|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 16, 2018 14:50:35 GMT
Aknyeo (The Villainess) / Byung-gil Jung (2017)
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Jun 17, 2018 7:42:21 GMT
Exodus (1960). DVR'd from recent TCM airing. Directed by Otto Preminger, with Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Ralph Richardson. First-time viewing for me.
About a shipload of Jewish refugees from Europe, circa 1946, who are smuggled from a detention camp on Cyprus into British Palestine (this was a couple years before there was an official State of Israel). Cinematography was excellent, with some great location shooting in Cyprus as well as Israel. The movie was certainly good enough: a bit long, and a bit propagandistic in certain ways, but it was compelling viewing nonetheless. At the very least, it forced me to do some brushing up on the history of Israel, as well as that block of land known as Palestine from which the state of Israel was carved by the U.N. partition of 1948. Two separate states were supposed to evolve from that partitioning: one Jewish, the other Arab. Well, we know how that turned out. In any case, the movie was a good review of some of the events that led up to the creation of the state of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jun 17, 2018 14:40:04 GMT
ZolotoyRetriever-- I agree with everything you said. This is he 3h 28mi movie is the closest Otto Preminger ever came to making an epic-level movie. (If TCM airs it again, I will save it on my permanent DVR list, since I think it is easier to access from there than from a DVD.) The movie was based on a Leon Uris novel. And remember, Preminger hired Dalton Trumbo to write the screenplay (which seems like a huge undertaking to me). When Preminger did this it can be considered as part of "breaking up the blacklist." I'm not sure which movie actually broke the blacklist: Exodus or Spartacus. In the movie Trumbo, I think the question was left open too, although it favors Kirk Douglas approaching Trumbo first..I think. Like you, it made me think more about the history of a formation of a Jewish state, with even two factions of Jews disagreeing with each other.... I remember seeing this in high school with my Jewish friends. I loved the score and even bought the LP record of it. See if this isn't a stirring score: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAEciccQlF0(There is even a slide show that goes with this youtube!!!) Funny story about this movie: According to a TCM interview with Eva Marie Saint, Preminger was trying to direct Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint how to make love for the movie. Newman later pulled Saint aside and told her something like: never mine what he says, we can work this out between ourselves and do it better.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Jun 17, 2018 14:49:27 GMT
The Rapture (1991) in which Mimi Rogers is married to David Duchovny, who has a mullet. Together, they participate in orgies until she gets super-religious, and her beliefs take her down some dark roads. Mimi Rogers should have been a much in demand actress after this movie, but for some reason, she wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Jun 17, 2018 20:59:58 GMT
ZolotoyRetriever-- I agree with everything you said. This is he 3h 28mi movie is the closest Otto Preminger ever came to making an epic-level movie. (If TCM airs it again, I will save it on my permanent DVR list, since I think it is easier to access from there than from a DVD.) The movie was based on a Leon Uris novel. And remember, Preminger hired Dalton Trumbo to write the screenplay (which seems like a huge undertaking to me). When Preminger did this it can be considered as part of "breaking up the blacklist." I'm not sure which movie actually broke the blacklist: Exodus or Spartacus. In the movie Trumbo, I think the question was left open too, although it favors Kirk Douglas approaching Trumbo first..I think. Like you, it made me think more about the history of a formation of a Jewish state, with even two factions of Jews disagreeing with each other.... I remember seeing this in high school with my Jewish friends. I loved the score and even bought the LP record of it. See if this isn't a stirring score: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAEciccQlF0(There is even a slide show that goes with this youtube!!!) Funny story about this movie: According to a TCM interview with Eva Marie Saint, Preminger was trying to direct Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint how to make love for the movie. Newman later pulled Saint aside and told her something like: never mine what he says, we can work this out between ourselves and do it better.
