|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 19, 2022 15:36:58 GMT -5
The Big Operator (1959)
Mickey Rooney plays a thuggish labor union boss, patterned after Jimmy Hoffa. Plenty of mondo movie casting: Mamie Van Doren as a suburban mom always in the kitchen Mel Torme who never gets a chance to sing Jim Backus as a union executive who wants to take Mickey Rooney down Charles Chaplin Jr. trying desperately to have a career in acting like his dad Vampira from Plan 9 From Outer Space who wandered onto this movie set Jackie Coogan who was a famous child actor initially discovered by Charlie Chaplin and figured Chaplin's son would jumpstart his career Jay North, TV's Dennis The Menace with his natural hair color before the Dennis role Ray Danton as a sleezeball thug with a pencil thin mustache Steve Cochran, the hero of the story
If that cast grabs your attention, you can watch it for free on YouTube
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 21, 2022 14:28:24 GMT -5
So all these years later, remembering how The Warriors is one of @rags favorite films, and my recommending she watch The Wanderers which came out the same year and covers similar themes, plus it's available free in decent quality on YouTube, and now I got to ask, 5-6 years later
Have You Seen It?
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Jul 21, 2022 18:57:13 GMT -5
So all these years later, remembering how The Warriors is one of @rags favorite films, and my recommending she watch The Wanderers which came out the same year and covers similar themes, plus it's available free in decent quality on YouTube, and now I got to ask, 5-6 years later Have You Seen It?
As a Warriors lover myself, I will enthusiastically second this recommendation. Wanderers is a very different film, but also has a slightly reality-bending style that grabs your attention.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2022 21:37:08 GMT -5
So all these years later, remembering how The Warriors is one of @rags favorite films, and my recommending she watch The Wanderers which came out the same year and covers similar themes, plus it's available free in decent quality on YouTube, and now I got to ask, 5-6 years later Have You Seen It?
A couple years ago, yes, it was alright. It's one of those types of films I'd watch on cable if it comes on....but I still have 1-2 viewings of The Warriors every year and now my daughter likes it.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 22, 2022 22:00:14 GMT -5
Just finished the last chapters of Les Vampires. Just a tremendous film work. Edouard Mathe, as Philipe Guerande, is rather bland, both in performance and as a character. Guerande is pretty much a copy of Fandor,t he journalist who hunts for Fantomas, in both the original stories and Feuillade's previous serial. This guys is even more of a milquetost, without an Inspector Juve to help liven things. However, his sidekick, Mazamette, played by Marcel Levesque, is kind of fun, particularly as his part grows, in subsequent chapters. At the start, he betrays Philippe for money, to pay for his son's schooling; but, he helps him escape the Vampires and becomes his partner in thwarting their schemes. At one point, they recover money stolen from an American industrialist and Mazamette is given the reward, which makes him a wealthy man, improving his station. This leads to a run-in with some crooks (who he sees off with a pistol, and his son, Eustache, being expelled and sent home to him, to plague him with his shenanigans (though he aids his pop in getting into the Grand Vampire's house and getting him arrested). Rene Poyen, the child actor playing Eustache, is quite comical in the episode (#8, The Thunder Master) in which he appears (his only chapter, sadly). They kid is a great physical comedian (as is Levesque) and he mugs quite a bit, for the camera, but it works as a character trait for the attention-seeking boy. Levesque is rather hammy, in his own right, with rather broad expressions and mannerisms, plus a nose that De Gaulle would be proud of.
The star is definitely Musidora and she is very charismatic in her scenes, even if some of the costumes, aside from the black bodystocking and mask, don't do her justice. She is definitely the most interesting member of The Vampires, until the reveal of Satanas, as the true Grand Vampire, after Irma Vep (under Moreno's hypnosis) shoots the previous one. By the end of the film we have had 3 Grand Vampires, with Irma being the real power within the gang.
