Firstly, I noticed in the credits that one of the English dub voice artists is Sandra Bernhard! - Which seems a bit leftfield for her, but I suppose this was early in her career.
Secondly, there's one of those truly brilliant, if odd scenes that get stuck in your head in here:
After a confrontation by the travellers on a ferry with the Masters of death, a bit of a "to-do" occurs, and a fire breaks out, so all hands must abandon ship and swim to shore. Our hero throws the cart / baby pram in the water, and tells his son to get in it and use it as a boat... anyway, they get ashore and go into a hut there to get warm and dry off, as does the head female ninja - his mortal enemy...
...After stripping his son to bare-ass, and doing the same for himself, he turns menacingly towards this woman with his signature, gruff, yet inscrutable look, who fears the worst; As do we, the audience, as out of nowhere, you doubt this lethal yet honourable man's motives towards her - surely he's not going to rape her is he... not with his son standing there too? - the tone therefore takes a real dark, and unexpected turn.
...He grabs her, throws her down, and begins stripping her too, against not only her naturally loud protests, but her violent attempts to get him away (difficult watch at this point)...
But then:
...Once she's completely naked, he turns, gathers up his son, holding him to his chest, then pulls the terrified woman near, and holds them both in his his embrace - the son between, explaining that they need the body heat. The scene lingers here, and shows she is entertaining the idea of drawing his sword from the scabbard on the ground and stabbing him, but the son gives her boob a flick, which seems to shake her out of the notion, and she gives up to just resting against him.
The scene is all about the shift in tone, set against audience expectations, until you have a man holding his mortal enemy around his son, but naked for their mutual benefit.
There's something sublime, and brilliant about the scene I think.
I think a lot of this humour would have gone over my head if I had been ten years old when watching it first time, but I was - er - 16, according my reckoning, so I thing I was a bit betwixt and between, and it seemed odd, basically, like a very particular kind of British humour shoe-horned into a Hollywood production, and I don't think they matched the two elements at all well.
(After all, we were all used to Rik in Young Ones, as Lord Flash in Blackadder, and later in Bottom, which is kind of the performance he gives here, which would probably leave a lot of jaws hanging elsewhere in the world, and lacking the former context, it's a little jarring.
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.
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.
This has always been a bit of a comfort food movie for me, having seen it repeatedly on tv since childhood, but even back then, I always felt there was something odd about it, not like other movies...
...And I'm not talking about the presence of the orangutan: Clyde.
No, this was something else indefinable, that has never really occurred to me until my most recent watch:
I finally figured it out as being the fact that the "hero" Clint Eastwood, although playing a tough guy fighter, is actually a bit of a dunce, and a loser - well, maybe that's a bit harsh, but certainly less than the usual hero type character that you'd expect from him:
He doesn't have the world figured out, is not the ultra-capable hero sort who can deal with anything, and not only does he not (spoiler) not win the big fight at the end, and also not get the girl, his victory in the end is actually learning a lesson about how foolish he has been, and being philosophical about it.
That's actually quite remarkable when you think about it, as I can't (off the top of my head) recall any other movie doing that, where the hero is a more realistic failure in many aspects of his life, and fragile in certain ways, and doesn't win out or win the girl...
... quite enlightened, and ahead of it's time really, and possibly, being a more accurate reflection of the realities of the lives the rest of us outside moviedome live is what makes him uniquely relatable, and could go some way to explaining why this movie is generally quite well loved, and very popular.
In addition, Sondra Locke's character is actually the one kind of in charge of the situation...
(Never really liked her, felt she was a bit odd, but having read a few things about her online since she sadly passed, I realise she may have been a more remarkable woman than she was ever given credit for, and may be deserving of a little more love and respect than she got in her lifetime - but maybe that's just blowback from breaking up with one of the biggest Hollywood stars of all time)
In all, rather than being dismissed as a cheap, dumb, throwaway movie that people (critics) always took it for, it might be one of the most refreshingly original stories out there - and certainly more progressive and enlightened than it is given credit for.
Anyway, I love it - always have, always will, I just can't figure out why the ape was added to this story, I don't really think Clyde is entirely necessary, even if he is a fun comedic element of the story.
There was a shelf of oldies in the local charity shop where I got this on a whim, so I'll go back and look a little closer at their selection, I'm sure one of those will be there somewhere.
(Got a small stack of DVDs: "to be watched" which I'm going to get a shift on with soon as I can)
Today I saw my first James Cagney film... and it was this... and it was good!
I'd always avoided him, as his somewhat cartoonish acting (from what I'd known or had seen in snippets) of the apparently ultra-ham style, always put me off.
But this was a revelation, in that I see his most overt moments in context of the story, the acting style of the time, his character, and what others in the movie were doing, but also, at last, getting to see his more subtle and nuanced acting, which is really quite great at times.
Unbelievably ambitious crane shot for the time, at the beginning, and a great story, of course, but one of those that in the first few minutes, I'd have rated about a 6 out of 10, but as it goes on, gathers an extra rating point here and there... probably would rate it higher after a couple more viewings, and certainly now intrigued to see more of Mr. Cagney's movies, now I am assured that there will be more to it than a cartoon icon at work.
