Last film seen...

1351352354356357413

Comments

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent
    edited September 2021

    @Napoleon Plural that Tiny Dancer track is a strange one. In the context of the film, given the song just breached the US Top 40, I find it hard to believe the characters would all know the lyrics, although Elton John's early albums were all very highly regarded in the US. The song didn't chart in the UK at all for decades. It's now a regular feature on his compilation CDs because of the popularity generated by the movie. I think it was also played at the Princess of Wales' funeral, which given it's a song about a groupie always seemed entirely inappropriate to me. A very good song though.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    Erm, wasn't that Candle in the Wind? 😁 I think that Elton song did quite well after he sung it at her funeral.

    Sorry, these emoticons are crap aren't they. Devoid of nuance.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    Ah, yes, I'm not talking of that. When Earl Spencer gave his eulogy he concluded it with some home movie montage footage and the soundtrack was Tiny Dancer. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Perhaps it was at one of those endless memorial services they had for her.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    I don't recall that - easy enough to find out but I'm not heading off to Google then have to scroll all the way down this page.

    Suicide Squad

    As opposed to The Suicide Squad, in cinemas now. I think I got that the right way round.

    Hardyboy and others expressed how bad this former try out was a while back on this thread but when I tuned in last night it didn't seem that bad and was all ready to speak up for it a bit. Any film that has Margot Robbie get her leathery tongue out to fell ate (autocorrect!) a prison bar can't be that bad and then Will Smith unexpectedly turns up. Joker is in it too. Often these movies where the first bit is about assembling the bad guys and recruiting them for a Dirty Dozen type mission can't go wrong and this doesn't too much. It slightly messes with the reality though - it's Gotham but then there's some passing reference to current day concern or bit of popular culture that I don't now recall - similar to when Bruce Wayne referenced Ted Bundy in possibly the third Batman movie with Val Kilmer. Is he supposed to know about that? How come autocorrect knows to correct the surname Kilmer too?!

    One problem is the way they just keep bunging in pop records over the soundtrack. This can work well as a sort of visual/sound collage as in Cruella where it was done brilliantly but there's no getting away from the fact that it can be a cheap by numbers exercise, a way of making a film entertaining off the back of other artists' efforts. It can be just lazy.

    The film is relentlessly grim to look at with no great sense of jeopardy - our anti-heroes are meant to prevent the apocalypse from happening. By whom I was never sure but my enjoyment was enhanced by some red wine even if my understanding wasn't. The villainy is represented by a small army of sludge-like dark CGI entities who explode when shot at. Margot Robbie is spunky in a Girl Power sort of way and appealing even if not given that much to do and that's about it. The last third is interminable.

    The way this film has been re-done with much of the same cast - Viola Davis as the Govt roundup again presumably and Margot Robbie reprising her role is truly odd, is this unprecedented? Wasn't Batman v Superman rejigged by the director last year, to fans' acclaim? But that was with existing footage after the other one tanked. Imagine if EON said, hey, we'll get Brosnan back one let's have another go at Die Another Day, Or, as once seemed possible, Connery can return as Bond in the early 90s for another Thunderball remake.

    I guess it shows the strength of the Comic Strip fanbase - I think Star Wars fans were lobbying for a different movie at one point, to re-do the last one I think?

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 6,030MI6 Agent

    CLASS OF 1984 (1982)

    A new music teacher arrives at Lincoln High only to find that the school is run by a gang of vicious drug running students. His attempts to instil order are met with an ineffectual response from staff and police alike. It ends with a final confrontation between the teacher and the gang after they rape his wife.

    Perry King stars as the frustrated teacher with Roddy McDowall (great as usual) as a sympathetic colleague and a slightly chubby Michael J Fox, in an early role, as one of the good students. Directed with a distinct air of menace by Mark Lester, who would go on to helm films like Firestarter and Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger, this is an effective exploitation film resonant of films like the Death Wish series. The violence is strong and unnerving in places as the idealistic teacher is driven to revenge as his last resort.

    Forty years on from my first viewing of this film it has lost none of its power to shock and disturb.

