haven’t seen many movies lately, but the last one i saw was Edge Of Tomorrow - action packed time travel spectacle with Tom Cruise
entertaining sf piece with a bit predictable ending
[size=12pt]KLUTE (1971, Alan J. Pakula)[/size]
Curious thriller, often called the first part of Pakula’s (loose) “Paranoia Trilogy” (the other two parts being The Parallax View and All the President’s Men), but it’s not really a paranoia thriller, but more a film about the shady side of modern life, the part of life good citizens are trying to hide for others (and that’s exactly where the crime aspect is about). The story’s about a police detective (Donald Sutherland) who’s asked to investigate the dissappearance of an old friend. His only clue is an obscene letter his friend supposedly sent to a hooker called Bree (Jane Fonda)
As a thriller Klute doesn’t work to perfection; there are a few scenes with Fonda being stalked (filmed in giallo style, from the point of view of the stalker) that are quite eerie, but too soon (halfway the movie) we get some vital clues that give away the identity of the stalker/killer. But both Fonda and Sutherland are so good and the atmosphere of despair and surpressed emotions and sexual desires so palpable that the movie holds your attention almost effortlessly. Personaly I think this is the best part of this loose trilogy, but I haven’t seen the other two movies in quite a while and I know many fans of the director do not agree with me.
Do like Sutherlands role and the atmosphere, and with you speaking about this one reminds me I must view this one soon.
Shuterland was always pretty good in these type of parts.
The Sandlot (1993)
I only saw this movie for the first time last night. Why I waited so long is a mystery. I like nostalgic period films like Stand By Me, and The Sandlot is almost like more of a feel-good version of Stand By Me.
[size=12pt]Le Capital[/size] - Costa-Gravas - 2012
Over the years I’ve watch many Costa-Gravas films, but apart from maybe Special Section, he never made anything as strong or as good as Z. And his last films haven’t been nothing special, so was curious to see how Le Capital would hold up.
First impression wast that the film should be called Das Kapital with so much Marxism shown in a perverse way, it has a very recent historical background, the recent economic turmoil that almost launch or world into another great depression, or maybe it did and we just didn’t notice.
It tells the story of a French CEO of a French investment bank (played very well by French standup comedy actor Gad Elmaleh, in an odd but successful cast choice), that as to fight against an American hedge fund turned major stockholders whose owners want to buy the Bank cheap, at the same he as to deal with an internal fight for the presidency. In the meanwhile we have top models, idealist workaholics, and jet travel from one major economic capital to another.
With his usual humor Gravas portrays the greedy bankers like if they were mobsters that belonged to something similar to the mafia, there’s was code of silence, and if you break it eternal oblivion was to expect. Also a good example of dark humor was the decision on downsizing the bank personnel resources for more profit to the shareholders, with an idea taken from Mao, a lay self-criticism, there’s a fantastic scene where the CEO explains his plan to reduce employers to all of them via videoconference.
It a very cold film, with cold characters, with a voice-over from our main character to justified his true feelings, some appearing out of nowhere just to show from where our CEO came from.
it’s an interesting film, one that will leave the viewer thinking the usual way – “those greedy bastard bankers that stole our money” – which its basically the true, so even if very academic Le Capital doesn’t show us nothing we already didn’t know, it’s not provocative, it misses that agent provocateur feeling that Gravas used to show so well in his first films.
It doesn’t also show us the full complexity of the high finance world, it displays us the basic mechanics of takeovers, but not the full complexity of the all process that it’s not as simple as just moving money from one fund to another, maybe it was intentional to not turn the film into something very technical. The problematic of using privileged information to get in front, is a well portrayed
A well-paced film, with very good acting, Gabriel Byrne also shines, but lacks that final defenitive punch of a spectacular work, to just an informative one.
Flight Of The Doves - Easy to watch pleasing viewing, a couple of orphan kids run off from England and stowaway to Ireland to find their Nan, pursued by their evil uncle, Ron Moody.
