Last Movie you Watched?

The Thing (2011)

4/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/

I just watched this and the ending seque exactly into the beginning of the 1982 film - kudos to the producers of this movie for sticking to the original storyline and they even used the same soundtrack!!

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE. Intriguing.

I haven't seen it, but I'll add it to the list, alongside DAY OF THE LOCUST.

Well, I don't think REVERSAL OF FORTUNE is exactly a must-see. Don't get me wrong: it's good, but it won't blow you away. And I don't think it's nearly stylish enough for your liking. Visually, it's very meat-and-potatoes - there's little directorial flair. It's worth it mostly for Irons' performance (which, looking back, seems to anticipate Hopkins' take on Lecter).

Loomis wrote:

Irons' performance (which, looking back, seems to anticipate Hopkins' take on Lecter).

Best to give it a miss then. Hopkins's Lecter is one of the laziest, most pantomime-y and overrated performances in recent memory.

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Irons' performance (which, looking back, seems to anticipate Hopkins' take on Lecter).

Best to give it a miss then. Hopkins's Lecter is one of the laziest, most pantomime-y and overrated performances in recent memory.

Hopkins' Lecter is anything but lazy (at least as far as SILENCE is concerned). His take on Lecter is quite theatrical, even cartoonish, but it takes a great deal of skill and talent to create a character so instantly iconic. It's the kind of outrageous performance only a great actor could deliver.

Anyway, if REVERSAL OF FORTUNE has a great performance from Irons, I'd be willing to check it out just for that. Irons has impressed me before. He's incredible in DEAD RINGERS, and the best thing about the LOLITA remake.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Irons' performance (which, looking back, seems to anticipate Hopkins' take on Lecter).

Best to give it a miss then. Hopkins's Lecter is one of the laziest, most pantomime-y and overrated performances in recent memory.

Hopkins' Lecter is anything but lazy (at least as far as SILENCE is concerned). His take on Lecter is quite theatrical, even cartoonish, but it takes a great deal of skill and talent to create a character so instantly iconic.

Not it doesn't. It's a gimmicky performance, that any stage-trained actor worth his salt could deliver. Its "iconicism" is thanks to the dialogue, Jonathon Demme, Howard Shore and AMPAS, not Hopkins's laughable ticks and bizarre southern accent (almost as lousy as John Lithgow's in OBSESSION).

Sharky wrote:

It's a gimmicky performance, that any stage-trained actor worth his salt could deliver.

If what you say were true, then we'd have plenty of folks right up there with Lecter (after all, there have been a great many in-the-vein-of-Lecter characters in our post-SILENCE OF THE LAMBS age, offering plenty of actors the opportunity to mug at the camera). But Hopkins' Lecter still doesn't have any genuine competitor.

Sharky wrote:

Its "iconicism" is thanks to the dialogue, Jonathon Demme, Howard Shore and AMPAS, not Hopkins's laughable ticks and bizarre southern accent (almost as lousy as John Lithgow's in OBSESSION).

Of course the dialogue is important. Hopkins can't act a character that hasn't been written, so kudos to Thomas Harris/Ted Tally. And further kudos to Demme and Shore for framing Hopkins' performance with lots of effective atmospheric stuff. But Hopkins' distinctive "ticks" still count for a great deal, and without 'em, the character wouldn't be the icon he is today.

Harmsway wrote:

But Hopkins' Lecter still doesn't have any genuine competitor.

In the league of extraordinary hammery, only Kevin Spacey and Philip Seymour Hoffman come close. But no, I can think of tonnes of better villains in the last 20 odd years. All of them far more subtle, charismatic and insidious. As iconic? Maybe not, I'm not the idiot who decides these things.

Harmsway wrote:

But Hopkins' "ticks" still count for a great deal, and without 'em, the character wouldn't be the icon he is today.

Why exactly, and I'm trashing that stupid icon. It doesn't DESERVE it's reputation. It's deserves NOTHING but mockery.

When a character becomes an icon to that degree, the actor has done something right.

Yes, and that something is giving a lazy, hammy, pantomime performance. He succeeded, just like how I succeeded in burning my right middle finger on the grill yesterday morning.

"Hammy" isn't a bad word. Neither is "pantomime."

*Hammy* just means bad OTT acting. False acting in my book.

Says the fella who likes Olivier's performance in RICHARD III.

Harmsway wrote:

HJackson wrote:

I must to get around to BODY DOUBLE and FEMME FATALE one of these days.

FEMME FATALE, yes. BODY DOUBLE... meh.

You know you love it, Harms.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

HJackson wrote:

I must to get around to BODY DOUBLE and FEMME FATALE one of these days.

FEMME FATALE, yes. BODY DOUBLE... meh.

You know you love it, Harms.

BODY DOUBLE is De Palma at his most blatantly provocative, a giant cinematic joke meant to rub his critics' noses in displays of "bad taste." But I don't really find the joke all that funny, or the imagery that accompanies it all that compelling.

I love it, because for me it rings true. Like James Cagney it's larger than life, but still has a great deal of conviction to it. It's not built up from a series of gimmicks (a lesser actor would have played up the hunchback, but Larry doesn't need to), and there are genuine nuances in it (just look at the seduction of Lady Anne scene - it's a tour-de-force). But most all, there's a great deal of (intentional) humour to it. That is what people forget about the guy, he could mix wit and malice like not other. Everything from a twinkle in the eye, or glance to the audience, to the psychotic freakouts in the final act. It's a daring performance, especially in the breaking of fourth wall, which itself acts as a kind self-commentary on the play's history.That's what RICHARD III '55 is all about, when you get down to it. It's a film about a play, designed as a play.

