, and definitely plan on tracking down more of her work. Oh and I could not believe that the loveable Grandpa was played by Lionel Barrymore, the same guy as the despicable Mr Potter from It's a Wonderful Life. I didn't even realise it until I saw his name in the credits. Talk about two polar opposite roles.

Drive

-

I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, as I really wasn't sure what to make of it after just one watch. Decided just to post some quick thoughts.

While I did enjoy the film I found it to be on quite a superficial, shallow level. I enjoyed it for being stylish, slick and almost painfully 'cool', but not much more. For a film hailed as a masterpiece my some, and as film of the year by many I expected something more. I'm quite willing to admit I perhaps missed the point, and indeed hope that I did. It's certainly a film I want to watch again however.

Leave Her to Heaven

+

For the first hour I just found this a bit too slow for my liking. I'm all for fleshing out characters and building the story, but for me it went too far and was to the detriment of my enjoyment. After that however it does pick up, pretty much starting from the moment where Ellen starts to stalk Danny in the boat. From there it is a tense, nervy experience as we wait to see just how far she will go to get what she wants.

As well as looking pretty damn gorgeous Laura Tierney is great as the unhinged, monstrous Ellen. While you're appalled by her there is also something quite hypnotic and mesmerising about her. Oh and the film also looks fantastic in all its Technicolor glory. For such a perverse, noirish movie about obsession it feels quite strange to be painted in such broad and bold colours, but it works.

I should add a disclaimer though that I wasn't feeling that great when I watched this, which may have hampered my enjoyment of it.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

Considering the subject and the story this just didn't come across as powerful as it should, at least until the heartbreaking last five minutes. It comes across as a bit of a shock compared to the rest of the film which is quite gentle by comparison. Or as gentle as a film about a concentration camp can.

It all just feels so very English. It's like an ITV evening drama or something. And most of the elements feel like it. There is nothing particularly bad about the acting, writing, directing etc but there's nothing particularly noteworthy or impressive either.

I do think however it would be a good film to show in schools. I think it can be difficult as a kid to truly get your mind around a situation like the Holocaust; the numbers and the atrocities just seem too vast to really comprehend. This film is able to take a small, personal tale and relate it to the larger picture that is going on.

The film actually reminded me of American Dad. That might sound strange but stick with me. There was an episode outside of the normal American Dad universe, set in the world of James Bond. As usual the villain has a great plan to destroy the world – he wants to make the world cry itself to death. So he makes a film about a young Jewish boy having to hide in Nazi Germany. As if that wasn't enough he is mentally retarded and has an alcohol problem, and the little puppy he has dies from cancer. The boy and the film were called Oscar Gold. It's a film which feels like it was designed just to pull on your heartstrings and to be critically acclaimed.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

A really quality bit of film making from the mind of Alexander Payne. It's a sweet and touching effort, with a large amount of laughs over its course. More than you might expect to find given the plot. Perhaps there aren't any real big belly laughs but a lot of chuckles. I saw it described as a bit of a weepie by some people but I didn't find it to be so. Yes it's quite moving, and yes it has a couple of sad moments but nothing too extreme.

There are a lot of Clooney's more acclaimed films that I've not seen (Michael Clayton, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana etc) but for me this is the most impressed I've ever been by one of his performances. He is also ably assisted by the supporting cast; the two young girls playing his daughters are very impressive, both doing more than enough to make sure they aren't just relegated to the stereotypical roles of 'angry, troubled teen' and 'beyond her years, precocious kid'. Oh and Nick Krause helps create an entertaining character in Sid; a character who divides his time between being very likeable and annoying, and who provides much of the film's comic relief.

Outside of George and his daughters there aren't really any other large roles, but with little screen time both Beau Bridges and Judy Greer are able to shine. Bridges as one of his seemingly infinite amount of cousins; an apparently jovial and affable fellow who reveals a darker side when things don't seem to go his way. And Greer is really quite adorable and endearing. Oh and Matthew Lillard may not have much to do but proves a success just by flashing a douchey smile. :D

While I enjoyed this more than The Artist, I don't think I could really make much of an argument as to why this should be chosen ahead of it for Best Picture at the Oscars. To beat something as beloved and technically impressive as The Artist, I think you'd need something bigger; something more epic to sway the voters.

Oh and a special mention to the great scene of Clooney running; sweating and lumbering along as he completely tosses his dignity aside.




Our modern life – ain't it great? Travel, work, technology all put up walls between us and the people around us. For George Clooney's character it creates a life of great isolation; he has no real relationships in his life, the only place he calls home is the office and his sisters are really no more than casual acquaintances. And it's a testament to Clooney's performance, as well as the script, that despite his job and many of his character's traits the character is still able to remain sympathetic. Alongside him Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga (who is fast becoming one of my favourite actresses currently around) complete a charismatic and engaging trio of central performances.

While it tackles some serious issues the film remains really quite breezy and light throughout, thanks to a sharp and witty script. As a result you could perhaps argue that for a film that raises some serious questions and issues, it treats it a little frivolously and doesn't really produce any answers.

Every decade or time has films that supposedly define it. This has been called one of those on a few instances. While I'm not going to disagree with that, it is really quite depressing if true; if this really is a film of our times.




I just stumbled across this film recently when Amazon recommended it after I purchased Laura. The plot, strong reviews and description of it as Hitchcockian had me very interested in it. And while I did enjoy it, it didn't quite live up to expectations.

After a strong opening this film settles down into quite a slow burning drama about the goings on in the large house in which its set. As a result I found my attention waning at points. It's worth it however for the last 15 minutes which I found really gripping and atmospheric. It achieves it through a lot of traditional and standard elements - suspenseful music, lightning, crashing thunder, lashing rain, use of shadows – but brings them all together wonderfully. It is also wonderfully lit and shot, bringing so much character and drama to the scenes.





A genial and very sweet hearted film, powered by two fine central performances from Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy. It's a relatively simple film which surprised me a bit. I was expecting it to tackle the issue of racism stronger, but it does it all in quite a gentle and safe manner. I was going to say that makes it a weak and surprising choice for the Best Picture Oscar but I suppose that actually makes it a very attractive option for the Academy; a film that appears to tackle an important issue but does so in a way that doesn't rock the boat at all and isn't going to upset anyone.

So while I'd say it's one of the weaker Best Picture winning films I've seen, it is still a nice film with two great and engaging showings.

Quantum Leap actually had a very similar story in its first season, and I remember it taking a more powerful stab at the racism issue, as well as just being a more interesting and entertaining take on the issue and story.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

An intriguing and thoroughly entertaining film. It tells a very interesting story, of a very interesting man and does it with a great degree of fun. Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are both excellent in their respective roles, but it's when their characters are brought together that the film really sparks. Some of their scenes together are just fantastic.

The witty script is full of some fantastic dialogue, although coming from Aaron Sorkin I suppose that really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It takes a serious subject, makes some good points about it but always remains thoroughly enjoyable.






This is a cracking French thriller. In the opening seconds we are thrown right into the middle of a frenetic chase scene, and the pace never really lets up for the next 80 minutes. In that respect it reminded me a bit of Run Lola Run. It truly is worthy of all those clichés available for thrillers - edge of the seat/ a real rollercoaster/ a breathless ride etc.

With gritty action, and twists and turns aplenty it really is a gripping experience throughout. With subtitled films I can sometimes struggle to really appreciate the performances (maybe having to focus too much on the subtitles) but Gilles Lellouche is fantastic in the lead role, really grasping the sheer desperation of the situation he finds himself trapped in. Do yourself a favour and see this film before Hollywood gets the idea to remake it.






For a while I was actually a bit disappointed with this. It wasn't living up to the fairly high expectations I had for it. I was expecting a much higher laugh rate than I was getting. By the end however I had come round. The laughs increased as the film went along, but it was more just the fact that the film was 'nice' that eventually drew me in. In that respect it reminded me of the 90s sitcom, Mad About You. It wasn't always the funniest but that's because it wasn't constantly trying to get big belly laughs every two seconds. It could be content for stretches just being a nice and sweet show about likeable characters. It's a film where its talented cast definitely lift it up to another level.






Up until now I had never seen a Marx brothers film. I know, shock horror right? Not sure why. Maybe due to my mum not being a fan. Anyway I spotted this on DVD for just £2 so thought I'd buy it and finally give them a shot.

So what's the verdict? Well the film does have some very funny lines and sight gags, and some extremely creative and amusing sketches (the lemonade stand and the mirror scene in particular) but I have to admit to finding Groucho a tad annoying at times. As a result it was the antics of Chico and Harpo that really entertained for me.

So am I completely converted to the ways of that Marx brothers? Not quite. Did I see enough to want to track down more of their work? Absolutely..




Maybe I was just in a good mood (which would be rare for me! :D), or maybe it was enjoyment by proxy from my nieces, but I actually really enjoyed this. For the type of film it is I think it did a very good job. Most of the credit goes to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson for the improvement on the first film. For these kinds of films I think he's just about the best candidate out there currently. He's likeable, charismatic, has good comic timing, can handle the physical stuff and actually act.

Oh and I'm not sure whose idea it was to make a double act out of Johnson and Michael Caine but it comes close to a piece of genius. They seem to have really good fun just taking little digs at each other throughout.








A fairly run of the mill romantic comedy, where both the writing and directing could be described similarly. Therefore it has to rely heavily on the charms of its cast and it's here where the film succeeds, as I think Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore are amongst the most charming and likeable actors out there. Yes they deserve better, but their efforts at least lift this up to something fairly decent and enjoyable.

Decided that I'm going to try and group every little review I've written in this one thread, so I'm also bringing over some of my older reviews.





If you were to ask people which genres are worn out, two common answers would probably be the found footage, POV film (Rec, Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield etc) and the superhero film. Well this films takes both of those and combines them together, creating something that I found to be just a piece of cracking entertainment.

