[Closed] Recent Viewing Part III

I loved the visual look of this one and the action was great .
The only let down for me was the final which was rather lame and not very exciting !

I should watch this version again. The one time I did see it, I felt about 2/3 of the extra material didn't add a lot (and hurt the flow of some scenes in a few cases), but that always happens when you see a new version of a favourite.

You should read the short story by Elmore Leonard. I think it is only 20 pages. The original with Glenn Ford is good also. A lot closer to the story.

Kronos 1957 starring Jeff Morrow

Planet Hulk
A Marvel animated feature starring the incredible Hulk smashing...well, basically everything and everyone.
There's no plot to speak of.
Guy Michelmore's score competently underscores the action sequences.

Overall pretty bad and puerile.

I prefer Cliff Michelmore

The Lion In Winter (1968)

I have seen both versions of this filmed play, and both have great merit (the 2003 version boasting the considerable talents of Patrick Stewart in the lead), but in the end the original 1968 stays miles ahead of it.

The story of a cold Christmas evening at Henry II's court, with all three of his sons (Richart (Lionheart), John and Geoffrey) plotting and scheming for the crown, his wife, Eleanor of Acquitaine, incarcerated for over a decade and let out this one evening, and the French king Phillip visiting to negotiate treaties gives -over a length of three hours- absolutely no lull in emotional and intellectual challenges.

In fact, the play is absolutely mesmerising: witty, clever and emotional, without once losing credibility (even if you keep in mind that 13th century minds simply weren't as "psychologised" as ours are since the 20th century).

What keeps this version head and shoulders above the later one is two things:
First of all the luscious (direction of) photography.
Every shot is like a painting, beautiful in composition and setup.
There are continuous gorgeous establishing shots of the inside and outside of the main location -Chinon Castle-. But while those shots really catch the attention and the eye, really every scene is beautifully shot, with colour and lighting shining!

Secondly (and foremostly) its cast.
The powerhouse performances of Peter O'Toole as Henry II and Katherine Hepburn as Eleanore are positively gobsmacking. Especially Hepburn outdoes herself, making a simple shot of one look filled by a whole range of emotions. In light of the lines and the plot with all its scheming and betraying, it's easy to dismiss the performances as merely blustering, or witty.
But it's far, far better than that. The looks, the gestures, the posture, the exxpressiveness of the face often offer a completely different subtext to the words spoken that the massively powerful emotional and psychological plotlines cannot be missed.

It really takes the greatest of actors to pull this off, and this cast does it seemingly effortlessly.
I can't for the life of me remeber when in recent times I've seen such truly flawless performances in a film.

Having focused on O'Toole and Hepburn (logically: they really carry the film), I should be remiss in neglecting a very fine (and very young!) Anthony Hopkins as son Richard, conflicted but unbendable in his love/hate relationship to both his father and mother, and a very fine (and even YOUNGER!!) Timothy Dalton as the teenager King Philip of France. It's a shame we don't see more of him: he really is very gifted!

In fact the only liability is a young Nigel Terry (best known for his portrayal of King Arthur in the magnicicent Boorman production Excalibur -another major favourite of mine-), playing John (Sunderland) too buffoonish to be truly believable.

John Barry's difficult score works best towards the apotheosis: the mix between almost atonal trumpets, mourning choir and soft strings works great to underline all the extreme emotions and decisions.
But his main theme really irks me. It's harsh and jarring, like an Alex North piece, and to my mind more fitting to The Excorcist or Poltergeist than to a historic drama.
However, having just seen the film, I'll try the score again (I did buy it once n a whim, but never returned to it after a first listen).

The film is a 5 star one (out of 5). Without question.
And pretty much a must-see, as far as I'm concerned.
If the review above doesn't entice you to, I don't know what will (and if you don't watch it, you are missing out.)

I watched The Red Pony to help me write my review. Pretty outdated special effects and I fear that the audience of today would not get the hidden nuances of John Steinbeck as on the surface it appears to be a story of a boy and his pony. It is far from that.
Thomas

I did almost preface it with "Sorry Timmer"" ...

First. Time. EVER?

Wow! I think I've lost count of how many times I've seen this. Anyway, interesting POV Erik, For someone like me this is seen with great affection and nostalgia.

Once Upon A Time In The West is a very s-l-o-w-m-o-v-i-n-g film, but at a guess you'll enjoy it better than The Magnificent Seven: it's very much style over content, but if that style is so incredibly good, who minds?

Besides, Fonda makes a magnificent villain.
Truly spine chilling.

Jaws

Everything about this film is awesome.


The Terminator

Same here (well, except the hairstyles). In fact, I'd say this is my favourite Cameron film. It's his style in undiluted form. I love the seediness and grittiness to it.

I prefer low-budget Cameron to commercial sell-out Cameron.

Saw last night: Зеркало - Andrei Tarkovsky (1974) ***

Had a midnight screening of this poetic, sensitive film. It's interesting to see how Tarkovsky's work influenced filmmakers like Malick and Von Trier, yet Tarkovsky himself doesn't move me in the ways especially Malick does. It's obviously an abstract film in the first place, made on and for the senses, portraying emotions and feelings that's more about the feelings than the actual meaning of a plot (which isn't even there).

That said, the film still deals with WWII, Russian society and Tarkovsky's own experiences of growing up. However, it doesn't feel like a fluid whole and it makes sense for me that the director delivered no less than 20 different cuts - it's extremely difficult to find the right balance between realism and surrealism.

Zerkalo, ultimately, feels pretentious most of the time, with its fair share of beauty, but I don't come away enlightened nor deeply touched. This might be different for people living in the Soviet Union, having lived through that era, but purely on the artistic merits this isn't working for me (yet?).

I'm ok with MIRROR. It's work, and I'm glad it's one of his shortest films, but I think it's worth it. As you do, I find Malick more accessible.