Last film seen...

1380381383385386392

Comments

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent

    Oh, okay.

  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 4,664MI6 Agent

    I love the Flint movies @caractacus potts I never get tired of seeing them, and they’re more enjoyable than the Brosnan quartet. Great review and it’s made me want to see them again very soon!

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 4,664MI6 Agent

    Is sheet music for Another w…actually a way to get around the swearathon?

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent
    edited March 30

    Barbel has strong feelings about a particular title song ....

  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,220Chief of Staff

    I have other words for that thing than "song".....

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 1,986MI6 Agent
    edited March 15

    TALES OF TERROR (1962)

    Roger Corman and Edgar Allan Poe fitted together like hand and glove, but this time the glove is missing some fingers. These three short Tales of Terror from adaptor Richard Matheson miss the mark badly.

    The opener, Morella, revisits the same territory as The House of Usher, with Vincent Price’s Locke still in mourning for his dead wife, whose body he has exhumed and embalmed. The return of his terminally ill daughter brings about the ghoulish animation of Morella's spectre and everyone dies in a sanctifying inferno. Bleak.

    The middle story, The Black Cat, benefits from Peter Lorre, whose drunken domestic abuser is by turns frightening, pitiful and amusing. Vincent Price spars well with Lorre and his turn as a pompous oenologist is preposterously over the top. The comic interplay between the terrible twosome, as well as a simpering Joyce Jameson, as the wife, makes this one watchable. She’s all low cut dresses and knowing awkwardness, a bit like Barbara Windsor in those Carry On histories. The eventual moment of horror and revelation is marvellous.

    The trio is completed by the weird The Facts in the Case of M. Vandemar, where Price’s dying socialite submits to mesmerism in an effort to relive his painful tumours, but instead comes under the hypnotic influence of the dastardly Basil Rathbone, who desires Vandemar’s wife, Debra Paget, whose fallen a long way from the auspices of Broken Arrow. Everyone looks to be on their last legs in this one. It ends with a climax of laughable fearsomeness. 

    Sub-Corman and sub-Poe.   

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent


    Thankfully the forum doesn't allow that kind of language. 😁

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent
    edited March 15

    Kubo and the two strings (2016)

    This stop-motion movie is probably the best I've ever seen! The plot summary is lifted from wikipedia:

    The early "If you must blink - do it now!" scene actually sets up the plot fairly well: Kubo And The Two Strings HD if you must blink do it now origami art - YouTube

    The plot is highly origonal and good. The voice artists are Charlize Theron, Ralph Fiennes, Rooney Mara and Mathew MacConaughey among others, but the real star is the visuals! This movie looks stunning. Here's the trailer: (Official) Kubo and the Two Strings Music Video - "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by Regina Spektor - YouTube


  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 1,986MI6 Agent

    ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD (2019)

    Okay, so you guys rapped so much about this mini-modern-epic, I broke a vow and decided to watch this Quentin Tarantino exploitation flick.

    I should point out that in my social circle, Tarantino and I have previous. That’s not a guarantee of any qualified critical analysis; I am but an amateur. However, there is something disconcerting about watching a QT movie in the 2000s, as if the director / writer / producer has forgotten how to make an engaging emotional product and decided instead to pursue vignettes of conversational rationale which he believes will create the necessary depth of character and narrative insight. Clue to my dilemma: they don’t. You can have all the flashy direction, extravagant pop music backgrounds, vibrant photography, naturalistic performances, etc, etc, you want, but if you aren’t constructing something that caresses deeper than the pliant surface then you are not making great art, you are only impersonating it.