It tells the typical superhero origin but in a fresh, exciting manner. And even with it's meagre 83 minute running time, it still finds the time to throw in some elements of sci-fi and darker character drama as we focus on a troubled teenager. I've seen it mentioned a couple of times as being like 'Cloverfield meets Heroes' and I'd say that is quite an apt description. It's not a fantastically original film, but it does feel very fresh and just a little bit different.

A lot of credit has to go to the young trio in the main roles. They all give very strong performances (Dane DeHaan is especially impressive as troubled teen Andrew), neatly toeing the line between natural and realistic which fits with the handheld camera feel, while still being charismatic and entertaining. They are also helped immensely by the script. A lot of these handheld, found footage films are criticised for not having fleshed out characters. That's not the case here however. As well as coming up with strong, natural dialogue the script provides the kids with a realistic story arc when it comes to using their powers. Yes it's nice to think that anyone who gets powers will immediately want to fight crime with them, but it's very unlikely. Here we get teenagers acting like teenagers. They use their powers for girls, for committing Jackass-style stunts on camera and generally just for messing about in an immature manner. It creates likeable characters that we can relate to and understand.

The film takes its time before breaking out the big action, meaning that when it does come we buy it and care about it. By establishing the story and characters first we care about the characters and what happens to them; and we can find the unbelievable...well, believable. And there is a POV scene featuring a car and the Seattle Space Needle which is really quite impressive, and for a moment even made me feel a little uneasy as if I was there.

If rumours are to be believed the film's director, Josh Trank, is apparently already being lined up to helm the Fantastic Four reboot and I'm not surprised. This is a very impressive debut and could herald an exciting new talent. And he might not be the only one. Trank is 26. The writer, Max Landis, is also 26. And the three young actors are all in their mid twenties.

Chronicle will most certainly be crushed under the might of Spider-Man, Batman and the Avengers at the box-office, but in terms of quality I'd say it has thrown down a strong gauntlet to its big name counterparts. I think it's a real little gem. And one I can see still being around my top 10 come the end of the year.




As well as being just a great action film this also turns out to be an oddly touching and affecting story. It tells the offbeat tale of a hitman, Leon, who takes pity on a young girl who lives next door when her family are killed. They each become all the other one has in their lives as Leon teaches Mathilda the profession of cleaning as she seeks revenge on those that killed her family.

In very different roles Jean Reno and Natalie Portman are both wonderful. And the relationship they generate is what lifts this film above normal action films to one of my favourites. Oh and Gary Oldman makes for one freaky ******!!!

While there are some wonderfully constructed action scenes showing Leon in action it truly is the relationship between the two characters that makes this a memorable film for me. The relationship being Reno's lonely assassin who possesses quite a simple mind, becoming a protector and mentor to Portman's young girl who has been forced to grow up too soon in an unforgiving world.

A great action flick and a touching friendship at the same time.




For the first part of this film I wasn't really feeling it, wasn't getting into it, but eventually I came around and found myself gripped and engrossed by the end.

It's a violent, bloody, action-packed western; full of colourful characters who develop a bond and try to stick to a code of honour held amongst thieves. A film that sadly shows the passing of an era. There are some amazing action scenes. The opening battle and train robbery are excellent set-pieces but are overshadowed by the incredible battle that ends the film. While the characters shouldn't be particularly likeable, by the end I felt a sense of sympathy and sadness for these outlaws.

The whole cast are pretty much excellent, with William Holden and Ernest Borgnine being especially impressive.





If I had to use just one word to describe this gritty French noir/heist film it would be classy. From the real Parisian locations to the beautiful photography it just oozes class.

It concerns the attempts by a group of four men to commit a daring robbery and the consequences that arise. There are 3 sections of the film really. First the planning of the robbery, then the heist itself and finally the fallout that happens as a rival gang learns of their act.

Even though I hadn't seen the film before I was aware of the famous silent stretch during the robbery itself. And it certainly lived up to the hype. It is 25 minutes or so of near silence as they conduct the heist. With no dialogue, no music and very few sounds at all it is an incredible accomplishment. Without dialogue to explain what they are doing it is a joy to work it all out for ourselves, all the little details and creative answers they come up with to defeat the security measures.

The other real strength of the film I would say is the characters and how fleshed out they all are. Each has their own individual quirks and qualities, provided by the script and cemented by some impressive performances, whether it be the old master who has been beaten down by his time in prison to the charismatic safe cracker with an eye for the ladies.

While I would definitely go back and watch those 25 minutes again I'm unsure if I'd be desperate to see the whole film again.



A flawed but very interesting film with some truly stunning visuals. The use of colour and the sheer epic scale of many of the locations (it was filmed in over 20 countries!) are really quite something. Just in those terms it is one of the most extraordinary films I've ever seen

The relationship between Lee Pace and the adorably cute Catinca Untaru is very sweet and charming, though a sad and dark undercurrent runs through it. The first half or so is a really adventurous fantasy, but as we learn more it takes a dark turn.

Due to it's stunning images I'd certainly recommend it as I think it's the kind of film that some people will absolutely adore. It's the kind of film I think I could possibly come to feel that way about with repeat viewings but for now



Just trying to fill in some gaps in the Coen's back catalogue. If you were to group the Coen brothers films together this would go in along with films like Raising Arizona as being amongst their more fun, daft films.

It's a real throwback to the screwball, fast-talking comedies of the 40s. And it does it very well. It's a lot of fun, full of wit and creativity. The design of the film looks great with some fantastic sets. While it's quite breezy fun it is also a very biting and satirical film at times.

The star of the show for me has to Jennifer Jason Leigh, firing off her lines at an incredible pace while looking like she has just been plucked straight out of the 1940s. The only problem with this style of film is that it can be hard to create much heart and emotion and it does suffer a little from that. But overall good fun




and here's a short review for a film that I watched months back but forgot to write anything about.






An immensely enjoyable and winning film which features a star-making turn from the adorable Emma Stone. Although it has to be said that any scene she's in with her parents is just about stolen out from under her by the wonderful Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson.

I hadn't seen this film in years and years so remembered very little about it but certainly appreciated it a lot more. It's a thoroughly absorbing, elegant film.

It's an enchanting, romantic fantasy. It just gives you a nice warm, happy feeling while you're watching it. The opening ten minutes are very magical as we first scan across the universe and then drop in on the conversation between a seemingly doomed soldier and the voice on the other end of the line. It's a beautifully charming scene between the two which makes you buy the immediate love they feel for each other.

The performances of the cast are almost universally excellent, with Roger Livesey being my personal stand-out. His performance during the court trial is just captivating.

The effects are very impressive. In their day they must have been astounding and even today they still delight, in particular the freezing of the table tennis match and the wonderful staircase from heaven. Indeed the whole realisation of Heaven is spectacular, probably the most interesting I've seen on screen. The split between colour and black and white could have been very gimmicky but for me really works and both are beautiful to look at.




While this movie has many elements you'll recognise from other sources (Deja Vu, Groundhog Day, Quantum Leap etc) they combine to create something quite original and interesting, certainly cementing Duncan Jones as someone to watch out for.

The film is not as straightforward or formulaic as I thought it might be, throwing in a fair few twists and turns, including one that completely caught me unawares. It also goes into a slightly darker tone at times than I was expecting, with some bittersweet moments throughout.

It actually reminded me a touch of a Hitchcock film with a claustraphobic setting, a sense of mystery throughout where you're not actually sure what's going on and little moments of humour to break up the action/tension.

Performances are quite strong throughout. Gyllenhaal is very good, capturing the fear and confusion of his situation while also being appealing and endearing. Michelle Monaghan may not have much to do but is sweet and adorable enough to make it believable that you could fall for her in such a short space of time. While Vera Farmiga is also excellent, turning what could have been a simple character into a very intiguing one with a lot of depth

As always with this kind of film it will be interesting to see how it holds up to repeat viewings now that you know the outcome. Will the characters, story, acting and directing be enough to carry the film when it lacks the mystery?





A daft, dated but ultimately still enjoyable film. The main reason for it being able to retain that enjoyment is the sheer energy of Jack Lemmon's performance, particularly in the courtroom scene near the end of the film which is terrifically funny.

Lemmon is also given help however by the supporting cast, especially from Terry-Thomas who achieves the impressive feat of almost stealing any scene he is in with Lemmon.

It's just a simple, good old-fashioned little comedy. The perfect kind of film perhaps for a lazy Sunday afternoon when the rain is pouring down outside





As a big fan of sci-fi films and cult films this has been on my radar for the last few years but just never got round to it, until last night

It's a wonderfully atmospheric sci-fi noir, the visuals are tremendous. And that's a very good thing as it perhaps lacks a bit of heart however and the characters are a little one-note (although considering the elements of imprinting perhaps that's unavoidable). The pacing I fount to be a little off putting at times, crawling at times and whizzing from one scene to another at others. And the battle at the end I found a little flat, perhaps not helped by some weakish effects.

The performances for the most part are decent without wowing me. And I can't decide if Keifer Sutherland is great in this or kind of awful in this but it's fun to watch either way.

I liked the film but didn't love it like I really wanted to. It's one of those films that is maybe a bit more style than substance, but when the style is this gorgeous it almost doesn't matter





A nice, good natured film. Certainly better than Chris Rock's Down to Earth which it inspired.

The most impressive element of the film for me were the performances. Robert Montgomery makes for a very likeable lead, Claude Rains is excellent as the suave, compassionate Mr Jordan and James Gleason steals pretty much every scene he's in, especially as his behaviour becomes more and more insane to all those around him

With a real warmth and charm, it is a sweet little film and certainly comes into the category of “They don't make 'em like that anymore!” kind of films.





After watching a lot of 'quality' films of late I was in the mood for something just plain daft and fun so thought I'd give this a go

I've always been a fan of Goldie Hawn, finding her to be one of the funniest and most lovable actresses about when it comes to comedy. And it's her charms that certainly carry this film. You know right from the start where the film is going to end up so you need someone to make it an enjoyable journey and she succeeds.

