No, I have not. I might see it sometime out of curiosity, but TBH I’m very doubtful that I would like it better. Two reasons. Hitchcock as a director and filmmaking techniques and equipment had all come a long way in the more than 20 years between the two movies, and Hitchcock was obviously trying to improve on the first one. I’m curious to see it now because it may well have some artistic merit missing from the remake, but I’ll tell ya one thing for sure – the remake is a pretty high bar to clear!
That’s one hell of a recommendation! Promising Young Woman was IMHO one of the best movies in years! I assume that Saltburn is something lesser, as PYW is a hard act to follow, but I’m hoping that Fennell has a promising movie career with more gems in her future.
I felt nostalgic yesterday as we were preparing for Thanksgiving dinner. Instead of putting on the Ape Trifecta (King Kong, Son of Kong, Mighty Joe Young ) as WWOR in New York used to do, I reached even further back and put on the Fleischer studio’s cartoon version of Gulliver’s Travels, which independent stations used to run because it was available and cheap.
Disney reportedly said that he could do better with his second-string animators, but I don’t think this film has anything to be ashamed of. the story and bits of business are superb – I love the way they approached the story and told it mainly through the unlikely eyes of the Liliput town crier. A lot of people complained about the mediocre songs, but I thought the idea of writing the love songs of Liliput abnd Blefuscu so that they could be combined into a single song was pretty damned clever.
In addition, despite Disney’s scorn, the film did amazingly well at the box office, not far behind Snow White and Seven Dwarfs. If Fleischer studios had continued in existence and could have safeguarded its animation treasures, this film might have continued to be the moneymaker Snow White was. But that’s a story for another time.
Also, despite Disney’s scorn, a lot of the animators WERE his second-string animators, or even his first string ones. (people moved around a lot in the animation business). And the voice of that POV town crier, Gabby, was Pinto Colvig – the voice of Goofy (among other Disney characters, and the very first Bozo the Clown.)
Great flick. A bit dated, but still well worth the watching.
Your reminder that an astronaut once strapped on diapers (reportedly) to travel 14 hours to pepper spray her love triangle adversary in a parking lot while wearing a wig and trenchcoat. In her car, investigators found hundreds of dollars in cash, print-outs of personal emails between Oefelein and Shipman (one of them also an astronaut), pepper spray, a knife, rubber tubing, gloves, a BB gun, a mallet and a computer disk that held images of bondage scenes.
Barbie is now available for rent. Watched it last night … it was great. Sags a bit in the middle, but totally worth watching.
I knew someone was going to bring that up!
I’m still willing to bet that woman was highly intelligent.
On Borrowed Time, from 1939, about an old man who captures Death in an apple tree. Five stars. I almost started crying at the end when the dog barked.
https://g.co/kgs/nWgvFp
I’m lying. I totally cried.
The Burial
Recommended.
A fairly standard courtroom drama, but very well done. Here is a major movie starring Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones and it appears to have gone straight to Prime Streaming instead of theaters. It’s based on(inspired by) a true story, but there are clearly tons of modifications to the real story to make it more dramatic. It’s well done, but while it is set in 1995, it almost feels like it was made back then as well.
Still, Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones are terrific.
Having now seen Paddington 2, I must conclude that it was a great family movie, possibly in the top ten of good family movies, maybe even top five. It had some really cool set pieces, like the characters wandering through a pop-up book. It was funny, it was heartwarming. It was not life-changing.
I haven’t seen Citizen Kane but I doubt the two can be compared. An apples to orange marmalade kind of thing.
I wanted to stay up for that on TCM but had to get up early today to finish prep for the family dinner. We are gathering today instead of Thursday. I have seen it before, and was interested in how they explained the effects used to make it look like Barrymore was walking.
I went to see Ridley Scott’s Napoleon last night. Overall I liked it, BUT
1.) They tried to cover Napoleon’s life from 1794 to his death in 1821, which is a pretty damned long stretch to try to show in only 2.5 hours (or even four hours, as his proposed extended TV version is supposed to do). Inevitably you end up with a period-hopping episodic treatment rather than a seamless coherent story. Suddenly Bonaparte is in Egypt. Why? When last we saw him, he was struggling with inadequate resources and a beseiged France. They wave it away with a single line about France striking at England through her colonial possessions, but the cut is pretty damned jarring and confusing. I think Scott couldn’t pass up the opportunity to show Napoleon with the Sphinx and Pyramids. I’m surprised he didn’t work in the Rosetta stone. They we’re whisked back to France…
Or Napoleon is one of three consuls in France after their coup. Next theng we see he’s the only consul, and declares himself emperor. What the hell happened to the other two?
