|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 4, 2019 0:41:41 GMT -5
I reject Rand's dimensionless caricature of the human condition, and I reject this celluloid obscenity. It's definitely polemical but you have to figure it's not about what we know as civilization, now or even then much, it's all in reaction against Soviet communism which is all she knew first-hand really for most of her life before taking up fiction and then non-fiction as a proxy weapon against it. Read in order from her first book, We The Living, it fits together in that context without being some ugly twisted brutal thing. Also I can suppose that in the late '40s and up to the early '60s when conformity was quite rigid in our society it must've seemed to have more of a refreshing and challenging quality. It's a bit like science fiction though in that the dim bulbs trying to apply something like her extreme ideals to reality will find gosh, it doesn't bloody work out all swell like in the fiction... although science fiction at it's best would warn the reader and make them better critical thinkers. I wouldn't hand Ayn Rand to school kids. Definitely needs a lot of context to be attempted without experiencing the rejection and revulsion you've experienced. She was a daft bint anyway, had a huge thing for Gary Cooper and all, living in her own fantasy really! When the time of the individualist and 'me me me' came along in the mid-late '60s and then the '70s she hated all that too. Now it's people who didn't understand science fiction foisting bloody self-driving cars, drone delivery bots, and an app for everything upon us. The time and place of Ayn Rand as a provocateur, or balancing agent never mind a so-called philosopher, is pretty much long gone. It can really only be applied a little in the arts without doing harm, and proceed with extreme caution anywhere else. Anyone looking for a guru might as well have gone with Jim Jones, but with a pinch of this and a spoonful of that some Ayn Rand can be rewarding and help you define in opposition to hers what your values are and why.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 4, 2019 7:56:34 GMT -5
No interest in Superbowl so watched Tyrone Power, Orson Welles and Jack Hawkins in the 1950 classic The Black Rose. A Saxon scholar (Power) dispossessed of his rightful inheritance as bastard son by his fathers Norman widow leaves England with his friend Tristram an archer. They gain he patronage of Mongol warlord Bayan of the Hundred Eyes (Welles) and across their travels they find the Black Rose is Maryam a half-English girl disguised as a servant boy longing to return to England. Tristram becomes disillusioned with all the killing and he escapes to China. Eventually punished for his friends betrayal Power is sent to China by Bayan in hopes of his convincing the ruling powers of the greatness of the Mongol warlord so that they will surrender without a fight.
Power finds himself part of an ancient prophecy and will be held prisoner for the rest of his life by the Chinese as their good luck in the coming fight. During this time he finds he loves Miryam and he and her and Tristram choose to escape. Tristram dies dies during the escape and Miryam is adrift in a small boat taken back by the Mongols. Power escapes and returns to England with many of the miraculous new skills and scientific discoveries he found as a prisoner. He is knighted by the King (Michael Rennie) in hopes of Saxon and Norman alike being English 1st and Norman/Saxon 2nd. Once Knighted Mongol emissaries show up with a letter from Banyan who recognizes the courage of Power and misses him and sends Miryam and his beloved chess set to him.
A gorgeous movie filmed on location in England and Morocco. It is not a big action movie as much as an adventure movie. A fine story and some miscasting lessens the picture but Power and Welles chew up as much of the scenery as they can.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 5, 2019 0:48:48 GMT -5
As a movie, The Fountainhead is a decent one, though it is rather slow in sections. As a lover of Deco and The International Style architecture, the building designs are fantastic. The philosophy of things is ridiculously ponderous and absurd. It's no wonder that it was an abysmal failure in promoting Rand's ideas, especially when compared to the Grapes of Wrath, as a propaganda tool.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 5, 2019 1:00:21 GMT -5
My wife and I watched Streets of Fire last night, from Walter Hill. I saw it in theaters, in 1984, based solely on the strength of the music video for the song "Tonight is What It Mean to Be Young" (a typical Jim Steinman rock opera piece). I hated it in the theater and almost walked out, bored to tears by the wooden acting of Michael Pare and a rather bland Diane Lane (who was a rookie). Amy Madigan, Rick Moranis and Willem Dafoe were the only decent elements (Deborah Van Valkenburgh was good) and the few good scenes are oases in a desert of neon and darkness. However, the soundtrack is awesome and I always loved it. So, after watching Warriors, not long ago, I had the impetus to try Streets of Fire again to see if my 52 year-old self thought differently than my 17 year-old self. Nope. Still a really bad movie, with really bad acting and a nonsensical script. The music is still awesome and Dafoe, Madigan and Moranis (and DVV) are the only things worth watching. What's really bad are the "performances" of Diane Lane, as singer Ellen Aim, in the opening and closing concerts. Lane is too focused on lipsynching and is unable to emote as a singer would, especially given the songs she is supposed to be singing are the Steinman epics. It really needed something like a taylor Dane or Bonnie tyler (or Ellen Foley, from Bat Out Of Hell) to do those justice, really selling the song with their body language. Definitely a product of it's time, trying to be Walter Hill's fantasy of the 50s. Still, Willem Dafoe was mesmerizing. Too bad the whole film wasn't carried by him...
