...Not bad in the sense that others are bad - say, Showgirls, The Room, or something, which are so hilariously bad they deserve some sort of attention for their badness alone. No, this is just bad film-making, with a weird concoction of attempted well worn elements shoe-horned into one film and ends up doing none of them well, if at all.
On the surface, it's a kind of a quirky, misunderstood eccentric genius sleuth (Sherlock style) pursuing a serial killer who's deeds are menacing a city, except, Kevin Kline's sleuth isn't really that quirky, and the puzzles (when he gets to them) are so simplistic and predictable even a 5 year old could deduce them (no need for a genius anyway).
After the opening scene, with the initial murder, the murderer, indeed the whole premise is essentially forgotten about for another 45 minutes - seriously, you forget that there even is one! - and all this time is taken up by giving dubious and contrived backstory his relationship with Susan Sarandon's character, who is in this for some reason, and his brother, played by Harvey Keitel, who is in this for some reason (does absolutely nothing throughout), his new acquaintance / love interest with friend of victim played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, who is in this for some reason, while his friend, played by Alan Rickman, who is in this for some reason, tags along... To round things out, you have two heavyweights of the acting world, Rod Steiger, and Danny Aiello, both capable of great subtlety and brilliance, trying to out-Nicholas Cage each other in wild, unnecessary, bonkers shouting and screaming contests, that are totally inappropriate to the given situation.
To make matters worse - that is worse even than the attempted slapstick humour, totally at odds with the noir-ish tone of the movie - the finale is, well let's say, so underwhelming as to to give underwhelming a bad name: "You mean I sat through this all the way for that!?!".
But it's principle sin, beyond the contrived, "designed" nature of the plot, phoned in performances by an inexplicably stellar cast, and it's general clunky oddness, is that it is boring... tedious, lacking any tension or dynamic, atmosphere or vibe.
...The only reason I watched all the way through was a kind of morbid fascination with it, like: "it's got to be going somewhere with all this, right?", and I was just entranced with seeing how it would tie up, and how this would all make sense in the end... It doesn't.
On the plus side. having found this in the Charity shop yesterday, I begin to see why some MGM dvds are hard to find now, or why you have to pay a little more on the open market for them, as possibly some 80% of the movies are, if not, almost but not quite good, then mostly awful (recent years releases anyway), and did poorly in the cinema, sold poorly on DVD etc. and so there are scarce any about, let alone will they ever appear on streaming services on this basis, or be reissued on physical formats by any major reissuer. Still, I can't help but have a growing fascination for MGM dvds because of it.
The title screen is a projection within the film hence the letterboxing and rare for a film of this age are about 12 minutes in. For anyone trying to see it is available on Amazon in some countries.
Rated 6/10Having seen Angels With Dirty Faces, and been more impressed than I thought I would be by James Cagney, I found a DVD box-set of four of his films - this amongst them... And it's a curious one to summarise my feelings about really...
...Right away, having seen White Heat just before this, I now see the pattern, dare I say : Schtick that Cagney was about - repeated themes of the troubled archetypal gangster type, what with minor twists and variations on that theme, and also, as an actor, repeated patterns of some of the most over the top, hammy and cartoonish acting ever, among other moments of genuine excellence (subtlety etc.).
This whole movie seems to be the same: Moments, indeed whole sections and ideas that are truly inspired and brilliant, among some otherwise generally awful acting, directing, and storytelling.
I partly put the "ouch" factor down to the fact that this is in talkies a relatively early attempt at such subject matter, and so a lot of the road maps and practices that would develop later just weren't around at this time, so the movie makers were at once "winging it" in being daring and innovative, but still within the constraints of more traditional, conservative, and even clunky methods.
Half the cast here either can't act a bean, or simply were not actors at all... just thought they'd "have a stab at it" - The guy who plays Cagney's brother is mind-bendingly bad, mumbling his way through lines in some stifled monotone, which would suffer by contrast to any other actor, let alone one of the most unique actors ever...