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

    I really enjoyed the recent showing on telly, more than ever before, as I was never a great fan - the fact I first saw it as a Scout club treat, on a small colour portable TV with a video, probably wasn't the best introduction and I've never seen it on the big screen where it belongs.

    That said, I deduced a few problems that had put me off.

    1) The Ark. Like the hard-nosed US bureaucrats who enrol Indy near the start of the film, I guess I didn't attend much Sunday school but if you mention 'Ark' I think of Noah and his animals. I take it this 'ark' has nothing to do with that or did I miss something? Like being at a Bond film and having something called a 'space shuttle' when the name refers to a type of microchip, well, you keep half expecting the other thing to turn up at some point. Most of us would learn of Noah's ark in Sunday school, not the other 'Ark'. One line saying 'Hey, it's nothing to do with Noah and his animals - the ark is not a ship, it's a chest of some kind!' would have done it.

    2) Is the Ark of the Covenant for real or not? I mean, do the protagonists really think the Nazis are on to something that can unleash power? Those bureaucrats honestly don't look like they'd believe in it. So what's the point? Indy doesn't quite look like he believes in it - 'mumbo jumbo, if you believe that kind of thing' and that's okay if he's channelling Hans Solo who doesn't buy into the Force. But it isn't quite clear if this is a McGuffin or something they really believe shouldn't fall into the hands of the Nazis, like the atomic bomb or something.

    Again, a line by Indy saying 'The college needs the money and they're willing to pay - that's all I need to believe in!' would help, backed up by some foreboding by Marcus; 'But the Ark may be out of your league Indy, this isn't in your usual remit, you could be meddling with dark forces...' would help. We do get hints of the power throughout - flickering flames and so on when the gold disc is nearby - and this is pleasing but I was never sure really if we're meant to believe in it or not because otherwise it's jolly good the Nazi war effort is being distracted in this way.

    That said, when is this taking place, before the war? Would the Americans be onto Nazi Germany by that point? Would they care? Plus, as Temple of Doom was a prequel, you'd think Indy would know better than to dismiss mumbo jumbo as there's plenty of it in that film. Perhaps in its triple bill Film4 should show Temple of Doom first!

    3) Bellock. I never got the hang of this character as he seems kind of bland. I guess it means he doesn't overshadow the minimal charm of Ford. He has a white suit and hat and is elegant. That's okay but the actor just doesn't stand out for me. It's clear he's not the main villain, just being used by the Nazis for their own ends...

    4) Marianne is a bit problematic complaining how young she was when Indy took advantage in the Me Too era. It uneasily foreshadows how Carrie Fisher talked of her co-star Ford some years later, who was a lot older than her. It maybe doesn't help that the actress looks a bit like the pleasingly goofy kid in American Graffiti, in which Ford appeared.

    Their reunion was ripped off in Tomorrow Never Dies when Bond met Paris again, that said Indy redeems himself a bit by saving Marianne's life while our splendid hero just gets his old flame snuffed out then is back cackling with pleasure at Q's new gadget toy.

    The relationship between Indy and Marianne owes something to Clark Kent with the spunky Lois Lane.

    5) I recently found out that the Nazi villain in this film is played by Ronald Lacey...

    UK sitcom fans will know him as the sneak thief Horrible Harris in Porridge written by Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais who would later go on to assist with Never Say Never Again. Of course, Pat Roach is in Raiders and he popped up as Lippe in NSNA and Clement and Le Frenais' 1980s sitcom Auf Wiedersehn Pet, so it all links up!

    The thing I can't get over in this film is when Indy swims from one submarine to another in the middle of the ocean and just unlocks the lid of the Nazi sub like unscrewing a petrol tank on a car. Then stows away on it, all that stuff kills the film for me.

    I enjoyed the settings and Cairo and the way it unfolds. I like the religious conviction of the ending. But again, while the final shot is up there with Citizen Kane, it doesn't quite make sense to me. Do the US bureaucrats believe in the Ark or not? If they don't, why bother going to all that trouble to get it? If they do, why bury it in a warehouse as if it's no interest to them? You pity the poor fellow who tries to open that decades down the line. It would make more sense if the bods indy has to deal with in the final scene are a different pair, replacements for the others who've moved department, and have no interest in their predecessor's 'wasteful' endeavours, nor in Indiana Jones.

