I’d say a B+.
Last night was “Dark Passage”, Bogie and Bacall.
Another film noir: “Scarlet Street”, with Edward G. Robinson (in an atypically milquetoast role), Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea. A well done movie for fans of the genre.
Thanks! I hope to see it.
My complaint about Guardians of the Galazy is the same one I have about a lot of movies these days - I feel like I should have a book with me while watching, so I can read for a bit while the action/chase scenes go on for about two and a half years.
We went to see John Wick this weekend. If you like action movies with lots of fight scenes, revenge movies, and/or Keanu Reeves, I would recommend this movie. If you’re looking for high-brow entertainment, not so much. I give it a three out of five.
Once again, I’m going to come to Keanu Reeves’ defense as an actor - he knows his limitations, and stays well within them.
The last two flicks I saw in a theater were Fury and Interstellar. Enjoyed them both. *Fury was a straight-up war flick. * Interstellar was interesting but was pointlessly long. Could have cut 30-45 minutes out of it without losing any plot.
Watched Maleficent a couple of days ago.
First movie I’ve seen starring Angelina Jolie and I guess I assumed she’d be, well, not very good. But I thought she did a great and campy job. It was a fun movie.
She was great, the special effects were great. But turning the plot around so much ruined it for me.
The plot holes and overall story line was really weak, I grant you that.
Tonight’s film noir was D.O.A., starring Edmond O’Brien. The guy has been in movies since I can remember.
Fury (2014) - Fury (2014) - IMDb
Fury was rated 8.0 by IMDB. That is an extremely high rating. I can’t remember the last time I disagreed with such a high rating. But, I’m afraid I just didn’t enjoy Fury at all.
I can understand why many people enjoyed it as a pure violent War movie. Brad Pitt is highly skilled at producing or starring in ultra-violent movies and he was listed as one of the Exec Producers. If you recall, he also produced Inglorious Basterds - an extremely ultra-violent war film.
Inglourious Basterds (2009) - Inglourious Basterds (2009) - IMDb
That film was rated 8.3 and I enjoyed it very much. The reason was that IMHO, Inglourious Basterds was a “complete” story. It contained several plot elements and took us through the full story.
It seems to me that Fury [spoiler] contains only two real locations. The first location is the inside of a German house that Brad enters with the newcomer to his tank crew.
The second location is Brad’s tank (named “Fury”). For the most part, Brad and his crew remained in Fury during the entire “fight to the death” sequence where Brad and his crew fought against approx 200 to 300 German soldiers.
The audience sees that the Germans are armed with maybe 20 to 30 weapons that were the German equivalent to the American Bazooka.
I’m guessing that most of those soldiers were SS. I’m not sure why, but I get a strong feeling the film maker wants the audience to believe most of those Nazis were SS. I’m also guessing Brad’s crew was outnumbered approx 50 to 1. Doesn’t it seem highly unlikely that 5 or 6 soldiers stuck inside an American tank would survive a fight to the death with 200 to 300 German soldiers?
Some of the Nazis were armed with the German equivalent to the American Bazooka. I think the Germans called their weapon a “Panzerfaust”. It seems overwhelmingly improbable the Americans could ever believe they had a chance to win that fight.
[/spoiler]
When it comes to the film’s action, Fury was very well done. However, As soon as I saw the opening screen, and Brad [spoiler] rides into view on a white horse and the camera spends a very, very long time focused on Brad riding into view, I groaned to myself and thought, "Oh no! Brad has finally fallen for his own hype and self-image of the lone hero on the white horse. How old is that image? Seems to me, it’s hundreds of years old. The lone hero on the white horse. I’m sorry. But, that was just kind of sickening.
Sure enough, one way or another, much of the rest of the film depicts Brad, the lone hero, slugging it out with the evil Nazis until the bitter end. The action was good. But the story was so similar to one of Stallone’s sickening movies that seems to say, “I’m the lone hero who will win in the end. Just watch me!” I’m very sorry to say this, but for me, this movie was just kind of sickening.
