|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 28, 2019 11:10:21 GMT
Only watched two films this week: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011). Harry Potter pulls his wand out for the last time.  I was right! The Harry Potter theme’s pretty much non-existent at the beginning of this final film in the series (though we still float through the WB logo/film title). Unfortunately, we have to trudge through a recapping of where the previous film finished and some painfully slow exchanges with Olivander and a backstabby goblin. Yes, let’s waste time on slow-talking/pointless moments of silence, movie (especially when you have the shortest runtime of the whole series)! Thankfully, things improve when Hermione assumes Bellatrix Lestrange's form so they can break into her vault. Wonderful Helena Bonham Carter doesn't get much to say/do in this film, but she makes up for it by perfectly capturing the facial expressions/demeanor of Hermione awkwardly pretending to be the complete opposite of herself. It’s some nice humour in an otherwise pretty serious film. There’s a memorable scene involving a ‘Gemino Curse’, which causes anything that’s touched to double. I felt sorry for the poor dragon that was trained by those nasty goblins to expect pain when it heard a certain sound, so I was happy to see Hermione not only rightfully call that out as ‘barbaric’, but also set it free, as the trio hitched a ride (and it paid back its tormentors with fire!). The trio eventually reunites with their fellow Gryffindors (an actual *fitting* time for the HP theme), looking for a Horcrux at Hogwarts, but don’t know what it actually *is*/where it’s located (there’s a funny line acknowledging how little they have to go on). Kelly MacDonald’s role as Helena Ravenclaw, a ghost who’s less annoying than Moaning Myrtle (but still angry...and only vaguely helpful with finding the Horcrux), is small but important/memorable. It’s good to see Luna again (even losing her ‘cool’ at one point, raising her voice to Harry…not that he didn’t deserve it), and apparently Neville has a thing for her. Luckily, Neville’s grown more confident over the course of the films and not proves himself worthy of someone as cool as Luna, but also that he’s as much a hero as Harry. Ron and Hermione finally express their true feelings for one another...using their tongues, while other characters are lucky to get a line here or there and simply stand around, saying nothing. At least McGonagall had some stand-out moments, both funny (remarking on a spell she’s always wanted to use) and showing she means business (putting Slytherin House in its place…namely the dungeon, which felt a bit harsh, lumping an entire House together for the actions of some. Unless it’s assumed everyone in Slytherin is a jerk. Seems a tad counterproductive to stick all the ‘bad’ ones together, doesn’t it? This question could’ve been addressed at the very end of the movie with the discussion of the Sorting Hat’s placement of students. Alas, we’ll never know). Draco, who I’d originally thought was going to be a bigger enemy to Harry than he ended up being, doesn’t seem to have ‘grown’ much as a person, remaining his ‘foul loathsome evil little cockroach’ self (thanks for that description, Hermione...and for punching him in the face that one time) to the end. His best moment here is when Voldemort gives him the most awkward hug ever. While Narcissa plays an important part, in the end the Malfoys scurry away (as you’d expect). One wonders how students are even still getting sent to school considering what a hellhole the place is under Snape’s control as Headmaster. We find out that this whole time he hasn’t been quite what he seemed...but I still question WHY he had to be such a JERK (even if flashbacks revealing how much he cared for Harry’s mother/how much he and Dumbledore knew about what would happen is intended to explain/excuse his behaviour). His ending is somewhat surprising and quite nasty, but the ‘reveal’ of his true allegiances will probably elicit more of a “Huh.” reaction than anything else from non-book readers. There’re some mighty big battles (Slytherin’s probably thanking McGonagall for sending them to the safety of the dungeon, since Hogwarts takes major damage. Goodbye, Quidditch pitch!), which are quite memorable and result in casualties on both sides. I was most sad to lose Bellatrix (HBC was SO awesome in the role and I found it disappointing/unsatisfying that she got taken out by...Ron’s mum. At the very least it should’ve been Neville who did her in, considering what she did to his parents) Tonks (we hardly knew ye!) and Lavender (might be an unpopular opinion, but I found her entertaining at least). I guess I should’ve felt sadder about Fred Weasley dying, but didn’t they learn anything from how little impact Mad-Eye’s off-screen demise had in the last film? There’s a point where Voldemort seems to have won and Harry has a spiritual meeting with Dumbledore (gross Voldemort fetus-looking thing alert!), but you *know* Harry will triumph. Harry/Voldemort’s ‘epic battle’ amounts to little more than lightsaber clashing with wands (speaking of, Harry snapped the ‘all-powerful’ Elder Wand pretty easily). When the films started, the actors chosen were somewhat awkward in their roles, but they’ve proven themselves to be the right choices. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson grew up onscreen with these characters and the most effective/emotional moments are with them together, especially at the end. Speaking of, we get an epilogue (that apparently some weren’t fond of) where the actors are ‘aged up’, and I’m glad they did this. Having actors we’d never seen before to play the trio as parents in the final scene of the movie would’ve been the wrong move, in my opinion, as we would’ve felt no ‘connection’ with them. This was an epic movie series with more ‘hits’ than ‘misses’, that had so many great British actors/actresses assembled together (the likes of which we’re unlikely to see again), and it’s nice to get a proper conclusion to a teen movie franchise (when others aren’t so lucky). So long, Harry, Ron and Hermione...thanks for the magical memories (and all the obvious ‘wand’ jokes you inspired).                                                      (2012). - I have it lined up to watch tomorrow so hopefully able to review it shortly afterwards. Will come back to your review so we can compare notes 
