Last Movie you Watched?

And Noël Coward!

ambler wrote:

And Noël Coward!

Bloody hell, I knew I forgot someone.. :oops:

Coward being one of the best things about the film.

And Maggie Blye.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan (1984)

Am I wrong for liking this movie?

Christopher Lambert in a loincloth. What's not to like?

Oh yes - Andi McDowell's moustache and awful dubbed voice, that's what. Bleurgh.

Shine A Light - Scorsese directs the Stones 'up close and personal' at New York's Beacon Theatre. Pretty damn good concert film ... pensioners they may be, but the Stones still 'click' as a unit and mostly perform with an energy that transcends their age.

Ravenstone wrote:

Oh yes - Andi McDowell's moustache and awful dubbed voice, that's what. Bleurgh.

My question has always been -- why did they cast her in the first place? I mean, if you're willing to pay for Glenn Close to redub all her lines, why not just pay for Glenn freaking Close? Better star power anyways. And if the reason they redubbed her was that she had a Southern American accent that was unsuitable for Jane -- why the hell did she make it past the audition?? It costs a lot more money to hire a bad actress and try to cover it than to just hire a good one.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

My question has always been -- why did they cast her in the first place?

The eternal mystery. She was cast in Four Weddings and a Funeral simply because she was Handy American Female to Boost Ratings Across The Pond. You'd have thought they'd have at least tried looking for someone else. Or just dubbing Emma Thompson.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan (1984)

Am I wrong for liking this movie?

No, you're right. I like it too.

Quote :

My question has always been -- why did they cast her in the first place? I mean, if you're willing to pay for Glenn Close to redub all her lines, why not just pay for Glenn freaking Close?

Because Glenn Close looks like a bloke a drag.

All I know about Greystoke is it brought Super 35 back as a film format. Damn them.

Tubes wrote:

Starship Troopers

Really good film. Not quite Robocop, but certainly Verhoeven's best since then. I like that the characters exist in the grey relm, where they are kinda sympathetic and kinda not, namely Xander and Ace. Those two and others evolve from experiences, which is more than you can say for most action movies. Also, Michael Ironside. Some of the casting is inspired (psychic Nazi NPH), while others are downright hilarious (brilliant pilot and math wiz Denise Richards). I can only buy the Denise Richards casting due to the satirical tone of the rest of the movie.

What's scary is, for a couple of years (2001-2003ish), we where living in Starship Troopers.

The entire cast was one big joke by Verhoeven, not just Denise Richards. Most of the main protagonists are played by your typical cookie-cutter young Hollywood "all-looks no talent" hacks. Paul just took that to its extreme by purposefully choosing the most glaringly devoid of talent he could find.

I'm sure that he got a good laugh out of the fact that much of the (US) audience missed his meta-commentary.

The Jeanette scene in Munich is supposed to be hard to look at. It's murder down to its most messy and disgusting form. Their victim is unarmed, nude, vulnerable, and it takes several attempts before she actually dies. It's disingenuous to compare it to torture porn. It's more a fact of showing just how ugly cold-blooded murder can be.

Considering the tone and subject matter of the film it would have been distasteful if they had turned their revenge into something clean and sterile that doesn't magnify the horror of it all.

Salomé wrote:

The Jeanette scene in Munich is supposed to be hard to look at. It's murder down to its most messy and disgusting form. Their victim is unarmed, nude, vulnerable, and it takes several attempts before she actually dies.

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

ambler wrote:

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

No. It's there to make their actions seem more distasteful, taking their moral discomfort with their task to a higher level, setting up the conversation about her nudity slightly later in the picture. You are still free to believe, if you wish, that there were better ways to pursue that moral uneasiness, but I don't think there was anything genuinely titillating about the scene. It's cold, nasty, uncomfortable, and brutal, and quite surprisingly so for Spielberg. He's not pulling his punches here.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

The Jeanette scene in Munich is supposed to be hard to look at. It's murder down to its most messy and disgusting form. Their victim is unarmed, nude, vulnerable, and it takes several attempts before she actually dies.

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

I didn't know YouTube permitted clips with nudity ... interesting.

Maybe Craig should suggest the bicycle-pump pistol as a Bond 23 gadget.

Arkadin wrote:

ambler wrote:

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

I don't think there was anything genuinely titillating about the scene. It's cold, nasty, uncomfortable, and brutal, and quite surprisingly so for Spielberg. He's not pulling his punches here.

I disagree. It's all very well for Dario Argento to have a scene like that, because he would do it with highly stylized art direction and photography; plus the audience knows what to expect. However, to put such content in a supposedly serious film is a major lapse in judgement. It only proves that Spielberg should stick to what he does best; making films for children.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I didn't know YouTube permitted clips with nudity ... interesting.

