|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 6, 2019 4:11:47 GMT
Enjoyed it more on the big screen and before I went off of watching explosions and characters endlessly running around shooting and blowing things up BUT for what it is , it's enjoyable. Like the James Bond inspired music in the sequences. ! The boss NOT being a total jerk was a nice change as well. Ending left sequels a possibility but so far none have appeared.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 7, 2019 6:14:24 GMT
Term of Trial (1962) / Peter Glenville Viewed from DVD
This kitchen-sink-era movie, written and directed by Peter Glenville, introduced two new actors to feature film, Sarah Miles and Terence Stamp (both went on to receive Oscar nominations in other movies). The movie also features three other career Oscared performers: Laurence Olivier, Simone Signoret, and Hugh Griffith.
Sarah Miles gives an outstanding performance in her film debut as a 15-year-old student, love struck by her kind and understanding teacher, Olivier. Olivier and Signoret make for an unusual married couple, and one is often left wondering how or why they love each other at all. Their marital disagreements often seem almost explosive: Anna (Simone Signoret): Attractive isn't she? Graham Weir (Laurence Olivier): What do you want to say it in that silly voice for?
But, with just when we think their marriage can't stand another blow, they make up and survive for another day. Oliver often proclaims his love for Signoret, while one gets the feeling that she simply tolerates him (in spite of his weaknesses) since she has no one else to support her and no where else to go.
The movie seems to end with the trial of Olivier for the sexual molestation of his underage student. Miles... . But, then there are a couple ironic twists...
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 7, 2019 7:44:02 GMT
The Insider 1999, directed by Michael Mann, based on an article by Marie Brenner, starring Al Pacino, Russell Crowe, Christopher Plummer, Diane Venora, Philip Baker Hall, Lindsay Crouse, Debi Mazar, Stephen Tobolowsky, Colm Feore, Bruce McGill, Gina Gershon, Michael Gambon, Rip Torn and others. Drama based on real events. A research chemist comes under personal and professional attack when he decides to appear in a " 60 Minutes" expose on Big Tobacco. Enourmously interesting and intense story that shows that it is possible to fight a giant lobby interest, in this case the Tobacco industry. The movie is divided into two parts, the first part is to get the chemist to talk, the second part is how to get the segment aired on 60 Minutes, since Big Tobacco isn't going to give up that easy. A problem for me as a non American is it's very difficult to follow all the legal technicalities, with suing and countersuing, and state and federal laws. The cinematography is too much "shaky cam" for nearly 150 minutes, I can understand it can at times create intesnity, but for nearly 150 minutes it becomes tiresome, and I would have liked some old fashioned camerawork in the not so intense moments, to make it a bit easier on the eyes. Still, it's a whorthwhile movie with great acting from a great ensamble. Worthwhile too, since it shows that it is possible to legally knock down such a huge industry as tobacco. The movie must have been hard to sell to the paying audiences, with a worldwide gross of around 60M USD, compared to the production costs of 68M USD. This movie was nominated for 7 Oscars, Best Movie, Actor in a Leading Role (Crowe), Director, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Cinematography, Editing and Sound, but lost in all categories.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 8, 2019 18:10:46 GMT
Paper Moon 1973, directed by Peter Bogdanovich, based on a novel by Joe David Brown, starring Ryan O'Neal, Tatum O'Neal, Madeline Kahn, John Hillerman, P.J. Johnson, Jessie Lee Fulton, Noble Willingham, Randy Quaid and other. Drama comedy. During the Great Depression, a con man finds himself saddled with a young girl who may or may not be his daughter, and the two forge an unlikely partnership. A partnership that is disrupted when he falls in love with a "stripper" from a tent show and when they try to steal and sell moonshine. There is no reason why this movie should be entertaining at all, but it is, since it somehow works. Thanks to the great chemistry between real-life father and daughter O'Neal, the great black-and-white cinematography by László Kovács, and the near magical flat, tree-less and mountain-less landscapes of Kansas. Thanks to being a period peace done with a gentle touch of a bygone era, it has aged very well. Just like Louis Malle's Atlantic City that I have recently seen, director Bogdanovich doesn't judge the four main characters even if they are all dishonest people, we just follow them for awhile, and let's us the audience decide for ourself what we should think about them. Since the movie became a hit many thought these characters were worth the time to follow and be charmed by them, but hoping that we ourselves doesn't meet persons like these. A nice surprice. This movie was nominated for 4 Oscars, it won Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Tatum O'Neal). The other nominee's were another Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Kahn), Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Sound.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 9, 2019 6:50:48 GMT
COVER GIRL KILLER - 1959 A guy in coke bottle glasses is killing models who appear on the cover of WOW magazine which is run by an archeologist after his uncle left him the magazine company in his will. Peter Yates was assistant director.