Perhaps the biggest kick for me was seeing the early appearances of Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson, both looking so young and fresh-faced in their first main roles. Both sparkle and provide some good laughs, certainly foreshadowing their success.

It may lack in terms of really big laughs but is an enjoyable enough way to pass an evening.






I've ran out of steam a little bit here to write anything substantial. So I'll just say it's a decent film which has stunning looking cinematography, some great dialogue and real chemistry between Hepburn and Bogart. Not however my cup of tea really and it would certainly be a long while before I would watch it again (if ever) but fairly enjoyable all the same

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I should really see Psycho sometime. I tend to be wary of the very top tier of "classics", though. Maybe it's fear of disappointment.

A truly wonderful film. Uplifting, moving, joyous and heartbreaking – at some stages all at once. More than most it's definitely a film of two halves. The first hour or so is a charming love story with slapstick and screwball elements as the clownish Guido tries to win over his 'princess'.

After that it turns into a story of surviving one of the world's great atrocities and Guido's efforts to protect both the innocence and the life of his son. The idea of him pretending they are taking part in a contest is a truly lovely and charming idea.

A film of great beauty.







This film made me feel proud to be an American. Considering I'm 100% Scottish with no American connection whatsoever that's quite an acheivement! :D

James Stewart is at his wonderfully charming, likeable self as Jefferson Smith, the politician who believes in the power and magic of politics and America itself. With help from Saunders (a delightful Jean Arthur) he battles the fight for good against all the odds.

The ending of the film, with Mr Smith holding the floor in theCongress for nearly 24 straight hours is brilliantly inspiring. It's a film that shows politics how we would love them to be, while also showing us what is sadly too often the reality.






Expertly constructed legal drama. Almost the whole film takes place in one room, with nothing other than talk really. It could so easily be dull but the writing and performances ensure it is engaging and riveting throughout.

The great accomplishment of the film is that each character is able to be developed as a unique individual with their own qualities and their own voice. Whether it be the seeming old, doddery man whose mind can be just as sharp as everyone else, or the men who have entered with a prejudice, determined to render a guilty verdict no matter the arguements

And at the end the men who have come from all different walks of life go their seperate ways. We never find out if the young man on trial is actually guilty of his accused crime or not, and while it would be nice to know in a way, it doesn't really matter. That's not what the film is about

In a way it's similar to Mr Smith... as it shows how wonderful and idealistic the legal system can be but also how polluted and small minded it can be. Without Henry Fonda's character to speak up it seems sure it would be a surefire guilty verdict without any great thought




I have a great weakness for romantic comedies. In movie terms they are definitely my guilty pleasure. And I think this is one of the best to be released in the last few years. As always it has a preposterous concept to bring the characters together, at first they clash with each other before eventually falling for each other, just for it all to fall apart but with just enough time left for a last minute proclamation of love.

So in other words it's far from original but is done in a very enjoyable way. For me personally it's a great cast as I am a fan of every main member (Ryan Reynolds, Sandra Bullock, Craig T Nelson, Mary Steenburgen and the wonderful Betty White)

Nothing new but just sweet and good fun.





It really does seem quite curious how popular such a specific genre, the big chase film, became. Of the few I've seen this is definitely the most enjoyable

It's not particularly clever, but doesn't pretend to be. None of the laughs come from witty wordplay or intelligent observations, it's all purely slapstick stuff. In fact at times, particularly the opening 30 minutes, it feels like an extended sketch show

Alongside the big names of Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood, it's the wonderfully daft duo of Jack Lemmon and Peter Falk that propel the film along. Their chemistry is just fantastic!

It goes on a bit long and has a 45 minute or so section which completely forgets about the race to concentrate on a completely seperate storyline from out of nowhere, but is very enjoyable stuff that should see you with a smile on your face for most of the film




A little film I stumbled across recently. Starring Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson it's a romantic comedy of sorts, just a little bit more offbeat

As a struggling author and his stenographer, Wilson and Hudson make for a nice couple. The gimmick of the film being that while their scenes are set in the modern world, they also play characters from Wilson's story, which is set in the 1920s, so we alternate between the two worlds

I've always liked Luke Wilson, and this is the most I've ever enjoyed Kate Hudson. She tones down her usual glamour to play more of a normal person with a normal job, and displays a lot more charm than I would normally associate with her

While I don't see myself ever tracking it down to see it again it was a fairly decent, nice little film

I know what you mean. I can feel the same at times, a lot perhaps to do with being disappointed a number of times by the likes of Casablanca, Maltese Falcon, Chinatown and just about all the Kubrick I've seen

However you really should watch Psycho. Stunning film.

Wow this film is brilliant! I had only seen it once before a long time back and while it was good it didn't make a huge impact on me. But I absolutely loved it this time round.

It's a beautiful film that works as both a deliciously dark comedy, and as a sad, touching drama about a group of lost souls trying to find happiness in that scariest of places - the American suburb.

The film has so many incredible performances, hard to think of too many other films that have so many top turns. Kevin Spacey in particular is superb in it. And just thinking back he had one incredible run of films in the mid to late nineties – LA Confidential, Seven, Usual Supects and American Beauty

One of the best films of the 90s, if not of all time for me.



A truly wonderful film. Considered to be one of the all time classics and certainly worthy of that accolade. It is a biting, darkly funny film that rips apart the golden dream of Hollywood.

It is a truly sad, slightly haunting story as the once famous star, Norma Desmond, descends into desperation, depression and finally madness. Along the way she drags down Joe Gillias along with her as he is trapped in her web

The main cast are universally excellent. Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond is incredible, perfectly capturing the desperation of the faded star and the unshakeable belief that she is still 'big'. And her descent down the stairs has to be one of the great scenes in film. William Holden convinces fully as the screenwriter who knows he should leave but just can't bring himself to

The film does also have some real heart in the shape of Erich von Stroheim's role as Norma's butler. While everyone else has deserted her he has stuck with her throughout, now doing all he can to protect the diva's fragile mind.

A true masterpiece with so many great, quotable lines of dialogue



This is a real little gem of a film. Surely all I really have to say is H.G. Wells chases Jack the Ripper in present day (well 1979 but present at the time) San Francisco and you will understand why it's such fun.

The reason I really like this film is that it works on a few different levels. It works as an interesting, offbeat time travel tale, as a suspenseful thriller and also as a really touching little love story.

The performances are all really strong. Malcolm McDowell is wonderful as H.G. Wells creating a character to really root for; someone who is a little bit shy, earnest in his beliefs and with enough bravery to go head to head with Jack the Ripper. Mary Steenburgen is delightfully sweet as the love interest, very impressive for her first performance which reminded me a lot of her character in Back to the Future III. And David Warner is suitably intimidating and fearsome as Jack, while also convincing as a surgeon who could fit into society as a respected man.

A sweet, fun and entertaining film



A charming, gentle, whimsical little tale. It's not exactly an original story (a small community full of sweet, quirky characters that win over someone who doesn't understand the nature of the place when they first arrive) but it's beautifully told.

Not a lot happens really but still it's able to comment on many of life's big subjects – nature, loneliness, the search for happiness, finding a place to belong etc

Then there is the sheer beauty of the film, making full use of the stunning Scottish scenery. Making it feel very mythical and mystical. And lastly the wonderful music throughout, especially Mark Knopfler's triumphant theme at the end. Oh and Burt Lancaster is an absolute hoot!

As a Scot myself I may be a little biased but I think this is a gem of a movie.





A classy, mysterious film noir. It's quite an unusual story. A detective investigating the murder of a beautiful girl slowly finds himself falling in love with the dead girl, just from hearing about her and looking at a portrait of her. Then she turns up alive!

You can throw so many words at this film to describe it - taut, intense, tight, perfectly plotted. It is an excellent and intriguing mystery. And Clifton Webb is an absolute treat as Waldo Lydecker, throwing out one acidic put-down after another.







A very sweet, funny little film. It tells of the relationship between two characters thrown together; Ryan O'Neal's travelling conman, Moses Pray, and Tatum O'Neal's little Addie who has been left alone after the death of her mother. At the pressing of fellow mourners at the funeral Moses agrees to take the little girl to her aunt's home in Missouri.

Their journey makes for some entertaining stuff, full of debacles and colourful characters, as the little girl proves a willing and capable partner in many of the cons. The performances and relationship between the two O'Neal's is excellent. Tatum O'Neal is particularly special as the smoking, cursing 9 year old girl.

The film also looks absolutely beautiful; wonderfully photographed. A charming film full of warmth, humour and heart



Inspired by the true 1920s case of the serial killer known as “The Merry Widow Maker” this film is not amongst Hitchcock's most famous but is considered by the master to be his own personal favourite.

I found the film a bit slow to get going, the first half mainly setting up a killer in a small, gentle community and drip feeding clues for his niece. As the film progresses however the tension ramps up. Young Charlie begins putting the clues together that seem to point to her visiting uncle (also Charlie) as being a serial killer. Young Charlie has always idolised her uncle however so will not turn him in even after confronting him. From then on Charlie suffers a series of 'accidents' which put her life at great risk. All leading up to tense, thrilling finale on a train

My favourite little element of the film was the morbid conversations on murder that Charlie's father would have with a neighbour. It's very entertaining and is probably the closest that this little community ever thinks it will get to murder

So this is Alfred Hitchcock's favourite of his own films, and while it's not that close to being mine it is still very entertaining





James Stewart. John Wayne. John Ford. That's quite a line-up. And for the most part the film delivers on the promise those names create.

It's not a western that's high on action, but high on drama and emotions. James Stewart and John Wayne's characters are united against the outlaw Liberty Valance, but rivals for the heart of a woman. James Stewart is the restrained lawyer who wants Liberty Valance to face trial, John Wayne is the tough guy of the town who realises that the only way to stop Liberty Valance is to tackle violence with violence.

Wayne's character embodies the old West of fistfights and shoot-outs, while Stewart represents the change that will come to the West. Ford's directing is excellent and with the lighting the film looks great.

A very interesting Western with a lot of legends at the top of their game.