(There's a great monologue in this where a woman says to Cagney's: Tom, how strange and unique he is... how different form other guys, and it says better than anyone else can all that needs be said about Cagney himself - in fact, you get the distinct feeling, while watching it, that she is actually talking to him, not his character)
...And James Cagney is certainly that, you may love him or hate him as an actor, or sometimes, as I am both at the same time! - but he most certainly is perhaps the most distinctive, and singular actors ever- presence, and some powerfully compelling quality to him, despite all the cartoonish-ness.
The fact that this brother is almost a ringer for Al Pacino in The Godfather can't be entirely an accident though...
(He is even a brother of a gangster who joins the marines, and is even called Michael!)
...And this was my prevailing feeling throughout this movie, that I could see so many later movies of this type echoing right through it, that this has clearly been an enormously influential movie, and doubtless is where Coppola (and whoever wrote the Godfather book) Scorcese and countless others have taken huge chunks of inspiration.
So because of those later movies, you've probably seen all this before, and better, but this seems to be one to watch to grasp it's cultural impact alone, in terms of sourcing the origins of so much more that came after.
Running over three and a half hours or so, it is brilliant at tracking the genesis, development and production of the best movie of all time, as well as it's legacy.
I'd never actually seen this, as I am actually one of those rare people who doesn't generally like having the illusion of the finished product spoiled, or my own consideration of it tainted by even the creator's realities...
(I don't like all the extra "stuff" that comes either on dvds or reissue records - demos, outtakes and the like - just give the final magic trick straight, and don't show me how it was done, and ruin the magic of the experience!)
...However, this is a feature disc that comes with the "Final Cut" version of the dvd, which is why I bought it, out of curiosity, as I'd always been resistant to this latest "cut" - being both sentimentally attached to the original theatrical cut with voice over (which I grew up with), and completely devoted to the later Director's Cut -
...And yup, the "Final Cut" ain't for me.
("I want more life.... F£%*er!" ... Not: "I want more life... Father!" - a minor quibble, but has more impact, and is symptomatic of a litany of things I don't like about this "Last" version)
((Using a lot of quotation mark here, aren't I!?! :))
Anyway, back to our scheduled programming... The great point of interest about this for me, is as it shows the development stage, how there were so many things original intended to be in the story that were opted against, but actually found their way into Blade Runner 2049 - So Villeneuve basically said: "Well, if you ain't gonna use 'em... I will!"
Requires a lot of stamina to get through this doc / movie, as if you are a Blade Runner geek, you can't pull yourself away from it, but my ass was numb from watch this, I've got to say, and was peeing like a racehorse after it was over.
Great stuff though.
(Just got to get my sticky little hands on that dvd box set now, so I can get that original theatrical voice-over cut again - must see it again!)
Rated 7/10Saw this in the cinema at time of release, and really liked it...
...Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world didn't very much, and so, it seems mostly forgotten.
It is probably the best "superhero" movie of it's time - way ahead in terms of production values and budget, and I don't think you would see it's like for almost another twenty years when the MCU started up it's epic journey. In fact, watching this again makes me realise that this is undoubtedly the movie that got Johnston the job of directing the Captain America: The first avenger movie - as it plays the old "retro" superhero movie to a tee.
As with CapAm, it has a powerful whiff of an Indiana Jones movie in the retro style - perfectly capturing that time period in look and feel, with a slight nod to Metropolis, with all that post Art-deco styling of the helmet and such.
...But this is not surprising either, as Johnston also worked on those Indiana Jones movies as art director, as well as later designing the Iron Giant in the animated feature.
It has a prototype rocket pack designed by Howard Hughes, which is being hunted by Nazis, gangsters, a Zeppelin, and Timothy Dalton as a quintessential British baddy, all fighting against the accidental Rocketeer hero, a local pilot who by chance, happens across said rocket pack, and decides to use it.