HELL'S ANGELS '69 -- watched this mainly to see another Conny Van Dyke film after one she did with Joe Don Baker. Of the bikers films I have seen --a Corman one with Peter Fonda, another with John Cassavetes, another with Jack Nicholson, and one with Dennis Hopper and Casey Kasem (I have not seen Easy Rider), I think this one has the most interesting story --two brothers plan to rob Las Vegas and use Hell's Angels as a distraction for their caper. Seeing the marquees in Las Vegas is always interesting--Celeste Holm, Milton Berle...
|
|
|
Post by louise on Aug 9, 2019 10:23:41 GMT
Hot Millions (1968). Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith in hilarious comedy about embezzlement.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 9, 2019 17:20:33 GMT
Fog Island 1945, directed by Terry Morse, based on a play by Bernadine Angus, starring George Zucco, Lionel Atwill, Jerome Cowan, Veda Ann Borg, Sharon Douglas, John Whitney, Jacqueline deWit, Ian Keith and George Lloyd, and nobody else. Our old site called it a Drama, Horror, Mystery, and Horror it's definitely not! I would call it a so called locked-room mystery/detective-like story. An inventor (Zucco) recently released from prison invites a group of former business associates to a holiday on his island home, intending to exact revenge on them. An old pirate's home filled with trap doors and secret passages. One of his guests murdered his wife while he was in prison, so he calculates that some will show greed, for a fortune he is supposed to have hidden. I watched a rather awful public domain version, with lots of hicks and hacks, but thankfully the important scenes were fairly intact. Since this was a PRC movie originally it was pretty low-budget with very few sets, or this was a medium production according to PRC. While far from a great movie, offcourse, it's not a total disaster, thanks to old timers that had "fallen from grace", actors like Zucco and Atwill, who could still do their things, and strangely their only movie together. Cinematographer Ira H. Morgan should also be mentioned, he was a big name during the silent years, and have Chaplin's Modern Times on his CV, and it's thanks to him that this movie has some interesting camera angles with very little movements that makes this movie at least passable, while director Terry Morse, who I have never heard about seems uninterested.. Sadly, unless you are a huge fan of some of the actors, it's not a necessary viewing.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 10, 2019 7:23:54 GMT
Watched LICENSE TO KILL 1989 finally. Actually I watched the intro to FOR YOUR EYES ONLY beforehand and the title song sequence --never seen the whole movie but love the intro song..I cant say the same for the License to Kill song.
I read this is considered divisive and I can see why. We get a more human Bond but he is drive by revenge which could be considered out of character or not human enough. Poor Anthony Zerbe-his head explodes and then in a Star Trek movie his skin gets melted. Benecio Del Toro is memorable. If I had seen it decades ago I likely would have remembered him and said: hey that's the guy from Traffic.
