last movie you watched

[ForeverElvis]

Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.

I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.

I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.

The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.

OHMSS
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.

The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.

But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.

Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.

I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.

The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.

I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.

Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.

It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.

If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.

It's easy to appreciate and understand why there was little faith in Lazenby, because nobody would have gone to see a film starring George Lazenby under other circumstances. Bond was a draw as a character and as a franchise even at this stage, and whilst knives were sharpened beforehand, it was warranted. In respect to him, at least.

With regards to the dubbing sequence, this is something that was of its time. It's stupid and hokey, but it was done for the same reasons in more film this one. Physically, I think he was passable in some of the action sequences. But little more than that. Especially with a story that required more than Lazenby had to offer. The producers fumbled on this one, even though replacing Connery was going to be challenging in many respects.

With regards to Diamonds are Forever, or a follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, this originally was planned as a continuation, with Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, but it went through numerous rewrites and changes of plot, location, altered sequences, etc. Moving from Southeast Asia to London, with scenes on a Victorian steam train, a showdown at a hydroelectric power plant all written, then rewritten. And the film does have an uneven quality, hinting at how many directions the screenplay was being pulled in.

Great film posters, thank you keninlincs!

I used to be a big Bond-fan until the end of the Brosnan-era. After Craig took over, the fascination ended abruptly... My favorite Bond-movie is "Goldfinger". If Connery would have played in "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" this would be my absolute number one. Lazenby was not that bad, but he couldn't fill these big footsteps - and they didn't let him. From the first second he was a replacement only, although I absolutely love his first line: "That wouldn’t happen with the other guy...". In the German version he even was dubbed by the same voice actor than Sean Connery: G.G. Hoffmann (one of - if not THE - best German voice actor of all time, he also dubbed William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk).

I'm glad, that they chose a total different type of actor to take Bond to the 70s. Roger Moore was perfect for this time period and I really enjoy his Bond movies with all this excitement, exotic places, bond gimmicks, stunning girls (Britt Ekland ), crazy bad guys (Jaws!) and all this British humor. They don't make them like this anymore. Dalton was okay in his first movie and terrible in his second. "License to kill" was a stupid experiment to transform a Bond-movie into a serious thriller - it was a sure flop.

Thanks god, they returned to the old formula with Brosnan as Bond. Brosnan was the perfect choice, a mixture of Connery (coolness but also cruelty) and Moore (humor and adventurousness) and such a womanizer (with Bond-Girls like Izabella Scorupco, Denise Richards, Rosamund Pike, Halle Berry, and many more...), too. "Goldeneye" was the first bond-movie I saw on the big screen - this was excitement pure, it will always be one of my favorite bond-movies ever. Unfortunately after that it became less and less enjoyable. "Die Another Day" was a terrible mistake and put an end to the lighthearted Bond-movies.

But it became worse: they cast Daniel Craig - who would be absolute perfect as the "bad guy" but not at all as British secret agent Commander James Bond (I'm not talking about the books, but the on-screen-legend created by Terence Young, Sean Connery and Roger Moore)... They accomplished what they failed to do before with "License To Kill": turning Bond into a run-of-the-mill dark thriller like "Jason Bourne". They tried hard to bring back some Bond elements in the last outings (if I remember correct, Craig asked them to do so), but for me it's not the same anymore...

There always seems to be two camps in the Bond world. Those that prefer the characterization and tone of the films to be closer to Flemings creation; Dr No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS, SF and those whose preference is the comic-strip, lighthearted Bond; TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK and those the ones that fall between; YOLT, LALD, TMWTGG, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and SP.

Movies are subjective and Bond is not immune. All the films are well-made and well intentioned but there are more misfires during the Moore era than at anytime, Imho of course.

And I must disagree Licence to Kill is one of the very best in the series as is Casino Royale and Skyfall.

[pmp]

I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.

Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.

[pmp]

I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.

Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.

I hadn't seen Meteor probably since the days of VHS, but I don't think I'll be likely to watch it again soon. I am a big fan of Shadow of a Doubt, though. I love the feeling for time and place and, as you've said, how unobtrusive Hitchcock is here. It's very well written, and whilst muted somewhat, I think the climax works better for me than it does you.

Has Park Chan-wook’s 2013 remake or reworking, Stoker, come up in conversation here? I think it's worth seeing, although it's familiar in too many ways, and isn't nearly as sharp as Park's best work. And it isn't nearly as good as Shadow of a Doubt for that matter.

..

I didn't realise it was a remake. I might give it a look at some point.

