JayDee's Movie Musings

Hopscotch Fun. Honeykid a Sourpuss. News at 11!

Welcome to the thread lines. Nice to see as many people dropping by as possible

__________________

Plot – Harry Callahan is back! But this time he's not the cop who's stepping over the line. A group of rookie motorcycle cops have appointed themselves as something of a death squad, offing some of the scum that is polluting San Francisco. While he may not exactly be a stickler for the rules, Harry believes there is a line you don't cross, and sets out to take down these vigilantes.

In some ways this is actually a more polished and slick effort than its predecessor, seemingly benefiting from a larger budget. However it lacks the same raw urgency and intensity Dirty Harry possessed. A lot of that I feel is down to the departure from the directors chair of Don Siegel. The film is sorely missing the edge that he imbued Harry's first outing with.

The film isn't the only thing to have lost a bit of its edge. Old Harry Callahan himself seems to have mellowed a bit. Now I'm not saying that if you invited him round for dinner you'd get an evening of sparkling conversation but he's certainly a bit softer round the edges here. He's friendlier, he's compassionate, hell he even hugs kids (in a perfectly innocent way might I add!). Indeed if his character keeps up this level of progression throughout the series, by the fourth film I'm half expecting Harry to be taking yoga and getting pedicures! And when watched back to back with Dirty Harry the level of character turnaround is quite jarring. How has this guy became the somewhat moralistic centre of the film?

I praised Dirty Harry for being so tight and spartan an effort. This time out however it feels a more bloated, slack affair. Indeed Harry isn't even directly on the tail of the killer until like 80/90 minutes in. It just comes across as rather bloated with scenes and moments that just aren't necessary. The main culprit being Harry's 'romance' with a downstairs neighbour, which has nothing to do with the plot, nor does it really add anything to his character. As in the first film we see a number of set-pieces that aren't actually integral to the plot. While they are still enjoyable they don't work quite as well as in Dirty Harry. The robbery that takes place at Cost Plus I think it was is ok but nothing special. And while the early scene dealing with two hijackers taking over a plane is very entertaining, it feels as if the character is in danger of slipping into the territory of a parody. Walking out onto the runway dressed as a pilot it feels more like something we'd see in Sledge Hammer (the Dirty Harry inspired spoof TV series).

The villain, or indeed villains, of the piece are presented in a somewhat more grounded, realistic manner and as a result are nowhere close to being as much fun as Scorpio was. I also think they were short-changed in terms of screentime, not giving the characters enough opportunity to build up the peril they should create. When they come to meet Harry in his garage the sight of them all sitting on their bikes, dressed in police uniform with helmet and shades is actually quite a cool, menacing image. It's a shame it's not exploited more often. Seeing them in silhouette side by side up on a hill, watching over their prey would have been an effective move. And though some credit should be given for coming up with quite a significantly different storyline, I just didn't feel it entirely worked. Dirty Harry seemed to say it was fine to have one reckless, maverick cop but apparently it's not alright when you have four of them. Then it's a fascist system.

You could perhaps argue this is a more 'adult' film than Dirty Harry, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. With a Dirty Harry film I'm not expecting any subtlety or sophistication, all I'm really looking for is some kick-ass action. And here I felt it only really delivered in the last 30 or so minutes. In that spell however it becomes action heavy, with some explosive shootouts and a terrifically staged motorbikes v car chase. It's only here that the camera seems to wake up and come alive.

The script, while not bereft of, is certainly lacking in punchy and memorable dialogue when compared with the first film. At times it feels like it's straining for some liberal, political correctness; again partnering Harry up with an ethnic minority (a character who doesn't really contribute anything) and throwing in a line about homosexuals that is positive, at least in a Harry Callahan kind of way - “If the rest of you could shoot like them, I wouldn't care if the whole damn department was queer.”

The city of San Francisco is not as atmospheric as before. Lacking in the gritty cinematography that populated the first film the visual appearance of Harry's world has been completely altered. In Dirty Harry the city was shrouded in shadows and darkness, while this takes place in seemingly eternal sunshine.

In my Dirty Harry review I commented how out of place it felt in amongst the other 70s fare which felt as if they were more from the left-wing persuasion, propelled by paranoia. I theorised it was perhaps down to the fact it was released before events such as Watergate, and the end of the Vietnam War. Well this time out if feels as if it may very well have been influenced by the events surrounding Nixon, as this time the threat comes not from an outside criminal element, but from internal corruption. It also feels like a reaction to the fascist claims that dogged Dirty Harry upon it's release. 'You thought that was fascist? No here is what fascist would really look like.'

As is frequently noted throughout the film, “A man's got to know his limitations.” Well so should this film have done so, and tried to rectify them. It just came across like a film that was striving to create a franchise.