Carey Lowell reminds me of Sheena Easton when she gets her hair cut short.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Aug 10, 2019 21:12:08 GMT
We're No Angels (1955). Delightful comedy with Humphrey Bogart, Peter Ustinov and Aldo Ray all wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 11, 2019 4:01:08 GMT
AKA now, about that poster …
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 11, 2019 8:07:34 GMT
THE LADY IN RED 1979 - Pamela Sue Martin as a Depression era farm girl who wants to get away from an abusive Bible-thumping father and she journeys from seamstress to jailbird to prostitute to bank robber. The John Sayles script is smarter than your average exploitation thrill ride so it kind of suggests she was propelled into criminal behavior by the often cruel institutional status quo of 1930s society and yet it also doesn't go full blown social commentary either-she is not presented as a complete innocent--we see her throwing eggs at chickens and stealing photos from a movie theater before she even sees a bank hold up. Some of it is over the top but the performances keep it from going into eye-rolling territory.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Aug 12, 2019 5:15:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Aug 12, 2019 9:54:24 GMT
The Impossible (2012) The Impossible is based on the true story of a family of five separated after the Thai Tsunami hit, unaware who if anyone had survived. There is no lengthy build up that you used to get in the disaster films of the past, and when disaster does strike it is breathtaking. Naomi Watts got plenty of award nominations for the film, but for me the real star is current Peter Parker Tom Holland in his first movie role, reminding me a little of Christian Bale in Empire Of The Sun
For me the footage of the Thailand, and Japan, tsunami's are up there with 9/11 as some of the most shocking, upsetting events ever caught on camera. The film cannot compete with the horror caught in real footage, but this deals more with aftermath and it's impact on one group of individuals. A bit of a tearjerker to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 12, 2019 18:10:16 GMT
THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE- 1973 Much like Race with the Devil-another Fox horror movie, a small adult cast and expert performances go a long way to achieving the end result. In particular this came out months before the Exorcist but has a few "possession on the bed" moments. Especially effective is a Gayle Hunnicutt's creepy scene with Roddy McDowall. "Naked! Drunk! Clutching!" There's innovative use of sound design as well. I am always impressed how well it has aged--there's so little contact with the outside world that other than a few clothing choices and instrument panels it has little to date it. The book has some extra sub plots which I think Matheson wisely removes. The repeated theme in Matheson stories is that of a protagonist who is afraid of some external force (whether a gremlin or a truck) and by the end comes to terms with it, either by some ironic turning of the tables or because the character accepts defeat as a positive. In this case, you have the spiritualist and the scientist conflicted on their beliefs--and in the end, both are partly right.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Aug 13, 2019 20:58:23 GMT
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007). It’s as though all the happiness has gone from the world of Harry Potter...must be the Dementors’ fault. Having never read the books, I can’t complain about things changed/left out and only judge the films on their own merits. I’d felt the series kept getting better, reaching its peak with 'Goblet of Fire', which I thought fonud the right balance between darkness/light-hearted fun. This film, however, I didn’t find ‘fun’ at all. It got off to a bad start by including the loathsome Dursleys again (after blessedly skipping them in GoF). I also preferred how the last film started in the realm of magic, rather than the ‘real world’ like this one. Things didn’t improve much when Harry was put on trial for using magic in front of his mush-mouthed cousin. Apparently magic trials are as boring as ‘real world’ trials. The only interesting parts to me were the visually stunning flight over the Palace of Westminster and the introduction of Nymphadora Tonks (who dislikes being called by her first name, judging by her tone/hair colour changing). Sadly, she disappeared after that. Mad-Eye Moody and Professor Lupin didn’t fare much better, getting only small amounts of screentime. Things improved slightly with Ron, Hermione and the intriguing new character of Luna Lovegood. Evanna Lynch gave an exceptional performance, stealing every scene she was in (talking about Nargles and hoping for pudding). I especially liked her bonding with Harry over being ‘different’ along with skeletal horses called Thestrals that could only apparently be seen by those who’d seen death (makes you wonder how freaked out the others were when flying on them if they couldn’t *see* them). Unfortunately, Harry was at his most unlikeable this film. Being moody/angry all the time might’ve been the *point*, but it certainly didn’t make for fun viewing (though I shared his frustration with Dumbledore/understood his sudden outburst after