Death Hunt - Trapper Charles Bronson saves a dog from an organised dogfight and those organising it turn up at his cabin to kill him, he defends himself and then finds himself the pursued in a manhunt led by Lee Marvin, good stuff.
Performace - One of them films I never got around to seeing before, I enjoyed it but liked the first half more when it was more gangster based.
Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia - Love this film, I still can’t make my mind up if this or The Getaway is my favourite Peckinpah.
My Name Is Pecos - Wild East’s first Blu, they’ve done a good job of this considering the elements, best I’ve ever seen it, the disc also comes with the sequel which I’ve never seen before so looking forward to checking it out.
[size=12pt]Soldiers of Fortune[/size] - 2012 - Maxim Korostyshevsky
[url]Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos
Aiming for those Rublos
Well if I have watched Indonesian and Philippine war flicks, I surely can take a look at this modern day B (or is it Z) grade flick.
It’s a Russian production, directed by an unknown to me Russian director, filmed in… Crimea before the takeover, with some beautiful Black Sea coast landscape by the way. All you have seen this story before, nothing new here, any movie geek could had written the scrip better. There’s a dictator, some rebels and a bunch of outsiders (rich adventure seekers, doing some war tourism), and blá blá blá.
Anyway I didn’t watch this for the script, locations or even the action scenes, which are ok for a B into Z grade flick, I really notice was the cast:
Christian Slater;
Sean Bean;
Colm Meaney;
Ving Rhames;
James Cromwell;
And that guy from Lost, the one who was in a band, and a few top models.
UAU with this cast more Tom Cruise and you had a summer blockbuster. The only conclusion I came can be resumed in two words: money and Laundering.
The film is laughable more soldiers of misfortune, and I won’t complain about De Niro no more.
[size=14pt]U Turn [/size] 1997 Oliver Stone
[url]Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos
To be quite honest until recent times, I didn’t even knew it was directed by Stone and apart from a few bits in TV, I have never watched before, in any case my view on the film may be a little biased as I usually like this kind of stories with country music, desert and that sort of things.
While doing some research find out that Oliver Stone decided to do a film without any political connotations, well he did just that directing this modern day noir.
I got mixed feelings about U Turn, in the overall I liked, I followed the film from start to end without any difficulty, but thinking a little more it’s not a flawless film, far from that.
Comparisons in style with Tarantino cannot be avoid, even with Alex Cox, and both this directors had done better films than this one, in this particular style. Stone overcooked things too much, my guess was that his main influence were Western Spaghetti (mixed with noir), the strange camera angles, a Morricone soundtrack, odd characters, but the stylization goes over the top, exaggeration is a hard trick to do, and doesn’t always work.
Also didn’t like the main character, not that Penn is bad or something, but his character just doesn’t work for a noir at least, he’s no anti-hero and it’s not just his incredible bad luck (after all the core of the film), but how weak he was, he got beat by everyone, and when you feel sorry for a main character in a noir or Western, something must be wrong.
Then there’s JLo, she’s hot but can’t really act, and a femme fatalle must be a particular type of actress, or at least a good one, and she isn’t any. Also though the characters were too far apart, no real connection.
And finally Oliver Stone fails to deliver the Native American mysticism that he tries to include in the film through the characters of JLo and her mother, apart from a few flashbacks, that path goes nowhere in the film.
Reading this words it sounds like a bad movie, well it’s not. The acting its top notch (apart from Lopez), Billy Bob Thornton is great as the not so crazy mechanic, great part for him, John Voight really looks like an old Indian, and Powers Boothe it’s incredible once again in the Sheriff part, the guy must be one of the best character actors of all time, stealing every scene, also Nolte does a good Job, and Penn couldn’t rise more above his characters limitations, Phoenix TNT is also great, and I was surprise to see our favorite CIA agent in the film, a very young Claire Danes.
There are some cameos like Julie Hagerty (from Aeroplane fame), Liv Taylor and Bo Hopkins totally wasted without a line.
