|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 25, 2019 19:37:43 GMT
Pickup On South Street (1953) 7/10 Bringing Up the Dead (1999) 7/10 Do you mean Bringing Out the Dead? - Great film > www.imdb.com/review/rw1955504/?ref_=tt_urv 9/10 Pickup On South Street - likewise. Forget the communist fervour and delve deeper. Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations. Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller infused this adaptation with a heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice. Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 1950s, and I'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy. Widmark is all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent and is the films heart. However, it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically. It's a "B" movie in texture but an "A" film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is one of the best from its most intriguing director. 9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 25, 2019 22:13:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 25, 2019 23:05:06 GMT
Back to normality  Not a bad action movie of it's sort, based on real events. Took me 30 minutes to realize I've seen it before. Action scenes per minute in the end becomes too repetitive, New Danger New Danger every ten seconds. The real story is interesting reading though.  I must admit I'm having trouble telling those movies apart now, good roles for legands like Sally Fields and Martin Sheen though. Not bad but it's also a kind of Deja Vu.  The inevitable and expensive sequel, entertaining Yes, but somehow misses out on the first movie's freshness. The new theme song has none of the pulsating charm of Ray Parker Jr's song. After some research it's Max von Sydow that uncredited voices Vigo, I knew that voice sounded familiar. Deepwater Horizon - I have had it recorded for some time but haven't gotten around to watching it yet, also recorded Patriots Day this week so I may go for a Mark Wahlberg - "based on real events" double bill at some point.The Amazing Spider-Man - My review below was written before the sequel came out. That sequel's travails saw another reboot to the Spider-Man universe!  No wonder you can't tell them apart, we had the original Sam Raimi trilogy, then the Garfield reboot of 2 films, and now we are about to get the second of the Tom Holland reboots... Webb's Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does what ever a Spider can.The Amazing Spider-Man is directed by Marc Webb and collectively written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. It stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field. Music is by James Horner and cinematography by John Schwartzman.
Peter Parker (Garfield) was orphaned as a boy when his parents were killed in a plane crash, raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field), he is a clever lad but something of an outcast at high school. While investigating the disappearance of his parents and sporting a crush on class mate Gwen Stacy (Stone), Peter's life is tipped upside down when he is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him abnormal powers.
While the Spider-Man franchise doesn't (thankfully) come packaged with the kind of bizarre mania that comes with Batman, the acolytes are a tough bunch to figure out. Sam Raimi's trilogy garnered close towards $2.5 billion worldwide, yet now, with this reboot (actually it's a reimaging) trundled off of the Sony production line, there are plenty of "fans" coming forward to say they never rated Raimi's films! Magurie was this, Dunst was that, Raimi missed the beat of the comic version of Spidey and etc and etc. Well I'm sorry, but I just don't remember any fall out apart from the near unanimously agreed upon over stuffing of Raimi's part 3. Perhaps I just didn't go on the right Spider-Man forums? But even then it's hard to argue with a box office take of $2.5 billion, those figures have to be made up of a good proportion of Spidey fans, surely? You would reasonably think
I mention it because The Amazing Spider-Man has met with reviews from each end of the scale. Those at the high end who support the "reimaging" seem to focus on it being close to the real Spidey universe they wanted, with great casting, better effects work and a origin story of worth. At the other end is the arguments that "reimaging" a film that is only ten years old is daft, especially since it actually doesn't bring the promised new direction or origin story of worth. In fact it just juggles bits of the Raimi trilogy and plays it out with other Spider-Man characters instead. While Garfield is hardly an improvement since he's way too old for high school as well! The truth is that Webb's movie falls somewhere in between both sides of the argument, and that's not just me being Switzerland and staying neutral!
Negatively it plays out as a compromised production and not the film that the makers initially set out to make, there are too many dangling threads and haphazard edits that leave narrative gaps. An Important character disappears off the radar, other characters are given limited time to breathe, and crucial plot points are arrived at with stupendous leaps of logic. A coda spliced into the end credits tries to entice us for the sequel, suggesting that the quick wipe over the origin "origin" story was deliberate, it's unlikely, and feels like an afterthought. For a film that purports to be putting its own stamp on the Spidey universe, it quite often makes you think of Raimi's films anyway. It may be The Lizard instead of Green Goblin and Gwen instead of MJ, but the emotional and psychological beats are still the same. Reboot? My arse. Oh and Horner, who I'm normally a fan of, has turned in a score that lacks vim and vigour, it aspires to be full of swirling superhero fervour to raise the goose flesh on your arms, but instead it's just goose, and not a decently cooked one at that.
