Welcome back Arthur Pringle, where the heck have you been? I vaguely remember Vault of Horror; was the Tom Baker segment the one where he puts his painting in a vault and almost suffocates to deatch?
As for me, I saw Avatar 3D yesterday at one of the Imax Experience theaters. I must confess to coming away from it mildly disappointed. The film itself was moderately interesting but predictably derivative. Its story of the evil, resource hungry, eco-insensitive humans attempting to displace and ultimately wipe-out the NaVi, who are at one with their planet, basically playing like Dances With Wolves on a jungle planet. I was more curious to see how the 3D effects would work and even here I came away scratching my head. There were a few scenes that pulled me into the picture (mainly the foliage on Pandora and the military briefings where the theater audience seemed like an extension of the movie set) but usually the 3D effect was so subtle as to often be negligible, and scenes that should have had far more pop and depth to them (such as the NaVi scampering about on the vines or the establishing shots of the spaceship and moons of Pandora) looked as flat as a 2D movie to me. I don't know if the theater was not properly calibrated or what but I get a better effect from my 3D TV at home.
Shutter Island. How so many talented people--Scorsese! DiCaprio! Lehane!--could make such a cheesy mishmash is beyond my comprehension. Dig all the faux Gothic touches, down to cracking lightning and organ music, as well as the surprise revelation you can see from ten miles away. And when it's all over you're left saying, "They went through all the time, trouble, and expense for that?"
Re-reading my last sentence, I meant it to apply to the plot. . .but it can apply just as well to the movie itself!
Shutter Island. How so many talented people--Scorsese! DiCaprio! Lehane!--could make such a cheesy mishmash is beyond my comprehension. Dig all the faux Gothic touches, down to cracking lightning and organ music, as well as the surprise revelation you can see from ten miles away. And when it's all over you're left saying, "They went through all the time, trouble, and expense for that?"
Re-reading my last sentence, I meant it to apply to the plot. . .but it can apply just as well to the movie itself!
Though I have not seen SI I think Scorcsese has been having a dry spell lately. Gangs of New York was his last good film. The Departed was okay and it could have better if it wasn't for all they hilarously bad Boston accents. I also wish Marty would realize that Leo DiCaprio is a lousy character actor.
Welcome back Arthur Pringle, where the heck have you been? I vaguely remember Vault of Horror; was the Tom Baker segment the one where he puts his painting in a vault and almost suffocates to deatch?
{[]
Yes, that's the one Tony. I definitely prefer the old horror films to the modern stuff. I've been busy elsewhere but I finally remembered my password (!) so I thought I'd pop in and make myself a cup of tea. I could have done with your advice on some of the graphic novel purchases I've made in the last few years. I did buy From Hell by Alan Moore though and I think it's probably the greatest comic I've ever read. And now, a review of a sad film featuring Bruce Dern going mad in space. )
Silent Running
A 1972 ecological science fiction film directed by Douglas Trumbull and starring Bruce Dern. The film is set in space in a nightmarish future where all plant life and forests on an overpopulated and ravaged Earth are extinct. Dern plays Freeman Lowell, a botanist aboard the Valley Forge, a huge spaceship which contains the last specimens of Earth's plant life in huge geodesic domes like gigantic greenhouses. When the Valley Forge recieves orders to destroy both the specimens and the domes, Lowell rebels agaisnt the crew and decides he must try and do something to save them...
Silent Running, although not a film with a huge budget, has some excellent model work and effects, especially the majestic shots of the Valley Forge in space with Lowell's precious Garden of Eden visible through the various domes in all its green splendour. It makes for an imaginative setting as Bruce Dern, sometimes dressed more like a monk than an astronaut, feeds rabbits, takes a swim or attends to his plants with the stars high above his head. In this vision of the future technology and mankind has gone horribly wrong and we sympathise with Lowell in his yearning to get back to a simpler way of life that places nature above money and progress.
Lowell's three crewmates (played by John Keenan, Marty Barker, and Andy Wolf) are perhaps a tad one-note in development as they race around in the ship's buggies in cargo areas, impatient to blast the domes to pieces and return to Earth. We are understandably on the side of Lowell in his more ethical attitude to nature and conservation. However, Lowell takes extreme measures in the film to achieve his ends and this gives Silent Running an extra layer of depth as he and the audience think about the moral consequences of his actions and whether or not it was justified. Lowell's feelings of guilt are resolved in a touching way but he's not a straight forward hero. The film questions how far it would be appropriate to go if something this important was at stake.
There is little in the way of action in Silent Running and the effects are sensibly not allowed to dominate the film. The film is quite haunting and deliberately subdued. There are many little moments that stay with you like the shots of Dern jogging in the cargo areas of the Valley Forge. We are taken into Lowell's imagination and brief flashes of forests and sunlight catching gaps in the trees are contrasted with the stark metallic backdrop of Lowell's actual jogging location. Another great section of the film concerns Lowell's efforts to find out why the forests and plants suddenly seem to be dying.
Any review of Silent Running must mention the three droids (Huey, Dewey and Louie) who provide Lowell with his only company for much of the film. These droids are a bit dated and clumsy in conception but they do actually have distinct personalities and it's quite moving when Dern teaches them to play cards or programmes them to perform a medical surgery on him. Dern's interaction with the droids, some of which was presumably improvised, is gently touching.
The centre of the film is Bruce Dern, an eccentric and very watchable actor who gives a sensitive and moving performance, spending much of the film as the only actor onscreen. Silent Running also features a nice soundtrack with several songs performed by Joan Baez. It compliments the images of nature and the Valley Forge domes in space onscreen very pleasantly, especially the version of Rejoice in the Sun. Perhaps the film is a little slow at times but you become enveloped in the deliberate atmosphere. It's certainly worth watching if you've never seen it before.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have seen this a few times already and I think it's nearly a flawless film. Ridley Scott's dreary operatic visuals, the repugnant yet delightful Mason Verger, and Hannibal Lector's poetic murders. The main problem I had with the film that it dosen't get into Hannibal's mind as much as Thomas Harris's brilliant novel. In the novel, we learn that Lector long ago lost his sister named Mischa and he has reoccuring nightmare's of her murder and misses her desperately. His recalls her in his mind referred to as his "Memory Palace" were he could retreat; His only comfort in a world that is after him. In the film, it's not so much about Lector and more like Lector being active. It's a very good film overall though, it just misses the mark to a certain degree. Also one thing I have noticed that I hadn't before and I'll put this in spoiler tags:
Clarice let's Lector escape at the end of the movie.
