A list just for the fun of it
1) Paths of Glory
2) Saving Private Ryan
3) Full Metal Jacket
4) Battleground
5) The Hurt Locker
6) Downfall
7) The Great Escape
8) Stalag 17
9) Gallipoli (with an honorable mention to Breaker Morant)
10) Where Eagles Dare
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Movie review - "Sorcerer" (1977) ***1/2
The making of this film has become legendary as a symbol of 70s director excess in such tomes as Easy Rider Raging Bulls - it was a definite turning point in the career of William Friedkin, who for his previous two films could do no wrong, but came a cropper with this one.
He did want to make a big commercial picture - a bunch of dudes driving nitro glycerin over the mountains in central America... that's a sexy concept. And he had the basis of a classic French film to take from. Yes the characters aren't particularly likeable but they didn't have to be in the 70s.
In hindsight though it's not hard to see why audiences stayed away. The title is misleading. It feels very European, with a cast of mostly unknown actors; they are excellent, by the way, but it probably would have had more impact for Western audiences with more familiar names or say a Brit as one of the four drives; it may have resonated more for Eastern audiences if one of the drivers had been Asian (would have loved Toshiro Mifune or Ken Tanaka to be in this!) Roy Schneider is very good in his part but Friedkin is right - Steve McQueen would have made all the difference. It's also a bleak journey - and overlong, at two hours. I enjoyed the opening sequences, particularly the one in Israel, but really, they could have gone. (The Paris opening sequence feels especially long with people going off to have chats and coming back etc)
It's also easy to see why the movie has become a cult favourite. There is the story of its making, and its place in 70s cinema (particularly Friedkin's career). Plus its a stunning looking creation; it must have been hell to make but it's got amazing locations and production design. The scene of the trucks going over the bridge in the rain has to be seen to be believed. The bit part actors and extras are incredibly authentic. And the script improves on the French original in several ways such as the addition of bandits at the end.
Bruno Cremer is touching as the dodgy French banker, Francisco Rabal alright as the especially ruthless driver (his moustache was annoying), Amidou very impressive as the Arab terrorist who actually seems to be the most decent of the lot (he's the only one much upset by Karl John's death).
It's a flawed film (I never believed the Mafia would travel all that way for a hit) but made with tremendous passion and intensity, and deserves to be more widely known.
He did want to make a big commercial picture - a bunch of dudes driving nitro glycerin over the mountains in central America... that's a sexy concept. And he had the basis of a classic French film to take from. Yes the characters aren't particularly likeable but they didn't have to be in the 70s.
In hindsight though it's not hard to see why audiences stayed away. The title is misleading. It feels very European, with a cast of mostly unknown actors; they are excellent, by the way, but it probably would have had more impact for Western audiences with more familiar names or say a Brit as one of the four drives; it may have resonated more for Eastern audiences if one of the drivers had been Asian (would have loved Toshiro Mifune or Ken Tanaka to be in this!) Roy Schneider is very good in his part but Friedkin is right - Steve McQueen would have made all the difference. It's also a bleak journey - and overlong, at two hours. I enjoyed the opening sequences, particularly the one in Israel, but really, they could have gone. (The Paris opening sequence feels especially long with people going off to have chats and coming back etc)
It's also easy to see why the movie has become a cult favourite. There is the story of its making, and its place in 70s cinema (particularly Friedkin's career). Plus its a stunning looking creation; it must have been hell to make but it's got amazing locations and production design. The scene of the trucks going over the bridge in the rain has to be seen to be believed. The bit part actors and extras are incredibly authentic. And the script improves on the French original in several ways such as the addition of bandits at the end.
Bruno Cremer is touching as the dodgy French banker, Francisco Rabal alright as the especially ruthless driver (his moustache was annoying), Amidou very impressive as the Arab terrorist who actually seems to be the most decent of the lot (he's the only one much upset by Karl John's death).
It's a flawed film (I never believed the Mafia would travel all that way for a hit) but made with tremendous passion and intensity, and deserves to be more widely known.
Movie review - "The Outsiders" (1983) ***1/2
This film confirmed - if any further confirmation was needed after The Godfather - that few people had an eye for promising youngsters sharper than Francis Coppola (and Fred Roos of course). It's a remarkable line up of names - C Thomas Howell, Matt Dillon, Ralph Macchio, Swayze, Cruise, Estevez, Rob Lowe. Watching them in this movie the one you'd think least likely for stardom was Cruise, so immersed in his role as an Okie cracker does he go; Estevez also looks pure character actor with his chubby cheeks and ducktail hair. Swayze is the one who leaps off the screen as a possible leading man.
