Yes ... the remake! I hadn't seen it for many years (I owned the DVD for a few years) so decided to give it another try, one reason being I haven't watched the 1971 original for many years, either, so hoped I would be less influenced re: comparisons. But no ... in attempting to tell the same story - even use the same dialogue in places - it asks the viewer to compare.
And in all respects, it comes off second (I'm tempted to suggest third - I've read the novel (twice) and that was a lot better, too!) best. And although this was my third viewing of this version, I still can't get to grips with the underlying story: is the CD (the McGuffin factor) holding something valuable - e.g. some software developed by the computer geek - or is it merely the pornographic (and likely incriminating) film?
In seeking to modernise the story, the director et al. lost sense of the story they should have been telling. Far too many fancy shots, weird camera angles, fast-motion scenes accompanied by noise which purported to be the soundtrack. I think there were two car chases but as neither was memorable I could be mistaken.
I'm not sure why Miranda Richardson was cast, her role was largely superfluous (not in the original) and damaged an important idea: Carter wants revenge for his brother's death but also he wants to destroy the mobsters who have used his neice ... who, in the original, could be his daughter. Having Doreen's mother, Gloria, in the story removes this possibility.
Mickey Rourke may be a better actor than Ian Hendry but he is far less effective; also, maybe having well-known British actors portray incidental/minor characters in the original gave it more grounding which this remake cannot emulate. Alan Cumming as the geek is utterly useless (no surprise there ... I've seen GoldenEye several times); Rachael Leigh Cook is good (and gets better as the story unfolds) as Doreen in an expanded role; Rhona Mitra as Geraldine was wasted (and had no significant role as her counterpart Geraldine Moffat in the original - her character having been named Glenda); etc. And Michael Caine played ... Michael Caine in a cameo role which was much more than a cameo (I wonder how many times he shuddered as he read the script and watched the dailies).
It was fun to hear Roy Budd's iconic theme used ... the rest of the score by Tyler Bates was monotonous pounding broken up by so-called songs (was this an homage to the original which also uses a few songs?).
Which leaves me with: the rain ... if we thought Newcastle, Gateshead et al. in 1970/71 were depressing, this remake certainly achieved a similar result with Seattle, etc. (recall the joke: in Seattle, what do you call two wet days? ... A weekend! ha, ha)
And: star Sylvester Stallone. I'm no fan of his but I think he carried the role well, showing a lot of emotion, not being the all-out invincible hero. A definite plus to what was largely a misfire. Mitch
War Gods of Babylon (1962) 6/10 with Howard Duff. For one of this kind it wasn't bad at all. Decently filmed tale about war and skullduggery between Babylon and Ninnevah. Music by Savina and AFL was fine.
BluRay ... I so wanted to enjoy this! I know I watched (read: attempted to watch but fell asleep) this a few years ago and I did recall a few scenes. But, despite a wonderful cast, several enjoyable scenes and a few great stunts, it amounts to ... nothing. It was something to do with someone seeking to start nuclear war by stealing launch codes; with Ethan (Cruise) in a Russian prison; the Kremlin being destroyed .. and ...
I enjoyed seeing the cast enjoying themselves and some lovely scenery. I didn't enjoy the so-called music score by Michael Giacchino which, at its best, was tedious.
And the film was a bore. If i watch it again I must do so standing ... it's the only hope I have not to drift off ... Mitch
The Two Gladiators (1964) 7/10. With Richard Harrison, Giuliano Gemma, Mimmo Palmeri. Above average ( i.e. not shit) Roman set with a bit of familiarity via gladiator and fall of the Roman empire. Then main villain was Commodus as in t'others.Decently filmed music by Carlo franci was ok but I don't recall any themes. Afterthought. There was a scene where the leads were sleeping by a tree. The villain's men, in full centurion outfit, were sneaking up on the good guys. Gemma couldn't get comfy and fumbling under himself finds a small rock. He then throws it away, in the dark, followed by a clunk. He'd, by chance, hit one of the baddies on his helmet ( ooh, er, Mrs) thus giving the.game away. Made me smile, anyway.
What looks to be and feels like a deathly dull modern spooky horror gets genuinely quite interesting in the second half. At least it tries something a bit different. Nice drone footage, they got their money's worth there, and the creepy score has some effective moments and is rather good in spots. Still some rather daft writing in it but not too bad in compromising the entertainment factor of the second half. Worth a watch after a few drinks probably.
Damian's clearly found a thrown-away box set of cheap italian sword'n'sandal epics!
Not quite but even cheaper. My blu ray player has you tube on it. Though I am partial to some s/s films or stuff regarded as crap by the unenlightened. They are mostly good picture quality and in wide-screen.
More specifically the battle for Saipan island where a small group of Japanese soldiers held out up a jungle mountain for 500 days against overwhelming U.S forces. Quite a chunk of the story is from the japanese perspective and highlights their soldier's code and refusal to surrender.
Falcon of the Desert (1965) 7/10 with Kirk Morris and a few familiar faces. Fairl decent, look ok. Music by someone I'd never heard of, Ugo someone. Mum was a bit disappointed because 'handsom' Kirk kept his chest covered in this one! Also Aldo Sambrell was in this and he was a goodie. Followed by The Sword and the Cross (1958) 6/10. With Lilly Munster herself as Mary Magdalene. Watchable but a bit slower than, say, the above. However it was nice to see a different angle on the Magdalene storyusic by Roberto Nicolosi was ok.
John Wick (they killed his dog!). I recently bought the Blu-ray of part 3, so I thought I'd look at 1 & 2 again before I watched it. Great stuff! I'll look at 2 on Thursday or Friday & look at part 3 on Saturday.