A decent if a little bit of a slow-burning comedy thriller from Hitchcock. Many of the Hitchcock films I've seen so far are quite slow. For his thrillers that works as he is able to use the time to really build up the tension, but for this type of film I don't think it works quite as well. That said it is decent enough fun and certainly looks lovely. Really bright colours combined with some great scenery and location shooting making it visually impressive

Of his work I've seen so far I'd rate this as my least favourite Hitchcock film but all in all is still a solid, fairly enjoyable way to pass 100 or so minutes.







To call the plot of this film flimsy would be being very kind to it. There isn't much of a story to speak of whatsoever, it is basically just a showcase for the charms of Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell.

And as such it works very well. While Monroe may be the 'star', for me the high point of this is definitely Jane Russell. Monroe's character is actually not very likeable but is just so dim, sweet and charming that you can't really dislike her.

There's no great depth or indeed much of anything here but it's just a fluffy, fun little film.

Ok pretty sure this is the last of them and that every little review has now been collected here in this thread.





This is a very curious film, like no Western I've ever seen before.

It reminded me of films like Forrest Gump and North in that it tells the tale of one man's incredible and fantastical life, a film where you feel it may be revealed at any time to be a fantasy or fable. It's a very sad and touching movie at times, but is also wildly funny

The film's great strength without doubt is Dustin Hoffman's wonderful performance, charting the character's life from a teen through to old age.

All in all this is a film I can definitely see myself revisiting frequently. It's a very engrossing and moving film.





Despite being a big fan of Kevin Costner I only just got round to finally seeing this a couple of days ago. I've had the DVD sitting for a few years but not got round to it, mostly because of the 3 hour running time. Trying to find the time for it and also making sure I was in the mood for it.

Anyway I thought it was spectacular. A truly sweeping, thoughtful and poetic epic which looks just absolutely stunning. The cinematography is amazing, turning the land into not just a backdrop but a character in its own right. There are so many little moments that put a little smile on my face. I'd also say it's one of those rare films where hardly a word is wasted. Almost every bit of dialogue has some reason to be there.

Due to it's length and slow pace it may not be one I revisit a lot but whenever I do I think I will always find it a gripping, touching story.




This shares a lot of similarities to Dial M for Murder (which I posted about a week or so ago - now presented below) so you would assume it would share some of the things I was unsure about. But it doesn't. The performance of the actors and Hitchcock's direction give this one much more energy and tension in my eyes. And the plot is a wonderfully ghoulish idea.

I must admit however I completely missed the gay element of the characters, only learning of it in the extras. Must be more observant!

Perhaps not one of Hitchcock's absolute classics, but extremely entertaining nonetheless.








I'm saying sort of because it's the first time I've actually sat down and watched it from start to finish. Caught parts of it on TV loads of times and when added up I'm sure I had seen all of it.

Anyway onto the film. While I perhaps don't love it quite as much as others on here it is a very good film, mixing action and suspense wonderfully. The performances of the three main actors are all excellent as well, especially when they are actually out on the boat and begin to bond against the threat of death that surrongs them.

The first half is decent but it's when they get out on the boat and it turns into a three hander that it really goes up a few levels in terms of quality and excitement. And from the moment they realise that the shark is actually hunting them it is a wonderful edge of the seat ride through to the end.




Wow this Argentine film has to be one of the oddest films I've ever seen. In fact if I had just guessed at the plot beforehand I could probably have come up with a better summary than I can after seeing it. :D

To look at the film is quite stunning. As a mostly silent film great importance is given to the striking black and white images and the many graphic tricks it has up its sleeve. It's main inspiration clearly seems to be Metropolis, perhaps with an added little bit of Tim Burton-esque quirkiness.

The plot isn't anything special but then that's not what this film is about and won't be the reason for anyone seeing it.

I'm not actually sure what rating to give this film it's got me so baffled. I would switch every few minutes between finding it pretentious and annoying to then just being brainwashed by the striking imagery.

So for now I'm actually going to leave it unrated as I really don't know what to award it. Empire awarded it 5 stars, The Independent 1 star. And I can totally understand both of those views



And now the first two mini reviews I ever posted, almost a year ago now.




Was really quite disappointed with this. Either it was falsely advertised at the time or I remembered the promotion for it wrong. I was expecting something more feel-good with a bit more adventure. Instead I thought it quite dull, slow and sad. The first half in particular was really slow before it picked up a little after that. I felt the acting wasn't up to much other than Keisha Castle-Hughes (who is excellent). She was very natural but with many others you could really see they were trying to act but without the talent or experience to quite pull it off. Gave it a slight amatuer production feel.

For a nice score, beautiful scenery and Castle-Hughes' performance I'll give it

-








I'm unsure what to make of this one. The story and dialogue are excellent; really well written. Particularly how the killer has to abandon his inital plan but comes up with an ingenius plan B almost instantly. The performances, particularly Ray Milland's, are all very impressive. However as it's written and basically shot as a play I didn't quite get into it as much as I would like to with a good film

I think I'll need to give it a second viewing to cement my opinion but for now I'll go ++

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Good to see another fan of Dances With Wolves. Its a great film. I also love Dial M For Murder, which is currently my second favourite Hitchcock film. :up:

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Yeah I was really impressed with Dances with Wolves. :yup:

On first viewing I'd have Dial M at about 8th or 9th probably, which sounds low but I think says more about the high quality of Hitchcock's films than the lack of quality for Dial M.

David Lean is the Epics director! Loved all of his movies. Just made a memo to myself to watch Ryan's Daughter again.

An extrememly entertaining comedy/drama from James L. Brooks. It's a witty film; brought to life by a sharp script with some great lines, that is about the state of journalism as much as it is about the complex lives of three characters that inhabit it. For me while everything in between is great, the opening and closing of the film were a little weak. The prologue is quite funny but just feels like it's trying to hard to be cute and clever, while the epilogue feels unnecessary.

The main reason why this film was such a hit for me was definitely the performances of the central trio of William Hurt, Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks. Separately they are all great, but it's their chemistry with each other that really gives this film its spark. The way each character interacts with each other is great. Each relationship has a great mix of love, friendship, hate, respect, jealousy etc.

As I said all three performers are excellent but certainly the star has to be Holly Hunter. It's got to be the most I've enjoyed an actress' performance in a long while. She brings great humour to the table with some great line deliveries, but also quite a sad poignancy to the tightly wound, conflicted character of Jane. There's also something about her that reminded me of those women frequently found in screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s.

For a comedy that features a romantic triangle it was refreshing that it wasn't as straightforward or formulaic as could be expected. Instead we get a fairly realistic, complex tale about real and complicated characters. William Hurt's character (Tom Grunick) is a vapid, vacant and eventually unethical representation of journalism's decline. And yet he still somehow remains a fairly likeable and affable guy, largely down to his easygoing nature and readiness to admit to his shortcomings. Holly Hunter's character (Jane Craig) is wonderful at her job and a true idealist about holding on to journalistic integrity, but becomes hopelessly unstuck when it comes to relationships. As Joan Cusack's character says “Except for socially, you're my role model.” So you understand why she's become a bit of a workaholic. She then falls for Tom, despite him being an example of everything she hates about the direction the news business is heading in. There's a great moment where she realises her feeling for him and her face contorts in horror. And then there is Albert Brooks who is supposed to be the moral centre of the piece but even he's a bit of a pr**k! When confronted with and when things don't go his way he becomes very petty and spiteful.

Oh and although Joan Cusack only has a relatively minor role, she also deserves some praise for bringing a high hit rate of laughs considering her time on screen. She is great in the classic scene near the start where there is a frantic rush to get the tape delivered on time.

The film is very successful (at least I believe it is) at creating the world of the newsroom, and being there at the shift from proper, responsible and respectful journalism to what we have now; a world where it is no longer about accurately reporting the news, but a world of ratings and revenue. Journalistic standards and values have declined, as the newsbusiness has 'evolved' into just another brand of showbiz. It's a world where physical appearance and superficial charms come out on top of intellect and skill. And this was one of the main reasons why I preferred this to Network. It portrays the same message and points, but is able to do it in a much more subtle way than the over the top, overwrought (though still quite enjoyable) Network.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I didn't exactly dislike Brick, but I wasn't as impressed by it as others were. The "high school noir" conceit just felt a bit silly to me, and distracting from the story. I don't regret watching the film; it was nicely put-together and acted, especially Gordon-Levitt. I dunno, it just didn't grab me. Still worth a watch for fans of neo-noir, indie films, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Nothing short of a masterpiece. :up: The only other Argentine film ive ever seen is The Secret In Their Eyes. Of course, it is no match for La Antena.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Great review of Broadcast News, only I think William Hurt was in Broadcast News, not John.

Please choose which of the following best captures my embarrassment - :facepalm: :blush: :bashful:

Can't believe I did that throughout the whole review. I even read through it a couple of times to check for any mistakes and at no point did that jump out. Anyway thanks for the compliment and for pointing that out, will go and amend it just now.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I do that too. :D

What, get William and John Hurt mixed up?


Perhaps a masterpiece, perhaps the most pretentious and superfluos film I've ever seen! Still not sure. :p Though it's nice to hear from someone else who has seen it. I asked when I originally posted it but no-one else seemed to have caught it. Definitely one that needs a rewatch someday for me to cement my opinion.

Not seen Secret In Their Eyes but blind bought it on DVD for a couple of pounds a while back. Only other Argentine film I think I've seen is Bombon el Perro; quite a sweet, touching little film. Oh and The Motorcylce Diaires I think was an Argentine production..

Yep. :)

Let me start by admitting that I love the Muppets. Absolutely love them! So to be honest this new movie could just have been two hours of Kermit & co. sitting around a table in a darkly lit room, having an existential discussion about life and death, and I would most likely still have had a good time. The fact that the film is such good fun means that I just loved it.

The actual plot is nothing to write home about. It is just there to serve the purpose of bringing the Muppets back together. If six months was taken to write the script, five minutes probably went on the plot. And I'm ok with that. If I remember correctly I think it's actually an almost carbon copy of the plot for It's a Very, Merry Muppet Christmas.