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 28, 2019 11:25:20 GMT
 There are good and not so good things here. The first half is great and captures a feeling of times gone by, the monster from space was dissapointing though, they could have come up with something better. Some great CGI  Good solid revench western from Henry Hathaway, starring Steve McQueen and surrounded by great actors and actresses all the way. Don't get the Christ-like poster though, since McQueen's character lost his rifle very early in the movie when he was immature and illiterate. - I love it! And I just knew then that I was there, that I existed. Super 8 is written and directed by J. J. Abrams. It stars Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler, Ron Eldard and Riley Griffiths. Music is scored by Michael Giacchino and cinematography by Larry Fong. The film tells the story of a group of young teenagers in Lillian, Ohio, 1979, who are filming their own Super 8 zombie movie when a train derails and crashes, releasing an unknown being into their midst. As the town is threatened and mysteries start to mount up, the youngsters must come to terms with not only that, but also growing up mentally and physically. It's feels nigh on impossible to come across a review for Super 8 that doesn't contain the name Spielberg. With the film overtly Spiebergian in themes and production, and the bearded maestro of the film geek masses on producer duties here, his name hangs over Abrams' movie like a watchful father figure. If that bothers Abrams, or indeed if it detracts from the quality of his movie? Then that's up for debate by those not enamoured with Spielberg's movies of the late 70s and early 80s. But to my mind it's a blessing, a triumph of sorts to be mentioned in the same breath as the beard and those wonderful movies of his. Part homage, part nostalgia harking, Super 8 is still one great, sweet and affecting J.J. Abrams movie. Abrams himself is on record as saying that Super 8 is born out of two movie ideas he had, this while also being drawn from his own recollections in childhood, and the two movie idea shows. It's very much a two part picture in structure, part Stand by Me coming of ager, part Goonie like monster hunt. Nothing wrong with that, mind. However, with that comes some form of irritation to those who venture in expecting a big ole alien attack movie. Oh for sure he exists, and he is big and mean, although he has just cause, but the creature is not the centre piece of the movie. It's the human characters that form the basis of Super 8, be it the kids adjusting to their changing emotions and hormones, or the single parent fathers coming to terms with absence of love and grief, Super 8 is brimming with human heart. Yet never is it schmaltzy. PRODUCTION VALUE! Aided by Fong's warm metallic hued photography and Giacchino's beautiful heart tugging score (both energised in Blu-ray), Super 8 always carries a magical mysticism to it. The warm glow of nostalgia cloaks the proceedings, never cloying, always smile inducing, offering comfort as the narrative deals out observations about the need to let go while playing out as a deft, if unsubtle, meditation on grief and growing pains. The cast do wonders for their director, Fanning and Courtney are exemplary, so much raw emotion and energy, it's unfussy and believable acting. Griffith's, too, is wonderful as the booming voiced wannabe director, a tender nod of the head to the many young amateur directors out there; of which Abrams was once one himself. While Eldard and Chandler as the two fathers are most affecting, the pangs of juggling single parenting with loss are deeply portrayed. Of the director himself? He crafts it with care and precision, a knowing of the pulse beat of the thematics to drive it forward. His attention to period details are admirable, from the dialogue sparks involving Walkman's and Soviet paranoia, to the items located within the bedrooms and houses of our young protagonists, he is a man who knows his late 70s and early 80s onions. Spielberg was far from finished as a film maker of note at the time of Super 8's release, but it did feel then that the torch was deftly being passed sideways. After the excellence of Star Trek he followed up with this most delightful of movies, where Abrams showed in his work a love of cinema that's wholly infectious. 9/10 Nevada Smith - Well I am a big McQueen fan! More than just a Western. More than just a Western indeed, perhaps a straight forward revenge drama in substance? But it is also a fine character study of a man coming to terms with growing up faster than he ever thought he would have to. What makes the film smart and lifts it above average are the structured segments, as director Henry Hathaway weaves a potent and interesting story by making each part of Nevada Smith/Max Sand's journey an involving character piece, one that puts you firmly on side with the protagonist and his vengeful quest. Credit has to go to McQueen for putting great gusto into the character when it was badly needed, for to save the film from being standard fare we need the leading man to involve us in his troubled and confused state, thankfully he does this with bells on. The locations and sets put gloss on the story and in the main the rest of the cast do very well, however, I'm one of the few amateur reviewers who feels that Karl Malden just doesn't cut it as the chief villain of the piece. I feel the character who carried out these vile crimes should have been far more menacing than the shaky overplayed villain that Malden gives us. Nevada Smith brings great action sequences, a memorable story, and an ending that brings the character full circle. These things that combine to give us an involving entertainment that stars a great leading man, who in turn is directed with very professional and genre knowing hands. 8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Aug 28, 2019 12:08:54 GMT
