Jack's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





I understand that, but I rate as honestly as I can based on my enjoyment of the film.
To each their own. Sometimes you dislike a film a lot of other people love. You have Kurosawa issues, and I happen to be the "Tarantino is overrated guy."

I will try not to judge you TOO harshly.

I kid of course.



Obviously I like that you rated it as you found it (it is me after all) but it's such a shame that you didn't enjoy it.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
Yea it's too bad you didn't like it. I watched it for the first time recently and was completely blown away by it. I actually thought I disliked Asian films, but I've been really digging a lot of them recently. On the other hand, I've been struggling with French films, which I thought at first were my favorite foreign films. At least you tried it and you gave an opinion, none of us can help how we feel.



Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)



Director: Irvin Kershner
Cast overview: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford
Running time: 124 minutes

Going by the fact I wasn't a big fan of the original Star Wars film, I was pleasantly surprised by this. It's a good film that is actually - in my opinion anyway - better than the original. It's more entertaining, more concise, darker, and more of a well-done story, I feel. Oh, and the effects are fantastic, particularly considering this was a film released over thirty years ago, at a time when special effects weren't what they are now in terms of complexity.

The performances are very competent, particularly Harrison Ford as Han Solo. The characters are more interesting and more well-developed than in the first outing, and I suppose this is the result of becoming more acquainted with them in part. The editing and photography is excellent. This is the first film to feature Yoda, and some of the battle and action sequences here are terrific and really well-done.

Not the best film I've ever seen, but it's a very respectable follow-up to the original Star Wars and does a good job of continuing the story and developing the characters we've met. It's also entertaining. As a non-sci-fi fan, that's a pretty good thing for me. I'd recommend this, particularly to fans of the genre.



Quotes
C-3PO: Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.
Han Solo: Never tell me the odds.

Han Solo: [as Chewie tries to fight off the imperials and free Han] No! Stop, Chewie, stop! Chewie! Chewie this won't help me! Hey! Save your strength. There'll be another time. The Princess. You have to take care of her. You hear me? Huh?
[Leia and Han share a passionate kiss before Han is dragged towards the freezing chamber by the imperials]
Princess Leia: I love you.
Han Solo: I know.

Princess Leia: Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking Nerf herder.
Han Solo: Who's scruffy-looking?

Trivia
Mark Hamill had to bang his head 16 times on the ceiling of Yoda's hut before the director was satisfied.

In order to avoid sharing creative rights, George Lucas decided to avoid using a major studio to finance this film. Instead, he bankrolled the $33 million production himself, using a combination of his profits from Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) and a bank loan. Although the move was risky, it paid off several times over. Lucas recovered his million investment within three months of the film's release. He then showed gratitude far beyond the Hollywood norm, by sharing the profits with his employees (nearly $5 million in bonuses).

When Han Solo is about to be frozen, Princess Leia says, "I love you." In the original script, Han Solo was supposed to say, "Just remember that, Leia, because I'll be back," but at the time of filming, Harrison Ford wasn't entirely certain he did want to come back for a third film. There is a recurring legend that his line, "I know", was ad-libbed; however Alan Arnold's book "Once Upon A Galaxy: A Journal of the Making of The Empire Strikes Back" includes a transcription of the discussion between Ford and Irvin Kershner in which Ford suggested the line.

Trailer



The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)



Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Cast overview: Maria Falconetti, Eugene Silvain
Running time: 114 minutes

I saw this film on a few lists and recommended on a few sites as being one of the classics of the silent era. I can certainly see why some have said this. After watching this, and I didn't know a great deal about Joan of Arc prior to watching the film, I was persuaded to research into her life more thoroughly, and she certainly seems to be a divisive historical character.

In this film she is played by Maria Falconetti, who gives a haunting, wide-eyed and terrified-looking performance as the title character. She is clearly a tortured character, literally going by the end of the film. It's a film that seems ahead of its time - the close-ups and extreme close-ups used, the violence, the level of emotion that manages to be built up. It's a difficult film, there's no doubting that, but I don't think it's actually as difficult as some I've seen recently, despite being the oldest by some distance.

It may mostly consists of the aforementioned close-ups of Joan of Arc in a courtroom surrounded by interrogating men, but the way Dreyer manages to sustain interest among the audience by the use of pure emotion from Joan of Arc particularly and yet such simplicity is particularly adept.

Yes, this is difficult, but I much prefer it to some of the Japanese films I've seen lately. It's emotional, well-made, and unforgettable - this is a film that will stay with you, for good or for bad.