    I noted this trait as early as QT’s failed double bill Grindhouse, which he made with his matey Robert Rodrigues – another director who seems to have lost his way. What exactly was supposed be happening there? I asked. Two completely unrelated haphazardly exercised dumbly plotted and trashily expunged films tagged onto each other as if this in itself was enough to make an audience bay with delight. The situation deepened with the Kill Bill franchise. An involving, rapid-fire first film dipped badly and quickly into a second, ponderous epic which turned into a dull pastiche of chop-suey movies; worse, it even mocked David Carradine’s own cult classic TV show Kung Fu, which itself satirised the Bruce Lee craze. Things got worse and worse with Inglorious… a film that had the blundering audacity to bend history for kicks. Borrowing Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone motifs merely made the process all the more galling. Perhaps an audience not versed in cinema history might enjoy these signals, but they stank of an unoriginal mind. Django Unchained was even worse. I’m all for evening out the square and slapping the face of slavery, but this was a misplaced venture which seemed to venerate its white characters as some sort of comic throwback, as if their behaviour is okay because it’s all a bit of mindless historical fun. The final confrontation completely misunderstands the lyrics of Richie Havens’ Freedom and instead uses the rhythm for a tirade of violence, black on white. I was so upset by the decline in this director’s output, I haven’t viewed a QT movie since.

    This is a shame as his first three works are exceptional, revealing a rare insight into the modern [1990s] world and the people who inhabit its lesser auspices. These movies dealt with crime and criminals. They didn’t fantasise the life style. Yes, there were instances of complete farce and stylised violence, but there was an abstract undercurrent of natural order, which made you accept the bizarre. When Samuel L. Jackson riffs the Bible before a summary gangland execution, or Travolta expounds the delight of Le Royale with Cheese, dances clandestinely with his bosses wife, or Bruce Willis wearily throws a fight, these feel completely normal interactions for the characters; when De Niro’s ex-con loses patience with Brigit Fonda and shoots her stone dead in a car park, we almost expected it, we know he’s unhinged, QT has hinted at his latent madness; the dancing and parading to Steeler’s Wheels while men lie dying is a moment of psychotic mania that pulls us into the field, identifies the character in our mind, forever as a grinning maniac. Why, I asked myself, had all this disappeared? Where was the genuine adult relationship as exemplified by Robert Forster and Pam Grier in Jackie Brown, a friendship which developed through mutual need, not mutual exploitation, through a series of clever scenes which showed us their dependency rather than constantly rammed it down our throats with pretentious dialogue?

    Inglorious… was insufferable in this. The extended café scene chief culprit. QT never scratched further than the surface of his characters. He gave them a host of fancy lines which would result in laughter if they were not featured in a movie. In real life, if someone tried to say his dialogue, they’d be told to piss off and not be so pompous. No one talks like this. In Once Upon A Time.. there’s a scene where Leonardo Di Caprio’s loser TV star is both informed and consoled by a precocious 8-year old starlet. No eight year old talks like she does. I don’t blame the actress. She’s very good [and also in a later scene where she plays victim to his baddie] but why does she have to be so much the barometer of sensibilities? Is QT trying to tell us that all his characters – all of Hollywood – are characters in a children's fairy tale [Once Upon A Time… get it?] or is he simply inserting this scene and its dialogue because it looks good and therefore in his mind must be included?

    The same feeling occurs over and over in this movie. I won’t go into depth over the plot, which is an irrelevance as it bears only a passing relation to the real events of the Sharon Tate murder in 1969 which the writer has chosen to set it in. Like Inglorious… QT has seized a moment of time and twisted it to create an alternative future which suits his emblematic cover story. There’s no substance here. His characters are ciphers. The showbiz types are self-absorbed, money grabbing, introspective, material stereotypes. They drink, they talk nothings to nobodies, they expect their fame to encompass their lives, to open doors and when it doesn’t they resort to desperate measures. Nothing so desperate as the titular Jackie Brown though: she ran drugs, these guys get to fly to Rome and make spaghetti westerns. That’s the …in Hollywood version of a fairy tale gone wrong. Meanwhile the ‘hippies’, who seem to all be sexy comely women, are treated like some witches coven. The final scenes where a threesome of crazed ‘hippies’ – that’s the writer’s descriptive word, not mine – set out to kill someone, anyone, is hopelessly over-the-top as if everyone acting dumb can excuse such moments of bloodletting and fiery abandon. Their lack of afforded motivation makes their incursion into the Beverly Hills quiet life immaterial. Why are they there? Who is this Charlie they speak of? How did they end up so crazed – drugs, hypnosis, politics? Nothing. Not a jot of evidence. And I waited almost three hours to see this resolve itself by having Brad Pitt bash a woman’s face onto a mantel piece six times [I shut my eyes after the third bash].