Conclusion – Despite all its flaws Magnum Force is still able to remain good fun, with the last 30 minutes and Eastwood's performance helping to raise it to a higher level than it was heading for much of its running time. However it falls vastly short of its predecessor

Reading back through that review and I don't feel it and the score seem to match up. The review for the most part is quite negative. I don't think I got across the point that as a stand-alone police actioner it is still good fun, with some of the qualities of the first film still there but with flaws. Its kind of taking the pros from the first film for granted and then showing all the reasons why it wasn't as good

Maybe that's because it should be rated .

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

I pretty much agree with your review, though, from reading your review, I thought I enjoyed it more than you did. But then, I don't really know what I'd score it. Both rating seem about right. Of course, I've not seen it in forever, so a fresh viewing would probably sort that out. I also agree that they should've made more of the vigillante cops, 'on the prowl', as it were.

Thanks for the comments HK.

Oh picky picky picky!

Plot – Family man Curtis is plagued by a series of apocalyptic visions. Are they a prophetic warning? Or are they a sign that he is suffering from the same mental illness that struck down his mother? Fearing they are a warning he puts his job, his family and his financial wellbeing on the line and begins to build a shelter.

A truly ominous and foreboding tone of dread permeates this whole film pretty much right from the opening seconds. It is an extremely tense movie-watching experience, created by a well executed pace which continues to up the ante and slowly tighten its grip on us. All leading up to an almost excruciatingly uncomfortable scene inside the shelter were I really was fearing that the character was about to snap and cause harm to himself or his family.

The film looks stunning. It's locations are wonderfully photographed; full of lush and vivid colours, and are punctuated by a series of striking, apocalyptic images. His dreams really do deliver some breathtaking visuals. And the fact that they were delivered on an apparent budget of just $1million is quite staggering. The visual style also hints at and evokes a bit of a Terrence Malick feel, particularly the focus given to trees gently rustling in the wind. I was only aware of the storm elements of his dreams beforehand, and was quite taken by the increasingly strange, almost surreal, manner they took on. It's easy to buy just how disturbing and distressing Curtis finds the increasingly nightmarish images, as he is not alone. What also works incredibly well is not just the dreams themselves, but the way Shannon reacts to them. He doesn't just do the standard bolt up in bed move, we see him gasping for air and struggling to breathe. He seems to be in real discomfort and pain.

For this kind of film to truly work, it need a powerful central showing, and thankfully in Michael Shannon it has someone who is more than capable of delivering. His performance has to be one of the best I've seen in recent times, and makes it all the more surprising that he was completely shut out at all the major award ceremonies. While it's an intense, brooding performance he actually delivers it in a fairly quiet manner; the character straining to contain the fear and anguish that is building up within. The fact that any outburst is so rare means that when he really does explode at a community get-together it really is quite a terrifying moment. As an actor he is able to evoke so much by doing so little, relying just on his eyes or body language to tell us exactly what the character is feeling.

With such a strong performance from the central character it would be easy to overlook everyone else involved, but in the case of Jessica Chastain that would be a criminal mistake. As Curtis' wife she radiates warmth, grace and a real toughness as she runs a gauntlet of emotions while trying to deal with her husband's mental deterioration. The majority of the time she is a supportive and loving partner, but is plagued by worry and anger.

Take Shelter also puts the viewer (well this viewer anyway) in the odd position of actually hoping for an apocalyptic event. Curtis is such a decent guy; such a sympathetic character, that I want his fears to be vindicated. He is just an everyman who desperately wants to protect his family, while also keenly aware they he may also be the biggest threat that they face. They are just a normal family going about their ordinary lives; they don't deserve this.

Jeff Nichols direction is of very high quality; expertly crafting the story, the visuals and the whole mood into something quite special. What's very impressive is how he is in no rush to give us an answer, no rush to push our expectations down one direction. Is the character a prophet, or is he just descending down the same route of mental illness that befell his mother? He keeps both theories in play right up until the closing moments. And even then the ending is steeped in ambiguity, left open to interpretation. After this I will certainly be looking to track down Nichols' debut film, Shotgun Stories, and will be keeping a close eye on his future work.

The film is not perfect however. The final act feels like it has been stretched out a little bit. And also the way that the community reacted to Curtis' situation felt unusual. While I am really only going on its portrayal in other films, it seems odd for such a close knit community that they wouldn't have more sympathy for the character, that they wouldn't rally around him.

It's a film that very much feels powered by the current fears of the American public, and indeed the world at large. In this post 9/11, post recession climate there is a lot of fear and uncertainty residing. As well as being about survival; about a family sticking together to try and get each other through a tough time, it is also a sincere and sensitively handled contemplation on mental illness. Looking at his mental deterioration and the effect that it has on him and those around him.