getting sick and tired of seemingly being ignored by him). Ron and Hermione’s characters seemed a bit more ‘subdued’ this film than how they’d been previously, thus making them feel quite different. Snape, who has felt underused for a while, got some focus when teaching Harry how to shield his mind from Voldemeort and it led to a flashback of young Snape being the victim of bullying from Harry’s father, James. However, that doesn’t excuse Snape’s current attitude/behaviour towards Harry and his friends (talk about holding a grudge against the wrong people). While Lucius Malfoy gets his most screentime since the second film, this feels like the least amount of Draco we’ve seen. Meanwhile, we learn about the tragic fate of Neville’s parents at the hands of the wickedly evil (and clearly insane, given the hair) Bellatrix Lestrange. When you need someone to play a nutter, get Helena Bonham Carter! She’s quite fun, playing someone so evil. Sirius is back…but we don’t get much time with him (nor does Harry, sadly). Seamus Finnigan’s brief falling out with Harry (who insulted his mother) hasn’t much impact; Ron’s brothers bring some slight ‘fun’ to proceedings, poor Cho Chang gets very little screentime kiss with Harry comes seemingly out of nowhere. When their ‘relationship’ hits the rocks, all you can think is “WHAT relationship?” due to it being given minimal development. Professors McGonagall and Trelawney are also sorely underused. At the other end of the spectrum was the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, (seriously, do some background checks before giving people for that position!) Dolores Umbridge, who I felt had far too much screentime, zapping whatever fun was to be had out of every scene she was in. She’s every super strict teacher ever…only *worse*, because she also abuses students by forcing them to write things over and over again with a magic quill that scratches what they’re writing into their hands. How wasn’t she immediately fired? Wizard logic!). She’s the absolute WORST. What’s a School of Witchcraft and Wizardry without magic? Pretty damn boring. If Imelda Staunton’s performance is to be measured by how much I hated her character…then she gets top points. While it was nice to see the students going behind Umbridge’s back and training for their oncoming ‘war’, as ‘Dumbledore’s Army’, the sense of fun from the previous films was all but gone, I felt (the only part I really liked was seeing the various animals that the students’ Patronus charms took the forms of). The first four films had this sense of wonder and blew your mind with the magical creatures and spells, etc. This movie was much more serious and had very little humour in it (and what humour it *did* have, I felt, more often than not fell flat). Some might like that fact, but to me, these films have always been about escapism and fantasy. Letting yourself be pulled into a world of magic and having a rollicking good time. As more and more of the real world merges with the magic world, we seem to be losing some of the more fantastical elements. Sure, there are spells cast in this movie, there's a dodgy CGI'd giant (the best part of that scene is Hermione showing it whose boss and Ron’s protectiveness over her), there's duels involving wands (that more than slightly resemble the light-saber duels from the Star Wars films), there's centaurs and other things. I liked the ‘Battle of the Department of Mysteries’, and Dumbledore vs Voldemort allowed for some great visuals, but on the whole I just didn’t feel the ‘magic’ this time around and that’s why this is my least favourite film of the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 13, 2019 21:14:33 GMT
THE LION OF THEBES 1964--Yvonne Furneaux is Helen of Troy and Mark Forest is her loyal guard. This is a better than average peplum.
RING AROUND THE WORLD 1966-- a spy film starring Richard Harrison in glasses as a bit inept and inexperienced agent who travels the world and stays one step behind an assassin. In one scene he is left in a plane to die and he jumps after the pilot and kills him for the parachute. Helene Chanel appears in the second half. Jumbled but ok. Interesting locations especially in the Brazil scenes.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 14, 2019 16:27:43 GMT
Bigger Than Life (1956) / Nicholas RaySeen on DVD
This movie, set in the mid-50s, examines the behavioral effects of the new "miracle drug," Cortisone, to relieve acute pain. I sort of remember some talk about this drug when it first came into use. When used correctly and carefully it really did (does) provide pain relief. However, when abused, it can illicit huge swings in behavior. As the movie beings, Ed Avery (James Mason) is an underpaid school teacher (with a job as a taxi cab dispatcher on the side). He is a model father and husband, but is secretly hiding his huge acute abdominal pains.
When he has a complete medical exam, it is discovered that he has an incurable disease. However, Cortisone tablets are recommended for relief of his pain. Problems arise when he abuses the drug as starts to treat the people around him in a Nazi-like fashion, dedicating his life to making his family and finally only his son to a perfection. Barbara Rush plays his wife, Lou, and Walter Matthau plays his good friend and fellow school teacher.
