|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 14, 2022 14:52:31 GMT -5
The Rita Hayworth talk in the Meanwhile thread a few days or weeks back has me thinking about seeing some of her movies that I've missed out on for now. I also want to watch Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America: I have the "director's cut" dvd set, not sure if I'll try it all in one marathon session or wacth it over two nights.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 27, 2022 19:42:40 GMT -5
The Rita Hayworth talk in the Meanwhile thread a few days or weeks back has me thinking about seeing some of her movies that I've missed out on for now. I also want to watch Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America: I have the "director's cut" dvd set, not sure if I'll try it all in one marathon session or wacth it over two nights. It is a bit of a slog, all the way through. From what I've read, Leone used to work from a very limited script and improvised things on set. That film seems a bit more uneven than his westerns, though it is also long than most of those (I never compared run times between OUTIA and OUTITW). It's one of those where I really like certain segments, but was not overly enthused about the whole picture. That was with watching it on VHS, where I had to pop in the second tape. I tried watching a few long form things, around the same time as that film, including some 12 chapter movie serials. a 3+ hour movie is bearable, a movie serial is next to impossible, especially with the repetition. That is better seen in chapters. Never quite had the same problem with episodic tv, with binge watching. I've even done movie franchise marathons without problem. Depends on the material. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 27, 2022 21:53:27 GMT -5
I ended up getting sidetracked onto the Rita Hayworth films and then other things from the 1940s & 50s, but I hope to get to the Leone film next month. So far, I like the two she did with Fred Astaire best, but I still have a few more of her musicals to see and I also want to re-watch Gilda, as it's been a long time since I last saw that one.
Tonight I watched Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944), a Shakespeare movie I had not seen until now. It was really good, of course, but probably this wasn't the right time to see it: given what's happening in the world right now, it's a little hard to feel sympathetic towards a hero who leads an invading army against a neighbouring country under dodgy pretexts. And the French were portrayed as vainglorious and somewhat cowardly, in what seemed an unnecessarily over the top, jingoistic manner, even given the basic nature of the material. I'm glad I finally saw it, but in hindsight, I think I should have put this one on the backburner for a while and watched Olivier's Hamlet or Richard III or Orson Welles's Macbeth, all from around the same period (late '40s-early 50's).
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 28, 2022 10:48:42 GMT -5
I ended up getting sidetracked onto the Rita Hayworth films and then other things from the 1940s & 50s, but I hope to get to the Leone film next month. So far, I like the two she did with Fred Astaire best, but I still have a few more of her musicals to see and I also want to re-watch Gilda, as it's been a long time since I last saw that one. Tonight I watched Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944), a Shakespeare movie I had not seen until now. It was really good, of course, but probably this wasn't the right time to see it: given what's happening in the world right now, it's a little hard to feel sympathetic towards a hero who leads an invading army against a neighbouring country under dodgy pretexts. And the French were portrayed as vainglorious and somewhat cowardly, in what seemed an unnecessarily over the top, jingoistic manner, even given the basic nature of the material. I'm glad I finally saw it, but in hindsight, I think I should have put this one on the backburner for a while and watched Olivier's Hamlet or Richard III or Orson Welles's Macbeth, all from around the same period (late '40s-early 50's). Agreed that Olivier's Henry V is a bowdlerized version of an ambiguous play and protagonist, but you have to remember the circumstances. Olivier created, with the considerable help of the British Ministry of War Information, a patriotic bell-ringer of a film meant to be a barely disguised allegory, with the French filling the roles of the Nazis as a British army (with Scot, Welsh and Irish elements) must invade France. Gone were the scenes in which Henry exposes his three close friends as traitors, allows the hanging of Bardolph to proceed, and orders the deaths of French prisoners, for instance. The battle scene is majestic (thanks to hundreds of Irish extras), but more splendorous than realistic. Still, it is a beautiful spectacle of a movie with some great performances and a true trailblazer for both Shakespeare on film and for Olivier himself. You may have seen Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version, which provides the yin to Olivier's yang; if not, check it out, as he is as adept as Olivier at capturing the Zeitgeist. He made the film in the aftermath of Vietnam and the wake of the Falklands War. It's beautiful, but it ain't pretty. And he admits that he owes much in the staging of his battle scenes to the masterful Battle of Shrewsbury staged by Orson Welles in his star-crossed tour de force, Chimes at Midnight (1965). Henry V is, like all of Shakespeare, forever relevant. It has resonated on stage when it was produced during the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq and obviously does so today, for just the reasons you mentioned above. It was never Shakespeare's desire to make his audience feel comfortable. PS: Watch Olivier's Hamlet, certainly, but I think his best Shakespearean film is Richard III. I think you'll enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 28, 2022 17:56:03 GMT -5