The bulk of the film's running time actually goes to Macchio and Howell, with Dillon getting the juiciest support part. It's high end melodrama full of tormented yet sensitive kids, whose problems are mostly caused by dead/neglectful parents and rich kids, hunky juvenile delinquents who just need a cuddle; there's a justified murder, thugs reciting Robert Frost and reading Gone with the Wind, lots of masculine hugging, self sacrifice and the deux ex machina of an orphanage burning down.
For the most part this is very effective - beautifully shot and designed, for the most part strongly acted (Diane Lane is very winning in the one decent sized female part), with a strong sense of atmosphere. Matt Dillon's excesses could have been curtailed, some of the dialogue clunks, and the theme song is terrible. But it's made with conviction and sincerity and some bits of it eg Macchio in the hospital, are heartbreaking.
The bulk of the film's running time actually goes to Macchio and Howell, with Dillon getting the juiciest support part. It's high end melodrama full of tormented yet sensitive kids, whose problems are mostly caused by dead/neglectful parents and rich kids, hunky juvenile delinquents who just need a cuddle; there's a justified murder, thugs reciting Robert Frost and reading Gone with the Wind, lots of masculine hugging, self sacrifice and the deux ex machina of an orphanage burning down.
For the most part this is very effective - beautifully shot and designed, for the most part strongly acted (Diane Lane is very winning in the one decent sized female part), with a strong sense of atmosphere. Matt Dillon's excesses could have been curtailed, some of the dialogue clunks, and the theme song is terrible. But it's made with conviction and sincerity and some bits of it eg Macchio in the hospital, are heartbreaking.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Movie review - "Baba Yaga" (1973) **
Really weird occult thriller based on a graphic novel about a fashion photographer (Isabelle de Funes) who comes under the spell of a sorceress. The sorceress is played by Carroll Baker who is appalling. De Funes starts to have visions of things, including Nazis - and gets turned on by Baker, who tries to brainwash her. De Funes' boyfriend George Eastman comes to save the day.
There's hallucinations, sado masochism, fetishism, photo shoots, a torture dungeon, lesbians, nudity, left wing political statements. Listing all those things makes the movie sound more fun and interesting than it is - although you do keep watching. None of the three leads are up to their roles.
There's hallucinations, sado masochism, fetishism, photo shoots, a torture dungeon, lesbians, nudity, left wing political statements. Listing all those things makes the movie sound more fun and interesting than it is - although you do keep watching. None of the three leads are up to their roles.
Movie review - "Interstellar" (2014) **1/2
Sometimes a filmmaker's head gets so far up their arse it can't come out again - I can't helping thinking that's what happened here for Chris Nolan, as talented as he is. There's so much exposition and theoretical physics that I had trouble wrapping my head around it; I'm quite prepared to admit I'm not the smartest cookie in the box but it was just plain confusing too much of the time. When I saw it there was this group of ten year old boys who trooped out of the movie still with 20 minutes to go - I think this is why it's not going to be a block buster.
For all the work done developing the story, far too much of this felt like a first draft - scenes end early, dialogue feels as though it needs another polish, exposition was clunky rather than smooth, far too much talk going on instead of using images to tell the story, too much dialogue coming from Matthew McConaughey (I'm glad he had a comeback, but I don't really want to see him in movies any more).
For a movie where the world is going to end a surprising amount of characters were selfish brats, such as McConaughey's daughter, Anne Hathaway's love struck astronaut. Too much of it didn't ring true - I'm not talking about the physics, more things like that random mention modern day society was insisting the Moon landings were fake (this didn't feel real) and nasa refused to drop bombs because of some food war thing; Hathaway wanting to base a mission on love. Moments like McConaughey and Hathaway realising 23 years have passed are tossed away; ditto McConaughey being reunited with his daughter (wouldn't he be curious at all to meet his children?). Why wouldn't everyone in the world be keen for a science mission to save themselves? Why wouldn't everyone want to find what happened to Hathaway? And I note Nolan still can't help using talking robots.
Stunning special effects and some terrific sequences, such as landing on the all water planet full of massive waves, and the Matt Damon sequence (even if he too is given too much to say). There is decent emotional kick to the story and it is worth watching especially on the big screen - I just wish they'd streamlined it and not keep using "well 2001 was confusing" as an excuse.
For all the work done developing the story, far too much of this felt like a first draft - scenes end early, dialogue feels as though it needs another polish, exposition was clunky rather than smooth, far too much talk going on instead of using images to tell the story, too much dialogue coming from Matthew McConaughey (I'm glad he had a comeback, but I don't really want to see him in movies any more).
