|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 7, 2018 19:31:38 GMT
Phantoms was the very first Dean Koontz book I'd ever read, a creepy snowbound tale that really gets under your skin. The movie never quite captures the same vibe (said every person who ever read the book before seeing the movie) but it is enjoyable. Loved that they cast Peter O'Toole! Koontz is a bit variable and I can't always recommend his books, but neither can I stop reading him. Everything else halts when I get a new one.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jan 7, 2018 20:44:49 GMT
The Beguiled / Don Siegal (1971). In the final months of the U.S. Civil War, a Union soldier, Cpl McBurney (Clint Eastwood), is wounded and alone in Mississippi. He is found by a young girl who lives at a ladiesβ seminary nearby. Knowing that Martha, the Head Mistress (Geraldine Page), the teacher Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman) and their eight charges will soon turn him over to the daily confederate patrol, he attempts to charm, sweet talk, and romance as many of them as his can, creating an explosive situation. Director Siegal called this film a combination of Ambrose Bierce, Edgar Allen Poe, Tennessee Williams, and Truman Capote β and he is not far off. Tension builds to explosive levels. If you ever wonder what the phrase βa woman scornedβ is really all about, see this movie. (Just kidding, folks.) In this spot next week, I will review the 2017 version of βThe Beguiledβ which was a Cannes Film Festival darling. ---------------------------- mikef6My wife and I saw the 2017 version at the movie theater this year.I found it interesting enough to go back and rent the 1971 version. I prefer the newer version perhaps because I saw IT first.
When you see the 2017 version, note the dark and shadowy cinematography. I think this adds to the overall effect of its mystery. The characters are located in a deep and remote forest. Most of the women and girls at the school are white, almost ghost like. The faces are not clearly focused on (in most parts of the movie) so that it might be hard to tell which actress is which. Of course, we know that Nicole Kidman is the main woman (head mistress) at the school, Kirsten Dunst is her assistant, etc.
I don't know why this movie made me think of re-watching Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), but it did. Perhaps since both stories occur at isolated schools for girls, perhaps because of the mysterious stories told by each. Similar but not at all the same..
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 7, 2018 20:55:53 GMT
The Beguiled / Don Siegal (1971). In the final months of the U.S. Civil War, a Union soldier, Cpl McBurney (Clint Eastwood), is wounded and alone in Mississippi. He is found by a young girl who lives at a ladiesβ seminary nearby. Knowing that Martha, the Head Mistress (Geraldine Page), the teacher Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman) and their eight charges will soon turn him over to the daily confederate patrol, he attempts to charm, sweet talk, and romance as many of them as his can, creating an explosive situation. Director Siegal called this film a combination of Ambrose Bierce, Edgar Allen Poe, Tennessee Williams, and Truman Capote β and he is not far off. Tension builds to explosive levels. If you ever wonder what the phrase βa woman scornedβ is really all about, see this movie. (Just kidding, folks.) In this spot next week, I will review the 2017 version of βThe Beguiledβ which was a Cannes Film Festival darling. ---------------------------- mikef6My wife and I saw the 2017 version at the movie theater this year.I found it interesting enough to go back and rent the 1971 version. I prefer the newer version perhaps because I saw IT first.
When you see the 2017 version, note the dark and shadowy cinematography. I think this adds to the overall effect of its mystery. The characters are located in a deep and remote forest. Most of the women and girls at the school are white, almost ghost like. The faces are not clearly focused on (in most parts of the movie) so that it might be hard to tell which actress is which. Of course, we know that Nicole Kidman is the main woman (head mistress) at the school, Kirsten Dunst is her assistant, etc.
