Perhaps Frenzy can be called sleezy, being more direct about darker subjects and unglamorous. But it has great characters, a good plot and structure, plus masterful tense scenes and funny scenes. I'd cose it over many of Hitchcock's other movies.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Perhaps Frenzy can be called sleezy, being more direct about darker subjects and unglamorous. But it has great characters, a good plot and structure, plus masterful tense scenes and funny scenes. I'd cose it over many of Hitchcock's other movies.
Watched it on TV as a child on TV, surprisingly the salacious frontal nudity was allowed during the 70’s which makes me think it was pay TV. It stands to me as having the most disturbing scenes in a Hitchcock movie.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
As part of my annual holiday retinue, I rewatched Heroes of Telemark for its snow scenes and that one brief church sequence in which the parishioners were singing O’ Tannenbaum I think. My wife asked me the significance of the “heroes’” mission because the small skirmishes up to that point seemed trivial and abstract to her; I responded that if they failed, what happened in The Man in the High Castle, of all four (?) seasons we watched together, would be our reality...then I saw it click in her head!
Then, seeing Kirk Douglas she asked if the heroes were American, I said no, they’re supposed to be Norwegian, lol!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Perhaps Frenzy can be called sleezy, being more direct about darker subjects and unglamorous. But it has great characters, a good plot and structure, plus masterful tense scenes and funny scenes. I'd cose it over many of Hitchcock's other movies.
I agree Number24. I really enjoy the cast in Frenzy, all of whom are excellent British character actors of that era. The film feels quite authentic as a result, and the blend of sleaze and nastiness with some of the more humourous elements make it a Hitchcock film that I enjoy revisiting a lot more frequently than most.
caractacus potts posted a link to my old review of Topaz, which reminded me that I haven't rewatched that film since posting that review, and even though I did enjoy the film on first viewing I certainly haven't felt tempted to go back and give it another look in that time...unlike Frenzy.
As part of my annual holiday retinue, I rewatched Heroes of Telemark for its snow scenes and that one brief church sequence in which the parishioners were singing O’ Tannenbaum I think. My wife asked me the significance of the “heroes’” mission because the small skirmishes up to that point seemed trivial and abstract to her; I responded that if they failed, what happened in The Man in the High Castle, of all four (?) seasons we watched together, would be our reality...then I saw it click in her head!
Then, seeing Kirk Douglas she asked if the heroes were American, I said no, they’re supposed to be Norwegian, lol!
Several of the saboteurs mentioned Heroes of Telemark, and never in a positive way. If the subject I can reccomend the 1948 Norwegian movie (If available ... ) "The battle for the heavy water". The movie is highly unusual since most of the saboteurs play themselves.
A more modern alternative is the mini-series "Saboteurs/The heavy water war'. It's made in 2015 and is more easily available.
I agree with your review of the Star Trek movies Gymkata -{
The first ST I too only occasionally watch, and Fast Forward
a lot of it. Khan is a classic and "Search" is great fun.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
As part of my annual holiday retinue, I rewatched Heroes of Telemark for its snow scenes and that one brief church sequence in which the parishioners were singing O’ Tannenbaum I think. My wife asked me the significance of the “heroes’” mission because the small skirmishes up to that point seemed trivial and abstract to her; I responded that if they failed, what happened in The Man in the High Castle, of all four (?) seasons we watched together, would be our reality...then I saw it click in her head!
Then, seeing Kirk Douglas she asked if the heroes were American, I said no, they’re supposed to be Norwegian, lol!
Several of the saboteurs mentioned Heroes of Telemark, and never in a positive way. If the subject I can reccomend the 1948 Norwegian movie (If available ... ) "The battle for the heavy water". The movie is highly unusual since most of the saboteurs play themselves.
A more modern alternative is the mini-series "Saboteurs/The heavy water war'. It's made in 2015 and is more easily available.
Thanks, Number24, I'll check those out!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Hadn't seen it in many years, still a great action thriller, and the late great Lewis Collins.
Amazing to think this is what he could have looked like in FYEO, if he hadn't ( In his own
words ) Messed up his audition for Bond. Did notice a couple of Bond connections with
Both Phil Meheux and Syd Cain involved with the film. One bit of trivia is about the
Final big attack, which wasn't actually done by the stunt crew but by the SAS advisor Team
who volunteered to make it more realistic
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Hadn't seen it in many years, still a great action thriller, and the late great Lewis Collins.
