Last Movie you Watched?

The Wild Bunch was about the end of some of the ideals of the classic western. Their last stand is fueled by their loyalty to each other and their way of life and how they realize that there is no place for men like them in this brave new world. In many ways, the apotheosis is a nihilistic act.

12 Rounds (Extended Harder Cut) - faintly passable, cliche-ridden action guff with John 'WWE' Cena as a Noo Awlins cop whose apprehension of a notorious arms dealer (Aidan Gillen) accidentally leads to the death of said dealer's girlfriend. A year later, he breaks out of prison and kidnaps Cena's girlfriend ... if he can complete a series of 'challenges' (hmmm, Die Hard With A Vengeance anyone?), he'll get her back alive.

Oh well, it only cost £3 .

John Garfield double this evening.



Body and Soul (1947) Dir. Robert Rossen

Consider the talen involved in making this film:

-Directed by Robert Rossen (ALL THE KING'S MEN, THE HUSTLER)
-Photographed by James Wong Howe
-Oscar winning editing by Robert Parrish (who became a director of MY PAL GUS, among others)
-assistant director was Robert Aldrich (KISS ME DEADLY)
-written by Abraham Polonsky (FORCE OF EVIL)
-plus future directors William Conrad and Joseph Pevney were actors in the film, and they're both pretty good too.

Bur for what it is, its still a stock standard boxing story unfortunately that never totally kicks into gear, and is hauled up by the performances of John Garfield and Canada Lee, the photography of Wong Howe and a redemptive ending for Garfield. It was his only lead Oscar nomination and its probably his best role - funny how his dream role was the violin-playing boxer of GOLDEN BOY (which was made in 1939 with a debuting William Holden in the lead), and in 1946 he got to play a violinist in HUMORESQUE only to back up the following year to play a boxer. He's mighty good, though I think a second watch might do wonders for my appreciation of it.



Force of Evil (1948) Dir. Abraham Polonsky

American classic? To me, seemed more like a solid B-noir thats pulled up by some fantastic photography and another cracking performance by Garfield. Maybe if the films had better supporting actors, I dont know. Maybe I'm too tired to look for subtext at the mo. I have been watching a lot in these days Ive had off work. Think I might start reading again.

Scorcese's a big fan - and it features in his list of his list of 15 best gangster movies.

colly wrote:

Ride The High Country (1962) Dir. Sam Peckinpah

Instant love. A wonderful Western that mediates on the glory of the west gone by and the men within it - it was originally slated for the Duke and Coop, but I think theres a greater subtlety in having Scott and McCrea; they're less heroic and more "real," for want of a better word. Their age isnt played for laughs, its a natural progression that the Duke would only occasionally hit in films like the non-western IN HARM'S WAY and THE SHOOTIST. Utilizing the beauty of cinemascope and a wonderful score, its just a wonderful film. And how didnt Ron Starr become a star? He wouldve made a fine Western star...

Ron Starr didn't impress me, but I like Mariette Hartley. Like Jennifer Warren in the 70's, she's attractive in a different kind of way and she exudes intelligence.

THE WILD BUNCH is my favorite from Peckinpah, though. It's the Everest, and HIGH COUNTRY is the K2.

colly wrote:

Force of Evil (1948)

American classic? To me, seemed more like a solid B-noir thats pulled up by some fantastic photography and another cracking performance by Garfield.

... and sensational, poetic dialogue! :)

The Late Show (1977; dir. Robert Benton)

In the opening credits you see "Produced by Robert Altman". Boy, I wish it had said "Directed".

It's an okay movie, but I felt let down. Nice premise, nice cast, and a pretty decent script involving cats, cash, stamps, and stiffs. I just think a better filmmaker could have made more out of this, because it tends to ride on the idea of an old, codger detective and a far-out (for 1977) young (though Tomlin doesn't look young enough) woman. It just rides on this idea like, "Hey isn't this zany!?". Carney and Tomlin are both very good, and they have good chemistry.