Objective BurmaOn its release in the U.S. the film was a critical and box office success, my fellow countrymen here in Britain, however, were not so impressed. Angry about the lack of credit given to the British in the Burmese operation, the film was subsequently banned in the UK until 1952. I recall Flynn himself came in for personal abuse, as if claiming he had won the war single handedly. He did not serve; he would have but was 4F for heart, lungs and clap. He did USO tours. George Macdonald Fraser, who was in Burma, defended him and the film, saying (a) actors don't write the pictures they are in, and (b) the Americans had their own operations in Burma and why shouldn't they make a film about it? Fraser's wartime memoir, Quartered Safe Out Here, is great reading. Hollywood had fantasy wartime entertainment, as with Flynn and Reagan in Desperate Journey (1942), also directed by Walsh, but serious treatments as well. You mentioned They Were Expendable, and I would add Hawks' Air Force (1943) to that category.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 28, 2019 16:59:53 GMT
Just a harmless query. Why is the thread posted on a Saturday? It never was on the IMDb CFB, always on a Sunday. Certainly when I hosted the thread on FG for a few years (and spin offs on Westerns/Film Noir) it was always a Sunday, the film watching period being Sunday (start of a week) to Saturday. Just wondering, if maybe Delon struggles to throw up the opening post on a Saturday? I of course abide by your terms and conditions  Not sure. Maybe because "mathewswordsman" (not sure if that was his correct member name) was from Australia who was holding these threads for a year or so, posted it on Sunday mornings, when it was still Saturday in many other countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on Aug 29, 2019 13:44:45 GMT
One classic
Warsaw 44(14)(rewatch) Even better than the first time, went from a 9 to a 10. Probably the only war film I've ever shed tears watching
Sorry to Bother You(18)
Thoroughbreds(17)
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 29, 2019 14:54:13 GMT
Extreme Prejudice (1987) - www.imdb.com/review/rw3091902/?ref_=tt_urvWestward the Women (1951) - www.imdb.com/review/rw4264521/?ref_=tt_urvDeliverance (1972) > Brutal, Beautiful and Brilliant. Four Atlanta friends - Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Ed (John Voight), Bobby (Ned Beatty), and Drew (Ronny Cox) decide to canoe down the Cahulawassee River out in the Georgia wilderness. They see it as a test of manliness whilst also wanting to experience this part of nature before the whole valley is flooded over to make way for the upcoming construction of a dam and lake. But the perils of nature are not the only dangerous things in their midst, unfriendly wood folk are about to bring another dimension in terror. Deliverance is one of those films that sometimes suffers by way of reputation. Much like Straw Dogs and 70s films of that type, the hype and promise of unremitting hell often isn't delivered to an expectant modern audience. Which is a shame since Deliverance is one of the finest, glummest, brutalistic and beautiful films of the 1970s. Adapting from James Dickey's novel (screenplay duties here also), British director John Boorman crafts a tough and powerful film of men out of their environment, thus out of their league. As each man sets off initially, it's a test of manhood, but each guy is forced to deconstruct their worth, and it soon becomes more about survival as this deadly adventure proceeds. Boorman, aided by cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, has painted a raw and treacherous landscape, unconquered by city slickers but dwelt in by inbreds who don't take kindly to the city folk showing up with their machismo attitudes. From the first point of contact with the strange locals, where Drew goes "duelling banjos" with an odd looking child, the film doesn't let up, much like the locals themselves, the film also is remorseless. Some critics over the years have proclaimed that Deliverance is too pretty, mistaking lush physicality as something detracting from the dark thematics at work. Not so, the Chattooga River sequences are electrifying, the rapids scenes (brilliantly filmed with Voight and Reynolds doing real work, and getting real injuries) are merely setting up the unmanning of our "macho" guys just around the corner. It's a fabulous and potent piece of "beauty". With the four cast leaders absolutely brilliant in their respective roles. In fact there are few better casting decisions ever than that of Reynolds as Lewis, one can only lament that he didn't have more hard edged serious roles in his career. Minor itches exist, metaphors are heavy (Vietnam a 70s staple it seems) while ecological concerns are hinted at without being as prominent as they are in the novel. Surveying the landscape during the opening of the piece, Lewis reflects that man is going to rape this land, rape it, it's stuff like that that is not totally formed, given way to abject horror and survival, Lewis again noting that survival is the name of the game. A game of life and death, where man's primal being means violence may indeed beget violence. Boorman clearly agreed. 10/10
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 29, 2019 15:52:07 GMT