Amazing to think this is what he could have looked like in FYEO, if he hadn't ( In his own
words ) Messed up his audition for Bond. Did notice a couple of Bond connections with
Both Phil Meheux and Syd Cain involved with the film. One bit of trivia is about the
Final big attack, which wasn't actually done by the stunt crew but by the SAS advisor Team
who volunteered to make it more realistic
I have a real soft spot for this movie (a definite guilty pleasure) despite some of its very obvious flaws. Lewis Collins is very good in it & the mews house scene is also superb along with the final attack crescendo. Legend has it that Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the movie too.
As you've said, the fact that SAS operatives helped out gives it a nice touch of trivia too. One of the actual ex SAS stunt guys (Terry Forrestal) died in a base jumping accident & another, Tip Tipping, sadly ended up jumping to his death in a parachute accident whilst filming for a tv show.
Probably been reviewed before on here, but whatever...
The Hill is a brutal film. From its stark opening, a tracking shot across a desert bound prison encampment, the centrepiece a forbidding sand and stone punishment hill, bathed in salt-like white, the audience is aware how uncomfortable a journey they will be on for the next two hours.
Oswald Morris won a prize at Cannes for his photography and it is the contrasts between light and dark which draw our attention. Why is Ian Hendry's Staff Sgt William's so brooding? Is it because his face is always in half-shadow? Why do we fear Harry Andrews' S.M. Wilson? Because early on Morris shoots him from below, but facing the sun, the reverse of our expectations. Likewise, Michael Redgrave's passive M.O. is shown in a domestic environment and from above. We recognise his weaknesses immediately.
Sean Connery, splendid as Joe Roberts, is shot face on to the camera, capturing our trust. Yet his scowl also suggests all the brooding, sweaty, controlled menace of a cold, calculating, agent provocateur. This is a man who is not a hero. He is practical and he understands the men around him, prisoners and screws alike men who are trapped in the stinging, harsh reality of procedure and order. "We're all doing time," he says after his and his comrades initiation on the titular hill, "even the screws."
Connery took the antihero role of Robert's because it was so unlike James Bond. He could grow a tache, lose the toupee, let loose with a string of expletives. He's a powerful, controlled presence. Yet it is the warring staff sergeants who dominate the proceedings. Harry Andrews is brilliant as the 25 year veteran warden, a man whose methods have never altered and whose position has never been threatened. He panders to a lazy commandant, a man too busy with the local whores to witness the calamities on his doorstep. "He'd sign his own death warrant if I handed it to him," chuckles Wilson. This revelation opens the door to Williams, a pen pusher out to assert himself, a man whose own courage is questioned and who hides his failings under a psychopathic bully boy regime. Ian Hendry too is menacingly calm. Only at the very end does his guard drop and that provokes the moment of downfall for our prisoners.
Sidney Lumet's film was widely and rightly praised in Europe (plenty of BAFTA nods, but no wins). In America, for some reason, they didn't 'get it.' Perhaps the racist undertones and the lack of respect for military hierarchy disturbed their sensibilities too much. However, the film's reputation has been revised in recent years and rightly so.
The Hill sits easily among the British New Wave of the 1960s with its anti establishment and revisionist stance. Writer Ray Rigby was himself a military internet, so he wrote from experience. He also creates a powerful sense of loss among the characters. Everyone in this little sand blasted square of hell is searching for personal justification. None of them receive it. They are damaged, flawed (in some cases fatally flawed) characters.
A moment must be taken to reflect on Thelma Connell's snappy film editing and the crackling soundtrack; devoid of music instead we hear the sounds of the everyday - the clanging of mess tins, the choruses of square bashing troops, the slap and dash of water buckets and showers. Laughter is loud and framed in switching, angry close up. Madness is greeted by hilarity and the crump of marching boots. When the camp waits for their commandant, they do so in stifling, fly infested silence. This gives a wholey unsettling, visceral visual and aural experience. The viewer isnt simply watching the action, they are being immersed in the brutality and the confines of a British military prison. Stunning work.
This is a magnificent achievement of British cinema - although it was, like another great film of '65 The Ipcress File, directed by an American - one though who at least had his finger on the pulse of the social moment. Excellent performances, stunning black & white images, a tough, uncompromising and challenging screenplay and an ending which both appals and relieves.
A must see for anyone who loves truely great cinema.