Chapter 7 finds Irma with Moreno, after he had hypnotized her to kill the Grand Vampire. It features the reveal of Satanas, the true Grand Vampire. He tells them he will give a demonstration of his power and he later fires an electric-powered cannon at a nightclub, where they are dining, destroying the place, though they survive. A recent Irma Vep episode recreated the filming of the original scene and showed that extras were offered background roles for one rate and higher pay if they were willing to be closer to the explosion. The explosion ends up bigger than expected, with real injuries and Feuillade offering extra pay for the injured. The explosion is quite impressive, on screen. The cannon, itself looks rather fake; but, the concept of it has a nice "mad scientist" touch. Moreno and Irma submit to Stanas authority and then aid him in swindling an American millionaire out of 100,000 francs. However, Philippe and Mazamette track down one of their accomplices and force her to help bait a trap and capture Irma and Moreno.
Chapter 8 sees Irma sent off to prison, in Algeria, but Satanas is able to set up her escape, though we don't see it, for a while. irma, clings to the underside of a train, to get away and the latesdt Irma Vep showed the scene, based on Musidora's memoirs. She was also in a theatrical show (most involved were working on other things and war efforts, at the time of filming) and Feuillade vows to get her back in time and films the rail cars passing over her, as she lies between the rails of the tracks. Musidora actually filmed this, lying under a moving train. She had been a trained acrobat and does her stunts, in the film. This episode also introduces us to Eustache Mazamette, who really ups the comedy, in his lone appearance.
Chapter 9 sees a new Grand Vampire, Venenos, a chemist. He launches attacks on Philippe and replaces a caterer hired to serve at Philippe's engagement celebration and managaes to poison the concierge, with tainted champagne, while the guests have it served to them.
Chapter 10 has theVampires continue their attacks on Philippe's household, as they try to break in and Philippe's new wife shoots and kills one of them. They lure a maid (the widow of the poisoned concierge) to a fortune teller and hypnotize her into unlocking the door and Irma and Venenos try to murder Philippe and his wife with poison gas, but are thwarted. The wife is kidnapped by the gang and then the maid and Philippe and Mazamette must locate them and lead a police raid to rescue them.
Satanas was a far more interesting Grand Vampire than the original, though he only sticks around for 2 complete episodes. He uses a drugged needle on Moreno, 50 years before Mission Impossible made a weekly staple of such things. It actually looks plausible, here, as the needle is held in place by and elastic band, across the palm of the hand, with a kid glove covering the hand. They get a couple of cloe-ups and you can buy into the device far more than Jim Phelps' needle rings.
Other than exteriors, the sets are never particularly bold, as the war meant it was a lower budget production. The subject matter got them in trouble with police authorities, over the morality and they were banned, temporarily, until a personal appeal from Musidora (re-enacted in Irma Vep).
Irma Vep makes for a great character and her shadow looms long over the various cinematic and literary femme fatales; and, she is very much a pioneering character, for a woman, as she is a top member of the gang, who both plans and executes things and is shown to be a dynamic and intelligent character, contrasted with the more stereotypical figures of maids, mothers and Philippe's rather dull fiance/wife.
Now, I get to move onto Judex, where Feuillade focuses on a heroic avenger, using much of the same cast, as it was filmed at the same time, as Les Vampires.
Feuillade really pioneers a lot of the trappings of the mystery thriller and gangster movie, while delivering the same kind of pulpy thrills that permeated the Fantomas stories, and similar characters, like Arsene Lupin, or the British Raffles, who would blaze the trail for the later pulp heroes and villains of the 30s, who set the stage for the comic book heroes of the 40s.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2022 7:33:05 GMT -5
Today marks 35 years since Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was released: Here’s a comic adaptation: What can I say about this that I haven’t said a million times before? It’s not perfect. It’s flawed. A good script editor would not have gone amiss. The special effects are often woeful. Lex Luthor is more of a clown in this one. For a film that came nine years after the original, there’s a lot one could criticise (and don’t get me started on the deleted Prototype Nuclear Man scenes). But it has its good points. The disarmament storyline is a solid one, however poorly-executed it might have been. The idea behind Nuclear Man is a good one, I feel. Christopher Reeve as Superman is well worth watching. There’s a good sub-plot about unethical journalism and Perry White’s issues with his new proprietor. And Lois Lane showed a really caring and vulnerable side, whether it be that flying scene with Superman, or the scene where she (who probably knows Superman and Clark are one and the same) visits Kent’s apartment. It’s not the final Reeve-Superman instalment I would have wanted, but it’s a better finale for Reeve than some have made it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 25, 2022 21:20:30 GMT -5