I ended up getting sidetracked onto the Rita Hayworth films and then other things from the 1940s & 50s, but I hope to get to the Leone film next month. So far, I like the two she did with Fred Astaire best, but I still have a few more of her musicals to see and I also want to re-watch Gilda, as it's been a long time since I last saw that one. Tonight I watched Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944), a Shakespeare movie I had not seen until now. It was really good, of course, but probably this wasn't the right time to see it: given what's happening in the world right now, it's a little hard to feel sympathetic towards a hero who leads an invading army against a neighbouring country under dodgy pretexts. And the French were portrayed as vainglorious and somewhat cowardly, in what seemed an unnecessarily over the top, jingoistic manner, even given the basic nature of the material. I'm glad I finally saw it, but in hindsight, I think I should have put this one on the backburner for a while and watched Olivier's Hamlet or Richard III or Orson Welles's Macbeth, all from around the same period (late '40s-early 50's). Agreed that Olivier's Henry V is a bowdlerized version of an ambiguous play and protagonist, but you have to remember the circumstances. Olivier created, with the considerable help of the British Ministry of War Information, a patriotic bell-ringer of a film meant to be a barely disguised allegory, with the French filling the roles of the Nazis as a Britsh army (with Scot, Welsh and Irish elements) must invade France. Gone were the scenes in which Henry exposes his three close friends as traitors, allows the hanging of Bardolph to proceed, and orders the deaths of French prisoners, for instance. The battle scene is majestic (thanks to hundreds of Irish extras), but more splendorous than realistic. Still, it is a beautiful spectacle of a movie with some great performances and a true trailblazer for both Shakespeare on film and for Olivier himself. You may have seen Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version, which provides the yin to Olivier's yang; if not, check it out, as he is as adept as Olivier at capturing the Zeitgeist. He made the film in the aftermath of Vietnam and the wake of the Falklands War. It's beautiful, but it ain't pretty. And he admits that he owes much in the staging of his battle scenes to the masterful Battle of Shrewsbury staged by Orson Welles in his star-crossed tour de force, Chimes at Midnight (1965). Henry V is, like all of Shakespeare, forever relevant. It has resonated on stage when it was produced during the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq and obviously does so today, for just the reasons you mentioned above. It was never Shakespeare's desire to make his audience feel comfortable. PS: Watch Olivier's Hamlet, certainly, but I think his best Shakesperean film is Richard III. I think you'll enjoy it.
I wondered about the timing of it and thought it strange that he'd paint the French in such unflattering colours given that they were allies against Nazi Germany at the time. It never occurred to me that he was using the French in the play as stand-ins for the Nazis, interesting idea.
Haven't seen the Branagh Henry V though I remember the hype about it at the time of its release. Definitely plan to catch it soon and compare. Probably will do the other ones I mentioned first though, as I'm on a roll with this 40s-50s stuff.
I wish Olivier had filmed a Macbeth: apparently he played the lead in at least one highly acclaimed stage run of the play and did plan a film version but it got tangled up in back-room Hollywood politics. I saw the King Lear he did as a tv movie in the 1980s, so Macbeth is the only one of the "Big 4" he never filmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 28, 2022 18:24:40 GMT -5
berkley, that King Lear is well worth it. His final Shakespeare (on film, at least... not sure if he ever performed Shakespeare on stage after this), and obviously apropos. Excellent cast, too: Diana Rigg, Brian Cox, Jeremy Kemp, Leo McKern, Robert Lindsay, John Hurt, and more... I'll be curious to hear what you think of the other Oliviers and Branagh's HV. Olivier also did an Othello (1965) that is pretty much roundly called an embarrassment these days b/c he did it in heavy blackface make-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 28, 2022 21:29:07 GMT -5
berkley , that King Lear is well worth it. His final Shakespeare (on film, at least... not sure if he ever performed Shakespeare on stage after this), and obviously apropos. Excellent cast, too: Diana Rigg, Brian Cox, Jeremy Kemp, Leo McKern, Robert Lindsay, John Hurt, and more... I'll be curious to hear what you think of the other Oliviers and Branagh's HV. Olivier also did an Othello (1965) that is pretty much roundly called an embarrassment these days b/c he did it in heavy blackface make-up. Yes, he was the right age for Lear by then. I saw it when it aired in the 1980s. Othello, I think I'll watch the Orson Welles film from the early 1950s. I might try the Olivier one later on, when I get into the 1960s: it's possible that seeing it now in 2022, I'll find the blackface too off-putting or even just too much of a distraction, but it's Olivier so I'm willing to give it a chance.