When it comes to the rest of the script however you can tell that this isn't a project that the studio bosses have just handed off to any old writer to get done. It's fairly obvious that this is written by someone with a great love for the Muppets. It's full of great warmth and affection for the characters. The script successfully creates a wonderfully nostalgic, old school tone while also retaining a knowing, winking-to-the-camera sensibility. As a result it achieves that tricky feat of being both smart and silly, and works as a lovely tribute to the legends that are the Muppets.

The songs are a delight and fit right in with the tradition of a Muppets song. As you'd expect based on his Flight of the Conchords output, Bret McKenzie delivers some terrific songs which are in parts funny, touching, quirky and damn catchy. While 'Muppet or a Man' won the Oscar (and is excellent) it's run close for title of my favourite song by 'Life's a Happy Song'. 'Pictures in my Head' is lovely and touching as well, while there are some enjoyable uses of 'We Built This City', and a bizarre barbershop version of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit.'

While the Muppets are, and were always going to be, the stars here, the human members of the cast are able to solidly hold their own. Jason Segel and the adorable Amy Adams both put in fine performances. Adams in particular deserves credit for making the most out of her one dimensional character and lack of any real story. Chris Cooper puts in a fine showing as the villainous oil baron, really going along with the fun of it all. “Maniacal laugh!” The cameo performers may not be as big name as in the old Muppet films (Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Orson Welles, Bob Hope, Liza Minelli, John Cleese, Peter Falk etc) but a few of them do deliver nice laughs. Oh and for the first time in what seems like an age Jack Black actually approaches being fairly funny.

I just think the film is so damn loveable! While I don't expect everyone to love it I find it quite hard to believe (verging on the impossible) that anyone could really dislike this. There is already a sequel in the pipeline and I've just got my fingers crossed it's even half as good as this.

My favourite film of 2012 this far. And while there will no doubt be 'better' films this year, they'll have to go some for me to like them more.

An important, landmark film. Probably one of the most essential movies of the 70s. These are accolades I've seen this film labelled with for quite a while. And now that I've seen it, I understand why and would echo those sentiments. It's a finely crafted film of extremely high quality.

A great deal of the interest for me came just from learning about one of the most intriguing and important moments in American history. While I knew the broad strokes of the Watergate/Nixon story it was very intriguing to learn about it more thoroughly, about all the little ins and outs, the facts, the lengths of the investigation and who was involved. As much as it's about the Watergate scandal it's also about the journalistic process. It depicts it at it's purest core, and it comes across very inspiring. I think just about anyone who sees the film will think (even if just for a second) how great it would be to be a journalist, breaking a big story. It really shows what an incredible task Woodward and Bernstein took on; how tough a slog it was, and throughout I kept thinking how easy it would have been for me to give up if I was in their shoes

While I don't know anything about the production of the film it feels like it must have been a risky and tough sell at the time. With it taking such a comprehensive and realistic approach it hardly comes across as the most obviously commercial of films. It doesn't show their journalistic journey as being incredibly exciting or action packed, instead producing a restrained, unshowy account. Add to that the fact of it being extremely dialogue heavy, and that the two lead performers rather tone down their star appeal to play extraordinarily normal, everyday guys and it's a surprise (and quite heartening) that the film was such a large success, coming in as the #4 highest grossing film of the year. I wonder how such an 'adult' film would fare today. In those terms it reminds me of David Fincher's Zodiac; a film that concentrates on the painstaking process of the investigation, rather than concerning itself with a sensationalised reconstruction of the events.

To take that further, when you consider the style in which the film is presented it's a good deal more engrossing than you feel it really should be. It basically follows a pattern of – three scenes where they interview people, two scenes where they are talking on the phone, one scene where there's a meeting in the office and then back to the start on a loop. And yet somehow it completely draws you in. And so many of the moments have now become staples of the genre – the good guys being bugged and having their lives in possible peril, clandestine meetings with a shadowy figure – that at times I felt I had to remind myself that this is actually real. This really happened!

Hoffman and Redford both put in strong, solid performances but I can see why neither was nominated for an Oscar. They are not really allowed to show any great range of emotions, nor do either have personal character arcs. The story has the arc and they are just a part of that. I think they should both be congratulated for not grandstanding, for not attempting to grab the glory. To me it instead feels like their only interest was to just contribute to the whole experience and accomplishmen of the film. Someone else who most certainly merits mention is Jason Robards who portrays Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post. He provides an injection of weary passion and humour to the film. He also delivers perhaps one of my favourite quotes in quite a while. “Nothing's riding on this except the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of the country. Not that any of that matters but if you guys f**k up again I'm gonna get mad.”

My immediate reaction to the ending was one of slight disappointment. I was expecting it to go all the way, climaxing at the point where they uncover the fact that Nixon himself is involved. However after thinking about it for a moment and going back to rewatch it, I really quite loved it in it's low-key, subtle way. You have Richard Nixon on the TV screen being sworn in as President, while in the background Bernstein and Woodward are frantically writing the story that will bring him crashing down, the clacking of the typewriter keys becoming almost deafening. And then the simple, non-sensationalist way they detail what eventually became of all those involved in the crimes and cover-ups.

And if you want two more indications that show just how much I appreciated the film, afterwards I went and further investigated the case, checking to see how long their investigation took and what Bernstein and Woodward did afterwards. After all when you've brought down the President of the United States what do you do for an encore? And the other indicator? That I almost immediately went and bought the DVD so I could learn more from the extras. And I knew right away it was a film I wanted in my collection

Would I call it one of the absolute 'must see films' out there? I'm not sure but at the very, very least it's damn close.

Just as with Dog Day Afternoon (that review to follow later) this wasn't quite what I was expecting. Based on a famous scene I was expecting a deeply unsettling and harrowing experience. Which is probably the reason I had put off watching it for so long. And yes while there are a few moments like that, particularly that scene, and a fairly unnerving mood always lingering, there are actually long stretches of the film that in its own way are quite beautiful. Some of the scenery captured by the cinematography is just gorgeous, it looks stunning and harsh.

The acting from the four rowing mates is all very strong. Voight and Beatty are good but of particular, and indeed surprising note, would be Burt Reynolds. I always thought of him in the same kind of mould as a Mr. T, a David Hasselhoff or a Lou Ferrigno. While they might be popular I wouldn't consider them for the most part to really be proper actors, mostly coming across as just a caricature. They usually play slightly different versions of themselves, mostly as that's all they can do. Here however Reynolds proves to be a bit of a revelation, giving a fairly powerful showing as the tough, untamed warrior Lewis.

While it is quite a slow build for the most part the film is able to work on the level of just a pure adventure film, largely down to the incredibly impressive whitewater scenes where you can see that is really is the actors themselves who are shooting the rapids. They are wonderfully shot and probably the film's highlight. Although that accolade should probably go to the duelling banjos scene, an exhilarating and graceful moment before it all goes to hell.

However while there are some positives I'd say there were also a number of cons in my mind. The message of man's relationship and interaction with nature, and the ridiculous notion that man can control it without consequences does work, but I wouldn't say it's the most subtle of commentaries. Indeed what occurs later on is foreshadowed extremely early when Lewis comments “We're going to rape this whole god-damned landscape.” I also felt that they should have had more trials and tribulations actually caused by the wilderness to show the point, so that it was a man v nature battle as opposed to man v man in nature.

I felt that the characters of the mountain men felt very stereotypical, portraying them as perverse, inbred hillbillies makes them feel sort of like they belong in a schlocky horror film. And as for the rape scene I have two queries about it. One, while they did have a gun in such a situation I think there would be a great temptation and survival instinct to try and fight them off. The second, and larger problem for me though was the lack of impact it seems to have on Beatty's charcter. While I appreciate the film has the themes of what it takes to be a man and far you would go to survive; and you could argue that it just shows him being strong and survivalist on his part, but I felt that after such an ordeal there should be evidence of him being traumatised.

Then there is the fact that Jon Voight's Ed is able to scale a sheer cliff. Setting aside the fact that his character doesn't seem the most likely to be able to conquer this challenge, you then have the facts that he is tired, battered and beaten. He is climbing with his bare hands, with no climbing equipment, while carrying a bow and arrow. Even for Spider-Man that would be a hell of an achievement! :D It just felt very far-fetched. And not the most logical plan either, given that if there was a shooter above you you would be leaving yourself potentially in a very vulnerable position.

There were then two other problems I had but which I understood. While it forces Ed and Bobby to step up if they want to survive, the fact that Reynolds' Lewis is sidelined for the last portion is a shame, as he was an intriguing character. And the ending felt quite anti-climatic compared to the tense atmosphere that is present for the most part. It feels like it should end as soon as they get off the river as that is their whole goal, first just as the end of the journey and then out of a desperate need. But I understand the need to show the impact on them and also what happens afterwards in regards to the police, but if you're going to do that I feel it should be more in-depth. So what I'm saying is that I feel the film should either be shorter, or should be longer to have more time to deal with the aftermath.

An interesting film but not one I was overly enamoured with on first viewing, and didn't quite appreciate why it's considered the classic that is by many.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Let's see... Deliverance is really complex and deeper than some of the more obvious points it makes. The four lead characters can be seen to represent four different sides of the masculine personality or they could be seen to just about comprise one complete male person. You say that you want to see signs of trauma from Bobby, but at this point, he's more concerned with the embarrassment of people finding out what happened to him. Besides that, Drew seems to be suffering enough trauma for everyone at this point. Not to mention that Lewis's bone is sticking out of his flesh.

In fact, you didn't discuss the scenes involving what to do with the dead body and what subsequently happened to Drew. Drew is the most sensitive guy there and he seems deeply disturbed by what happened. Also, what do you think? Was Drew shot? Was the guy with the shotgun on top of the cliff the same as the earlier rapist? You question the need for and the ability of Ed to make that climb, but Ed is the only one left who can do it and he has no choice. If there is a shooter, the three men will never get out of there unless Ed "neutralizes" him. Besides that, Ed has to overcome his buck fever to save his friends, so it's certainly the proper plot development.