I don't know why this movie made me think of re-watching Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), but it did. Perhaps since both stories occur at isolated schools for girls, perhaps because of the mysterious stories told by each. Similar but not at all the same.. I'm looking forward to it. It will be my first film of the week. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by morrisondylanfan on Jan 8, 2018 0:54:21 GMT
Hi all,I hope 2017 has started off well for everyone,and I've recently seen: The Undying Monster (1942) 7 Crawling into Fox studioβs shot at joining Universal and RKO in entering the Horror genre, director John Brahm & cinematographer Lucien Ballard bring Brahmβs German Expressionism into the Victorian Old Dark House Gothic tale,with elegant tracking shots slithering down the spider-web cover corridors of the Hammondβs. Brewing the Gothic Horror chills against the ragged rocks that keep the mansion isolated, Brahm howls in the direction of Film Noir that he would follow in his limited film credits,via the wisely limited appearance of the monster casting a chilling shadow of mistrust in the family,where the shadows are lit by the flickering of fire that keeps family secrets buried. Unmasking the secrets of the Hammondβs with an adaptation of Jessie Douglas Kerruishβs novel, the screenplay by Lillie Hayward and Lillie Hayward superbly capture the Victorian atmosphere by weighing the Hammondβs with personal horrors that are every match for the monster shocks. Whilst the neat & tidy ending has the whiff of the Hays Code,the writers make up for it by having the mystery being driven by Robert Curtis (played by a wonderfully quick-witted Robert Curtis )dissection of any slip of the tongue from the Hammondβs on the secrets of the undying monster. The Horse Soldiers 1959 7 Made under extremely difficult conditions, (along with being told not to drink during the shoot, Fordβs son Patrick broke his leg on set and John Wayneβs wife Pilar suffered a mental breakdown,along with William Holden battling flu for most of the production, and the cast/crew being divested by the death of stuntman Fred Kennedy) auteur director John Fordβs lone Civil War film carries none of the heroic shine of the old West,instead marching in with an atmosphere of pessimism. Abandoning the original planned ending after Kennedyβs death, Ford and cinematographer William H. Clothier stays away from grandiose shoot-outs for an earthy drama, with a dried pallet stylishly reflecting the draining state of the Civil War, and a recurring motif of horrific injuries revealing the scars of the war. Antagonistic towards each other off-set, Da Duke & William Holden give great performances as Col. John Marlowe and Maj. Henry Kendall. Feeding their off-set issues into their performances,Wayne and Holden set their characters at the dividing line of the war, via Wayne giving Marlowe a ruthlessness over being on the winning side,whilst Holden makes Kendall sweat from the horrific sight of death on each side. Refusing to perform with the original racist dialogue, (which in a rare moment of compromise,Ford got re-written) Althea Gibson gives a heart-felt performance as the loyal Lukey, who sees the horse soldiers pass by. Office Christmas Party 2016 5 Throwing out the set-up within the opening 20 mins, the screenplay lets it snow with an improvised atmosphere, via the extended office party follow various sets of guests in an episodic-style. Whilst this format allows for a number of raunchy punch-lines, the thin plot leads to the movie stagnating,due to there being little options for progression in the relationships of the workers. Attempting to save their jobs with a wild party, co-directors Josh Gordon & Will Speck deck the halls with glittering neon lights that shine an anything goes,free for all atmosphere on the event. Joined by a sassy Abbey Lee as Savannah and a dead-pan Kate McKinnon as Mary, Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston give the flick a much-needed glass of festive cheer as Carol Vanstone and Josh Parker,thanks to Aniston and Bateman retaining their snappy black comedy delivery from their past team-ups,which they unwrap at the office X-Mas party. I Know Who You Are (2017)- (mini-series)My top 2017 first time viewing. 