Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

Anzio (1968)

Director: Edward Dmytryk
Cast: Robert Mitchum, Peter Falk, Robert Ryan, Earl Holliman, Mark Damon, Arthur Kennedy
Genre: War Action Drama
Filming Location: Around Rome, Italy

Anzio is a little known war film from the well known Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis. Shot in and around Rome, the Italian country side looks great. One can image that this is what the troops seen in WWII. An all star cast with Robert Mitchum and Peter Falk heading up things, should have made for a war film classic. But it didn't, the film falls short on many levels.

Peter Falk in his autobiography sums it up best saying: 'he didn't like the script for this movie which he thought was hackneyed and full of cliché'.

The script is a mess and the film gets off to a meandering start. We see scenes of U.S. soldiers out of control, partying in Naples and behaving more like looters. The soldiers are hanging from the chandlers of a beautiful villa and trashing the place. No wonder American audiences didn't care for this film much.

In the end of the movie, Robert Mitchum who plays a U.S. service news reporter, comments that war is about people liking to kill other people and the political sides of the war aren't important. An audacious statement coming not from Mitchum but from the Italian production staff of this movie. The film forgets that Italy once sided with the Nazis. Indeed we see the Nazis but never with Italian troops. Instead we get the Nazis rounding up nice Italian citizens and forcing them to build their Caesar Line, which was meant to stop the Allied troops.

If all this wasn't bad enough the film never shows the Anzio battle, which was one of the bloodiest battles of the European theater. What we do see is the incursion behind German lines of 767 U.S. Rangers, who then became surrounded by enemy troops. Of the 767 men, only 6 returned from the mission.

Anzio is interesting as a detailed movie about the 767 U.S. Rangers who took part in the battle.

Attachments

 

Boyhood (2014)

Director: Richard Linklater
Writer: Richard Linklater
Cast: Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, Lorelei Linklater
Genre: Drama

"Look at the stars...Look how they shine for you...And everything you do..."

Boyhood is an innovative film that was impressively shot over a 12 year span, using all the same actors. The child actors grow before our eyes becoming young adults. While the adult actors not only grow older but grow wiser, as they travel down life's road.

We follow Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from his childhood and through his teenage years, finally ending as he enters college. Tommy (Ethan Hawke) and (Mom) Patricia Arquette are Mason's parents who are there for the journey, making mistakes as they learn and growing older. The director's daughter plays Mason's older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater). Samantha too grows from an impish, precocious kid to a serious and quieter young adult.

At 2 hours, 45 minutes this is a long film...but I never lost interest. From the opening scenes to the ending, the film captivated me and held my attention fast. It was like watching someone's life, by remote. The sheer magic of that experience makes this film worth watching.

Some say there was no plot, no action, no real story. They say it was just a bunch of filmed sequences in the life of a small boy as he grew...Boyhood is not a feel good Hollywood block buster movie. Instead it's a shining example of what an Indie film maker can achieve in the art of cinema.

For those who think Boyhood is just a collection of arbitrary moments with no story. I say those moments are the story. Those moments are what life is about....


Indeed the moments of Boyhood captured me.

Attachments

   

Glad you liked Boyhood! And that you understood on which level the film played out on. awesome!

Personally I have already seen it three times.

You know what's weird is:
I expected not to like Boyhood based on what others said, but I enjoyed it.
I expected to love Grand Budapest Hotel based on what others said, but I disliked it.

I've noticed the phenomenon of preconceived notions before too.

Generally if I expect to love a film before seeing it, I will image the film to be better than it can be and so I will be disappointed. But if I expect nothing of a film, then it can score a positive hit with me. People said Boyhood was boring with no story, so I expected nothing but was pleasantly surprised.

It was amazing seeing the kids grow and mature before our eyes, but kinda of sad to see Patricia Arquette go from being a hotty to an older lady.

Boyhood rocks! I can't wait for a rewatch and glad you enjoyed it!

Gravity (2013)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Writer: Alfonso Cuarón
Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller

Premise: While on a mission to upgrade the Hubble telescope, a Russian missile strikes a satellite causing a shower of space debris. The debris go into orbit around Earth destroying everything in its path. The space shuttle is destroyed stranding Sandra Bullock and George Clooney in space.

