last movie you watched

[ForeverElvis]

Speaking of Clint, I saw Juror No. 2 at the cinema today, along with Anora, which is Sean Baker's latest film. Clint's latest, however, is a return to better form in many respects, and I think it's his best film in many years.

Nicholas Hoult stars as an alcoholic journalist who is called up for jury duty on a murder trial, although he has personal doubts about the case, due to being at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder. It's quite well-crafted and well-written, with Eastwood building tension and intrigue in ways that I found involving and thought-provoking.

Hoult is very good here, and he gives one of his better performances in recent years, as does the always reliable, Toni Collette, as the assistant D.A. It's a film that keeps moving in interesting directions up until the very end, and it's great to see Clint directing so assuredly at this late stage of his career.

Anora stars Mikey Madison in the film's titular role as a sex worker who marries the heir of a Russian oligarch, and proceeds to cause chaos within the family and his criminal organisation. She is driven to make something of herself, whilst Ivan, her young husband, who childishly tries to rebel against his father, would rather waste time and money.

Baker directs with dazzling amounts of flair, especially in the club scenes, which are reminiscent of Lorene Scafaria's 2019 film, Hustlers. Anora is almost as good. With the film moving in unexpected directions, as handlers and henchmen try to annul the wedding and bring Anora into line. Yet she is more than a match for anybody she encounters.

It's dazzling stuff, with the best use of a Take That song in any film to date. Baker directs with the same kind of zeal and attention to detail that has been a hallmark of his previous films. Madison is fantastic as Anora, or "Ani," as she's called throughout the film. It's a remarkable performance from a young actor who is captivating from the minute she's first seen on screen.

The wider cast is also very good, whilst Baker is sure to treat characters on the periphery in ways that make minor roles layered, interesting, and valuable. And this has been a hallmark of Baker's work in the past. It's just a bit too long, all the same. But this romantic fairytale in less than romantic settings is one of the year's best films.

I’m very disappointed that “Juror No. 2” is not getting a wide release. When I last checked, it was going to play in one theater in Toronto some 4500 kms east from me.

Very disheartening that a filmmaker of Eastwood‘s stature his movie is just tossed aside like that, considering that it could be his last .

[Walter Hale 4]

over here in AU , the SBS World movies channel (free-to-air) has been screening a number of War famous movies.

Right now(my friday arvo) they're playing one of the greatest, The Caine Mutiny, that starred Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, Fred MacMurray, and Jose Ferrer. This is a longtime favourite of mine

The Caine Mutiny

6:15PM - 8:30PM

Set aboard fictional minesweeper, the Caine, during World War II, rich kid Willis Seward Keith (Robert Francis) reports for duty fresh out of officer training school. He is shocked to discover that the ship's captain, Lt. Commander DeVriess (Tom Tully), has let discipline on the ship slide and allows his men to exhibit a casual attitude to their duties. What Keith fails to notice, however, is that the crew of the Caine are in fact excellent at their jobs. But life aboard changes drastically when DeVriess is replaced by veteran no-nonsense captain, Queeg (Humphrey Bogart).

War | USA | 1954 | PG


anyone here likes this film as much as I do?

Good one here by Danny EPPERSON



P.S. tomorrow the SBS World movies channel are airing THE GUNS OF NAVARONE

The Guns of Navarone

12:45PM - 3:35PM

Gregory Peck, Anthony Quinn and David Niven are Allied saboteurs assigned an impossible mission: infiltrate an impregnable Nazi-held island and destroy the two enormous long-range field guns that prevent the rescue of 2,000 trapped British soldiers.

War | USA | 1961 | PG

[Greystoke]

I saw Paddington in Peru at the cinema this morning, and much like the first two Paddington films, I enjoyed this instalment a great deal. In many respects, it's more of the same, with fantastic animation and Ben Whishaw voicing the titular bear with an abundance of charm.

Changing the setting to deepest, darkest, Peru, made for a refreshing change of pace from London, although the Brown family are along for the adventure, with Hugh Bonneville on fine form once again as Mr. Brown. And Emily Mortimer replacing Sally Hawking as Mrs. Brown.

Amusingly, the plotting is inspired by Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, with affectionate nods to Herzog's Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre, the Wrath of God. It's utterly charming stuff, although it doesn't quite match the first two films, but I enjoyed this a lot.

