Last film seen...

1339340342344345413

Comments

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    Will Hay was a comic of British 1940s cinema, often portraying an affable but incompetent and slightly fraudulent authority figure. If you wanted a film to start off with, you might try one other than The Ghost of St Michaels. All the ingredients are there - Hay plays a schoolteacher brought out of retirement to assist at a public school relocated to a reportedly haunted mansion house on a remote Scottish island - you have clanking armour, hidden passages, the sound of bagpipes foreshadowing a murder, the whiff of 5th columnist exploits, not to mention schoolboy japery headed by a young Charles Hawtrey, who'd go on to be a Carrry On staple.

    But Hay is without his usual sidekicks - the fat youngster and the old man - so it just isn't as funny. Laughts ought to be there but aren't really. Dad's Army star John Laurie is there of course - be odd if he wasn't - and I guess as a kid I found this funny, identifying with the frankly rather unfriendly mockery from the school kids, but it does drag on. Hay's sidekick in this - a foppish fool of a schoolteacher - isn't all that. There's also no romantic interest for anyone, it now occurs to me, and that is a downside.

    The Caine Mutiny

    Decent telling of a mutiny on a beat-up old WW2 battleship. It foreshadows the likes of Crimson Tide and A Few Good Men - I think these were generally better films or did more with it. Borgart plays Queeg, who takes over as captain of the lazy, slovenly ship much to the approval of the young buck who has recently joined the crew - only for everyone to find that Queeg is quite highly strung and draconian - maybe a bit nuts.

    It's odd but it calls to mind an old episode of Red Dwarf where the ship was taken over by a hard taskmaster called Queeg - I guess they were making a nod to this. Likewise, Kryton I later found was named after the servile Admiral Crichton played by Kenneth More in the film.

    Anyway, this is a decent film - okay, there is romantic interest in this but it's a bit of an irrelevant sideshow in this instance. It winds up in a courtroom but it doesn't last very long and winds up a bit peremptorily, Bogart looking a bit shifty and awkward not unlike Hay's character in the previous film when he is also put on the stand. Queeg is hardly a Colonel Jessop type. You also get the sense they have to make it clear that mutiny is a bad thing even if the guy is guilty, it's not like anyone should get away with thinking they can take liberties.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,279MI6 Agent
    edited March 2021

    Zack Snyder's Justice League

    After a years long campaign, Zack Snyder's version of Justice League finally released today. Clocking it at a brisk 4 hours and 2 minutes (yes, you read that right), I found the movie to be very entertaining and and far superior to the 2017 theatrical release that was reworked by Joss Whedon.

    For better or worse, Zack Snyder takes the DC hero mythos seriously; very, very seriously. He doesn't wallow in relationship problems, overdue mortgages, forgotten homework assignments and other minutiae that the Marvel comics adaptations seem to like so much. And while there is humor in his movies (including this one), it's not to the chatty extent of his Marvel counterparts. To Snyder, these characters are giant, mythological archetypes, and he treats them as such.

    The basic plot of Zack Snyder's Justice League pretty much follows the plot of the prior movie. Bruce Wayne, wracked with guilt over the death of Superman and haunted by a premonition assembles a superteam to combat an evil that seeks nothing less than the end of the world. When their initial efforts fail, they decide to play with fire and try to revive Superman to even the odds. Where the two differ is in their treatment of the characters, the gravitas of the situation at hand and the epic feel of the action sequences.

    The four hour run time gives all of the heroes time to breath and tell their stories. Rather than glossing over how Vic Stone became Cyborg or why Barry Allen becomes the Flash, each character gets plenty of time to tell their origins, explore their motivations and get a chance to really kick ass and show their powers along the way. Even the villain Steppenwolf gets plenty of backstory and motivation. Gone is Barry Allen's juvenile humor like falling on Wonder Woman's breasts, or Victor Stone's unexplained moodiness. Even more established characters like Aquaman and Wonder Woman, who have each had their own movies, get fleshed out quite a bit. By the end, you feel like you really know these characters a lot better than you did at the start.

    The action scenes are simply epic. Even though they largely follow the same beats as the 2017 version, new sequences are added, the editing. music and color correction all combine to make for a far more dramatic presentation and the stakes seem more desperate. Along the way, there are images like Batman on top of a building or Flash running so fast he approaches lightspeed that seem right out of a comic book panel, something Zack Snyder has always been good at.

    There are lots of easter eggs along the way, a new character who joins the league at the end and an epilogue that clearly sets up more stories even as WB and Zack Snyder are both saying there are no more plans with this cast. A scene at the end with Batman and Jared Leto reprising his role as the Joker had me wishing for a movie with those two; gone are Leto's ridiculous tattoos from Suicide Squad and his whole delivery makes you finally see the Joker and not Leto in weird makeup (bravo to Snyder for getting such a great, if short performance out of him).