Lewis was basically the leader before his accident, but once again, his strength (or is it really a weakness?) causes him to lose that position, and for all we know, he may lose his leg too due to his lack of belief in insurance, not so coincidentally Bobby's field of business. This is the thing about poet James Dickey's novel and screenplay. He may have a few obvious lines, but overall, the film can be taken much more poetically and metaphorically than most adventures or even straight dramas. The two vllains may seem like something from a schlocky horror flick, and I'm sure that they're serial killers, but if Drew wasn't shot, it truly was nature which caused all the protagonists' subsequent problems and not the backwoods people. If Ed shot the wrong man then the guy with the shotgun atop the cliff was just trying to defend himself and Ed is a murderer. By the way, who do you think will have the most guilt and regret for the rest of his life? Based on the movie, it appears to be Ed.

I have things to say about All the President's Men, but I'll save them for later.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Mark. When you've taken so much time on a review it's always nice to get some feedback other than just positive rep, even if it's to disagree.

Anyway I appreciate what you've written (your passion is already making me question myself! :D) and I certainly make no claims that I'm correct about my views, purely just my opinion. And I may have overlooked elements (especially the deeper points) which would be important to truly enjoying it. I knew I've done it on first viewings before.

I've not saying that Bobby should be ready to kill himself but I personally felt there would be a bit more of a reaction. We see him lunge at the body once and that's it. I've never been in that situation or know anyone who has; but I imagine he would either be traumatised, vengeful, comatose from shock, trying to deny it to the others and himself, more aggressive when telling them not to spread the word or whatever. Just something more than buckling down and getting on with it. While it might be necessary for their new mission to just get the hell out of here, I think it would be damn near impossible to do that.

My reviews aren't particularly planned out. I just start the review and see where it takes me, so I'm likely to skip over stuff. The scene where they discuss what to do was quite interesting, as we see the different viewpoints of the characters. Lewis taking a bit of an Old West stance to the situation, while the seemingly more educated and reasonable Drew believes in the system. I suppose it could also perhaps be seen as a general distrust in 'the man', something that seemed very commonplace in the 70s with Vietnam, Watergate, Attica etc. So that could be distrust in the military, the government, the police or in this case the legal system.

Personally I didn't take it that he was shot. I took it that Drew either fainted or had a stroke from the stress, or more likely for me he felt he could not go on after what he had been a part of and just allows the water to take him. I think (and I could be remembering this wrong) there was a slight shake of his head before he goes in as if he has just decided. Hell who knows, to take a fantastical view on it maybe it was the river claiming him as recompense for his part in the deed. Then it really would be nature fighting back

Perhaps not the 'need' for him to do it but it just didn't seem like much of a plan, though you could argue he didn't feel he had any other options. If there was someone up there waiting to pick them off he would be putting himself in a very vulnerable position. He may just give the shooter a perfect target, and with Ed only having a bow and arrow as opposed to a gun he would find it very difficult/impossible to respond. And while I meant to tie that in with the other two points that I understood plot wise, I still think that even if he felt he had to do it, actually accomplishing it would be beyond him. I feel the desperation and adrenaline could only take him so far.

I would imagine it would certainly be Ed, as is indeed shown by his nightmare. The fact he is unsure over whether he shot the right man or not would most likely haunt him, forcing him to replay the event over and over in his mind every day. He may also feel guilt (even if he shouldn't) about what happened to Bobby, wondering whether he could have done something to stop it or not, asking why it was Bobby and not him. Perhaps even feeling guilt over the whole trip seeing as he wonders why exactly he keeps going on these adventures with Lewis, and now with Ed and Bobby dragged into it.

Oh no now I'm worried! :p Do you have some major disagreemens about All the President's Men as well? Anyway again thanks for taking the time and trouble to comment at length. And for keeping it civil as I know it's one of your absolute favourites. :D

Good reviews, JD. I like the new format, too. :) I am very pleased to see how much you enjoyed All The President's Men.

If you mean would it make its money back/make a profit, I think, for the most part, the answer would be yes. What it wouldn't do, is what the current Hollywood suits want, which is a film that grosses at least $600m. At the moment, you'd have a lot more trouble getting a major studio to greenlight a $50m film, which is projected to gross $100m-$200m (look at the trouble Scorsese had getting the money for Shutter Island) than a $200m+ film which they hope will gross $500m+. The truth is, they're willing to risk taking the kind of bath John Carter's giving Disney, because the profits are hundreds of millions, rather than tens of millions.

Also, as I've said many times, the overseas (mainly non-English speaking) market is very important now and, as people in those countries don't care for subtitles any more than English speaking peoples do, dialogue light, simply plotted films are the order of the day.

Well, people respond differently to certain events. You can be shocked by events that happen and then get past them quickly to move on to the matter at hand only to get hit by them twice as hard afterwards. Then there's people who break down emotionally instantly and are like that for days or weeks. What I'm trying to convey here is that it's difficult to knock on a character development like that, because of how you would imagine yourself to respond to such a situation. That's just flawed logic. You should look at it from the character's point of view and then decide whether you think it credible or not from what you've already seen from him.

Thanks HK. And thanks for that too. Was going to ask for views on the new format. And yeah All the President's Men is a quality film, a worthy entry to your top 100 list. :yup: And even though it's in the wrong decade for my 70s thriller season, I may also throw in another from your list - The Manchurian Candidate

Whatever I was expecting from this film, it's certainly not what I got! I obviously only had the vaguest, most basic knowledge of the plot. I knew it was a film set during a bank robbery, starring Al Pacino but that was about it. So I was expecting a tense, edgy, gritty thriller with Pacino most likely playing a bad ass. While it remains tense and gritty what I also got instead was a fairly absurd, almost farcical debacle of a robbery/hostage situation. A film just as concerned with the robbery as with commenting on issues of the time such as the law, media exploitation and views on people's sexuality.

It all turns into a bit of a circus with Pacino's Sonny as the ringleader. And in this post-Watergate, post-Attica, post-Vietnam environment where there is much anti-authoritarian sentiment, those who have gathered on the streets are fully behind him and see him as a working class hero. And all of that is before the film takes a very unexpected turn as his 'wife' shows up, and we discover the real motivation for the robbery. If you gave me a solid month of guessing I'm not sure I'd have been able to predict that one. Their was also a surprising lack of violence, at least until the end. And when it arrives, powerfully and shockingly, in the searing finale it just adds to the feeling of a real gut punch.

It is impressively shot by Sidney Lumet on location in New York, I particularly enjoyed the free shooting style used for the footage out on the streets as he shows the crowds and cops etc. It really makes you feel like you are there as part of the assembled masses. While the scenes in the bank are shot with disciplined direction, and create a claustrophobic and tense atmosphere. You can almost feel the uncomfortable heat, and the sweating that it brings about. And while I did feel myself sympathising with the characters of Sonny and Sal, I don't think think it was down to Lumet, who I feel was able to keep an objective view of it. More down to just how inept they seem; two Vietnam vets doing this not because they want to, but because they feel life has forced them into it.

It's quite impossible to review this film without mentioning Al Pacino's wonderful performance. His portrait of this incompetent, nerve ridden guy who is in over his head is just full of charisma and energy, while at the same time always with an undercurrent of tragedy just below the surface. As the film moves along he goes from being an aggressive bank robber to an identifiable anti-hero. The film as a whole is the same in that while being offbeat and uniquely funny there is always this tragic feeling lingering there in the background.

And while it's close to a one man show those around him also contribute strong showings. John Cazale doesn't have much at all to do as the dim-witted Sal but does it well, matching Pacino in terms of making the character rather likeable in a way, mostly down to how naive and out of their depth they are. Sal in particular is so lacking in intelligence (when asked what country he wants to go to he replies "Wyoming") you root for him to make it out ok. Chris Sarandon takes a potentially difficult role as Sonny's pre-op transsexual wife Leon, and does wonders with it. The scene where Sonny and Leon converse on the telephone is funny at points but is mostly a mournful and surprisingly touching scene, one where both Pacino and Sarandon do some of their best work in the film. While those playing the cops/FBI agents and those held hostage in the bank all chip in with nice moments. The female hostages in particular provide a lot of funny moments to break the tension, whether it be needing the toilet or being more concerned with being on TV than any chance of danger due to the robbery.

So I was a bit thrown by this film, and while it fell just short of me absolutely loving it, I did greatly enjoy it, and it's one film that I could certainly see my appreciation growing for on repeat viewings. And the fact it is apparently all based on a true story is quite incredible. One of those great examples of something so unbelievable, that it could only be true.

A slow burning, taut and intriguing film dealing with the world of surveillance. It's a film that just screams of the 70s! Throughout my little 70s thriller season there have been frequent themes and issues that keep cropping up - paranoia, anti-establishment sentiments, conspiracies, technology invading our lives, alienation of the individual, evaporation of civil liberties etc - and this film features a great deal of them. Compared to much of his other work from the era (The Godfather parts 1 and 2 and Apocalypse Now) this is a much more intimate tale told on a smaller scale.

While the almost stone-age technology badly dates the film it does not dilute its power. Though personally I felt it was a little too slow, that it could have done with a little trimming to get us to the meat of the film a touch quicker. I felt it had done such a good job setting up the story and moulding the character of Harry Caul that it could have lost a little and still worked just as effectively.

As is just about a given for him at that stage in his career Hackman turns in a truly terrific showing as Harry Caul; the lonely, detached and extremely paranoid bugger who really is quite a sad, pitiful fellow. He gives us a real character study of a man obsessed with his privacy and incapable of trusting anyone. A man haunted by an incident in his past, an incident that begins to expose an emerging conscience as the film goes along.