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 5, 2019 1:22:53 GMT -5
As a movie, The Fountainhead is a decent one, though it is rather slow in sections. As a lover of Deco and The International Style architecture, the building designs are fantastic. The philosophy of things is ridiculously ponderous and absurd. It's no wonder that it was an abysmal failure in promoting Rand's ideas, especially when compared to the Grapes of Wrath, as a propaganda tool. I still find the whole Ayn Rand philosophy somehow rewarding to dissect and look back on, she's like the madame Blavatsky of Libertarian poobahs or something. I am thinking how her whole idea of America was a girl's warped fantasy in truth, developed from afar, and then she was so disappointed in the actual working model when she got there, such ideals of the force which respected great men that would wipe that phony Stalin and his party off the planet shattered. The hatred of a false altruist, fear of bureaucracy (well, that's fairly healthy for anyone), the trust in only self interest as a real motive, and yet as the U.S. moved more towards that individual self interest society, she didn't seem to enjoy it at all, just another angry why are they so blind to the truth sort... It is a nice looking movie in it's way, up there with Metropolis... I guess Dean Motter must've been inspired partly by both films to create the city of the Mr. X comics!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 7, 2019 13:15:17 GMT -5
The time and place of Ayn Rand as a provocateur, or balancing agent never mind a so-called philosopher, is pretty much long gone. Unless you're Paul Ryan and the rest of his me-first, me-only crowd.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 7, 2019 20:39:38 GMT -5
Watched a biopic about a classic movie writer (he wrote the screenplays for the films Roman Holiday, The Brave One, Spartacus and Exodus during the blacklist period)... Trumbo (2015). I'd wanted to see this when it was released even though I was getting to hate the big tv rooms at 'multiplexs' (and people coming and going and eating smelly junk), so I ended up waiting and suddenly it was gone. It was pretty good; told some truths, and they sure nailed John Wayne accurately! Was Kirk Douglas really that short? Good casting, just thought maybe he needed lifts in his shoes or something. Edward G. Robinson was impossible to cast anyway so I can forgive the actor, and he seemed to maybe need the opposite of lifts, I think Robinson was much shorter. The real clip at the end with the credits was nice to see and hear too.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 8, 2019 0:42:47 GMT -5
My wife and I watched Streets of Fire last night, from Walter Hill. I saw it in theaters, in 1984, based solely on the strength of the music video for the song "Tonight is What It Mean to Be Young" (a typical Jim Steinman rock opera piece). I hated it in the theater and almost walked out, bored to tears by the wooden acting of Michael Pare and a rather bland Diane Lane (who was a rookie). Amy Madigan, Rick Moranis and Willem Dafoe were the only decent elements (Deborah Van Valkenburgh was good) and the few good scenes are oases in a desert of neon and darkness. However, the soundtrack is awesome and I always loved it. So, after watching Warriors, not long ago, I had the impetus to try Streets of Fire again to see if my 52 year-old self thought differently than my 17 year-old self. Nope. Still a really bad movie, with really bad acting and a nonsensical script. The music is still awesome and Dafoe, Madigan and Moranis (and DVV) are the only things worth watching. What's really bad are the "performances" of Diane Lane, as singer Ellen Aim, in the opening and closing concerts. Lane is too focused on lipsynching and is unable to emote as a singer would, especially given the songs she is supposed to be singing are the Steinman epics. It really needed something like a taylor Dane or Bonnie tyler (or Ellen Foley, from Bat Out Of Hell) to do those justice, really selling the song with their body language. Definitely a product of it's time, trying to be Walter Hill's fantasy of the 50s. Still, Willem Dafoe was mesmerizing. Too bad the whole film wasn't carried by him... I wonder if he had done a straight retro-movie set in the 50s with 50s music, etc, it might have been more successful artistically, though almost certainly less so commercially.