    I waited and waited for something to happen that grabbed my interest, but there simply wasn’t. The opening salvo of scenes craved my attention, but singularly failed to deliver it, so concerned they were with looking and sounding good, that someone forgot to instil any substance. All this cross cutting / flashback / movie footage was a diversion designed to disorientate the viewer without purpose. This annoying non-linear format continues through the whole film. Normally, I enjoy this kind of deception, but here I kept asking myself why things were happening, began to be intrigued, only to be informed without a single whiff of irony that I was watching a flashback or an imagination. It was cinematic mechanics without the love. Even the ‘real’ stuff irked: why does Brad Pitt’s down-at-heel stunt man have to see the Lolita hitch-hiker three times before he picks her up? what on earth is happening at the ‘hippie’ ranch? if it’s so important why do we never find out? why are they so suspicious, is that meant to suggest the mesmeric qualities of Charles Manson’s brood? why do we need to be told by the 8-yr old that De Caprio is a rubbish actor when we established that in the opening scene? why do both youngsters take up positions of prospective oral sex, is there a subtext I’m missing, or am I just a pervert, or is that what the director / writer want us to think, that we are all perverts, [like Polanski, if you like]? why must we see Margot Robbie’s mini-skirted Sharon Tate watching her own movie to learn she is insecure, that the outward performance is a stunt, when we gathered it from the actresses performance? oh, wait, it’s an excuse to shove in some Dean Martin clips, like we couldn’t fathom this out in our own minds? why is Bruce Lee portrayed as and treated like an imbecile, you’d think QT would revere him given the cult of his persona? do I need to see De Caprio berate himself to learn he knows his career has dive-bombed? why are so many real life characters blended with the imaginary, what is QT attempting to do, divide reality from his own fantasy? Questions, questions, questions, but I already know the answers, QT has pretty much told us everything from the off, he even includes a handy narration at effective points just to jog our memory, in case we are dumb enough not to figure it out. This occurs most obviously towards the end of the movie and seems to be included to edit the run time from four to three hours. The Italian sojourn is curtailed as fast as the drinks get drunk on the Pan Am plane.   

    Is there anything worth my while? Or your while? Well, look, Robert Richardson is a great cinematographer and the movie looks good. I loved the soundtrack, a funky homage to all things 1968/9, Margot Robbie looks gorgeous and is excellent in a very small role, Di Caprio looks fat, Pitt succeeds by underplaying, the film felt like it represented the era very well. Yet, did I get anything emotionally from this almost three hours of entertainment?

    ___ ___

    You can fill in the blank.           

  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 4,664MI6 Agent

    Quentin Tarantino is marmite. You either get him or you don’t. I get him, mostly. Pulp Fiction I don’t get, most people seem to get it, I don’t. What am I missing? I don’t know, it’s just unexplainable, but for this work I get it, and for me OUATIH is brilliant, but I love the 60’s, I was a kid in the 60’s and that’s probably the reason I give most things of, and about, that era a pass.

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 9,651MI6 Agent

    What, even the Elvis films that @chrisno1 reviews?

    I liked the cool fun of Hollywood, but here's the thing, they're less than the sum of some very good parts. I mean, the opening of Inglorious is superb, as is the conversation and expose in the German cellar later. Great scenes, but yep, it gets thrown away later. I feel like a middle-aged Bond fan who doesn't 'get' films like Moonraker where a gondola turns into a hovercraft, what's the point of making it silly? If you can't believe it, what's the point - yet I got it as a kid at the time and do now. Some people don't watch films to believe in them, it's just a diversion. Likewise, I don't really 'get' the modern Bond films in the way that others do. others really don't care about lack of logic or plot holes, to them it's like complaining candy isn't nourishing.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • GymkataGymkata Minnesota, USAPosts: 4,094MI6 Agent

    HOUSE OF GUCCI (2021), Ridley Scott

    Quite good and a lot funnier than I was expecting.