I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t go for this same plot line again. I’ve seen it so many times that I just have to say, "What a shame, that a great actor like Brad who has produced so many excellent films, now seems to have fallen for his own hype.
That was not Brad on the horse. It was a german soldier.
Last night we watched the 1945 noir “Detour”, with actors you never heard of either before or after that film was made. It would have been fine except for the scenery chewing.
(minor spoilers ahead)
Interstellar - It was very good, but not excellent. The beginning was pretty slow but I didn’t mind too much. I like how they leave a lot of information out and leave you wondering exactly what sort of state the USA and world are in. Then towards the middle and end the movie started getting jerky in it’s timeline. And the ending wasn’t that satisfying. Overall it was a mindblower and I’d watch it again.
Django Unchained - Love Tarantino movies for the most part. This one was quite good but not up to the level of Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. I think they spent way too much time with Leonardo. Also they didn’t get much mileage out of people’s reaction to seeing a black man on a horse, especially in the South. I guess the movie would have been much longer if they showed the reactions everywhere they went.
Just saw 42, the recent Jackie Robinson biopic, which was pretty good. I’d give it a B+. The abuse Robinson put up with from racist ballplayers and fans was pretty horrendous; Chadwick Boseman played him with a quiet, determined dignity that was very appealing, but you could also see his hunger to win. Harrison Ford chewed the scenery with great gruff enthusiasm as Branch Rickey, the Dodgers GM who put Robinson in the majors. It’s a very good-looking movie, too: the late Forties ballparks, uniforms, clothes and cars are all first-rate.
Favorite line:
[spoiler]The racist St. Louis Cardinals coach is taunting one of Robinson’s teammates and asks, “How’s it feel to be a nigger’s nigger?”
The Dodger replies, “I dunno, Ben - how’s it feel to be a redneck piece of shit?”[/spoiler]
When you complain about the “scenery chewing”, I’m not exactly sure I know what that means. But I have a strong recollection of that film as being one of the worst “noir” movies I had ever seen.
I found one definition of “scenery chewing” as follows:
http://www.theatrecrafts.com/glossary/pages/chewingthescenery.html
From the Maven’s Word of the Day at Random House page, written by Carol Braham
Chew (up the) scenery means ‘to act melodramatically; overact’. Usually, it’s in the context of a play or movie, but it can refer to an aunt of yours who is a frustrated actress. The connotation, either positive or negative, depends on whether the overacting is appropriate to the role or occasion. Here’s a recent review from the Topeka Capital-Journal: “Jeff Montague was surely Captain Hook in another life. He minces and chortles, preens and roars and chews the scenery. He is wonderful. It is the best work I have ever seen him do. It is, most likely, the most fun he has ever had on stage — and it shows.” And here’s a review of the 1994 film Interview With a Vampire: “While Tom Cruise chews the scenery as the irredeemably evil vampire Lestat, [Brad] Pitt quietly infuses the picture with a powerful melancholy.”
There is a movie titled “The Homesman” (2014) starring Hilary Swank and Tommy Lee Jones.
Very early into this film (about 10 minutes from the start), Hilary Swank’s character proposes marriage to another character who seems to be several years younger than Swank’s character. I’m sorry but I don’t know the name of that character or the actor who portrays him.
However, he is none too pleased to hear her propose marriage and he answers her with words to the effect of, “No! You are too bossy. In addition, you are also …” I cannot decipher what he says. I think his answer may contain the words, “plain” or “homely”. I’m just not sure. But I think he feels she is just too plain or homely to suit him.
Does anyone know just what he says to her? Did he call her “plain” or “homely”? I honestly couldn’t tell. But, I wanted to crawl right into the screen and smack him one in the head. I have only watched the first 10 minutes of this movie, but it sure does seem like it will be a great movie and it seems to me that she is a real peach while he is a real stupid cheese head because she is a real treasure - regardless of her looks and he should feel honored that she would propose to him.