Island Of Lost Souls / Erle C. Kenton (1932). Paramount Pictures. Second viewing many years after the first so much of it was new to me. It’s a pre-code goody with plenty of evil doings and scantily clad women, but even after the development of the modern explicit horror movie, “Island Of Lost Souls” – 86 years old - still has the power to shock and disturb. Edward Parker (silent screen star Richard Arlen) is rescued at sea by a passing freighter. After an altercation with the freighter’s captain, he is put ashore on an uncharted island where the freighter is delivering a cargo of lions, tigers, and other animals. The island’s master is Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton). Parker comes to learn that Moreau believes that all evolution is tending toward human form. The is trying to speed up evolution by tinkering with the DNA via vivisection of animals in his House Of Pain to try to turn them human. The island is heavily populated with his failures and partial successes. His greatest success is Lota (Kathleen Burke), the only transformation into a woman. We are not told overtly what animal Lota was created from except that Kathleen Burke is billed only as The Panther Woman. Yeah, I can see it. But for me, the takeaway from this film is Bela Lugosi. Lugosi, playing one of Moreau’s more successful experiments, gives a moving and layered performance in just one short scene toward the start and another at the end. He is the Sayer Of The Law and delivers the movie’s famous catchphrase (“…are we not MEN?”). Both the cinematographer Karl Struss and director Erle Kenton began their careers as portrait photographers. They produce many strange and unsettling images with darkness and shadow. The film is based on H.G. Wells’ 1896 novel. I tried to get my cat with a sleek all black coat to watch this by telling her it had a panther woman in it, but she napped all the way through.  Richard Arlen and Kathleen Burke as Lota, the Panther Woman  Bela Lugosi as the Sayer Of The Law  The Suspect / Robert Siodmak (1944). Universal Pictures. The great noir director Robert Siodmak takes us back to the Victorian Age in England where high end tobacconist Philip Marshall (Charles Laughton) is happy at work but has to contend with a wife (Rosalind Ivan) whose constant angry rants border on – or maybe cross over into – insanity. When a young woman, Mary Gray (Elle Raines) applies for a job (she is expert on that new contraption, the typewriter), he does not hire her but befriends her, finds her a job, and frequently takes her out for meals, all perfectly platonic – until the unstable Mrs. Marshall finds out about Mary and threatens to denounce her at her job. It is a good thing that she takes a fall down the stairs and is killed before she can carry out her plan. Scotland Yard is satisfied that a terrible accident has occurred, except for Inspector Huxley (Stanley Ridges) who starts showing up where every Marshall goes. Then, what to do about the drunk toff next door (Henry Daniell) who drinks a lot, leaves bruises on his wife’s face, and insults Marshall for being a “shopkeeper.” Did he hear or see anything that could incriminate Marshall? Laughton is excellent as a man who has suffered with a mentally ill spouse and just wants a little happiness which he thinks he can have with Mary and is willing to go to extremes to get it. She loves him even though he is 20 years older and weighs 20 stone (she says this herself). Only for readers who have seen the movie: Inspector Huxley tell his assistant that Marshall is not really a killer type but we see his pent up anger in his murmured threats when his wife throws her tantrums. And how is Mary going to feel when she learns that her new husband has left the ship to Canada minutes before it sailed and then finds out he is a double murderer? The movie ends just a few minutes too soon for me. Otherwise, another fine – and under appreciated – noir from Robert Siodmak.  Seven Ways From Sundown / Harry Keller (1960). Universal Pictures. First, let’s talk about the title. Audie Murphy plays Seven Jones. He explains his name by saying that his father named his children in order as they were born: the oldest was named One, the second child Two and on. But, says Seven, their mother would always add something else, like One For The Money Jones or Two For The Show Jones. Seven’s full name [get ready] is Seven Ways From Sundown Jones. OK, if you can stop groaning, we can get on with the review. The movie starts with a bang. Several bangs, in fact, as noted outlaw and gunslinger Jim Flood (Barry Sullivan) shoots his way out of a town leaving four dead bodies and a burned down saloon in his wake. Pursuing Flood is grizzled old Texas Ranger Sergeant Hennessey (John McIntire) and newly hired deputy Seven Jones. Once Flood is captured, it is up to the rookie Jones to escort him back to Texas, a journey of several days through Indian territory and with bounty hunters and killers seeking revenge on Flood on their trail. Flood, as played by Sullivan, is one of those charming villains, often with a smile on his face, who seem to be a likeable guy on the surface. He laughs when he gets the drop on Jones and laughs again when Jones outsmarts him. The major attraction of this film is the middle section and the interplay between the two men and growing respect one for the other. “Seven Ways” is based on a novel by Clair (a man’s name) Huffaker who also wrote the screenplay. Murphy and Sullivan are both on top form and play nicely off each other. Filmed in color by cinematographer Ellis W. Carter. Thus ends my weekly reviews. There were two movies with Charles Laughton, two with Ella Raines, and two with lead characters named Moreau. Raines was deliberate but the others were serendipity. - Big absence in my viewings - no excuse since I have it in one of The Duke's Box Sets -  - Will correct in time for next week so we can compare notes. Island of Lost Souls (1932) - Hee, your cat might need an upper  Great review pal, I'll just add support > www.imdb.com/review/rw3506964/?ref_=tt_urvSeven Ways from Sundown - One of Audie's goodies - No groaning from me  - www.imdb.com/review/rw2649035/?ref_=rw_urvThe Suspect - Glad you managed to seek it out and enjoy it - 1902 is Edwardian, not Victorian BTW  - bothered by the ending eh? Interesting - www.imdb.com/review/rw2859867/?ref_=rw_urv