Conclusion – A powerful and riveting film, one of the most interesting and impressive of 2011. Strong direction and a terrific performance from Shannon make it a real must-see. With so few people seeing it on its initial release I just hope its audience grows and grows over the years. It certainly deserves it.

Excellent and thorough review of Take Shelter! I enjoyed this movie

Nice reviews JayDee

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Thank you very much afficionado and nebbit. Nice to be appreciated

nebbit - I think you're a big fan of Some Like it Hot aren't you? Did you catch my review on the previous page?

Just read it a great review I can't remember how many times I have watched it but never tire of it

Out of interest would anyone recommend Night Moves? Just noticed it's on TV later this week and that it would be viable for the 70s thriller season, but is it worth it?

It's well-worth watching. Gene Hackman, what's not to like?

^ Hard to argue with that logic.

I gave Take Shelter 3.5 I mean Shannon had a great performance and it was Definently psychological but it kinda felt like it went nowhere

__________________

Plot – Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) has just moved with her family to the quiet suburb of Stepford. While the area itself is lovely something seems a bit off with its residents. The women all seem rather perfect, at least their husband's definition of perfect, but their is something dark and sinister going on in these suburbs.

Films such as American Beauty, Donnie Darko and The Burbs have shown us that on this vast planet there are few places scarier than the American suburbs. And here is another example of that. While it is quite obviously a pro-feminist product of the 60s and 70s, with a number of themes and issues tackled and satirised such as men's subjugation and oppression of women; it can very easily just be enjoyed as a purely fun sci-fi chiller. Of all the 70s fare I've been enjoying over the last month or two this has to be the most 70s in terms of style and subject, particularly its fashion. As a result it feels quite dated. Another indicator of the films 70s setting is its ending. It is a chilling, extremely downbeat conclusion. So very 70s

I was actually expecting this to be a bit more schlocky of an affair. However it's only really the closing stages that the film resorts to classic horror clichés. Set on a dark night with lashing rain and flashes of lightning, it sees Joanna running through a dark, spooky Gothic mansion trying to escape the clutches of Dale, leader of the Men's Association. Indeed it's all so classic a horror set-up that I half expected her to run into Scooby-Doo at some point.

Katharine Ross is very good in the central role as Joanna Eberhart, slowly questioning what is going on around here and eventually starting to crack under the realisation. However it was Paula Prentiss as her lively, irrepressible friend Bobbie Markowe who stole the show for me. The level of fun rises anytime she appears, first as the bubbly rebel and Louise to Joanna's Thelma; and then when she becomes another victim of the Stepford effect. The moment she 'malfunctions' is terrifically entertaining, and extremely well played by Prentiss considering how silly it could have come off. Outside of those two however some of the supporting cast are a touch dodgy and wooden, Nanette Newman (who just happens to be the director's wife) in particular. Oh and Josef Summer's performance as Dis, the big villain of the piece, is a little bit too cartoonish and panto.

So while the film does come off as campy at time it does have a number of noteworthy moments which add to the eerie, spine-chilling tone. Of particular note are Bobbie's aforementioned malfunction and the moment when Joanna comes face to face with her black eyed, pointy-breasted replacement. It gives a chilling, eerie climax to the story. The film also has a great coda, as we see all of Stepford's female residents immaculately dressed wandering soullessly around a supermarket, exchanging programmed pleasantries. It's a simple scene but more subtly and effectively chilling than anything Eli Roth or any other peddler of torture porn out there could deliver.

My main problem with the film was its pacing. The film is 110 minutes long and for the first hour or so in particular the pace is really quite slow, before ramping it up in the last 30/40 minutes. I just feel it could be better balanced, and would have benefited greatly from having about 15 minutes of the first hour cut out. I actually think there's a 4 star (or 4 popcorn) movie in here but it just gets a touch suffocated and lost.

I'd also say that the tone doesn't always work. By trying to mix a horror (though fairly soft) style story with sly, satirical humour the story never really comes across as all that believable. I just wonder if the film would have worked better either as a straightforward horror or as a pure satire. And while I'm talking about not seeming believable, it's a hard sell to buy the idea that this whole town of guys all have the same idea about the dream woman. Would they really all want the classic 50s housewife, both in terms of manner and appearance? Nobody wanting a trashy nymphomaniac in a leather catsuit?

Screenwriter extraordinaire William Goldman (The Princess Bride, All The President's Men, Marathon Man etc) delivers another fairly strong script featuring a number of ideas and some fun dialogue. I wouldn't say that his level is matched by the director, Bryan Forbes, however. His direction feels a bit dull and drab, and in terms of camerawork (camera shots, angles, zoom-ins etc) it feels a little awkward and clunky at stages.

Conclusion – Far from being a great film, it is however really quite entertaining. And I can certainly understand why it's a bit of a cult classic for some.