    I went into this completely cold not knowing the actual story at all, so I was rather surprised at 'what happened.' When the movie ended, I went to the various wiki sites surrounding the movie and the real story and verified things. Because I went into it clean, I won't spoil anything regarding the plot other than to say that the film does a good job at not letting on as to the eventual outcome of things.

    The film itself covers the Gucci family and empire from 1978 until the early 1990s. While all of the major family members are given screentime, the film mainly follows Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver) and Patrizia Gucci (nee Reggiani) (Lady Gaga) from their first meeting until everything happens. Other actors in the film include Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Jared Leto (unrecognizable under a ton of makeup), and Jack Huston. The acting is strong for the most part but some of the Italian accents are waaaaaaaay overdone, probably intentionally. Jared Leto, as Paulo Gucci, is a character that you're either going to love or hate considering how 'out there' the performance is. For me, it worked. Everyone worked. Indeed, the 'overdone' aspect of the acting and some of the plotting helped give everything a slightly surreal edge to it that made everything much more entertaining than it would have been if it had all been played straight.

    Very good film. Recommended.

    Current rankings (updated 12/21)
    OHMSS>FRWL>CR>TSWLM>NTTD>MR>SF>FYEO>GE>DN>YOLT>OP>
    TND>TWINE>QOS>TB>TMWTGG>GF>LALD>TLD>AVTAK>SP>DAF>LTK>DAD
    Bond rankings: Lazenby>Moore>Connery>Craig>Brosnan>Dalton
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,220Chief of Staff

    KING KONG (1933)

    One of my favourite films of all time. I've written about it in this thread before, primarily when I had the rare opportunity to see it on the big screen, so I won't say too much. For a movie well on its way to 100 years old, it still holds up, especially the groundbreaking special effects- I've seen worse in much more recent films. It knocks spots off the 1976 version and doesn't suffer in comparison to the (l-o-n-g) 2005 Peter Jackson take on the same story.

    The point I'd like to make here is that the "leading man" part (ie the love interest for Fay Wray) is played by an actor called Bruce Cabot, here in his first leading role in a major film. Here he is-

    No, the one clinging to the rope. Here's a better shot, colourised, of him with Fay Wray-

    I find it interesting that this is his first leading role in a major film while his last was in a Bond movie, "Diamonds Are Forever" to be exact-

    Seen here telling the croupier that "Mr Franks' credit's good", he's Burt Saxby (or as his nameplate calls him "Albert R. Saxby", a little in-joke at the film's producer).

    "Saxby"

    "Burt Saxby?"

    "Yeah"

    "Tell him he's fired"


  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 9,651MI6 Agent

    Perhaps the gorilla that terrifies the kids in Circus Circus is a tribute to Cabot and Kong!

    Wasn't Bruce Cabot the actor said to have betrayed Errol Flynn - according to Flynn and David Niven's memoirs, the former in print long before Cabot died shortly after DAF.

    Hot Fuzz

    See, we were all talking about Tarantino's way of paying homage to his favourite films and how it divided people, but Edgar Wright does it too, and often far better if this is anything to go by.

    It's the opposite approach though - this is totally a comedy but latterly it 'pays homage' to these emotional connecting moments in Hollywood cop films and even though it's taking the Mickey, something Pavlovian happens and I feel myself all affected by it anyway! Hot Fuzz works on both those levels, you can almost take it 'seriously' too if you want or just laugh at every aspect of it. Whereas Tarantino I find starts off engrossing and inspiring and then throws it away in the final act, we must all sponsor Chris No 1 to watch The Hateful Eight because it's the same thing really, some great dialogue, great scenes, great set-up and then the final 20 minutes, I don't know, the same sense of evaporation, of disappointment.