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 29, 2019 16:05:37 GMT
 Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood (2019) 7 Crystallising the era, writer/directing auteur Quentin Tarantino reunites with cinematographer Robert Richardson and builds an exquisite re-creation of the era, buzzing with original TV ads/radio spots in the background to the glittering long tracking shots down the streets of LA, creating an immense atmosphere, on the same level as the GTA games. Closing this fairy tale with a tranquillity final shot to the gates of New Hollywood opening, Tarantino gleefully dishes out a final of excessive violence,and a gaze for foot fetish that have been motifs since the start, but places the focus in building from The Hateful Eight (2015-also reviewed) in crafting a lingering mood piece of long-take crane and dolly shots,which let's viewers breath in the sights,sounds and friendships of the era. Both working with Tarantino for a second time (and backed by a incredible supporting cast) Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt give brilliant turns as Dalton and Booth, thanks to the worn down state of Dalton,and the fading glint of Hollywood glamour from Booth's eyes,being bounded in the relaxed, casual style Pitt and DiCaprio give the friendship. Watching her latest film at the cinema, Margot Robbie gives a joyful, care-free turn as Sharon Tate, embracing the fairy tale of the Dream Factory once upon a time in Hollywood. And to celebrate Sir Sean's birthday.  Thunderball (1965) 8 Tasked with a budget that was was more than the combined budgets of the first three Bond flicks, director Terence Young makes his final for the franchise a successful mission,thanks to Young once again working with cinematographer Ted Moore in shaking (but not stirred) a exciting, jet-set Euro Spy atmosphere of slick whip-pans tracking 007 round the sun-kissed exotic locations. choreographed by Ricou Browning and directed by Lamar Boren, (plus André De Toth on second unit) Young's actions on land are seamlessly blended with spectacular underwater action set-pieces, springing from crisply-filmed long tracking shots following Bond and his fellow agents get caught up in harpoon punch-ups underwater,as real sharks swim round for the blood of 007. Working as a supervising editor to Ernest Hosler, Peter Hunt continues to build on his unique "crash cutting" editing style, slicing the action-set-pieces with a frantic atmosphere of missing frames kicking off from Bond's fight with a cross-dressing assassin,and making each punch,slap and harpoon hit land with a wallop. Sending Bond around the world, Hosler glitters the non-action scenes with ultra-stylised wipes, refreshing the jet-set life of 007. Changing hats from the animated baddies of Goldfinger, Kevin McClory/ Jack Whittingham/John Hopkins & Richard Maibaum make a drastic departure for the franchise, and dive into a excellent serious side of Euro Spy. The only time 007 is shown in discussions about the mission with his fellow 00 agents, the writers retain the glamour of the series in Bond's combat against Spectre, but adapt Ian Fleming script turned novel with a grounded threat,stemming from Spectre not being cackling psychos, but icy, stone cold killers who graze 007's usual assured mind-set under the shadow of the Cuban Missile Crisis with their robbery of nukes. Looking incredibly eye-catching in a black & white bikini, Claudine Auger gives a sparkling turn as Domino, who Auger has retain the Bond Girl sass, which is joined by a feisty attitude sending her diving in taking part in defeating Spectre. Throwing angry exchanges with Adolfo Celi simmering baddie Largo (who like Auger being dubbed by Nikki Van der Zyl for Eng version & fellow actress Nicole Maurey for French dub,is dubbed by Robert Rietty) Sir Sean,gives a winning performance as 007, brimming with a devanare appearance Sir Sean uses as a shell to his eagle-eyed attacks to stop the thunderball from rolling. Haven't seen Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood, I'll wait for the Blu-ray editions etc. I'm intrigued by your review since I know you and 7/10 suggests something's not right in your book, but you haven't said? Need another viewing maybe? Great GIF!! ThunderballIt's one of the Bond films that has managed to get me in trouble with other Bond fans, but one man's Bond favourite is another one's irk. I like it plenty, but it to me definitely has flaws that stop it from reaching the upper echelons of great Bond films. Let me explain > 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 hitchcockthelegend on Aug 29, 2019 16:15:52 GMT
hitchcockthelegend “Add it to your Ulmer "to see lists" post haste.” Done! Saw the first four “Alien” films at the theater upon first release with diminishing pleasure in the last two. Haven’t had the energy to sit though any more films (Alien or Alien Imitation) with a small group of people trapped in a confined space with a rampaging monster who kills them one by one is various gruesome ways. About the same with the Pirates of the Caribbean series except I only saw the first one, hated it, and never gave a thought to sitting down to one of the follow-ups. Forgive me if I sound like an old grump today. I guess I just woke up in a Mood. Be interesting to see if Ruthless hits your spot, it's a film for grown ups that's for sure, but that doesn't mean all adults will garner viewing rewards from it! Yes, stay away from Alien Covenant then, it is a cover version of a far greater film, while Prometheus (which I like - sort of) is likely to have you jabbing forks into your eyes... If you didn't like the first POTC then I think it's safe to say that nothing else in that series holds any pleasures for you!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 29, 2019 17:54:31 GMT
Yes, stay away from Alien Covenant then, it is a cover version of a far greater film, while Prometheus (which I like - sort of) is likely to have you jabbing forks into your eyes...