Great rip roaring adventure fun of the old matinee variety, which they just don't make anymore... well, except for the Indiana Jones movies... And that first Captain America movie... and it still looks great, and works well, both in the production, and the special effects, which still work for me.
(Incidentally, the DVD I got of this was a German release, which is merely called: "Rocketeer" (dropping the: "the") - not sure of my German , so stand to be corrected, but is this because the German rendering would be: Die Rocketeer (mildly amusing in English, but not exactly what the filmmakers want it to be known as).
I am in the mode of picking up dvds of all those movies that have made a dent in the general consciousness over time, but at time of release, I said to myself... meh... not for me.
In this case, the whole ballet business left me rather cold.
...But, it turns out, that's only the circumstance, and it doesn't matter if you're into ballet, or like me.... not. As this is more a tale of artistic obsession, and the darker places of both mind and soul this takes someone to. It's actually almost identical, plot wise, to Whiplash, but with the marked difference that here, Portman's character is rather meek, oppressed, self conscious, and a but of a put upon lamb, who's "dedication" to her craft and the opportunity this presents to her, brings something more out her, by degrees... just can't keep it in people, if it wants, and needs to get out!
But, thankfully, you don't need to have an ounce of consideration or care for ballet, or that world to thoroughly enjoy the performance Portman gives, or the story told here... Just watch t for the drama, the character study, the tragedy and the psycho-melodrama, and it's really quite brilliant.
Rated 9/10This is one of those quirky oddment curios that seems to have become lost to recent memory.
...It blends a serious dramatic subject and tone with an almost sublime, surreal fairy-tale quality (very lightly).
Blanchett plays a school teacher who seeks to get revenge on a drug dealer who's been pushing to kids at her school, by planting a bomb in his office... Unfortunately, the explosion kills a child, and she is naturally inconsolable at what she has done...
...Upon arrest, and under interrogation, one of the officers (Ribisi) begins to fall in love with her, and so devises a way to help her escape - but does she want to?
It's one that I caught by accident on tv late night once, that I found myself transfixed by, and curious about as it went along. Ultimately, it's become something of a favourite of mine due to those disparate qualities, which seems to make sense when watching it; The gentle pacing, calm, almost glacial feel makes it oddly mesmerising.
Rated 9/10Finally got round to seeing this, and not disappointed at all!
While the first instalment moved along in a more considered, and deliberate fashion, being more of an "establishing" piece for this world - it was more intrigue and politics, this has a more open, and free feel to it... more organic feeling, and briskly paced.
It's best to consider the two parts as like different phases of a chess game... The first part is the opening moves, positioning the pawns, and setting up the play, and having done that, this is where the real game begins, with the bigger pieces coming into play, with big bold moves, to make all that early work pay off.
...And while it is of course, a continuation of that the first part, this seems to have a tone, and feel of it's own, being, as said, more organic, and open feeling; A movie with more... air in it, more about a general atmosphere and movie environment in which the story takes place.
I said in my review of the first part (perhaps imperfectly) that a lot of the heavy lifting, as far as carrying the movie was done by seasoned established actors, in their roles, which allowed Chalamet to play the "scrawny kid" with weight of expectation on him...
(His role here, mirroring the character he's playing)
,,,But now it's time for the character to grow, and become what he is meant to be, meaning Chalamet had to pull more presence and a sense of strength, power of person, if you will from himself, in order to foreground the character effectively, and carry this movie himself...
Which he does brilliantly.
As those previously mentioned actors and their respective characters recede a little into the background of the story.
But alongside him. is of course Zendaya, and Austin Butler...
...Zendaya being little more than a general icon of the times to me (everybody seems to think she's the bee's knees for some reason, though I could never figure out why), although here she at last shows she's a genuinely excellent actor, in her role as foil to, and counterpart of Chalamet's Paul. Basically the heart of the story.
