Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in

I like many of his films, but I think Woody is BSing us if he says his film personas are usually different than his real self...unless he meant he's actually creepier in real life!
I totally agree Citizen...Woody is not that good an actor...the other thing that has always annoyed me about Woody is his perception of himself as a babe magnet...he always has these gorgeous women starring opposite him in these films and you just know that IRL none of these women would even look twice at someone who looked like Woody Allen. Woody is a brilliant writer and director, that's why actresses want to work with him, not because he looks cute in a wife beater.

No the accent isn't great, but saying that it "murdered the film" is overstating a bit, don't you think?
You're reading what I said far too literally, the inference in that sentence is that his abysmal accent murders the film for me personally - it's the primary reason I would never watch it again though as stated it's not really my type of affair in the first place so any significant annoyance with it would have had the same result.

I am so happy to hear that you liked Kitty. I thought that you might, but then there was always that little feeling inside that said you might not. Maybe it was just something telling me to not get my hopes too high when it came to you liking the film.

I really enjoy both Ray Milland and Paulette Goddard in there, too. I think they work very well together. And weren't the costumes and sets really good?! I loved them!

But now you have to remember - as I do, too (and as I said I often forget!) - Ray Milland is the one in Kitty, and Dennis Morgan is the one in Kitty Foyle. I still don't see how I mix that up.
I had never heard of Kitty before, so I'm glad you told me about it as otherwise I'd never have seen it.

I hardly recognized Paulette with the really tall blonde wig. And yes amazing customs!

Really enjoyed reading this review...I have never seen a Paulette Goddard movie, this sounds like it might be a good place to start.
A few of her movies that I've seen and would recommend is:

The Women(1939), that's a classic with an ensemble cast.

The Great Dictator(1940) with Charlie Chaplin, which was Vamp's nomination for the 13th Hof.

The Ghost Breakers (1940) a comedy with Bob Hope that the Ghost Busters films were based on, it's funny.

So Proudly We Hail! (1943) Which was my nom in the WWII Hof, it's based on a true story of a group of nurses in the Philippines during the war.

And of course she made a lot more! I just haven't seen them. @SilentVamp (or anyone) do you have any other Paulette Goodard movie recommendations?

Gideon take a look a this page about her. She was a Ziegfield Girl at 13.

Hey Rules,

Just found this video all about the "Ducky Boys" - it's confirmed, they were Irish. There's also some meaning behind the fact that they were all short. And apparently there's a book about a real Ducky Boys gang. Interesting!

Book description from Amazon:

Straight from the streets of the mid-1960s Bronx comes a book about one of the borough's most feared gangs - The Ducky Boys. While their unusual name alone might contradict their reputation, in the Norwood/Bainbridge section of the Bronx their appearances provoked an ominous dread. So much so, that when Richard Price needed inspiration for a terrifying gang in his novel (and later movie) The Wanderers, he knew exactly which gang to choose. Lost Boys of the Bronx tells the story of the Ducky Boys in their own words. It is a story of how a few pre-teen kids in the Botanical Gardens turned into a gang of hundreds - and a gang so alarming that rumors of their arrival would shut down local schools. This is also a study of the mostly Irish Bronx neighborhood in which the Ducky Boys were born, and where so many of the Ducky kids got caught up in the tumultuous times of the '60s where their fierce loyalty was the only thing that got them through. This is not your typical gang book. It neither praises nor demonizes the gang for the things they did, but rather simply reports what happened - warts and all. You'll see the truth behind the Ducky Boys' gang - their lives, their loves, their pranks and crimes, and so much more. To borrow from a particular product's slogan - with a name like the Ducky Boys, you knew they HAD to be tough.

L..I..F..E (2017)

Director: Daniel Espinosa
Writers: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds
Genre: Sci-Fi Horror

On board the international Space Station a team of scientist recover a probe sent to discover life on Mars. They find life. And it finds them! C.R.

LIFE...part sci fi and part horror and a whole lot like Alien. The first 30 minutes were spell binding, and the film had quite the impact. The scene where the tiny alien life form grips the hand of a research scientist and squeezes until it pulverized every bone in his hand, was powerful! I swear I scarcely breathed during that scene...And I was thinking this might be the best sci-fi horror since Alien.