However, on the positive side of things, low expectation really helped me to enjoy the film, and I even watched it a second time to check over some initial reactions I had. There is still a lot to enjoy here. Acting is of a high standard (Ifans' performance as Curt Connors gets better on repeat viewings), with good chemistry generated between Stone and Garfield, the effects work is (obviously) better ten years on; something which gives us a better-more acrobatic-moving Spider-Man, while the whole make-up of Parker as a geek who becomes cocky, even arrogant, really adds a kick to the first half of the movie's coming-of-age narrative bent. It's also good that with a running time of over two hours the makers have the time to expand Peter as a character, making the audience wait with expectation of his life changing date with the spider. As for the villain, it's true enough to say that The Lizard is hardly an inspiring choice, but it does fit in with the whole origin story plan that Webb and his team want to tell. Though it should be noted that those seeking wall to wall fights between Spidey and The Liz are going to go a little hungry.
It's big on human story and not the lazy cash in movie it could have been, and undeniably it's fun, but the holes, dangling threads and logic leaps stop it breaking out to achieve its intentions. Looking forward to the sequel, mind 7/10
Ghostbuster II 
Who you gonna snore?
Ghostbusters II Is directed by Ivan Reitman and stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis & Ernie Hudson. Ramis & Aykroyd c-wrote the screenplay and it's a sequel to the hugely successful Ghostbusters from 1984. Plot follows on from the first film but five years later and sees the Ghostbusters disbanded after being derided as frauds and handed a bill for the damages incurred as they saved the world! However, a new supernatural threat is bubbling down in the sewers of New York and now more than ever the Ghostbusters are back in vogue.
It was probably asking too much for this sequel to be as sparkling as the first film. More so when one considers that there was a 5 year gap in between and a new decade was soon to arrive that firmly had no place for 80s nostalgia. Oh Ghostbusters 2 was a success, very much so, but after the rush of fans wanting some more from the kooky parapsychologists had died down, the feedback was very mixed from fans and critics alike. Understandably so since everything about this sequel is tired. The characters look bored and lack the expresso timing that was once evident, especially Murray who is badly underused here, and more troubling is that his Venkman, the best thing about the original film, is reduced to being a normal type bloke. That's criminal, because the spirited stuff falls to Aykroyd and co and tho they be solid pros, they ain't got Murray's wit and mannerisms.
The story too is weak. Featuring a seventeenth century tyrant and the inevitable rise of spooks unbound. Thankfully, tho, the effects are at least of the high and gloopy standard set first time around. And there's some tight gags in there for the knowing Ghostbuster ear. But repetition hangs heavy throughout, Ramis & Aykroyd seemingly not grasping that what worked in 84 will not totally transfer well to a new crowd who are now older and wiser. There's also the distinct feeling that this film is more about a cast get together to make some easy cash than enticing in a whole new audience. Peter MacNicol is a welcome introduction to proceedings as Janosz Poha, while more of "slimer" (who is now real cool) is never a bad thing. But the magic is gone and Ghostbusters 2 just comes off as shallow and dangerously close to soiling our love of the first picture. 4/10
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 25, 2019 23:56:08 GMT
Nora Prentiss / Vincent Sherman (1947). Warner Bros-First National. Upright, uptight big shot doctor Richard Talbot (Kent Smith) lives a pretty strict existence with a successful San Francisco medical practice and perfect family: controlling wife and a son who repeats Dad’s words and mimics his mannerisms. The only real light is his daughter Bonita (Wanda Hendrix, endearing) who is lively, independently minded and desperate for her father’s attention. One night leaving his office, nightclub singer Nora Prentiss (Ann Sheridan in yet another great performance) gets knocked down by a car. She is taken to Talbot’s office where he patches her up and starts to be attracted to her. From here an affair begins that consumes Talbot’s life. But the switch here is that Nora is not the femme spider luring the helpless male into a web. Nora is, in fact, the level headed one of the two who doesn’t want to break up a family. Talbot has to lie to her to keep her in the affair. But one night Nora does break it off to go to New York. Frantic, Talbot hatches a crazy plan to fake his own death and assume another person’s identity. He joins Nora, telling her his wife has agreed to a divorce. In NYC, he hides San Francisco news of Dr. Talbot’s fiery death. This is just the start of a spiraling series of unfortunate events that Talbot is sucked into. Kent Smith does career work here. Robert Alda and Bruce Bennett also star in substantial supporting roles. Director Vincent Sherman delivered for Warner for many years in many genres. And, again, behind the camera we have James Wong Howe bringing the noir and upping the tension with unexpected lighting and camera set-ups. For years promoted as a ‘40s “woman’s picture,” “Nora Prentiss” now has a growing and deserved reputation as classic, perhaps essential, film noir. Many memorable moments to talk over and discuss with friends.   