For me, the only good point of that turkey was Mariel Hemingway lying on top of Clark Kent's desk, showing off a terrific set of gams. Beyond that, it is the film that introduced Duckie as Lex Luthor's nephew (Lex did have a sister pre-Crisis, named Lena), the horrible Nuclear Man, Superman trying to solve the arms race (never have Superman mess in human history; it doesn't work) and Golan & Globus, who were even cheaper than the Salkinds. The only reason Hackman was in it was that he refused to come back to the role, while the Salkinds controlled it. He walked off of the filming of Superman 2 (shot simultaneously with the first, but stopped to finish post-production on 1) after the Salkinds fired Richard Donner and refused to do another with them. They sold the film rights after II disappointed and they had financial troubles and the Cannon bottom-feeders got it and did something that made 3 look like a masterpiece. It was an interesting dynamic to see someone try to seduce Clark Kent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2022 10:49:04 GMT -5
The Living Daylights premiered in the United States 35 years ago today (it had premiered in general at the Odeon Leicester Square, London, three days prior): And so the Dalton Era began! Little did any of us know that the “Era” would represent a mere two films. For me, Dalton may well be the best 007 ever. He was so fully-formed - with a “history” that was believable - when he took over the role, and it’s frustrating that he couldn’t show us more. I may still have the VHS of this. I love the Moore Era, and For Your Eyes Only represents a realistic Bond, but I do think we needed to move away from the larger-than-life exploits of 1962-1985, so I am glad TLD went down that route. I feel the film still holds up extremely well today, and that Gibraltar pre-credits scene is one of the strongest from any Bond film.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2022 11:46:48 GMT -5
The Living Daylights premiered in the United States 35 years ago today (it had premiered in general at the Odeon Leicester Square, London, three days prior): And so the Dalton Era began! Little did any of us know that the “Era” would represent a mere two films. For me, Dalton may well be the best 007 ever. He was so fully-formed - with a “history” that was believable - when he took over the role, and it’s frustrating that he couldn’t show us more. I may still have the VHS of this. I love the Moore Era, and For Your Eyes Only represents a realistic Bond, but I do think we needed to move away from the larger-than-life exploits of 1962-1985, so I am glad TLD went down that route. I feel the film still holds up extremely well today, and that Gibraltar pre-credits scene is one of the strongest from any Bond film. I liked Dalton and his approach was more akin to Fleming's Bond, rather than Eon's; but, I felt the film suffered in the villain department. Joe Don Baker was laughably incapable of being a threat to Bond and Jeroen Krabbe was playing a buffoon. It just didn't give Dalton the meat he really needed to do something with it. Had he had Sean Bean, in Goldeneye, he could have really had a great film. Daylights is entertaining enough; but, never really rises to even the level of For Your Eyes Only, let alone From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. License to Kill (always want to call it License Revoked) gave him a nastier villain; but, played by a less interesting actor, in Robert Davi and Bond against a drug lord is small potatoes. Someone of Bond's stature should have wiped him out in about 10 minutes (and that's allowing for the quip and a martini). The problem, aside from the lawsuits, for the Dalton era, was that the problem of the Moore era carried over: scripts-by-committee. Eon had so many people with their hands in things you couldn't get a strong, coherent script. There had to be the big stunt piece and the product placement and the locale and so on and so on. It continued into Brosnan, though they got one strong story, with Goldeneye, because they knew they needed it; then, they resorted to form and Brosnan was saddled with the same drek, with commercials for luxury cars taking up more of the film than story. I generally like Daylights. It has a great teaser opening, a really good theme song, a good love interest, the sniper scene (taken from the short story that gave the film its title) and the escape from Czechoslovakia are all good. The henchman was a good one. However, once you have Joe Don Baker running around, it ruins the mood. Jeroen Krabbe, playing a serious villain would have been so much better, on his own. The late Greg Hatcher, on the Radio vs the Martians podcast, once suggested that On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been the perfect film for Dalton, rather than Lazenby; and, I have to agree as it played to his strengths, as an actor and he was physical enough for the action scenes (which is where Lazenby excelled). Had they done that script when Dalton did Daylights, he would have been the right age and experience, with a tremendous story and script. I still think Lazenby is better than many credit; but, yeah, Dalton in that one? Would have been one of the best!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2022 12:05:48 GMT -5
I had a book called The Bond Files (wish I still had it!). So much trivia in. The Dalton/OHMSS thing was mentioned, I think the book stated that Dalton was interested, but felt he was too young. There was also mention of Connery being considered for Moonraker.