    As a longtime DC fan, I really enjoyed this movie. It is easily the best DC comics adaptation yet and I find it's tone preferable to that of the Marvel movies. I can't help thinking about my old AJB buddies like RogueAgent, Barry Allen, Dan Same, Alex, Willie Garvin and others; I hope they are ok and wonder what they think of this movie. I'm sure we would have had many fun conversations about it.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent

    Nice wrote up @TonyDP 👍

    I've been following the whole story of the Snyder Cut, I was always left a bit underwhelmed by the Whedon version, so many plot holes and questions, and it struck a totally different tone to BvS. Like you I am now hankering for a Batfleck Joker stand alone film, Batmans appearances in suicide squad were highlights of the film for me and along with the saving Martha fight scene (which is imho the best on screen bat fight) Affleck has done a great job! I'm hoping the Snyder Cut returns Batman to his brooding best and does away with Whedons hapless bystanding dark knight.

    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,279MI6 Agent

    Thanks @Chriscoop

    I always though Affleck did a good job of portraying an older Batman. I also really enjoyed his scenes in Suicide Squad and the Martha Kent fight scene in BvS. Having now seen Zack Snyder's Justice League, it's kind of hard to get excited about some of the other Warner/DC projects. JJ Abrams' murky plans to reboot Superman are especially disappointing as I always liked Henry Cavill in the role and thought he was a good Superman with more adventures left to tell. At least it looks like Affleck (along with Michael Keaton apparently) will be in the Flash movie that's going into production.

    Looking forward, my hope is that this new JL will be successful enough to convince WB/HBO Max to do some more direct to streaming projects with some of this cast. I think certain filmmakers like Snyder work better on a project like this, freed of the constraints and filmed-by-committee approach that theatrical blockbusters usually must endure. Naive for sure but you never know.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent

    An utter classic and great movie, so many great elements, I also love Donovan's Reef .

    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent

    @TonyDP agreed about Cavil and Snyder working better this way. I've read he actually filmed every scene twice originally, once how he wanted it and once for how WB wanted it (more joke and cheesy) I'm intrigued by Robert Patrinsons Batman, and who doesn't love Gal Gadot, but without Cavil, I'm not that interested in Superman tbh

    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,279MI6 Agent

    @Chriscoop, when I first read about Robert Pattinson being cast for The Batman I was really skeptical; but I have to admit the trailer looked really good and I am very curious to see the finished product now.

    I grew up watching Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman (yes, I am that old); looking back now those shows were beyond cheesy and often make me cringe, but she was always able to still hold my attention. I never thought anyone could repeat that combination of power, naivety and yes attractiveness but Gal Gadot did it in spades. She also brings a real elegance to Diana Prince. I still haven't seen WW84 (didn't have HBO Max at the time it screened and I would never go anywhere near a movie theater now) but thought she was great in Batman v Superman, Wonder Woman and of course Justice League.

    As for JJ Abrams, I just don't think he's capable of coming up with any more original ideas. He makes flashy movies that are nice to look at and move at a fast pace. But look below the surface and all his recent movies are just rehashes. His two Star Trek movies that he directed were both Wrath of Khan knockoffs; Force Awakens was an at times scene for scene remake of A New Hope and Rise of Skywalker follows the same beats as Return of the Jedi. His movies also have plot holes you could fly a jumbo jet thru. As such I have zero expectations for a Superman movie with him at the reins as either a director or producer. Luckily, WB seems to have embraced the notion of the multiverse so they are open to multiple interpretations of the characters made by multiple filmmakers.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent

    I also watched THE CAINE MUTINY yesterday. I can now imagine us three all watching this and merrily wondering what we can write on AJB about it!

    Here's my take:

    Not one of Humphrey Bogart’s very best films, this naval drama is boosted by a competent roster of performances and by being one of the first colour movies to utilise WW2 footage in its action scenes. Sadly the remaining points of interest are few. The story is leaden. The conclusion a little half-baked, as if we are suddenly supposed to have sympathy for Bogart’s reckless, obsessive, detail driven captain. His shortcomings are shown up to be so woeful so early, you sense he could only have attained his position by luck, not skill; there’s a few hints at post traumatic syndrome, but either the writers (Stanley Roberts and Michael Blankfort, from Herman Wouk’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel) or the director hasn’t drawn them out enough to help us.

    The film is very much about U.S. Navy protocol. This may be deliberate as it helps us appreciate the day-to-day toil of life at sea. Among the drudgery it’s possible to understand the paranoia of Bogart’s Captain Queeg, that insignificant details become huge in importance simply because there is nothing else to be concerned with. This was the focus of Wouk’s original novel and his Broadway stage production; it is not the focus here. This unbalances the film.