As I say, it can’t be helped if you’re gong to try to cover such a broad period in so short a time. Richard Rodgers’ musical Rex suffered from the same problem, trying to show most of the reign of Henry VIII (and six queens) in the space of a couple of hours.
2.) Historical inacuracies (and unexpect4ed accuracies). The FRench critics have apparently been harping on these. I can see Scott starting off with Marie Antoinette being bloodily guillotined while Napoleon looks on – it’s showy and impressive and points out Napoleon’s rise with the French revolution. So I can forgive them putting Napoleon where he wasn’t, and showing Marie with a full head of fluffy hair (He wasn’t there, and they shaved her and put her in a mob cap). I can see them having Napoleon learning of Josephine’s death from a servant at her home, rather than (as he really did) from a newspaper he received at Elba – it’s more dramatic, and gives N extra motivation in returning to France. But there’s no excuse for the film’s getting Josephine and Napoleon’s birthdates wrong (it serves no dramatic purpose, and it’s easy to check).
I was surprised to see Tsar Alexander visiting Josephine. I didn’t realize that he had come to Paris and done that, but, upon checking the facts, I see that he did. It doesn’t matter if they had an affair or not. I’m just surprised they met. Alexander was reported appalled at how poorly she was being maintained.
3.) I don’t know if it was Ridley Scott’s intent, or if Joaquin Phoenix played it that way, or if it’s my sensitivity to the characters, but I was irresistably remind by Phoenix’s Napoleon of Donald Trump.
On the surface, that looks absurd. Napoleon was no “bone spur” warrior, but lead his own troops into battle, and was a superb tactician. He was literate and could deliver an eloquent speech. He was never elected to office, or lost an office in an election.
But the similarities are there:
– Both were highly charismatic characters who could persuade others to follow them in unorthodox and downright illegal operations. Napoleon talked his way onto a ship to return him to France, and persuaded those sent to arrest him to come over to his side (definitely true from the historical record.)
– Both were seen as uncouth barbarians unfit for office. He had no royal pedigree and was looked down on as an upstart commoner, and even marrying into royalty didn’t change that.
– Both were narcissistic and impetuous, couching their rationalizations for actions in terms of it being the best for the people or the country.
– Neither had any problem with upsetting the societal norms of government and succession. Napoleon arguably had an easier time, since he’d started out during a revolution that overthrew a centuiries-old manoarchy, but he went on to violate the rules of the republics he served.
Interesting movie, and well worth the watching.
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
I watched What’s Up, Hideous Sun Demon over the weekend. I’d read about this back in the 1980s in Cinefantastique, but the film wasn’t released on DVD until 2002, and I just saw a copy last weekend and picked it up.
I’d seen the original 1958 film The Hideous Sun Demon on TV back in the 1960s, but didn’t recall much of it. I still have the 1961 Nu-Card trading card of the movie
It’s basically a retelling of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. Or maybe The Wolfman, with the sun triggering the change into a monster rather than the moon. Scientist Gil McKenna gets exposed to a radioactive isotope that turns him into the monster (isn’t that always the case in 1950s movies?). Robert Clarke not only starred, but wrote, produced, and directed the film, which was shot on weekends near where he lived in the LA area. I haven’t see n the original film in ages, except for clips in It Came from Hollywood and Zackerley’s Horrible Horror where, as you’d expect, it was an exemplar of Bad Monster Movies. You also got to see co-star Patricia Manning’s non-skills at the piano, which she obviously isn’t playing. The hand motions don’t even fit the music.
A couple of guys bought the rights and re-dubbed it a la Woody Allen’s What’s Up, Tiger Lily An uncredited Jay Leno did the lead role (as he had in the similarly-treated 1958 monster film The Blob, the dubbed version of which was retitled Blobbermouth. The re-0dubbed Sun Demon is better and funnier than Blobbermouth, but that’s not really saying much.)
They shot an inane “framing” opening starring Clarke’s son Cam, and they re-used the original monster suit for some scenes, and actually made a couple of other Sun Demon costumes. That’s a lot of effort for a movie this bad. At least Susan Tyrell’s re-dubbed piano playing and singing fits Patricia Manning’s actions better that Patricia herself did.