10 Planned as two 10 ep seasons but changed to one 16 ep "mini-series" due to differences with the network,the writers (led by co-director Pau Freixas & Pol Cortecans) incredibly build the themes of the series with a consistent tone that spans episodes with movie-worthy run times of 78-110 minutes. Finding Juan on the road as a Neo-Noir loner with no memory of the shadowy figures and events in his past, the writers display a sharp precession in placing together all of the fractured puzzle pieces in Juan's family and business activities. Threading Juan regaining his memory with the missing Saura,the writers give the mystery a Nordic Noir atmosphere, by Saura's disappearance being tangled with the murky dealings of ElΓas clan. Striking at the heart of this Neo-Noir epic with a richly cynical,sun-kissed final, the writers give each ElΓas family member a jet-black line in ruthlessness,from son Pol's doubts over Juan's lost memory,to mother Alicia ruling the family with an iron fist. The only figure Juan remembers, Aida Folch gives a splendid performance as Juan's former lover Eva DurΓ‘n,whose lingering love for Juan is given seeds of doubt by Folch over the honesty of his missing memory. Whilst not having the look of a Femme Fatale, Blanca Portillo gives a thunderous performance as Alicia,with Portillo subtly changing the tone of her voice in each exchange,to pull the person Alicia is targeting tightly round her Femme Fatale fingers. In the middle of an outstanding ensemble cast, Francesc Garrido draws an incredibly complex Neo-Noir loner in Juan ElΓas, thanks to Garrido giving Juan a psychological depth with an enticing, simmering calmness,which keeps his true motives just out of sight from family and friends,as Juan ElΓas remembers who you are.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jan 8, 2018 5:40:29 GMT
Interesting--never heard of Fear City, I'll check it out Well, caution: it's rubbish. Melanie Griffith and Rae Dawn Chong do topless dancing, notable talents both. The only reason I give Abel Ferrara a try is because I thought MS 45 was fine exploitation: Ha, good call. I'm a huge fan of Abel Ferrara and MS. 45 rocked, but FEAR CITY - his most blatantly "commercial" exploitation flick - is nothing to write home. Lot of naked breasts and a glowering performance from a young Tom Berenger, though. My favorite Ferrara films are KING OF NEW YORK and the excellent BAD LIEUTENANT (plus the aforementioned MS 45). Have you seen those two?
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jan 8, 2018 6:00:20 GMT
I'm looking forward to it. It will be my first film of the week. Thanks. Gosh, but I thought Coppola's re-imagining of THE BEGUILED was goddamn awful Mike. Despite an intriguing, almost passive (supporting) performance from Colin Farrell and some shimmeringly atmospheric cinematography, it is easily the most disappointing film I saw last year. It pales in comparison with the Don Siegel flick. Of course, you may prefer Coppola's bland, pallid, femme friendly and politically correct take on this juicy slice of Southern Gothic over Siegel's deliciously lurid and sleazy exploitation flick. My advice would be to go into Coppola's remake with low expectations. Sadly, there is no incest subplot this time around. And whatever you do, don't re-watch Siegel's film before seeing Coppola's film. A little vulgarity would have gone a long way in Coppola's soulless redo.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jan 8, 2018 9:15:35 GMT
I'm looking forward to it. It will be my first film of the week. Thanks. Gosh, but I thought Coppola's re-imagining of THE BEGUILED was goddamn awful Mike. Despite an intriguing, almost passive (supporting) performance from Colin Farrell and some shimmeringly atmospheric cinematography, it is easily the most disappointing film I saw last year. It pales in comparison with the Don Siegel flick. Of course, you may prefer Coppola's bland, pallid, femme friendly and politically correct take on this juicy slice of Southern Gothic over Siegel's deliciously lurid and sleazy exploitation flick. My advice would be to go into Coppola's remake with low expectations. Sadly, there is no incest subplot this time around. And whatever you do, don't re-watch Siegel's film before seeing Coppola's film. A little vulgarity would have gone a long way in soulless Coppola's redo. Ditto. We watched both on the same day and wife, son and I agreed (a rarity) that the original was MUCH better. Farrell was the only decent contributor to the newer version. I noticed Coppola won the directors prize at Cannes. I can only assume the judges never saw the original film.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 8, 2018 12:59:28 GMT
My favorite Ferrara films are KING OF NEW YORK and the excellent BAD LIEUTENANT (plus the aforementioned MS 45). Have you seen those two? Yes, long ago. I don't need to revisit them, but could be persuaded by new disc editions. That's often my excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo π¦ on Jan 8, 2018 17:31:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 8, 2018 19:32:15 GMT