I hate the two extremes filmmakers try to do with legendary / mythological figures these days:
Either they try to "update" the figure for a modern audeince, without even attempting to evoke the spirit and essence of the times: modern haircuts, clothes, vernacular and modes of speech, because they think modern audiences (especially the younger ones) won't "understand" or get into the movie - which in itself, is profoundly insulting, not only to the source material, but also to the intended audience: "You're thick, and can only understand something equivalent to the world in which you now live" - makes me want to wretch!
(I'm looking at you Guy Ritchie!)
...Or, they try to place a figure of legend and myth in "history", in order to make them "real" people who actually might have lived - historians, and other egotistical asshats of this ilk are primarily responsible for this: "Well, if such and such a figure actually existed, in this time, he / she would probably have worn this, and said that, been just so..."
Completely wrong on both counts!
The whole point of these characters / figures is that don't or might not have existed, and at the very least, not been numbered among normal men, living normal lives, as normal bods - that is their power, and the point of their existence, as symbols to inspire, and who's ambiguity is the very instrument by which they do so, and why they have endured.
When you do either of the above things to such figures, you diminish this, and dilute that power, as well as displaying to everyone you do not understand the source material, or have respect for it.
A good Robin Hood movie, therefore, should go with the spirit of the character - swashbuckling adventure, engaging, larger than life, even preposterous, and fun (remember that word?)
Anyway, gripe over :)
It should be required that everyone should watch this for Alan Rickman's villain alone.
(Costner deserves credit too, for not trying to compete with him in acting, as he'd have been blown off the screen, and looked a tool into the bargain)
He did choose a good career trajectory, rather than simply falling into "Hollywood icon / heartthrob" role it seems was wanted for him, and he has a more interesting body of work as a result.
I've only really seen this and Ghost Dog by Jim Jarmusch, but love his vibe, and way of bringing art films into mainstream-ish territory - will look out for others of his now :)
(I did find Coffee And Cigarettes on DVD last year, but - rookie error! - I got it home to discover no disc inside the case :(
Another one difficult to find on streaming services (although he sequel is not) - a little hazy as to whether it is available anywhere at all, but certainly is not easy to find I think.
...For some reason, this is not available on streaming services anywhere, although the sequel is.
And for this reason, the DVD / Blu-rays are the only place to get this reasonably popular movie
(It's quite good too! :)
...And as such, although not really "rare" in the true sense for a physical copy, it does carry a slightly higher price on ebay and Amazon (although not much).
Reasonably sought after therefore, although I wonder if it would be so if readily available on streaming services?
Well this is a sticky one for physical media / home video...
...I found the original theatrical version on DVD the other week, and it's one of those: "Flip the disc" issues, where only a little over half the movie is on one side, with the remainder on the other side (1hr 38 on side one - 58 mins side two) - what a pain in the crack!
...And it gets worse:
A more recent issue has the whole movie on one side, but from this point on, only the "Director's cut" is available this way, and even - form what I can find - the blu ray etc. are "director's cuts" editions.
The director's cut, in my opinion, kills the dramatic impact of the movie, by disrupting the "flow" of the film, and only serves to make the film drag, spoiling all the, um... cinematic poetry of the experience.
So it seems the only way to get the theatrical version of the movie all in one go (on one side of any media format) is to seek out the original VHS, which is now a goal I've set myself.
(Sometimes, although you'd, on the whole, prefer the studio to butt out, and let the director give us the intended experience, I'm finding, ever more frequently, that actually, the studio / powers that be, are in the right to give the director a light metaphorical slap, when such requests are made, and say: "No! - you'll kill the thing!").
Having been totally absorbed by this one, I shall be seeking out house of the devil, for a similar experience...
Oddly, not as concerned with if it's a great movie or not, so much as finding a movie that puts me in a particular time and place, by way of it's mood and tone.
Some of my favourite movies are the shittiest :)
(Indeed, if I had the talent to be a great director, it would be my ambition to one day make a deliberately shit movie - " keep the big bucks boss, I want less budget than it takes to hire a hand cranked hundred year old camera and a couple of bags of potato chips... The rest we'll leave to pure invention and ingenuity!"
Agreed, not a fun-fest, mainly, I think due to two reasons... Anglade's character being a nasty, damaged Psycho (which would be ok, if not for the other reason), and Stoltz, say times looks disinterested in the whole thing, like he thought: "Tarantino + arty European bank job movie... Great!", then got on set, saw what it was, and felt like a fish out of water..."well, I'm committed now, and this is still a payday".
(In fairness, that could just be the character he was playing, as much as anything, but it doesn't offset, or contrast well with Anglade).
Still, for all it's faults, and still in great need of a recut and restructure though it is, it has fared a little better in by mind since watching it, so I might keep this one for a little while, and watch it again sometime, this time, going in with no preconceptions... See what that does for it :)
Maybe not the most brilliant movie ever made, but I like it.
(Still the best Tarzan movie made though, albeit that's not saying much, given the repeated failed attempts to properly nail this character on the big screen)
- And let's not linger too long on: Burn After Reading...(yikes!)
I think the problem with this one is they've struck gold in capturing that quirky, odd tone in Fargo, and tried to replicate it here without success.
Difficult to do, as the quality that makes Fargo so brilliant is created through the sum of it's parts, with no individual element - script, performances, aesthetic etc. being the sole essence of it.... It's movie making alchemy, magic that you feel perhaps they wouldn't know if they'd achieved it until they saw what came out the other end, and while you're doing it it, there's no way to know if you have it or not.