    During the climatic courtroom scene, when Bogart’s character is interrogated and cracks into unwelcome silence, berated only by similarly mute, unbelieving and stunned stares from the court martial jury board, we do finally begin to realise what prompts the Captain’s tyrannical outbursts; there is however a lack of background which falsifies the climax. When Jose Ferrer’s tired lawyer confronts the ‘mutineers’ – who are distastefully celebrating their acquittal with luxury and champagne – his admonishment feels directed at the audience, to consider an accused man’s state of mind rather than his potential incompetence. Ferrer may as well be speaking to the producers who have muddied the waters without clear resolution.

    There’s also an odd romantic subplot which feels out of place. I recall a similar intrusion into The Bridge on the River Kwai and wonder why these love scenes are not excised by prudent editors. These are films about men and what was then a very male dominated environment. The subplot does nothing to assist the narrative. Lee Marvin has a charismatic bit part as a noisy deckhand – one of dozens of good supporting roles he had in the fifties before making it big on TV’s M Squad. The production design in fine and benefits from utilising the interiors and exteriors of a decommissioned navy ship. The photography is a bit smudgy. The film was very popular  and became the second biggest box office draw of 1954. This seems amazing in hindsight, but it is worth remembering the novel spent almost a year heading the New York Times bestseller list, so the title had reached the public’s consciousness even if overall the movie lacks pedigree.

    Bogart’s performance is very good, and not typical of him; he deserved his Oscar nomination. Strange how none of his famed hard-boiled characterisations ever garnered him recognition, as if Bogart had to “be” an actor and not just simply “be” to attract plaudits. He is so much better in so many of his later roles (see In a Lonely Place, Beat the Devil, The Barefoot Contessa, The Harder They Fall, The Desperate Hours, etc., etc.) and never received recognition for those.

    Hard to fathom quite how the movie picked up a total of seven Academy nominations, including Best Picture. Performances aside, it is low on substance and fairly static on thrills. The conversations seem overly formal and steeped in navy jargon, for instance one whole scene revolves around the discussion of what constitutes a man being unfit to command a vessel. Curiously director Edward Dymtryk  felt The Caine Mutiny should have been much longer, slowly grinding in the descent of Queeg’s madness. I think two hours is about as much as I could have stood. The final scene, where the mutinous Van Johnson is reunited with his soft-touch of a former Captain, is unsatisfactory.

    I think the movie probably loses substance in translation. Herman Wouk virtually disowned it, which tells you something. Still, a good afternoon’s entertainment. 

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent

    I also managed to view this Humphrey Bogart gem:

    (note: several spoilers in this review)

    SIROCCO

    (1951)

    It’s easy to criticise Sirocco for being Casablanca-lite, but I think it’s a bit deeper than that, a fine piece of film noir with an untypical antihero, played out of character by Humphrey Bogart, set in unfamiliar surroundings (Damascus 1925, during the French occupation of Syria), featuring a good cast with a script and design which isn’t afraid to touch on unhealthy subjects such as terrorism, murder, assassination, passion, possession, rape, martial occupation, capital punishment, drug addiction, smuggling, gun running, comradeship, betrayal, love and immorality. That’s an awful lot to pack into 100 minutes and the detail comes thick, fast and if you blink you miss it.

    Critics did not rave about this film when it was released and you can see why. It’s rough around the edges and there are one or two slips in the narrative. Several stateside accents persist even though Bogart’s is the only American character. The love story seems unlikely. So does the resolution. However, the driving force of the film is the excellent all-round performances. Bogart was in an assured vein of work during the fifties. His company, Santana, coproduced the picture and was perhaps responsible for the almost dozen writers it employed to sort out Al Bezzerides and Hans Jacoby’s nominal screenplay. This may explain why the story never focusses enough on one subject or other. Bogart’s company did ensure a strong support cast. Lee J. Cobb is almost unidentifiable as Colonel Feroud, the head of Military Intelligence in Damascus, trying to negotiate a cease fire with the guerrilla fighters who yearn for a free Syria. He’s not only fighting the rebels, but his warmonger superior General Lasalle, a good turn by Everett Sloane.

    Feroud has brought his showgirl mistress with him from Cairo. Märta Torén is an actress I have no knowledge of, but who was certainly a beauty. She inhabits the role of Violetta like a glove. She’s a sensual lure, a low-class broad attempting to be a high-class lady, a materialistic, self-centred woman, eager for what she wants; she’ll be a slut to get it too. In Damascus, she’s bored and yearns for the stage again. This is implied by her seeking, opening and sensually brandishing a decorative fan, one which she must surely have used during her dances. She’s bored by the erotic belly dancing at the Moulin Rouge nightclub because she knows better. She’s bored by Damascus, it’s curfews and lack of home comforts. She’s bored by Feroud, who doesn’t love her, yet admits he cannot live without her. She affects his work, his whole life. Driven by jealousy, he strikes her and clearly a sexual assault is indicated. I can only think this scene passed the censor as the rape itself is hastily cut away from.