The Asphalt Jungle / John Huston (1950). Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. As another writer has said: “’Jungle’ reflects two shades: dark and darker.” This tale of bad luck and trouble is an absolute classic essential of film noir. Director John Huston and cinematographer Harold Rosson (The Wizard of Oz, Singing In The Rain, Johnny Eager, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo) have crafted a film where each frame could be hung up as art and as a perfect example of what people mean when they say noir. Aging career criminal Doc Erwin Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe, Oscar nominated), quiet spoken, impeccably dressed, just released from prison, evades his police tail and immediately starts putting together a crew for his latest robbery caper plan. He needs four other people: a driver, a safe cracker, a “hooligan” (muscle), and a backer with some front money. The hooligan is going to be Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden), whose story is the major focus of the film. The front man will be the (supposedly) rich lawyer Alonzo Emmerich (a brilliant Louis Calhern). But Emmerich is broke due to bad investments and his lavish support of Angela (a breakout for Marilyn Monroe), his young mistress. Early on we learn that Emmerich is planning to double-cross Doc Riedenschneider and keep all the swag. Also in the cast is Anthony Caruso as the safecracker, James Whitmore as the driver, Jean Hagen as Dix’s girlfriend, and Marc Lawrence as a nervous minor bookie working as a go-between and providing a hideout. All are exemplary. Also Oscar nominated was Rosson for b&w cinematography, Huston for directing, and Ben Maddow & Huston for writing. If you have never seen it, watch it today. After the caper, an escape in a 1946 Dodge Custom Club Coupe  - Thanks for that Mike, I was down to my last two 1947 quest films so have another to watch as well now  The Asphalt Jungle - One of the daddies  Experience has taught me never to trust a policeman. Just when you think one's all right, he turns legit. Out of MGM, The Asphalt Jungle is directed by John Huston and based on the novel of the same name by W.R. Burnett. It stars Sterling Hayden, Jean Hagen, Sam Jaffe, Louis Calhern, James Whitmore, Teresa Celli, and in a minor but important role, Marilyn Monroe. Miklós Rózsa scores the music and Harold Rosson photographs it in black & white. Plot sees Erwin "Doc" Riedenschneider (Jaffe) leave prison and quickly assemble a gang to execute a long in gestation jewellery heist. However, with suspicion rife and fate waiting to take a hand, the carefully constructed caper starts to come apart at the seams. John Huston liked a tough movie, having given film noir in America a jump start with The Maltese Falcon in 1941, he also that same year adapted W.R. Burnett's novel High Sierra. Burnett also had on his CV crime classic stories Little Caesar & Scarface, so it's no surprise that Huston was drawn to The Asphalt Jungle. As it turned out, it was a match made in gritty urban heaven. The Asphalt Jungle was one of the first crime films to break with convention and tell the story from the actual side of the criminals. Where once it was the pursuing law officers or private detectives that were the heavy part of the plotting, now under Huston's crafty guidance we have a study in crime and a daring for us to empathise with a bunch of criminals, villains and anti-heroes. As a group the gang consists of very differing characters, and yet they have a common bond, for they each strive for a better life. Be it Hayden's luggish Dix, who dreams of buying back his father's horse ranch back in Kentucky, or Jaffe's Doc, who wants to retire to Mexico and surround himself with girls - it's greed and yearning that binds them all together - With alienation and bleakness, in true film noir traditions, featuring heavily as the plot (and gang) unravels. With gritty dialogue and atmospherically oozing a naturalistic feel, it's also no surprise to note that Huston's movie would go on to influence a ream of similar type films. Some good, some bad, but very few of them have been able to capture the suspense that is wrung out for the actual heist sequence in this. Fabulous in its authenticity, and with that out of the way, it then sets the decaying tone for the rest of the piece. Interesting to note that although we are now firmly in the lives of the "gang", including their respective women (Hagen, Monroe & Celli all shining in what is a very macho movie), we still know that the society outside of their circle is hardly nice either! This is stripped down brutalistic film noir. Merciless to its characters and thriving on ill fate, and closing with a finale that is as perfect as it gets, this is a top line entry in what is the most wonderful of film making styles. 9.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 26, 2019 0:03:32 GMT
Well? How was the big screen experience, was it a good turn out, print ok? Damn it man, give me info or I'm sending a pack of wild Dingo's round to your house man!