I think there is much evidence pointing towards my theory. Clarice is really in bad company with the FBI, they have all but rejected her and after the loss of her boyfriend at the beginning of the film, she has no one else to turn to for comfort. The very day she is put on suspension she goes home to listen to Hannibal's conversations with Barney and Starling that were recorded on audio tapes by Dr. Chilton. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
An alleged comedy starring Steve Carrell and Tine Fey as two suburban parents who decide to spend a night in New York city to put some spark back in their life. They go to a trendy restaurant without reservations and to get a table they decide to assume the name of a no-show couple. From there, in a plot you can see coming, the couple's name they assume is mixed up in some blackmail with the mob and their night is turned upside down as they have to dodge bullets, break in to buildings and drive in a high speed chase.
I found the first half of the movie to be completly devoid of laughs (as did my wife). The second half did have some minor laughs, but overall the film simply wasn't funny. If I didn't know better I would say the movie was written by a young high school student who thought human anatomy words were funny. The movie is not intelligent, not funny and some of the supporting performances are not very good. Other than that, it was alright.
I know everyone is currently slobbering over Nolan's films but really, he has nothing on Burton's first take on Batman. Burton's film is far more emotionally mature and theatrical, a far better tribute to Batman's glory years in the 1970's during his definitive run. I think the only genuinely awful part of the film is the finale; Batman and Joker having a rather silly final confrontation exchanging one-liners and Joker pulling out a sight-gag.
Thank you Loeffelholz. And if you do become an incredibly famous and wealthy author, please try and forget all those times I compared Daniel Craig to a window cleaner. )
I saw the first half of Footloose for the first time, it was pretty rubbish even by its own standards.
It's really a 1950s rock n roll movie put into the 1980s smalltown America. It doesn't work because in the Fifties it could be a musical and the kids could dance and do their thing, but in this when they have a dance scene it looks contrived and naff. It really has no directorial flair but in common with some other 1980s flicks, there's the occasional homoerotic moment. I have to say none of the youngsters were exactly goodlooking or charismatic.
The Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) and Col. Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) are a pair of bounty hunters who join forces to take down the marijuana smoking bandit Indio and his band of killers. Along the way we discover that Mortimer and Indio share a common history and there's more to this bounty that the reward being offered. This is the middle chapter of Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy and the one which over the years I have watched the least. The new BluRay release was the perfect opportunity to revisit the film and I had an absolute ball screening it.
Even though Clint Eastwood was the first name on the marquee, it's very much Van Cleef's story and he does a very good job as the tough but good-hearted Mortimer. Watching him play both a sympathetic character here and one of the greatest movie villains ever in The Good The Bad and The Ugly really shows just what an underrated actor he was. Italian actor Gian Maria Volonte is great as the stoned out villain Indio and his posse of bad guys includes a young Klaus Kinski as a hunchbacked killer.
For A Few Dollars More is also notable because we see the beginnings of many Leone hallmarks that he would make use of in future films including the flashbacks and giving each character his own distinctive theme.
I've always been a fan of Leone's westerns and this BluRay presentation really heightened my appreciation for this movie. The cinematography is beautifully framed and the hi-def disc really brings out the colors and details. I also watched the movie using my TV's 2D>3D conversion capability and was pleasantly surprised to discover that Leone's westerns play really well in 3D. His carefully framed shots and slow pans work well and coexist nicely with 3D, allowing the film to be viewed in an entirely new way.
For A Few Dollars More is often overlooked when discussing the films of Eastwood and Leone but it is a highly entertaining entry and solid example of the best of the Spaghetti Western genre. Highly recommended.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
ENTER THE DRAGON
Arguably the most masterful martial arts film ever made. Bruce Lee's intensity and "freak of nature" talent for his craft is well utilized in this 70s gem as he mows down obstacles in his path. It's a film in which inspired me to take martial arts back in the day.
There's also a great cast that helps carry this film along story & action-wise (Jim Kelly & John Saxon) and a more than formidible villian who's quite Bond-worthy in his own right- Han with his interchangable claws of death. For years, I've always thought that the creators at Marvel got their inspiration to create Wolverine from this particular villian's devices.
It also has one of cinema's most remembered lines ever, Jim Kelly: "Man, you come right out of a comic book!" Epic. )
I have yet to find a karate film that rivals this one after almost 40 years. It's just not out there and I hope it never is... B-)
I also watched:
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
Perhaps my favorite Hitchcock film of them all solely on the underrated performance of the late Robert Walker who portrays psycho/stalker Bruno Antony who's fixated with tennis pro Guy Haines played by Farley Granger as he propositions him on the subject of murder in a "scratch my back, I'll scratch your's" manner.
Of course, unlike the Patricia Highsmith novel, alot of the subtext in the film is left ambiguous due to the times (the 50s) but you can read between the lines with Walker's character. )
I heard that Hollywood was remaking this. Bad idea; I don't see how something like this would hold the same impact with today's audiences.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I heard that Hollywood was remaking this. Bad idea; I don't see how something like this would hold the same impact with today's audiences.
Not surprising since Hollywood has been ripping off Hitchcock for decades. Brian De Palma made a career doing it, though sometimes he did it with dignity and at one point even besting the old man. However crap like A Perfect Murder and the remake of Psycho can't be forgiven.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
I heard that Hollywood was remaking this. Bad idea; I don't see how something like this would hold the same impact with today's audiences.
Not surprising since Hollywood has been ripping off Hitchcock for decades. Brian De Palma made a career doing it, though sometimes he did it with dignity and at one point even besting the old man. However crap like A Perfect Murder and the remake of Psycho can't be forgiven.
The restraints on homosexuality work for this film for its time because they "went there" without crossing the line. For the 50s, that's pretty bold because you run the risk of the movie being vilified by the viewing public had Hitchcock followed the novel more accurately but nowadays it's just commonplace and more widely accepted to have a homocidal maniac in a film who happened to be gay. It holds very little weight in a remake.