I didn't see this when it came out but watched it at a friend's place several years ago. Even though he's only 5 years younger than me, while my nostalgia is mostly centred around the period from the late 60s to the mid 70s, his is very much focussed on the late 70s through the 80s, and he is a huge fan of this movie. I can't say it made much of an impact on me, but then I suppose I wasn't ever the target audience.
I consider myself a Walter Hill fan, but looking at his filmography I see that that feeling is really based on just three movies: Hard Times, The Warriors, and The Long Riders. Though there are several others I want to watch one of these days, e.g. The Driver, Southern Comfort, Johnny Handsome, Undisputed.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 8, 2019 2:19:05 GMT -5
My wife and I watched Streets of Fire last night, from Walter Hill. I saw it in theaters, in 1984, based solely on the strength of the music video for the song "Tonight is What It Mean to Be Young" (a typical Jim Steinman rock opera piece). I hated it in the theater and almost walked out, bored to tears by the wooden acting of Michael Pare and a rather bland Diane Lane (who was a rookie). Amy Madigan, Rick Moranis and Willem Dafoe were the only decent elements (Deborah Van Valkenburgh was good) and the few good scenes are oases in a desert of neon and darkness. However, the soundtrack is awesome and I always loved it. So, after watching Warriors, not long ago, I had the impetus to try Streets of Fire again to see if my 52 year-old self thought differently than my 17 year-old self. Nope. Still a really bad movie, with really bad acting and a nonsensical script. The music is still awesome and Dafoe, Madigan and Moranis (and DVV) are the only things worth watching. What's really bad are the "performances" of Diane Lane, as singer Ellen Aim, in the opening and closing concerts. Lane is too focused on lipsynching and is unable to emote as a singer would, especially given the songs she is supposed to be singing are the Steinman epics. It really needed something like a taylor Dane or Bonnie tyler (or Ellen Foley, from Bat Out Of Hell) to do those justice, really selling the song with their body language. Definitely a product of it's time, trying to be Walter Hill's fantasy of the 50s. Still, Willem Dafoe was mesmerizing. Too bad the whole film wasn't carried by him... I wonder if he had done a straight retro-movie set in the 50s with 50s music, etc, it might have been more successful artistically, though almost certainly less so commercially.
I didn't see this when it came out but watched it at a friend's place several years ago. Even though he's only 5 years younger than me, while my nostalgia is mostly centred around the period from the late 60s to the mid 70s, his is very much focussed on the late 70s through the 80s, and he is a huge fan of this movie. I can't say it made much of an impact on me, but then I suppose I wasn't ever the target audience.
I consider myself a Walter Hill fan, but looking at his filmography I see that that feeling is really based on just three movies: Hard Times, The Warriors, and The Long Riders. Though there are several others I want to watch one of these days, e.g. The Driver, Southern Comfort, Johnny Handsome, Undisputed.
