Lets get naked and smoke!
True Lies is awesome - my all-time favorite action comedy! Exciting and very, very funny. I like to think, when Ahnuld breaks the binoculars with which he thinks he’s watching his wife cheat on him, it’s not because he’s squeezing them too hard, but because his gaze is just that intense.
Oh yeah! That’s right up my alley. Thank you.
I saw it within the last several months on TCM, and it was quite good quality. Must be Prime.
It looks like Prime has multiple streaming links for this movie. Just out of curiosity I checked them out. One of them didn’t work at all but another one looked very good.
Due to a studio cock-up, Charade was never copyrighted and fell into public domain. As a result, there are a lot of very bad prints on DVD, and before that on VHS. Third or fourth generation quality. I saw this when it was first released and a few times since. It’s a really well done comedy-thriller. Kennedy, Coburn and the inimitable Ned Glass were great villains.
Another Sunday double feature:
The Adam Project
A big loud sci-fi time-travel adventure with Ryan Reynolds and his 12-year-old self teaming up to save the world. It’s silly, scientifically ridiculous, and quite fun.
Marcel the Shell with Shoes On
It was nominated for a ton of awards, including an Oscar, and won several, so we decided to check it out. I had no idea what to expect; an hour and a half of a talking sea shell? Um, okay…
Turns out it’s utterly charming. Funny, sad, whimsical, imaginative. Strongly recommend.
Agree to the nth power. The people who made the remake obviously had no idea what they were doing.
Regarding the poor quality of the copy – you really need to watch a good copy. One version I had mangled the ending, and you couldn’t catch the very clever line at the very end.
If you liked Charade, look for ir=ts Evil Twin – Mirage although it has a different director (Edward Dmytryk, rather than Stanley Donen) and a different leading man (Gregory Peck rather than Cary Grant), it still has George Kennedy and WAlter Matthau and the same screenwriter, Peter Stone. Definitely not a light-hearted romp, and filmed in gritty black and white, it features some GREAT twists and a wonderful sensde of paranoia. And it feels even more like a Hitchcock flick than Charade.
They tried to capture the magic one more time with Arabesque(1966), which paired Gregory Peck with Sophia Loren and Stanley Donen was back as director (He wanted Cary Grant back, but couldn’t get him). Stone didn’t write the original screenplay, but he came in as an uncredited rewriter. The film made money, but it’s pretty awful, except that it looks gorgeous. And this time Gregory Peck is fully suited up in the shower – with a naked Sophia Loren (who, this being 1966, we don’t get to see).
What a strange fact about this movie. I read what the problem was, but you think lawyers would have taken this thing to court endlessly and worked out a solution to protect it.
You are right, though, it’s a free movie.
Even Wikipedia streams the whole thing on the article for the movie.
Thanks, I’d noticed a few (older) films on Prime that seem to have more than one thumbnail/poster on there. It hadn’t occurred to me that they might be different versions/transfers. I might try another one and see if it is better.
Finally got around to seeing The Devil’s Candy (2015) that @Mahaloth recommended earlier. Based on the recommendation I expected a pretty good horror flick, but wow – that thing is a freaking masterpiece! A creatively original take on horror, well acted and well done throughout. And I didn’t find the beginning slow at all, although the action and tension definitely heats up as the film progresses. A bit short at 1 hour 19 minutes, but a movie should only be long enough to tell the story, and this is the right length – anything more would be padding.
Also watched Clue (1985). Great cast and lots of fun – the humour is a bit restrained at the beginning but really ramps up as the movie progresses.
It’s a bit reminiscent of Murder by Death (1976), at least in the fact that both involve a group of people solving a mystery in a big old mansion. But Murder by Death is even more hilarious, and no wonder – the script is by Neil Simon (who I think also wrote the stage play) and stars luminaries like Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, and Peter Falk. It brilliantly features caricatures of famous fictional detectives who are gathered at the house to solve a great mystery that the host challenges them with. Sellers is hilarious as famous detective Sidney Wang, who infuriates their host (Truman Capote) because his Chinese-accented English dialect constantly fails to use prepositions. If you have to choose between Clue and Murder by Death, I’d say go with MbD, but why not both?
Example lines from the Peter Sellers character:
Willie Wang: [as they are about to leave Twain Manor] … I don’t get something, Pop – WAS there a murder, or WASN’T there?
Sidney Wang: Yes. Killed good weekend. Drive, please.
Dick Charleston: Be careful on this road. It’s treacherous.
Sidney Wang: Treacherous road like fresh mushroom. Must always…
[son drives car away from Charleston]
Sidney Wang: Idiot! Not finish mushroom story! Idiot!
IMO Murder By Death is the superior film, but Clue is a farce whereas MBD is a parody and I find farce never works as well onscreen as it tries to (it really is always better onstage).
nitpick: There was no stage play. Simon’s script for Murder by Death was an original screenplay (even though Simon was more famous as a writer for live stage).
At the risk of swimming against the tide, I have to admit that I was underwhelmed by Murder by Death and also its less-appreciated follow-up, The Cheap Detective (also scripted by Simon and with Peter Falk playing basically the same character. I was a HUGE fan of Simon’s at the time it came out, having read and re-read his stage scripts and seen the films based on them (I hadn’t yet seen any of his plays live), and I was expecting – I don’t know – more. Better. The characters depicted were parodies lower in calibre than those in Mad magazine, even if they did have top-notch talent portraying them.