It's against policy, but YT isn't as efficient as removing it as Photobucket. Still, don't expect that clip to stay up for long.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

The Jeanette scene in Munich is supposed to be hard to look at. It's murder down to its most messy and disgusting form. Their victim is unarmed, nude, vulnerable, and it takes several attempts before she actually dies.

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

She is nude when she is dying, and the uncovering of the breasts is a ploy in the hope of winning some time to reach her gun.

And I remain at my earlier opinion, it is foolish to compare this scene to torture porn like the Hostel series. The goal of the Jeanette scene was to convey the horror of an uneasy and clumsy cold-blooded murder. It wasn't meant to yield titillation or excitement. I'd worry about the mental state of those that do feel aroused by that scene...

Salomé wrote:

She is nude when she is dying, and the uncovering of the breasts is a ploy in the hope of winning some time to reach her gun.

That's what I do when I'm taken by surprise and seconds count. Not reach for my gun, but my tits.

Anyway, I see out positions are entrenched. Norbit or Vertigo?

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

She is nude when she is dying, and the uncovering of the breasts is a ploy in the hope of winning some time to reach her gun.

That's what I do when I'm taken by surprise and seconds count. Not reach for my gun, but my tits.

Anyway, I see out positions are entrenched. Norbit or Vertigo?

Well I'm defending Munich, but I'm not arguing it's a time-less masterpiece either. It is one of Spielberg's better movies of the past 25 years, though that in itself doesn't mean all that much.

What bothered me a lot more than the Jeanette scene is that he had to bring his obsession with father-son relationships into this movie as well. I mean, really? And then there was his overall lack of subtlety, that has plagued nearly everyone of his movies.

I don't think Spielberg understands sex, outside that it's commercially exploitable. There's none of its imperative or mystery in his films. The man has no sense of wonder beyond blaring music and flashing lights, none of which would be necessary if the visuals were good enough in the first place. As you say, no subtlety.

I look at Lynch and Spielberg and they're on completely different planes.

Salomé wrote:

The goal of the Jeanette scene was to convey the horror of an uneasy and clumsy cold-blooded murder. It wasn't meant to yield titillation or excitement. I'd worry about the mental state of those that do feel aroused by that scene...

What you call a failed 'mental state' is basic human nature. The professional classes may like to pretend otherwise, but pornography, murder and warfare are bestselling categories regardless of medium. People are drawn to this stuff.

Artists need to recognise our flawed nature and make sure that any exploration of those areas is responsible. Humour is an excellent way of doing that, but if a serious exploration is preferred then it can't be bungled in the way Spielberg did with Munich.

Marie-Josee Croze gets her tits out in MUNICH? Then again, I saw that film long before I fell in love with her in THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY. Alas...



Tension At Table Rock (1956) Dir. Charles Marquis Warren

Quality B-grade western thats a decent blend of, as the poster says, SHANE and HIGH NOON, among some original elements - rare that a 50s poster represents a film accurately, and I love the artwork.

Richard Egan's a gunman whose tarred for shooting his partner-in-crime upon trying to leave. Officially he gets a reward, in truth he shot him in defence, but the legen goes round that he shot him in the back - even becoming the subject of a folksong. Trying to escape his past, he trusn up at the equivalent of a Bus-Stop: a deserted corral run by a man and his boy for the stagecoach to change their horses. like SHANE, he starts working there, until one day some bandits come to rob the stage. They shoot the man, but Egan jumps for the gun and fills the three bandits with lead. With nowhere to go, he leads the boy to the nearest town, Table Rock, where to live with his aunt (one of my faves in Dorothy Malone) and his uncle (Cameron Mitchell) - whos the weakwilled sherriff. And his problems are only getting worse with a cattle drive about to arrive in town, bringing with them plenty of lawlessness. And thats where the HIGH NOON-esque fun begins. 8)

Familiar faces abound in this film - with apart from the three stars theres also Billy Chapin (the kid in THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER), DeForest Kelley (finally being a welcome addition to a Western film), Edward Andrews (in a villainous, non-comdic role) and a young Angie Dickinson at the start.

Quality stuff.

ambler wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

ambler wrote:

You're mistaken. Jeanette is not nude when the assassins arrive. Nor is she unarmed. Marie-Josée Croze just gets her tits out to make the scene more, um, titillating.

I don't think there was anything genuinely titillating about the scene. It's cold, nasty, uncomfortable, and brutal, and quite surprisingly so for Spielberg. He's not pulling his punches here.