Ed Avery: God was wrong!
Ed Avery: Childhood is a congenital disease - and the purpose of education is to cure it. We're breeding a race of moral midgets.
Ed Avery: [of wife Lou] It's a shame that I didn't marry someone who was my intellectual equal.
In this movie James Mason plays the Jekyll & Hyde school teacher. His Hyde side seems exaggerated but it allows Ray to use some great color film noir shots to amplify the character within. Note the shadow on the wall as Mason approaches his son here:
and here:
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 14, 2019 17:21:15 GMT
Amazon Women on the Moon 1987, directed by John Landis, Joe Dante, Carl Gottlieb, Peter Horton and Robert K. Weiss, starring Arsenio Hall, Lou Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Peter Horton, Griffin Dunne, Joe Pantoliano, Steve Forrest, Joey Travolta, Sybil Danning, B.B. King, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Guttenberg, Henry Silva, Steve Allen, William Marshall, Ed Begley Jr, Kelly Preston, Ralph Bellamy, Howard Hesseman, Marc McClure, Andrew Dice Clay, Russ Meyer and many others. Comedy parody. A spoof 1950s science fiction movie, interspersed with various comedy sketches concerning late night television. in America. Based on something I'm very unfamiliar with, late night television and it's programs, badly edited old science fiction movies, strange adds, bad movies, ultra-cheap fact or fiction documentaries, and female nudity shows. So for me it's a very mixed bag of hits and misses, actually more misses than hits, at least for me. Seing a normal flashlight that everyone has at home nowdays as a special new weapon on a spaceship was a bit fun though. Maybe fun for those who are familiar with old late night television in America, but only so-so for me though.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 15, 2019 7:22:43 GMT
The 3 Worlds of Gulliver 1960, directed by Jack Sher, based on a novel by Jonathan Swift, starring Kerwin Mathews, Jo Morrow, June Thorburn, Lee Patterson, Grégoire Aslan, Basil Sydney, Charles Lloyd Pack, Martin Benson, Mary Ellis, Marian Spencer, Peter Bull and others, though the real star is Ray Harryhousen's special effects, her called Super-Dynamation. Adventure. Doctor Gulliver (Matthews) is poor, so nothing - not even his charming fiancée Elisabeth (Thorburn) - keeps him in the town he lives. He signs on to a ship to India, but in a storm he's washed off the ship and ends up on an island, which is inhibitated by very tiny people, the Lillibuts. After leaving the Lilliputs, Gulliver is once again washed ashore on an island, this time he is a lilliput, on the island of giants. Jonathan Swift's book was satirising both human nature and the "travellers' tales" literary subgenre, but has over the years become more and more watered down to a harmless family friendly adventure saga for children of all ages. This movie keeps a bit of the satire of human nature and it's attraction towards vanity, by making most actors acting a bit over the top, to make them less harmless and suited for family friendly entertainment. The real star in this movie is not the actors, but offcourse Ray Harryhausen's special effects, by today's standards, some are great and some are too obvious and not so, but that is part of the charm in these older movies. The music for this movie was composer Bernard Herrmann's own favourite among the scores he wrote for Harryhausen and producer Schneer, and it is great. Sadly there is a few things that drags it down, some silly songs written by George Duning and Ned Washington, and the vanity of the royalties of both islands just becomes to much bickering that becomes tiresome in length. Whatever Gulliver does to help both populations on the islands, there is always new problems, and he leaves them in the middle of chaos, and that is part of the satire of human nature, always invent new problems to compalin about. The ending also seems like a strange hurried wrapup, and felt very unsatisfactory. Not a bullseye, but good enough for an old-fashioned matine Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Aug 15, 2019 14:17:28 GMT
