JayDee's Movie Musings

Romans fed people to the lions all the time. It still works historically.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Yes, it was tigers that were shown in the arena in the movie. However they actually filmed a scene of Christians being fed to lions but couldn't seem to make the scene look real (the lions were attacking dummies) so it got cut.

And watch Quills. After I finally got him to watch the whole thing (by watching with him) Sexy Celebrity only gave it a . He's still alive. For now.

__________________

I watched Lars and the Real Girl. You're not going to like what I had to say about it, but I watched it.

http://www.movieforums.com/community...d.php?p=971213

Plot - A jewel robbery escalates into a hostage situation at the home of the store's wealthy owner. Taking charge at the scene is FBI agent Warren Stantin (Poitier) who attempts to negotiate with the hostage taker. Things take a brutal turn however when the man kills both the maid and the store owner's wife, whilst also making off with the diamonds. Feeling responsible for what happened, Stantin becomes obsessed with catching the culprit, following him to the rugged wilderness of Washington state. In an attempt to escape, the killer joins a hiking group lead by Sarah Renell (Alley) and disappears off into the forest and moutains. To follow him, Stantin must team up with Sarah's boyfriend and fellow wilderness guide, Jonathan Knox (Berenger). Knox is convinced that Stantin will be unable to keep up, and their relationship just gets more contentious from there on out. If however they are to catch up with the group, save Sarah and apprehend the killer the two men will have to put aside their differences and work together.

Deadly Pursuit is a pretty standard entry into the genre of the action/thriller/chase film, but it does feature a few components which lift it above a number of its contemporaries; namely its acting, its score and its photography. Once the action moves out into the wilds we find ourselves surrounded by some gorgeous scenery. And whether it be the dense forests or the snow-covered mountains, the landscapes are captured by some sharp and crisp cinematography courtesy of Michael Chapman, highlighting both the beauty of the terrain but also its harshness, and just how dangerous it can be, particularly for a novice such as Poitier's FBI agent. Another extremely impressive facet to the film's repertoire is John Scott's score. Through a mixture of the saxophone, the piano and a full orchestra he creates a robust and thrilling score which pulses along, creating great suspense and a grand, sweeping nature that aptly reflects the grand outdoor adventure. Its relentless style matches that of the characters on their quest, while the moody opening tunes capture the mystery.

There are two very strong performances to be found amongst the film's main stars. Sidney Poitier takes on the role of FBI agent Warren Stantin and is a tower of strength. Deadly Pursuit actually marked his return to movies after an 11 year absence, and he didn't really seem to have missed a step. Initially I felt that on occasion his performance seemed to be a little bit stiff and tight, but before long I found that he was succeeding in creating a sense of respectability and authority for the character, and I was able to totally buy the idea that he could have been in the employ of the FBI for many years. He just has a real star presence to him, even when he's saying very little. He also endows Stantin with a self-deprecating and dry sense of humour. And Poitier deserves a whole lot of credit and respect for seeming so comfortable with the physical aspects of the film despite his age. He was 60 years old at the time of making the film but displays great gusto in skipping over the mountains and climbing up rock faces. Opposite him Tom Berenger also proves to be an admirable addition to the feature, making his rough-edged Knox suitably gruff and macho, while at the same time purveying a more thoughtful and benevolent side to the character. And despite being saddled with some severe limitations in the role, Kirstie Alley does a very nice job at creating a strong and feisty heroine, completely convincing us that she is capable of being an experienced mountain guide despite not exactly having the stereotypical look of a wilderness lass.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film's title was changed to Deadly Pursuit here in the UK. The reason was that it was due to be released shortly after the Hungerford Massacre in which 16 people were killed. It was felt that it would be insensitive to release a film with “shoot” in the title. /// The film was originally titled 'Mountain Kings.' /// During a fight scene with Tom Berenger's character, Poitier says he has gone up against the Mafia, the Ku Klux Klan and the KGB. And he actually has! Well at least on the screen in Let's Do it Again, In the Heat of the Night and Little Nikita.

The film opens with a tense stand-off between the FBI and a brutal criminal who is holding a woman hostage. It then transfers the action into the wilds. It's not like many other action thrillers in that the protagonists rarely come together until the conclusion. For much of the film they are keep apart. The Poitier/Berenger thread consists of two aspects. It's a rugged adventure film of gruelling proportion as the characters climb mountains, attempt to survive a snowstorm and in one scene attempt to cross over a massive gorge on an extremely precarious cable car. Both the taut opening, and the thrilling scenes in the wilderness are handled impeccably by Roger Spottiswoode, really grinding out every ounce of tension that there is to be found. And the other side of the partnership is made up of classic buddy movie staples as two complete opposites, a modern city slicker and a rustic woodsman, clash over their contrasting outlook on life. A lot of humour is mined out of this clash of personalities and in the end they come to respect and admire each other. I also appreciated the fact however that given so many of Poitier's films dealt with the colour of his skin as a relevant factor, the issue of race never arises as part of this clash. It's a relationship arc we've seen countless times before but Poitier and Berenger make it fun all the same. While the film also has the requisite fish-out-of-water comedy elements we'd expect from such a set-up, with Poitier having problems with his horse and a harrowing, amusing encounter with a grizzly bear.