So in the end one of those films that while not being totally bad, does have some flaws, after all with the names involved it got a lot of pedigree, in any case the weaknesses I notice, didn’t stop it from being a pleasant viewing, at least to me after all it’s a SW noir mix.
Great Soundtrack
[size=12pt]THE ROBE[/size] (1953, Henry Koster)
A biblical film, telling the story of the Roman tribune who led the unit crucifying Jesus Christ. It’s based on a novel by L.C. Douglas, who said he was fascinated by the question what happened to the robe worn by Christ, won by a soldier in a dice game held at the foot of the cross.
Unless you think every profane use of Christian elements (whether official or unofficial) is sinful (haram to use a term from another religion), the story of a robe becoming a relic influencing the lives of those who own it, is an interesting one; there were several of those relics (The Veil of Veronica, The Shroud of Turin, The Mandylion of Edessa, etc), all belonging to the apocryphal (unofficial) history of Christianity and they offer perfect story material for a gifted writer. I haven’t read the book, and maybe this guy Douglas was a gifted storyteller, but the story told in the movie feels rather heavy-handed and clumsy; it reminded me a little of the pious stories about sinners and proselytes that we were told in school long, long time ago. As you might expect, the tribune (played by Richard Burton) converts to Christianity, but the process is shown as a result of witchcraft (the robe burns!) rather than personal conviction.
This was the first movie released in Cinemascope and watched in its full widescreen glory it’s a visual delight (I had seen a full screen version years ago, that made you wonder to whom people were talking to in various scenes). Burton makes a fool of himself a couple of times (shouting as if he were in a horror movie) but some of the other performances (Victor Mature as Demetrius, Michael Rennie as Peter) are quite good; however, Jay Robinson steals the show as the mad Caesar Caligula. Today most people think the sequel - Demetrius and the Gladiators - is a better movie. I’ll watch that soon (actually the sequel is the reason I rewatched this one).
I agree with most things you say, not a great film per se, but an enjoyable one.
Jennifer is so beautiful in this movie that you can (almost) forgive her for being such a lousy actress. Man of the movie for me is Billy Bob, really funny type that mechanic.
@ Sherp:
Always rather enjoyed Roman epics from the '50s/early 60s, although I’ve never gotten round to The Robe (no excuse - it gets played on TV frequently enough). The non-Biblical epics though I usually enjoy more, like The Fall of the Roman Empire (still the high bar of quality in this genre) and Aldrich’s [b]Sodom and Gomorrah[/b ] (a camp delight, this is dying for a WS release) - what’s your favourite?
[quote=“John Welles, post:11892, topic:1923”]@ Sherp:
Always rather enjoyed Roman epics from the '50s/early 60s, although I’ve never gotten round to The Robe (no excuse - it gets played on TV frequently enough). The non-Biblical epics though I usually enjoy more, like The Fall of the Roman Empire (still the high bar of quality in this genre) and Aldrich’s [b]Sodom and Gomorrah[/b ] (a camp delight, this is dying for a WS release) - what’s your favourite?[/quote]
I’m not really an expert (note that I haven’t watched Demetrius and the Gladiators yet), but so far my favorites are Spartacus (1960) and Gladiator (I know, not from the same period, but partly it’s a remake of Mann’s The Fall of the Roman Empire - I enjoyed that movie too, btw)
Of the Biblical movies Ben Hur (remains a great spectacle and a good narrative) and Ray’s King of Kings come to mind.
The Robe is not a bad movie, but it doens’t quite touch the right chords anymore (maybe it did in the 50s, I don’t know; like I said it reminded me of the stories we were told when I was a school boy in the 60s); talking about biblical movies, I think Pasolini’s Il Vangelo secondo Matteo is still way above the rest.
I don’t believe in any religious nonsense but I like films like The Ten Commandments etc, the stories are interesting, and that’s all I look at them as, stories.