    The assault drives Violetta away from the officer into the open arms of Harry Smith (Bogart). He’s as greedy as she is bored. A black marketeer, Harry has been running guns for the Syrians and, along with his partner Nasir (an entertaining Nick Dennis), has a neat little business going: they make deals at a local barbers, they are known in the best restaurants, they believe they are impregnable. Harry knows how to keep the military sweet, unlike his argumentative fellow racketeers. Unfortunately, a cache of Harry’s guns has been captured by the French and Feroud plays the nervous Balukjiaan (a prickly cameo from Zero Mostel) against his rivals. Needing to flee, Harry takes Violetta with him, but he’s betrayed by Nasir and captured. Feroud offers to allow Harry a passage to Cairo on condition he organises an introduction to the rebel Emir (a resolute Onslow Stevens). The plan does not go well for Harry, who has a crisis of conscience, leaves Violetta at the airport and attempts to rescue his nemesis.

    The director was Curtis Bernhardt, a German emigree who never quite hit the top of the career tree. This film begins his most consistent period, which included The Blue Veil, Miss Sadie Thompson and Interrupted Melody, the last featuring our own dear Roger Moore in an early Hollywood role. Bernhardt’s work here is energetic, yet cagey. He frames some shots with a character in the foreground doing very little – being shaved, drinking chartreuse, reading a proclamation – while in the rear action is happening or dialogue is being said. He controls his actors well. No one over-emphasises their character. We believe in these people because they feel genuine and make appropriate moral – or immoral – decisions. Bernhardt’s direction, like life, is all about light or dark within shades of grey.

    The movie is photographed to match. Burnett Guffey’s camera loves the darkness and shadows. Everyone is moving in and out of them. A lot of the action takes place at night, extenuating the feeling of hopelessness, of the world coming to a close. There is nothing to live for in Damascus. Robert Peterson and Robert Priestley’s designs, the lanes and alleys of the city, the dingy bars, the barren, empty apartments look suitably realistic even if they were constructed in Hollywood. It’s a dirty, grimy, war bitten place. The writers and designers spare no indignity. The catacombs are dripping with filthy water, accessed through recessed, collapsing doorways. The streets are pockmarked with battle. Everyone is on the take. At one point, Harry and Violetta take refuge in an opium den, the dazed addicts clawing at the rank air, sucking on diseased shisha pipes. Later Harry, frantic after being betrayed, returns there believing he is safe. This jolted my memory back to the opening scenes of Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In America, where Robert De Niro’s Noodles takes solace in a smoky, fetid opium parlour. Leone knew his American movies and surely would have seen this and noted the desolate, soaking atmosphere.

    This is tough territory for Harry, a man who usually gets what he wants. This includes Violetta. He pays for an expensive bracelet to be stolen so he can ingratiate himself with her. The ruse works, but Violetta’s no fool and plays hard to get, knowing it will draw him on. Later she sees Harry in a nightclub and deliberately flirts with him in front of Feroud, provoking the latter’s ire. She wants to escape and, knowing Harry can and will help her, offers herself blatantly to him. Harry knows exactly what she’s doing, even his thief tells him: “With each new love a mist comes before the eyes; ah, the pleasure you will have before the mist rises and you find out she’s like all the others!” This is very provocative writing for the period. Sadly Torén’s femme fatale is virtually written out of the last third of the film. We must assume she took her passage while Harry’s fateful mist descends.

    The movie ends in a clever confrontation between Harry and his Syrian contact Achmet, a slimy David Bond. We can tell what’s coming and so does Harry. Bogart’s little facial eye-swivelling ticks tell us he’s understood his future. His final scene ascending the staircase is one of Harry’s redemption and the audience’s trepidation for this unlikely hero; he’s decided his fate, echoing Feroud’s words: “Men don’t die to prove their dignity.” There is nothing dignified about Harry’s death or his life. He is a scoundrel, distinctly unpleasant, and with little but his self in his heart. Yet he is the only hero in a brutal film. “You’re so ugly,” says Violetta at one point, “How can a man so ugly be so handsome?”

    Harry isn’t alone in his personal ruthlessness. General Lasalle wants to shoot prisoners: five for every Frenchman killed by the insurgents. The Emir is launching terror attacks on civilians. One of his agents sets off a bomb in the Moulin Rouge which almost kills Harry, Nasir, Feroud and Violetta. The scene is brilliantly shot, the aftermath acted against silence. Slowly the smoke clears. Debris is seen strewn across the arena. People are injured. Gradually help arrives. One woman is screaming throughout the whole sequence. The scene has a catastrophic reality to it. War is hell and everyone is a victim. This is very familiar to us in the twenty-first century. The Emir expounds a one-dimensional rhetoric of liberty, justice and freedom which closely resembles the totalitarian, glorified fanaticism of today’s extremists: “We do not fight to win. You will win, but it will be a victory you will regret.” This contains none of those reassuring words. It is a speech tinged with death and destruction.