    Dalton in this one of course, and a couple of Bond homages I think, one of them the shooting practice range at the fete. Simply loads of great British stars in this, one after the other.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 4,664MI6 Agent

    I did say MOST things, Nap, Elvis films are in the no-no list 😂

    And I hadn’t thought of the gorilla link in DAF before - it’s an interesting point, and seeing the Cubby in-joke that barbel mentioned, I think you could be well be right.

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,220Chief of Staff

    NP- yes, that's him.

  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,220Chief of Staff

    Red Dragon (2002)

    The second film version of the novel by Thomas Harris of the same name. The first was Manhunter in 1986 and this remake was part of the Hannibal Lecter series starring Anthony Hopkins. Manhunter had Brian Cox as Lecter (spelled Lecktor there).

    It's very close to the novel, probably closer than the first version except that Hopkins gets more to do than Cox since his Lecter was the selling point of the film. I'm not going to get into the game of mentioning which actor (not just Lecter, the whole cast) was better in which film but overall I prefer Manhunter.

    Being Bond fans, though, I'll mention that Ralph Fiennes makes a disturbing villain, carefully acted as one would expect.

  • GymkataGymkata Minnesota, USAPosts: 4,094MI6 Agent

    RED DRAGON's ending is closer to the novel. that's the one thing going for that film over MANHUNTER as MANHUNTER is a better film in almost every way apart from the ending.

    Current rankings (updated 12/21)
    OHMSS>FRWL>CR>TSWLM>NTTD>MR>SF>FYEO>GE>DN>YOLT>OP>
    TND>TWINE>QOS>TB>TMWTGG>GF>LALD>TLD>AVTAK>SP>DAF>LTK>DAD
    Bond rankings: Lazenby>Moore>Connery>Craig>Brosnan>Dalton
  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,194MI6 Agent
    edited March 19


    @chrisno1 I've been a fan of Edgar Allan Poe's short fiction since I was a teenager and have read most of his stories so many times I can practically recite them from memory. Coming at it from that perspective, I was never a fan of Corman's adaptations. While the look of his movies was appropriately gothic, most of them always devolved into trite tales of adultery, veering way off from the actual stories. The two main exceptions are House of Usher, where the first and last 20 minutes are very faithful to the source material and Masque of the Red Death which merges the titular story with another of Poe's works called Hop Frog.

    An interesting take on Poe is Spirits of the Dead, a French/Italian co-production that adapted three stories. Metzegerstein was directed by Roger Vadim; it stars Jane Fonda, flipping the gender of the main character and adding in Vadim's signature eroticism and debauchery which was only hinted at in the original text. Alan Delon stars in a version of William Wilson directed by Louis Malle that follows most of the beats of the original story. The last one is Toby Dammit, a story very loosely based on the satirical Never Bet The Devil Your Head and directed by Federico Fellini in his classic surreal style; very eerie but the furthest of all the stories from the original texts.

    If you are a Poe fan, I'd also suggest checking out an adaptation of The Cask of Amontillado that was shown on the PBS show American Masters. It's only 16 minutes long but is a great adaptation despite its modest trappings and for my money the best attempt at putting a Poe story to film. I found a pretty low res version on YouTube linked below and continue to try to find a better version:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TF_sMg5pKI&t=3s

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 1,986MI6 Agent

    @TonyDP I think Poe's A Cask of Amontillado is partly adapted by Corman in The Black Cat which features in Tales Of Terror. That short adaptation was good. I am not a Poe fan, just dipped in a couple of times, but I agree hands down about Masque of the Red Death which is a fantastic movie all ways around.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 1,986MI6 Agent

    THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970)

    Taking Sheridan Le Fanu’s novella Carmilla as inspiration, this Hammer production marked the final sprint of success for the erstwhile British horror movie company. Released in 1970 it’s a mixture of the terrific and the mundane with a glimpse of lesbian fetishism thrown in for the contemporary market. Madeleine Smith, who plays the heroine Emma Morton, was mortified by the topless and lesbian love scenes, which she didn’t think were necessary; the movie had plenty of suggestive sensuality and enough gory staking’s to be a success, she reckoned.