|
|
|
|
Post by morrisondylanfan on Aug 29, 2019 23:49:27 GMT
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood (2019) 7 Crystallising the era, writer/directing auteur Quentin Tarantino reunites with cinematographer Robert Richardson and builds an exquisite re-creation of the era, buzzing with original TV ads/radio spots in the background to the glittering long tracking shots down the streets of LA, creating an immense atmosphere, on the same level as the GTA games. Closing this fairy tale with a tranquillity final shot to the gates of New Hollywood opening, Tarantino gleefully dishes out a final of excessive violence,and a gaze for foot fetish that have been motifs since the start, but places the focus in building from The Hateful Eight (2015-also reviewed) in crafting a lingering mood piece of long-take crane and dolly shots,which let's viewers breath in the sights,sounds and friendships of the era. Both working with Tarantino for a second time (and backed by a incredible supporting cast) Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt give brilliant turns as Dalton and Booth, thanks to the worn down state of Dalton,and the fading glint of Hollywood glamour from Booth's eyes,being bounded in the relaxed, casual style Pitt and DiCaprio give the friendship. Watching her latest film at the cinema, Margot Robbie gives a joyful, care-free turn as Sharon Tate, embracing the fairy tale of the Dream Factory once upon a time in Hollywood. And to celebrate Sir Sean's birthday. Thunderball (1965) 8 Tasked with a budget that was was more than the combined budgets of the first three Bond flicks, director Terence Young makes his final for the franchise a successful mission,thanks to Young once again working with cinematographer Ted Moore in shaking (but not stirred) a exciting, jet-set Euro Spy atmosphere of slick whip-pans tracking 007 round the sun-kissed exotic locations. choreographed by Ricou Browning and directed by Lamar Boren, (plus André De Toth on second unit) Young's actions on land are seamlessly blended with spectacular underwater action set-pieces, springing from crisply-filmed long tracking shots following Bond and his fellow agents get caught up in harpoon punch-ups underwater,as real sharks swim round for the blood of 007. Working as a supervising editor to Ernest Hosler, Peter Hunt continues to build on his unique "crash cutting" editing style, slicing the action-set-pieces with a frantic atmosphere of missing frames kicking off from Bond's fight with a cross-dressing assassin,and making each punch,slap and harpoon hit land with a wallop. Sending Bond around the world, Hosler glitters the non-action scenes with ultra-stylised wipes, refreshing the jet-set life of 007. Changing hats from the animated baddies of Goldfinger, Kevin McClory/ Jack Whittingham/John Hopkins & Richard Maibaum make a drastic departure for the franchise, and dive into a excellent serious side of Euro Spy. The only time 007 is shown in discussions about the mission with his fellow 00 agents, the writers retain the glamour of the series in Bond's combat against Spectre, but adapt Ian Fleming script turned novel with a grounded threat,stemming from Spectre not being cackling psychos, but icy, stone cold killers who graze 007's usual assured mind-set under the shadow of the Cuban Missile Crisis with their robbery of nukes. Looking incredibly eye-catching in a black & white bikini, Claudine Auger gives a sparkling turn as Domino, who Auger has retain the Bond Girl sass, which is joined by a feisty attitude sending her diving in taking part in defeating Spectre. Throwing angry exchanges with Adolfo Celi simmering baddie Largo (who like Auger being dubbed by Nikki Van der Zyl for Eng version & fellow actress Nicole Maurey for French dub,is dubbed by Robert Rietty) Sir Sean,gives a winning performance as 007, brimming with a devanare appearance Sir Sean uses as a shell to his eagle-eyed attacks to stop the thunderball from rolling. Haven't seen Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood, I'll wait for the Blu-ray editions etc. I'm intrigued by your review since I know you and 7/10 suggests something's not right in your book, but you haven't said? Need another viewing maybe? Great GIF!! ThunderballIt's one of the Bond films that has managed to get me in trouble with other Bond fans, but one man's Bond favourite is another one's irk. I like it plenty, but it to me definitely has flaws that stop it from reaching the upper echelons of great Bond films. Let me explain > 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 Thanks for the kind comments Spike (and the excellent Thunderball review.) Time to unpack Once,and to sum up my feelings since the viewing: On watching it for a second time- Oh hell no! Watching this epic example of self indulgence once was more than enough for me man. Me and a mate were at a screening with 12 other people,and 5 of them walked out during the first 60-90 minutes. Having heard plenty about how it captures the look,sounds, and care-free mood of the era, (but on a noticeable note,little said by mainstream critics about the dialogue.) I went in with the mind-set of it being a " mood piece",but even with that struggled with every scene being dragged out for the plodding first hour (it could easily be cut down to 90 minutes.) One very "memorable" scene which has stayed in mind is QT setting up the bond Pitt & his dog via having Pitt feed his dog,for 5 minutes. At about 2 minutes I was going, "Yes Quentin, I "get" the point!" But the scene just went on and on. In Hateful Eight,I found the dialogue and pace of the film to create a atmosphere of it building up towards an impending doom. In the case of Once, the plot was wafer thin, and due to him being solely focused on visualising his dream version of LA, the QT dialogue overall felt flat. Aiming to create a "hangout movie" mood, the dialogue offered little sign of a progression being made in the relationships of the characters. On the rating,I was seriously tempted to give it a 5 or 6, but the close bond Leo and Brad were able to bring across in their characters (it sure was not the script that did it!) was so well done by the duo. To finish these Once notes up,for something which offers an "immense" atmosphere, captures the sounds of the era, and has a quality script, every game of GTA since Vice City has done what Once Failed to do. My best-worst QT ranking (from what I've seen): Pulp Dogs Hateful Django Once When I last saw Thunderball in the early 2000's on video,I remember that coming after Goldfinger with the animated Odd Job etc antics, it felt like a slower film, but one I appreciate now as a move towards a more serious 007. The only Bond movie where we get a glimpse of all 00 Agents in one shot (thanks IMDb trivia!) I really enjoyed how the film showed Bond actually having to work with fellow agents for the mission, and also how the baddies goal of stealing nukes was more grounded than Goldfinger's plan, esp with the Cuban Missile Crisis still being fresh in peoples minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 30, 2019 19:30:42 GMT
 Any good? I liked the first one except for the appalling make up job at he end!