This afternoon I watched Time Cut, which is new to Netflix and is one of many banal and tame modern slashers that are going straight to streaming. This is also squarely within the "slash-up" subgenre, which is purportedly new, but it isn't really, considering the ways in which the slasher film has crossed genres before.

It begins with a Scream-style opening gambit, set in 2003, where a serial killer is on the loose and had killed the last of his victims. Twenty years later, the younger sister of the final victim stumbles across a time machine, which takes her back to 2003, where she tries to stop the killer.

Madison Bailey and Antonia Gentry star as the two sisters, and they're certainly likeble amidst lots of exposition, lame callbacks to 2003, and some very obvious plotting. When I say it's tame, it's largely bloodless and barely qualifies as a horror film, despite the narrative. It's also full of plot holes. Unchallenging stuff, certainly. And Time After Time did something similar to better effect. But it's a brisk enough 90 minutes, or so.

[mike edwards66]

After the huge disappointment - for me - of ‘Ripley’, I had high hopes for another of my favourite films transferred to TV, ‘The Day Of The Jackal’.

I’m struggling to get through the first episode. Awful.

[Greystoke]

Really tantalising stuff from Radiance Films about what to expect from them next year. I'm absolutely loving what this label is doing. Whilst the introduction of their first UHD releases is interesting. I believe Indicator are also releasing their first UHD titles in 2025, too.

Screenshot_20241108-233920~2.png

[Greystoke]

With Shane mentioning Dirty Harry, I thought I would watch an earlier Don Siegel crime film, in Madigan. It's one of those policier or detective films from the mid/late-sixties that features largely interchange leading roles -- Frank Sinatra could have played Madigan just as well as Richard Widmark did, and Widmark could have starred in The Detective instead of Sinatra, for example. Although the likes of Bullitt, The French Connection, and Dirty Harry set new standards for the genre.

Madigan isn't especially daring or adventurous, but when it comes to life, largely due to the location work in New York City, it's quite thrilling. Siegel directs these scenes with genuine immediacy, although the narrative, about two cops that have 48 hours to apprehended a criminal who stole their guns, grinds to a halt when their personal drama enters into the story.

The wives and girlfriends of the cops are all thankless roles, and do little around the periphery of the narrative crux. They're either fretting over what to wear, cooking, or yearning for company. Although there's more to the narrative than hunting down the criminal alone. With Henry Fonda and James Whitmore having a nice repartee as the Police Commissioner and Chief Inspector respectively.

It doesn't match Dirty Harry, but there's some great moments in Madigan, and I do think it's one of the better police films of the era. I also watched Les Diaboliques tonight, which is always great to revisit. This is such a stellar thriller, with brilliant performances from Vera Clouzot and Simone Signoret as the two women who conspire to murder. Clouzot, the wife, and Signoret, the mistress, of the school headmaster who mistreats and abuses everybody around him. Especially his sick wife, who has a heart condition. It's still one of the best films of its kind.

[Greystoke]

over here in AU , the SBS World movies channel (free-to-air) has been screening a number of War famous movies.

Right now(my friday arvo) they're playing one of the greatest, The Caine Mutiny, that starred Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, Fred MacMurray, and Jose Ferrer. This is a longtime favourite of mine

The Caine Mutiny

6:15PM - 8:30PM

Set aboard fictional minesweeper, the Caine, during World War II, rich kid Willis Seward Keith (Robert Francis) reports for duty fresh out of officer training school. He is shocked to discover that the ship's captain, Lt. Commander DeVriess (Tom Tully), has let discipline on the ship slide and allows his men to exhibit a casual attitude to their duties. What Keith fails to notice, however, is that the crew of the Caine are in fact excellent at their jobs. But life aboard changes drastically when DeVriess is replaced by veteran no-nonsense captain, Queeg (Humphrey Bogart).

War | USA | 1954 | PG


anyone here likes this film as much as I do?

Good one here by Danny EPPERSON



P.S. tomorrow the SBS World movies channel are airing THE GUNS OF NAVARONE

The Guns of Navarone

12:45PM - 3:35PM

Gregory Peck, Anthony Quinn and David Niven are Allied saboteurs assigned an impossible mission: infiltrate an impregnable Nazi-held island and destroy the two enormous long-range field guns that prevent the rescue of 2,000 trapped British soldiers.