lol Sounds about right. Apparently Newman didn't get along all that well with Preminger during production. Got this tidbit from the Wiki article on the film: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(1960_film)#Production
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 19, 2018 17:16:14 GMT
The Heroes of Telemark 1965, directed by Anthony Mann, screenplay by Ivan Moffat and Ben Barzman, music by Malcolm Arnold, starring Kirk Douglas, Richard Harris, Ulla Jacobsson, Michael Redgrave, David Weston, Roy Dotrice, Anton Diffring and many others War action based on facts about the Norweigan resistance behind enemy lines sabotages against a heavy water plant. The real-life World War II missions, on which this film is based, were conducted by Norwegian members of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), and resulted in the deaths of thirty British commando soldiers. Some were captured, interrogated, tortured, and shot by the Nazi Gestapo, while some of them died when two gliders crashed during landing in Norway. If one can accept Norweigians and Germans speaking English, then this is not a bad movie, with lot's of liberties taken to make an exciting movie. Neither the best nor the worst of this kind of movies. Action scenes are interchanged with a few human stories, making it also character driven, and there is lots of snowy landscapes and skiing. Was there any war movie made in the 1960s that didn't have Anton Diffring playing a high rank Nazi officer? This was the last completed film directed by Anthony Mann. (He died during A Dandy in Aspic 1968)
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 19, 2018 18:27:00 GMT
CAlendar Girls (2003). very amusing comedy-drama based on a true story about women's institute members producing a nude calendar to raise money for cancer research.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jun 19, 2018 19:08:48 GMT
The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1937) / Richard Boleslawski This is the second version of this movie, the first being The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1929) which several reviewers seem to prefer. Yet, I think it would be hard to improve on this version with several well-known actors and a very clever script. both based on a play by Frederick Lonsdale.
I watched this love-triangle type plot from Filmstruck which has several Joan Crawford movie currently streaming. This is one of those movies that I had to watch twice--once to get the plot, and a second time just to enjoy the dialogue as it plays out.
The movie combines several winning elements into one great story: class distinction, Anglo-American interplay, and caper comedy gone astray--maybe.... The movie starts out on a large trans-Atlantic steamer leaving from NYC and traveling to England. It is here that American, Fay Cheyney (Joan Crawford), first meets an rich upper-class British fellow traveler, Lord Kelton (Frank Morgan), when she "mistakenly" occupies his cabin and has to leave it after "the mistake" is corrected. But, traveling with Morgan are his fellow British upper-class companions: Arthur Dilling (Robert Montgomery) and Willie Wynton (Nigel Bruce). They all become very chummy on the cruise and Crawford offers the use of her London home for a charity auction.
At the auction, she meets even more of the high-class extended family and gets invited to their estate by the matriarch of the family, Jessie Ralph: Ralph is immediately impressed with Crawford's ease with people and decides that she is "one of them" (her kind of people). However, Crawford is not easily won over by the well-established rake of the family, Robert Montgomery. She claims moral superiority over him--both by word and deed--in spite of his attempts to woo her over. (There is some excellent dialogue in the scene with Crawford and Montgomery).
So, where does William Powell fit into this triangle? Is he the other part of the love triangle or is Frank Morgan the third part of the triangle? I don't want to carry the plot out too far for fear of giving away any spoilers..... But, there is light-heated "movie dialogue" going on in the story of this movie: To wit, Which is more laudable: Being an English aristocrat (who lives off the poor or inheritance from a Lord or Lady) without having a usable skills. OR Bring a hard-working American "craftsman" who learns a skill and accepts the responsibility for his work--good or bad.
Here is the full TCM synopsis of the movie with Spoilers: When Francis, Lord Kelton, finds a beautiful woman in his stateroom, he is flustered, but his playboy friend, Arthur, Lord Dilling, is fascinated by her. He finds out from the ship's purser that she is American widow Fay Cheyney on her way to stay in England. In London, she becomes the darling of English society, impressing everyone, including Arthur's wealthy aunt, the Duchess of Ebley, who invites her to stay with her for the weekend. Arthur tries to impress Fay, but is rejected by her, even though she is becoming attracted to him. After a charity auction at Fay's house, her "servants" look forward to a profitable future, but Charles, her butler, suggests that she may be more fond of Arthur than she pretends. Fay and her servants are really confidence operators who are planning a jewel robbery, using Fay as their front. At the duchess' country home, she suggests to Fay that Arthur, who usually acts like a cad, is really in love with her, but Fay shrugs her words off. After Lord Kelton makes a bungled attempt to propose to her, Fay sneaks into the duchess' room and attempts to steal her pearl necklace, but is interrupted by a maid. Before she can resume, Arthur also interrupts and proposes. In London, the servants worry about Fay's