I did quite like Jeroen Krabbé in the movie. I take your point about his character, but I felt that the biggest complaints about the low-key nature of the character are what makes him work for me. What I mean by that is, he was subtle and low-key. Her Majesty’s Government underestimated him. There was something surreptitious about his character which I found appealing (I am in full agreement with you about Joe Don Baker).
Was it ever made clear whether Robert Brown was playing the same M as Bernard Lee, or just another guy with the M name?
I did like Licence To Kill. What I took away from the film was “Never mess with Bond”. Mess with him and his best friend - and you will pay the price.
I so wish Dalton had done more films.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2022 12:23:59 GMT -5
I had a book called The Bond Files (wish I still had it!). So much trivia in. The Dalton/OHMSS thing was mentioned, I think the book stated that Dalton was interested, but felt he was too young. There was also mention of Connery being considered for Moonraker. I did quite like Jeroen Krabbé in the movie. I take your point about his character, but I felt that the biggest complaints about the low-key nature of the character are what makes him work for me. What I mean by that is, he was subtle and low-key. Her Majesty’s Government underestimated him. There was something surreptitious about his character which I found appealing (I am in full agreement with you about Joe Don Baker). Was it ever made clear whether Robert Brown was playing the same M as Bernard Lee, or just another guy with the M name? I did like Licence To Kill. What I took away from the film was “Never mess with Bond”. Mess with him and his best friend - and you will pay the price. I so wish Dalton had done more films. They just refer to him as M, though he is shown in his admiral's uniform, in the briefing scene, in the teaser. That suggests the same M, which I believe was the intent. He was the carryover, from the Moore series, taking over the role in Octopussy, after FYEO had Geoffrey Keene as the Minister of Defense, Sir Frederick Gray, in M's place (along with the Chief of Staff). brown had played Adm Hargreaves, in Spy Who loved Me; so, you could suggest he was that character, taking over the position of M, from Adm Sir Miles Messervy (the original M). M is meant to be the title, for head of MI-6, based on Sir Mansfield Smith-Cumming, who became head of the Secret Service Bureau and was known as C, because he signed documents with that initial. He was the inspiration for the character of M, Adm Sir Miles Meservy, in the novels. Smith-Cumming headed that bureau in the pre-Great War and during WW1 period, with legendary spy, Sydney Reilly, as one of his agents. Reilly was one of the inspirations for Bond. I used to have (and wish I still did, based on its collector value) the James Bond Bedside Companion, by Raymond Benson, which covered up through Living Daylights. It had a great breakdown of the novels and films, with plenty of background detail. It led to Benson taking over the novel series, after John Gardner. I also had the James Bond Encyclopedia, which was great for keeping track of various characters and had good info about script revisions, like Spy Who Loved Me intending to introduce a new generation of SPECTRE, which kills off the old. They were supposed to be drawn from the various terror groups operating, in the period, like the PFLP, Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhoff and Red Army Faction. The original was supposed to be drawn from the major criminal organizations, like the Mafia, the Union Corse, the Camorra, and similar. That didn't happen because of the Kevin McClory film rights to Thunderball and Spectre & Blofeld. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2022 12:27:09 GMT -5
I had a book about MI6 (I’ll try and dig it out), I was happy to learn that ‘M’ was a real-life thing. Please track down that Bedside Companion, and I’ll try and track down The Bond Files. What I liked about The Bond Files is that it covered a lot of obscure stuff, including some Bond role-playing-games. They even debunked 1967’s Casino Royale’s plot holes, which seems to be one of the most pointless exercises ever!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2022 13:16:05 GMT -5
James Pearson's The Authorized Biography of James Bond is a good one, for detail from the novels. Similar to Phillip Jose Farmer's "biographies" of Tarzan (Tarzan Alive!) and Doc Savage (Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2022 10:57:58 GMT -5
I’ve been watching the Police Academy films on Blu-ray (I had owned them on DVD and VHS). I don’t like the fourth and seventh films. The first one is the best. 2, 3 and 5 are good. 6 is solid. Just my view.