.....And then, there's Butler, who I thought was just going to be employed here to look menacing and give us a stock psycho villain... but has a more meatier role than expected. Granted, he is a nutter and a chilling menace, but is more prominent in the story than I'd thought, and he does portray his character excellently, giving a general sense of threat throughout.
These three are clearly the stars of the show, and I get the feeling, they are going to be the go-to movie stars for a generation to come - they are going to be in everything from now on, I feel, and that isn't a bad thing at all on this showing!
As far as plot goes, the first part had a much greater feel of intrigue and politics, and political machinations - more: Godfather than Star Wars, but this shifts the emphasis more to the religious / faith, and philosophy of what these things are, and what they mean, as well as their implications, and the nature of those things in and of themselves - and the tone, therefore, is more mystical as well as philosophical - More: The Last Temptation Of Christ than.. er....Star Wars.
You can, of course, go all gooey over the imagery like all the 4k Imax crowd certainly have, it seems, and certainly, that's all here, but the story is strong enough (and the telling of that story by Villeneuve) even before you get to that.
A movie to swim in, immerse yourself in, and be swept along by, by virtue of it's expansive look, feel, pace and tone... and truly Epic in every sense.
We now await the next part! :)
(Oh, and Florence Pugh deserves a solid mention for a solid, stoic performance as the Emperor's daughter, as well, an din particular, Javier Bardem, who gives a multi-scene stealing performance as a true believer, with a dry comic edge.)
Haven't seen it since I saw it in cinema as a young'un - I thought there was more to it, and more of it than there was - I though Charles Dance had more to do here than is the reality.
...So one of those where time makes me mis-remember how good a movie is, or was.
Very thin, clunky dialogue, wooden acting - even Eddie struggles with the comedic timing here (probably knew the script was painful even as he was doing it)
Not to mention playing fast and loose with what I take to be Buddhism and using artistic licence to add some other hocus pocus to it is not something you'd get away with now - people just know too much about such things to know the person writing it doesn't.
Given the name, and the cover images of a masked female assassin looking type, I had been led to believe this was something along the lines of a Samurai swords twirling, blood splattering, heads rolling Kill Bill type of movie.
Instead, it's a more slow-burn revenge tale, with more sedate cinematography, intricate plotting, and story-telling that takes it's time, all set to a classical score and some wonderful photography.
The basic plot is a (then) girl is forced to accept blame for killing a young boy she kidnapped for ransom, by means of having her own child abducted by the man who coerced her into confessing, over time, she builds a plot to take revenge as she works her way closer to the man, who it seems is not unused to child abduction.
The subject matter is naturally a little tough, and there is a lot of violence (torture etc.) and some sex scenes, but an "action" thriller it isn't, and in fact, it's all the better for it.
Try as I might, I always get this muddled in my brain with Howard's End - Doh!
But this is an absolute masterpiece of depiction of tortured, unspoken, unacknowledged love - It's always there between Hopkins' and Thompson's characters, like a thick, heavy fog of love, and both pretending they don't see it, because they feel they can't due to circumstance.
Rated 7/10A kind of French attempt at a Natural Born Killers style movie...
...And a fairly decent stab at one too!
Of course, NBK is, in the true sense of the word: inimitable, but this has the energy, and frenetic pace and wild visual and storytelling sensibility of that, about a semi-legendary bank robber / outlaw and his squeeze, and their merry band of nutty men, going up against a police unit, headed by a sadistic, psychotic copper, who is the real villain of the piece.
After only a brief, obligatory introduction to characters and situation, it pretty much jumps straight in, and bangs along until the end in a nutty, extreme cartoon violence way.
This particular hole though, is ostensibly the the opposite: finding a huge bag of cash in a downed plane in the woods ought to be a good thing, surely?
... And the hole the three men in this movie begin to dig from this moment on is everything you'd expect; after all, who hasn't imagined this scenario, and further more, thought through the implications and possible bother that comes with it.
And that's the basic plot, and the inevitable story that proceeds from it.