lack of success, while, in the country, Fay learns how to get into the duchess' safe, but finds it difficult to think of robbing her because of her kindness. Soon Charles arrives, but tells Fay that she can't get out of the plan now because of the others. Before he leaves, she decides to continue, even though Charles offers to face the others himself, and tells him that she will signal him when she has the duchess' pearls. Arthur sees Charles sneaking around the grounds and tries to have him stay the night, suspecting that he has seen Charles somewhere before, but Charles leaves. Later, when Fay steals the pearls, Arthur confronts her before she can throw them down to her friends, after remembering that he recognized Charles from an incident the previous year on the Riviera. He tries to blackmail her into spending the night with him, but she refuses, saying that she has never done that before. She then rings the alarm, rousing the entire household. He tries to take the blame, saying he acted like a cad, but she produces the pearls and tells them all the truth. When Charles arrives, he summons the police, using Arthur's name, and they wait for Inspector Witherspoon of Scotland Yard's arrival the next morning. At breakfast, Arthur reveals that a letter that Lord Kelton wrote to Fay describing his friends may have to be used in court. Though at first amused, they are shocked when they learn that Kelton has written the unexpurgated truth about all of them. Kelton then suggests that they offer to pay Fay's passage back to America in exchange for not revealing the letter's contents. Fay, however, finds the offer too "dishonorable," until Kelton finally offers £10,000. She has destroyed the letter already, though, and will not take the money. In gratitude, Kelton offers to set Fay up with a modiste shop and the others offer to be her clients, but she again refuses. Though she wants Charles to stay, he declines, saying that he would have to remain honest if he stayed with her. After offering to return Arthur's watch, which he stole five years before, he goes with Inspector Witherspoon, leaving Fay ignorant of the fact that he has turned himself in. When everyone has gone, Arthur says that he has arranged for them to be married by a neighboring bishop that morning, marking the last of Mrs. Cheyney and the first of Lady Dilling.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 20, 2018 8:23:27 GMT
ZULU 1964 -- yes, I have seen it before. Overall an exciting film, with one helluva score. Some outstanding performances, especially Nigel Green. "Officer on parade." Special kudos to the Swiss guy who hops around on one leg and Neil McCarthy as the farmer soldier. On the other hand the Christian preacher and daughter are over the top hysterical, the neurosis of Baker and Caine as well as Magee's ridiculous breakdown is just too much of a "down with the system!" message and is achieved by unrealistic characterization. Can't imagine it or ZULU DAWN being made today.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Jun 20, 2018 14:01:43 GMT
Just finished watching a couple of noirs, DVR'd from TCM (anybody else follow that weekly noir program they do ("Noir Alley"), hosted by Eddie Muller? He keeps it interesting and entertaining, with the detailed intro and outro he gives for each film). Anyway, just watched The Clay Pigeon (1949), with Bill Williams, Barbara Hale, Richard Loo and Richard Quine. Williams and Hale were man and wife in real life, so it makes for interesting viewing to remember that (btw, they had a son - actor William Katt. ("Katt" because Bill Williams's birth name was Hermann August Wilhelm Katt)). Barbara Hale, of course, would go on to gain lasting fame as Della Street, of the TV series Perry Mason. Anyway, it was a fast-paced crime drama, IMO more of a suspense/thriller/action film than a noir, but good viewing nonetheless.
The other one I watched was He Ran All the Way (1951), with John Garfield and Shelley Winters. This was Garfield's last film appearance. He died of a heart attack the following year, in 1952, age 39. This one had much more of a noirish feel to it than the previous one: way more dramatic tension, and John Garfield did a good job of playing a psychologically disturbed, ready-to-crack sort of guy in this one.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 20, 2018 17:55:43 GMT
The Philadelphia Story 1940, directed by George Cukor, based on a play by Philip Barry, screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart, starring Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart, Ruth Hussey, John Howard, Roland Young, John Halliday, Mary Nash, Virginia Weidler, Henry Daniell and others. Romantic comedy "When a rich woman's ex-husband (Grant) and a tabloid-type reporter (Stewart) turn up just before her planned remarriage, she (Hepburn) begins to learn the truth about herself". I haven't seen it in 5 or 6 years and thought it was time for a re-watch. It's enormously sophisticated, with very witty and smart dialog, though some of that dialog somehow get's lost in translation and sub-titles, though it doesn't matter as a whole. I liked to be in the company of these ultra rich folks and their unworldly problems. I also liked that in the midst of the sophisticated comedy it dares to do some sharp turns and become serious at the right moments. It feels a little old-fashioned that people should be interested in those high society people in tabloids, but then I thought again, it still excists, but sophistication has been exchanged by vulgarity and television (such as the Kardashians). I rate this movie very high. Winner of two Oscars, Best Actor in a Leading Role (James Stewart) and Best Writing, Screenplay (David Ogden Stewart).