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009). Magic has returned to the world of Harry Potter!... After being disappointed by Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince was a nice surprise. Goblet of Fire remains my favourite, but this one’s not far behind. The absence of Dursleys was a good start, and although the film begins in the ‘real world’, it’s a more exciting scene than the last film’s opening, as Death Eaters (including a wolfman dude) wreak havoc, leaving Muggles thinking “WTF?”...including a waitress who gets chatted up (and then stood up) by self-confessed "tosser", Harry Potter, who's whisked away by Dumbledore to the world of magic and we’re introduced to part-time armchair, Professor Slughorn. Jim Broadbent’s character is a welcome addition, as Slughorn likes to ‘collect’ special students and the prospect of acquiring ‘the Chosen One’ is too good to pass up. Meanwhile, the still wickedly fun Bellatrix Lestrange and Draco Malfoy’s mother, Narcissa, have a special mission for Draco (and ensure Snape keeps him safe/makes sure he follows through via a magical 'Unbreakable Vow' handshake). Harry’s soon reunited with his friends and it quickly becomes clear that films are not only ramping up Ron’s/Hermione’s feelings for each other, but also the heretofore barely-touched-upon Harry/Ginny relationship. Luna Lovegood, who was the fifth film’s bright spot, makes a welcome return when saving Harry from Draco’s foot-to-the-face (this film feels a bit more ‘brutal’ than prior ones, with a fair amount of blood) thanks to snazzy glasses called ‘Spectrespecs’ and Harry’s head apparently being full of something called ‘wrackspurts’ (her particular brand of ‘kookiness’ and dynamic with Harry lights up every scene). Another scene-stealing new addition is Lavender Brown, who becomes obsessed with Ron, starts a relationship with him (much to the annoyance of Hermione, who you *don’t* want to get on the bad side of...lest she magically sic a flock of birds on you), but verges into ‘stalker’ territory. Jessie Cave is hilarious in every scene. Also funny is Hermione’s (unwanted) admirer, Cormac McLaggen. The amusement derived from his rivalry with Ron is only surpassed by Hermione’s reactions to his advances/leering looks and her efforts to ditch him after taking him as a ‘date’ to Slughorn’s party. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are in fine form playing both their characters’ humourous sides and their more serious/dramatic sides. Their chemistry with each other and Daniel Radcliffe is the glue that holds this whole film series together. Speaking of, I’m surprised to learn Daniel Radcliffe apparently disliked his performance here, as I thought he was very good (and certainly more likeable than in the previous film). He proves to have nice comedic skills (especially in a scene with Hagrid, Slughorn and a dearly department friend of Hagrid), and this film’s humour was sorely needed after the last film’s lack of/failed attempts at ‘good’ humour. Harry also goes through some quite dramatic stuff too. His relationship with Dumbledore gets some major focus, proving crucial to the film’s plot. There are some really dark/shocking moments towards the end of the film. We also get flashbacks to pre-Voldemort Tom Riddle, and the two young actors playing him at different ages do a good job of portraying this creepy soon-to-go-bad-wizard-in-the-making. Finally getting some overdue focus/screentime is Draco. Or rather, it *seems* like he’s getting a lot more focus...but, mostly, it’s just him being his usual ‘foul evil loathsome little cockroach’ self (and if I had to watch him pull the cover off that damn Vanishing Cabinet ONE MORE TIME...!). Ginny gets more screentime as well, though it doesn’t amount to very much other than snogging, shoelace-tying (yes, really) and running into danger after Harry (though the attack on the Weasley’s Burrow is pretty awesome). Also getting focus, but with a bit more substance, is Snape as the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher (because THAT bodes well). He does something pretty dramatic near the end and Harry’s confrontation with him is a memorable one. Although the movie is quite lengthy, it never really felt like it ‘dragged’. There was plenty of action and magic on display, but when things slowed down I still felt invested in what was happening. The film is quite gloomily-lit in places, but it doesn’t forget to have a sense of ‘fun’ (wackiness with love potions, 'Liquid Luck', and cursed objects just being a few examples). For me, this movie was everything the fifth one wasn’t, and that’s why it joins the 4th and 3rd films as one of my favourites of the series. Book readers might have issues with things left out/changed, but I found the movie entertaining/riveting, and a fine lead-in to the two part finale.
|
|