[keninlincs]

Last night i watched "Return of the vampire" that Shane recently mentioned,i rate the film quite highly and think Andreas's werewolf makeup was excellent as was Bela Lugosi,who seemed much more at ease in his role.Next up was another Hammer revisit to a film that should not work but which i have always enjoyed,the uncut version of "The legend of the 7 golden vampires" pure Hammer and Shaw brother's hokum,strangely enjoyayable.Peter Cushing was pure class! out acting the entire crew with ease.

[keninlincs]

41Mhy7eFFLL._AC_UL600_SR429,600_.jpg

Tonights viewing was a Hammer double bill, both films starring the wonderful Bette Davis.
First up was "The nanny"from 1965 quite a tense thriller about a nanny who is harboring a dark secret,excellent acting from Ms Davis,almost as good as she was in "Whatever happened to baby Jane?"

Next up was "The anniversary" from 1968 a black comedy about the matriarch of a dysfuntional family on the annual family anniversay get together,choas ensues,worth a watch even if just to watch Bette in color co ordinated eye patches.

The_Anniversary_(film)_poster.jpg

[pmp]

Last night i watched "Return of the vampire" that Shane recently mentioned,i rate the film quite highly and think Andreas's werewolf makeup was excellent as was Bela Lugosi,who seemed much more at ease in his role.

Yes, Lugosi is very good here, even if there is the inevitable close-up of the eyes every so often!

[pmp]

Tonight I saw "Daniel Isn't Real," which I'm rather surprised hasn't popped up here before. The movie stars Miles Robbins (son of Tim) and Patrick Schwarzenegger (son of Arnie) in a film about a young man who brings his childhood imaginary friend back from the purgatory where he had put him when he was a kid and had become a bit too dangerous. Except now, as an adult, he's even more dangerous. I went into this a bit warily, as I think we should be beyond making horror movies out of mental health issues, and this has been advertised as a schizophrenic-goes-nuts movie. Luckily, it doesn't really go there, with it going into trippy Lovecraftian territory instead. Miles Robbins is superb as the angst-ridden student at the heart of the film, even if Schwarzenegger is maybe over-egging it as the "Daniel" of the title. It borrows heavily from other films, not least the many schizophrenic-based horror movies of the past, but it also reminded me of Nowhere by Gregg Araki (which I must rewatch) and even the body-horror of Society, but thankfully not as stomach-churning. The booklet contains a pretentious essay which waffles on in academic fashion about how the film is really about toxic masculinity and other nonsense, whereas it's just a modest film with a modest budget that's extremely entertaining, even if it doesn't quite know how to explain who or what Daniel actual is. Recommended. I think it might be on Sky Cinema - it certainly was at one point. Otherwise, the blu ray is issued by Arrow.

[keninlincs]

This morning the wife was up early for work so i watched ànother 2 Hammer films from my collection
First up was "Terror of the Tongs"from 1961 and starrjng Christopher Lee as the leader of the Red Dragon Tongs, opium traders sex and people traffickers and all, round crooks,interessting to see Roger Delgado in a supporting role,he was better known as The Master in Doctor Who.

images.jpeg

Next up was"To the devil a daughter" from 1976 starring ...
Christopher Lee
Richard Widmark
Denholm Elliot
Natasha Kinski
Honor Blackman
AnthonyValentine
Hammer horror certainly assembled a fine cast for their filmed Version of the Dennis Wheatley classic.?
American expatriate occult writer John Verney (Widmark) is asked by Henry Beddows (Elliot) to pick up his daughter Catherine (Kinski) from London Heathrow Airport. Catherine is a member of the Children of the Lord, a mysterious heretical religious order based in Bavaria that was founded by excommunicated Roman Catholic priest Michael Rayner (Lee). Catherine's deceased mother was part of the order, and had arranged for her daughter to be brought up as a member of the order. Once Catherine arrives in London, Beddows then insists that she stays with Verney for the time being. The order, however, under Rayner, makes all efforts to get Catherine back and uses black magic to stop Verney as he protects her. Verney learns that the order really harbours a group of practicing Satanists, who have prepared Catherine to become an avatar of Astaroth upon her eighteenth birthday. Upon learning that Verney has discovered his secret, Rayner kills off Verney's occult writer friends while in the midst of retrieving Catherine from Verney. Using his knowledge of the occult, Verney battles the priest and his henchmen in order to rescue Catherine, who was taken back by Rayner. As Rayner prepares to baptise Catherine in blood, Verney manages to save Catherine by knocking the priest unconscious and carrying her out of the circle of blood created by Rayner.
A great ending to Hammer films horror cycle of the 50s,60s and 70s.

to-the-devil-a-daughter-poster.jpg

[mike edwards66]

Antebellum - intriguing, if misleading, trailer - awful movie - like a bad version of Fantasy Island. First half an hour, the set up, is pretty good, goes downhill rapidly from there. Avoid.