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Jun 20, 2018 18:16:04 GMT
teleadm: that's one reason why some of us like the classic films so much. It's such a good escape from all the tawdry vulgarity you see on TV these days.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jun 20, 2018 18:18:59 GMT
Marshlands - Spanish policier. Quite good - nice location work on the Guadalquivir estuary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 22:54:09 GMT
I did just watch Jumanji (1995) for the first time in 22-23 years. I still enjoyed it but not as much as i did when i was 12-13 years old.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jun 21, 2018 2:39:50 GMT
Caravaggio (1986) / Derek Jarman Just finished re-watching this movie on Filmstruck:
This film is No. 93 on the BFI's Top 100, and it was a great discovery for me. The only reason that I was even led to it at all was because it was on the BFI's Top 100.
Caravaggio (1986) is a British film directed by Derek Jarman. The film is a strange, sensual, visually striking telling of the life of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio — with a great deal of poetic license.
Jarman's movie is involved with the love triangle of Caravaggio (Nigel Terry), Lena (Tilda Swinton) and Ranuccio (Sean Bean) and dwells upon Caravaggio's use of street people, drunks and prostitutes as models for his intense, usually religious paintings. As with Caravaggio's own use of contemporary dress for his Biblical figures, Jarman depicts his Caravaggio in a bar lit with electric lights, or another character using an electronic calculator.
The film is notable for its texture and attention to detail, the intense performances and the idiosyncratic humor. By presenting Caravaggio as one of the founders of the chiaroscuro technique, it helped give expression to the legend that was beginning to form around him. According to this film, he died of wounds received in a knife fight. Jarman's Caravaggio also suggests that his legend ultimately eclipsed his enormous talent.
Caravaggio was the first time that Jarman worked with Tilda Swinton and was her first film role. The film also features Robbie Coltrane, Dexter Fletcher, Michael Gough and Nigel Davenport. The production designer was Christopher Hobbs who was also responsible for the copies of Caravaggio paintings seen in the film.
THIS Michelangleo is NOT the Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet, and engineer Michelangleo that we associate with the Medici Family in Florence, the Pietà, the sculpture of David, or the ceiling paintings of the Sistine Chapel.
THIS Michelangleo emerged later (late 16th and early 17th Centuries) in Southern Italy. Little was recently known of him until his rediscovery in the 20th Century. Though he only left behind some 70 paintings, he is virtually the father of Baroque painting.
The original intention of this film was to make a conventional biopic of Caravaggio in Italy. However, due to financial problems, the filming had to be moved back to London. Here, on a smaller budget and over a longer period, Jarman loosely related events in Caravaggio's life by using imagined interactions of he and the models in his paintings. In this way, much of the film centers on the day-by-day workings in Caravaggio's studios AND—very importantly to Jarman (himself a painter)—on the paintings themselves. Thus, this unique film recreates (as part of its fabric) Tableaux vivants of such paintings as: Medusa, Boy with a Basket of Fruit, Bacchus, St. Jermome, and Saint Catherine.
The entire film is told in flashback, showing us Caravaggio's memories from his deathbed, with his trusted life-long assistant, friend, model, and companion, Jersualeme (Spencer Leigh), at his side. As revealed in flashback, Caravaggio had purchased Jersualeme, as a mute boy, from his mother. From that time forward, Jersualeme silently witnessed--and participated in--Caravaggio's life while preparing Caravaggio's paints, brushes, canvasses and set designs for his paintings.
The structure of this film is never linear, but rather, made up of flashbacks within flashbacks. However, one is never too confused, since the paintings (and their creation) are always at the film's core. John Russell Taylor said of this film: 'Visually, almost every individual shot in..is stunning, exquisitely composed in rich color and given plenty of time for us to appreciate its niceties.'