I watched the double bill of Sean Connery films last night on TV.
I was not impressed by 'The Untouchables' and will not watch again.
I was impressed by 'The Hill'. I am glad that the BBC showed it without editing the discriminatory language. This film needed to be shown in its original form because it conveyed more of its message that way.
As an experiment I recently watched the two part episode of TMFU
The Alexander the great affair, and then watched " One spy too many"
The film version of these two episodes. Not really much different except
Maude the radio controller had a bigger part ( Oh er Missus ) and in one
scene where Alexander had seduced a Prince's wife, in the film they showed
them kissing on the Bed and having a conversation. The TV version had
Alexander walking in to a bathroom to fix his shirt etc as he speaks to the lady
who's presence is implied . I might do this again with my other TNFU films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Adaptation of a bestselling Alistair MacLean novel which rather shows its age: a plot creaking at the edges and full of violent unnecessary incident. I read the book over 35 years ago, but it all seemed vaguely familiar so I'm guessing it's a fair adaptation.
Barry Newman was a rising star at the time and he's efficient if not entirely likeable as John Talbot, a man framed for murder who is not everything he claims to be. The narrative twists and turns and is packed full of improbabilities. This is standard MacLean fare, as is the inconsequential female character, here played fetchingly by Suzy Kendal.
The movie is perhaps most interesting at its beginning and end: the former a twenty minute car chase through Louisiana backwaters, the latter an undersea confrontation within a submersible running perilously low on oxygen. Talbot is attempting to discover who was responsible for the ditching of a cargo plane loaded with precious stones. His investigations have led him to the Nyland Oil Company and a whole heap of trouble.
Along the way Talbot gets into several fights and has to contend with a couple of nasty death scenes. One of the villains is played by a very young Ben Kingsley, his cinema debut. The score is by Roy Budd. It's a jazzy little number which zips cheerfully along and always raises the tension a pitch.
The score is probably the best thing about the movie. It isn't one if the best MacLean adaptations, but it is worth a look, especially if you're a fan.
A film which needs no introduction. The sort of film they simply don't make anymore. The first ever VistaVision Warnet Bros. production. All songs by Irving Berlin. Bing Crosby in his 50s prime. Danny Kaye also at the height of his fame. Rosemary Clooney, a post-war sweetheart. Lush photography. Elegant costumes. A script ridden with cliche and yet still an entertaining, spry affair with a character driven plot. Super dance numbers (The movie was meant to reteam Fred Astaire with Crosby to reprise their partnership from "Holiday Inn", of which this is a remake.) Michael Curtiz directs with assurance; he's not flashy, he sets up the stage and rolls with it (note to the camera directors on Strictly Come Dancing: we can see all the dancers feet all the time) Great songs. Great vaudeville style performances. A shamelessly sentimental story that pours the sugar on at the start and keeps on pouring. The worst and best of it is you know you are being emotionally manipulated and you don't care. Oh. And that Christmas song. Here we go: "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas / just like the ones I used to know...."
Yeh. They really don't make movies as good hearted and beautifully created as this anymore.
I'm re-watching The Godfather part 2 (it's a pretty good movie actually :v) and I noticed a detail. When the young Vito Corleone kills Don Fanucci he walks along the rooftops while a big festival is going on in the street. Fanucci is wearing a white suit. It resembles the PTS of SPECTRE enough for me to sit up and take notice.
Interesting detail, Number24.
Directors can't escape echoing their predecessors.
Infact, while TheGFP2 is a great film, but it's over-revered IMO because the modern story arc echoes everything we saw in TheGF. If it wasn't for those excellent flashback scenes the movie wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting. IMO TheGF has all the stunning visuals, storytelling and performances. The less said about P3 the better.
I can't tell you guys anything you don't already know about this cinematic reboot of a 60s/70s TV show. Suffice to say, it was a lot less violent than I recalled - having not seen it since about 2000 and its TV premiere. Yes, there is one tremendously suspenseful [!!!] sequence set in a CIA sealed vault and a hair raising climax atop a Eurostar, but for the most part this movie is a tension and plot twisting, dialogue driven exercise. No shoot outs or karate fights bar a very short incident at the film's end. The body count is as low as seven. Overall, I enjoyed it. A few minor quibbles with the plot, but a lot of fun. The lack of action is refreshing. It's sub-Hitchcock, after a fashion.