Quotes
Juge: How old are you?
Jeanne d'Arc: [counts on her fingers] Nineteen... I think.

Juge: What is your name?
Jeanne d'Arc: In France, I am called Joan... in my village, I am called Jeanneton.

Jeanne d'Arc: [talking to God] Will I be with You tonight in Paradise?

Trivia
Believed lost until a complete print was found in a mental institution in Oslo. See also Der brennende Acker (1922).

After completing the original cut of the film, director Carl Theodor Dreyer learned that the entire master print had been accidentally destroyed. With no ability to re-shoot, Dreyer re-edited the entire film from footage he had originally rejected.

Ranked #1 on the Toronto International Film Festival's Essential 100 list published in 2009.

Trailer



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
More nice reviews Jack

I haven't seen any of the original Star Wars trilogy in years, but I loved them when I saw them. I'm definitely overdo to see them again.

I haven't seen Joan of Arc yet but I've been curious about it for a while.



More nice reviews Jack

I haven't seen any of the original Star Wars trilogy in years, but I loved them when I saw them. I'm definitely overdo to see them again.

I haven't seen Joan of Arc yet but I've been curious about it for a while.
I think it's the sort of thing you'd like. You seem quite willing to embrace different styles of film.



I agree with you on The Empire Strikes Back. Star Wars isn't really my thing, but I enjoyed Empire quite a bit, especially compared to the other films in the series.

Is The Passion of Joan of Arc your first silent film? I don't agree with people who say that Falconetti gives the greatest performance of all-time, but I certainly understand why so many people feel that way. It's a very powerful performance in a very powerful film.

I'm not one of those mofos who only +rep posts that parrot my own opinion. Instead I prefer to +rep people for taking the time to write thoughtful, quality posts. Sometimes, like in the case of your review for Seven Samurai, that's very difficult to do. However, nobody can force you to like something that you don't like, so at least you were honest instead of praising it for the sake of praising it. Personally, I think Seven Samurai is one of the few films that can lay claim to being the greatest ever made. I think it's an absolute masterpiece. After watching it, I kept hounding my friends to watch it, too, because I wanted to introduce others to its greatness. I think it's more accessible than a lot of foreign films, so it surprises me that you had such a hard time connecting to it. Hopefully you'll like High and Low, which is another excellent film from Kurosawa, and one that is likely to make my 60's list.
__________________



Bad Influence (1990)



Director: Curtis Hanson
Cast overview: Rob Lowe, James Spader
Running time: 99 minutes

This is one of those thrillers that seems to have passed under the radar a bit. It doesn't appear to be very highly watched - or regarded, which is a shame because I think it's a decent little thriller, in the mould of those early nineties films such as Pacific Heights. Starring James Spader as a yuppie LA executive who bumps into Rob Lowe's sadistic character while in a bar one afternoon, it's a decent watch. Lowe's character was perhaps the highlight of the film - a menacing, devious, and malicious character who is a reasonably decent film villain.

What I thought was most impressive was Curtis Hanson's direction. It's very accomplished. Many of the shots felt like those that would come from a more well-regarded director. The cinematography was effective, and the Los Angeles setting was used in a fairly decent manner, although perhaps not to full effect - or perhaps it didn't need to, depending on your viewpoint.

The acting from the two leads is markedly the best of all the cast, particularly from Lowe, whose cunning and deviousness I've already touched upon. Spader has a good rapport with him, though, and contributes in his own way with a realistic performance. I did find the music to be a mixed-bag - I thought some parts were quite crude and out-of-place, yet I thought some of the music - often in the darker scenes - often was really apt.

Overall, this seems to be a film that's certainly under-seen. It's a watchable, entertaining thriller that's not bad at all - it perhaps would have been far less memorable had other actors occupied the main roles, but that's beside the point. This is a well-made and interesting film, and one that I was debating whether to give a seven to rather than a six. Maybe in the future...



Quotes
Alex: I'm sorry.
Michael: What?
Alex: Sorry.
Michael: Sorry? You - **** you, you're sorry? Sorry about what? Killing Claire? Trying to kill my brother? Or maybe you're just sorry for holding a guy down while I beat him? **** you, you're sorry!