War | USA | 1961 | PG

I haven't seen The Caine Mutiny in a while, but it's a splendid film. Bogart is great here. So is Fred MacMurray. The last time I watched The Guns of Navarone, however, was around Christmas last year. The 4K Blu-ray release is very good. It's a big favourite of mine, too.

[pmp]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

Tonight, though, I returned to Hitchcock's Saboteur, which I haven't seen in a long time. It's not top grade Hitchcock, but it is extremely entertaining, with Robert Cummings incorrectly suspected of sabotaging an airplane factory. Like much of Hitchcock, the format is a series of episodes and set-pieces, leading to the inevitable climax at a famous landmark. Robert Cummings is good as the young man at the centre of events, although Priscilla Lane is in a pretty thankless role as the woman falling in love with him. Rather like Foreign Correspondent, it has many elements of his British thrillers of the 1930s, which he rather left behind a year or so later, and didn't really return to until Frenzy in 1972. The blu ray transfer is one of the better ones, too.

[Greystoke]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

Tonight, though, I returned to Hitchcock's Saboteur, which I haven't seen in a long time. It's not top grade Hitchcock, but it is extremely entertaining, with Robert Cummings incorrectly suspected of sabotaging an airplane factory. Like much of Hitchcock, the format is a series of episodes and set-pieces, leading to the inevitable climax at a famous landmark. Robert Cummings is good as the young man at the centre of events, although Priscilla Lane is in a pretty thankless role as the woman falling in love with him. Rather like Foreign Correspondent, it has many elements of his British thrillers of the 1930s, which he rather left behind a year or so later, and didn't really return to until Frenzy in 1972. The blu ray transfer is one of the better ones, too.

I keep meaning to get hold of Sorry, Wrong Number on Blu-ray. It's a film I've always liked and I think I like it a lot more than you do. We're certainly in accord with Saboteur, though, which really is quite entertaining.

Tonight I watched Disturbia, which I'm sure we've discussed before. And I watched Immaculate again, which I saw earlier in the year when it was on release, and thought it was worth another look.

I'm not sure when I last watched Disturbia, and coincidentally, it's a remake of Rear Window, with some really good ideas. And it had been long enough since I last saw it, that it was pretty fresh, other than the basic plot being the same as the aforementioned Hitchcock film. Here, with Shia LaBeouf in the James Stewart role, albeit as a teenager, who believes his neighbour is a murderer.

The use of an ankle tag to keep him within the confines of his own property was a nice touch that brought the film up-to-date, along with new technology and some trusty binoculars. The voyeuristic aspects are quite good, although it's a bit leering at times, but this is still one of Shia's more likeable performances.

It does stretch credulity and the end is hammered home in a final act that's too over the top, but there's a few good red herrings, and it never outstays its welcome. The same is true of Immaculate, which in some ways takes the same basic plot of Rosemary's Baby, and puts it in a convent instead of an apartment block.

There's also similarities to Revelation, from 2001, and it would certainly be a good companion piece to The First Omen. It's a great looking film, too. The sets are quite excellent, and it's shot in such a way that builds a sense of dread and unease. With some effective scares, too.

Sydney Sweeney gives a fine performance, and the film goes into Grand Guignol territory in the final act, whilst the subtext about women's bodies and institutional scandal is timely. It might also make for a good companion piece to Saint Maud, which I thought was terrific.

[pmp]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

Tonight, though, I returned to Hitchcock's Saboteur, which I haven't seen in a long time. It's not top grade Hitchcock, but it is extremely entertaining, with Robert Cummings incorrectly suspected of sabotaging an airplane factory. Like much of Hitchcock, the format is a series of episodes and set-pieces, leading to the inevitable climax at a famous landmark. Robert Cummings is good as the young man at the centre of events, although Priscilla Lane is in a pretty thankless role as the woman falling in love with him. Rather like Foreign Correspondent, it has many elements of his British thrillers of the 1930s, which he rather left behind a year or so later, and didn't really return to until Frenzy in 1972. The blu ray transfer is one of the better ones, too.