    The rival at the box office that year was For Your Eyes Only whose villain Julian Glover would appear of course in the third Indiana Jones film.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    @Napoleon Plural very good - I take it you've seen The Raiders Minimalisation episode of The Big Bang Theory...

    Spoiler???

    https://youtu.be/cfUUGrSMmxI

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    I haven't seen that - when you say 'Spoiler?' do you mean I might want to watch the whole episode instead of this clip or is it a spoiler for the other Indy films which we've all seen?

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,699MI6 Agent

    The clip offers an alternative perspective on Raiders of the lost ark.

  • Lady RoseLady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent

    I've just watched The Three Musketeers (2011).

    Stars Matthew MacFadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson. James Corden makes an appearance in the old Roy Kinnear role.

    I really enjoyed it. A fun swashbuckling fest.

    The two villains are Christoph Waltz and Mads Mikkelsen.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    It won't spoil it for you, you've watched it !

  • Lady RoseLady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent


    It's so obvious that they were hoping for a sequel with that ending. 😁

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    EASY COME, EASY GO (1967)

    Elvis Presley plays ex-navy frogman Ted Jackson who moonlights as a nightclub singer in between romancing Dodie Marshall’s yoga loving go-go dancer and trying to salvage a chest of gold coins from a 19th century shipwreck.

    There’s a nice little adventure thriller desperately struggling to survive beneath the comedy and the songs. The six numbers are so poor Elvis himself described them as “s***.” Collectively the E.P. soundtrack was the lowest ever selling official release of the King’s career. A damning indictment which doesn’t do justice to a sporadically lively movie which tries to do something different by not being a musical, yet seems to have been hauled back into the dying fold. One suspects Colonel Tom Parker had a hand in the winching.

    The title track isn’t all that bad, but it’s downhill from then on and I was open mouthed in stupefaction when Elvis contorts himself to mumble Yoga Is As Yoga Does in a duet with a horrendous looking Elsa Lanchester, who as she got older seemed more and more to resemble her husband, Charles Laughton. Dodie Marshall is a cute looker, but the infantilised plot doesn't even hint at romance.

    The director is John Rich, who was very successful on television shows of the sixties, and that’s the sort of artistic level this kind of fluff achieves. For instance, there’s a fight scene on a boat which had all the hallmarks of Batman. I half expected “pow” and “splat” to appear in speech bubbles.

    I’m being slightly unfair. An effort is made to make the piece less like a traditional Elvis movie. He looks obligingly confused keeping up with the modern groove, man, which is quite fun, and the diving sequences as well as the run-around treasure hunt plot make the thing worthwhile, just about. The mirth and the songs get in the way.

    Producer Hal Wallis had a long association with Elvis. This was their ninth and final film together and diminishing returns had set in years before. As with all of the King’s lesser movies, you can see the unrealised potential, and you just wish someone made an attempt to tap it. 

  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 6,030MI6 Agent

    TO SIR, WITH LOVE (1967)

    Sidney Poitier stars as a newly employed teacher in a rough East End of London school. His class is full of rejects from other schools and discipline is at a minimum. After unsuccessfully trying to teach general lessons he changes his method to teaching about life and what happens when they will leave school in a few weeks time, gradually he earns their respect culminating in the leavers class dance where he is presented with a gift from the pupils.

    Based on a autobiographical novel by E. R. Braithwaite, this is a sentimental but undeniably entertaining film. Sidney Poitier had already won the best actor award at the Oscars back in 1963, and he displays all the acting tropes needed to turn in a good performance which is always overshadowed by his role as Virgil Tibbs in the same year’s In The Heat Of The Night. Judy Geeson is gorgeous as a schoolgirl approaching womanhood who has a crush on the teacher. Christian Roberts plays the class ringleader who initially baits and goads the teacher. Suzy Kendall plays another first time teacher but really the character is wasted by having little to do. Patricia Routledge (later to find fame as the domineering Hyacinth Bucket in Keeping Up Appearances) has an early role as a teacher who encourages Poitier to “keep going as he is a natural teacher.” Lulu sings the smash hit title song (which is played no less than 4 times) and stars as one of the pupils in her first acting role. There are several other well known faces who crop up throughout the film.