You can find something like that on Cinemax any night of the week now. )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
You can find something like that on Cinemax any night of the week now. )
Just like how Anatomy of A Murder was so contriversal because of the graphic discription of the rape but Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hasn't gone one episode without the word "semen" being used.
A film that was butchered in it's initialed release and then meticulously restored, A Touch of Evil bears a generic title but this is anything but a generic thriller. Orson Welles (Also directing) stars as a corrupt police captain who goes to highly perverse depths in order to destroy the reputation of a Mexican narc official. What truly sets this apart from other "corrupt cop" thrillers is that this one is far more intimate. You don't see him as "the man" but a pathetic individual who devolves over the course the film, commiting horrible acts but succumbing to drinking as a recovering alcoholic. The major plot is the Welles framing an innocent man who planted a bomb in a car, all having to do with a Mexican drug war hence the narc official played Charlton Heston who does a good job but you can tell he was a white guy spray painted to appear Latino. The direction and the film-noir lighting are excellent. When the bomb is planted in the back of that car, the camera teases the audience slightly moving away from it and then director Orson Welles has you believe at some points the bomb may take even more innocent people as the driver makes his way down the busy Mexican streets. The biggest highlights include the Police Captain's horrific frame up of the narc official's wife being executed. I don't want to give away too much but the build up is terrific, the thugs gathering around the narc official's wife, played by Janet Leigh, who is scared in the shadows and the thugs, also a couple woman, all look at her in bed with hungry eyes.
A shame that a lot of people only remember Welles for Citizen Kane and The Third Man. He such a remarkable director who directed even better films, this was one of them.
Fargo. I know it's fairly old, but I've never seen it before. Very odd in that there is a compelling need for you to see how it ends. To be honest this is largely because with two young kids and two businesses, I end up watching my films in two or three parts. It's a largely character driven film, centred around a comedy of errors. A car salesman, constantly put down by his father-in-law, who also owns the car lot he works in, needs money fast to cover debts and hires two useless cons to kidnap his wife and split the $80k ransom (to be paid by his father-in-law). However, he has told his father-in-law it is $1m. Only trouble is, his father-in-law cuts him out and insists on delivering the ransom himself. And he is helpless, watching a $1m potentially disappear, with no way of getting his wife back. Meanwhile the bungling cons actually kill a state trooper and two witnesses, and leave a trail back to the car salesman - as a part payment/deposit was actually a new car from the lot, still fitted with dealer plates. The case is investigated by a woman police cheif, who is heavliy pregnant, has back ache and can't stop eating. She seems slow witted, but is anything but. The characters make this film and much like films like Pulp Fiction, become so interesting as to drive the film forward in what is a basically simplistic plot, well filmed and excellently written.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
One Million Years BC, which is a whole lot of fun but best viewed on a large set with non cynical mind. There are stop-motion dinos courtesy of Ray Harryhausen for your paleo needs and hot tribal women for your other. Lead by Raquel Welch and Martine Beswick in fur bikinis. Of course the FRWL cat fight is reprised as it's integral to the plot. Now if only Honey Ryder were here there would be complete harmony in the universe.
The R1 is missing ten minutes of footage, including a Martine Beswick "mating" dance. This is completely inexcusable !! The individual who decided this should be carried off by a pterodactyl and dropped in a live volcano.
Robert "M" Brown as one of the judges
Nice scenery, an allosauraus spearing, & great dialogue )
Clint Eastwood stars as a disgraced secret service agent named Frank Horrigan who blames himself for the assissination of John F. Kennedy. Thirty years later he is on the trail of a sociopath named Mitch Leary (John Malkovich) who singled out Horrigan for a game of sorts to see how close he'll get to prevent him from killing the president.
In a way this is a Dirty Harry-esque film with a few of the classic cliches, the partner being murdered and the top brass refusing to cooperate, but most importantly it's not. Frank Horrigan is not like good ole Harry Callahan, Frank is a functioning alcoholic who has nothing going on his life other than his job. Also Clint is not afraid to show his age, he does a lot of heaving breathing when he's running and comes down with a nasty cold standing in the rain during one of the President's addresses. Mitch Leary and Horrigan are both alike in the sense that they are two men who have not much to live for and Mitch knows this of himself and Frank; At one point Mitch asks Frank if he asks anything to live for and all he can muster after a brief pause is "I can play the piano". Also their goals seem equally as futile, Mitch realizes he is doing little more than challenging himself for one last kill; He really isn't going after the men whom he felt responsible for making him a "monster". Frank, despite being one of principle investigators to find Leary, is totally disdant from the president. Not once do you see Frank talking to the president and you actually don't even know his full name, he's only seen making speeches throughout the film. The closest thing Frank gets to actually talking to the President is through the ignorant, blowhard, Chief of Staff Harry Sargent played by Fred Dalton Thompson. So this film has a healthy combo of a summer blockbuster thriller and existentialism. My only complaint is the end. I think Frank should have been killed, not by Leary but by the sharp shooters who attempt to take Leary out at the end of the film. Overall, a great film.
Clint Eastwood stars as a disgraced secret service agent named Frank Horrigan who blames himself for the assissination of John F. Kennedy. Thirty years later he is on the trail of a sociopath named Mitch Leary (John Malkovich) who singled out Horrigan for a game of sorts to see how close he'll get to prevent him from killing the president.
In a way this is a Dirty Harry-esque film with a few of the classic cliches, the partner being murdered and the top brass refusing to cooperate, but most importantly it's not. Frank Horrigan is not like good ole Harry Callahan, Frank is a functioning alcoholic who has nothing going on his life other than his job. Also Clint is not afraid to show his age, he does a lot of heaving breathing when he's running and comes down with a nasty cold standing in the rain during one of the President's addresses. Mitch Leary and Horrigan are both alike in the sense that they are two men who have not much to live for and Mitch knows this of himself and Frank; At one point Mitch asks Frank if he asks anything to live for and all he can muster after a brief pause is "I can play the piano". Also their goals seem equally as futile, Mitch realizes he is doing little more than challenging himself for one last kill; He really isn't going after the men whom he felt responsible for making him a "monster". Frank, despite being one of principle investigators to find Leary, is totally disdant from the president. Not once do you see Frank talking to the president and you actually don't even know his full name, he's only seen making speeches throughout the film. The closest thing Frank gets to actually talking to the President is through the ignorant, blowhard, Chief of Staff Harry Sargent played by Fred Dalton Thompson. So this film has a healthy combo of a summer blockbuster thriller and existentialism. My only complaint is the end. I think Frank should have been killed, not by Leary but by the sharp shooters who attempt to take Leary out at the end of the film. Overall, a great film.