I keep meaning to get hold of Sorry, Wrong Number on Blu-ray. It's a film I've always liked and I think I like it a lot more than you do. We're certainly in accord with Saboteur, though, which really is quite entertaining.

Tonight I watched Disturbia, which I'm sure we've discussed before. And I watched Immaculate again, which I saw earlier in the year when it was on release, and thought it was worth another look.

I'm not sure when I last watched Disturbia, and coincidentally, it's a remake of Rear Window, with some really good ideas. And it had been long enough since I last saw it, that it was pretty fresh, other than the basic plot being the same as the aforementioned Hitchcock film. Here, with Shia LaBeouf in the James Stewart role, albeit as a teenager, who believes his neighbour is a murderer.

The use of an ankle tag to keep him within the confines of his own property was a nice touch that brought the film up-to-date, along with new technology and some trusty binoculars. The voyeuristic aspects are quite good, although it's a bit leering at times, but this is still one of Shia's more likeable performances.

It does stretch credulity and the end is hammered home in a final act that's too over the top, but there's a few good red herrings, and it never outstays its welcome. The same is true of Immaculate, which in some ways takes the same basic plot of Rosemary's Baby, and puts it in a convent instead of an apartment block.

There's also similarities to Revelation, from 2001, and it would certainly be a good companion piece to The First Omen. It's a great looking film, too. The sets are quite excellent, and it's shot in such a way that builds a sense of dread and unease. With some effective scares, too.

Sydney Sweeney gives a fine performance, and the film goes into Grand Guignol territory in the final act, whilst the subtext about women's bodies and institutional scandal is timely. It might also make for a good companion piece to Saint Maud, which I thought was terrific.

I really like Disturbia, and searching it on here tells me I last saw it back in 2021. Coincidentally, one of the things I mentioned back then was the objectification of the female neighbour in her swimsuit during the first half hour, which I'm guessing is what you're referring to in your own post. It's odd how society has changed in such a way that films from twenty years ago have dated more in that regard than something made 60 years ago. That said, there were similar issues in Dirty Harry, too.

[Greystoke]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

Tonight, though, I returned to Hitchcock's Saboteur, which I haven't seen in a long time. It's not top grade Hitchcock, but it is extremely entertaining, with Robert Cummings incorrectly suspected of sabotaging an airplane factory. Like much of Hitchcock, the format is a series of episodes and set-pieces, leading to the inevitable climax at a famous landmark. Robert Cummings is good as the young man at the centre of events, although Priscilla Lane is in a pretty thankless role as the woman falling in love with him. Rather like Foreign Correspondent, it has many elements of his British thrillers of the 1930s, which he rather left behind a year or so later, and didn't really return to until Frenzy in 1972. The blu ray transfer is one of the better ones, too.

I keep meaning to get hold of Sorry, Wrong Number on Blu-ray. It's a film I've always liked and I think I like it a lot more than you do. We're certainly in accord with Saboteur, though, which really is quite entertaining.

Tonight I watched Disturbia, which I'm sure we've discussed before. And I watched Immaculate again, which I saw earlier in the year when it was on release, and thought it was worth another look.

I'm not sure when I last watched Disturbia, and coincidentally, it's a remake of Rear Window, with some really good ideas. And it had been long enough since I last saw it, that it was pretty fresh, other than the basic plot being the same as the aforementioned Hitchcock film. Here, with Shia LaBeouf in the James Stewart role, albeit as a teenager, who believes his neighbour is a murderer.

The use of an ankle tag to keep him within the confines of his own property was a nice touch that brought the film up-to-date, along with new technology and some trusty binoculars. The voyeuristic aspects are quite good, although it's a bit leering at times, but this is still one of Shia's more likeable performances.

It does stretch credulity and the end is hammered home in a final act that's too over the top, but there's a few good red herrings, and it never outstays its welcome. The same is true of Immaculate, which in some ways takes the same basic plot of Rosemary's Baby, and puts it in a convent instead of an apartment block.

There's also similarities to Revelation, from 2001, and it would certainly be a good companion piece to The First Omen. It's a great looking film, too. The sets are quite excellent, and it's shot in such a way that builds a sense of dread and unease. With some effective scares, too.

Sydney Sweeney gives a fine performance, and the film goes into Grand Guignol territory in the final act, whilst the subtext about women's bodies and institutional scandal is timely. It might also make for a good companion piece to Saint Maud, which I thought was terrific.