For a movie where the world is going to end a surprising amount of characters were selfish brats, such as McConaughey's daughter, Anne Hathaway's love struck astronaut. Too much of it didn't ring true - I'm not talking about the physics, more things like that random mention modern day society was insisting the Moon landings were fake (this didn't feel real) and nasa refused to drop bombs because of some food war thing; Hathaway wanting to base a mission on love. Moments like McConaughey and Hathaway realising 23 years have passed are tossed away; ditto McConaughey being reunited with his daughter (wouldn't he be curious at all to meet his children?). Why wouldn't everyone in the world be keen for a science mission to save themselves? Why wouldn't everyone want to find what happened to Hathaway? And I note Nolan still can't help using talking robots.
Stunning special effects and some terrific sequences, such as landing on the all water planet full of massive waves, and the Matt Damon sequence (even if he too is given too much to say). There is decent emotional kick to the story and it is worth watching especially on the big screen - I just wish they'd streamlined it and not keep using "well 2001 was confusing" as an excuse.
Movie review - "Camille" (1936) ***
If you're a fan of Greta Garbo you'll love this movie because it gives her a chance to act all over the place - play coy, funny, tragic, romantic, sexy, etc. Camille is a dream part for an older woman - you get to wear fantastic clothes, all the men pant over you (including a handsome elder one and dashing younger) and you get to die and have all the sympathy.
It's done with MGM gloss which means plenty of over the top costume and sumptuous production design; the censor has pulled back on what Camille does for a living but it's still clear to adults what's going on.
The performances of Lionel Barrymore and Robert Taylor have been much criticised. Barrymore was indeed irritating - all ham and self righteousness, barnstorming his way around the set as he scolds Garbo; Taylor I went easier on - he wasn't a very good actor but he does his best and he's got the looks. Henry Daniell is superb and there is some garishly overly the top support from character actors like Laura Hope Crews.
I didn't really get into this and the finale, where Camille kicks the bucket, left me cold. Maybe I'm shallow. But like I say if you enjoy Greta Garbo you'll get into it.
It's done with MGM gloss which means plenty of over the top costume and sumptuous production design; the censor has pulled back on what Camille does for a living but it's still clear to adults what's going on.
The performances of Lionel Barrymore and Robert Taylor have been much criticised. Barrymore was indeed irritating - all ham and self righteousness, barnstorming his way around the set as he scolds Garbo; Taylor I went easier on - he wasn't a very good actor but he does his best and he's got the looks. Henry Daniell is superb and there is some garishly overly the top support from character actors like Laura Hope Crews.
I didn't really get into this and the finale, where Camille kicks the bucket, left me cold. Maybe I'm shallow. But like I say if you enjoy Greta Garbo you'll get into it.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Movie review - "Godzilla" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)
Decent revival of the famous monster, which has some genuinely excellent special effects and memorable new creatures in the form of the MUTOs... it's more of a MUTO picture than a Godzilla one, with the big G taking an almost supporting role before he comes along and helps raise San Franscisco while fighting two opponents.
Gareth Edwards' style is to give things an air of verisimilitude and film a lot of action in long shots; he also has a major soft spot for helicopters. This means the movie is visually impressive but lacks excitement as many of the big set pieces take place in the distance. It doesn't help that the lead - the dull Aaron Taylor Johnson - spends most of the movie observing action, only getting involved in the end. I wish they'd killed him off and kept alive his father, Bryan Cranston, whose craziness provides some much needed life. Even duller is Elizabeth Olsen as Johnson's wife, who spends the film running up and down corridors escaping rubble - and their kid is even duller than that.
I did like how respectful the film was towards it's Japanese heritage and there are some first rate moments: the initial appearance of the monsters, the death of Juliet Binoche, the Halo jumping sequence, the visuals of a destroyed San Francisco. Some top actors are wasted in bland support roles - Sally Hawkins and Ken Watanabe especially.
Gareth Edwards' style is to give things an air of verisimilitude and film a lot of action in long shots; he also has a major soft spot for helicopters. This means the movie is visually impressive but lacks excitement as many of the big set pieces take place in the distance. It doesn't help that the lead - the dull Aaron Taylor Johnson - spends most of the movie observing action, only getting involved in the end. I wish they'd killed him off and kept alive his father, Bryan Cranston, whose craziness provides some much needed life. Even duller is Elizabeth Olsen as Johnson's wife, who spends the film running up and down corridors escaping rubble - and their kid is even duller than that.
I did like how respectful the film was towards it's Japanese heritage and there are some first rate moments: the initial appearance of the monsters, the death of Juliet Binoche, the Halo jumping sequence, the visuals of a destroyed San Francisco. Some top actors are wasted in bland support roles - Sally Hawkins and Ken Watanabe especially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)