Barbie
Somewhat recommended.
Cute with a few laugh out loud moments, but not a movie that will stick with me all that long. It’s not a great comedy, just a pretty cute one and I enjoyed the performances in it. Margot Robbie is a pretty good actress. I think I’ve been impressed with most movies she is in.
I saw nothing offensive in the movie, even if conservatives were looking for offense. It was quite harmless and cute and it didn’t make any real liberal or “woke” statements about anything. Conservatives would have been wise to say, “I thought it would be ‘woke’, but it was just normal.” Because it was entirely inoffensive.
I wouldn’t make this movie a priority. It was just OK and very cute.
My daughter went to see it with friends. They loved it, of course. Although there was some jokes they didn’t get–something about Zack Snyder.
There were some references about distracting men by taking up their interests. One Barbie pretends to have never seen The Godfather and wants a man to watch it and talk all the way through explaining it to her.
Main Barbie, I think, said there was a brief time she showed extreme interest in the Zack Snyder cut of the Justice League. I don’t remember the exact contest.
My favorite joke was when Margot Robbie Barbie says, “I’m just not pretty anymore!”…and the narrator comes on to say, “Film-makers, take note. Casting Margot Robbie for this scene was not a good idea.”
Probably my biggest laugh.
My husband and I are going to see this next weekend, as it’s apparently some kind of feminist manifesto judging by my girlfriends’ responses. We were intrigued by the trailer.
Movie night Mondays. We watched The French Dispatch. I am a fan of Wes Anderson, but this was a tough one for me. Maybe because I was tired at the time. The first story, with the imprisoned artist, was cool. For the rest of the movie I wasn’t really sure what the fuck was going on. This is arguably his most pretentious movie (that I’ve seen anyway.) I’ve got the feeling I would appreciate it a lot more if I understood the source material, which as far as I can tell is modern art, French filmmaking and IDK what.
Also according to my friend, a lot of the actors in it come from James Bond films? Coincidence?
Quigley Down Under (2001, Prime Rent) The blurb: Matthew Quigley (Tom Selleck) is an American rifleman who travels to the Australian outback to answer a help wanted ad calling for a sharpshooter. When Quigley meets his employer, Elliot Marston (Alan Rickman), he’s appalled to discover the job involves killing Aborigines. The two men fight, and when Quigley is knocked out, Marston leaves him and a local crazy woman (Laura San Giacomo) to die in a remote part of the outback. They’re rescued, however, by Aborigines, and plot their revenge.
I own it on DVD and have seen it many times. I wouldn’t have bothered to post it, but my DVD player broke and I was forced to rent it on Prime. I never saw this in theatres and only ever watched it in SD on a 17 inch cathode-ray tube television. But man alive! In HD on a massive widescreen television the Australian cinematography was impressive. We must have also gotten the directors cut because there were some scenes I had forgotten or just may have been cut for time when this was syndicated and I would catch this playing in the past. Top notch film seen the way it should have been in the first place, my $4.50 was well spent.
I put it on for my son who is 10 and now just opening his eyes to great films for adults. Tom Selleck, Alan Rickman and Laura San Giacomo knocked it out of the park as they do and the critics on Rotten Tomatoes that gave this a 55% should be ashamed of themselves. In other news, I cannot be the only one who thinks Laura San Giacomo looks like Rachel Weisz.
It’s said that the movie was a sort of homage to The New Yorker and some characters represent real-life New Yorker writers or editors.
My take on Quigley Down Under has always been that it is…muddled.
For example, it isn’t clear whether we are supposed to view San Giacomo’s character has someone with severe mental illness or just quirky. The character seems to swing between both. I don’t fault the actress; I think it’s the screenplay. And then there is the whole “plight of the aboriginals” that seems to come in and out of focus. So, my subjective grade would agree with the RT 50-60%.
I will admit that the movie has one of my favorite scenes of all time; the showdown between Quigley and the villain (Alan Rickman). The scene is great:
Rickman’s character decides to sadistically execute Selleck’s Quigley by forcing the rifle wielding Quigley (who has scorned carrying a pistol earlier) into a quick draw with pistols against Rickman and two of his henchmen.
Rickman has given a pistol to Quigley, made him shove it into his waistband (IIRC), and then he and his two henchmen holster their weapons.
-
(Alan Rickman) “I seem to remember you’re not too familiar with Colonel Colt’s revolver, so this will be your first lesson. Don’t worry. Mr Dobkin and Mr. O’Flynn will ensure that it’s a fair contest.”
-
(Alan Rickman) “I’ll just back up a few paces – And to your left a bit, that’s it – Now you’re right in front of my old pistol target.”
-
(Alan Rickman) “Some men are born in the wrong century. I think I was born on the wrong continent. Oh, by the way, you’re fired”
-
(Tom Selleck) “This ain’t Dodge City. And you ain’t Bill Hickok.”
Selleck draws and guns down all three before they can level their pistols, then leans over the dying Rickman and says:
- (Tom Selleck) “I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn’t know how to use it.”
I have to admit, if the I see the movie is playing in my cable guide, I’ll try to tune into it just for this scene.
People who don’t care for it are vocal. So I know why. They are also just wrong.