    It all comes together a bit too easily, but that is to be expected from a 2 hour film, it would work far better as a tv series. The film takes me back to my own schooldays in the 60’s and I can see several typical characters in both the pupils and the teachers. The dance scenes are extremely naff, I doubt they were very good even at the time of release.

    Worth seeing, especially the sights of swinging 60’s London.

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

    Gymkata, have a great time at HHN - I last did this in 2018 - these nights are some of the best fun anyone can possibly have - had to pay for the fast pass though, otherwise it would have been impossible to do all the houses, they let far too many people in nowadays, but maybe the crowds will be limited due to COVID?


    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,699MI6 Agent
    edited September 2021

    La Riffa/The Raffle (1991)

    I was posting pictures of Monica Bellucci in the Izabella Thread (as one does) when it occured to me that I've only watched a couple of her non-English language movies. I found her first lead was in La Riffa, found it online and watched it. The movie starts when her character loses her rich husband in an accident. She has a small girl and she soon finds out her late husband was knee-deep in debt and he cheated on her for years. She also knows her only big thing she has going for her is that all men are crazy about her. In desperation she arranges a lottery with herself as the prize. Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty men can buy into the lottery with a very large sum of money, enough to make her debt free and and leaving enough money for herself and her daughter. The lucky winner gets to have Monica Bellucci as his mistress for four years. With Bellucci in the part it's entirely belivable that twenty rich men would gamble a fortune in the hope of having her as his mistress. The wives, her parents and the entire town learn about her unconventional plan, something that leads to some problems.

    I'm not sure this movie could've been made today, even in Italy. We also get to see Monica Bellucci na ..... this is an Italian movie starring Monica Bellucci 😏. While there are comedic moments, this isn't really a comedy. Is it a drama with some satire, romance and comedy? Maybe.

    The movie isn't great, but it works. Bellucci's acting isn't award-worthy, it works fine. Meryl Streep wouldn't have been belivable in this part, but Bellucci is. The lead needs to look absolutely fantastic, and Monica Bellucci is perfect in the part.

  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    I think some of you guys reviewed this earlier this year.

    DRACULA (1958)

    Known as Horror of Dracula in the States, Hammer Studios follow up to The Curse of Frankenstein includes more blood and eroticism but dispenses with almost all of its source material. Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster is on record as saying his stripped back version of Bram Stoker’s famous tale was deliberately designed to ensure the film didn’t run any longer than ninety minutes. He plays loose with the familiar story, cutting out Renfield and the plague-ridden sea journey, changing all the locations – the action doesn’t leave the vicinity of Dracula’s castle – and muddling the inter-familial relationships. It makes the movie short, but the story loses something in this condensed and fast version. I prefer the slow build up of tension present in the 1979 remake, which tried hard to go back to source; Nosferatu (1922) of course, is the closest.

    The film’s well directed by Terence Fisher and the shock moments deliver. Dracula’s destruction is particularly riveting. The sensual allure of vampirism is well represented, if a little melodramatic. The whole thing looks a little cheap and conforms to a host of stereotypical interpretations of peasants, servants, disbelievers, etc. The music is appalling – the climax is played out to a skit that resembles Dick Barton – and the performances over-sincere. As if to reinforce the bargain-basement appeal, I noted Van Helsing’s hotel room was reused in next year’s The Hound of the Baskervilles and Dracula’s castle tomb is the same one as Lucy Holmwood’s, minus the soil. Peter Cushing plays Van Helsing as a much younger man than anyone previously had or latterly does. He’s pretty good. Christopher Lee has no dialogue after the first fifteen minutes; he carries all the action and menace in his movement, his eyes and facial expressions, an achievement in itself. He’s exceptionally good in a star-making role. The final death scene is a moment of true horror. The rest of the movie, well, it’s all a bit ordinary and staid.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    Murder on the Orient Express - the Kenneth Branagh version.