I really like Disturbia, and searching it on here tells me I last saw it back in 2021. Coincidentally, one of the things I mentioned back then was the objectification of the female neighbour in her swimsuit during the first half hour, which I'm guessing is what you're referring to in your own post. It's odd how society has changed in such a way that films from twenty years ago have dated more in that regard than something made 60 years ago. That said, there were similar issues in Dirty Harry, too.

In this instance, it's the camera gaze that makes it leering. It goes beyond the character being a voyeur and enjoying what he sees, and being more about the director making sure the camera is objectifying. Sometimes, there can be a fine line in this regard, and it is the swimming pool scenes in particular that I'm referring to. I think some of the shots did the same thing one too many times.

[Greystoke]

I listened to the latest episode of the Extras podcast, with George Feltenstein discussing Warner Archive's 4K release of The Searchers, and he sounded quite firm in saying that future 4K releases won't affect their regular output. With the notion being that 4K releases will be reserved for major titles or films shot on larger formats that would benefit from being on 4K.

Feltenstein suggested that they might release 4 titles on 4K next year, which sounds good to me, and seems to be a similar pattern to that of Radiance with their plans for 4K. I guess we'll see what transpires, but I feel as though 2025 is going to be another great year for movies on physical media. January is already very tantalising.

[Walter Hale 4]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

I keep meaning to get hold of Sorry, Wrong Number on Blu-ray. It's a film I've always liked and I think I like it a lot more than you do.

i would tend to agree with pmp but for different reasons as i used to be a huge fan of the movie ever since the 1980's when i watched the first time. However my last viewing of Sorry, Wrong Number back in april this year, i found the flashbacks somewhat tedious than what the overall storyline projects.
Perhaps it's just me, based on watching it numerous times, but the various flashback sequences stretched the storyline, even though the film runs 90 minutes.

[ForeverElvis]

I watched a rather obscure Elizabeth Taylor film the other day - The Girl Who Had Everything (1953).

Starring Taylor, William Powell, Gig Young and Fernando Lamas. With James Whitmore and directed by Richard Thorpe.

After Taylor transformed from a child actress to adult roles with Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951) and Ivanhoe (1952) you’d think MGM would continue casting her in A-pictures.

I don’t think there was a more beautiful looking actress in the early 1950’s. MGM clearly knew that and in between these three famous films she appeared in a number of B-pictures made to capitalize on her looks.

The Big Hangover (1950)
Callaway Went Thataway (1951)
Love is Better Than Ever (1952)
The Girl Who Had Everything (1953)

And number of others before Giant (1956) and her most famous series of films thru 1966.

The Girl Who Had Everything (1953) barely runs 70 minutes. The story of a rich young woman giving up a good man for the adventure of a bad man.

There are conversations in ritzy homes, pools and country clubs where Taylor brushes aside good advice and warnings. She almost marries the gangster but fate steps in and she goes home with Dad.

That’s it.

She looks great but the script has nothing . No one acts very well but, they have nothing to work with.

Not recommended unless you’re curious. At least it isn’t slow.

[pmp]

Yesterday, I watched Sorry Wrong Number, with Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster. One of those films you hear so much about and then watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I found it surprisingly tedious, and didn't think even Oscar-nominated Stanwyck was on particularly good form, especially in the present day scenes.

I keep meaning to get hold of Sorry, Wrong Number on Blu-ray. It's a film I've always liked and I think I like it a lot more than you do.

i would tend to agree with pmp but for different reasons as i used to be a huge fan of the movie ever since the 1980's when i watched the first time. However my last viewing of Sorry, Wrong Number back in april this year, i found the flashbacks somewhat tedious than what the overall storyline projects.
Perhaps it's just me, based on watching it numerous times, but the various flashback sequences stretched the storyline, even though the film runs 90 minutes.

The reason for that is because the original radio play was 30 minutes of Mrs. Stevenson trying to get someone to take her seriously about the phone call she overheard. It takes place entirely in her bedroom. There's no flashbacks and no back story at all. All of that was added for the film.

[pmp]

Over the last couple of nights, I've taken a look at the Indicator Samuel Fuller releases.