Review: And that's where they should have been left!...in space!
Gravity is nothing more than a dressed up disaster movie with one harrowing death defying escape after another, and another and another...and another! It's cliche ridden with unbelievable cartoon like characters who act so ridiculously that it's hard to buy into the movie.

Sandra Bullock is the likeable but goofy Ryan Stone. Ryan is a klutz, who's crashed the shuttle landing simulator every single time and yet NASA sends her into space anyway. She can't hang onto her space tools, can't follow an abort order and panics easily. Hardly astronaut material. But wait she's not the worst.

George Clooney is Matt Kowalski, a wise cracking space cowboy who spends his time flying around circles in space with his jet pack. Maybe he should have saved some of that pressurized gas just in case a disaster strikes and he gets stranded in space, ha. Apparently NASA didn't teach him too well.

The director, Alfonso Cuarón also wrote this film, so it's his fault. He packs his Hollywood CG block buster flix with such tiresome recycled hash as:

The dream sequence where a dead astronaut comes back to life, magically appearing at the air hatch...opening it as Sandra Bullock (who has removed her space suit), pleads, don't open it...it will kill her.

The feel sorry for her scene, where Ryan reveals to the audience her daughter was killed in a traffic accident so now she's sad and just keeps moving though life. This is suppose to tug at our heart strings, ack.

The rip off of 2001 A Space Odyssey scene where Ryan floats in a fetal position, ugh.

Gravity's main selling point is it's massive CG special effects. On the big screen and in 3-D this movie must have looked impressive with it's wall-to-wall eye candy. But there's no hiding the fact that there's no story and no character development. Just one over the top thriller-disaster-survival scene after another. As soon as Bullock escapes a near death tragedy, another pops up to challenge her. And that's called good movie making?

In the films: Apollo 13 (1995) and Marooned (1969) we also see astronauts stranded in space, the drama is told to the audiences by superb acting and it's the actors who make us believe what we are seeing is real. That's why those films work. In Gravity its all about the CG and space thrills, and believable acting and dialogue is out the window.

Attachments

 

You're not the only one who was underwhelmed by Gravity. I saw this in the cinema and, frankly, that's the main reason I'd like to see it again because my experience was so bad that I'd like to think that it impacted my appreciation/enjoyment of the film.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

HoneyKid, what experience did you have? Do you mean someone setting close by was talking and ruined the film for you? Or did you just not like the movie?

I was bored to tears and actually rooting for Bullock's character to fall to Earth and be done with it.

I thought the 3D experience (the reason I'd actually ventured into the cinema) was poor. The screen is so dark (30% light loss and all that) with those glasses on that I kept lifting them to see how much brighter it was without them. On quite a few times I found the 3D distracting. One panning shot I remember inparticular where simply panning across meant the wires and everything else we 'passed by' during the shot really stood out, taking me out of the film. I don't wear glasses, so I was very aware of them on my face and felt as if I'd been seperated from the screen (which I had, of course) and I felt that the cinema was too bright, though that was probably just because of the lack of light onscreen combined with the glasses. I know that sounds odd, but now with exit signs, lights along the asile and lights in the ceilling, there's a lot more light in a cinema than there was way back when. This isn't anything new, exactly, but I was far more aware of it with the 3D. Lastly, I didn't feel the image was as crisp as it'll be in 2D. Of course, that too could be down to the lack of light.

Thanks...that makes sense. I haven't ever seen a 3-D movie but I have been distracted at times by Exit signs, etc... that were real noticeable in my peripheral vision. It seems move of the glowing reviews of Gravity by fellow MoFos focus on the visual CG effects, and yah there amazing. Those reviews do all seem to agree that there's not much in character development. Anyway my wife liked the movie, I didn't and I really don't care for Sandra Bullock at all.

I posted about it after I'd seen it, which was long after everyone else , and I said something along the lines of this is a really small film made as large as possible. You could put this on a stage at a local community centre.

Death Race 2000 (1975)

Director: Paul Bartel
Producer: Roger Corman
Cast: David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, Simone Griffeth
Genre: Satirical Sci-Fi, Action

In the year 2000...the distant future, Americans have become overly obsessed with graphic violence as entertainment (go figure!). The dictator, Mr. President, keeps the people happy by giving them what they want...he gives them the Death Race. A cross country car race where contestants score points by running down and killing pedestrian.