Picking apart the films is perhaps the most pointless exercise ever. A fool’s errand, if you will. But as a fool, that suits me fine!
I get the silly premise of the police dropping their recruitment standards - and all the silliness that that entails. But it’s still hard not to pick apart a thing or two, all in the spirit of fun. Always fun.
There seems to be a lack of detectives in the films. Despite the title of the franchise, not every film is set in the academy. 2 and 6 focus on a precinct, as does 4 for the most part. 5 is set in Miami Beach, where a gang of criminals are doing what they do. None of the stations seem to have detectives.
In the third film, rival academies (2 of them) compete to be the only one due to cuts in state funding. Are there really more than 2 police academies in a state? Also, one of the academies in the third film, led by Commandant Mauser, looks more military, the men wearing berets, doing drill, etc. Commissioner Hurst seems to oversee both academies, but Mauser’s academy seems more akin to state trooper barracks.
Finally, the films do take place in real time. The first film was released in 1984 and is set in 1984 as the “Class of 1984” graduate. The third movie was released in 1986 and is set in 1986, as the “Class of 1986” graduates. Yet, cadets from the first film are now sergeants overseeing the training of the cadets in the third film. It would seem that the class that graduated in the summer of 1984 were sergeants and instructors in 1986. Could one really go from cadet to sergeant in 2 years?
What does amuse me about the films is how much the senior officers do to undermine their officers, so that they can progress their careers. There’s me thinking that crime reduction and serving the public would be paramount, but in the second film, Lieutenant Mauser is sabotaging the officers’ work so that he can be made captain. What a nice man!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 3, 2022 16:59:23 GMT -5
I’ve been watching the Police Academy films on Blu-ray (I had owned them on DVD and VHS). I don’t like the fourth and seventh films. The first one is the best. 2, 3 and 5 are good. 6 is solid. Just my view. Picking apart the films is perhaps the most pointless exercise ever. A fool’s errand, if you will. But as a fool, that suits me fine! I get the silly premise of the police dropping their recruitment standards - and all the silliness that that entails. But it’s still hard not to pick apart a thing or two, all in the spirit of fun. Always fun. There seems to be a lack of detectives in the films. Despite the title of the franchise, not every film is set in the academy. 2 and 6 focus on a precinct, as does 4 for the most part. 5 is set in Miami Beach, where a gang of criminals are doing what they do. None of the stations seem to have detectives. In the third film, rival academies (2 of them) compete to be the only one due to cuts in state funding. Are there really more than 2 police academies in a state? Also, one of the academies in the third film, led by Commandant Mauser, looks more military, the men wearing berets, doing drill, etc. Commissioner Hurst seems to oversee both academies, but Mauser’s academy seems more akin to state trooper barracks. Finally, the films do take place in real time. The first film was released in 1984 and is set in 1984 as the “Class of 1984” graduate. The third movie was released in 1986 and is set in 1986, as the “Class of 1986” graduates. Yet, cadets from the first film are now sergeants overseeing the training of the cadets in the third film. It would seem that the class that graduated in the summer of 1984 were sergeants and instructors in 1986. Could one really go from cadet to sergeant in 2 years? What does amuse me about the films is how much the senior officers do to undermine their officers, so that they can progress their careers. There’s me thinking that crime reduction and serving the public would be paramount, but in the second film, Lieutenant Mauser is sabotaging the officers’ work so that he can be made captain. What a nice man! If you saw some American police forces, then the concept of low or lowering recruitment standards wouldn't be so far-fetched. Some have pretty low standards and equally low qualities of leadership. The militarization of police forces has also been a major issue here, as it has fostered an "us vs them" philosophy, in many areas and added to recruitment of officers with a power complex. There are plenty of good officers and departments; but, there are also plenty of bad and clearing the ranks of the bad is never an easy task. America doesn't really have a national police force. Each jurisdiction recruits and sets standards for its own agencies. So, you can see how standards can fluctuate. Then again, those Police Academy guys have nothing on Toody and Muldoon or the detectives of the 12th Precinct!
|
|