Art (and film) lovers will love this film, not only for its many-layered story, and how it is presented, but also for its acting, photography (Gabriel Beristain), design and paintings (Christopher Hobbs) and Costume Design (Sandy Powell). This is a film that should be seen over and over, with more layers of meaning and visual beauty to be revealed by each successive viewing.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 21, 2018 19:06:58 GMT
The Mouse That Roared 1959, directed by Jack Armold, based on a novel by Leonard Wibberley, starring Peter Sellers (in three roles), Jean Seberg, William Hartnell, Leo McKern, David Kossoff and others. British comedy satire about The Duchy of Grand Fenwick, the smallest country in the world, nestled in the French Alps is in desperate need of money, since their one export product (wine) has been replicated by the Californians, The Duchy is nearly bunkrupt. So the great plan is to declare war with USA, let them win, and they will get a Marshall-like plan relief. By accident the twenty men strong army stumbles around in a deserted New York and get their hands on the dreaded Q-bomb, a bomb that could destroy half the world. Little Grand Fenwick suddenly becomes the most powerful nation in the world, and many countries suddenly wants to be their best friend... Made during the cold war, this movie is filled with both comedy and very biting satire, a satire that is very biting and relevant today as it seems that some countries tries to turn back the clock to a sort of good old days utopia that actually never was. As Peter Sellers is very toned down in all three roles he becomes very likable in two of them, the third as a politician is the villain of this movie. Leo McKern is fun as the kind of opposition political leader who opposes everything before he agrees with the former speaker. Seberg has a rather thankless role as the daughter of the scientist who made the dreaded Q-bomb. There are loads of funny little peices and observations along the way, including one with the Columbia Pictures logo lady. Not perfect, but entertaining and sadly still relevant. "The Day New York Was Invaded" was the working title of this movie. A sequel, The Mouse on the Moon came in 1963, without Sellers and Seberg. In 1966 an unsold TV pilot was made for American television, starring Sid Caesar in the three Sellers roles.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Jun 21, 2018 19:44:51 GMT
Another noir, courtesy of TCM's "Noir Alley," hosted by Eddy Muller:
The RKO film The Narrow Margin (1952) - actually, this was filmed in 1950, but sat on the proverbial shelf for a couple years before being released in 1952. Apparently RKO's owner, Howard Hughes, was so taken with the film he considered remaking it with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell. He eventually decided against it. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting film: mostly shot inside a moving train (not a real one - all soundstage work!), and has an unexpected plot twist near the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 23:26:12 GMT
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Not bad but i think it would have been better if they had cut 20-30 minutes of it.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jun 22, 2018 6:06:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Jun 22, 2018 9:46:31 GMT
The last movie I finished watching was Pete’s Dragon (2016) last night on Blu-ray, having had it recommended to me (thanks, HirundoRustica ). I only had very vague memories of the original and couldn’t recall any details, so this was pretty much a fresh viewing experience for me. The only thing I knew for sure that was different was the fact that the original one had a drawn/animated dragon, whereas this one had a CGI’d dragon. The movie begins with Pete and his parents driving, with him asking questions such as what an ‘adventure’ is. Things take an unexpected turn when the dad swerves to avoid hitting a deer and the car crashes (which we get to see from inside the car, as it flips over in slow-motion. I have seen a car crash filmed this way previously in a few movies, and while the first time I saw it I thought it was a new/interesting way of portraying a car crash, it's kind of lost some of its 'impact' at this point. Nevertheless, the film gets points for beginning with this rather 'bleak'/depressing moment - though Pete sure seemed more concerned with his book and placing it in his bag then both of his dead parents). I was surprised that Elliot the dragon manifested so early into the film (when he appears to save Pete from some wolves), but it was certainly welcome, rather than keeping him hidden for a prolonged period of time. Speaking of 'hiding', I thought it was pretty neat that Elliot could camouflage himself and turn invisible. And how can you not love him? What really struck me was the friendship that was immediately established after Elliot's rescue of Pete from the wolves. Pete is initially afraid/unsure of this big green dragon, but Elliot wastes no time in assuring the kid that he is quite safe by noticing the book he's dropped (that's clearly precious to him) and gently pushing it towards him. What really impressed me was just how expressive they made Elliot be and that he was a fully-realised character with emotions/feelings and different personality traits, which made you care about him just as much as (if not more than) the rest of the human characters. I think part of what made him so lovable was that he really just seemed like a big puppy dog, the way he'd bounce around and play games with Pete. It became quite clear that Elliot was there for Pete in every way - to take care of him, keep him company and be the best friend a boy could