I have a regular bone go pick with most modern moviemakers: they really don't know when to stop filming. This story builds to a robust action scene in the Fever nightclub, Tom Cruise's hitman Vincent and Jamie Foxx's cabbie Max hafe had their final contretemp and, in the prosecutor Annie's office library, Vincent is shot. There's no where else for the film to go after this and the very ordinary subway climax is a yawning let down, especially as you know: 1) Vincent should be dead & 2) if he is alive there is no way the novice Max can outshoot him in a straight up gunfight.
Otherwise, fairly tight action, good dialogue, good performances from the two leads.
I guess it says something about how scarce new(ish) movies are now that I watched one of the biggest flops from a couple of years ago, Mortal Engines. Actually, it's not by any means terrible--it's great-looking and has a decent cast. . .and the Making-Of features on the DVD show that this could have been a real blast. But it's obvious there were post-production problems: Colin Salmon shows up at the start of the film and he looks to be a major and important character. . .and then puts in only a couple of cameos in the rest of the film, and the last hour is just a bloated action scene. But the main problem is with the direction: goofy scenes are played seriously, and serious scenes are goofy. Too bad someone like Terry Gilliam couldn't have directed this!
Hardyboy also unwittingly - perhaps - puts his finger on another cultural snag of anyone past the big 50 - there's little about that hasn't been seen before, whereas if you're a teen, well, everything is new. Every new movie, every classic, every Some Like It Hot, every Casablanca is a journey of discovery.
The Italian Job
I've not seen such a good print as the one on C4 HD today. Sublime to look at, a good Goldfinger style film, all smoothness and nice to look at. Of course, I think one key scene was in GF, namely when Bond is trailing Auric in the Swiss Alps, but I could be wrong as this is the Italian Alps.
Caine always good. Cinematography by Douglas Slocombe, who did an Indy film, the remake of The Lady Vanishes - very decent - and also Never Say Never Again but you can't have everything. He worked with the great Jack Cardiff of Black Narcissus fame.
I can't have been the only one thinking of the Brexit analogies as the film progressed.
I saw David Fincher's latest, Mank, on Netflix. If you've never seen--or don't like--Citizen Kane and/or if you have no interest in Hollywood filmmaking in the 1930s and '40s, you will probably be bored out of your mind. But if you're someone like me who loves those things, this is a real treat--a brilliant recreation of the filmmaking style of the '40s, down to black and white photography and reel cues in the upper right corner of the screen. And Gary Oldman puts in another great performance as the boozy, anarchic screenwriter Herman Manciewicz (uncle of the Tom Manciewicz who worked on all the Bond scripts of the '70s) who pounded out the script for Kane in the teeth of W. R. Hearst's opposition, Orson Welles's badgering, and his own alchoholism. Great fun--if you're in the right audience.
Couldn’t agree more…watched this tonight and absolutely loved it...down to the ‘unusual’ film angles, obvious ‘sound stage’ settings and how every voice had the same re-record ‘level’ irrespective of setting...excellent from Fincher -{
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,573Chief of Staff
Cinderella with Lily James and Richard 'Bond to Be no 27 on the list' Madden.
He dials down his Scottish accent. He's okay not tall enough - nor was Craig - but most of all you realise that a new Bond needs a new narrative if you will. A personality, an angle. Connery had it - he wasn't just Fleming's Bond. Moore had it - he was a new era. Lazenby didn't really, nor did Brosnan quite. Dalton tried to have it but imo it didn't take.
Craig had it.
Any new Bond can't just be some actor you could imagine being in GF and not stinking it up, it's got to have some forward impetus so the new films will be different to what's gone before, and with the new actor embodying that. So it's quite hard.
I posted today on another thread about the future possible demise of cinema that, having paid to watch a film in a movie theater I'd gladly watch until the end even if it was a load of toilet, something I wouldn't necessarily do watching at home.
Am I glad I didn't pay money for this.
I usually give Superhero movies a cursory glance. I'm not over interested in the Marvel or DC universe, but occasionally there will be a film I enjoy. Usually they are the ones no one else does. VENOM for instance or THE INCREDIBLE HULK or FANTASTIC FOUR (the original). I have a particular fondness for the original SPIDERMAN series, especially number 2. Tobey Maguire was great and Sam Raimi's direction was slick. The portrait painted on Peter Parker, his alter ego and the difficulties of being a superhero was tantalisingly fleshed.