That would have been a better ending. Either that or killing each other. Either way Frank should have died - sort of mission completed after all these years sort of thing.
As an ex-bodyguard/close-protection officer it's also one of the few films where the fieldcraft is excellent. Not like Costner's crapin The Bodyguard - which got me into it, but I realsied was rubbish later on.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Clint Eastwood stars as a disgraced secret service agent named Frank Horrigan who blames himself for the assissination of John F. Kennedy. Thirty years later he is on the trail of a sociopath named Mitch Leary (John Malkovich) who singled out Horrigan for a game of sorts to see how close he'll get to prevent him from killing the president.
In a way this is a Dirty Harry-esque film with a few of the classic cliches, the partner being murdered and the top brass refusing to cooperate, but most importantly it's not. Frank Horrigan is not like good ole Harry Callahan, Frank is a functioning alcoholic who has nothing going on his life other than his job. Also Clint is not afraid to show his age, he does a lot of heaving breathing when he's running and comes down with a nasty cold standing in the rain during one of the President's addresses. Mitch Leary and Horrigan are both alike in the sense that they are two men who have not much to live for and Mitch knows this of himself and Frank; At one point Mitch asks Frank if he asks anything to live for and all he can muster after a brief pause is "I can play the piano". Also their goals seem equally as futile, Mitch realizes he is doing little more than challenging himself for one last kill; He really isn't going after the men whom he felt responsible for making him a "monster". Frank, despite being one of principle investigators to find Leary, is totally disdant from the president. Not once do you see Frank talking to the president and you actually don't even know his full name, he's only seen making speeches throughout the film. The closest thing Frank gets to actually talking to the President is through the ignorant, blowhard, Chief of Staff Harry Sargent played by Fred Dalton Thompson. So this film has a healthy combo of a summer blockbuster thriller and existentialism. My only complaint is the end. I think Frank should have been killed, not by Leary but by the sharp shooters who attempt to take Leary out at the end of the film. Overall, a great film.
That would have been a better ending. Either that or killing each other. Either way Frank should have died - sort of mission completed after all these years sort of thing.
As an ex-bodyguard/close-protection officer it's also one of the few films where the fieldcraft is excellent. Not like Costner's crapin The Bodyguard - which got me into it, but I realsied was rubbish later on.
I think ITLOF also makes a bit of a political statement that the presidency itself is nothing but a show for example Horrigan's comment about window dressing.
French film about two homeless people who live on the Pont Neuf, Paris. This is in the 1990s when the oldest bridge in Paris is boarded up for rennovation work (oddly, we never actually see any of this take place during the film, which covers a good few months.) It's a visionary piece by the director who spent a fortune recreating the bridge as a set, unfortunately it became a bit of a Heaven's Gate-style fiasco and shooting took a long time, and it didn't go down well with critics or the public. The two hobos, who put one in mind of the absinthe drinkers in the classic French painting, are not very charismatic. One is Juliette Binoche, who always seems a bit guarded, and the other loses sympathy during the film because of the ignoble way he tries to hold on to her. Still, there are some stunning visuals such as the prancing around on the bridge at night to a backdrop of fireworks, followed by a possibly imagined waterski along the Seine (there's a lot of magic realism in the film, so you can't always tell what is or isn't real.) You won't think of Pont Neuf again in the same way if you're a Paris fan.
There are a lot of major drawbacks to living in a city like Los Angeles....too numerous to mention really. But, every once in a while there is a huge perk..... A very rare cinematic experience presents itself.... B-)
Fear and Desire (1953) 72 min.
Stanley Kubrick's first feature film.
The screening I attended was a presentation of the American Cinematheque in association with the George Eastman House Collection shown at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. The print of the film itself comes from the George Eastman House and is the only existing 35 mm. print of Mr. Kubrick's not-so-master early work.
The plot of the film centers around four soldiers in a fictional war who are stranded behind enemy lines and have to find a way to cross back over the front and into friendly territory. Along the way they are confronted with a whole laundry list of what would later become themes in Kubrick's future masterpieces. It's all there - "Good" vs. "Evil", the inherent flaw in man and his inhumanity to man, his isolation and inability to communicate, political and sexual violence, anti-war explorations etc.
This much written about but little seen film is widely considered to be essentially a student film of Kubrick. There were no real film schools at that time and Kubrick was teaching himself and learning on the job. Indeed the director himself later disowned the piece calling it "clumsy" "inept" and "embarrassing". Rumors abound about his going to great lengths to keep the film from ever being seen. Some tales even involve his travelling around burning copies of it. The currators of the Eastman House tend to laugh those rumors off. In truth it seemed he and others treated it's release and preservation with a kind of benevolent neglect. It seems he just really preferred no one ever noticed it. In fact, upon Eastman House's acquisition of the print, Kubrick, in a strongly worded letter, pleaded with them to never show it. They replied that it now belongs to the public and is a piece of history so it would be difficult to honor that request. Kubrick then apparently contacted his friend Martin Scorsese whom he knew carried great weight and power with Eastman House and told him to make sure they never showed it. What seems to have then occured was that there was a kind of gentleman's agreement that the film would not be screened by the Eastman House while Mr. Kubrick was alive. Now, since his passing, the sole film print is indeed a piece of history and is, though very rarely, screened. Bootlegs of it do exist out there. And if you come across one, I highly recommend it as being worth your time.
The screening I attended also included a Q&A with one of the stars of the film Paul Mazursky the actor who went onto direct such films as Bob & Carrol & Ted & Alice, Moscow On The Hudson etc. He told some great stories about Kubrick and shared his own opinions on the film. He basically concurred with Stanley's opinion, but did believe there is more there than is immediately noticable.