I'm looking forward to it. It will be my first film of the week. Thanks. Gosh, but I thought Coppola's re-imagining of THE BEGUILED was goddamn awful Mike. Despite an intriguing, almost passive (supporting) performance from Colin Farrell and some shimmeringly atmospheric cinematography, it is easily the most disappointing film I saw last year. It pales in comparison with the Don Siegel flick. Of course, you may prefer Coppola's bland, pallid, femme friendly and politically correct take on this juicy slice of Southern Gothic over Siegel's deliciously lurid and sleazy exploitation flick. My advice would be to go into Coppola's remake with low expectations. Sadly, there is no incest subplot this time around. And whatever you do, don't re-watch Siegel's film before seeing Coppola's film. A little vulgarity would have gone a long way in Coppola's soulless redo. I had already figured out from what little I have already seen of Coppola's work that it would heavier on mood and atmosphere than character and narrative. It all depends on my tolerance level given the context. I have received both high praise and, from you, the lowest opinion. I am going to try to keep an open mind but I did like the Eastwood/Page/Siegel film quite a bit. Thanks for your lively advice.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jan 8, 2018 19:58:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 9, 2018 1:24:23 GMT
Two re-watches: In This Our Life (1942)--one of the great Warner Bros. "women's pictures" of the war years. Bette Davis dumps her fiance and runs off with her sister's husband, and things only get worse from there. One of John Huston's first directorial efforts, with a cameo by Walter Huston. Benny & Joon (1993)--a sweet romantic comedy/drama, made back when Johnny Depp was still quirky and cute, not weird and obnoxious.
Then two 2017 films, both of which made me wish I'd stuck with the older stuff:
The Book of Henry--an exercise in illogical situations and plot twists, a boy genius (we know he's a genius because he builds Rube Goldberg contraptions, just like the inventor in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) decides his next-door neighbor is being abused, so he storms into the school principal's office and screams at her to alert the authorities; she shrugs him off and says there's nothing she can do about it ('cause it's too early in the movie). So he devises a convoluted, unworkable plot to kill the neighbor's father. Then there's a sudden, unexpected death. Then the movie turns into a suspense thriller. Then the whole dilemma is quickly, easily solved. End of movie. Huh? A real disappointment from the same director who made the excellent Safety Not Guaranteed.
And even worse: Snatched--I wasn't an Amy Schumer hater, but this one may just change my mind. The movie had no laughs, not even an amusing moment or line. Schumer is just tiresomely vulgar, and her co-star Goldie Hawn doesn't bring any humor to the movie; on the contrary, her unfortunate cosmetic surgery is painful to look at. The story goes nowhere, and there aren't even any redeeming supporting actors that bring anything to it. Completely unfunny.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jan 9, 2018 22:14:07 GMT
Two re-watches: In This Our Life (1942)--one of the great Warner Bros. "women's pictures" of the war years. Bette Davis dumps her fiance and runs off with her sister's husband, and things only get worse from there. One of John Huston's first directorial efforts, with a cameo by Walter Huston. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In This Our Life (1942) Two more comments here, Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland were both Warner Bros. stars in that day, and I can't think of any other movie they were in together at that time. Also, Ellen Glasgow won a Pulitzer Prize for this novel which plays like a bit of a potboiler. Bette is the evil sister and Olivia is the good one, right? Still, I like it--great cast and story.
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on Jan 17, 2018 18:23:45 GMT
Maybe not classics but they got good IMDb scores No Love for Johnnie(61) Laughter in Paradise(51) Here Comes the Groom(51) Hoffman(70) Chase a Crooked Shadow(58)
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo π¦ on Jan 19, 2018 17:40:28 GMT
Lebowskidoo π¦ Curious to know what you thought of Okja? I haven't seen it yet, but will soon. It was a fun fable, kind of rips your heart out if you're an animal lover. Jake Gyllenhaal's character may have been on illegal substances. I liked it a lot, but my friend's one-word review was simply, "WTF?" Which is technically three words, but whatever...
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo π¦ on Jan 19, 2018 18:47:50 GMT
It was a fun fable, kind of rips your heart out if you're an animal lover. Oh, man, if it's gonna rip my heart out I don't know if I can watch it! Thanks for letting me know. I was fine until near the end, there's a scene that punched me in the guts. But it's quirky and beautiful. At least you will feel something, you should watch it.
|
|