@ garbage" to myself, switched off and went to bed with a copy of Ismael Kadare's "The Accident."
Ava 2020, a by the book thriller about a female assassin, all very predictable with no
Real characters to invest in. Even the fight sequences seem not up to standard compared
to other action movies.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Watched it on TV as a child on TV, surprisingly the salacious frontal nudity was allowed during the 70’s which makes me think it was pay TV. It stands to me as having the most disturbing scenes in a Hitchcock movie.
Then, seeing Kirk Douglas she asked if the heroes were American, I said no, they’re supposed to be Norwegian, lol!
I agree Number24. I really enjoy the cast in Frenzy, all of whom are excellent British character actors of that era. The film feels quite authentic as a result, and the blend of sleaze and nastiness with some of the more humourous elements make it a Hitchcock film that I enjoy revisiting a lot more frequently than most.
caractacus potts posted a link to my old review of Topaz, which reminded me that I haven't rewatched that film since posting that review, and even though I did enjoy the film on first viewing I certainly haven't felt tempted to go back and give it another look in that time...unlike Frenzy.
Several of the saboteurs mentioned Heroes of Telemark, and never in a positive way. If the subject I can reccomend the 1948 Norwegian movie (If available ...
A more modern alternative is the mini-series "Saboteurs/The heavy water war'. It's made in 2015 and is more easily available.
The first ST I too only occasionally watch, and Fast Forward
a lot of it. Khan is a classic and "Search" is great fun.
Thanks, Number24, I'll check those out!
Hadn't seen it in many years, still a great action thriller, and the late great Lewis Collins.
Amazing to think this is what he could have looked like in FYEO, if he hadn't ( In his own
words ) Messed up his audition for Bond. Did notice a couple of Bond connections with
Both Phil Meheux and Syd Cain involved with the film. One bit of trivia is about the
Final big attack, which wasn't actually done by the stunt crew but by the SAS advisor Team
who volunteered to make it more realistic
I have a real soft spot for this movie (a definite guilty pleasure) despite some of its very obvious flaws. Lewis Collins is very good in it & the mews house scene is also superb along with the final attack crescendo. Legend has it that Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the movie too.
As you've said, the fact that SAS operatives helped out gives it a nice touch of trivia too. One of the actual ex SAS stunt guys (Terry Forrestal) died in a base jumping accident & another, Tip Tipping, sadly ended up jumping to his death in a parachute accident whilst filming for a tv show.
(1965)
Probably been reviewed before on here, but whatever...
The Hill is a brutal film. From its stark opening, a tracking shot across a desert bound prison encampment, the centrepiece a forbidding sand and stone punishment hill, bathed in salt-like white, the audience is aware how uncomfortable a journey they will be on for the next two hours.
Oswald Morris won a prize at Cannes for his photography and it is the contrasts between light and dark which draw our attention. Why is Ian Hendry's Staff Sgt William's so brooding? Is it because his face is always in half-shadow? Why do we fear Harry Andrews' S.M. Wilson? Because early on Morris shoots him from below, but facing the sun, the reverse of our expectations. Likewise, Michael Redgrave's passive M.O. is shown in a domestic environment and from above. We recognise his weaknesses immediately.
Sean Connery, splendid as Joe Roberts, is shot face on to the camera, capturing our trust. Yet his scowl also suggests all the brooding, sweaty, controlled menace of a cold, calculating, agent provocateur. This is a man who is not a hero. He is practical and he understands the men around him, prisoners and screws alike men who are trapped in the stinging, harsh reality of procedure and order. "We're all doing time," he says after his and his comrades initiation on the titular hill, "even the screws."
Connery took the antihero role of Robert's because it was so unlike James Bond. He could grow a tache, lose the toupee, let loose with a string of expletives. He's a powerful, controlled presence. Yet it is the warring staff sergeants who dominate the proceedings. Harry Andrews is brilliant as the 25 year veteran warden, a man whose methods have never altered and whose position has never been threatened. He panders to a lazy commandant, a man too busy with the local whores to witness the calamities on his doorstep. "He'd sign his own death warrant if I handed it to him," chuckles Wilson. This revelation opens the door to Williams, a pen pusher out to assert himself, a man whose own courage is questioned and who hides his failings under a psychopathic bully boy regime. Ian Hendry too is menacingly calm. Only at the very end does his guard drop and that provokes the moment of downfall for our prisoners.