In my opinion, people are really hard on this film. Stanley Kubrick himself being the films harshest critic. Yes, the script is a bit of a trainwreck. Yes, it is pretentious and is quite ham-fisted in it's on the nose rambling dialogue and narration. And yeah, there is also some problematic editing and less than perfect clarity of intention. But seen for what it is - a young photogragher from Look Magazine who would later become one of the greatest directors to ever live, feeling his way through all the different aspects of filmmaking and exploring the many themes that interest him for the first time- it is absolutely priceless. Needless to say, it was beautifully lit and that famous eye for composition is quite present. Nobody could shoot a movie like Stanley Kubrick, and Fear and Desire presents a fascinating glimpse into the genius that was to come.
I would have to give this one a solid 4 out of 5. If not because of content, then for no other reason than it's historic value for the Kubrick fan. -{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Great review, Mo! {[] I'm intrigued...every time we get together, we need to do a mini-Kubrick film festival -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I always find it fansicating when director's opinions differ from the audience's view of what is their best, worst, etc. films. Kubrick felt that his best film was Eyes Wide Shut and the popularity of that film has increased over the years. I wonder how people will rank it in a couple of decades. Another example would be Alfred Hitchcock saying his best film was Shadow of a Doubt which was a good film but IMO I think it is Vertigo.
errol flynn, basil rathbone, olivia de havilland, claude rains
one of my FAVORITE MOVIES of all time.
(summery borrowed from IMDB)
When Prince John and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard's absence, a Saxon lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.
claude rains is deliciously evil, basil rathbone is well...basil rathbone, errol flynn is brilliant as always, and the best Little John of every version out there (IMHO of course)
this is the most faithful to the legend of Robin Hood as I've found, and I've watched every single offering there is to be had (besides Bond, Robin Hood is something of an obsession). Plus, it's Rathbone vs. Flynn at one point in a sword duel. not much is more epic than that.
One of my all time favorite spy thrillers. Michael Caine stars as Harry Palmer, a theif who now works for MI5 and the very unpleasant Colonel Ross played by Guy "Count Lippe" Doleman. If your looking for the anti-Bond that dosen't have the world weariness and brooding, then you found your man.
The world of Palmer is down to earth; Spying is not depicted as fanastic as being a Double-O, most of your time is consumed by having to do mundane duties like filing out field reports. However nothing about this film is boring, it's colourful in the sense that you know danger and surprises every moment when Palmer is out the field and mistakes can be made like accidentally killing an American agent. The plot also has that down to earth atmosphere but still keeps one's interest, scientists have been kidnapped and returned but they seem not to function in their occupation because of brain washing. When Palmer is captured and attempted to be brain washed it's one of the films' great highlights, truly breaking down the hero always a good move because it means his vitcory would be all the greater.
Ironcially most of the Bond people are behind this film but not in the usual sense; Ken Adam's sets are in no way sci-fi or remotely fantastic in any sense, it's all very much contemporary 1960's. John Barry's score is still quite jazzy but it's a little more subtle, I can't articulate it but you know this is a Barry score for something in the vein of James Bond but not really Bond.
Micheal Caine has Harry Palmer is such a great anti-hero who has a light side to him. As I said before this isn't James Bond who dedicates himself to the secret service, he's only doing intelligence work because the alternative is two years behind bars in a military prison. He knows how to sweet talk the women and he's a bit of a dork, laughing at his own jokes for example. Also he's a great cook and I do believe that is a turn on for most females.
I haven't watched those two Palmer television films from the 90's but I think it's safe to say this is the best film out of the series. Anyone who loves James Bond and is looking for something fun and different should check this film out.
Comments
As for me, I saw Avatar 3D yesterday at one of the Imax Experience theaters. I must confess to coming away from it mildly disappointed. The film itself was moderately interesting but predictably derivative. Its story of the evil, resource hungry, eco-insensitive humans attempting to displace and ultimately wipe-out the NaVi, who are at one with their planet, basically playing like Dances With Wolves on a jungle planet. I was more curious to see how the 3D effects would work and even here I came away scratching my head. There were a few scenes that pulled me into the picture (mainly the foliage on Pandora and the military briefings where the theater audience seemed like an extension of the movie set) but usually the 3D effect was so subtle as to often be negligible, and scenes that should have had far more pop and depth to them (such as the NaVi scampering about on the vines or the establishing shots of the spaceship and moons of Pandora) looked as flat as a 2D movie to me. I don't know if the theater was not properly calibrated or what but I get a better effect from my 3D TV at home.
Re-reading my last sentence, I meant it to apply to the plot. . .but it can apply just as well to the movie itself!
Though I have not seen SI I think Scorcsese has been having a dry spell lately. Gangs of New York was his last good film. The Departed was okay and it could have better if it wasn't for all they hilarously bad Boston accents. I also wish Marty would realize that Leo DiCaprio is a lousy character actor.
{[]
Yes, that's the one Tony. I definitely prefer the old horror films to the modern stuff. I've been busy elsewhere but I finally remembered my password (!) so I thought I'd pop in and make myself a cup of tea. I could have done with your advice on some of the graphic novel purchases I've made in the last few years.
Silent Running
A 1972 ecological science fiction film directed by Douglas Trumbull and starring Bruce Dern. The film is set in space in a nightmarish future where all plant life and forests on an overpopulated and ravaged Earth are extinct. Dern plays Freeman Lowell, a botanist aboard the Valley Forge, a huge spaceship which contains the last specimens of Earth's plant life in huge geodesic domes like gigantic greenhouses. When the Valley Forge recieves orders to destroy both the specimens and the domes, Lowell rebels agaisnt the crew and decides he must try and do something to save them...
Silent Running, although not a film with a huge budget, has some excellent model work and effects, especially the majestic shots of the Valley Forge in space with Lowell's precious Garden of Eden visible through the various domes in all its green splendour. It makes for an imaginative setting as Bruce Dern, sometimes dressed more like a monk than an astronaut, feeds rabbits, takes a swim or attends to his plants with the stars high above his head. In this vision of the future technology and mankind has gone horribly wrong and we sympathise with Lowell in his yearning to get back to a simpler way of life that places nature above money and progress.