So sad to realize that men can be such jerks towards women. Makes me want to apologize to all women on behalf of all the stupid jerky men.
Anyway, does anyone here know exactly what he said and whether my feeling towards him is correct? Does he deserve to have his face smacked?
IMDB rated this movie as 6.6. I regret that I have not as of yet seen the whole film. Can anyone tell me whether my feeling is correct insofar as this is an excellent film?
It sure does seem that way to me.
Poor Hilary always seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to acting assignments. Just once, I’d love to see her cast as the heroine-type character!
Dang! I missed the time limit cut off point for editing my post.
Here is the post I would have liked to have made. I’m very sorry to do this but if any mod sees this post, I sure would appreciate if they would delete the older version of my post. Here is the version I would have liked to have made:
There is a movie titled “The Homesman” (2014) starring Hilary Swank and Tommy Lee Jones.
Very early into this film (about 10 minutes from the start), Hilary Swank’s character proposes marriage to another character who seems to be several years younger than Swank’s character. I’m sorry but I don’t know the name of that character or the actor who portrays him.
However, he is none too pleased to hear her propose marriage and he answers her with words to the effect of, “No! You are too bossy. In addition, you are also …” I cannot understand just what he says next. I think his answer may contain the words, “plain” or “homely”. I’m just not sure. But I think he feels she is just too plain or homely to suit him.
Does anyone know just what he says to her? Does he call her “plain” or “homely”? I honestly couldn’t tell. But, I wanted to crawl right into the screen and smack him one in the head. I have only watched the first 10 minutes of this movie, but it sure does seem like it will be an excellent film and it seems to me that she is a real peach while he is a real stupid cheese head because she is a real treasure - regardless of her looks and he should feel honored that she would propose to him.
So sad to realize that men can be such jerks towards women and often do behave in that way. Makes me want to apologize to all women on behalf of all the stupid jerky men.
Anyway, does anyone know just what he says to her and whether my feeling about him are correct? Does he deserve to have his face smacked?
IMDB rated this film at 6.6. I regret that I have not as of yet seen the whole film. Can anyone tell me whether my feeling is correct insofar as this is an excellent film?
It sure does seem that way to me. It sure does seem like it deserves to be rated much higher than 6.6. Unfortunately, having only seen the first ten minutes, it’s just not fair for me to try and evaluate this film on the basis of having seen only the first ten minutes.
Poor Hilary always seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to acting assignments. Just once, I’d love to see her cast as the heroine-type character! She certainly is a great actor and it’s interesting that she appears in this film together with one of the greatest actors of them all - Meryl Streep.
Hilary Swank has two B. Actress Oscars and was the “hero” (well, one of them) in The Core.
I recall another movie starring TLJ. It also starred Cate Blanchett.
The Missing (2003)
This film was rated 6.5 by IMDB. It seems to me that it was a very good fit for TLJ. He just seems to be a natural for these kinds of settings.
In The Missing, he played the father of Cate Blanchett in 1885 New Mexico.
In The Homesman, TLJ plays in a similar era. It’s around 1885 again and he plays a similar kind of character in the Western USA.
Both films are rated very closely together. The Missing is rated 6.5 while The Homesman is rated 6.6.
It seems to me the biggest difference between these two films is Hilary Swank.
Cate Blanchett is one of the very best actresses working today. So, that speaks to me as to the quality of Hilary Swank. I’ve always thought she is a great actress.
So far, The Homesman looks like it will be a truly excellent film. I still haven’t finished it. But I’ve watched about a quarter of the movie and it just keeps getting better and better.
At this stage, it seems to me to be a much better film than The Missing. As far as I can tell, the biggest diff between the two films is Hilary Swank. She is just such a powerful actor, I just love her work. The first scene she plays with TLJ is just a powerhouse display of her ability as an actor.
I feel strongly compelled to get back to the film now. It seems to me that it’s becoming a most excellent film.