The music vs time period isn't so much the issue, for me. The Blasters have a couple of songs and Ry Cooder did the music (the non-pop songs). He and his band also contribute a couple of numbers. Those are rockabilly/old school rock n roll. That fits the period. The problem is the lead, michael Pare, is a terrible actor. Always was. He just speaks in a mumbled monotone and stares a lot. He has the emotional range of a coma victim. Diane Lane isn't given much meat and was pretty green. She's improved over the years. Michael Pare had one modest hit, Eddie and the Cruisers (more on the strength of the music) and a string of lower and lower profile movies. Willem Dafoe and Amy Madigan were fairly new to Hollywood and went on to bigger and better films and acclaim. Rick Moranis was known via SCTV and did more high profile and financially successful films, before withdrawing, to raise his kids, after the death of his wife. To me, the problem with this film and several of Walter Hill's other films is that he, by his own admission, doesn't know how to direct actors. He knows what he wants from a story standpoint, as a writer, and knows how he wants it lit and how to block the scenes. His films live and die on the strength of his actors. With 48 Hours, he has a seasoned Nick Nolte and a hungry Eddie Murphy and they hit it out of the park. With Streets of Fire, he has Michael pare. Warriors was a cult film, but, it's main acting strengths are James Remar and David Patrick Kelly. It certainly didn't succeed due to Michael Beck. It also developed its reputation from cable and video replay, more than the initial theatrical run (which was interrupted by violence outside theaters, from moviegoers). long Riders has the Carradines, Keitchs, Guests and Quaid Brothers, all accomplished actors. Southern Comfort is a good one, with Powers Booth and Keith Carradine. Again, strong actors. Last Man Standing has bruce Willis trying to be Robert Mitchum and Clint Eastwood and mostly just being a gun-toting emotional zombie. The film has moments; but, nothing of real note. Hard Times has very experienced James Coburn and Charles Bronson, doing their thing. I think Hill's weakness is one he shares with others of his generation, such as George Lucas and John Milius. Hill and Milius are writers first, while Lucas is a mix of idea man and good camera eye (he hates the writing part, while Hill and Milius got in with that). All handle the script well and Lucas and Hill know the technical side of directing. None are particularly good at working with actors, as far as directing a performance. Hill's thing is westerns and many of his films are disguised westerns. Streets is most definitely, right down to the choice of lever-action rifles for weapons, in the film. Also, Pare runs around in a duster, as does Dafoe (in the climactic scenes). The Bombers ride into town like bandits of the Magnificent Seven, taking what they want. Pare is the gunfighter sent after the stolen school marm (or saloon girl; take your pick). The sheriff (a street cop) is ineffective and tries to bargain with the desperadoes. The hero is a war veteran, without a war to fight, as is Madigan. They are the ex-Civil War soldiers, wandering the west, in search of purpose. The concept isn't bad; but, the acting isn't there. Hill says he wanted to make the kind of movie he wanted to see as a kid. Unfortunately, he seems to have wanted more than one and tried to do them all in the same film, making it rather schizoid. The service to the video age doesn't help. Really, he missed that the more interesting story is Raven, the leader of the Bombers (Dafoe). Michael Mann is a director who can do what Hill was trying to do and get the performances and make the music a more integral part of the story. He was perfect for the video age, as he creates those video moments, without distracting from the story (usually). He also tended to use music that fit the style of the film or tv series. His films have the noir and neon, the music and the violence; yet, they also get the performance. In this instance, i think casting was Hill's biggest downfall, with restraint being the other failure. With Warriors, he embraced the gonzo nature of things. Had he done that here, the film might have worked better (with a better lead, like a Kurt Russell).
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Feb 8, 2019 14:26:20 GMT -5
Watched a biopic about a classic movie writer (he wrote the screenplays for the films Roman Holiday, The Brave One, Spartacus and Exodus during the blacklist period)... Trumbo (2015). I'd wanted to see this when it was released even though I was getting to hate the big tv rooms at 'multiplexs' (and people coming and going and eating smelly junk), so I ended up waiting and suddenly it was gone. It was pretty good; told some truths, and they sure nailed John Wayne accurately! Was Kirk Douglas really that short? Good casting, just thought maybe he needed lifts in his shoes or something. Edward G. Robinson was impossible to cast anyway so I can forgive the actor, and he seemed to maybe need the opposite of lifts, I think Robinson was much shorter. The real clip at the end with the credits was nice to see and hear too. Douglas was 5'9"; Robinson was 5'7" or 5'4.5" depending on where you look it up.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 8, 2019 22:57:45 GMT -5