    Ms Smith’s got a confused recollection of events. In some interviews, she seems merely embarrassed, in still more believes she was exploited, in yet more thinks the production crew were more ill-at-ease than she, and provides odd justification in another by suggesting having lived through her teenage anorexia she was proud of her voluptuous curves; the film did mean her career stalled a little as she was constantly being offered roles which involved her de-robing all the time: cue Live and Let Die

    Conversely Ingrid Pitt, who performed full frontal nudity, doesn’t appear remotely bothered by the impact the scenes made on her career; she claims to be something of an exhibitionist and remembers drinking champagne with Madeleine Smith to relax before they frolicked around and on the bed.

    At the risk of sounding distinctly chauvinist, both women look absolutely gorgeous in that slightly kooky, late-sixties, flower-child impression. They are both effective and affecting. Pitt is all smouldering permissive sensuality, her expressive, inquisitive, exquisite face making you wonder if she’s going to bite a girl’s neck or kiss her to an orgasm. You’re driven to believe her Carmilla Karnstien is more interested in the sexual aspects of her conquest than drinking her victim’s blood.

    Smith, meanwhile, has the wide-eyed innocence of the naïve coquette, adoring the romantic fantasy stories Carmilla reads her, in love with a man once betrothed to her suddenly dead best friend, and falling helplessly in lust with her new best friend, the aforementioned Carmilla [who is also dead, as it were]. When she’s suffering the blood sickness, Smith’s not as blatantly crazed as Pippa Steel [the initial victim]. Her screams and lip-trembling wails of desperate desire are all the more haunting because of their relative calmness, as if she’s trying to confront and rationalise her fears, both of the mortal and the sinful.

    There is excellent support work from two other females. Dawn Addams has a small, important and sinister role as Carmilla’s guardian, the Countess. It’s unclear if she is a vampire or not, but she certainly works for the Karnstein’s, introducing her ‘niece’ to prospective noble families where, having ingratiated herself, the young lass can get to her blood-drinking work. She and the wandering black-robed horseman who watches over Carmilla both survive the final slaughter and set up the potential for sequels, which did come. And Kate O’Mara is splendid as the watchful, then devious, house tutor to young Emma, herself seduced by Pitt’s glamorous, eager siren. As she struggles with her changing soul, O’Mara becomes openly distraught; the scene where she reels away from the garlic flowers is particularly striking.

    Carmilla, meanwhile, continues to murder and seduce her way around the countryside, a rapacious individual whose night-time roaming in sheer negligées is the stuff of Dracula fantasy. The gored throat of Ferdy Mayne’s knowing Doctor is testament to Carmilla’s gut instincts. There’s a splendid early scene where she vanishes mist-like into her grave which has all the mystery of the best of Hammer, without the blood and gore and tits.

    In fact, there isn’t very much nudity, despite the film being specifically tailored for the American exploitation market, and most of the sex is implied. There’s a fair dose of staking and decapitation, but The Vampire Lovers isn’t the most shocking of horrors either. It’s rather tame in all regards. The male roles, which might have provided some solidity, are numerous and too light handed. George Cole’s concerned father, Robert Morton, is probably the best of an average bunch.

    The film starts with a pointless flashback [we see the episode again towards the end and it lowers the temperature at a time when the movie had been reaching a boiling point] and then embarks on an extended ballroom scene which introduces the main villainess and some of the subsidiary characters. This is like some horror version of Pride and Prejudice. “That woman’s looking at you,” says Pippa Steel’s Laura to her beau; “It’s me who should be jealous. She’s looking at you,” he replies, so we know where this one’s heading from the off. A lot of time is wasted on Peter Cushing’s General, whose daughter’s vampiric seduction is the first of a good half dozen or so. These scenes are repeated almost verbatim and to much better effect at the Morton household. The usual unveiling of the vampire and discovering how to defeat it is curtailed as we already know someone’s done it before, in the opening flashback, and the two gentlemen simply employ him to do the dirty work. After all these beastly women bare fangs and breasts, it comes as a shame it’s the men who do all the avenging and demon killing. Wouldn’t it have been nice to have some girl-on-girl heart stabbing action instead?