I just think that with someone of the calibre of Altman this could have been a classic, like THE LONG GOODBYE. It fits into that category, along with THE BIG LEBOWSKI.

I always like seeing what I consider to be inspired moments. This film has one, at about 45 minutes when Tomlin opens a fridge. The set up, though, is better than the subsequent teasing and payoff of the situation. I don't wanna spoil what it is though.

What do you do when your computer is down? Quite simple. Go out in a blaze of glory and potential stupidity.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King

All Extended editions. An 11 hour marathon of walking left to right. You know what? I loved every second of it.

Tubes wrote:

What do you do when your computer is down? Quite simple. Go out in a blaze of glory and potential stupidity.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King

All Extended editions. An 11 hour marathon of walking left to right. You know what? I loved every second of it.

Oh Christ. I was shooting this webseries yesterday. It's kinda like LOTR as a comedy. I got an information OVERLOAD on fantasy yesterday.

But I watched those films over three days around Thanksgiving 2006. Never again. They're... okay. But I hate those little Hobbits with a passion.

G section wrote:

colly wrote:

Force of Evil (1948)

American classic? To me, seemed more like a solid B-noir thats pulled up by some fantastic photography and another cracking performance by Garfield.

... and sensational, poetic dialogue! :)

Its a probably a bad sign then that I dont remember a single line of dialogue from the film.

It was interesting I'll give it that - but it had nothing great on the numbers racket, there couldve been a greater presence of danger about it all, and the brotherly "love" of Garfield and Gomez didnt work. I know they were meant to be hamstrung so that they couldnt accurately show their love for one another, but it seemed very unlike Garfield to pull out all these sacrifices so many years into the business. I didnt truly buy that. I liked this quote from Variety:

Quote :

"Force of Evil fails to develop the excitement hinted at in the title. Makers apparently couldn't decide on the best way to present an expose of the numbers racket, winding up with neither fish nor fowl as far as hard-hitting racketeer meller is concerned. A poetic, almost allegorical, interpretation keeps intruding on the tougher elements of the plot. This factor adds no distinction and only makes the going tougher...Garfield, as to be expected, comes through with a performance that gets everything out of the material furnished...On the technical side, the production fares better than story-wise. The physical mounting is expertly valued; the New York locale shots give authenticity; and lensing by George Barnes, while a bit on the arty side, displays skilled craftsmanship."

I loved the location shooting (especially at the end), but neither the tough plot nor the poetic interpretation comes out all to well, I got no great emotion out of Howland Chamberlin or Thomas Gomez, and in 78 minutes it all comes off a bit underbaked. Ah well, maybe one day I'll rewatch it and find it better.

JCVD
JCVD was an action star of the 90s, who never quite managed to make it to the very top of the mountain
critics were scathing about his acting abilities and he wasn't able to bring the tongue in cheek charm that allowed others, like Arnie and Roger Moore, to make up the difference
by the new millennium he was in "straight to dvd purgatory"
toward the end of the decade he got lucky with "Till Death", which while still no masterpiece, somehow rose above it's origins to be better than it really had any right to be
and this novel concoction, which is part action, part satire, part thriller, part heist, part personal confessional
it has some action, but most of that is during the opening credits, thereafter it attempts to work on multiple levels, as thriller and a satire, and IMO largely succeeds
performed largely in Belgic-French (Waloonese?) it offers JCVD his best opportunity yet to demonstrate some acting ability
the soliloquy he delivers, while breaking the fourth wall near the climax of the movie, may be muddled, but the conviction with which he his delivers it is genuinely impressive, displaying a wide range of passion and emotion to the edge of breakdown and back again
is it the benefit of age and experience? or the result of having the opportunity to work largely in his mother tongue for once? or was he always tragically held back by those in the industry who saw him only as "the muscles from Brussels" and handicapped by the one note material he had to work with… (yeah right)
it would have made a nice swansong for his career, but of course he's kept going, flogging his franchise movie "Universal Soldier" for all it's worth and beyond

Seve wrote:

JCVD

Jesus Christ venereal disease?