One thing I appreciated about his Henry V in contrast to more recent Shakespeare films - e.g. the Joel Coen Macbeth with Denzel Washington - is how clearly his speech was articulated: you can hear and understand every single word. Equally important, the inflections and rhythms always suit the sense, the meaning of what's being said - something I found shockingly lacking in the Coen Macbeth at times. But I should talk about that in the "Recent Movies" thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 2, 2022 11:22:40 GMT -5
Posting this here because, again, it's not a classic, nor 'new and upcoming' any more and - crucially - I missed it when it was released. Anyway, just got around to watching Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017) last night. Even outside of the uncomfortable way it deals with race relations in the US (which makes it worth watching), it's just a really chilling psychological horror movie. And the ending was actually a bit unexpected - to me at least, as I saw it going in a really different direction. Anyway, recommended for those who haven't seen it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Apr 2, 2022 11:48:08 GMT -5
I don’t know how I missed “Death Takes a Holiday” (1934) all these years. I remember reading about it almost fifty years ago in a book about horror movies and I’ve been wanting to see it ever since.
I was looking to see if Apple TV had some of the films of the 1930s and 1940s films I’ve never seen - I’ve watched Blossoms in the Dust, Four Daughters, Arrowsmith and One Night of Love on Apple TV lately - and I checked for Death Takes a Holiday. You can rent it for $3.99.
I liked it a lot! Extra points for only being 80 minutes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2022 12:02:06 GMT -5
berkley , that King Lear is well worth it. His final Shakespeare (on film, at least... not sure if he ever performed Shakespeare on stage after this), and obviously apropos. Excellent cast, too: Diana Rigg, Brian Cox, Jeremy Kemp, Leo McKern, Robert Lindsay, John Hurt, and more... I'll be curious to hear what you think of the other Oliviers and Branagh's HV. Olivier also did an Othello (1965) that is pretty much roundly called an embarrassment these days b/c he did it in heavy blackface make-up. Yes, he was the right age for Lear by then. I saw it when it aired in the 1980s. Othello, I think I'll watch the Orson Welles film from the early 1950s. I might try the Olivier one later on, when I get into the 1960s: it's possible that seeing it now in 2022, I'll find the blackface too off-putting or even just too much of a distraction, but it's Olivier so I'm willing to give it a chance.
One thing I appreciated about his Henry V in contrast to more recent Shakespeare films - e.g. the Joel Coen Macbeth with Denzel Washington - is how clearly his speech was articulated: you can hear and understand every single word. Equally important, the inflections and rhythms always suit the sense, the meaning of what's being said - something I found shockingly lacking in the Coen Macbeth at times. But I should talk about that in the "Recent Movies" thread.
Sorry for being late getting back to this, berkley. You are right about the difference between Olivier's articulation and enunciation and many other actors. His classical training and extensive stage experience always show, no matter the role. I haven't yet seen the Washington/ McDomand/Coen Macbeth, but it doesn't surprise me that it was lacking in those areas. There has to be some common ground beween a naturalistic, almost conversational reading of Shakespeare and a more clearly enunciated reading. It certainly can be done. (Branagh's Henry V is a good example.) It is a disappointment to me that the Coen Macbeth is lacking in both areas you mention. I hate when you hear someone reading Shakespeare without any deep appreciation of the sound, the meter and the actual meaning of the words; it becomes simply a recitation. And the difference between sloppy and careful readings comes down to putting in the work with the text. I think sometimes directors think that the "look" of a film will help to convey meaning, but often the look ends up overshadowing the line readings and the audience is left wanting. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 2, 2022 12:21:48 GMT -5
Posting this here because, again, it's not a classic, nor 'new and upcoming' any more and - crucially - I missed it when it was released. Anyway, just got around to watching Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017) last night. Even outside of the uncomfortable way it deals with race relations in the US (which makes it worth watching), it's just a really chilling psychological horror movie. And the ending was actually a bit unexpected - to me at least, as I saw it going in a really different direction. Anyway, recommended for those who haven't seen it yet. Yeah, it’s a great film. I’m not a horror fan generally, but this is a great psychological horror movie. Excellent script. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 9, 2022 19:47:54 GMT -5
Looks like the next movie on my to-see list will be the original Alien. Hope to get to it sometime this weekend or next.
I finally got a chance to watch Alien for the first time. I tend to be a bit biased against older sci-fi and horror films mostly because the special effects, unless they were exceptional or ahead of their time, have often not aged well and can take me out of the story. It won't necessarily turn me off the movie completely, but it does mean that the rest of the films bears a heavier burden to carry the story well. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that this is a film that has aged relatively well. The famous chestburster scene was not nearly as cheesy as I was expecting it to be. And I found the scene where Ash is revealed to be an android (spoiler alert!  ) to be well done for its age as well. CGI definitely has its uses, but for genres like horror I still maintain that well-crafted practical effects create a more realistic shot than CGI.