    Sirocco isn’t a perfect film, but it is far better than its contemporary reviewers suggested. It is hindered by a very short running time and, quite possibly, the Hays Code. The screenplay is a little haphazard. It does though provide solid entertainment, has a group of wonderful performances and creates incidents which were seldom fashioned during its era. Due to current crises in the Middle East, Sirocco probably has more relevance now than it did in 1951, when the Franco-Syrian conflict was a mere footnote compared to the Second World War. It is definitely worth a look. 

    I recommend it.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent


    Bogart was my favourite actor when I was younger. I've never seen All Through the Night, but Across the Pacific is a good spy wartime thriller, a sort of follow up to The MAltese Falcon as half the cast and crew were the same!

    I think Bogart probably still is my fav, although there is competition from Caine, Connery and Tom Cruise these days. Also a closet guilty secret is Jason Statham.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent
    edited March 2021

    HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY (1941)

    John Ford is revered in America as the Father of the Western, but he was competent across many genres. In fact, when I watch his movies, 'competent' is the word which I most associate with his work. He's not a flashy director, nor is he particularly innovative. Often he betrays his training in the silent studios of the '20s with his reliance on slapstick comedy, over-expressive emotions and static camera positions. How Green Was My Valley is a case in point. The first fifteen minutes of this Best Picture Oscar winner are performed in dumb show accompanied by a Welsh male voice choir, sympathetic violins and a narrative voiceover. At this point, it's essentially a silent movie. As the film progresses, Ford utilises this 'silent' technique time and again. The characters mute expressions come to mean more than the dialogue (which is sturdy at best). But there's a problem. The audience has to work exceptionally hard to interpret the characters' emotions as they are not vocally demonstrative. Ford is almost directing their performances down, removing all nuance and individuality from the spoken lines. Additionally, he rarely uses close-ups. We can't even see the facial expressions. So many shots are framed full length, an audience always feels as if they are looking onto the action rather than being inside it. It's a curious, detached technique which doesn't promote our sympathies.

    The production values are high. I have a vague memory of reading the studio built a replica Welsh coal mining village for this. Donald Crisp is probably the best of the generally average performers. Whole swathes of the book are edited out and the movie still feels like a bore. The worst offence is believing 12 year old Roddy McDowell ages from 10 to 17. He clearly doesn't and the coming of age saga which the novel represents is eradicated in favour of the dramatic pit disaster. It isn't the best film of 1941; both Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon are more innovative and much more enjoyable. The Academy rarely gets these winners right.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent
    edited March 2021

    THE DEADLY AFFAIR (1966)

    A disappointing adaptation of John Le Carre's Call for the Dead, which featured George Smiley as its main character. Here James Mason plays Smiley under the new name Charles Dobbs. This was due to legal wrangle over the cinematic rights to the character. There was something similar over the character of James Bond, I seem to recall...

    Anyway, Dobbs (or Smiley) investigates the death of a low level diplomat and discovers a network of Communist spies. He struggles with a compulsively unfaithful wife and the return of a former WW2 resistance colleague. The film is shot by Freddie Young - whose next project was You Only Live Twice - and it's scripted by Paul Dehn, who did great work on Goldfinger and Martin Ritt's powerful adaptation of Le Carre's The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. A very good cast spend a lot of time wandering around the leafy or filthy climes of Thames-side London, Surrey and St James' Park. The action is slow. The investigation dull. There are one or two sudden assumptions which I didn't understand. As usual with Le Carre the clues are in one or two words or sentences said by a particular person and it often takes two or three watches to catch them all. I can't say I enjoyed this very much at all. It was extraordinarily popular with critics and garnered BAFTA nominations across the board, which seems amazing with hindsight. There's a curious bossa nova music track by Quincy Jones (Astrud Gilberto sings) which sounds completely out of place. Director Sidney Lumet has done a lot better than this.

    The author himself thought it was a very poor adaptation. I'm with him.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    These are excellent reviews ChrisNo1. In fact, they are such good reviews, they are too good for this website.

    Anyway, Angels One-Five

    Second World War Battle of Britain movie made in early 50s so still seems of its time, being made in black and white. Jack Hawkins - an actor who was in a lot of things, from Lean's Bridge Over the River Kwai to Lean's Lawrence of Arabia to The Cruel Sea and a few that weren't war movies of course such as The League of Gentlemen, stars.

    Also, Michael Denison who was Algy in The Importance of Being Earnest. Anyway, this has a Bond connection - Geoffrey Keen is in the cast. Actually Keen, like Bernard Lee was in just about everything in the 50s and onwards.

    Good stuff - my elderly Dad likes it because he's of that era.

    Northside 777

    American crime drama in which a sceptical reporter - James Stewart - is put on the case of trying to find out if a 1930s cop killer really did it or got beat by the system. In the same league as that Hitchcock film The Wrong Man. Gripping stuff in a low key way. Lee J Cobb always adds class to a film and does so here as Stewart's editor boss. No Bond connection but it's amazing to see Stewart's young reporter using a similar tiny spy camera as the one Moore's Bond uses in Moonraker to snap the contents of Drax's safe - this is set in the 40s and I fancied Bond's gadget was state of the art stuff nearly half a century later.