    Now this was a lot better than I'd expected. The thing about this whodunnit is that much of it is set on a train derailed in the snow so it's claustrophobic and one-note. Yet this film gets away from this by emphasising the Orient nature of the train - it opens in Istanbul and heads north, the first 20 minutes are different, it's all exotic, sunny climes so it wrong foots you. I guess it's like what I said about The Spy Who Loved Me - this is the underwater Bond but unlike the Thunderball treatment they chuck in some snow and sand to keep it from getting samey.

    The look of the film is superb even if some of the steam train shots venture into Hogwarts or Polar Express territory.

    Some of it is a bit odd if I'm being picky - Michelle Pfeiffer is 10 years too old for the part she's playing here although with some dodgy accents it later turns out that's part of the yarn, the character is putting it on.

    The film is not really menacing and prefers sentimentality, saddling Poirot with a long-lost love that he gazes at from a picture in his wallet or something. It's a problematic thriller if you know how it pans out, it's not exactly credible but there you go. I thought the way they dealt with the flashback and the way Poirot know about the case presented in the flashback was better done, it didn't start with a load of exposition.

    One ill-judged aspect was that after the passengers learned of the Belgium detective's verdict and he walked away, the train could be heard erupting into 'For he's a jolly good fellow...' which arguably undermined the tone. I suppose they wanted to end it on an upbeat note.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • Golrush007Golrush007 South AfricaPosts: 3,418Quartermasters

    I'm also looking forward to Death on the Nile. I think Murder on the Orient Express was a better film than I might have expected, even though I'd only rank it 3rd of the Murder on the Orient Express adaptations I've watched - after the David Suchet and Albert Finney versions.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    One snag I might mention is that once we've seen the film - and the denouement is very memorable - there's no getting away that you know whodunnit, so in this one when Branagh's Poriot is puzzling about how he cannot figure it out the murderer despite all the clues, this is one instance where you find yourself thinking, mate, it's obvious...

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • HardyboyHardyboy Posts: 5,882Chief of Staff

    I finally saw the four-hour Zack Snyder cut of JUSTICE LEAGUE. I didn't hate the theatrical cut--I was just underwhelmed by it, and I thought it was looking forward to a better sequel. Well, this version is jaw-droppingly BRILLIANT. Cyborg--pretty much an afterthought in the theatrical version--emerges as a full-blown character, with a strong story involving his father and with an important role in the plot. The villain Steppenwolf--just a visual effect in the theatrical film--also gets some rounding-out, coming across as more menacing and showing his own need to prove himself to his master Darkseid. . .who gets some real screen time here. Last, the resurrection of Superman is truly moving. The film closes with the threat of Darkseid launching an invasion of earth and, of course, setting up a sequel. . .but it looks like that will never come. Darn.

    Vox clamantis in deserto
  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,172MI6 Agent

    ANNA (2019)

    Luc Besson is a one man film factory. He’s written, directed and produced countless products since he first emerged on the scene in the early eighties. Sadly this means the end result of his labour is sometimes less than it ought to be, diluted by the necessity to keep the conveyor belt of movies moving. Anna is such a film.

    Basically, this 2019 thriller is a re-tread of his own classic Nikita, following the fortunes of a down at heel, abused young woman who is given an opportunity to better herself by joining a secret service institution, in this case the KGB. While it sounds promising, Besson isn’t doing anything he hasn’t done before. The story’s made even more repetitive by the fact we’ve seen an awful lot of this storyline recently: Red Sparrow, Atomic Blonde, Hanna, Salt, even Killing Eve on television. While Besson may have originated the format, he adds nothing new to it and Anna is a by-the-numbers thriller where the sum of the numbers is very low.