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 26, 2019 0:17:10 GMT
THUNDERBALL (1965) UNITED ARTISTS 100TH ANNIVERSARY The first Big Budget Bond film, the first with the Maurice Binder nude silhouettes, etc. First saw this on TBS in 1997. Got the VHS in 1998. And finally the DVD in 1999. MGM/UA DVD I spy an excuse to post a Bond film review   Sir, I'd respectfully request that you change my assignment to Nassau.Thunderball is directed by Terence Young and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins from a story by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming. It stars Sean Connery, Adolfo Celi, Claudine Auger, Rick Van Nutter and Martine Beswick. Music is scored by John Barry and cinematography by Ted Moore. The fourth outing for James Bond (Connery) sees 007 assigned to the Bahamas to try and thwart SPECTRE's number 2 operative, Emilio Largo (Celi). Largo has hijacked two atomic bombs from NATO and sets about extorting huge ransoms of money. If his terms are not met he will blow up major cities. It was meant to be the first James Bond film, but Thunderball became part of a long drawn out legal battle between Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming. Eventually an out of court settlement was reached and Thunderball rolled into theatres in 1965. After the colossal success of Goldfinger, and Bond as a pop culture phenomenon, producers Albert Broccoli & Harry Saltzman knew that they had to try and up the ante to keep Bond on top. They were also acutely aware that many imitators were springing up on film and TV. These facts led Bond to go epic, with the producers going for a more is more approach, however, Thunderball is a considerable step down from Goldfinger. As with many other Bond movies, Thunderball polarises opinions amongst the fans. Some are happy to laud the pure entertainment value on offer, the reliance on hardware and gadgets viewed as an aid to the Bond persona and not a hindrance to his humanistic worth. Technically the film is often exceptional, be it on or under the water, director Young really crafts some Bondian quality. The exotic Bahamas locale is beautifully realised by Ted Moore, Barry's blunderbuss score is one of his best for a Bond movie and Connery has charisma in abundance. The girls, too, are delightful, particularly Auger who positively sizzles with sexuality. Bond's by play with M, Q and Felix Leiter (Nutter very enjoyable and more charismatic than Cec Linder in Goldfinger) is well scripted and performed. While for those who adore the gadgets and daring stunts? Thunderball excels with its assortment of trick vehicles, under water weaponry, aids and radioactive pills! Without doubt the near $6 million budget is all up there on the screen. Yet for other fans, and this is the category I fall into, it's a film of too many flaws to be considered one of the greats. Whilst it's undeniable that when it hits the high points it excites royally (the extended underwater battle is eye popping brilliance), but there's too many languid passages in the overlong running time. Young himself lamented that he couldn't get the pace right on account of the plot structure. The other major problem for me is Celi as Largo. Visually he's striking, with his white hair and eye patch, he looks well villainous, but physically he's wrong and someone you can't buy into as a man able to not only take on Bond, but to overcome him as well! While the finale lacks a grandness to reward those having sat for over 2 hours with the film. But what do I know? Film made a stunning $141 million at the box office! And the fanaticism that began with Goldfinger had now reached epic proportions. The more is more approach worked for the makers, and it ensured that for the time being Bond was going to stay in this epic, gadget effects strewn groove. Connery wasn't happy though, he had voiced his concerns about Bond becoming characterless, while he hated the mania surrounding the films and his role within them. He would return for the next instalment, You Only Live Twice, but the question was, would it be his last performance as Bond? 7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jun 26, 2019 0:36:42 GMT
Well? How was the big screen experience, was it a good turn out, print ok? Damn it man, give me info or I'm sending a pack of wild Dingo's round to your house man! It had "the cut" in the Scheiss scene - but it was great. The first appearance of the Zulus was spectacular in a way no viewing on television could emulate. Favourite character? Colour Sergeant Bourne - "And a bayonet, sir....with some guts behind it." About 40 people in a 200 seat cinema - which is the usual turnout for classics although this crowd was younger than usual. (The Princess Bride had the biggest crowd) I saw Zulu back in the day, so it was about 55 years between big screen viewings, a record for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 26, 2019 0:38:49 GMT
Jaws (1975) " This shark, swallow you whole..."  A shark decides to camp out near an island beach community and snack repeatedly on the unsuspecting populace. Only the police chief, an oceanographer and an unstable fisherman can stop it together.  The most terrifying movie of all time. Growing up in a similar beachside community, I was convinced it was only a matter of time before I was gobbled up by a shark. That primeval fear has never really gone away. Repeated viewings over the years don't really help much. Sure, I still went swimming, but that fear was always swimming in the back of my mind... .jpg) Contains the single greatest jump scare of all time, you know which one I mean!  Perfectly cast, right down to the locals playing the locals. Robert Shaw in particular has created one of cinema's most fascinating characters. His USS Indianapolis speech is so hypnotic, it lures you inside this story to the point that you forget you're watching a movie almost. That's the power of The Spielberg, baby!  John Williams' score is otherworldly and so perfect. It's become a part of the fabric of our mutual pop culture. Pure genius.  