    I enjoyed your review of Bridge Over the River Kwai, ChrisNo1. What I found amazing is the young romantic lead whom I'd never seen in anything else - there's a reason for that, he died in a plane crash he was piloting about a year or so later. I never recognised Lee Marvin when I saw it.

    Bogard himself was dead within a few years of the film, too.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,701MI6 Agent

    7 men from now (1956)

    This is the second western directed by Budd Boetticher I've watched and I think I'll continue. John Wayne was intended to star, but when he heard Ford was making The Searchers he offered the role to Randolph Scott. This movie revived Scott's career and he made a number of westerns with Boetticher. The director seems to do plot, tension and characters well. There are more good plot twists than westerns usually offer. In this movie he also uses the locations very well. Lee Marvin plays a significant character, the morally questionable type with a mocking smile he did so well.

    I expect I'll watch my next Scott/Boetticher western soon!

  • Golrush007Golrush007 South AfricaPosts: 3,418Quartermasters

    Ministry of Fear (1944)

    This was a really enjoyable, moody and noirish WWII espionage thriller. Ray Milland plays a man who has just got out of an asylum after he had been accused of murdering his wife. By a somewhat Hitchcockian turn of coincidence he is immediately ensnared in a Nazi spy ring operating on British soil and he spends the rest of the film trying to both uncover the mysterious organisation and also clear his name with the law for another killing which he is believed to have commited. The atmospheric sets and stylish direction and cinematography are standout elements of this film. It is directed by German master Fritz Lang, and while it is not one of the absolute best Lang films that I have seen, I have still never seen a film of his that has been disappointing. Besides Metropolis and M, most of the Lang film that I have seen are from the 1940s - Scarlet Street, The Big Heat and several other noir classics. I've still not delved much into his early work, but I really enjoy his films from this classic era of Hollywood noir.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,907MI6 Agent

    Golrush007 said: Ministry of Fear (1944)

    ...based on a novel by Graham Greene!

    I know I've seen the film, but remember the book more clearly. It's almost surreal with so much plot revolving round fortune tellers, seances, and insane asylums, very strange circumstances to uncover a spy ring.

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,701MI6 Agent

    Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

    Not Coppola's greatest masterpiece, but I've always liked it. The film is highly stylized, most of the time it looks like it was made around 1930. I think that's a good choice. It's both a tribute to the old movies and the style works very well with the story. Keanu Reeves is miscast in a otherwise good cast, often looking stiff and lacking screen presence. Both he and Winona Ryder were critizised for their accents. I can't help thinking the result would have been better without them. Perhaps Jonny Depp (The director's first choice) or Daniel Day-Lewis as Jonathan Harker and Helena Bonham Carter as Mina? Coppola's Dracula is still a very interesting and watchable movie.

  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 6,030MI6 Agent

    Halloween (1978).

    One of the most famous slasher movies of all time, but like with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, strangely, very restrained in showing much gore.

    Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis are both very good and John Carpenter is on good early form following the brilliant Assault On Precinct 13.

    Great soundtrack too.

    I am probably in the minority, but I prefer Friday The 13th in the slasher stakes.

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 6,030MI6 Agent

    Escape From Pretoria (2020)

    Based on a true story, this relates the tale of the escape from prison in South Africa of 2 ANC activists who are joined by a third when plotting their escape. The escape plan is ingenious and there are several tense scenes of possible discovery. Unfortunately, there is not enough background to the characters before they are imprisoned, but Daniel Radcliffe has turned out to be a pretty decent actor to be fair.

    A worthwhile but not essential watch.

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Golrush007Golrush007 South AfricaPosts: 3,418Quartermasters

    I've been curious to see this film, but haven't got around to it yet. When the trailer came out this was the butt of many jokes amongst my friends here in South Africa because the accents in the trailer sounded a bit bizarre to South African ears. Our accents seem to be quite difficult for actors from other countries to replicate without slipping into a sort of parody. I'm sure this is true for many other countries and regions though.

  • HardyboyHardyboy Posts: 5,882Chief of Staff

    FREAKY, a mashup of mad slasher horror movie and body-switching comedy, with Vince Vaughn as a Jason Voorhies-like psycho killer who switches bodies with Kathryn Newton's high school loser. Surprisingly, this weird approach works very well, with Vaughn perfectly embodying (so to speak) teen angst and Newton actually menacing as the killer. FERRIS BUELLER'S Alan Ruck shows up as a nasty teacher who gets a great death scene. It's a lot of fun, but not for the squeamish.