Very simple, very elegant, and brilliantly executed.
Although this premise is perhaps not new, what this movie does excellently is not make it a gangster flick, it action movie, or reservoir dogs style affair... The money is just circumstantial, the real story is centred almost exclusively on the three characters, and how their dynamics shift in relation to each other over time.
And this is why it took me so long to finally see it, as I was under the impression it was more of a cheapo, straight to DVD heist movie, when in fact it's more of a three man stage play character study...
(In fact, there's a very strong influence from: Of mice and men, i detected)
...A very Fargo-ish vibe, albeit played more straight (minus Coens' signature humour), and I know there are many who already appreciate this movie, but I feel this has the potential to undergo the Shawshank effect, and will only become more generally appreciated over time, principally through word of mouth.
Rated 6/10Feels like a made for TV version of an L.A. Confidential style movie...
(Being that this was before that movie, it s prbably better to be considered a prototype of that)
...Yet it's strangely unsatisfying.
The reason, I think, is that it is, as said, more in the look, style, and feel of a TV drama, in terms of production - like Columbo does brutal police violence intrigue mystery. As such, it doesn't really fit anywhere - too volent for TV audience this would be otherwise aimed at, yet decidedly uncinematic.
I think a look at the cast list for this, at the time it was made probably tells you a story on it's own - as now it seems, as the DVD cover blurb says: "stellar cast", was at that time, a group of actors who either two to ten years earlier or later might have been considered "stellar" but at the time were somewhat in need of work... any work.
It really goes off the rails at the end, as the finale is frankly absurd, and ridiculous.
Viewed as (if you can square your brain to it) a brutal TV drama, I suppose it is mildy interesting and enageing, slow paced and draggy though it is, but if you expect "cinema" it will suffer greatly under this definition, in your perception of it.
Not sure if the idea of the morally ambiguous other half movie was new at the time, but certainly it's been done plenty of times since... and better.
As with Monolith's comment, the ending is a bit contrived and hokey, but the real problem is Cary Grant.. I don't blame him or his acting, it's just the character he was asked to play, and evidently, how he was asked to play it (obviously, in order to make the whole premise of the story work at all) - Charming yet obnoxious... And I don't buy the forced way he does the obnoxious bit, as it feels unrealistic for someone to behave this way, especially towards the maid - very over-deliberate, and on the nose. Feels clunky and untrue.
But really, he is only the support, and his character the essential plot device to enable the titular "Suspicion" to be played out excellently by Joan Fontaine.
I saw that Tarantino loves the end shot, for it's ambiguity, and I agree, but get the feeling that's more likely what Hitchcock's initial inspiration was for this whole film - what he initially saw in his mind, then built the rest of the movie around, and towards that.
Rated 7/10One of those: "You must see this before you die, explode, or otherwise spontaneously humanly combust" movies...
...Often listed among the greatest ever made etc. blah blah, and so on and so forth.
Having finally gotten around to seeing it, I can see it was good, dare I say, even revolutionary for it's time - a silent movie which is more an historical dramatic diagram of particular events than a a movie proper, or drama in the modern sense, but it was just more interesting than engaging for me.
Difficult to imagine now, a story about a Russian battleship crew, who, neglected and oppressed by their superiors are pushed into mutiny, and turning against their military overlords, and who's tale inspires the local population of Odessa to rise in support of them, in a Dunkirk style , small boats salvation...
...Before the hierarchy turn on the lot of them, in order to put down the uprising, in a Peterloo style historical civil / war crime.
I read somewhere once, that Russians used to be like this... not putting up with this kind of oppressive nonsense from their betters...
True, but that's a very different kind of movie! :)
(Besides, he does kind of win out in the end - but let's not spoil every movie we can think of - he he)
Interestingly, Cannonball Run (original) is one that's somewhat difficult to find on DVD or streaming these days - like Cocoon, the sequel is readily available, but the first is a bit sticky to locate.