I'm going to recommend Eyes of the Underworld for everybody who loves hour-long crime thrillers of the 1930s and 1940s. It's got Richard Dix AND Lon Chaney Jr.! In the same movie! They're cut from the same cloth, big beefy guys who glare at you and talk tough and wave their fists and chew up the scenery. They are daring you to notice that they aren't really acting so much as performing! (Two other actors of this type who come to mind are Victor Mature and Russell Crowe.) I love the way Dix takes himself SO SERIOUSLY! Every Dix performance is like he thinks he's doing Shakespeare, but the way he does it, you'd think he's in a barn, performing for horses, and he wants them all to hear! Chaney doesn't usually take himself quite so seriously. In Eyes of the Underworld, he's in full "Of Mice and Men" mode, as if Lenny has gotten a job as chauffer. If he does well, Richard Dix will let him tend the rabbits. I'm not sure I should even start describing the plot of Eyes of the Underworld because most readers decided much earlier in this review whether they wanted to see it or not. But briefly, Richard Dix is the chief of police in the city of Lawndale and he's cleaned up all the rackets in the city - except the stolen auto racket! He just can't crack the ring that's stealing and stripping cars and selling the parts! Lon Chaney is his loyal chauffer. His secretary is in love with him. The feds have sent an undercover agent to investigate because they suspect the chief of police is in on it! His deep dark secret is revealed! And he's framed so that the town turns against him because they think he purposely let a criminal escape! And it's only 61 minutes! And it was directed by the guy who did Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man! And it's free on YouTube!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 10:00:06 GMT -5
On TCM ... I watched these following movies
Feb 2nd, FANTASTIC VOYAGE(1966) Feb 3rd, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939) Feb 4th, BATTLEGROUND (1949) Feb 6th, 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T., THE (1953) Feb 6th, TANKS ARE COMING, THE (1941) ... This is a short featurette about Tanks. Feb 6th, LONGEST DAY, THE (1962) Feb 6th, TORA! TORA! TORA! (1970) Feb 7th, I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG (1932) ... I really enjoyed this movie today. Feb 7th, MARK OF ZORRO, THE (1940) Feb 8th, GREAT DICTATOR, THE (1940) Feb 8th, BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967) Feb 9th, NINE TO FIVE (1980)
On other channels, I watched the first three Mission Impossible Movies that starred Tom Cruise. Dante's Peak (1997) that starred Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton. This what I did when you are cooped up at home with snow on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 10, 2019 23:04:47 GMT -5
Some recent "comic books in movies" sightings …
1. The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter was on TCM, but I missed my chance to DVR it. But I checked TCM On Demand and I was able to watch it about a week ago. Great movie!
And it has a comic book! When Alan Arkin (as John Singer) visits his buddy Chuck McCann (as Antonopoulos) at the institution, McCann is reading a Baby Huey comic book.
2. And I saw Roma yesterday! This is from last year, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and it's currently the favorite to win Best Picture at the Oscars in a few weeks. There are several scenes near the end where the family goes on holiday to a beach hotel and the kids are carrying around some Nancy comics (but they aren't called Nancy because it's the Spanish-language version and I couldn't read the title well enough to tell what it's called). In one scene, you can see a panel of Fritzi Ritz. I was thinking "Hey! It's Fritzi Ritz! How can anyone not love this movie?"
The movie is set in the mid-1970s and there are lots of cultural references. The kids want to listen to the Beatles and Creedence. They watch some Mexican TV. And they go to the movies to see "Marooned," which made me laugh out loud in the theater. (I was the only one laughing.)
3. Eyes of the Underworld has a couple of scenes at a newsstand and there might be some comics barely visible in the background. I was thinking of watching those scenes again to look really closely and check for Batman or whatever, but I haven't gotten around to it. If anybody decides to give Eyes of the Underworld a try, keep an eye out and let us know if you see any comic books!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 10, 2019 23:11:39 GMT -5
For the record, I've never seen Marooned. I've never even seen the MST3K version. But I know a little bit about it, and one of the bits of trivia I know is that it's the only MST3K movie that won an Oscar! (It was for Special Effects.) And for some reason, it made me laugh when the kids in Roma wanted to see it.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 12, 2019 0:40:26 GMT -5
For the record, I've never seen Marooned. I've never even seen the MST3K version. But I know a little bit about it, and one of the bits of trivia I know is that it's the only MST3K movie that won an Oscar! (It was for Special Effects.) And for some reason, it made me laugh when the kids in Roma wanted to see it. Space Travellers is an edit of Marooned, and not a good one. It is a rather slow movie, which makes it ripe for the riffing. MST3K actually had a few episodes with good, if slightly cheesy movies. The Gamera films range from serious, in the beginning, to goofy, by the end. Danger Diabolik is campy; but, is a pretty darn good action.heist film. The do the first Hercules film, which is pretty good, for that genre. For the movie, they watched This Island Earth, which is considered a sci-fi classic, though the monsters are rubbery, the big foreheads of the aliens are ripe for the picking, and there is plenty of stilted dialogue and outlandish science. Amazingly, they kept it to one or two Gilligan's Island jokes, with the presence of Russell Johnson in the film.
|
|