    Vox clamantis in deserto
  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    Bumblebee

    Actually, I didn't see all of this but at the time it was well reviewed as a new slant on the Transformer series, more low key with a teenage protagonist, not so macho this time round. A good 80s soundtrack, as that's when it is set, makes it a nostalgia fest for some of us.

    It's okay but seems to run out of steam at some point. It's a one-gag movie really as the teen girl/woman controls the narrative but it's all about her and the Transformer which doubles as a yellow Beetle. Okay, we had Elliot and E.T. but Spielberg did that. It doesn't quite carry the film and the emotional aspects seem a bit obvious, a bit jokey. I mean, I could almost sympathise with the parents almost, giving their mopey kid a book telling her to smile (okay, it's a stepfather) but perhaps that's lockdown for you.

    I mean, the school bullies are a bit obvious. That said, when you have Twitter and a bloke called Mike Royle doing his #31DayBondChallenge, that tends to be more entertaining.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,279MI6 Agent

    Godzilla vs. Kong

    I caught this on HBO Max today. The movie is pretty much what you would expect: a big. noisy, often dumb monster mash with a cast of humans who add little to the proceedings.

    The plot, such that it is, has the formerly benevolent Godzilla mysteriously attacking locations in Florida and Tokyo where offices for a shady electronics corporation called Apex are located. The CEO of Apex meanwhile hires a disgraced scientist to form an expedition to have Kong lead a group of scientists and his suspicious looking daughter to the center of the Earth where they find a whole ecosystem right out of Journey to the Center of the Earth. There is supposed to be a mysterious radioactive energy source there that can stop Godzilla but of course things are not always as they seem. Better not to focus too much on the plot, you'll just get a headache.

    Along the way, Godzilla becomes aware of Kong and, as there can only be one Apex titan, engages him on a couple of occasions to show him who is the number one monster. By the end of the movie Apex's intentions are revealed, a third party enters the fray and Tokyo is once again ground zero for a giant monster beatdown. The battle scenes are all well done and both Kong and Godzilla pull off some cool fighting moves. Sadly, things go downhill from there.

    A game I always like to play to see if the characters were effective at all is to try to remember their names after the movie is over. The only characters I could remember were Godzilla and Kong, who show a greater range of emotion than their human co-stars, all of whom were superfluous, and in the case of three characters who are trying to figure out what Apex is up to, downright annoying to the point I was rooting for them to be incinerated (alas, my hopes were sadly dashed).

    Overall it killed two hours and it held my attention but if you do watch this at home, keep the remote handy and your finger on the Fast Forward button.

  • JoshuaJoshua Posts: 1,138MI6 Agent

    Last night I sat down to watch the film 'Highlander'. I dislike all types of science fiction films and only decided to watch it because Sean Connery was in it.

    I did not make it to the part where he appears before I turned off. It was I think the worst film I have ever seen!

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,701MI6 Agent

    Then you should avoid the sequels like a pandemic!

  • Golrush007Golrush007 South AfricaPosts: 3,418Quartermasters

    A bit of a Robert Altman double feature for me today...McCABE & MRS MILLER and NASHVILLE.

    Altman is one of those Hollywood greats whose work I've never really delved into much, so both of these were first viewings for me. Both arrived on my screen with great reputations, so inevitably I had high expectations for these two films and neither disappointed at all.

    McCabe & Mrs Miller is the film that has been on my radar for the longest time, as I am a big fan of the Western genre and it is film that is perenially included on 'greatest hits' lists of the genre. There was much to admire in this film, notably the much-vaunted cinematography which has a great vintage feel to it, with almost muddy, muted colours and an ever present haze which lends a feel of degraded film prints from years gone by - courtesy of some clever flash-exposure techniques. The film also features several songs from Leonard Cohen's debut album, and as a Cohen fan I enjoyed their inclusion in the film. The actors do a great job giving very believable performances, especially in the supporting roles. Julie Christie is also particularly memorable as the female lead - a London accented brothel madam with a taste for opium. Like most Westerns it climaxes in a gunfight, but little about this showdown feels typical of the genre. A great Western, and one which will comfortably take a place in my 'Top 20 Westerns' list.

    Nashville is a film that I knew little about, apart from that it takes place in the world of Country music, and has a large ensemble cast. The description 'large' barely covers it. The only other films that I can think of with so many significant characters are WWII epics like The Longest Day etc. This film is almost as epic in its running time and credits list, but much more small scale in terms of the incidents which take place in the course of the narrative. It's one of those film in which not much seems to happen, yet so many little things occur throughout, giving it a sense of real life despite the seemingly exaggerated antics of many of its characters. This is a film in which quirky characters are given ample opportunity to shine, such as Jeff Goldblum's 'Tricycle Man', a memorable role despite lacking any dialogue. The worlds of music and politics are both on display in the film and play off each other in enjoyable and interesting ways. Unsurprisingly, the film also delivers some enjoyable country music - mostly delivered by Keith Carradine and Ronee Blakley's characters. A few other characters in the film are better off leaving the microphone alone. Such is the diverse tapestry of the film.