The sound work on the film deserves a big mention. It is a marvellous mix of taped conversations, hushed voices, ambient sounds and distorted electronic noises. It's also an essay on the fact it's not what you say, it's how you say it. What we hear is ambiguous, and remains so till the end, and is all about the interpretation of it. The fact that it all reveals itself just a little bit at a time is a real treat. We are learning at the same time as Harry is.

The strongest section of the film for me was the ending. You have Hackman obsessing over what he should do and there is a shocking twist that really threw me for a loop, and sends Hackman over the edge as his paranoia finally overwhelms him. As a result we watch as he destroys his apartment looking for surveillance footage.

On a technical level it is a brilliant accomplishment, and if I was rating it purely on that standard it would undoubtedly get a higher rating. However as I've said before my scores are heavily influenced by my sheer enjoyment of a film, that gut feeling that reallly makes you take to a film, even if you can't particularly describe why. So as a result I'd say 3.5+ is about right, perhaps a 4 on the right day and a repeat viewing

A cracking good film. It's always nice when you watch a film that is able to match its thrills with some smarts. Along with it's glossy exterior and adventurous, paranoid tone a good deal of the reason it works is that it always remains worryingly plausible, especially in a world after Watergate. Indeed during shooting of the film many post-Watergate revelations came to light including illegal wiretaps, surveillance and killings motivated by political expediency.

One thing that I thought was very impressive was just how well the film had actually aged. The story and look means that it feels almost timeless, helped by the fact we could still envisage this going on today.

After an explosive opening, where Redford's character avoids being assassinted just down to the fact that he was out picking up lunch for his colleagues, he goes on the run, and the fun and intrigue never really let up until the credits have rolled. The fact that we have no real idea what is going to happen next, or even fully know all the ins and outs of the current situation, just adds to the element of fun of the whole thing. It's entertaining to feel clueless in a film of this kind.

The fact that Redford's character is neither a secret agent, nor just a guy plucked off the streets, gives it an interesting twist. We have an academic/analyst who knows how the game is played, but just doesn't know how to play it himself. While some moments you can believe he has picked up from the many stories he has read (like his clever escape from an assassin), some of it is a little far fetched when it comes to just how skilled he seemingly becomes pretty much overnight.

The Faye Dunaway character and her relationship with Redford was about the only major weak point in my eyes. The character didn't really do anything for me, and I just didn't really buy into their relationship that develops so quickly. While it does strongly hint at her loneliness, possible depression and severe self esteem issues it just didn't work for me. It just didn't feel convincing and came across as very contrived.

Max von Sydow fares much better as he turns in a very effective turn as the menacing, apparently cold hearted assassin, Joubert. However he turns out to be a bit more complex than that, somewhat noble, resulting in an intriguing final showdown between him and Redford.

It's all strongly directed by Sidney Pollack who really ramps up the paranoia, and makes very good use of location shooting throughout New York. The real world locations very much help to add to the atmosphere and authenticity of the whole thing. And there is a entertaining, well choreographed fight scene between Redford and a mailman hitman.

Conclusion - A really fun piece of 70s entertainment. With a nice mix of adventure, suspense and intrigue, it's intelligently made with Redford on fine form in a classic leading man role

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Loving these reviews, JD. You've really kicked it up a notch. :up: Of course, it helps that you're reviewing films I like. :D

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

Thank you very much HK. Nice to hear you think they've gone up a level. They're obviously taking a bit longer to write so nice to see the extra effort is recognised. And yeah that would help! :D

I know you're definitely a fan of Manchurian Candidate, but out of interest are you a fan of any of the other films I may watch in my 70s thriller season - Day of the Jackal, Sleuth, Charley Varrick, Dirty Harry, Assault on Precinct 13, Boys from Brazil and The Parallax View. Just realised I could also throw in a couple from my Hitchcock boxset - Frenzy and Family Plot. If I remember right Frenzy is one of the few Hitchcock films you like.


Oh yeah and on a side not how awesome were movie posters in the 70s? Just when I've been looking for posters of the films I've already reviewed, and some others that I might review and they are fantastic! One of the things that inspired the double poster element of the new format

Yes, I really like Frenzy. Assault On Precinct 13 is in my top 100, and I like, not only Dirty Harry, but Magnum Force and The Enforcer, too. Boys From Brazil is OK. I don't remember much about Sleuth other than I didn't care for it. I really like Deathtrap, though. But that's an 80's film. I've not seen Charley Varrick (apart from the last 10 minutes or so) or The Parallax View.

I love this movie but I disagree with you on Faye Dunaway. I really felt her sense of lonelyness and isolation. In a way Redford's charcter mashed well with that as he was also an ousider, albeit a very intelligent one.

I'm surprised so far that my most popular reviews (by positive rep anyway) are Deliverance and Three Days of the Condor. Deliverance surprises me as I thought a lot of lovers of the film might disagree with it, and Condor as I wasn't sure how well known it was.

Oh yeah forgot Assault... was also in your top 100. Boys from Brazil really intrigues me as the ludicrous plot seems as if it should belong to a trashy b-movie, and yet it was able to attract the considerable talents of Gregory Peck, Laurence Olivier and James Mason. Never heard of Deathtrap, will check it out.

While I'm not sure if it would suit genre wise for my 70s thriller season, I may also finally watch another from your list, The Warriors. Perhaps I should just rename it the 'Honeykid inspired season.' :D

To be fair to Dunaway I think she did well with what she was given, but that element of the film just didn't engage me. Came across as too James Bond for me where he can get an adversary just to fall into bed with him with little effort. At least that's how it came across on first viewing. May feel differently on repeat watch. Other than that though loved the film. :yup:

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

For '70s thrillers, you should try The Silent Partner and French Connection II which probably has Gene Hackman's best performance. If you stretch it back to '69, check out Z.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

The Conversation is an amazing character study/thriller. I didn't think it was slow. I was too caught up in the masterful acting, direction, ect. It has a very practical and deliberate pace, and wouldn't be nearly as believable and thus powerfully disturbing if it doesn't unfold as it does. Gene Hackman's performance in the film is one of the truly great film performances, and everything else hinges on that.

Thanks for those Mark. :up: Hadn't heard of The Silent Partner and only vaguely knew about Z. Just looked them up and both sound promising. I think I have French Connection II taped on disc somewhere, but didn't get round to it after not really connecting with the first film, despite another terrific Hackman showing.

I also stumbled across another thriller recently that sounded interesting - The Friends of Eddie Coyle. Seen that one?

I didn't think it was slow on the whole, just the first half perhaps. And even then it wasn't much to the detriment of the film. I just felt it could have been paced a tough quicker. And I'll certainly give you that Hackman's performance is masterful. :yup:

Plot - Charley Varrick is a crop duster turned bank robber. When Charley and his partners raid a small bank in the middle of nowhere the stash they are expecting to garner is a few thousand perhaps. Instead things go really well, too well in fact. Finding themselves with a bounty of over $750,000 Charley realises they have stumbled across mob money. So now as well as evading the cops they have to watch over their shoulders for the mafia.

What we have here is an eccentric, oddball depiction of the criminal underworld and those who reside there. With twists and turns round every corner, and a series of peculiar characters this is a tough as nails, but fun offering from Don Siegl. It's a fairly simple narrative, with a plot that is unlikely to stun anyone with its originality. Therefore if it wanted to rise above most of the other entries in the genre it would have to possess great performances, strong direction and a tight script. It's fortunate then that the film is arguably blessed with all of these. It may look a little dated, not far off resembling an episode of Starsky and Hutch or Quincy at points, but everything else is so enjoyable that I soon forgot about that and just got absorbed into the film.

We are thrown straight into the action pretty much. Without any set-up as to what is about to be played out, we find ourselves dropped into an explosive, dynamic opening. While its like might be quite common place these days, the scene still feels extremely fresh and while I don't know for sure if certainly feels like it could have been very influential on the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It really kicks the film off with a real adrenaline rush.

As well as that strong opening we are also presented with a great finale. Though like much of the film it is a touch offbeat, as we get a bizarre chase/battle between a car and a rickety looking biplane. In between the pacing certainly does drop but there is still a lot to enjoy, not least a trail of colourful characters led by a chatty, sex obsessed grandma who lives next door to Charley in the trailer park.

Matthau is terrific in the title role of Charley Varrick, a man self named as 'The last of the independents.'. He may seem like a bit of a subversive choice for the role of a bank robber but it really works. With his hangdog expression and laconic drawl he brings a sensitivity and an honesty to the character. As a result we find ourself rooting for him even though he is a criminal, responsible (at least in part) for multiple deaths and is able to walk away from his wife's dead body without a great deal of drama. Much of the film's fun comes from Varrick striving to stay one step ahead of both the cops and the mob, all while keeping his partner in check, making ever changing plans and trying to find little moments to mourn for his wife. Like those partnering and chasing him we are prone to underestimate him as a result of his easygoing nature, lazy drawl and seemingly non-threatening physical nature. But this is a man of real cunning. A man perfectly summed up by the film's wonderful tagline - “When he runs out of dumb luck, he always has genius to fall back on.”

Matthau is also supplied with mostly strong support. Andrew Robinson is a ball of frenetic energy as Charley's partner; the twitchy, greedy and trigger happy Harman Sullivan. Their interaction and ever changing relationship to each other is very enjoyable. Running Mattau close for best and most memorable turn is Joe Don Baker as the mob-hired hitman Molly. He is a sadistic, racist, misogynistic piece of crap to put it bluntly! A really chilling, unlikeable scumbag who is a completely moral black hole. A man who seems to take great pleasure in the grislier elements of his job. Baker may be a nice guy in real life but when someone is so convincing at being so damn despicable you have to wonder if they're not at least a little like that themselves! :D

Making full use of a smart, exciting script Don Siegel delivers a bold, energetic flick. His direction is understated and simple, never coming off as showy or intrusive. He wisely holds back, allowing the story just to unfold and tell itself. And that story could very easily be found in a noirish world of eternal nights and shadowy streets. Instead it is presented as a daylight noir; full of sunlit deserts landscapes which are beautifully photographed by Michael Butler. As a result of the look and location, the film also has a touch of the Western about it.