Plot - Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is a war hero. A man who saved his whole unit and earned himself the Medal of Honor. Except that it never happened. Shaw and all the surviving members of the unit, including Captain Marco (Frank Sinatra), have been brainwashed into believing this. In reality Raymond Shaw is no hero, he is a Communist-programmed assassin.

Here we have the wildcard entry in my season of 70s thrillers. A 'wildcard' because it's actually from 1962! One reason for its inclusion is that I have fancied it for a while, however there was one other big reason. Honeykid and Mark f seem to butt heads on quite a number of films; this is a film that made both of their top 100 lists. Something pretty special surely then? While it perhaps didn't live up to that level for me, I still found it to be an extremely good film.

It's actually a very difficult film to pigeon hole in terms of plot. While I suppose 'political thriller' would be about the best umbrella term for it; with elements of political satire, sci-fi, black comedy, drama etc, that really only begins to tell the story. In that way it actually reminded me of an episode of the Twilight Zone which would at times just tell an interesting story with just a small element of sci-fi/fantasy to back it up. And that reminiscence of the show is only strengthened when you incorporate the delightful black and white photography.

The film is well acted throughout. Sinatra is a solid, engaging presence as Captain Bennett Marco. Despite being a touch hammy in places Laurence Harvey is extremely good as Raymond Shaw, initially delivering a cold, loathsome character who we can't stand; only to somehow turn it around and become someone we care about and sympathise with when he reveals how different he was with Jocelyn, and the pain his mother caused him. James Gregory is highly amusing as the drunken, bumbling fool Senator Iselin. The characters are quite complex and with lots of depth, not always the most likeable or heroic. As a result perhaps the film's most charming and likeable character is the 'evil' Chinese scientist who performs the brainwashing procedure.

While there are indeed a number of impressive performances, there is one that just has to be singled out. As someone raised on Angela Lansbury being the sweet, kindly crime writer and solver Jessica Fletcher this was a real revelation. Her portrayal of the domineering Senator's wife creates a truly terrifying presence. The way that she bosses and manipulates everyone around her is just fantastic. A unforgettable character, and a classic movie villain.

One character rather baffled me however, though it was nothing to do with the performance. Janet Leigh's character, and in particular her dialogue, left me rather perplexed. What exactly was going on in that furst meeting between her and Sinatra's Marco? Is it implying that she is controlling him with coded remarks and he is another sleeper? Does she just have a peculiar way with words? Or is it just all about adding a level of intrigue and doubt for the viewer to heighten the level of fun?

The brainwashing scene itself is terrific. Initially quite bewildering, things actually start out as oddly amusing before turning absolutely chilling as Shaw carries out his orders. And it's no just what he does that makes it so effective, it's the fact that the other soldiers don't perceive what is actually going on and happily accept their fates. The editing of the scene is really quite something, switching back and forth between the reality of what is going on, and the illusion that the soldiers are seeing. Wonderful stuff. And as a result of the brainwashing the film is able to turn seemingly innocuous phrases into something quite eerie and chilling; “why don't you play a game of Solitaire” and the spooky, controlled response of “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.”

The film is a paranoia filled and atmospheric affair full of tension, quite clearly inspired both by McCarthyism and Cold war satire. It's a biting commentary on political power. It could perhaps also be seen as a criticism of the American people, or the public in general, in terms of just how gullible and easily manipulated they/we can be. I mean it seems ridiculous that such an idiotic, bumbling twit could get anywhere near the presidency, and yet in his speeches does he really come across that much worse than George Bush or Sarah Palin?

The script is terrifically impressive. It's a smart, sharp and witty effort; perfectly creating a mood of tension, suspense and intrigue.There is also some fine direction on show here as well courtesy of John Frankenheimer. He delivers a number of terrifically constructed scenes, perhaps none more so than a press conference that Senator Iselin interrupts. The way that footage playing on TV monitors is mixed in in the foreground while the action happens behind and around it is very impressively done. The film also possesses a powerful, superlative ending, with Shaw finally earning his medal. Although I was initially disappointed that we were not able to hear this great speech that we were promised, a speech that was going to be the greatest of all time and had been worked on for 8 years.

Conclusion – There is no doubt that this is an excellent film, one of the 'best' of the 70s thrillers season. However there are a number of films; films that are in a number of ways inferior, that for whatever reason I just preferred. Despite very much liking it, it's a film where my level of admiration and appreciation was more than my personal enjoyment; at least on first viewing

While I obviously didn't feel that way I can understand why you did. Always a chance of that when you have a small, personal story with a character who doesn't really learn anything or change anything about themselves. The fact it has the ambiguous ending which leaves his predicament unresolved somewhat also adds to that I suppose.

Just out of interest does anyone know what was going on with Janet Leigh's character in Manchurian Candidate? Or have a theory at least?