Sidney Lumet's film was widely and rightly praised in Europe (plenty of BAFTA nods, but no wins). In America, for some reason, they didn't 'get it.' Perhaps the racist undertones and the lack of respect for military hierarchy disturbed their sensibilities too much. However, the film's reputation has been revised in recent years and rightly so.
The Hill sits easily among the British New Wave of the 1960s with its anti establishment and revisionist stance. Writer Ray Rigby was himself a military internet, so he wrote from experience. He also creates a powerful sense of loss among the characters. Everyone in this little sand blasted square of hell is searching for personal justification. None of them receive it. They are damaged, flawed (in some cases fatally flawed) characters.
A moment must be taken to reflect on Thelma Connell's snappy film editing and the crackling soundtrack; devoid of music instead we hear the sounds of the everyday - the clanging of mess tins, the choruses of square bashing troops, the slap and dash of water buckets and showers. Laughter is loud and framed in switching, angry close up. Madness is greeted by hilarity and the crump of marching boots. When the camp waits for their commandant, they do so in stifling, fly infested silence. This gives a wholey unsettling, visceral visual and aural experience. The viewer isnt simply watching the action, they are being immersed in the brutality and the confines of a British military prison. Stunning work.
This is a magnificent achievement of British cinema - although it was, like another great film of '65 The Ipcress File, directed by an American - one though who at least had his finger on the pulse of the social moment. Excellent performances, stunning black & white images, a tough, uncompromising and challenging screenplay and an ending which both appals and relieves.
A must see for anyone who loves truely great cinema.
I was not impressed by 'The Untouchables' and will not watch again.
I was impressed by 'The Hill'. I am glad that the BBC showed it without editing the discriminatory language. This film needed to be shown in its original form because it conveyed more of its message that way.
The Alexander the great affair, and then watched " One spy too many"
The film version of these two episodes. Not really much different except
Maude the radio controller had a bigger part ( Oh er Missus ) and in one
scene where Alexander had seduced a Prince's wife, in the film they showed
them kissing on the Bed and having a conversation. The TV version had
Alexander walking in to a bathroom to fix his shirt etc as he speaks to the lady
who's presence is implied . I might do this again with my other TNFU films.
Adaptation of a bestselling Alistair MacLean novel which rather shows its age: a plot creaking at the edges and full of violent unnecessary incident. I read the book over 35 years ago, but it all seemed vaguely familiar so I'm guessing it's a fair adaptation.
Barry Newman was a rising star at the time and he's efficient if not entirely likeable as John Talbot, a man framed for murder who is not everything he claims to be. The narrative twists and turns and is packed full of improbabilities. This is standard MacLean fare, as is the inconsequential female character, here played fetchingly by Suzy Kendal.
The movie is perhaps most interesting at its beginning and end: the former a twenty minute car chase through Louisiana backwaters, the latter an undersea confrontation within a submersible running perilously low on oxygen. Talbot is attempting to discover who was responsible for the ditching of a cargo plane loaded with precious stones. His investigations have led him to the Nyland Oil Company and a whole heap of trouble.
Along the way Talbot gets into several fights and has to contend with a couple of nasty death scenes. One of the villains is played by a very young Ben Kingsley, his cinema debut. The score is by Roy Budd. It's a jazzy little number which zips cheerfully along and always raises the tension a pitch.
The score is probably the best thing about the movie. It isn't one if the best MacLean adaptations, but it is worth a look, especially if you're a fan.
A film which needs no introduction. The sort of film they simply don't make anymore. The first ever VistaVision Warnet Bros. production. All songs by Irving Berlin. Bing Crosby in his 50s prime. Danny Kaye also at the height of his fame. Rosemary Clooney, a post-war sweetheart. Lush photography. Elegant costumes. A script ridden with cliche and yet still an entertaining, spry affair with a character driven plot. Super dance numbers (The movie was meant to reteam Fred Astaire with Crosby to reprise their partnership from "Holiday Inn", of which this is a remake.) Michael Curtiz directs with assurance; he's not flashy, he sets up the stage and rolls with it (note to the camera directors on Strictly Come Dancing: we can see all the dancers feet all the time) Great songs. Great vaudeville style performances. A shamelessly sentimental story that pours the sugar on at the start and keeps on pouring. The worst and best of it is you know you are being emotionally manipulated and you don't care. Oh. And that Christmas song. Here we go: "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas / just like the ones I used to know...."