The film pulls a nice trick by keeping the identity of the killer secret not only from the characters, but from the audience. So when we find ourselves up in the mountains we know that he's part of the 5-man hiking group led by Kirstie Alley, but we don't exactly know who it is. It drops hints about a number of the characters as it keeps us on our toes and keeps us guessing. The film also utilised a smart little move by casting actors who were associated with villainous roles in their careers. I personally don't recognise a couple of them but I did recognise Andrew Robinson who was the Scorpio Killer in Dirty Harry and Clancy Brown who portrayed Kurgan in Highlander, and would go on to become the sadistic prison guard in The Shawshank Redemption. The other individuals are well cast just on their appearance alone, each convincing that they could be playing a killer. The film finally reveals the killer's true identity around about the half way stage but if anything I think they could have played it out a little bit longer as it was a fun little game.

After the thrilling exploits in the mountains however the film's pace and interest takes a hit when we moves into more urban settings. After so much time spent there it feels like the movie should reach its conclusion up in the mountains, even if its eventual closing sequences are handled fairly well. It crams in a pretty standard, by-the-numbers car chase but I suppose that it at least provides a brief opportunity for the characters to reverse their roles. This time it's Poitier's Stantin that is in his element and takes the lead. If you do take the time to stop and think about it you will come up with a whole host of questions and plot holes; why did the FBI only send one man in pursuit? Why are there no helicopters giving aerial assistance? Why do they not have men set-up at the other end to intercept them? Ignore those glaring questions however and just enjoy the film for what it is; a really quite rollicking adventure.

Conclusion - The film may not break any new ground in the genre but it's got a lot of talented people all performing admirably. It's well acted and strongly directed, features a driving score and is frequently beautiful to look at. Just a very fun film, and I'd perhaps say one of the more underrated action thrillers of the 80s.

__________________

Plot - Spider-Man is back baby! Picking up from where the first film left off we find Peter's friendship with Harry strained to breaking point, and his relationship with MJ floudering as she has a new romance in her life, J. Jonah Jameson's astronaut son. As if his personal problems where not enough for him to deal with, Peter finds himself with a new nemesis to battle - Doctor Otto Ocatvius (Molina); aka Doc Ock. Created after a experiment gone horribly wrong (that sounds familiar) his ambitious plans for the world may in fact bring it crashing down if Peter can't stop him.

The majority of people (not honeykid! ) would rate this sequel as a vast improvement over 2002's original Spider-Man; and I'm certainly one of them. While that remains a fun film in its own right this is just on a completely different level. The film succeeds in finding a nice middle ground between the tone of the first film and not going too dark. It's nowhere near as daft or camp as the first film but is still able to maintain the same amount of fun. Raimi reigns himself in and cuts way down on the amount of cheese and hokeyness from his first outing with the webslinger. For the most part the only guilty examples are to be found in the relationship between Peter and MJ, particularly at its conclusion with corny lines such as “I've always been standing in your doorway.”

I think the film is better in just about every way. And one of the most obvious aspects where this sequel triumphs over its predecessor is certainly in its villain. As the tentacled Doc Ock, Alfred Molina gives an extremely strong showing. Unlike Willem Dafoe he plays it in a very straight, restrained manner. Initially he conveys Otto Octavius as a good-natured and well intentioned scientist who is a hero to Peter, and had things worked out differently you could easily imagine he could have gone on to become a father figure of sorts to Peter, just as with Norman Osborn in the first film. Things did not work out that way however and instead Molina delivers quite a deal of menace as Doctor Octopus, while at the same time keeping him as quite a sympathetic villain. Although we certainly fear him as a result of the operation scene. With Raimi really tapping into his horror roots it's a terrifically vivid and nightmarish scene as Doc Ock's arms take on a mind of their own and begin to dispatch the numerous doctors and nurses that surround him. From that moment on we know this is a villain to take very seriously.

And with those mechanical arms of his, the character of Doc Ock himself has got to be one of the most visually interesting comic book villains so far brought to life on the screen. And those arms gift the film with quite a bit of scope in terms of creative use during the fight scenes between Ock and Spidey. I also love the fact that the arms actually have a personality of their own, brought about by their movements which can generate expressions including quizzical and anger. Through their shape and vicious nature they always reminded me a touch of the velociraptors from Jurassic Park. And during the fight sequences between Ock and Spider-Man it's nice for a change in modern films to actually be able to see the fights. So often these days the action gets lost amongst rapid editing and the use of a shaky camera.