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 30, 2019 19:35:24 GMT
Shrek (2001)--As an adult, I'm not much of a fan of modern animated movies, and I don't really get the adults who are huge fans of such movies as Toy Story, Frozen, etc. This, however, was an exception--great entertainment for any age, and beautifully done animation. This was as fun as watching the old classic Warner Brothers cartoons. I really enjoyed this first one, even purchased it on home format, but the joke quickly wore thin with each further instalment. Unlike Toy Story which stayed in the groove throughout.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 30, 2019 20:07:44 GMT
Haven't seen Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood, I'll wait for the Blu-ray editions etc. I'm intrigued by your review since I know you and 7/10 suggests something's not right in your book, but you haven't said? Need another viewing maybe? Great GIF!! ThunderballIt's one of the Bond films that has managed to get me in trouble with other Bond fans, but one man's Bond favourite is another one's irk. I like it plenty, but it to me definitely has flaws that stop it from reaching the upper echelons of great Bond films. Let me explain > 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 Thanks for the kind comments Spike (and the excellent Thunderball review.) Time to unpack Once,and to sum up my feelings since the viewing: On watching it for a second time- Oh hell no! Watching this epic example of self indulgence once was more than enough for me man. Me and a mate were at a screening with 12 other people,and 5 of them walked out during the first 60-90 minutes. Having heard plenty about how it captures the look,sounds, and care-free mood of the era, (but on a noticeable note,little said by mainstream critics about the dialogue.) I went in with the mind-set of it being a " mood piece",but even with that struggled with every scene being dragged out for the plodding first hour (it could easily be cut down to 90 minutes.) One very "memorable" scene which has stayed in mind is QT setting up the bond Pitt & his dog via having Pitt feed his dog,for 5 minutes. At about 2 minutes I was going, "Yes Quentin, I "get" the point!" But the scene just went on and on. In Hateful Eight,I found the dialogue and pace of the film to create a atmosphere of it building up towards an impending doom. In the case of Once, the plot was wafer thin, and due to him being solely focused on visualising his dream version of LA, the QT dialogue overall felt flat. Aiming to create a "hangout movie" mood, the dialogue offered little sign of a progression being made in the relationships of the characters. On the rating,I was seriously tempted to give it a 5 or 6, but the close bond Leo and Brad were able to bring across in their characters (it sure was not the script that did it!) was so well done by the duo. To finish these Once notes up,for something which offers an "immense" atmosphere, captures the sounds of the era, and has a quality script, every game of GTA since Vice City has done what Once Failed to do. My best-worst QT ranking (from what I've seen): Pulp Dogs Hateful Django Once When I last saw Thunderball in the early 2000's on video,I remember that coming after Goldfinger with the animated Odd Job etc antics, it felt like a slower film, but one I appreciate now as a move towards a more serious 007. The only Bond movie where we get a glimpse of all 00 Agents in one shot (thanks IMDb trivia!) I really enjoyed how the film showed Bond actually having to work with fellow agents for the mission, and also how the baddies goal of stealing nukes was more grounded than Goldfinger's plan, esp with the Cuban Missile Crisis still being fresh in peoples minds. Yep I figured there was stuff bothering you, the 7/10 didn't sit right with your review. Thanks for explaining in detail, I'll have to see how it pans out for me. I saw the first two QT movies on the big screen and since then I just wait for the DVD/Blu release when all the fuss has died down and we get some well balanced reviews coming in. Hmm, QT films in order? Never given that much thought, I know I like Death Proof a hell of a lot more than most!! Pretty tough, Kill Bill One I actually like well enough, but where it is in the list is by design, Part 2 for me deserves to be bottom, very disappointing I thought. Pulp Fiction The Hateful Eight Inglourious Basterds Reservoir Dogs Death Proof Django Unchained Jackie Brown Kill Bill I Kill Bill 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Aug 31, 2019 11:10:27 GMT
Any good? I liked the first one except for the appalling make up job at he end! If you loved Rocky IV then you'll like Creed II. There was a surprising cameo as well, or at least I wasn't expecting it. Anyone who reads the cast list on IMDB first would know about it, but I didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Sept 9, 2019 17:51:02 GMT
Only watched two films this week: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011). Harry Potter pulls his wand out for the last time. I was right! The Harry Potter theme’s pretty much non-existent at the beginning of this final film in the series (though we still float through the WB logo/film title). Unfortunately, we have to trudge through a recapping of where the previous film finished and some painfully slow exchanges with Olivander and a backstabby goblin. Yes, let’s waste time on slow-talking/pointless moments of silence, movie (especially when you have the shortest runtime of the whole series)! Thankfully, things improve when Hermione assumes Bellatrix Lestrange's form so they can break into her vault. Wonderful Helena Bonham Carter doesn't get much to say/do in this film, but she makes up for it by perfectly capturing the facial expressions/demeanor of Hermione awkwardly pretending to be the complete opposite of herself. It’s some nice humour