Yeh. They really don't make movies as good hearted and beautifully created as this anymore.
Directors can't escape echoing their predecessors.
Infact, while TheGFP2 is a great film, but it's over-revered IMO because the modern story arc echoes everything we saw in TheGF. If it wasn't for those excellent flashback scenes the movie wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting. IMO TheGF has all the stunning visuals, storytelling and performances. The less said about P3 the better.
I can't tell you guys anything you don't already know about this cinematic reboot of a 60s/70s TV show. Suffice to say, it was a lot less violent than I recalled - having not seen it since about 2000 and its TV premiere. Yes, there is one tremendously suspenseful [!!!] sequence set in a CIA sealed vault and a hair raising climax atop a Eurostar, but for the most part this movie is a tension and plot twisting, dialogue driven exercise. No shoot outs or karate fights bar a very short incident at the film's end. The body count is as low as seven. Overall, I enjoyed it. A few minor quibbles with the plot, but a lot of fun. The lack of action is refreshing. It's sub-Hitchcock, after a fashion.
Good, but not as good as I remembered it.
I have a regular bone go pick with most modern moviemakers: they really don't know when to stop filming. This story builds to a robust action scene in the Fever nightclub, Tom Cruise's hitman Vincent and Jamie Foxx's cabbie Max hafe had their final contretemp and, in the prosecutor Annie's office library, Vincent is shot. There's no where else for the film to go after this and the very ordinary subway climax is a yawning let down, especially as you know: 1) Vincent should be dead & 2) if he is alive there is no way the novice Max can outshoot him in a straight up gunfight.
Otherwise, fairly tight action, good dialogue, good performances from the two leads.
HOME ALONE 2: LOST IN NEW YORK
We love these two movies in this house, always a pleasure to watch.
Incidentally, I think Donald Trump should have been awarded the best supporting actor in part 2
Well, it is Christmas...
shown on TV did it become considered a great film.
The Italian Job
I've not seen such a good print as the one on C4 HD today. Sublime to look at, a good Goldfinger style film, all smoothness and nice to look at. Of course, I think one key scene was in GF, namely when Bond is trailing Auric in the Swiss Alps, but I could be wrong as this is the Italian Alps.
Caine always good. Cinematography by Douglas Slocombe, who did an Indy film, the remake of The Lady Vanishes - very decent - and also Never Say Never Again but you can't have everything. He worked with the great Jack Cardiff of Black Narcissus fame.
I can't have been the only one thinking of the Brexit analogies as the film progressed.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
wouldn't recommend it.
Couldn’t agree more…watched this tonight and absolutely loved it...down to the ‘unusual’ film angles, obvious ‘sound stage’ settings and how every voice had the same re-record ‘level’ irrespective of setting...excellent from Fincher -{
Watched this ages ago...there are a good 10 minutes worth of gags in this movie...
He dials down his Scottish accent. He's okay not tall enough - nor was Craig - but most of all you realise that a new Bond needs a new narrative if you will. A personality, an angle. Connery had it - he wasn't just Fleming's Bond. Moore had it - he was a new era. Lazenby didn't really, nor did Brosnan quite. Dalton tried to have it but imo it didn't take.
Craig had it.
Any new Bond can't just be some actor you could imagine being in GF and not stinking it up, it's got to have some forward impetus so the new films will be different to what's gone before, and with the new actor embodying that. So it's quite hard.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I posted today on another thread about the future possible demise of cinema that, having paid to watch a film in a movie theater I'd gladly watch until the end even if it was a load of toilet, something I wouldn't necessarily do watching at home.
Am I glad I didn't pay money for this.
I usually give Superhero movies a cursory glance. I'm not over interested in the Marvel or DC universe, but occasionally there will be a film I enjoy. Usually they are the ones no one else does. VENOM for instance or THE INCREDIBLE HULK or FANTASTIC FOUR (the original). I have a particular fondness for the original SPIDERMAN series, especially number 2. Tobey Maguire was great and Sam Raimi's direction was slick. The portrait painted on Peter Parker, his alter ego and the difficulties of being a superhero was tantalisingly fleshed.
@ garbage" to myself, switched off and went to bed with a copy of Ismael Kadare's "The Accident."
That's culture. This was dog poo.
Real characters to invest in. Even the fight sequences seem not up to standard compared
to other action movies.