As our Friendly Neighbour Spider-Man, Maguire remains a fairly endearing Parker but again I feel he is just slightly lacking on occasion when it comes to providing a necessary spark and energy, while some of his line delivery has a tendency to sound rather monotonous. Kirsten Dunst is given a bit of a tough time by the script which basically relegates her to merely looking glum and pining for Peter throughout the film but she is able to get more out of it than she should really be able to. And I love the scene where she recreates the upside-down kiss from the first film with the new man in her life who is completely oblivious to its meaning. After finding him to be a bit of weak link in the first film, this time out I was a lot more impressed with James Franco. The additions to his character; anger from what happened to his father and an arrogant swagger from assuming control of the company, give Franco a lot more extent to add a spark and a degree of interest to Harry that were missing first time out. Rosemary Harris continues to be a lovely, kind and altruistic presence as Aunt May, while there is also a welcome return for Cliff Robertson in the form of a brief cameo. And J.K. Simmons continues to be an absolute hoot as Jameson. He was absolutely brilliant in the role, really delivering one of the best and closest interpretations of a comic book character yet seen. Throughout the trilogy anytime he appeared the screen just lit up. And while they may not have generated much recognition at the time, returning to the film nearly 10 years later you find that there a lot of future TV stars to be found which was a fun treat. Emily Deschanel (Bones), Daniel Dae Kim (Lost and Hawaii Five-O) and Joel McHale (Community) all appear in very minor roles.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before Alfred Molina was hired for the role of Otto Octavius a number of other actors were considered. The list included David Duchovny, Liev Schreiber, Robert De Niro, Sam Neill, Ed Harris and Chris Cooper. Cooper has since been cast in the role of Norman Osborn for the upcoming The Amazing Spider-Man 2. /// In the original script for Spider-Man 2, a man named Jack Albright kindaps Otto Octavius in a giant robot, with Spider-Man then coming to Ock's rescue. Albright's reason was that he wanted to learn more about Otto's experiments. Albright later set himself on fire with incendiary cigarettes and fell to his death off a ledge. /// You may not notice them but a massive 100 minor alterations were made to Spider-Man's suit since the first film. And for this sequel a total of 35 suits were made for the movie. /// Tobey Maguire performed another of his own stunts in the film. However any time he did his glasses could not contain any glass. You may assume it was for safety reasons but it was actually to avoid reflections. The glass was then added back in digitally afterwards. /// In an effort to determine what the title of the film should be, testing with focus groups was implemented. Titles which were under consideration were "The Amazing Spider-Man", "Spider-Man: No More", Spider-Man 2 Lives" and "Spider-Man: Unmasked." /// There was actually great doubt surrounding Tobey Maguire's participation in this sequel due to him suffering from severe and chronic back pain. The doubt was so great that a replacement was actually lined up in the form of Jake Gyllenhall. In fact Gyllenhall had already begun preparation for the role when Maguire decided that he would try and go through with it afterall.

The film successfully builds on many of the themes and relationships set out in the first film. Spider-Man 2 continues to show the negative sides of being a hero, and the sacrifices required; this time really introducing the 'Parker luck' which is such a prevalent features in the comics. For a superhero, Peter Parker can rarely ever catch a break. If the term sod's law was ever created for a single individual it was Peter Parker. And absolutely nothing goes right here, no matter how small; at a large society event honouring Jameson's son, John, Peter finds it impossible to get something to eat or even a drink, no matter how many times he tries. It presents his life in such a way that we understand why he would want to give up the commitment of being Spider-Man. He may be blessed with powers that just about everyone would give anything to have but his life is a mess. He can't hold down a job, he's struggling at college despite his inherent genius and is tortured by his inability to have a relationship with Mary Jane. And after he has given up we see how his life has become so much easier and in many ways better without the responsibility of being a hero to the city. But Peter is a good guy at heart and cannot ignore his calling, spurred on both by the words of his Aunt and fulfilling what Otto told him earlier in the film; “Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift, to be used for the good of mankind.” And it's the same with his superpowers. I also admire the fact that the film doesn't just stand still and accept the statue quo. Peter's relationship with all of the characters continues to evolve and progress off into different directions.