I could rave on and on, but this movie is so huge that the whole world knows it by now and have already written about it in far better ways than I could. My absolute favorite movie of all time. If you haven't seen it yet, stop reading this and see it!   Forgot to tell you on your Jaws thread that I had the iconic poster professionally framed and it hangs in my bedroom After I first saw it at the theatre it had quite an impact on me, I bought the novel and I had a glow in the dark model in my childhood bedroom as well, it was the shark and the shark cage with a diver in it. So cool. Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - Pre-code brilliance, sexy and packed with adventure and serial silliness. Pre-Code Adventure Excellence. The second of the MGM Tarzan movies should be heralded as one of the finest adventure films in cinematic history. A sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), it brings back Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane respectively, and then runs through scene after scene of pre-code and pre-computer effects excellence. Plot line is weak, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of entertainment things. Basically greedy ivory hunter Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh) and Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton as Jane's one time beau who has lost her to Lord of the Apes) travel into the jungle in search of Mutia Escarpment - the elephant burial grounds. Tarzan and Jane arrive on the scene after 20 minutes of film, which is the cue for Jane to make the two Khaki Fatigue wearing lads hot under the collar, and for Tarzan to literally have to fight for his woman - the animals - and his life! What unfolds in 105 minutes of film is a tale of simmering sexuality, raw animal instincts, brutal battles and some Simian scene stealing. Cedric Gibbons originally directed the picture, well he was there until MGM realised he wasn't up to the task and replaced him with a criminally uncredited Jack Conway, and Conway (The Easiest Way) was just the man to curl the toes of those waiting in the wings at censorship city. OK! The sexy angle is hard to ignore, and why anyone with a pulse would want to is anyone's guess! O'Sullivan is barely covered and Weismuller is in such fine shape he makes me wish I had never discovered booze and junk food! There is rumble in the jungle as Tarzan and Jane go for a swim, as he blows on her hair to wake her up (oh she sleeps in the raw by the way), and as the city boys revel in getting Jane to once again wear a "city" dress. This is just a point of reference to make us aware that the one time city girl has thrown off her sexual inhibitions and gone natural up in the tree tops. And did I mention a sexy silhouette scene? No? Well I have now. So, casting aside the wonderful eroticism of it all, as an action film it's also superb. The technical tools available in the early 1930s are used to the max here, it matters not about dummies being flung about the place, or that men in monkey suits fill in while Cheetah is off having a smoke! Or even that the back projection work will appear crude to the X-Box generation, this is film making craft that enchanted those film lovers queueing at the theatre to see this back in 1934. Watching it now demands the utmost respect and admiration. So, get ready for a native army who during their attacks specialise in firing arrows into the heads of the enemy. For Gorilla's who love to use boulders as weapons. For Tarzan to fight a lion, a crocodile and a rhinoceros. Watch in awe as there is Pachyderm Pandemonium, a pride of lions menacing our Jane, classy chimps proving smarter than your average human, and of course there are high grade gymnastics evident as well. The Hays Code would soon come into play and dilute the Tarzan series, but still being able to see these early MGM Tarzan movies is akin to going to a film museum where only the open minded are invited. Wonderful. 10/10
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 26, 2019 1:05:27 GMT
Well? How was the big screen experience, was it a good turn out, print ok? Damn it man, give me info or I'm sending a pack of wild Dingo's round to your house man! It had "the cut" in the Scheiss scene - but it was great. The first appearance of the Zulus was spectacular in a way no viewing on television could emulate. Favourite character? Colour Sergeant Bourne - "And a bayonet, sir....with some guts behind it." About 40 people in a 200 seat cinema - which is the usual turnout for classics although this crowd was younger than usual. (The Princess Bride had the biggest crowd) I saw Zulu back in the day, so it was about 55 years between big screen viewings, a record for me. Blimey, didn't realise that cut happens in revival theatre showings, it's not as if it's earth shattering or anything, especially as some of the earlier DVDs still have it in  Colour Sergeant Bourne - I shall be exalted among the 'eathens... I shall be exalted in the Earth. The brilliant Nigel Green of course, fresh from playing Hercules the year before in Jason and the Argonauts. Ironically he was South African by birth, playing a Brit fighting the Zulu! Died way too young. My favourite is Hook, rebel yell and crafty, bit like me... I knew he would come good in the end
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jun 26, 2019 2:51:27 GMT
this year's classics -
DATE FILM
Monday 4 March Calamity Jane
Monday 18 March Dirty Harry
Monday 1 April Psycho
Monday 15 April Bullitt
Monday 6 May 12 Angry Men
Monday 20 May The Red Shoes
Monday 3 June Terms of Endearment
Monday 17 June Zulu
Monday 1 July The Apartment
Monday 15 July Murder on the Orient Express
SEASON 2
Monday 12 August To Catch a Thief
Monday 26 August Meet Me in St Louis
Monday 2 September The Italian Job
Monday 16 September The Maltese Falcon
Monday 23 September Death on the Nile
Monday 14 October The Towering Inferno
Monday 28 October Lust for Life
Wednesday 30 October Badlands
Monday 4 November All the President's Men
Monday 11 November Ordinary People
Monday 18 November Bonnie and Clyde
Monday 2 December The Searchers
Monday 9 December It’s a Wonderful Life
Really looking forward to The Searchers, not having seen it on the big screen.