Michael: What happened last night?
Alex: What do you mean?
Michael: The last thing I remember is we were driving around Patterson's neighborhood. And I go into the office today and find out that he got beat up. And I'm standing there in the middle of everybody with dried blood all over my hand. Did we go to Patterson's last night?
Alex: Yes. We went to Patterson's.
Michael: I mean, I didn't hit him, did I?
Alex: You didn't just hit him. You beat the **** out of him.
Michael: What the hell were you doing?
Alex: Holding him down.
[Michael looks frantic]
Alex: Oh don't worry, I'm not gonna tell anybody.
Michael: *Tell* anybody? Jesus Christ, this guy is a colleague of mine!
Alex: Oh, don't worry about him! *He's* not gonna tell anyone. He knows you'd kill him if he did.
Michael: Wait a second... kill him?
Alex: Yeah. And if you didn't, I would. Told him that this morning... when I went to get the donuts.
Michael: Get out.
[Alex continues eating donuts]
Michael: GET OUT!

Michael: [to Alex] You know, you make a funny face when you come.

Trivia
Rob Lowe researched his part by watching hours of footage of serial killer Ted Bundy.

In chapter seventeen of Rob Lowe's autobiography "Stories I Only Tell My Friends", he describes being at rehearsals in a church off Highland Avenue when he is asked to approve his make-up artist, Sheryl Berkoff. He recognises her because, years before, they'd been on a blind date together. He describes her as 'an artist of the face' who 'knows her **** cold'. In July of 1991, he married her. He also suggests that Bad Influence was originally submitted as a writing sample to producer Steve Tisch ("the only man with both an Oscar and a Superbowl trophy"). Lowe had originally wanted to play the role of Michael, "the average Joe", but was taken to lunch by David Koepp, and talked into taking the role of Alex. He describes Tom Brokaw leading the evening news with the Rob Lowe sex tapes, and following that item with news about Tiananmen square.

The film garnered a lot of unwarranted PR as it was released roughly around the same time that Rob Lowe's infamous sex tape came to light.

Trailer



I've not seen this in forever, but I quite liked it. I think I might have a copy somewhere.

One of the reasons it's been left behind might be because of what happened around the time of its release. This might've been the first sex tape. First I can remember, anyway, and one of the girls was 16.



I've not seen this in forever, but I quite liked it. I think I might have a copy somewhere.

One of the reasons it's been left behind might be because of what happened around the time of its release. This might've been the first sex tape. First I can remember, anyway, and one of the girls was 16.
Ah, you're probably right there. I included that as one of my trivia tidbits and clearly didn't read it in enough detail!

Shame that marred what would have perhaps been a well-received film, though.

Next review will be Clue.



I don't know, I'm just guessing. But I can remember the uproar surrounding that case. You also need to know that Rob Lowe was part of 'The Brat Pack' and was a teen heartthrob. It was a lot harder for his stuff to be taken seriously. This is why he's doing Wayne's World two years later and bloody thankful for getting the chance. He was way above what that film could've otherwise gotten, but he needed to money and the work. Probably the same reason you find Kim Basinger in Wayne's World 2 after he town went bust and she left Boxing Helena.



10 Rillington Place (1971)



Director: Richard Fleischer
Cast overview: Richard Attenborough, Judy Geeson
Running time: 111 minutes

10 Rillington Place is a dramatisation of the murders committed by John Christie in 1940s and 1950s London. It's a bleak film, made even more bleak by both its subject matter and by the way in which it is filmed. Not only was it filmed in the actual house in which Christie committed the murders, but Attenborough's realistic performance is so lifelike that you actually forget you're watching an actor plying his trade.

It depicts post-war London in a grim manner, showing the dirty, rain-lined streets and the poor working classes who live on them. As mentioned, Attenborough is good as Christie, though I couldn't help but feeling that he was underplayed - in fact, I had a similar feeling about Hurt as Timothy Evans, the dim-witted father who becomes hanged in error for murders he didn't commit. Don't get me wrong, the performances were competent, but I was expecting more. Having said that, Attenborough's resemblance to Christie was uncanny, and he had a chilling quality that perhaps is more authentic than an over-the-top portrayal of your typical Hollywood serial killer. Let's be honest, Christie was a reasonably ordinary guy on the outside at least - odd, but then you could say the same about many. Attenborough's allure here is perhaps a result of his plain appearance. I actually think Judy Geeson's performance is underrated here.

As mentioned, it's a bleak film. There are no special effects, no over-the-top reactions. It feels very much like a documentary or a docudrama rather than a cinematic piece. It's a slow film, but that didn't bother me too much. I often enjoy these slow-burning, methodical pieces rather than action-filmed films, and I enjoyed - as much as you can enjoy such a chilling film - the tale unravelling.