Not recommended. Unless you and your friends are seriously drunk.
We enjoyed this movie also. I had never heard of it and just came across it by accident one Saturday and gave it a shot. Glad I did.
We watched Made in Italy (2020) yesterday. Liam Neeson and his real-life son Micheal Neeson own a home in Tuscany that they have abandoned after their wife/mother died. We enjoyed it - it was perfect for a cozy, quiet day on the couch.
I guess Amazon bought it, but you would think they would be pushing for Oscars for Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones, but I’ve heard nothing about this movie at all. My Dad told me about it.
The Crow
Recommended.
I haven’t seen The Crow since it fist came out on VHS. It’s pretty good, to be honest. A straight forward revenge plot, the only real twist being that the person seeking vengeance is resurrected from the dead to do so. Brandon Lee is good in the role and his death made the movie a must-see at the time. I think the movie is pretty good, but not amazing. Had he not died, I’m not sure it would be strongly remembered by a lot of people.
Anyway, it is quite good. I saw a review that said they liked how “the whole movie looked like a 90’s music video” and that is the truth.
Worth a viewing if you have never seen it.
I got to see Napoleon (2023) in IMAX. I loved it. See CalMeacham’s review upthread for a comprehensive overview. I agree with his points. Very jumpy-aroundy; I think it behooves one to already know a fair bit about Napoleon going in or you’re going to be a little lost. I was a little disappointed that the Battle of Egypt only took up about a minute and a half of screen time, but the battle of Waterloo was absolutely the best battle I’ve ever seen on film.
The oddest artistic choice I found was that in the entire movie every one speaks English. Every French, Russian, Austrian, Italian, Prussian speaks English - in the accent of whatever actor is reciting the lines. That’s fine with me - I even prefer that. I know that Napoleon spoke French, I don’t need to hear Joaquin Phoenix’s imitation of Inspector Clouseau to get it. BUT - there is one scene where two Austrians (I think) are talking and all of a sudden one of them says, in Austrian, with subtitles, “Is this a joke?” To which the other guy responds, in Austrian, with subtitles, “something, I can’t really remember,” but the point is … why? They are the only two lines not in English in the entire film. It kind of threw me.
I also just saw Napoleon today and I was really disappointed. It seemed so disjointed and flat. It needed a narrative through line to propel the story forward. Instead it was just jumping extremely quickly from one battle to another without any real explanation of what any of them meant which felt like reading a Wikipedia page of notable events in Napoleon’s life. “This battle was on this date. Then this battle was on this date. Then he was made consul after a coup. Then he was made emperor.” On and on but without any real explanation or weight to them. The Battle of Waterloo was incredible but the two hours until then were so dull.
The offspring’s fascination with Wes Anderson continues as we watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Anderson’s earlier films have a much clearer flow than his more recent stuff; Asteroid City, for all the whimsical fun it was, was ultimately a lot of nonsensical gibberish on a meta- and meta-meta- scale.
Anyhoo - greatly enjoyed the film, which Hackman pretty much carries.
I have to admit that I knew nothing about the battle of Austerlitz when I saw the film (despite the fact that Tolstoy included it in War and Peace – but it’s been a long time since I read that.) . It was a name to me, and I knew it was the site of one of his victories, and that they named a railway station in Paris after it. But no details. So I was willing to accept that Napoleon won by chasing the Russians and Austrians out onto the ice, where they were vulnerable to that ice breaking. Ridley Scott evidently found the images of men and horses plunging into the frozen lake through ice broken by cannon fire irresistably photogenic and dramatic.
But was it real? For a century it was generally believed to be, but then doubts crept in. Examination showed that the weather reports disagreed with the martial reports. The ice was too thin to support men, let alone horses. When the French drained the lake shortly thereafter they found not 20,000 bodies (as Tsar Alexander swore to), but three. And so on. Reality is frequently the enermy of the photographically impressive.
See also here:
That is the film that made me fall in love with Wes Anderson. And then recently I was watching The French Dispatch and thought, “Maybe I’m not a Wes Anderson superfan. Maybe I just love the Royal Tenenbaums.”
Well that’s not the only film of his that I liked, but he’s had a few that I didn’t like, and I’ve never liked any of them as much as TRT.