The film also embraces the sentiment of their being 'no honour amongst thieves.' With no cops really given much screen time just about every character we meet is only interested in looking out for no.1. Matthau enlists the help of numerous people throughout the film, all of whom have no qualms about turning round and selling him out, as long as there's some profit to be made.

For me the only big miss was Charley's apparent standing as a James Bond-alike ladies man. The fact he can get a much younger mob secretary to fall straight into bed with him just smacks of the ridiculous. Though it does lead to a very amusing scene where he presents his solution to her as to how to deal with a circular bed in terms of which direction to have sex in. His resolution? To 'box the compass', i.e. to do it in all directions! :D

Conclusion – An extremely enjoyable movie that is bookended by two spirited set-pieces and features some charismatic performances, all lead by Matthau's charms.

Yes Z is definitely a landmark film, specially for that time. Costa Gavras's State Of Siege is also worth taking a look at.

Plot - In the setting of 1970s South America, a notorious Nazi War criminal, Dr. Josef Mengele, gathers a group of former Nazis to work on a covert project to establish a Fourth Reich. But when famed Nazi-hunter Ezra Lieberman is enlightened to Mengele's bone-chilling scheme--to clone 94 young Hitlers and cause horror on a global scale--he attempts to unravel the conspiracy.

Look at that plot. I mean really look at it! Creating 94 Hitler clones? Surely that's a plot that belongs to a trashy 1950s B-movie. And yet somehow the project was able to attract such considerable and acclaimed talents as Laurence Olivier, Gregory Peck, James Mason and eh...Steve Guttenberg....Huh....Ok we lost steam a touch there but we'll carry on. What is quite interesting is that the film chooses to treat this silly, ludicrous concept with such seriousness. It's a losing battle right from the start but as a result I found myself almost getting behind it, willing it on.

While it's unlikely that either Peck or Olivier would have been placing this near the top of their CV, they both do pretty well, and bring a credibility to proceedings that the film doesn't really deserve. Their performances may be a bit pulpy and hammy, but they're quite effective and each has individual moments where they show their talent. Peck barks and smirks as the truly despicable Dr Mengele, while Olivier brings a touch of quiet dignity to the role of Nazi hunter, Ezra Lieberman. Considering the material they're dealing with they both give fairly admirable showings. Though how Olivier was nominated for an Oscar, and Peck for a Golden Globe seems like a bit of a stretch.

To be honest Mengele's grand plan of great genius seems a bit thin and illogical. Are we really to believe that just by recreating some of the same circumstances he is going to get a whole series of Hitlers? Even Bond villians have more realistic ambitions when it comes to their plans for world domination.

It looks like the film had a decent budget as there are some successes in the technical departments. The cinematography is quite impressive, giving a nice gloss to some interesting locations in the globe spanning story. The most striking perhaps being when a murder takes place at a monstrous dam in Sweden. And some of the directing is quite satisfying, able to create a few moments of real suspense and creepiness. And credit to the film for at least taking a reasonable, and I believe accurate angle on the science of cloning.

There are a few moments that are just so ridiculous that they really do create instances of unintentional humour. The main culprit perhaps taking place during a Nazi dance where Mengele attacks a man he believes to be a traitor, sending him crashing through a table of food, before telling the supposed traitor's wife to “shut up you ugly bitch.” This and other moments really do bring out the camp elements of the ridiculous story and over the top characters.

For such a terrifically high concept premise there is actually not a great deal going on for large stretches. Without the 'accidents' that befall the numerous old men my interest would definitely have been waning as for a good hour or so we just go back and forth between Peck cooking up his dastardly plan, and Olivier investigating and attempting to scupper them. And the fact that it takes Lieberman so long to figure it out, a long while after we already have, hurts the momentum. It's only when the two screen legends come face to face in an electric meeting does the film really start to deliver, and provide the excitement we're looking for. After they are hampered by that most formulaic of scenes where Peck pretty much tells Olivier “I'm going to kill you now, so I can tell you all of my plans.”, we get a brutal fight that is dirty and bloody.

Conclusion - It's not a great piece of film-making, or indeed a particularly 'good' film. You will likely guffaw and roll your eyes at it. However, as a daft guilty pleasure it is just about able to scrape a passing grade.

Plot - When a group of members from the vicious gang, Street Thunder, are killed by the police, the gang go on a violent spree of vengeance. After brutally killing a young girl, her father hunts down and kills the gang's leader. The man seeks refuge in a police station as the gang close in for revenge. This station however is set for closure and as a result is severely undermanned. Inside a reluctant posse is formed between a cop, a secretary and two convicts. What results is a gripping siege as the gang on the outside attempt to destroy and then storm the station, with only this unusual troupe standing in their way.

Finally got around to seeing this. As a fan of John Carpenter and cult movies in general why it took so long is a bit of a mystery. Anyway now that I have I can see just what I was missing out on.

This is a very early effort from John Carpenter, indeed it was only his second full length feature following Dark Star. As a result it's not as accomplished as some of his later work, it feels a little callow and a bit rough round the edges. In a way I actually think that's beneficial to the film however, helping to build the raw power and intensity. The same could also be said of the acting. It's certainly not the most skilled but as a result it feels quite genuine and honest. It makes the actors resemble underdogs, and that transfers to the characters, just making them more relatable in such a dreadful situation.

With no real budget, no big stars and no great ground-breaking ideas, the film is brilliant in its simplicity. This is impressively economical, taut film-making. It's a lean film that benefits greatly from a tight plot, and from Carpenter's creativity, who seems like he is just taking great joy in creating the chaos. He has laced the film with some classic, colourful dialogue; delivered an extravaganza of shattering windows and non-stop bullets and offered us some rich, lively characters; the pinnacle being convicted killer turned hero, Napoleon Wilson.

With a running time clocking in at less than 90 minutes the film doesn't have a lot of time to waste. In the opening seconds we are with a series of gang members who are gunned down by the police in a tight alley; a real case of shooting fish in a barrel. After such a blistering opening, the ensuing 20/30 minutes are actually a bit of a slow build, and slightly on the weak side. I was starting to get a little worried that this wasn't going to live up to my expectations. And then four members of the gang get into a car and everything starts to ratchet up. Driving along, one of them pulls out a rifle and catches a number of people in the crosshairs. Holding their lives in his hands it is very chilling. They then begin to stalk an ice cream van, going back and forth along the street. And then everything just explodes with a truly shocking moment. A young girl; a picture of innocence, is violently blown away by a gunshot to the chest. It's a real 'woah' moment and really shows what these guys are capable of. That was the moment that really made me sit up and take notice of this.

From there on in it is pretty much a relentless and ruthless assault on our nerves and senses, as well as the precinct. We are given brief interludes, or a touch of humour which allow us to briefly relax before the next shock or volley of ammunition come hurtling our way. The pace is frantic, the developments unpredictable, the action coming in furious bursts. Breaking from the norm is one respect however is the gunfire. While in most films it would be a deafening cacophony throughout, here Carpenter has the gang predominantly using silencers. As a result we get a unique ping from each shot, which creates a slightly offbeat, even eerie atmosphere. It all adds up to an extremely tense and suspenseful experience, amplified I think by the setting of the police station. No matter what happens we can always see the police as an escape, a reliable source of help. Well if even they are powerless against such terror what hope do we have?

Now while I like to think I can appreciate a movie score as much as the next film fan, it's only on rare occasions that I would list it amongst my absolute favourite elements of a film. Well Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those rare films. Carpenter's self penned, moody synthesised score is just a joy to behold. As a device to ramp up the tension during the siege it is an extremely effective tool. However it was the theme tune used for the opening and closing credits which was just absorbed by mind, and that I've been playing over and over ever since. There was something about it that made me feel as if I were transported to a dark, grimy video arcade; and over in the corner that tune is emanating from a side scrolling beat-em-up. But maybe that's just me! :D What I'm saying is that it's fantastic. Will most likely register as one of my favourite scores.

While it is quite common knowledge that the film is inspired by Howard Hawks' classic western, Rio Bravo, that's not the genre that I was most reminded of. Instead it was of a horror film, a zombie flick in particular. The way the gang members emerge from the shadows, and slowly advance upon the police station certainly evoked images of shuffling zombies closing in like a pack of wolves. Add to that the way they try and stumble in through the windows, crashing into the blinds as they do so, in an almost mindless manner. And the fact that throughout the gang members remain nameless, pretty much faceless and almost wordless, and it just builds up their surfeit of malevolence and viciousness. They are brutal and merciless; and no matter how many of them are killed more just seem to appear out of the woodwork.

Though did I just pick it up wrong or should this actually be called Assault on Precinct 9? :shrug:

Conclusion - Compared to much of the other 70s fare I've been enjoying of late this certainly isn't as subtle, nuanced or cerebral. But who cares? It's fast, furious balls out fun! Despite it's meagre budget it's a film that certainly stands the test of time, and with this out there as great educational material as to how you make a riveting, thrilling action film, how is it still so much better than most recent entries in the genre? A B-movie it may be, but that doesn't mean it can't be brilliant. A film truly deserving of it's cult classic status.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I've wanted to Assault On Precinct 13 for a while. The premise sounds interesting, and I generally like John Carpenter's films. And since I've agreed with most of your ratings so far, I'm gonna check it out.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I applaud JD for mentioning these worthwhile films. I like the reviews but not so much the ratings, but that's as far as I'm going. Some blockbusters don't need to be rated high and some cult flicks need to be rated high. Somebody can do it without me moaning. My bottom line is that the last several "'70s Thrillers" should all be seen, so if you haven't, take the time to do it. Hopefully, you'll find it rewarding.

Re: JayDee's Movie Musings
 

I wish everyone did their reviews set out like this, fabulous.

Thanks Nausicaä. :up: Any particular element you like, or is it just as a whole package?

Nice to see you hold my ratings in such high regard. :D And if/when you check it out I hope you thoroughly enjoy it.