    The script is serviceable, the direction okay, photography worthwhile. It doesn’t disgrace Hammer films, although it did lead them into the sex and fangs market, which didn’t bring the rewards the studio might have hoped, although some of the films in the cycle – very much like this one – remain watchable even if the quality’s a bit shaky. 

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent
    edited March 19

    There's nudity?

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,388MI6 Agent

    haha, number24 cuts straight to the bottom line! are there or are there not bare naked boobies in any of these films?

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent

    Explosions are also important!

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,388MI6 Agent

    one of my friends was trying to persuade me to watch a film and it was quickly obvious it was one of these artyfarty plotless wonders I never need to see again. I said "just tell me this: does the villains headquarters explode at the end or doesnt it? it doesnt? well what the hell kind of film is this anyway?" and of course he dared to mock me for having lowbrow tastes.

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,814MI6 Agent
    edited March 19

    There are movies that heavily favour boobies and explosions, and on the other end of the scale there is ........ 😂

    Ylvis - Jacues et Florine: a story about nothing (English subtitles) - YouTube

  • Westward_DriftWestward_Drift Posts: 2,900MI6 Agent

    "Writing on the Wall" is easy. Just fill your mouth with marbles and put your testicles in a vice.

  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,194MI6 Agent

    @chrisno1 , You're right. It's been ages since I saw Tales of Terror but elements of The Cask of Amontillado were definitely incorporated into the story. Vincent Price's character was even called Fortunato Luchesi, an amalgamation of two characters from the story; and Peter Lorre was Montresor, who was the villain of the story as well.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,388MI6 Agent
    edited March 20

    Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger

    Ray Harryhausen 1977 

    Harryhausen is always awesome, but I wish to file a brief report because it stars Jane Seymour as leading lady Princess Farah, stunningly beautiful throughout, in a wardrobe both skimpy and flowing, suitable for warm climate. And to answer the pressing question of one film scholar up above, yes she takes off all her clothes, though only photographed from discrete tasteful angles.

    Patrick Troughton (the Second Doctor) is also in this as a friendly wizard, I'll let you do your own google image search for his costumes in the film. but since Seymour is a BondGirl, in the name of Bond scholarship it is my responsibility to post these.


    which makes me wonder, how many BondGirls have been in Harryhausen movies? here's who I remember

    Jason and the Argonauts 1963 - Honor Blackman as the goddess Hera

    One Million Years B.C. 1967 - Martine Beswick as a rival cavegirl. I've forgotten how this film goes, but if I'm reading Wikipedia right, our gypsy girl Zora gets in a catfight with Raquel Welch?!!?

    The Golden Voyage of Sinbad 1973 - Caroline Munro as a slave-girl

    Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger 1977 - Jane Seymour as Princess Farah

    Clash of the Titans 1981 - Ursula Andress as  the goddess Aphrodite (she barely gets any lines, Olympus is crowded with better actors when she's onscreen)

    have I missed any? thats a good excuse to watch some more Harryhausen!

  • GymkataGymkata Minnesota, USAPosts: 4,094MI6 Agent

    It's too bad that SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER is a fairly terrible film. Every time it starts to get good, Patrick Wayne says a line of dialog to totally suck the energy out of the proceedings. It also has a veneer of cheapness about it that makes it all feel like a 'made for TV' movie. Seymour is good and Harryhausen's animation of her brother in gorilla form is some of his best work, but it's really not a good movie.

    My personal favorite of Harryhausen is GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD. For me, that's the one where it all comes together. JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS is a close second, though.

    Current rankings (updated 12/21)
    OHMSS>FRWL>CR>TSWLM>NTTD>MR>SF>FYEO>GE>DN>YOLT>OP>
    TND>TWINE>QOS>TB>TMWTGG>GF>LALD>TLD>AVTAK>SP>DAF>LTK>DAD
    Bond rankings: Lazenby>Moore>Connery>Craig>Brosnan>Dalton
Sign In or Register to comment.