Lowell's three crewmates (played by John Keenan, Marty Barker, and Andy Wolf) are perhaps a tad one-note in development as they race around in the ship's buggies in cargo areas, impatient to blast the domes to pieces and return to Earth. We are understandably on the side of Lowell in his more ethical attitude to nature and conservation. However, Lowell takes extreme measures in the film to achieve his ends and this gives Silent Running an extra layer of depth as he and the audience think about the moral consequences of his actions and whether or not it was justified. Lowell's feelings of guilt are resolved in a touching way but he's not a straight forward hero. The film questions how far it would be appropriate to go if something this important was at stake.
There is little in the way of action in Silent Running and the effects are sensibly not allowed to dominate the film. The film is quite haunting and deliberately subdued. There are many little moments that stay with you like the shots of Dern jogging in the cargo areas of the Valley Forge. We are taken into Lowell's imagination and brief flashes of forests and sunlight catching gaps in the trees are contrasted with the stark metallic backdrop of Lowell's actual jogging location. Another great section of the film concerns Lowell's efforts to find out why the forests and plants suddenly seem to be dying.
Any review of Silent Running must mention the three droids (Huey, Dewey and Louie) who provide Lowell with his only company for much of the film. These droids are a bit dated and clumsy in conception but they do actually have distinct personalities and it's quite moving when Dern teaches them to play cards or programmes them to perform a medical surgery on him. Dern's interaction with the droids, some of which was presumably improvised, is gently touching.
The centre of the film is Bruce Dern, an eccentric and very watchable actor who gives a sensitive and moving performance, spending much of the film as the only actor onscreen. Silent Running also features a nice soundtrack with several songs performed by Joan Baez. It compliments the images of nature and the Valley Forge domes in space onscreen very pleasantly, especially the version of Rejoice in the Sun. Perhaps the film is a little slow at times but you become enveloped in the deliberate atmosphere. It's certainly worth watching if you've never seen it before.
A forgotten gem. Nice review, Mr. pringle {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have seen this a few times already and I think it's nearly a flawless film. Ridley Scott's dreary operatic visuals, the repugnant yet delightful Mason Verger, and Hannibal Lector's poetic murders. The main problem I had with the film that it dosen't get into Hannibal's mind as much as Thomas Harris's brilliant novel. In the novel, we learn that Lector long ago lost his sister named Mischa and he has reoccuring nightmare's of her murder and misses her desperately. His recalls her in his mind referred to as his "Memory Palace" were he could retreat; His only comfort in a world that is after him. In the film, it's not so much about Lector and more like Lector being active. It's a very good film overall though, it just misses the mark to a certain degree. Also one thing I have noticed that I hadn't before and I'll put this in spoiler tags:
I think there is much evidence pointing towards my theory. Clarice is really in bad company with the FBI, they have all but rejected her and after the loss of her boyfriend at the beginning of the film, she has no one else to turn to for comfort. The very day she is put on suspension she goes home to listen to Hannibal's conversations with Barney and Starling that were recorded on audio tapes by Dr. Chilton. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
the roomie and I needed something stupid to watch, and this was on top of the movie crate.
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
An alleged comedy starring Steve Carrell and Tine Fey as two suburban parents who decide to spend a night in New York city to put some spark back in their life. They go to a trendy restaurant without reservations and to get a table they decide to assume the name of a no-show couple. From there, in a plot you can see coming, the couple's name they assume is mixed up in some blackmail with the mob and their night is turned upside down as they have to dodge bullets, break in to buildings and drive in a high speed chase.
I found the first half of the movie to be completly devoid of laughs (as did my wife). The second half did have some minor laughs, but overall the film simply wasn't funny. If I didn't know better I would say the movie was written by a young high school student who thought human anatomy words were funny. The movie is not intelligent, not funny and some of the supporting performances are not very good. Other than that, it was alright.
Not recommended.
I know everyone is currently slobbering over Nolan's films but really, he has nothing on Burton's first take on Batman. Burton's film is far more emotionally mature and theatrical, a far better tribute to Batman's glory years in the 1970's during his definitive run. I think the only genuinely awful part of the film is the finale; Batman and Joker having a rather silly final confrontation exchanging one-liners and Joker pulling out a sight-gag.
I REALLY enjoyed this film. like OH MY GOD. brought my friend's little brother along and gave him a lesson in the history of Bad-Assery...
Who needs a real plot with all those guys on screen at once?
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Thank you Loeffelholz. And if you do become an incredibly famous and wealthy author, please try and forget all those times I compared Daniel Craig to a window cleaner.
It's really a 1950s rock n roll movie put into the 1980s smalltown America. It doesn't work because in the Fifties it could be a musical and the kids could dance and do their thing, but in this when they have a dance scene it looks contrived and naff. It really has no directorial flair but in common with some other 1980s flicks, there's the occasional homoerotic moment. I have to say none of the youngsters were exactly goodlooking or charismatic.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) and Col. Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) are a pair of bounty hunters who join forces to take down the marijuana smoking bandit Indio and his band of killers. Along the way we discover that Mortimer and Indio share a common history and there's more to this bounty that the reward being offered. This is the middle chapter of Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy and the one which over the years I have watched the least. The new BluRay release was the perfect opportunity to revisit the film and I had an absolute ball screening it.
Even though Clint Eastwood was the first name on the marquee, it's very much Van Cleef's story and he does a very good job as the tough but good-hearted Mortimer. Watching him play both a sympathetic character here and one of the greatest movie villains ever in The Good The Bad and The Ugly really shows just what an underrated actor he was. Italian actor Gian Maria Volonte is great as the stoned out villain Indio and his posse of bad guys includes a young Klaus Kinski as a hunchbacked killer.
For A Few Dollars More is also notable because we see the beginnings of many Leone hallmarks that he would make use of in future films including the flashbacks and giving each character his own distinctive theme.
I've always been a fan of Leone's westerns and this BluRay presentation really heightened my appreciation for this movie. The cinematography is beautifully framed and the hi-def disc really brings out the colors and details. I also watched the movie using my TV's 2D>3D conversion capability and was pleasantly surprised to discover that Leone's westerns play really well in 3D. His carefully framed shots and slow pans work well and coexist nicely with 3D, allowing the film to be viewed in an entirely new way.