It's not a great film, but it's a great performance.

I like Hopkins, more so in his later years, but sometimes he strikes me as Olivier-lite. I guess that's why they got him to re-dub the "oysters and snails" scene in SPARTACUS, but it doesn't quite work there. Olivier's voice is much deeper and more resonant, and as can be shown when the original dialogue returns for the balcony bit.

Harmsway wrote:

BODY DOUBLE is De Palma at his most blatantly provocative, a giant cinematic joke meant to rub his critics' noses in displays of "bad taste."

BODY DOUBLE Is basically just a new wave tone poem. Pure style over substance, but it's got a hell of a lot of style. Everything Argento's proponents say about SUSPIRIA and TENEBRE applies here instead.

But if you don't really like New Wave, what have you got? Not much.

Are we having the Lecter debate again?

Harmsway wrote:

But if you don't really like New Wave, what have you got? Not much.

That's like dismissing TAXI DRIVER because you dislike New York City, taxi drivers, and Italian-Americans.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Are we having the Lecter debate again?

This isn't a firework display.

Sharky wrote:

That's like dismissing TAXI DRIVER because you dislike New York City, taxi drivers, and Italian-Americans.

TAXI DRIVER has a story with some genuine emotional resonance anchored in compelling performances. BODY DOUBLE's story is an extended gag with flimsy characters and non-performances. If BODY DOUBLE had more to offer, I'd feel worse about dismissing it on the basis of my own subjective tastes.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Are we having the Lecter debate again?

Now all we need is someone to bring up MANHUNTER for the umpteenth time.

Harmsway wrote:

If BODY DOUBLE had more to offer, I'd feel worse about dismissing it just on the basis of my own subjective tastes.

It's got some fine direction, scoring, framing, use of mis-en-scene etc. Not the most striking of the De Palma ouvre, but still.

Sharky wrote:

It's got some fine direction, scoring, framing, use of mis-en-scene etc.

It is possible to dislike a film with fine technical/aesthetic qualities. (I'm lookin' at you, MANHUNTER.)

Concrete Cowboys (1979)
Jerry Read and Tom Selleck star in this TV movie (it's pre Magnum so Burt Reynolds sidekick Jerry tops the bill)
it's starts out as a "Smokey & The Bandit" style good-'ol-boy-car-chase story before morphing into a "Magnum PI" crime fiction mystery
and judged in that context it's excellent stuff, the story is pretty solid, there's plenty of 70s style action and Jerry and (then unknown) Tom have charm and charisma to burn
it also has a number of country music cameo appearances, the highlight being a country comedy song from Ray (the Streak) Stevens
Morgan Fairchild is also along as the femme fatale
in 1981 they tried to turn it into a series, but by then it was too late, they had missed the boat, as Tom Selleck was by then making it big as Magnum

Captain Of Castile
Tyrone Power in a swashbuckling tale grafted onto events at the time of Cortez conquest of the Aztecs
one interesting feature of this production is that many of the scenes in the second half of the film take place against the backdrop of an actually erupting volcano
it's facinating to watch the plume of smoke beginning to rise from behind a range of hills in the distance and slowly growing into a huge cloud, which by the end of the movie has covered much of the sky and turned the bright Mexican day into an eerie twilight
the procession at the end of the movie passes down a valley and we get to see the volcano itself, fresh and black, growing out of the valley floor in the background (in retrospect, very LOTR)
other than that, Caesar Romero is excellent as Cortez and Jay Silverheels (Tonto) brings his distinctive, distinguished voice to proceedings
Jean Peters is the feisty waif, Lee J Cobb is the ugly but redoubtable friend of the hero, Alan Mowbray provides comic relief and John Sutton is impressive as the villain
there is plenty of colour and there is some action, but probably not enough at the finale, Power is seriously injured twice, which is one time too many for a movie of this type
the villain survives his mid movie duel with Power only to be strangled toward the end in his bed, and there is no battle with either the Indians (historically correct) or rival Spaniards (which there actually was in reality, so that could have been used)
which means that I was left without a "sense of closure"
Romero and his cohorts marching off down the hill toward the valley lake of the Aztec capital is no substitute for a pitched battle in my book

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Irons' performance (which, looking back, seems to anticipate Hopkins' take on Lecter).

Best to give it a miss then. Hopkins's Lecter is one of the laziest, most pantomime-y and overrated performances in recent memory.

Hopkins' Lecter is anything but lazy (at least as far as SILENCE is concerned). His take on Lecter is quite theatrical, even cartoonish, but it takes a great deal of skill and talent to create a character so instantly iconic. It's the kind of outrageous performance only a great actor could deliver.

Anyway, if REVERSAL OF FORTUNE has a great performance from Irons, I'd be willing to check it out just for that. Irons has impressed me before. He's incredible in DEAD RINGERS, and the best thing about the LOLITA remake.

Rest assured that REVERSAL OF FORTUNE does indeed have a great performance from Irons.

I like Irons. I'm not sure I've seen all that many films of his (has he even been in many films? I can't even think what his last film was - seems he hasn't been part of the celluloid scene for a few years now), but I've noticed that his presence in a flick tends to improve it quite a bit. He's by far the best thing about DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and STEALING BEAUTY, for instance.

And I'll have to see DEAD RINGERS. I recall, Harms, that you recently cited it as the best film of its year.