Tonight I watched Scandal Sheet (1952), which is a decent little thriller about a tabloid newspaper in New York that investigates the murder of a woman - except that the murderer is already known to the paper. The three leads, Broderick Crawford, John Derek and Donna Reed, are all on fine form here, even if Reed doesn't get that much to do. It's a well-paced noirish thriller, clocking in at 80 minutes or so, and is well worth a look. It's based on a novel by Fuller.

It Happened in Hollywood comes from fifteen years earlier, and is a rather sentimental film about a western star that is dropped from his film studio as silents transition to sound. As he struggles personally, he keeps getting contacted by a young fan who was a patient in a kid's hospital he visited before his downfall. The film is most famous because of the "Hollywood party" sequence, which is made up of lookalikes and stand-ins of real actors. It's a cute movie, i guess, if you're up for a very sappy hour. Richard Dix stars as the fading film star, but I confess that I've always had a problem with him as an actor, and never really seen how he managed to maintain a career for as long as he did. I'm not sure why it's billed on the web as a comedy, as it's certainly not that, and the synopsis online suggests it's a Star is Born type of narrative, and it's not really that either. It's fine, but nothing to get excited about.

[pmp]

Tonight I finally got around to the Warner Archive release of Hitchcock's "Stage Fright," a rather odd film in the director's career, and one that tends to divide opinion thanks to a device that I can't reveal here without spoilers. In many respects, it feels more like the Hitchcock of the 30s, and not altogether successful (although entertaining enough), but who can turn down a cast including Marlene Dietrich (singing a signature number), Richard Todd, Jane Wyman, Alistair Sim, Joyce Grenfell, Sybil Thorndyke and Michael Wilding? There are some odd moments in the blu ray where the picture and sound aren't quite in synch. It only lasts for a few seconds at a time, but it's quite rare for an Warner Archive release to have an issue - unless it was in the film as released, of course.

Last night, I saw Pendulum, which was showing on Talking Pictures. This is a pretty routine 1960s police drama starring George Peppard as a detective accused of killing his wife. It's solid stuff, but it could have done with a twist or two, rather than just following through on the story as could have been predicted from the first fifteen minutes.

[Walter Hale 4]

I saw the British Movie-Musical Stardust (1974) yesterday. It starred David Essex (then riding a crest on a wave both as actor and singer), Adam Faith, Larry Hagman and even cameos by Marty Wilde and Keith Moon!

Stardust was the sequel to "That'll be the Day" but wasn't nearly as good. I think the producers jumped the era's sharply because That'll be the day was meant to depict late 50's and done a great job at that, but Stardust seemed to be all over the place. The film had some moronic scenes one where Essex is sitting in a bathtub fully clothed and another where Essex has bedded two naked women and hums Eeny, meeny, miny, moe at their boobsies

Anyone here seen either Stardust or That'll be the Day ?

Spoiler alert...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072201/

[rocknroller]

I went to see gladiator 2 the other night, not as good as the original but really enjoyed it, worth seeing on the big screen.

[pmp]

I saw the British Movie-Musical Stardust (1974) yesterday. It starred David Essex (then riding a crest on a wave both as actor and singer), Adam Faith, Larry Hagman and even cameos by Marty Wilde and Keith Moon!

Stardust was the sequel to "That'll be the Day" but wasn't nearly as good. I think the producers jumped the era's sharply because That'll be the day was meant to depict late 50's and done a great job at that, but Stardust seemed to be all over the place. The film had some moronic scenes one where Essex is sitting in a bathtub fully clothed and another where Essex has bedded two naked women and hums Eeny, meeny, miny, moe at their boobsies

Anyone here seen either Stardust or That'll be the Day ?

Spoiler alert...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072201/

I have seen it, but not for a very long time, and I don't remember liking the sequel much!

Tonight I saw Turn Me On, an interesting low-ish budget indie on Amazon, starring Nick Robinson and Bel Powley as a young couple living in some kind of facility or compound in a dystopian future, whether they willingly take their "vitimin" each day, not knowing that it erases all emotions. One day, the woman, Joy, has to leave off her vitimin for health reasons, and suddenly gets a glimpse of what she has been missing. When she persuades her partner, Will, to leave it off, too, they discover sex. Their next move is to encourage other people in compound to do the same.