The returning champion is Frankenstein (David Carradine) a veteran of many Death Races who has been so badly injured in past wrecks that he must wear a mask to hide his gruesome face. His navigator is the lovely Annie Smith (Simone Griffeth) who's as talented in bed as she is working on a car's engine. Annie has more on her mind than just winning however. There's also a home bred terrorist group killing the racers in attempt to stop the violence.

From the start of the movie until the end, my attention was held fast by the satirical wit and sheer spectacle of bizarre looking racing cars and topless women which makes such a strange film satisfying. What makes Death Race 2000 work is that the movie never takes itself seriously. Because of that, the outlandish scenes of running down and killing pedestrians not only works, but works but rocks. In one outlandish scene a woman racer spots a mother with her children having a picnic in the country. Excitably she says to the race driver, “If they scatter, go for the baby and the mother.” As the mother and kids scatter the baby is left behind we hear, "GO FOR THE BABY! THE BABY!

In another quirky scene the staff at a geriatric hospital wheels out the elderly patients, lining them up for an easy hit by the racers. It has to be seen to be believed.

David Carradine who often played quirky characters in his films, is perfectly cast as the mysterious masked man, Frankenstein. Frankenstein is cynical, the thrill of running over and killing pedestrians is old hat to him. He knows he's just a character playing his part in the great Death Race, but he wants more that that. He's a man with a plan.


Simone Griffeth and many of the actresses are just there for eye candy and they appear topless and bottomless too in this R rated movie. But Simone turns in a darn good performances as the brassy upstart with a sneaky plan up her sleeve.



Stealing the movie is an over the top and hilarious Sylvester Stallone, as Machine Gun Joe, the heavy in the film and Frankenstein's arch rival... “Machine Gun Joe! Loved by thousands, hated by millions!” His female navigator does a darn good Judi Holliday impersonation. She not only looks like Judy Holiday, she sounds like her too.

Produced by the king of B budget films, Roger Corman, who gave us such gems as Attack of the Giant Leeches, Galaxy of Terror and Candy Stripe Nurses. Death Race 2000 is one of those cult classics that never ceases to amaze just how fun a movie can be when made on a shoe string budget. I'm rating this for a fun-factor.

Attachments

       

Damn, your positive review on Death Race 2000 is going to inflate HK's already massive (and wrong) ego.

As for my opinion, satire is my favorite genre and ridiculous premises and much as the next guy, but the film's execution was plainly wrong in my opinion.

Hi Gatsby, I'm happy to have your opinion on it and thanks for stopping by .
Question: what about the the film's execution was plainly wrong? How would you change the film? I'm curious.

NOTE: In my next review of BIRDMAN, I use spoilers and discuss the ending of the film.

So don't read my review if you haven't seen the movie.

Birdman: Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone
Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Emma Stone
Genre: Surrealism Drama

Premise: Rigan (Michael Keaton) is a middle aged, washed up Hollywood actor, who once was famous for playing a comic book superhero...Birdman. Twenty years after Birdman, Rigan is trying to redeem himself and relaunch his career by writing, directing and starring in a Broadway play.

Review: I went into watching Birdman with no knowledge of the film. I hadn't seen any clips or read any reviews. All I knew of the film was that: Michael Keaton was in it, the film had won a Best Picture Academy Award and there was something about tight-whitey underwear in it.

In the first 20 minutes I was unsure if I liked it. I admired the long take-documentary style of cinematography. The film looked great. I was a bit cool to the jazz drum soundtrack, at times it was overpowering. Mostly I was unsure of why and how Rigan could levitate? It seemed he had powers of telekinesis and could move objects in the room with a mere flick of a finger. The dialog with his alter ego, Birdman, was interesting. It helped define his character's neurosis. I began to enjoy the film when the camera revealed to the audience that the telekinesis was merely a visual of Rigan's mental state and no magic powers really existed.

I must say I liked the casting. Michael Keaton as a has-been, delusional actor with family issues...what a great choice. How cool to make a film about a once famous 'superhero' actor that's played by Batman's Michael Keaton. Reality based performances, that was discussed during the stage play by Mike (Edward Norton), the films seems to be written with Keaton's career in mind.