There's something very dangerous about an innocuous looking blob of cellular material, that despite looking harmless, posses a life threatening situation. But then after feeding it, it grows (of course) then it becomes a octopus looking thing that stalks the crew. At that point the creature looked like a movie prop, even though it's CG. Just the way it moved and looked reminded me of a dozen other horror films.

Even worse was as the film went on, the science part went out the proverbial window, as the scientist make the stupidest decisions possible. At one point the creature is outside of the ship and the scientist are amazed at how it can function in the vacuum of space. But later when the creature is back aboard the scientist decide it must need oxygen, so they vent the atmosphere and it begins dying. Say what??? Wasn't it just going like gang busters on the hull of the ship without oxygen, 10 minutes earlier?

Towards the end of the movie I actually found myself saying, 'oh good he deserved to die for being so stupid.' You know a movie has lost it's effectiveness, when you end up rooting for the mutant alien! Oh, the twist ending was silly too.

I could go on, but needless to say if you want some plausible science and plausible actions taken by scientist...this ain't the film for that.

However if you want a fun popcorn sci fi horror flick, then LIFE might do the trick. Just don't look for logic or originality here.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Life 2017 (2).jpg
Views:	242
Size:	274.9 KB
ID:	32076   Click image for larger version

Name:	Life 2017 (1).jpg
Views:	224
Size:	162.7 KB
ID:	32077   Click image for larger version

Name:	Life 2017 (3).jpg
Views:	86
Size:	131.3 KB
ID:	32078   Click image for larger version

Name:	Life 2017 (4).jpg
Views:	237
Size:	212.5 KB
ID:	32079  

i was actually planning on watching that this weekend. Was it really that bad. I'm gonna watch it anyway to see for myself and maybe i write a few thoughts
You can call it the art of fighting without fighting.

i was actually planning on watching that this weekend. Was it really that bad. I'm gonna watch it anyway to see for myself and maybe i write a few thoughts
I love to see what your thoughts are on it. The first 30 minutes are worth the price of admission. The last hour is more like a fun popcorn movie, so if you like that type of movie experience, then yeah it delivers.

I will see Life some time this year. All signs point to wasted opportunity though.
The hand crushing scene and the one that followed really made me queasy! it's well done. If they could have only maintained that level of fear/horror I'd be rating it much higher.

L..I..F..E (2017)

[color=#1D283A]Director: Daniel Espinosa
Writers: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds
Genre: Sci-Fi Horror
You're the first person who has said anything negative about this curiosity is totally piqued now.

You're the first person who has said anything negative about this curiosity is totally piqued now.
You and I run in much different movie circles. I haven't heard anything positive. Weird, considering we both spend a lot of time here. I don't think I have read much about it here though and only known two people in everyday life who have seen it. The podcast world is slicing it up though.

I see that @ashdoc and @Sarge have both reviewed LIFE (2017). Ashdoc's review is more positive about the movie than mine was.

Sarge's review came to many of the same conclusions that I did. @Gideon58 LIFE is worth watching, as both Ashdoc and Sarge noted the space station and space scenes looked real! That's a plus. And I was never bored and that's another plus.

I just picked up another new sci-fi, Passengers (2016) I'll see how that one goes.

My Darling Clementine
(John Ford, 1946)

Director: John Ford
Cast: Henry Fonda, Linda Darnell, Victor Mature
Genre: Western Drama
Length: 97 minutes

The exploits of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone, that lead up to the infamous gunfight at the OK Coral. CR

Everybody...has heard of Wyatt Earp and his time in Tombstone. And everybody has seen the shootout at the OK Coral depicted on film. I'd say most people are probably familiar with Wyatt's story from one movie: 1993's Tombstone.

My Darling Clementine is quite a bit different in story construction, than Tombstone and other movies about Wyatt Earp. At 97 minutes it's fairly fast paced and yet nothing ever feels rushed. That's because all of the superfluous material was parred down to the basic story of moral vs immoral....And that's thanks to Fox studio main man, Darryl F. Zanuck.

John Ford originally had shot a 2 hour film that didn't go over well with Zanuck, who then took over editing and honed the film down to 97 minutes. Zanuck was the editor on other Ford films including The Grapes of Wrath. The result is a film that focuses on how one man comes to a lawless town and through his sense of right and wrong, makes the town livable.

The story of course is pure fiction
, almost nothing you see actually happened and Wyatt Earp was not the good-doer that's pictured here. But so what, this is a movie, not historical research, and the way the story is told is very effective. It works.