LA Noire.

No, wait. That's a video game. I get confused when over 70% of the damn thing is cutscenes.

It's already out?!?! :shock: I didn't even noticed.

Mr. Trevelyan wrote:

It's already out?!?! :shock: I didn't even noticed.

Pretty damned excellent too. The cast is great.

There's Always Tomorrow (1956) Dir. Douglas Sirk

The pic isnt exactly representative of the film, but its one hell of a publicity still.

Whereas in Sirk's other pics-in-the-suburbs, the protagonist has usually been a woman (likw Wyman in ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS and MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION), this time its a man - 50s dad Fred MacMurray, married for twenty years to Joan Bennett, with 3 children. Its rare to find a mid to late 50s pic that concentrates on the father, most of the youth pics have fathers as the problem and the only Dad pic I've seen is none other than BIGGER THAN LIFE, which was arguably the most volatile statement against the 50s father. But here he's stuck in a rut, his children only take his love, they take up Bennett's time and energy, Bennett herself has gone soft and suburban - the whole phenomena epitomised one evening when, on Bennett's birthday, she's promised to go to their young prima donna daughter's ballet recital, the other children have their own love/problems to settle, and MacMurray's alone. Alone in the palatial padded cell that was the 50s home. But as luck would have it, love draws a card - knocking on his door is old flame Barbara Stanwyck - 20 years a go a lowly doll designer with toy-maker MacMurray. 20 years on, he runs the toy company, Stanwyck's successful, stylish, single and living. She's MacMurray's rope out of the well - much to the horror of Stanywck herself, and MacMurray's two oldest children, who couldnt bear the fact that their cushy existence may be ruined by their selfish father!

Its got some nice mid-50s style, though the emotion doesnt quite hit the highnotes and in 80 minutes its quite compact (perhaps too much so) - but the performances are solid; Bennett is surprisingly adept at playing the plain wife considering how sultry she played it 10 years back in SCARLET STREET and WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, William Reynolds shouldve had a great career playing Nazis (he played FBI men instead it seems), I'm not sure why there was fuss about Gigi Perreau (though she seems on the downward curve by 1956), MacMurray puts in an incredibly fine performance and even as she ticked near 50 - theres still no-one who could do it like Stanwyck. Simply supreme.

Wish theyd had a more regretful song than Blue Moon though - a real sweeping score mightve helped damn the lives of quiet desperation just that bit more. Great phrase that. Quiet Desperation.

Lord Of The Flies (1963)
Dir. Peter Brook

A stilted, bare-bones adaptation of William Golding's terrific novel. It bypasses the book's religious and psychological allegories and ignores characterisation of key characters (most notably Ralph, Simon and Roger) in favour of presenting 'highlights' and set-pieces from the book in an effort to make the film come across as powerful when the power of Golding’s story wasn’t primarily in actions but in words, behaviour and metaphors – the “Lord Of The Flies” is barely featured and the killer quote, “I’m part of you”, is nowhere to be heard! Visually, the film is great, full marks there, but that emphasises the fact that the film is very much style over substance. Of course, a film that has its entire cast made up from child actors is always going to struggle (although the kid who plays Simon is pretty damn good), but that doesn’t excuse the complete emptiness of the film. A shame. [/bad grammar]

2/5

Pirates of the Caribbean : On Stranger Tides

2D

Hmmmm..... had its moments. And moments were good. The beginning was good, tailed off in the middle, fizzled out at the end. Huge gaping plot holes left me feeling very cheated.

Okay - it's pirates, and I really need little more incentive to love a film than a good old swashbuckle. But it was a trifle disappointing.

The mermaids are good. The sword fights are great. Ian McShane is brilliant. Penelope Cruz is not. And a sort-of main character disappearing before the end without any explanation is a definite WTF??? moment.

Remember how in At World's End they set up Chow Yun Fat like he's some sort of major character ... and then killed him off out of the blue?

Stuff like that leaves me with no desire to see On Stranger Tides, to be honest.