I forgot The Ten Commandments. Not as good as Ben Hur imo, but also a great and interesting spectacle.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:11893, topic:1923”]I’m not really an expert (note that I haven’t watched Demetrius and the Gladiators yet), but so far my favorites are Spartacus (1969) and Gladiator (I know, not from the same period, but partly it’s a remake of Mann’s The Fall of the Roman Empire - I enjoyed that movie too, btw)
Of the Biblical movies Ben Hur (remains a great spectacle and a good narrative) and Ray’s King of Kings come to mind.
The Robe is not a bad movie, but it doens’t quite touch the right chords anymore (maybe it did in the 50s, I don’t know; like I said it reminded me of the stories we were told when I was a school boy in the 60s); talking about biblical movies, I think Pasolini’s Il Vangelo secondo Matteo is still way above the rest.[/quote]
Spartacus is a goodie too; Olivier and Ustinov are great fun. Ben Hur is alright, but it looses its sense of form in the last third (chariot race not withstanding): the whole leper colony sequence feels tonally abstruse. Gladiator’s neat, but not to sure how well it stands up to repeated viewings - all the stuff in Germany and with Commodus is a cut above the rest anyhow. Troy, while not Roman, as an ancient epic has its moments and seems to be the purest throwback to the '50s, at least in its starry cast and faint air of po-faced ridiculousness.
I meant of course Spartacus (1960), the Kubrick movie, not '69 (don’t know if a Spartacus movie was made that year)
There wasn’t one in '69, but in 1970 there was a Franco & Ciccio Roman comedy which features Spartacus (and Edwige Fenech) called Satiricossimo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066334/reference), and apparently a spoof of Fellini’s Satyricon.
Well, Satyricon is my least-favorite Fellini, so a spoof of it ?? By Franco & Ciccio(ooh) ??
Edwige fenech in a spoof sounds interesting though.
[size=12pt]The Counselor [/size]- 2013 - Ridley Scott
[url]Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos
I watched this a few days ago, and still find it hard to give a final and definitive opinion about it.
Ridley Scott made two of my all-time favorite movies (Alien and Blade Runner), but his latest work not really fall into my personnel taste, so I was curious.
With that in mind, and with knowledge of the bad reviews from most critics and public in general (the film wasn’t a box office success), I was pretty damn interested to see what went wrong with a film directed by Scott, with a script written by Cormac Mccarthy, (his first original script for cinema), and with actors with the caliber of Fassbender, Bardem, Penepole Cruz, Pitt and even Cameron Diaz.
Well both technically and visually the film is perfect, if you want to test a home theater system, choose a Ridley Scott film, you can’t go wrong. The cinematography is fantastic and some scenes like the highroad shoot out, are so well done that makes you think you are there.
About the film itself, I can understand why all the flack by the critics, yes it’s hard to follow and pretentious, only in Cormac’s mind drug dealers (and people in general) have such elaborate dialogues. The film is like a Shakespeare play without the moral, at least I couldn’t find any. It’s a hard film to follow for any viewer, you never really fully understand what is happening and why, only the characters seem to, and even so not all.
With so much dialogue the actors have to act like stage actors, but Bardem was the most convincing to me, Brad Pitt recycles some of his past characters, Fassbender has the strange and rare ability of acting over the top without never really hamming it up, but for a main character lacks some charisma, Cameron Diaz struggles a bit playing the manipulative villain, clearly acting against type. There are too many cameos, they should give more work the less know actors for the small parts.
So the question is: Did I like it? No and yes. No because I can understand the critics, the film just doesn’t work for the general public, and in the end those are the ones who are going to watch it, it’s not just pretentious it’s also demanding and confusing. It’s also strange that such a strict plot, could be spoiled by the way Pitt’s character is caught, for such a smart character, he’s trapped by the oldest trick in the book.
Yes, well because it’s different and I did like the dialogues, there are some really memorable scenes one with Diaz and the windshield of a Ferrari, and the murder of Pitt’s character the middle men guy, those who like gore will surely like that one.
Is it a good film? The logic part of my brain say’s it’s not, but the other part did like it. So I will have to watch it again next year or so , maybe the unrated version for a more decisive conclusion, one think is true, in today’s film market its a daring film.