Henry Fonda plays Wyatt Earp
, and is the epitome of laid back. Which works well with a powerful, yet simplistic story. Fonda is always enjoyable on screen and this was one big reason why I enjoyed this so much.

The other reason was the stunningly effective cinematography by John Ford. Ford is well known for his scenic landscape shots in Monument Valley in the Southwest of America. But what really impressed me was Ford's compositions that made use of vast empty spaces to give the feeling of utter loneliness. The empty spaces, when combined with the subject in the distances...and surrounded by darkness, gives a real stark beauty to the film.

Click image for larger version

Name:	My Darling Clementine (2).jpg
Views:	166
Size:	159.5 KB
ID:	32130   Click image for larger version

Name:	My Darling Clementine (3).jpg
Views:	175
Size:	175.2 KB
ID:	32131   Click image for larger version

Name:	My Darling Clementine.jpg
Views:	161
Size:	34.8 KB
ID:	32133  

Jaws 2 (1978)
Director: Jeannot Szwarc
Cast: Roy Scheider, Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Horror

My review: This ain't Jaws. Enough said. Thanks for reading my review

Well, I suppose I have to say a bit more about this 2nd sequel of four Jaws films. When Jaws 2 came out in 1978 it was the biggest money making sequel until Rocky 2 hit the theaters. It's main claim to fame is one of the most famous movie tag lines to ever be coined:

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..."

While Jaws 2 does have Roy Scheider, Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton returning in their roles as the Police chief, his wife and the towns mayor, most notably absent is Richard Dreyfus and director Steven Spielberg. Robert Shaw couldn't return, having previously been eaten by a shark

Jaws 2
has none of the building drama and tension that the original had and it lacks the gut wrenching shark attack scenes that made the first so powerful.

What the film does have is much more shark attack scenes with teens being chowed down like sardines. I mean who doesn't like to see teens get eating alive! This makes for a fun shark-monster movie much in the way the 1950s had teens being stalked by blobs or alien creatures.

They put more money into the shark model for this one and as a result it can do more things and so we see it more too. Though I found the shark in the original more frightening. By showing too long of close ups of the sharks mouth one starts to think of it as a big Hollywood prop.

The film looks pretty good I must say and is shot and edited well too. The town of Amity comes alive in this sequel and the scenes shot out on the ocean look good.

Oh, I love how Roy Scheider kills off the second shark, over the top for sure, but damn it's fun!

Loving (2016)
Director: Jeff Nichols
Writer: Jeff Nichols
Cast: Ruth Negga, Joel Edgerton, Will Dalton
Genre: Historical Bio-Pic Drama

About: Based on the actual events of Richard and Mildred Loving, who in 1958 drove from their home in Virginia to get married in nearby Washington D.C. Upon returning to Virginia they are quickly arrested for violating Virginia's interracial marriage laws. What follows in this true life story is the couple's fight for civil & personal rights...A harrowing tale of prison and banishment from their own state.

: Don't be fooled by the movie's title into thinking this is some touchy-feely romance's not. the last name of the real life interracial couple that the movie is based on. For the most part this is a historical drama. Oh sure we get a few terse moments when the police come looking for the newlyweds, but mostly it's done low-key. It's hard to believe that up until 1967 mixed race marriages were illegal in some southern states and those violating the law could be arrested and sent to jail, sad but true.

I found the film held my interest and the story is a riveting one. Yet the way the director/writer tells the story, left me with a bit of an empty feeling, like there should have been a bit more character development or more to the story. I don't feel I got to know the characters well, and in a film like this, that's very important. Loving is an indie film, so I'm willing to cut it some slack.

Ruth Negga...I was very impressed with her, she gave a compelling yet controlled performance. She made her character seem real and likable. I like to see her in more movies. The only other movie I've seen her in was World War Z. Ruth is worth the price of admission, as someone says.

Joel Edgerton
...Playing her husband is Joel Edgerton. I've not seen him in anything that I recall. He really does look a lot like the real Richard Loving. I'd say he did a good job here, except I wish we would have gotten a little more insight into the real Richard. I feel like he gave a strong performance, but didn't let the audience in on it.

Let me say this, whoever cast the young ACLU layer was a fool. He was so comical that he came across like a young Jon Lovitz and I thought the movie was headed into slapstick territory, when the lawyer enters the picture.

