Last Movie You Watched.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Ladd was one of the few co-stars who had anything good to say about Veronica Lake.

She had nice hair, fine jugs and a private pilot's licence. That's more or less enough for me.

Supposedly her career had deteriorated so much by the late 1950s that she was reduced to working as a bartender in NYC.

x

Salomé wrote:

Jack Reacher's sheer size and physicality are such a part of the character that the choice to cast Tom Cruise in the role was baffling.

It might have been a good franchise for Archie Hammer, who is the right height and build, though his problem might be that he is somewhat too handsome/pretty to play Reacher.

Sixty years ago, Robert Ryan would have probably played him. Quite well too.

Agreed on Reacher's size. Alas, big, tough guy actors are pretty scarce. Dave Bautista, anyone?

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Ladd was one of the few co-stars who had anything good to say about Veronica Lake.

She had nice hair, fine jugs and a private pilot's licence. That's more or less enough for me.

Supposedly her career had deteriorated so much by the late 1950s that she was reduced to working as a bartender in NYC.

I'll have a pint. Or two...

This discussion about Lake has made me want to revisit "This Gun for Hire".

x

Gail Russell is very good in "Seven Men From Now", which is probably my second favorite of the Boetticher-Scott collaborations, after "Comanche Station". I had no idea until now that she was already ravaged by the effects of alcoholism by that point.

x

Blazing Saddles - granted it maybe tails off a bit towards the end, but for the most part Mel Brooks' riotous spoof Western (complete with an honesty of language in the satirising of racial attitudes that would make a millennial's hair curl) is still a hoot 44 years on.

Finished the LOTR trilogy this past weekend. Splendid stuff. Even the Khantessa was, rather against her will, captivated. The trilogy is such a rich banquet of visual spectacle, panoramic action and high drama that it's rather overwhelming. The glut is such, in fact, that it all tends to blend together. This makes it tough on critics, no doubt, but also means that the films will reward manifold viewings, and in my opinion, that is one of the most telling indexes of a film's worth. I'll duly purchase the set on DVD and watch them all in rather rapid succession. I look forward to it already.

As an aside, one of the aspects of the trilogy that stands out most to me is how traditional, even old fashioned it is. Aside from the violence, which is comprehensive if not especially gruesome, this is actually wholesome, family entertainment. Blow-charged Disney, if you will. I don't recall foul language and there was certainly no sex to speak of. Instead, there was a mighty paean to domesticity, the simple life and one's home. By necessity, LOTR spans its own fantasy world, but there is not a hint of cosmopolitan sophistication and "citizen of the world" self congratulation. It all winds up back in the obscure little Shire (flyover country, in American parlance), where the folk are common and happy and simply wish to be left to live according to their own parochial customs, habits and beliefs. Such an outcome, of course, would have been impossible without those classic male virtues of honor, courage, duty and patriotism, nowadays so out of fashion. One can almost hear the scoffing in Manhattan and Oxbridge...

x

Silence (dir. Scorsese)

I can always rely on Scorsese to deliver but a near 3-hour film on religion was a commitment I wasn't ready to honour when it screened in cinemas. I should have. Thematically resonant and sumptuous photography, though it's the two handers that made it most enjoyable. The scene where Garfield and Neeson meet again, particularly.

3.5/4

Jack Reacher (dir. McQuarrie)

Solid action thriller despite the rather contrived final act. I enjoyed the return of practical stunts as opposed to CGI. Rosamund Pike fails to convince again as an American. She's emotionally available and doesn't let her voice work interfere with staying present, but she needs to work on it. It was one of the few criticisms I had for Gone Girl and Beirut and it took me right out of it from her first scene in Jack Reacher. She's great otherwise here, and a brilliant actress overall. I still maintain her best work to date is in An Education, but then, that's probably a career high for most of the cast.

2.5/4

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

One can almost hear the scoffing in Manhattan and Oxbridge...

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse, Khan; Tolkien was a professor at Merton College, Oxford.

And I hope it is not you who are being purposefully obtuse--Oxford ain't what it used to be...