As I said at the start the film does still maintain its sense of fun despite aiming for a more serious tone. It still supplies on the laughs front, most notably in the brilliant little elevator scene where Peter rides down in full costume with a slightly befuddled civilian. Surely the greatest example of the film's entertainment however comes in the form of the astonishing train sequence which is a trilling spectacle. Despite the dozens of superhero films that have come since Spider-Man 2's release I still think it's got to rank as one of the best, if not the best, action sequences to feature in any superhero film so far. It's a terrific combination of dynamic direction, supreme special effects and some strong acting from Maguire. It sees Ock set the train on a path to destruction before Spidey saves the day, almost killing himself in the process. And while it may end on what some may see as one of this film's more mawkish moments, unlike with the first film this time the film and the character have earned it. After his incredible effort to stop the train and save the lives of all those onboard, Peter is pulled back into the train and raised up over the people in a very Christ-like fashion. His identity is revealed but his secret is safe with these people. It allows Peter to see just important and valued he is to the residents of New York, and he has most certainly earned this moment of heroism.

It also reminds us how heroic Peter is. When the grateful individuals see his face one of them remarks “He's just a kid!” Given that Maguire is substantially older than the character he's playing it's easier to forget that the character really is just a kid, not that long out of school. Peter is most certainly a hero, but it's not as a result of his powers, it's a result of the man that he is. In fact the only question of doubt I'd have over this amazing sequence is whether it should have somehow been tied into the film's finale, because after this there's no way the film could top it. Though to be fair to the film's ending it does end on a very satisfactory note which ties up both the story and the Peter/MJ romance, and does so in a tight manner which certainly doesn't overstay its welcome unlike so many overlong superhero flicks which stick around too long as they attempt to go bigger and bigger.

And just a couple of final points. In that train sequence and during the film as a whole, it's clear that the CGI has certainly been given an upgrade, and this is most evident when it comes to Spider-Man's movements which are now a lot slicker and more fluid. I also found the score by Danny Elfman to be a good deal stronger this time. Oh but one thing about this film that did annoy me was Raimi's constant close-ups of inconsequential characters and the amount of them who seemed to be auditioning to become the new scream queen of Hollywood. I don't know if it was Raimi again playing into his love of horror but after the first couple of high pitched wails it really begins to irritate.

Conclusion - One of the rare sequels that really does improve on the original film in just about every department. With a stronger villain, more dynamic action and a cap on the sentimentality Spider-Man 2 surpasses its fun predecessor with flying colours and still remains one of the best superhero films to hit the cinema screen. And despite numerous viewings now it still remains in my personal top 5.

Haven't seen Spidey 2 (and hated the first one), but it's an interesting review.
I expect the next double bill to be Quills/Boondock Saints.

Trust me. EVerything in Spider-Man 2 is better than the first one. Anything you didn't like in the first is fixed and done better in this one.

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood

I have never even heard of Deadly Pursuit, since 80's action has not been my jam since...well the 80's, I probably won't catch up on it. This, of course, is not an indictment on your review which was exceptional as always.

I am the rare person that prefers Spiderman to the sequel. I do agree with Dr. Ock being the superior villain though, and yes the use of the arms is fantastic. Possibly nothing amazes me more in CGI then when they can make inanimate objects convey emotion or personality.

Edited because I am an idiot.

__________________
Letterboxd

Miss Vicky hates everything.

I love Spider-Man 2. I just watched it again recently.

He's right except that for fixed and done better, read messed up and bodged. However, as you didn't like the first film, it's possible you'd like Spiderman 2 more.

Of course you do, it's the second film.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

That's not true. It still stars Tobey Maguire.

Get this woman out of here. Boil her in oil. Put her in one of those Michael Caine torture devices from Quills that she loves so much. Drown her in a vat of John Cusack sauce.

I could not agree more with Spider Man 2. A major improvement over the first one in terms of CGI. I actually used to give the first movie's special effects a pass due to the nature of the film. But then that idea was ditched when I saw the sequel and shown how it could be done. And Dr Octopus was a much better villain to the Green Goblin (though there will always be a special place in my heart for DaFoe's over the top acting).

I think Spider-Man 3 is still pretty good. I would rather watch Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 3 before the first Spider-Man. It's definitely not close to being as good as 2, but it's a fun movie with a great ending.

Hmmmm not sure if I can quite agree with you there Sexy.

Just want to let everyone know that just like the US Government JayDee's Movie Musings will be closed for the foreseeable future. My laptop charger conked last night leaving me without access to the laptop and all the reviews that lie within until a new charger arrives in the post, hopefully early next week.

Right, while you're away I'll be hammering out as many reviews as I can to stay ahead.


Tippity tap tippity tap (heh heh heh)

__________________

It is sad when a internet movie reviewer is down for less time then my government. Then again I trust said reviewer more then the goram feds.

sorry to hear about your laptop, jay, good luck and great review on spidey, 2 was very superior and i agree, doc ock and his tentacles was one of the several reasons it carried 1 along to something better.

I haven't seen the third since it came out, but I'm willing to predict that the entire movie is not horrible. I remember thoroughly enjoying the Sandman fights, and the feud between Parker and Osborn (not the memory loss BS). I also like...wait, that's about it. The rest is poop.