And a season of "in the house" - not sure what that means....
SCREENING DATE MOVIE
Monday 11 March First Blood
Monday 25 March Heat
Monday 8 April Alien
Monday 13 May The Shining
Monday 27 May Heathers
Monday 10 June The Goonies
Monday 24 June The Princess Bride
Monday 8 July Pretty in Pink
Monday 22 July Pulp Fiction
Monday 5 August Aliens
Monday 19 August Deliverance
Monday 2 September The Castle
Monday 9 September Forrest Gump
Monday 23 September The Shawshank Redemption
Monday 30 September Highlander
Monday 21 October The Outsiders
Wednesday 30 October Kill Bill 1 & Kill Bill 2
Monday 11 November Excalibur
Monday 25 November Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(Director's Cut)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Jun 26, 2019 12:25:44 GMT
hitchcockthelegendThat glow-in-the-dark Jaws model sounds way cool!  Tarzan and His Mate had to be the most sultry of the series, it showed so much for its time, but would be considered mild by today's standards. It's one of the best in the Weissmuller series, which I'm still watching in the order they were released in. Up to the RKO entries now, O'Sullivan is missed, but so far still good. I'm thinking they may have even influenced George Lucas when he wrote some of those Indiana Jones movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 26, 2019 19:51:50 GMT
Pickup On South Street (1953) 7/10 Bringing Up the Dead (1999) 7/10 Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations. Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller infused this adaptation with a heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice. Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 1950s, and I'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy. Widmark is all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent and is the films heart. However, it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically. It's a "B" movie in texture but an "A" film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is one of the best from its most intriguing director. 9/10 My impression from Sam Fuller's anti-Communist films (incl. "China Gate" - one of the first - one source says THE first film - to tackle U.S. involvement in Vietnam) is that Fuller knew nothing or cared nothing about what Communism really was or why it was considered a threat. The Commies we see in "Pickup On South Street" are portrayed simply as organized crime - mobsters muscling in on someone else's territory. In "China Gate" the Communist army (led by General Lee Van Cleef) could have been any generic "aggressor" - Nazis, Apaches, banditos - without any political agenda. So, your advice to downplay the anti-Communist sentiment and focus on character and good storytelling is good advice. "Pickup" is a top notch thriller that actually thrills.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 26, 2019 20:28:18 GMT
Forget the communist fervour and delve deeper. Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations. Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller infused this adaptation with a heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice. Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 1950s, and I'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy. Widmark is all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent and is the films heart. However, it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically. It's a "B" movie in texture but an "A" film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is one of the best from its most intriguing director. 9/10 My impression from Sam Fuller's anti-Communist films (incl. "China Gate" - one of the first - one source says THE first film - to tackle U.S. involvement in Vietnam) is that Fuller knew nothing or cared nothing about what Communism really was or why it was considered a threat. The Commies we see in "Pickup On South Street" are portrayed simply as organized crime - mobsters muscling in on someone else's territory. In "China Gate" the Communist army (led by General Lee Van Cleef) could have been any generic "aggressor" - Nazis, Apaches, banditos - without any political agenda. So, your advice to downplay the anti-Communist sentiment and focus on character and good storytelling is good advice. "Pickup" is a top notch thriller that actually thrills. I remember after viewing it for the first time I jumped on line to see how it was rated. Two reviews from mainstream publications were bemoaning about it being "too" politically biased! That's complete anathema to me. Thanks for commenting mate
|
|
|
|
Post by morrisondylanfan on Jul 15, 2019 18:36:46 GMT