Something else I noticed: This movie reminded me a lot of the Metroid video game series. Female heroic lead, parasitic alien life form, stalking aliens through corridors, and the overall atmosphere and vibe of the movie reminded me of the hours spent playing those games. After viewing the movie, I read up on the Wikipedia page and discovered that Alien was, in fact, a huge influence on the creators of Metroid, including characters named Ridley and Mother Brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 10, 2022 1:35:25 GMT -5
Looks like the next movie on my to-see list will be the original Alien. Hope to get to it sometime this weekend or next.
I finally got a chance to watch Alien for the first time. I tend to be a bit biased against older sci-fi and horror films mostly because the special effects, unless they were exceptional or ahead of their time, have often not aged well and can take me out of the story. It won't necessarily turn me off the movie completely, but it does mean that the rest of the films bears a heavier burden to carry the story well. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that this is a film that has aged relatively well. The famous chestburster scene was not nearly as cheesy as I was expecting it to be. And I found the scene where Ash is revealed to be an android (spoiler alert!  ) to be well done for its age as well. CGI definitely has its uses, but for genres like horror I still maintain that well-crafted practical effects create a more realistic shot than CGI.
Something else I noticed: This movie reminded me a lot of the Metroid video game series. Female heroic lead, parasitic alien life form, stalking aliens through corridors, and the overall atmosphere and vibe of the movie reminded me of the hours spent playing those games. After viewing the movie, I read up on the Wikipedia page and discovered that Alien was, in fact, a huge influence on the creators of Metroid, including characters named Ridley and Mother Brain.
Like you, I first saw Alien long after the original release - checking wikipedia, I think it would have been 2003, when it was re-released to movie theatres - and at that time, I didn't notice anything particularly old-fashioned about anything, whether the S/E, the acting, or what have you. The only thing that spoiled it a little for me was having seen so many stills and excerpts, parodies and references, and of course all or most of the sequels over the intervening years. The suspense and shock elements were mostly lost, and those were important. Still, I was very impressed with it as a piece of film-making and very happy to finally have seen it.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197 
|
Post by Confessor on May 10, 2022 5:51:30 GMT -5
Alien is a fantastic slice of sci-fi psychosexual horror. I first saw it on TV as a kid, maybe 2 or 3 years after it first came out, and though I certainly enjoyed it back then, it has only gotten better as I've grown older and been fully able to grasp its layers of subtext and the masterful way that it's paced and shot. Along with Blade Runner, it is Ridley Scott's masterpiece, from a time when he could still make edgy, thought-provoking films. I like some of the Alien sequels fine as sci-fi action romps, but the original Alien is something really special.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 29, 2022 22:34:44 GMT -5
Alright, checked another one off the list: Jaws
I will admit to being pretty impressed with this one. I never saw any of the movies growing up, but I do remember the steady stream of sequels that arrived at the theaters every so often. I always got the sense that these moves were pretty corny, so they were never on my radar to watch. To add to that, horror films based on animals never really registered with me. While I understand the primal fear that folks have about certain wildlife, I had always grown up with the notion that man was a much more terrifying creature to the animals than the other way around. So the idea of a killer shark terrorizing a seaside community as a horror film never clicked with me.
Let's get one thing out of the way -- visually, this is definitely a dated movie. If we had done something like this today, you can be sure there would have been a ton of CGI showing the actual shark ripping it's victims to shreds. I think the ingenuity of this movie is how much they did with the technical limitations of the time. For a movie about a shark, it was onscreen barely at all. All of the tension came from the performances of the actors, the hints of a shape underwater or the famous shot of the dorsal fin skimming the surface, and occasionally a glimpse of those dead eyes and gaping jaws when the shark would surface for an attack. Let's not forget the music. I think it would not be a stretch to say that this movie would not have worked without the John Williams score.
In my estimation, the movie is too dated to be frightening to modern audiences -- not to mention that Jaws has been so parodied at this point that the scary scenes have been rendered toothless (ba-dum-bum *crash*). But I think it's a master class in how to do a lot with a little.
|
|
) to be well done for its age as well. CGI definitely has its uses, but for genres like horror I still maintain that well-crafted practical effects create a more realistic shot than CGI.
) to be well done for its age as well. CGI definitely has its uses, but for genres like horror I still maintain that well-crafted practical effects create a more realistic shot than CGI.