    Sasha Luss plays the titular spy, who impersonates an aspiring model as a cover for a series of assassination coups. It defies belief she’s never caught. She does a tremendous amount of killing, some of it exceptionally bloody. Luss' career started in photo and catwalk modelling and she’s rather effective in a grim, unsmiling fashion. Her blank expression lends itself to the duplicitous and quietly scheming character. She’s competent in the action scenes, which are unrestrained, stylised and don’t deserve our attention or praise. Anna’s handler is Olga, a Russian witch in the Rosa Klebb mould. As depicted by Helen Mirren, Olga is about as good a villain as you get in these things, sharp, inscrutable, heartless, cruel and ambitious. I enjoyed her playing and so too does Luss, as her best moments come when she’s sparring with her superior. What most impresses here is how the nature of the characters, particularly the numerous villains, is developed through the narrative, but with so little explanatory background. It’s a demonstration in brevity and accuracy which the writers of recent Bond films should take note of. Audiences don’t need to be spoon-fed every second of a person’s life story to understand them. Nor do they need to be tenuously joined at the hip. Besson has clearly studied what makes the very best thrillers work – including the best of Bond – as he leaves characterisation up to his actors. His script is merely the bones on which to hang tension and action and intrigue.    

    So, everyone is out for a piece of Anna: Piotr, her hopeless loser boyfriend; Alex, her KGB recruiter and trainer [Luke Evans, a dullard of a role], Vassiliev, Head of the KGB; the gossipy self-indulgent models and agents; egotistical photographers; clinging girlfriends; an American CIA entrapment expert [Cillian Murphy, equally dull]. It’s amazing the poor girl isn’t mentally and physically torn apart. The film progresses steadily and without too much fuss. The criss-crossing time line doesn’t help. The lack of attention to detail is annoying. For instance, the film is set in the late eighties and early nineties, but the technology featured is more akin to the 2010s; or there’s a fight scene in a restaurant where stuntmen keep climbing up off the floor to be killed a second or third time – I assumed this was intended as a visual joke, but as the film lacks any sense of humour, I wasn’t sure.

    Anna had disappointing box office and I can see why. It’s a very ordinary, uninventive thriller, which at times mocks the director's best work, like The Fifth Element and Leon. Besson has done a lot better than this. Perhaps it is time not to spread his talent so thin. Interestingly, I rather enjoyed Eric Serra’s music score and wondered, not for the first time, why he delivered such monumentally unexciting music for Goldeneye.

                 

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,699MI6 Agent
    edited September 2021

    The eight hundred (2020)

    This movie was the biggest box office hit in the world last year, so why has so few of is heard about it? Probably because it's Chinese. It's the first time a non-English language movie is number one at the world box office, most likely because of the pandemic, but The Eight Hundred had a huge budget and it's the first Chinese movie shot entirely in IMAX.

    The movie is based on a real story from Shanghai in 1937. The Japanese invaded China and after three months of fighting the Chinese Nationalst army was pulling out of Shanghai. This movie was supposed to be released in 2019, but was delayed because of "technical difficulties". Many believe the real reason was the aniversary of the People's Republic of China, and the movie was insensitive enough to remind the public that the Nationalists did most of the fighting against the invaders while the communist forces mainly fought their Nationalists countrymen.

    The Nationalist army wanted a small unit to stay behind to cover their retreat. An elite batallion trained and equiped by the Germans back when their main job was fighting communists. They chose to defend themselves in the Sihang warehouse, a thick-walled bank building by the river. That turned out to be a fortunate choice since the Foreign Consessions (an area of the city controlled by former colonial powers, in effect neutral at the time) was just a cross the river. Because of this the Japanese didn't use artillery or bombers against the warehouse to avoid hitting the Consession. The defenders of the warehouse were just 414 soldiers. To confuse the attackers the commanding officer said they were eight hundred, the regiment's original size. These 414 soldiers were up against at least 20 000 Japanese soldiers. The soldiers fought with great bravery, holding the warehouse much longer than everyone expected. This happend in full view of both foreign and Chinese inhabitants on the other side of the river in the Consession along with the international press. The Chinese hoped this would push the Western powers to help China in the war against the Japanese invaders. This didn't happen, but the 800 boosted Chinese fighting moral and helped turn the outside world against Japan.

    The story is exiting, it's beautifully shot and told and the budget shows. There are many standout scenes, including one with three Chinese deserters hiding in the canals under the warehouse hiding for Japanese forces.