I disagree. It's all very well for Dario Argento to have a scene like that, because he would do it with highly stylized art direction and photography;

Dario Argento by all means and purposes, would make the murder as beautiful, crude,.and utterly trivial as possible. There would be no weight to it whatsoever. Goblin's score would be blaring away at full volume, with no care in the world for anyone, or anything in the film. For the purposes of titillation and inspiring 'awe' at Argento's self-important tracking/crane shots. Except unlike De Palma's Grand Guignol films, there would be more no artistry or subtlety to it. All entirely obvious.

There's none of that here. It's uncomfortable, solemn, and deeply unsettling, for all of the reasons Harms has said. Putting it far more concisely than I could. There's all Williams's understated score, that while very short and low in the mix, tells us all we need to know - with the mournful cello solo, and slow forming tone clusters.

ambler wrote:

plus the audience knows what to expect.

That's part of the problem with Giallo. It's like textbook porn. You know every single position and line before it's been done. It desensitises the audience to violence through a routine, juvenile, formula.

ambler wrote:

However, to put such content in a supposedly serious film is a major lapse in judgement.

There's nothing here incongruent with the tone of the rest of the film.

ambler wrote:

The man has no sense of wonder beyond blaring music and flashing lights

Take Roy's epiphany while forming the mountain, with the Devil's Tower on the TV. The score is sotto voce, with muted strings and women's chorus. There's no blaring music or flashing lights, yet the scene is the one of the most powerful in the film. It's further reinforced by its Biblical parallels, in this case with the road of Damascus, and Moses's vision on Mount Sinai.

The Girl He Left Behind (1956) Dir. David Butler

Pleasingly fun 50s teen star vehicle for Tab Hunter and Natalie Wood (who also co-starred in THE BURNING HILLS the same year) - though dare I say more for Hunter, as these were the exact kind of roles she despised following REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. Thankfuklly she's not given much to do so her lack of enthusiasm doesnt show too much, shes just the girl waiting at home for Hunter.

His star didnt really last that long (by decades end he was reduced to having his own TV show), but for a short while he was big news. Looking at his filmography, I've seen 4, and the 2 most effective for him have been when the film-makers realise he looks like someone you'd just like to punch in the face for all us regular guys. Both this and GUNMAN'S WALK he plays absolute tools. There he's got father Van Heflin to be ashamed of him, here its the whole nation, and of course the army.

Told in semi-documentary style with a humourous voiceover, its a story of how the youth of today could use a good stretch in the army to straighten them out. Thus the peacetime draft is introduced, and Hunter, the massively spoiled richkid, fails his exams and is drafted. Of course, he's a spoiled brat, and he hates the army dearly, and like Cagney in THE FIGHTING 69TH, his loathsome behaviour is too much and goes on too long for us to keep too much sympathy with him. With STRIPES they finally learned their lesson and had them become army men midway through, not at the very very end. Ah well. Still offers some fun and its got a great cast including people like Jim Backus, Jessie Royce Landis, Murray Hamilton and a young James Garner.

TRON: LEGACY (2010)

Though the original is probably superior, the visuals, Daft Punk's score and Olivia Wilde in spandex makes "Tron: Legacy" a harmless bit of popcorn fun, despite it being entirely superficial.

Really wish this one would have touched more on the themes "Tron" explored. They just seemed to get shuffled into the background on this one. I also really loathe the dialogue they gave Jeff Bridges. Flynn isn't The Dude.

Regardless, I still think it's a fun piece of blockbuster escapism.

BEN HUR (1959, dir. William Wyler)

A pretty good epic that's at its best when it isn't attempting to deal with Jesus and faith. Like most of the Hollywood attempts to deal with spirituality and religion of that era, it's really hokey.


JESUS OF NAZARETH (1977, dir. Franco Zeffirelli)

What a cast. Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, Claudia Cardinale, James Earl Jones, James Mason, Ian McShane, Laurence Olivier, Donald Pleasance, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Rod Steiger, Peter Ustinov, and Ian Holm. I mean, wow. And Robert Powell's Jesus is probably the most iconic portrayal of the man on film that I can think of (although not an interpretation I particularly love, mind you, but it is memorable and impressive in ways that most interpretations are not, giving Jesus an ethereal aura). While Zeffirelli is a middle-of-the-pack kind of director, he's still capable of some effective direction, and so the film moves between irritatingly awkward, theatrical choices and choices that are surprisingly powerful.

What results is a film that's probably the best of the more "traditional" Jesus films, not as hokey as most, but never too shocking or out of line (indeed, a commonly-cited criticism of JESUS OF NAZARETH is that Zeffirelli neatly avoids staging any moments that might make Jesus seem either too human or too divine for anyone's tastes, so we don't get a lot of the more weirdly miraculous events cited in the gospels, or the moments where Jesus' fragility and conflict really shines through).