Enjoyable bank heist -> psychological / violent thriller with a good cast. I'd seen the film at least twice, including its cinematic run, but had forgotten the final act (basically from the violent murder onwards) and this is the film's weakest part. Up until then it could just happen but, as is so often the case, the filmmakers in seeking to end the story cut a few corners and whatever credibility had been earned so far was wasted.
On the positive side, Elliot Gould is excellent underplaying his role ... it's almost as if he simply accepts things are what they are and gets on with life - the chess board is on constant display in his apartment as if to indicate he is a thinker who can plan his moves; Christopher Plummer playing a somewhat effeminate, albeit deranged and violent killer, is nicely creepy but it does mean you have no compassion for him; Susannah York has little to do but is key to several events; and Céline Lomez as the femme fatale character is good in her significant role.
John Candy provides some light relief but it is not a comedic role; and a couple of other recognisable (to me!) faces have small roles.
Some of the violent scenes are strong (early on, Reikle's treatment of the girl in the health club is a hint of what's to come) and the setting of an open, no-screen, glass-panelled bank in a shopping centre is, to us Brits, at least, unimaginable in today's society.
The music score by Oscar Peterson was largely enjoyable and effective except in the tense scenes when it became too basic; also, the start of the playout theme seemed totally inappropriate but happily changed when the saxophone (I think) kicked in to supplement the weak and soporific strings. Mitch
John Wick (they killed his dog!). I recently bought the Blu-ray of part 3, so I thought I'd look at 1 & 2 again before I watched it. Great stuff! I'll look at 2 on Thursday or Friday & look at part 3 on Saturday.
Unbelievable! I watched Pt 1 in Feb'19 ... easily one of the worst films I've seen in the last two years. As I commented then, I kept waiting for the story to develop ... in vain!!!
But then, I'm known to be highly critical of many films Enjoy. Mitch
But then, I'm known to be highly critical of many films Mitch
Me too! In fact most films made after 1980. These John Wick films are not to be taken seriously, they take the Bond & Bourne films & ratchet the action up to lunatic levels (a cartoon really). John Wick stands there with huge piles of dead bodies behind him (a superhero without a cloak). I do like the way they develop the idea in the second one of a subculture of beggars & petty criminals all working for a single person, & then you have the looney plush hotel in the middle of New York just catering for criminals. The only thing missing is Jason Statham.
Documentary, featuring many talking heads from the big tech companies (Google, FaceBook, Instagram etc), who all quit, when their tech/science was exploited for unethical/nefarious reasons. A bit too preachy at times and there's no getting the genie back in the bottle anyway, but scary for what the future holds, especially for the youngsters of today and future generations of society. George Orwell...take a bow, Sir.
Documentary, featuring many talking heads from the big tech companies (Google, FaceBook, Instagram etc), who all quit, when their tech/science was exploited for unethical/nefarious reasons. A bit too preachy at times and there's no getting the genie back in the bottle anyway, but scary for what the future holds, especially for the youngsters of today and future generations of society. George Orwell...take a bow, Sir.
If they're not collecting your data and using it against you they're censoring your very thoughts. I hear Twitter has banned anyone saying they're happy "some moron" got Covid. It's not even wishing someone ill, or even remotely a death threat, nothing of the sorts. I guess pointing out karma is now hate speech.
Adam Sandler plays family guy “Jack Sadelstein,” an employee in a television commercial production company who prepares for the annual event he dreads: the Thanksgiving visit of his fraternal twin sister, the needy and passive-aggressive “Jill” (also Adam Sandler), who then refuses to leave. Adding to Jack’s troubles: his superiors have ordered him to secure the services of Al Pacino for a Dunkin’ Donuts commercial—The Pacino Frappacino.
In one of the worst drag get-ups in movie history, Adam Sandler’s “Jill” looks nothing like a woman. Fortunately for the film, Sandler can pass as his own twin, so at least half of the premise works.
What there is of the comedy comes from several directions. There are Jack’s under the breath asides and insults directed towards his dumb-as-a-stump sister Jill; there are scads of low-brow bathroom and ethnic gags; and there is Al Pacino, playing Al Pacino, who against all expectations falls for Jill. No mid-tier (or even top tier) star of today could play Pacino’s role. As written, the part is just ridiculous. It takes an Al Pacino, with 50 years of top-flight acting history behind him, to make the idea of having Al Pacino lovesick over Jill even remotely amusing.
This one-joke premise can’t be sustained beyond 90 minutes, and they don’t try. Even so, there are a number of opportunities to bail out of the picture during several stretches of tedium. But then a good fart joke arrives and convinces you to hang in there.
Amazingly, this thing cost $79 million to make. All of the money must have gone into Sandler’s and Pacino’s pockets. Sandler has enough of a fan base that, despite scathing reviews, the film took in $149 million worldwide, so Sony didn’t suffer either.
Sort of an X-men/Secret Agent movie for kids. Absolutely cringe worthy, lame, nonsensical and boring. How Disney can green light a script like this is beyond me. Pure garbage and completely insulting to even a kids intelligence. The writer and producer should be tared and feather and banned from the entertainment business. A seven year old could write something better. The woke crap has to stop too. Remember when Disney made great family entertainment in the 90's?
I'll not go much further because this is a #MeToo thing. I've seen some online material where the true life people discuss aspects of the historical environment on which the film is based and trying to untie truth from fiction would end up in a horrendous mess because it appears some of the characters in the film/story are purely fictional while the principals most assuredly are not.
Suffice to say that when Charlize Theron gets an acting role she feels is worthwhile (think Monster) she intuitively knows exactly what is required. Genius actress, more here I think, than anywhere else.
Everyone comes off with sparkle in the roles they play, including John Lithgow, the Big Man at the centre of the fracas. Well worth a view.