in an otherwise pretty serious film. There’s a memorable scene involving a ‘Gemino Curse’, which causes anything that’s touched to double. I felt sorry for the poor dragon that was trained by those nasty goblins to expect pain when it heard a certain sound, so I was happy to see Hermione not only rightfully call that out as ‘barbaric’, but also set it free, as the trio hitched a ride (and it paid back its tormentors with fire!). The trio eventually reunites with their fellow Gryffindors (an actual *fitting* time for the HP theme), looking for a Horcrux at Hogwarts, but don’t know what it actually *is*/where it’s located (there’s a funny line acknowledging how little they have to go on). Kelly MacDonald’s role as Helena Ravenclaw, a ghost who’s less annoying than Moaning Myrtle (but still angry...and only vaguely helpful with finding the Horcrux), is small but important/memorable. It’s good to see Luna again (even losing her ‘cool’ at one point, raising her voice to Harry…not that he didn’t deserve it), and apparently Neville has a thing for her. Luckily, Neville’s grown more confident over the course of the films and not proves himself worthy of someone as cool as Luna, but also that he’s as much a hero as Harry. Ron and Hermione finally express their true feelings for one another...using their tongues, while other characters are lucky to get a line here or there and simply stand around, saying nothing. At least McGonagall had some stand-out moments, both funny (remarking on a spell she’s always wanted to use) and showing she means business (putting Slytherin House in its place…namely the dungeon, which felt a bit harsh, lumping an entire House together for the actions of some. Unless it’s assumed everyone in Slytherin is a jerk. Seems a tad counterproductive to stick all the ‘bad’ ones together, doesn’t it? This question could’ve been addressed at the very end of the movie with the discussion of the Sorting Hat’s placement of students. Alas, we’ll never know). Draco, who I’d originally thought was going to be a bigger enemy to Harry than he ended up being, doesn’t seem to have ‘grown’ much as a person, remaining his ‘foul loathsome evil little cockroach’ self (thanks for that description, Hermione...and for punching him in the face that one time) to the end. His best moment here is when Voldemort gives him the most awkward hug ever. While Narcissa plays an important part, in the end the Malfoys scurry away (as you’d expect). One wonders how students are even still getting sent to school considering what a hellhole the place is under Snape’s control as Headmaster. We find out that this whole time he hasn’t been quite what he seemed...but I still question WHY he had to be such a JERK (even if flashbacks revealing how much he cared for Harry’s mother/how much he and Dumbledore knew about what would happen is intended to explain/excuse his behaviour). His ending is somewhat surprising and quite nasty, but the ‘reveal’ of his true allegiances will probably elicit more of a “Huh.” reaction than anything else from non-book readers. There’re some mighty big battles (Slytherin’s probably thanking McGonagall for sending them to the safety of the dungeon, since Hogwarts takes major damage. Goodbye, Quidditch pitch!), which are quite memorable and result in casualties on both sides. I was most sad to lose Bellatrix (HBC was SO awesome in the role and I found it disappointing/unsatisfying that she got taken out by...Ron’s mum. At the very least it should’ve been Neville who did her in, considering what she did to his parents) Tonks (we hardly knew ye!) and Lavender (might be an unpopular opinion, but I found her entertaining at least). I guess I should’ve felt sadder about Fred Weasley dying, but didn’t they learn anything from how little impact Mad-Eye’s off-screen demise had in the last film? There’s a point where Voldemort seems to have won and Harry has a spiritual meeting with Dumbledore (gross Voldemort fetus-looking thing alert!), but you *know* Harry will triumph. Harry/Voldemort’s ‘epic battle’ amounts to little more than lightsaber clashing with wands (speaking of, Harry snapped the ‘all-powerful’ Elder Wand pretty easily). When the films started, the actors chosen were somewhat awkward in their roles, but they’ve proven themselves to be the right choices. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson grew up onscreen with these characters and the most effective/emotional moments are with them together, especially at the end. Speaking of, we get an epilogue (that apparently some weren’t fond of) where the actors are ‘aged up’, and I’m glad they did this. Having actors we’d never seen before to play the trio as parents in the final scene of the movie would’ve been the wrong move, in my opinion, as we would’ve felt no ‘connection’ with them. This was an epic movie series with more ‘hits’ than ‘misses’, that had so many great British actors/actresses assembled together (the likes of which we’re unlikely to see again), and it’s nice to get a proper conclusion to a teen movie franchise (when others aren’t so lucky). So long, Harry, Ron and Hermione...thanks for the magical memories (and all the obvious ‘wand’ jokes you inspired). Splendidly in depth review Chalice. Well done, food for thought. Again we don't agree on certain things, but it's hardly important really and you highlight some great scenes - HBC as Hermione - the tortured dragon section, which I presume is in the book and therefore gets extra kudos for Rowling for putting it in to this fantastical world. Majorly I'm impressed with your reading of Snape's trajectory, in how it comes off to non readers of the books, it is a bit WTF! Ultimately we are alike in that we just wanted to see the series closed down with a bang and not a whimper, and they achieved this without quite closing on barnstorming terms. My own review is on the latest Weekly Thread.
|
|