possibly have. We also saw how Pete had complete trust in Elliot with the scene where he jumped off a cliff and Elliot caught him. It was important to show this^, as it conveyed just how close they were. I'm glad they spent this beginning part of the film focusing on just them, as it was crucial to show what their life was like - and how happy they were - before things 'interfered' with that. The first one to 'intrude' on Pete and Elliot's happy life together was park ranger, Grace (played by Bryce Dallas Howard). It quickly becomes clear that she cares about the environment and is certainly not someone to be afraid of - which is how Pete and Elliot initially react to her. I should note here that I've been a fan of Bryce's ever since I was first introduced to her in The Village (2004) and she impressed me with her performance in that movie (which it seems was underappreciated by a lot of people - both the movie and her performance). I will say that I sometimes find it hard to accept her playing 'villains' in movies. She's just so softly-spoken, has a kind voice/face and just gives off this feeling/aura of a kind-spirited person. It just seems completely not like her to play someone horrible. I much prefer when she's playing the types of roles like she had in this film, where she's a nice person. That just seems (to me) more like how Bryce would be in real life. I know I can't actually *know* that for sure, but it's just a feeling I get from her. She has this overwhelming feeling of 'warmth' to her - which is important in this role, once she encounters Pete and tries to convince him she means him no harm. I enjoyed the part where Elliot first tried carrying a log between two trees, found he couldn't get it past, then turned it so he could (I appreciated these little humorous moments sprinkled throughout, as they were just the right amount/right 'type' of humour. So many films now seem to think you can't have quiet or serious moments without undercutting them with a 'funny line'/'funny moment' and it's gotten really annoying at this point. It's like they're afraid of the audience being quiet for too long. But this film, thankfully, had some really great 'quiet' moments and allowed things to 'breathe' properly). I also liked the part where he noticed other people in the woods and turned invisible (still holding a log he was carrying - which appeared as if it was hovering in mid-air, thereby kind of rendering his turning invisible moot...but that just made him more lovable). I was amazed that the movie managed to have its kid characters not be annoying (as I've mentioned in other posts of mine in this thread, usually kid characters in movies irritate me and it's a large part of why I don't enjoy many movies with kids in them - though there are the odd exceptions...and thankfully this was one of them). I'm not sure why so many movies find it hard to write non-annoying children, but it seems like the majority of the time the default is to write them as obnoxious/rude and, frankly, rather dumb (so much so that they get adults/other characters killed). I was so happy there was none of this here. Natalie - who is the first human to befriend Pete - is inquisitive and wonders things about Pete, but she's not horrible to him (the closest she comes is after he's caught her from falling out of the the tree she followed him up, and then after telling him not to drop her...he kind of does - though it's only a short distance, but she still receives a minor injury and is a bit testy when he goes to touch it and plays with her hair...which is an understandable reaction from her). I'll mention Wes Bentley here, as it's likely I'll forget to later on - and that was really the main problem I had with him in this film...he doesn't really *do* much and is kind of forgettable in the role of Jack. Then again, I've tried liking Wes Bentley in a number of things I've seen him in, but he just hasn't really made much of an impression on me (then again, I never saw American Beauty - which I think was what he became known for, wasn't it?). With him, it's usually a case of, "Oh, it's...that guy...I'm seen him in...things." for me. It's not that he's 'bad', it's just that he's not particularly memorable either (at least not in anything I've seen him in). He's fine in this film, but probably the least interesting character out of everyone. After not being overly impressed with Robert Redford in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) - which I think was the last film I saw him in - I was happy to see him play a likable character here as Grace's father. While I'm talking about the other human characters, I should probably also mention Karl Urban's Gavin. When his reaction to knowing there's something in the woods is to grab a gun and 'go hunting', you automatically assume he's going to be the typical 'baddie' character who'll want to capture and/or kill poor Elliot. I was therefore somewhat surprised to see that he actually wasn't quite the hissable 'villain' here. Yes, he did do some things that made him come across as not so great, but he never crossed the line into 'villainy' (as much as I might have hated seeing what he *did* do to/with Elliot later on). It's probably just as well too, since after having seen Karl Urban play a bunch of good guy roles, I've gotten used to him in those parts (whereas I first saw him as Caesar in Xena: Warrior Princess - where he wasn't such a nice guy. Though at the same time he played Cupid in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and wasn't so bad there). Anyway, I prefer him as the the 'good guy', so I accepted here as more 'morally grey' than 'evil'. There were a few sad moments in this movie, though, and the first (I found) was after Pete had been taken