It's a small cast, and low budget, but it's a quirky little movie, with a nice sense of humour. Perhaps it's a little two low-key, but it works well, and it's always nice to see Robinson in a decent role. He never seems to have quite made the most of his talents. Maybe 100 minutes is a little too long for the material, but it's an enjoyable way to spend an evening, and it's nice to see something a little different.

[pmp]

Tonight's movie was the Roger Corman film The Haunted Palace. It's generally classed as part of the Edgar Allan Poe cycle, but there's more of Lovecraft here, despite the title. It's longer than most of the other movies in the cycle, clocking in at 90 minutes, and it's also one of the best. It has a slightly different feel to the previous movies, although it's hard to put your finger on just what is different. But Price is excellent in a dual way (even if both characters are in the same body), and switches from one to the other without somewhat less scenery chewing than in the final act of Pit and the Pendulum. It's also good to see Lon Chaney Jr in a good role, too. The Arrow blu ray is excellent, and there's a nice few extras on it, too, including an interview with Corman about the film.

[pmp]

Tonight I saw the 2024 remake of Salem's Lot. I knew reviews were bad, but I didn't think it would be this bad. But it is. Firstly, it looks like a cheap daytime soap, with no atmosphere whatsoever. The script is no better, removing the human elements that make Stephen King's small town horror novels so great. It's like a Wikipedia summary. I feel sorry for the actors - they have nothing to work with, and the gravitas that James Mason and Lew Ayres brought to their roles in the 70s version badly missing. Avoid at all costs.

[pmp]

The "small town" horror novels of the 1970s through to the 1990s seem to have been notoriously difficult to adapt for the screen - as the new version of Salem's Lot proved last night. Somewhat more successful is Ghost Story, a 1981 movie version of the novel by Peter Straub. Straub wrote some wonderful horror thrillers, even if they are somewhat "dense" in their writing style. But Floating Dragon is excellent, and very similar in nature to Stephen King's "IT," although it was written before it. Shadowlands is an irrestistable story of magic, and Mystery is one of the best crime novels you'll ever read. However, despite the plaudits, the novel of Ghost Story isn't one of his best. It's convuluted, slow-moving, and requires the reader to be willing to read two hundred pages about one lot of characters, and then wait another hundred pages before meeting them again. The 1981 film, which I saw again tonight, stars Fred Astaire, John Houseman, Douglas Fairbanks Jr, and Melvyn Douglas as four old men with a secret from their youth which is coming back to haunt them. If the book is overly complex, it's fair to say that the film is overly simple, but it still works very well for the most part, and it's great to see these four great stars getting a chance to star in a feature film so late in the game. In many respects, it's a companion piece to the superior The Changeling (which also stars Melvyn Douglas). The problem with Ghost Story, though, is that it isn't particularly scary, but the performances are good and the photography by Jack Clayton (who directed possibly the best cinematic ghost story of all time, The Innocents) is excellent. The blu ray looks great, and there's an extended interview with Peter Straub as part of the bonus features.

[LSP-4445]

I went to see gladiator 2 the other night, not as good as the original but really enjoyed it, worth seeing on the big screen.

To me everything looked fake aka digital aka CGI overkill
The original is a classic this is definately not…..imo
And speaking of new films I do wonder why movies like Terrifer 3 is even made…….. pure garbage.
Maybe im getting old for new movies as I rather wanna watch 80s/90s titles
like Die Hard and Leon again.

[pmp]

I went to see gladiator 2 the other night, not as good as the original but really enjoyed it, worth seeing on the big screen.

To me everything looked fake aka digital aka CGI overkill
The original is a classic this is definately not…..imo
And speaking of new films I do wonder why movies like Terrifer 3 is even made…….. pure garbage.
Maybe im getting old for new movies as I rather wanna watch 80s/90s titles
like Die Hard and Leon again.

Terrified 3 has done remarkably well at the box office. That's why it's made.

As for CGI, I don't think it has improved anything. When I went through the Harry Potter films a few years back, there's the third or fourth film when it just takes over, and the magic has gone.

No CGI in Rynox, which I saw tonight. Made in 1931, it's the earliest surviving film by Michael Powell, and featured in the new BFI blu ray set of his quota quickies. Not a great film, but a cool piece of cinema history.