    I like how the movie doesn't shy away from showing Chinese soldiers deserters and the brutal handling of them by their officers. They also show them hiding, drinking and showing fear. Unfortunately the movie has scenes that are exagerated and far too flag-waving (litterally in one case), going full "Pearl Harbour" in many scenes. There was one real case of a single Chinese soldier stopping attacking sappers from undermining the warehouse wall with explosives by turning himself into a suicide bomber. As if this wasn't cinematic and patriotic enough for the movie, the director has many more soldiers throwing themselves over the wall with handgrenades strapped to themselves. I encourage anyone who wants to watch the movie to read the Wikipedia entry on the Sihang warehouse after watching it, both to marvel at what's true and also be aware of what's made up or exagerated. Please note the real numbers of losses. They will surprise you, that's all I'm going to say.

    The movie is well made and spectacular and I enjoyed watching a blockbuster not made in English. You should considered it too, I think.

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 21,699MI6 Agent

    Dune (2021)

    I've been at the cinema! I planned for NTTD to be my first post-strict restrictions cinema experience, but Denis Villeneuve's Dune was to promising to miss. I don't think that man has made a movie that isn't very good yet. Villeneuve should direct a Bond movie ASAP!

    The cinema was almost full (mainly of students) with no social distancing to speak of, so no-one can say I don't take chances for art. 😃

    Dune has been called "Star Wars for adults" and the first SW was reportedly influenced by the Dune novels. The story focuses on the young Paul Atreides Timothee Chalamet, the heir of a noble family on the planet Caladan. The location shooting for Caladan was done in Stadlandet, a couple of hours from where I live, close to the planned site of the world's first ship tunnel.

    The Atreides family are given dominion over the desert planet of Dune, a very harsh place where the universe's most valuable resource is harvested. The indigonous desert people of Dune have been oppressed for generations. There are some parallells to Arabs and oil I think. A messiah figure in Dune religion is even called Mahdi, a name used for a messiah figure in islam.

    The plot is complex, but Villeneuve wisely cut the first novel in two. This is Dune part I. Together with good design and storytelling I think the plot wasn't too hard to follow. The acting, design, directing etc is very good. We get both the smaller, personal scenes as well as the spectacular and epic scenes we expect.

    I very much encourage you to brave the pandemic and watch this great sci-fi movie om the big screen.

  • TonyDPTonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,279MI6 Agent

    Never say never HB. While it's true that Zack Snyder and WB have a pretty toxic relationship right now, the hope is that the so called Snyderverse universe may get another look when WB merges with Discovery and gets a new studio head. Add to that the fact that most recent DC movies that pivoted away from the Snyderverse like Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey have been box office flops, the apparently strong connections between this movie and the upcoming Flash feature, and rumors that even the current regime is investigating the possibility of doing a follow up to Justice League to save face with the incoming management and there may be hope that we'll revisit that universe again. All wishful thinking? Maybe, but at the end of the day, money talks and Zack Snyder's Justice League still doing quite a bit of business. The movie was released on DVD, BluRay and 4K last week and has been selling really, really well.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    I got to see The Suicide Squad at my local before it disappeared.

    I didn't like it much, I found it horrible and stupid. Maybe I wasn't in the mood, trekking out on a Sunday evening. I'd seen Deadpool on telly the night before and I preferred the humour in that. There are jokes in this one - good ones - but the film didn't quite have funny bones imo because it's front loading the brutality and so on. I don't know how I'm supposed to believe a team made up of a shark man and a weasel - while the Idris character is amazed to find a rat is waving at him - but if I don't believe it I need to find it funnier.

    It's surely the most violent film I've ever seen but here I found nobody to root for really. Intrigued at the anti-patriotic, anti-American bent of the movie however. I do struggle with what world it's meant to be in, the Marvel universe of the Joker/Batman one - it's the latter isn't it?

    I'm glad I'm seeing the Bond movie soon - I'm tired of having to sneak in to a movie at the last minute only to hastily depart to the silky sounds of 'It seems that fate has brought us together...'