10 Rillington Place isn't a perfect film - in my opinion - but it's a competent look at one of Britain's most chilling serial killers (I'd recommend reading up about John Christie himself if you don't know much of the background) with some good performances by both Attenborough and Hurt (and also Geeson).



Quotes
Timothy John Evans: Don't you worry, Mr Christie, you'll get your money back. I'll be getting a new job shortly I shouldn't wonder. They've asked me if I want to train as a manager or as a managing director or something, you know.
John Reginald Christie: Won't you have to read and write for that?
Timothy John Evans: Oh no, no - you have secretaries, things like that, see.
John Reginald Christie: Yes, as long as I get my 10 shillings back.

John Reginald Christie: Won't you come in a minute...?
Beryl Evans: Well, I've got...
John Reginald Christie: I've just put the kettle on.
Beryl Evans: Oh.

John Reginald Christie: I do know people, medical people, who could help you out.
Beryl Evans: But that would cost money, wouldn't it?
John Reginald Christie: Yes, that's true I'm afraid. They're very eminent men. One particularly I had in mind, I used to assist him in his earlier days, studied with him, its quite a simple matter.
Beryl Evans: You mean you know how to do it, Mr Christie?

Trivia
The picture was filmed at the real-life Rillington Place, at Nos. 7 (for interiors) and No. 10 (but only for exteriors). The street had previously changed its name to Ruston Close in 1954, the year after Christie's execution. Filming took place at No. 7 when the occupants of No. 10 refused to move out to allow filming to take place there. The street was later demolished at the end of 1970 and the area later redeveloped, completed in 1977 as Bartle Road and St Andrew's Square, it now being totally unrecognizable to the way it looked at time John Christie and the other characters in the film (and real life) were residents there.

According to the commentary by John Hurt on the DVD, real-life retired executioner Albert Pierrepoint was a technical advisor for the execution scene. This scene was the first British people had seen in a cinema of a British hanging, and as it was still covered under the government's Official Secrets Act, no details regarding the scene were available. This is where Pierrepoint came in, under an assumed name, and was able to re-create the harrowing scene to maximize the true terror of what it must have been like.

Richard Attenborough's make-up, mainly consisting of a bald pate, took three hours to apply every morning.

Trailer



As mentioned, Attenborough is good as Christie, though I couldn't help but feeling that he was underplayed - in fact, I had a similar feeling about Hurt as Timothy Evans, the dim-witted father who becomes hanged in error for murders he didn't commit. Don't get me wrong, the performances were competent, but I was expecting more. Having said that, Attenborough's resemblance to Christie was uncanny, and he had a chilling quality that perhaps is more authentic than an over-the-top portrayal of your typical Hollywood serial killer. Let's be honest, Christie was a reasonably ordinary guy on the outside at least - odd, but then you could say the same about many. Attenborough's allure here is perhaps a result of his plain appearance. I actually think Judy Geeson's performance is underrated here.
I agree that Judy Geeson is good in this, however, I can't agree with you about Attenborough or Hurt. This isn't the easy OTT villain that good actors can do in their sleep. Look at Heath Ledger in TDK. It's good performance, but it should be. He's a good actor and doing OTT villainy is pretty easy for good actors, IMO. When done poorly, it looks goofy and cartoonish. This kind of controlled, calm, chilling performance is a lot more effective, IMO. Had Heath Ledger put in a performance like this in TDK it wouldn't have worked, because it's Batman. Likewise, OTT crazy just wouldn't work here. It's not what's required.

This is a more realistic performance. The Joker is a cinematic performance. Neither is better or worse, right or wrong. IMO, but you have to put them in the right film.



I agree that Judy Geeson is good in this, however, I can't agree with you about Attenborough or Hurt. This isn't the easy OTT villain that good actors can do in their sleep. Look at Heath Ledger in TDK. It's good performance, but it should be. He's a good actor and doing OTT villainy is pretty easy for good actors, IMO. When done poorly, it looks goofy and cartoonish. This kind of controlled, calm, chilling performance is a lot more effective, IMO. Had Heath Ledger put in a performance like this in TDK it wouldn't have worked, because it's Batman. Likewise, OTT crazy just wouldn't work here. It's not what's required.

This is a more realistic performance. The Joker is a cinematic performance. Neither is better or worse, right or wrong. IMO, but you have to put them in the right film.
I think I agree with most of that. There's a time and a place for different styles of acting.



Ok I think I'll watch this within a few days. Should I read up on the case before watching the movie?
I'd read up on the case afterwards; might spoil the film for you if you read it beforehand.