Watchmen (2009) - www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/referenceThe comic book geek blockbuster for adults only.Watchmen is directed by Zack Snyder and adapted to screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse from the Alan Moore/David Gibbons graphic novel. It stars Patrick Wilson, Malin Ackerman, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. Music is by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Larry Fong. 1985 and someone is killing all our superheroes. Time for the remaining super heroes to band together - but what they find as they fight the good fight is potential annihilation for everyone. It was quite a battle getting Watchmen onto the screen, over twenty years of legal wrangling and controversies, it got to the point where fans of the source material doubted it would ever happen - and even if it did it was sure to be a monstrous failure. How pleasing to find that not only did it make it to the screen, but it is also a genre bending winner - well to some of us of course... One has to take into context just how potent and original the graphic novel was back in 1986/7, we are dealing with very mature themes, superheroes with serious psychological baggage. Alan Moore lit the touch paper in the comic book kingdom that the rest have since followed to keep the torch burning well into the new millennium. Snyder has achieved top line results in getting both the feel and look of the source, even if some or Moore's cunning cynicism has been lost in translation. Story is set right in the middle of nuclear paranoia and the fear of the Soviets in 85, the America we view is dank and depressing, noirish in vibe (aided by Rorschach's clobber and detective inclinations), it's a world on the road to nowhere. We are also at a time in the alternate world where superheroes are banned from operating, forcing The Watchmen to become vigilantes - that is if they can get along and shunt their psycho discord to one side. The back stories of the main protagonists are fully formed, and these are not jolly characters, so much so you worry the fate of mankind is doomed if these are who we rely on to save us. There was in no way that Snyder would be able to produce a comic book filmic adaptation that would be as worshipped in that sphere, to rival that of the worship the novel has in its own. However, coming at it as someone who only sought out the source material after seeing the film, it shines bright for newcomers who are ironically seeking darker tints in superhero tales. Oh it has the requisite nifty twists (a clinical mystery to be unearthed), booming visuals, excellent effects work and smartly constructed action set-pieces, but narratively it's moody and calls for the utmost attention on dialogue passages (I have found it gets better on repeat viewings). Snyder clearly cared about the project and that love is evident in the movie. It was never going to appease all and sundry, but at worst to hardcore Moore fans it's at least an honourable failure, to many others it's a smart and stylishly refreshing genre booster. 8/10         Done! Hi Spike,with Watchmen,I was originally going to discuss it here,but for some reason IMDb spent most of that week not being able to load the page for the film! I really enjoyed reading your review Spike,you perfectly capture just how different this still is from other CBM's One thing that's surprised me i how Malin Akerman got trashed when the film first came out (a number of re-appraisal reviews now say that Akerman's performance fits the film.) My notes from when I imported the Ultimate cut in 2010. 10. www.imdb.com/review/rw2197994/?ref_=tt_urv2 out of 9 found this helpful. The first thing i have to mention is the inclusion of the Tales of the Black Freignhter into the film,which has a rough Anima look and a very morbid story,that helps at unrolling some loose links and making a stronger foundation of understanding the moods that the characters are feeling. The voice of the film,Jackie Earle Haley gives a tremendous turn as Rorschach,with Haley giving a huge amount of dept,and expressiveness to someone who is (mostly) behind a mask in the film,and he also has a deep 1940s film Noir style voice. Billy Crudup gives an unnerving performance as Manhattan,,whose voice Crudup keeps calm,and his attitude collected,whilst the eye-catching Malin Akerman brings the sensitivities and frustrations Spectre has towards her fellow superheroes. With the violence in the film,Snyder stylishly mixes the rough style action of Bourne films,with the smooth- slick refined Slo-Mo action . Although there are a few small flaws with the action, (The prison scene had way too much slow-mo)the main thing Snyder does well is being able to handle such a complex story and still keep it cinematic,even with "strange" edges in the panels (Manhattan sees hope in mankind,due to a girl forgiving an attempted rapist,and having a child with him!) Snyder grips the vast story in a strikingly confident manner, with the story going back-and-forth between the 1940's and 1980's,Snyder gives each era a different appearance,with the 40's having an ice cool post-WWII shine,and the 80's having a bit of a bright neon crisp,as the Watchmen find out who watches them.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jul 17, 2019 12:22:02 GMT
Watchmen (2009) - www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/referenceThe comic book geek blockbuster for adults only.Watchmen is directed by Zack Snyder and adapted to screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse from the Alan Moore/David Gibbons graphic novel. It stars Patrick Wilson, Malin Ackerman, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. Music is by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Larry Fong. 1985 and someone is killing all our superheroes. Time for the remaining super heroes to band together - but what they find as they fight the good fight is potential annihilation for everyone. It was quite a battle getting Watchmen onto the screen, over twenty years of legal wrangling and controversies, it got to the point where fans of the source material doubted