home to live with Grace, Elliot was searching for his friend and even attempting to play a game with him. His face there^ is so very puppy dog-like/"aww"-worthy, and I hated the thought of him worrying about Pete and wondering what had happened to his friend. A scene that was especially sad (for me, this was probably the saddest moment of the movie) was when he later found Pete in his new 'home'. The way Elliot's ears flattened and he looked incredibly sad was very heartbreaking, I thought. Even more sad was when he slowly returned to what had been his and Pete's 'home' - the den - and laid down, feeling alone/rejected/like he'd lost/been forgotten about by his 'friend'. The animators deserve so much credit for making Elliot's sadness feel so real. It certainly makes you want to ensure that you never take your beloved pets for granted. CGI gets a bad wrap a lot of the time, but I think animators can really create some magic given the right material to work with. I felt more for Elliot (a CGI creation) than I have a lot of 'real' human characters (and it almost makes you forget about the horridly CGI'd characters of the past which were so incredibly fake-looked and had no substance/'heart' to them - and that's one thing this film has oodles of: heart). I thought the family's reaction to seeing Elliot for the first time was well done. Obviously kids are usually the ones to first accept the 'fantastical' in these types of films, while the adults usually act more like how most people would if they were confronted by something so unbelievable. I thought they showed the right amount of fear initially, then hesitant curiosity, then caution and finally wonder/amazement. I especially appreciated that Bryce/Grace had tears in her eyes as she eventually accepted what she was seeing and was smiling - and that's how I just knew something was going to happen right then to ruin the moment. The capture of Elliot was another sad part in the movie. Yes, they were 'only' tranquilizers - but still, it was quite upsetting seeing Elliot (who'd been very cautious about coming out to meet these new 'friends' of Pete's) go from hesitation, to thinking the people Pete had called him out to meet were nice/friendly people, to finding out that in fact there were some not so nice/friendly people waiting for him too. If there was ever a moment/scene to dislike Karl Urban's character of Gavin...it was here^. It became clear later on he didn't want to 'kill' Elliot so much as get known for being the guy who caught the legendary dragon (and I imagine he was going to charge money for people to come see it or whatever). Note: I'll be skipping over a fair amount of the movie, since this post is already incredibly long. I'm glad that, towards the end after Elliot set the bridge on fire (once he'd recovered from the tranquilizers - which, by the way, I'm glad they didn't just gloss over the effects of on him. He was unable to fly for a good amount of time, which was far more realistic than him just being set free and immediately flying away), Gavin saw that although Elliot had appeared fierce towards him (with good reason, though), he ended up saving Grace and Jack from plunging to their deaths in the truck which fell. By the end of the movie, he seemed to accept that he wasn't going to get rich off of the dragon he'd caught, and it showed he wasn't so bad after all (just that he'd made some bad decisions/choices). After the very heartwarming scene where Pete reunited with Elliot and the big green dragon welcomed his boy with open arms and pulled him in for a big (but gentle) hug, another sad moment came when Pete escaped with Elliot and at first it seemed like they'd just go away someplace together to live how they had been living originally. Elliot suggested hiding by turning invisible, but Pete pointed out he himself couldn't do what Elliot could. That's when they had their very sad 'goodbye'. I only wish they'd left out Pete's howling or whatever it was supposed to be. I know they'd established it earlier as something he and Elliot did... But it kind of lessened the impact of their hug goodbye when suddenly Pete started making ^that noise. I honestly didn't know how the film was going to end (having not really remembered anything of the original version), so I was preparing myself to be especially sad if the film ended with them saying goodbye and that being the last they saw of each other...though I should've known better. I was SO HAPPY to see them reunite at the very end, and the final shot - which showed that Elliot wouldn't be alone, as he'd found other dragons - was a very sad (but 'happy sad') moment for me. I'll admit it got pretty dusty (damn allergies!) when watching them all fly off together. Then the song and the end credits really delivered that final emotional punch. It must be said that the music used throughout the film - both the choice of songs and the film's score - were all perfect. I'm glad I didn't hear some recognizable songs or something that was 'popular' at the moment or whatever. All the songs used were new to me, and they added to the 'timeless' feeling the movie gave off. The setting and the story that was told really did feel like a classic family film from ages ago (just with far superior effects). These are the sorts of 'family films' that there really should be more of. It's disappointing that this film was probably underappreciated (and that The Jungle Book likely stole its thunder - I actually prefer this film for a number of reasons, but one being that at least the kid/s didn't annoy me like the one in The Jungle Book did). I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch a really good, kind-spirited 'family film' that'll make you feel all warm and leave an emotional impact. 8/10
|
|