    I really enjoyed both films - it's a struggle to pick a favourite between the two. Altman is a director that I will always seek out in future. Previously the Altman films that I had seen were: Countdown, M*A*S*H and Gosford Park. The next Altman works in my watch list are California Split and The Player. I also hope to see The Long Goodbye sometime soon if I can get my hands on a copy or a stream.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,907MI6 Agent
    edited April 2021

    The Player is a great film, with an opening shot so brilliantly executed it could be the whole film itself. It's actually got a plot, unlike some of Altman's other ensemble pieces. Belongs to a subgenre of Hollywood satirizing itself.

    Gosford Park I have heard was the inspiration for Downton Abbey, but as a Agatha Christie style mystery is more interesting than the similar looking soap opera. Stephen Fry is the detective, and just wait til you see how good a job he does of solving the mystery, that's a cutting social satire all on its own. I think Bob Balaban (the NBC executive character from Seinfeld) came up with the basic concept.

    MASH has a great cast, and it's a pity it's now a footnote to the better known sitcom. It's much darker, more subversive. If you've never seen it, you may be surprised to find that theme song has lyrics! Catch-22 had the misfortune of coming out shortly after and being compared unfavourably.


    The Long Goodbye I thought was a stinker, but that's because I'm a Raymond Chandler fan. There's many other films that more faithfully capture the Chandler experience that aren't even based directly on his books. I say its a crime to waster good Chandler on a film like this! It does include one of the single most shockingly violent acts I've ever seen in a film.

    Popeye I haven't seen since it came out, I want to see it again. The very concept is so outrageous, Robin Williams is buried underneath prosthetics to look convincingly like the cartoon character. Shelly Duvall on the other hand is perfectly cast as Olive Oyl and requires no prosthetics. SCTV parodied the idea with Altman making a live action adaptation of the mediocre comic strip Henry.


    There's plenty of other directors have tried to make Altman style ensemble pieces. example 1: PT Anderson's Boogie Nights is brilliant, if you can handle the subject matter. I haven't liked his other films half so much. example 2: Linklater's Dazed and Confused is not to my taste, despite my personal nostalgia for the period trappings. That 70s Show did it better.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,177MI6 Agent

    Golrush007

    I didn't want to quote your whole post re: McCabe & Mrs Miller.

    This is an astounding western. Its in my Top 10 of the genre. A revisionist piece, of sorts. I agree with all your comments. I'd also add the deep sense of impending doom which inhabits the film almost from the off. You just know nothing will end well for McCabe. His relationship with Mrs Miller is one of dependency, but neither can say I Love You because both recognise the futility. Her retreat into drug hazed oblivion as McCabe walks through the snow to his death is one of the great sequences of the western genre, all hopelessness is in their dual actions of fated destiny. Altman's unfussy direction heightens the discord, you see the agony etched on the actors' faces. The messy, bloody, gunfight is a much more realistic prospect than the old fashioned quick draw. A slow tortured snow dance of death.

    I need to rewatch this, it's been a few years. Last time I was lucky enough to catch it at the London BFI on the big screen and it looks, as you say, muddily devine. Wonderful stuff.

  • Golrush007Golrush007 South AfricaPosts: 3,418Quartermasters

    @chrisno1 I enjoyed reading your comments on the various Altman films. I remember enjoying Gosford Park, but definitely feel I should go back for a second viewing. Amongst the incredible ensemble cast, I do recall Stephen Fry being a delight as the detective. As for the Downton Abbey connection, both were written by Julian Fellowes (who also appeared in Tomorrow Never Dies of course) so unsurprising that there are some similarities and comparisons drawn between the two.

    I was also interested by your comments re: The Long Goodbye. I've noticed that on Letterboxd.com, The Long Goodbye has one of the highest average user ratings of all of Altman's films. Sad to say I've never read any Chandler myself (I know I really ought to) so that would be unlikely to colour my opinion of the film much. I do have an audiobook of The Long Goodbye - I wonder if I'd be better off leaving that until after I've seen the film.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,907MI6 Agent

    yeh your enjoyment of The Long Goodbye is probably a function of a) whether you've read Chandler and b) how faithfully you want your Chandler adapted. Without preconceptions it may be objectively a better film.

    I had a big problem with Robert Mitchum's version of The Big Sleep, because it was transposed to late70s Britain (and therefor some of the key plot points (the market for pornography) were anachronistic), but otherwise it was closer in plot and tone to the source material than the Altman/Gould film. Chandler's description of a specific place and time is so specific that's what I want to see brought to life. If you've never read Chandler, start with The Big Sleep, his first novel. The Long Goodbye is I think his sixth and the author was older and (even) more worldweary by that point.


    @Barbel is a Chandler fan. What's he think of the Altman/Gould The Long Goodbye?

Sign In or Register to comment.