For A Few Dollars More is often overlooked when discussing the films of Eastwood and Leone but it is a highly entertaining entry and solid example of the best of the Spaghetti Western genre. Highly recommended.
Arguably the most masterful martial arts film ever made. Bruce Lee's intensity and "freak of nature" talent for his craft is well utilized in this 70s gem as he mows down obstacles in his path. It's a film in which inspired me to take martial arts back in the day.
There's also a great cast that helps carry this film along story & action-wise (Jim Kelly & John Saxon) and a more than formidible villian who's quite Bond-worthy in his own right- Han with his interchangable claws of death. For years, I've always thought that the creators at Marvel got their inspiration to create Wolverine from this particular villian's devices.
It also has one of cinema's most remembered lines ever, Jim Kelly: "Man, you come right out of a comic book!" Epic.
I have yet to find a karate film that rivals this one after almost 40 years. It's just not out there and I hope it never is... B-)
I also watched:
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
Perhaps my favorite Hitchcock film of them all solely on the underrated performance of the late Robert Walker who portrays psycho/stalker Bruno Antony who's fixated with tennis pro Guy Haines played by Farley Granger as he propositions him on the subject of murder in a "scratch my back, I'll scratch your's" manner.
Of course, unlike the Patricia Highsmith novel, alot of the subtext in the film is left ambiguous due to the times (the 50s) but you can read between the lines with Walker's character.
I heard that Hollywood was remaking this. Bad idea; I don't see how something like this would hold the same impact with today's audiences.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Not surprising since Hollywood has been ripping off Hitchcock for decades. Brian De Palma made a career doing it, though sometimes he did it with dignity and at one point even besting the old man. However crap like A Perfect Murder and the remake of Psycho can't be forgiven.
The restraints on homosexuality work for this film for its time because they "went there" without crossing the line. For the 50s, that's pretty bold because you run the risk of the movie being vilified by the viewing public had Hitchcock followed the novel more accurately but nowadays it's just commonplace and more widely accepted to have a homocidal maniac in a film who happened to be gay. It holds very little weight in a remake.
You can find something like that on Cinemax any night of the week now.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Just like how Anatomy of A Murder was so contriversal because of the graphic discription of the rape but Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hasn't gone one episode without the word "semen" being used.
A film that was butchered in it's initialed release and then meticulously restored, A Touch of Evil bears a generic title but this is anything but a generic thriller. Orson Welles (Also directing) stars as a corrupt police captain who goes to highly perverse depths in order to destroy the reputation of a Mexican narc official. What truly sets this apart from other "corrupt cop" thrillers is that this one is far more intimate. You don't see him as "the man" but a pathetic individual who devolves over the course the film, commiting horrible acts but succumbing to drinking as a recovering alcoholic. The major plot is the Welles framing an innocent man who planted a bomb in a car, all having to do with a Mexican drug war hence the narc official played Charlton Heston who does a good job but you can tell he was a white guy spray painted to appear Latino. The direction and the film-noir lighting are excellent. When the bomb is planted in the back of that car, the camera teases the audience slightly moving away from it and then director Orson Welles has you believe at some points the bomb may take even more innocent people as the driver makes his way down the busy Mexican streets. The biggest highlights include the Police Captain's horrific frame up of the narc official's wife being executed. I don't want to give away too much but the build up is terrific, the thugs gathering around the narc official's wife, played by Janet Leigh, who is scared in the shadows and the thugs, also a couple woman, all look at her in bed with hungry eyes.
A shame that a lot of people only remember Welles for Citizen Kane and The Third Man. He such a remarkable director who directed even better films, this was one of them.
amazing cast, amazing style of animation, great story...actually watched it a time and a half 'cause the roomie wanted to see the beginning again.
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
http://apbateman.com
The R1 is missing ten minutes of footage, including a Martine Beswick "mating" dance. This is completely inexcusable !! The individual who decided this should be carried off by a pterodactyl and dropped in a live volcano.
Robert "M" Brown as one of the judges
Nice scenery, an allosauraus spearing, & great dialogue
Clint Eastwood stars as a disgraced secret service agent named Frank Horrigan who blames himself for the assissination of John F. Kennedy. Thirty years later he is on the trail of a sociopath named Mitch Leary (John Malkovich) who singled out Horrigan for a game of sorts to see how close he'll get to prevent him from killing the president.
In a way this is a Dirty Harry-esque film with a few of the classic cliches, the partner being murdered and the top brass refusing to cooperate, but most importantly it's not. Frank Horrigan is not like good ole Harry Callahan, Frank is a functioning alcoholic who has nothing going on his life other than his job. Also Clint is not afraid to show his age, he does a lot of heaving breathing when he's running and comes down with a nasty cold standing in the rain during one of the President's addresses. Mitch Leary and Horrigan are both alike in the sense that they are two men who have not much to live for and Mitch knows this of himself and Frank; At one point Mitch asks Frank if he asks anything to live for and all he can muster after a brief pause is "I can play the piano". Also their goals seem equally as futile, Mitch realizes he is doing little more than challenging himself for one last kill; He really isn't going after the men whom he felt responsible for making him a "monster". Frank, despite being one of principle investigators to find Leary, is totally disdant from the president. Not once do you see Frank talking to the president and you actually don't even know his full name, he's only seen making speeches throughout the film. The closest thing Frank gets to actually talking to the President is through the ignorant, blowhard, Chief of Staff Harry Sargent played by Fred Dalton Thompson. So this film has a healthy combo of a summer blockbuster thriller and existentialism. My only complaint is the end. I think Frank should have been killed, not by Leary but by the sharp shooters who attempt to take Leary out at the end of the film. Overall, a great film.
That would have been a better ending. Either that or killing each other. Either way Frank should have died - sort of mission completed after all these years sort of thing.
As an ex-bodyguard/close-protection officer it's also one of the few films where the fieldcraft is excellent. Not like Costner's crapin The Bodyguard - which got me into it, but I realsied was rubbish later on.
http://apbateman.com
I think ITLOF also makes a bit of a political statement that the presidency itself is nothing but a show for example Horrigan's comment about window dressing.