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • HardyboyHardyboy Posts: 5,882Chief of Staff

    Tony and Gymkata, thanks for your replies. I can only say that I hope THE FLASH won't have a multiple-aternative-universes setup--that's way too much like the upcoming Spider-Man flick, even down to resurrecting Alfred Molina's Doc Ock. I've got my fingers crossed that THE FLASH is based on the excellent FLASHPOINT graphic novel, in which Barry Allen goes back in time to keep his mother from being killed, and of course initiates a butterfly effect. One change he notices is that Batman is now older and meaner--and it turns out he's THOMAS Wayne, not Bruce Wayne (why he is can be explained by reading the book--no spoilers from me). This would mean that Michael Keaton is actually playing Batman, but not Bruce.

    Since I'm here, a movie I saw this weekend was something called THE VIRTUOSO. I guess I put it in my Netflix queue because Anthony Hopkins is featured heavily in the artwork, though he's only a supporting character. So too are such big(gish) names as Abbie Cornish, Eddie Marsan, and David Morse. But the star is a guy named Anson Mount, whose got a long list of titles on IMDb, but I'm darned if I know what he's been in. He's a top international assassin who looks sullen and wears only designer trenchcoats and is so out of place wherever he is that you expect people to constantly walk up to him and say, "Are you an international assassin?" He's also equipped with unending voiceover narration that sounds like a bunch of stuff Jack Webb cut out of his old "Dragnet" scripts. Bad dialogue, bad acting, and a bad script that all leads up to a surprise THE USUAL SUSPECTS-like twist that should surprise no one. I'm wondering if the director is a kid of the agent who represents all the big names in the film, and they put in their appearances as personal favors.

    Vox clamantis in deserto
  • CoolHandBondCoolHandBond Mactan IslandPosts: 6,030MI6 Agent

    It’s all too confusing for me, I wish we could go back to the days of Adam West’s Batman and Christopher Reeves’s Superman!! 😁

    Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
  • Bond fan from OzBond fan from Oz Posts: 88MI6 Agent

    The Goldfinch (2019)

    Interesting but average film co-starring Jeffrey Wright and Nicole Kidman.

    The ending seems like it belonged in a different film; it's one of those films you would instantly forget about the day after being seen.

  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,238MI6 Agent

    The Courier, an espionage thriller set in the Cuban Missile Crisis era of the Cold War, with Benedict Cumberbatch. A sort of companion piece to Spielberg's Bridge of Spies really, but from the British perspective.

    It seems to me I've been watching British films like this and reviewing them on AJB for the last 20 years or so.

    It's 'based on a true story' which is often code for 'if it's boring as hell, don't blame us'. And it is boring as hell for much of it. It's about a travelling rep or commercial salesman roped in to do a bit of spying for the West in the Soviet Union. Just innocuous stuff, making contacts, bringing back documents of course, that's all. If you've ever seen the Dirk Bogarde comedy thriller Hot Enough for June in which he does much the same thing, only with John Le Mesuriere and Robert Morley in tow, you know the thing.

    There's no real angle on it for the first half hour and more. The actors or their characters are unlikeable and uninteresting with no quirks to speak of. Nothing wrong with them, mind. It's dully authentic, the period trappings are fine but a bit distracting. Cumberbatch is fine but you always know it's him.

    It's the sort of British film that we always see - no real flair to it. A bit like the Unofficial Secrets with Keira Knightley last year or so. You get the sense it could be done far better on telly and in the era of Netflix there's no excuse for it except to keep the British film industry going, it almost seems like it's being subsidised. It lacks the three-card trick advocated by myself when talking about The Spy Who Loved Me. You need something else to distract from a dull plot - a bit of humour or some red herrings. Or a sub-plot. There's none of that here. It sets the thing up so we should be suspicious of everyone but it doesn't really build on it. You do get decent British films - Atonement and Pride and Prejudice and that BBC series Summer of Rockets - that exhibit visual and emotional flair even if they usually contain massive plot holes too.

    The tension ratchets up towards the end and it becomes emotionally involving - there are nods to The Living Daylights. Though much is set in Moscow we don't see any of it really - maybe they were deterred from filming it. One shot along the river looks authentic but was probably some other East European city, we see none of the Kremlin or any of that.

    I managed to avoid the Bond trailer again.

    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sign In or Register to comment.