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'll duly purchase the set on DVD and watch them all in rather rapid succession. I look forward to it already.

The Extended Editions are, for the most part, well worth watching (assuming you've only watched the theatrical versions).

Quite right regarding the Hobbit civilisation, such as it is. There's something of the Burkean ideal about. For what it's worth, Tolkien described his own political views as a blend of anarchy and monarchism.

CJB wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'll duly purchase the set on DVD and watch them all in rather rapid succession. I look forward to it already.

The Extended Editions are, for the most part, well worth watching (assuming you've only watched the theatrical versions).

Quite right regarding the Hobbit civilisation, such as it is. There's something of the Burkean ideal about. For what it's worth, Tolkien described his own political views as a blend of anarchy and monarchism.

Ha. Anarcho-monarchism, eh? That's a new one on me, and it sounds antinomian until you consider what western monarchies--especially in the early modern period--were like. Yes, in many places and times the monarch had something approaching absolute power in his realm, but the fact of the matter is that he rarely imposed it on the peasants and burghers. To begin with, he didn't have the bureaucratic means to do so. Then again, unless there was a revolt of some sort (Jacquerie, Wat Tyler, Bolotnikov, etc.) he typically had more pressing concerns than the little people. This meant that commoners led life pretty much as they pleased. There were feudal duties and imposts, naturally, not to mention varying degrees of serfdom, but I think, if we could travel back in time we'd be quite amazed at how free a great many people were, particularly in the early modern period when serfdom began to fall by the wayside. I can thus see Tolkien's position.

Thanks also for the rec for the Extended Editions, CJB. Just how extended are they?

The Tin Star

A cynical former sheriff turned bounty hunter arrives in a town in which a greenhorn sheriff has just been appointed. The man realizes the youngster is out of his depth and will likely be killed on the job. After overcoming his early reluctance to get involved, he decides to assist and mentor the young man even though his own experiences as a lawman have left him embittered.

A very good western with a young, pre-Psycho Anthony Perkins and a terrific Henry Fonda.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Ha. Anarcho-monarchism, eh? That's a new one on me, and it sounds antinomian until you consider what western monarchies--especially in the early modern period--were like. Yes, in many places and times the monarch had something approaching absolute power in his realm, but the fact of the matter is that he rarely imposed it on the peasants and burghers. To begin with, he didn't have the bureaucratic means to do so. Then again, unless there was a revolt of some sort (Jacquerie, Wat Tyler, Bolotnikov, etc.) he typically had more pressing concerns than the little people. This meant that commoners led life pretty much as they pleased. There were feudal duties and imposts, naturally, not to mention varying degrees of serfdom, but I think, if we could travel back in time we'd be quite amazed at how free a great many people were, particularly in the early modern period when serfdom began to fall by the wayside. I can thus see Tolkien's position.

Indeed, from memory, Tolkien's description of his ideal monarch was something along the lines of a King who was more interested in stamp collecting than running people's lives. Tolkien was also against the bureaucratic state which had ballooned throughout the course of his life.

He was also quite a passionate conservationist and anti-industrialist, though not necessarily in the "Green" political sense of recent years. I'd probably class him as an opponent of monopolistic capitalism, but a socialist he was certainly not.

Quote :

Thanks also for the rec for the Extended Editions, CJB. Just how extended are they?

Extra 30 minutes for Fellowship, 40 for Towers, 50 for King.

Judging by your description of Tolkien, CJB, I suspect he and Fleming would have hit it off reasonably well. I wonder if they ever met?

Extended indeed!

Don't know if a staunchly Catholic professor specialising in linguistics would be Fleming's typical drinking buddy, but after sufficient libations anyone can become your debaucherous friend.

x

x

There's a story that Tolkien (in his rooms at Oxford) was reading aloud from one of the LOTR books to Lewis, who responded with 'Oh no! Not ANOTHER fucking elf!'

Probably untrue, but amusing nonetheless.

This probably doesn't warrant its own thread but I still wanted to share it here:

https://twitter.com/NoChorus/status/1044344063917543430

A lovely moment.

x