it would ever happen - and even if it did it was sure to be a monstrous failure. How pleasing to find that not only did it make it to the screen, but it is also a genre bending winner - well to some of us of course... One has to take into context just how potent and original the graphic novel was back in 1986/7, we are dealing with very mature themes, superheroes with serious psychological baggage. Alan Moore lit the touch paper in the comic book kingdom that the rest have since followed to keep the torch burning well into the new millennium. Snyder has achieved top line results in getting both the feel and look of the source, even if some of Moore's cunning cynicism has been lost in translation. Story is set right in the middle of nuclear paranoia and the fear of the Soviets in 85, the America we view is dank and depressing, noirish in vibe (aided by Rorschach's clobber and detective inclinations), it's a world on the road to nowhere. We are also at a time in the alternate world where superheroes are banned from operating, forcing The Watchmen to become vigilantes - that is if they can get along and shunt their psycho discord to one side. The back stories of the main protagonists are fully formed, and these are not jolly characters, so much so you worry the fate of mankind is doomed if these are who we rely on to save us. There was in no way that Snyder would be able to produce a comic book filmic adaptation that would be as worshipped in that sphere, to rival that of the worship the novel has in its own. However, coming at it as someone who only sought out the source material after seeing the film, it shines bright for newcomers who are ironically seeking darker tints in superhero tales. Oh it has the requisite nifty twists (a clinical mystery to be unearthed), booming visuals, excellent effects work and smartly constructed action set-pieces, but narratively it's moody and calls for the utmost attention on dialogue passages (I have found it gets better on repeat viewings). Snyder clearly cared about the project and that love is evident in the movie. It was never going to appease all and sundry, but at worst to hardcore Moore fans it's at least an honourable failure, to many others it's a smart and stylishly refreshing genre booster. 8/10 Done! Hi Spike,with Watchmen,I was originally going to discuss it here,but for some reason IMDb spent most of that week not being able to load the page for the film! I really enjoyed reading your review Spike,you perfectly capture just how different this still is from other CBM's One thing that's surprised me i how Malin Akerman got trashed when the film first came out (a number of re-appraisal reviews now say that Akerman's performance fits the film.) My notes from when I imported the Ultimate cut in 2010. 10. www.imdb.com/review/rw2197994/?ref_=tt_urv2 out of 9 found this helpful. The first thing i have to mention is the inclusion of the Tales of the Black Freignhter into the film,which has a rough Anima look and a very morbid story,that helps at unrolling some loose links and making a stronger foundation of understanding the moods that the characters are feeling. The voice of the film,Jackie Earle Haley gives a tremendous turn as Rorschach,with Haley giving a huge amount of dept,and expressiveness to someone who is (mostly) behind a mask in the film,and he also has a deep 1940s film Noir style voice. Billy Crudup gives an unnerving performance as Manhattan,,whose voice Crudup keeps calm,and his attitude collected,whilst the eye-catching Malin Akerman brings the sensitivities and frustrations Spectre has towards her fellow superheroes. With the violence in the film,Snyder stylishly mixes the rough style action of Bourne films,with the smooth- slick refined Slo-Mo action . Although there are a few small flaws with the action, (The prison scene had way too much slow-mo)the main thing Snyder does well is being able to handle such a complex story and still keep it cinematic,even with "strange" edges in the panels (Manhattan sees hope in mankind,due to a girl forgiving an attempted rapist,and having a child with him!) Snyder grips the vast story in a strikingly confident manner, with the story going back-and-forth between the 1940's and 1980's,Snyder gives each era a different appearance,with the 40's having an ice cool post-WWII shine,and the 80's having a bit of a bright neon crisp,as the Watchmen find out who watches them. Hey Buddy The mixed reactions all over for the film surprise me a little, and yet the rating on the big sites tells a different story. I have absolutely no problem with Akerman, think she is great, and sexy as heckfire in it as well! I have only ever seen the extended version, and quite frankly I don't need any other version because that suits me just fine. Definitely a Blu-ray I'll revisit every year. Thanks for sharing your review mate, didn't mind the slow-mo myself but nice observations from you as usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 17, 2019 12:52:32 GMT
The Haunting (1963). I was not impressed, though I understand the camerawork was very innovative for the time and was certainly influential on films that came afterwords, so I'll give it credit for that. I had issues with the constant narration by the Eleanor character. Totally unnecessary. Her performance alone could have communicated everything that was important about her mental state.
|
|