Edward Norton made a great character as Mike, the method actor that believes the stage is reality and life is fake. An interesting juxtaposition to the films subject matter of the nature of reality.

My favorite casting choice was Emma Stone who played Rigan's jaded, cynical daughter, Sam. Sam's life was messed up by her show business parents. Once drug addicted, Sam has just gotten herself clean and out of rehab. Her character looked the part. From her home bleach blonde hair to her dark make up and ratty...'I don't care what I look like' clothing. The wardrobe department deserves an award for her look.

By the one hour mark, when Rigan confronts a woman theater critic. I was loving this film. The most powerful scene is in the bar when Rigan buys the woman critic a drink and introduces himself. Flat out she says she's going to kill his play with a bad review, and she hasn't even seen it. I love how the film shows us how critics can be self indulgent, opinionated people who tout their skills by throwing out multi-syllable labels, ad nauseam and are driven by bitterness not professionalism. What a powerful scene. At this point I was thinking I would give a 5/5 rating to Birdman.

I did like the backstage theater scenes which gave a real incite into the working of a Broadway play. I've never been back stage but the sets looked very real to me. But one thing, Rigan walks down the hallway and in a little room is the guy playing the drums for the soundtrack. What? I scratched my head, shades of Monty Python.

A few minutes latter into the movie and Rigan is poised to jump off a building roof top. Then the film turned into an actually superhero film with Keaton and Birdman flying in the sky and explosions and the usually CG that goes with it. I felt let down, and thought there goes the perfect 5/5 rating.

Towards the end of the film when Rigan had shot off his nose and is laying in the hospital, I'm thinking where is the film going? Then he jumps out the window in an apparent suicide attempt...his daughter rushes to the window in horror and looks down to the street below...then looks up at the sky and smiles. I'm thinking ugh, not magical realism. The film credits role and I half expect to see Steven Spielberg's name somewhere.

Attachments

 

How did you determine that the telekinesis was his mental state and all the fantastical elements of the last part of the movie wasn't?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Death Race 2000 sounds like a lot of fun. I've seen the remake with Jason Statham, which I enjoyed even though I wouldn't give it more than . It delivered on its promise of adrenaline-fueled, high-octane vehicular combat, but I don't remember any nudity. I'm glad to hear that the original meets that essential quota.

As usual, I'm the exact opposite of honeykid. Watching Gravity in IMAX-3D on opening day is the greatest, most immersive theater experience of my life. Some of the magic was gone when I watched it at home, but as long as my memory of that initial experience remains intact, I'll always be fond of the film. I don't dispute some of your criticisms, especially in reference to the script's shortcomings, but I personally thought Bullock gave an excellent, physically-demanding performance. She deserved her Oscar nomination. At times, Gravity felt more like a roller-coaster ride than a film, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

I skipped your review for Birdman since I don't want to have anything spoiled for me.

I've never really had a thing for Patricia Arquette, but she's hot as hell in that picture. No wonder that boy is jumping for joy.

__________________

Mark, I'm not sure if I understand the context of your question fully. And of course my review is my own opinion as is any review. But here's my reply.

I determined the film makers were saying that his telekinesis was not a real power, but part of his delusions when...Rigan is alone in his dressing room he can move objects, flinging them against the wall with his mind (that's what the film shows), then when the theater producer walks in, we see Rigan physically throwing the objects. Which seems to me that he has no real powers.

I did see the fantastical elements, such as Birdman doing battle in the sky over NYC as part of Rigan's delusions. I'm not sure how his delusions would manifest the jazz soundtrack drummer in a hallway room.

SPOILER: The end where his daughter looks out the window after Rigan has apparently jumped....then she looks up at the sky and seems to smile or be content, would be her point of view. I can't image a daughter seeing her dead father on the sidewalk below and looking like she did, so my impression is she sees him flying up in the sky. (and yes I realize the film maker left that open so that we can all discuss the confusing ending)

That's just my take, others can have different opinions.

I didn't care for the remake at all. Yup lots of pretty topless women in the original.

I bet if I seen Gravity in 3D at the theater I would have been awed! I'd say the film is about the visual thrill and not so much about the story. I watched it on a TV so less visual impact.

That's wise as I do spoil the ending, which I normally NEVER do.

Yup and sadly she gets much older looking in the film.