I did enjoy Loving and learned something about the past. But ultimately I wanted more of a connection out of this film.


Watched this tonight. I was also engaged by the story, but it was done in such a low-key manner that, as a film, it seemed to drag. So I think this one would've benefitted by being cut down to an hour and a half, especially editing the first hour where there are long silent scenes where nothing happens.

I also would've liked more detail - like maybe captions stating the year or location (I had no idea for most of the movie where it was they ran away to after being expelled from Virginia as I don't think they revealed the location except in a brief mention later in the movie - I think they went to live in D.C., the same place they got married).

Based on Joel Edgerton's performance, I couldn't help but imagine Heath Ledger in the role if he'd lived (obviously since the extremely quiet character of Richard Loving was reminiscent of Ledger's role in Brokeback Mountain).

Now I have The Loving Story documentary cued up in my On-Demand list!

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

Director: Ken Hughes
Writers: Ian Fleming (novel), Roald Dahl (screenplay)
Stars: Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes, Lionel Jeffries
Genre: Adventure, Family, Fantasy
Length: 2 hours 24 minutes

: A hap hazard inventor who's near penniless, takes a wrecked ex race car and through the magic of his inventions enables the car to float on water and even fly. After grandfather is abducted by evil agents from a foreign country, the inventor, his girlfriend and his kids fly off for a grand adventure. CR

Review: I enjoyed the movie!...Visually I was blown away by all the elaborate sets, and all the little details that went into each scene. OMG, this film deserved an Oscar for set design, maybe it won one? But I'm too lazy to go and look. (OK I just looked it wasn't even nominated for set design....booo!)

I bet this movie cost a fortune to make! I'm actually surprised they would have spent all the time and money shooting the opening Gran Prix races with vintage cars. Which was impressive looking, but, if I was the executive producer controlling the purse strings I would have said no, it's not needed. I would have started the movie in the junk yard with the kids in the old junk car. But, I'm glad those race scenes are included, just surprised.

I'm even more surprised that they used a real dirigible airship. How cool is that! We get so use to modern day movie magic and CG effects, that we can take for granted what we're seeing on the scene. I know I do, so I ran the DVD back and watched that scene twice, and it looks like they really lifted Owen Jefferies (Grandpa) up in the air as he's answer nature's call. They must have used a crane to do that. Damn impressive! But all of the movie is impressive.

That's a real castle they visit and the aerial shots of it are speculator! The castle is King Ludwig II's castle at Neuschwanstein, located at the foot of the Alps, Germany and the airship is visible in the courtyard. I assume that's real too.

I like to know how many major sets they used. The inside of the candy factory was massive and reminded me of Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory. Not surprising the writer of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Roald Dahl also wrote: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory(1971), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory(2005) &
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009).

I couldn't help but to think that the leading lady (Sally Ann Howes) was Julie Andrews' twin. Not only did she look like her, but she clearly was doing an imitation of Miss Andrews. Not surprising that the role of Truly Scrumptious was originally offered to Julie Andrews, who turned it down. Interesting to note that Sally Ann Howes replaced Julie Andrews in the Broadway production of My Fair Lady when Andrews left the show. Sally Ann Howes was good in this movie and no doubt felt the presences of the larger than life Andrews looming over her parasol. I enjoyed her songs and she was fine but to be honest she lacked charisma

That's probably not her fault, as the director Ken Hughes was noted for being an action director and disliked kids and so was out of his element here. He himself didn't like the movie and Dick Van Dyke is on record saying he didn't get along with the director or the producer.

As much as I liked this, I thought both leads were lack luster and didn't have much chemistry. The movie is amazing visually and has lots of fine moments, some great songs, but the emotional elevation that films like Mary Poppins brings to the game is missing.

Still a fun adventorus movie and a great technical and visual film.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 1968 (1).jpg
Views:	411
Size:	218.9 KB
ID:	32148   Click image for larger version

Name:	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 1968 (1a).jpg
Views:	431
Size:	280.8 KB
ID:	32149   Click image for larger version

Name:	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 1968 (3).jpg
Views:	429
Size:	201.1 KB
ID:	32151   Click image for larger version

Name:	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 1968 (4).jpg
Views:	267
Size:	194.4 KB
ID:	32152   Click image for larger version

Name:	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang b.jpg
Views:	400
Size:	285.3 KB
ID:	32158