Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in
Tools    





The movie is not cinematic perfect. The child actor has little screen presences and the scenes with him don't always work well. So what? This is a film about ideas and in that this film succeeds brilliantly. Brian Keith and Kim Hunter turn in fine performances as does Bette Davis.

This is a movie on Davis' resume that I always just unintentionally skipped over in my head for some reason, but your review has piqued my curiosity.



I won't say that Storm Center is had A+ production value, because there are some problems with the production look of the film and with some scenes that don't quite work...BUT the films value is in it's gutsy subject matter, which it tackles with gusto. It's certainly worth the short time it takes to watch it.

Have you A Farewell to Arms? I never hear anyone talk of that movie.



It's certainly worth the short time it takes to watch it.

Have you A Farewell to Arms? I never hear anyone talk of that movie.
I promise to watch both films before the week is out.




Creed ( Ryan Coogler, 2015)
Director: Ryan Coogler
Writers: Ryan Coogler, Aaron Covington
Cast: Michael B. Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, Tessa Thompson
Genre: Drama Sports

What's about: A young troubled man (Michael B. Jordan) with a passion for boxing discovers he's the son of boxing great, Apollo Creed. Dispute his step mother wishes (Phylicia Rashad) he leaves for the city to seek out the former Heavyweight World Champion Boxer, Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). Rocky who's retired from boxing, runs a small restaurant and wants nothing to do with training a young boxer.

Review: I liked this more than I expected to. It has some strong points and some things that I wish were done differently. The main strength is the performance by
Sylvester Stallone. He's so good in this that he was nominated for an Oscar. He should have won too. He's really quite likable as a much older Rocky. I enjoyed seeing him re-portray the great boxer. The film is respectful to the earlier Rocky films and that's a big plus. It's a good straight forward story and one that is very watchable.



What could have been better:
All films have things about them that could be done better, so this is not a knock, as much as it's a wish list of what I would have liked seen done. I'll do this bullet style.
  • The movie was underexpose and it was to dark. Sure subdued lighting can add realism and I bet that's why the director did it, but this needed the exposure set up by 1/2 a stop, as it was hard to see what was going on at times. More light please.
  • Give the actors some head room. The framing was so tight that we hardly got a wide or mid angle view. Often the actors heads were partly cut off. Doesn't anyone remember Max Headroom?...I suppose the director choose that style of close framing to match the letter boxing format...closer up equals being able to see the actors better, but it was too claustrophobic.
  • Shaky cam, or in other words the handheld camera that moves during a still shot. I'm OK with the shaky cam but not when your backdrop has horizontal lines such as brickwork...as it makes the weaving of the handheld camera very apparent. A couple of shots made me feel woozy. A tripod would have worked better.
  • The use of on screen computer style graphics. When the boxers first appear in the movie we get their boxing stats superimposed over the shot. Tarantino does that and it's silly and looks gimmicky. It's even more silly for other directors to copy him.
Final Thoughts: I didn't sense much chemistry between the young boxer Adonis and Rocky. And I blame that on the actor Michael B. Jordan he didn't have much screen presences, he was OK and he was muscular enough to look like a boxer, but he wasn't a stand out actor.

Still, overall this movie is worth watching for it's respectful treatment of the original Rocky movies and for
Sylvester Stallone's fine performance.





haha funnily enough ive been having a case of "insomnia" lately so thats exactly what ive been doing

ive seen so few older movies,which you seem very fond of,basically only monroe movies and Gilda.
so im using your reviews as a guideline as to what to watch



I like old movies because there like a time machine if you thing about it. When I watch an old movie I'm actually looking back to a real moment in time forever captured on film. I think that's really cool to see the way people use to dress and act. I think the oldest film I've seen was from the 1890s just a short home movie of people tobogganing.



I agree with you-even though i havent seen alot of movie,ive seen quite a few interviews from back when and i think its a fascinating watch. just the difference in their mannerisms and the way they word themselfs-and of course the styles.

my only problem with older movies are the kissing scenes,they just seem to rub their faces together insted of a simple kiss



haha,i would have thought that way would smear it all over,i cant imagine the men kissing their wifes like that

anyway,i thought i would start by looking up the Rock Hudson movies-im 99% sure im going to fangirl over him.




Storm Over the Nile (1955)
Directors: Zoltan Korda, Terence Young
Writers: A.E.W. Mason(novel), R.C.Sherriff(screenplay)
Stars: Anthony Steel, Laurence Harvey, James Robertson Justice
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Romance

Plot
: In the1890's a young boy grows up in a wealthy British family and is expected to follow in the family tradition of joining the British Royal Army. Concerned that he will not be able to fight when the time for battle comes...The boy, who's now an adult, resigns his officer's commission on the very eve that his military unit is to be deployed to Egypt on a dangerous mission.

In keeping with tradition, three of his former military friends send him white feathers, the mark of a coward. To redeem his lost honor that, he decides to pose as an Arab and travel to Egypt to assistant his friends.


Background: Based on the 1902 novel The Four Feathers which was the basis for seven movies. This movie, Storm Over The Nile is a remake of the 1939 film The Four Feathers. Remade with the same directors, by the same studio and using the same script! Both movies are literally word for word...scene for scene the same film! Even the original 1939 on-location action scenes in North Africa are reused! The only difference between the two films, are the cast.

This gives us a unique chance to see what a film looks like when only the actors have been changed. And the actors in this movie are movie stars, they look the part of glamour. With a handsome leading man and a beautiful leading lady....And compared to the 1939 actors they're boring, ill suited for their characters.


Thoughts: I recommend watching the original 1939 version as the actors are more compelling and fit their roles to a tee.





Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	STORMOVERTHENILELC3.jpg
Views:	674
Size:	85.2 KB
ID:	25890  



my only problem with older movies are the kissing scenes,they just seem to rub their faces together insted of a simple kiss
I think this is because of the code. They couldn't show passionate kissing, so it's implied without actually really being kissing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...roduction_Code
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



After Topsy mentioned kissing in old films, I looked up how long they were allowed to kiss under the Hays Production Code. I knew it was a short time and thought it was 5 seconds. I read it was only 3 seconds aloud for a kiss. A guess a good 3 second kiss can seem like an eternity

Anyway, I think the kissing scenes in old movies, 30-50s, were more romantic than a lot of the face chewing kisses we see today.