French film about two homeless people who live on the Pont Neuf, Paris. This is in the 1990s when the oldest bridge in Paris is boarded up for rennovation work (oddly, we never actually see any of this take place during the film, which covers a good few months.) It's a visionary piece by the director who spent a fortune recreating the bridge as a set, unfortunately it became a bit of a Heaven's Gate-style fiasco and shooting took a long time, and it didn't go down well with critics or the public. The two hobos, who put one in mind of the absinthe drinkers in the classic French painting, are not very charismatic. One is Juliette Binoche, who always seems a bit guarded, and the other loses sympathy during the film because of the ignoble way he tries to hold on to her. Still, there are some stunning visuals such as the prancing around on the bridge at night to a backdrop of fireworks, followed by a possibly imagined waterski along the Seine (there's a lot of magic realism in the film, so you can't always tell what is or isn't real.) You won't think of Pont Neuf again in the same way if you're a Paris fan.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Fear and Desire (1953) 72 min.
Stanley Kubrick's first feature film.
The screening I attended was a presentation of the American Cinematheque in association with the George Eastman House Collection shown at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. The print of the film itself comes from the George Eastman House and is the only existing 35 mm. print of Mr. Kubrick's not-so-master early work.
The plot of the film centers around four soldiers in a fictional war who are stranded behind enemy lines and have to find a way to cross back over the front and into friendly territory. Along the way they are confronted with a whole laundry list of what would later become themes in Kubrick's future masterpieces. It's all there - "Good" vs. "Evil", the inherent flaw in man and his inhumanity to man, his isolation and inability to communicate, political and sexual violence, anti-war explorations etc.
This much written about but little seen film is widely considered to be essentially a student film of Kubrick. There were no real film schools at that time and Kubrick was teaching himself and learning on the job. Indeed the director himself later disowned the piece calling it "clumsy" "inept" and "embarrassing". Rumors abound about his going to great lengths to keep the film from ever being seen. Some tales even involve his travelling around burning copies of it. The currators of the Eastman House tend to laugh those rumors off. In truth it seemed he and others treated it's release and preservation with a kind of benevolent neglect. It seems he just really preferred no one ever noticed it. In fact, upon Eastman House's acquisition of the print, Kubrick, in a strongly worded letter, pleaded with them to never show it. They replied that it now belongs to the public and is a piece of history so it would be difficult to honor that request. Kubrick then apparently contacted his friend Martin Scorsese whom he knew carried great weight and power with Eastman House and told him to make sure they never showed it. What seems to have then occured was that there was a kind of gentleman's agreement that the film would not be screened by the Eastman House while Mr. Kubrick was alive. Now, since his passing, the sole film print is indeed a piece of history and is, though very rarely, screened. Bootlegs of it do exist out there. And if you come across one, I highly recommend it as being worth your time.
The screening I attended also included a Q&A with one of the stars of the film Paul Mazursky the actor who went onto direct such films as Bob & Carrol & Ted & Alice, Moscow On The Hudson etc. He told some great stories about Kubrick and shared his own opinions on the film. He basically concurred with Stanley's opinion, but did believe there is more there than is immediately noticable.
In my opinion, people are really hard on this film. Stanley Kubrick himself being the films harshest critic. Yes, the script is a bit of a trainwreck. Yes, it is pretentious and is quite ham-fisted in it's on the nose rambling dialogue and narration. And yeah, there is also some problematic editing and less than perfect clarity of intention. But seen for what it is - a young photogragher from Look Magazine who would later become one of the greatest directors to ever live, feeling his way through all the different aspects of filmmaking and exploring the many themes that interest him for the first time- it is absolutely priceless. Needless to say, it was beautifully lit and that famous eye for composition is quite present. Nobody could shoot a movie like Stanley Kubrick, and Fear and Desire presents a fascinating glimpse into the genius that was to come.
I would have to give this one a solid 4 out of 5. If not because of content, then for no other reason than it's historic value for the Kubrick fan. -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
errol flynn, basil rathbone, olivia de havilland, claude rains
one of my FAVORITE MOVIES of all time.
(summery borrowed from IMDB)
When Prince John and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard's absence, a Saxon lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.
claude rains is deliciously evil, basil rathbone is well...basil rathbone, errol flynn is brilliant as always, and the best Little John of every version out there (IMHO of course)
this is the most faithful to the legend of Robin Hood as I've found, and I've watched every single offering there is to be had (besides Bond, Robin Hood is something of an obsession). Plus, it's Rathbone vs. Flynn at one point in a sword duel. not much is more epic than that.
"why...you speak treason!" *cheeky grin* "Fluently!"
a great classic view 5/5
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
One of my all time favorite spy thrillers. Michael Caine stars as Harry Palmer, a theif who now works for MI5 and the very unpleasant Colonel Ross played by Guy "Count Lippe" Doleman. If your looking for the anti-Bond that dosen't have the world weariness and brooding, then you found your man.
The world of Palmer is down to earth; Spying is not depicted as fanastic as being a Double-O, most of your time is consumed by having to do mundane duties like filing out field reports. However nothing about this film is boring, it's colourful in the sense that you know danger and surprises every moment when Palmer is out the field and mistakes can be made like accidentally killing an American agent. The plot also has that down to earth atmosphere but still keeps one's interest, scientists have been kidnapped and returned but they seem not to function in their occupation because of brain washing. When Palmer is captured and attempted to be brain washed it's one of the films' great highlights, truly breaking down the hero always a good move because it means his vitcory would be all the greater.
Ironcially most of the Bond people are behind this film but not in the usual sense; Ken Adam's sets are in no way sci-fi or remotely fantastic in any sense, it's all very much contemporary 1960's. John Barry's score is still quite jazzy but it's a little more subtle, I can't articulate it but you know this is a Barry score for something in the vein of James Bond but not really Bond.
Micheal Caine has Harry Palmer is such a great anti-hero who has a light side to him. As I said before this isn't James Bond who dedicates himself to the secret service, he's only doing intelligence work because the alternative is two years behind bars in a military prison. He knows how to sweet talk the women and he's a bit of a dork, laughing at his own jokes for example. Also he's a great cook and I do believe that is a turn on for most females.
I haven't watched those two Palmer television films from the 90's but I think it's safe to say this is the best film out of the series. Anyone who loves James Bond and is looking for something fun and different should check this film out.