I may have been more forgiving about On Stranger Tides if the other two hadn't been so weak. It's not as bad as World's End - I'll give it that. Not quite. Or maybe it's just newer. But it does have a cameo by Judi Dench. And the escape at the beginning is good. As is the sword fight between two Sparrows.

Queen Anne's Revenge is good. The Spaniards are completely wasted. No idea why they're there at all. No idea why Penelope Cruz is there either, cus she's incredibly badly written. Badly acted and badly written is a fairly unforgivable combination.

Johnny Depp is worth the entrance fee, though. As is Ian McShane and Geoffrey Rush. Although even Rush seems to be going through the motions now.

Union Station (1950; dir. Rudolph Mate)

In a word: servicable. This is William Holden's and Nancy Olson's other film together from 1950. Sure hope Bill got a good paycheck, and I hope he was tapping Olson. Just sayin'.

It's mostly conventional, and Holden is a bit miscast in his role. Really he's just too young in the face, I think. But the film is cleanly directed and features a couple good set pieces. The finale drags, though. It's got a nice episode where they follow a guy on the elevated train and a scene with, shall we say, enhanced interrogation. The threat of decapitation by train. If only they had trains at Gitmo.

It's all pretty standard, especially from a writing standpoint, but Mate gives it a little flair.

They also made SUBMARINE COMMAND - though that mightve been 1951. ;)

Yup, 1951.

Watched Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. Still can't make any sense of the ending and neither can Tim Burton if you listen to his commentary.

But I will give it a try and try and make some sense of it.
Maybe back on earth where the apes managed to take over as well, they just happened to produce their own General Thade character, but what are the odds of that?
Ok so Thade managed to travel through time as well as Leo (Mark Wahlberg) and managed to lead an Ape rebellion in the years before Leo arrived back on earth, but how did Thade get off the ape planet to travel through time? Answer? Maybe he found another little functional space pod in the wreckage of the original space station.. This answer kinda works.

Next movie is being called a prequel and it deals with how the apes took over Earth presumably within the context of the previous movie's ending- at least I hope so. :scratch:

Some Girls Do
Richard Johnson is back in the sequel to "Deadlier Than The Male"
on the plus side the music is stronger, the villains lair is more spectacular and Johnston is still playing it admirably straight as Hugh Drummond-Bond
the girls are still beautiful and much of the camera work is still enterprising
unfortunately the plot has crossed the line into silly 60s land, scenes and dialogue are sketchy and under developed, and character development is non existent
it reminded me of the "Billion Dollar Brain" and "The Presidents Analyst" where the hero is largely a bemused passenger as the movie rushes along, never stopping long enough to develop any interest or tension
still easy on the eye but disappointingly shallow

note - Joanna Lumley appears in a small role near the beginning, but sadly soon blows herself up, cinema's original suicide bomber?
(she'd been "robotised" by the villain)
Robert Morely also appears in an ill-conceived cameo, an awful role which is symptomatic of the silly 60s spirit which has infected the sequel
mercifully he too is killed off earlier than might be expected, his plot culdesac having wasted valuable screen time that could have been put to better use

Sherlock Holmes (2009)



Wasn't going to ever watch this, because I knew that it was gonna suck. Just thinking of Holmes turned into some kind of action hero is inexcusable. But, much to my surprise, it wasn't actually bad. Although I do still think that this does wrong justice to the "real" Holmes (the one in the books) and that Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are terrible miscast, this still managed to keep me watching. The action was good, the story is as clever as any Holmes book, Downey and Law actually manage to act well and make a fun chemistry and the visual atmosphere is excellent, really 1800-ish. But the music is just irritating, although I like Hans Zimmer (mostly by his work in Christopher Nolan's films), his score just doesn't fit into the movie, sounds too modern-ish.
But overall a fun and standable reimagination of the greatest fictional detective, which is mostly targeted at young action-hungry audience. The unswerving Holmes fans: watch at your own risk.

6.5/10


Guy Ritchie Countdown:
1. Snatch (2000)
2. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
3. Sherlock Holmes (2009)