[pmp]

Talking of Hammer, I just bought Warner Archive’s release of Dracula, or The Horror of Dracula, on Blu-ray, along with their new release of Sergeant York. Which comes from a new 4K restoration.

I already have the Lions Gate Dracula Blu-ray, which includes the long lost Japanese edits, seamlessly branched, incidentally. The Warner Archive release is the U.S. release, but they've remastered and enriched the image, with the colour timing and detail very much improved to my eyes. From the caps below, at least. I'm eager to see what it looks like in motion.

I saw a comparison video somewhere - maybe even on here? - and the difference was startling.

Talking of restorations, I just tried to buy Dr X from WowHD and they are currently sold out. But it's something I will hunt down.

I picked up "The New Kids" (1985) cheap(ish) in CEX yesterday and watched it tonight. It falls very much into the rather unpleasant juvenile delinquent cycle of the 1980s, but oddly is surprising non-grisly when it comes to on-screen violence. Most of it is implied, which must be the reason for the 15 certificate. This is a Sean Cunningham film, and it's decent enough, if somewhat ugly, but not something I'm likely to ever watch again, and so it will go on the eBay pile! Parts of it are very over-the-top, including James Spader's performance as the leader of the gang which is, by turns, rather reptilian and rather camp. The real star of the show is actually Homer the goose, who really should have got an award!

[keninlincs]

Talking of Hammer, I just bought Warner Archive’s release of Dracula, or The Horror of Dracula, on Blu-ray, along with their new release of Sergeant York. Which comes from a new 4K restoration.

I already have the Lions Gate Dracula Blu-ray, which includes the long lost Japanese edits, seamlessly branched, incidentally. The Warner Archive release is the U.S. release, but they've remastered and enriched the image, with the colour timing and detail very much improved to my eyes. From the caps below, at least. I'm eager to see what it looks like in motion.

I saw a comparison video somewhere - maybe even on here? - and the difference was startling.

Talking of restorations, I just tried to buy Dr X from WowHD and they are currently sold out. But it's something I will hunt down.

I picqked up "The New Kids" (1985) cheap(ish) in CEX yesterday and watched it tonight. It falls very much into the rather unpleasant juvenile delinquent cycle of the 1980s, but oddly is surprising non-grisly when it comes to on-screen violence. Most of it is implied, which must be the reason for the 15 certificate. This is a Sean Cunningham film, and it's decent enough, if somewhat ugly, but not something I'm likely to ever watch again, and so it will go on the eBay pile! Parts of it are very over-the-top, including James Spader's performance as the leader of the gang which is, by turns, rather reptilian and rather camp. The real star of the show is actually Homer the goose, who really should have got an award!

I have been looking for Doctor X and Crossfire, too. Although I'm making a dent in some of the titles I've been delaying on getting.

The new Dracula does look very good but i dont think i will be buying it yet again for obvious reasons,i am just watching all the films i have in my collection again for now,i thinks my buying days are at an end now,the wife will have little interest in my dvd an bluray collection without me , so it seems a little bit pointless to carry on collecting films,i missed out out the shakin stevens box set for the same reason although i would have loved a copy just to hear some of the unreleased stuff.

[keninlincs]

Last night i watched "Twice told tales" with Vincent Price in 3 stories of the macabre,i had forgotten i had it until Shane mentioned it a while back,pretty Hammy but a nice waste of 2 hours.

[mike edwards66]

Antebellum - intriguing, if misleading, trailer - awful movie - like a bad version of Fantasy Island. First half an hour, the set up, is pretty good, goes downhill rapidly from there. Avoid.

My thoughts exactly:

Next tonight I watched Antebellum, which is ostensibly set in the American South during the civil war and on a slave plantation where horrible acts of mistreatment are depicted over and over again.

Janelle Monae plays Eve, a character central to the events in a film written and directed by Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, with this being their feature debut after a history working on music videos with Jay-Z.

And this is certainly a film with something to say, but in doing so, it's walking a narrative tightrope that it can't quite find balance on, which, despite how well sketched Eve is, everyone around her is quite hollow and in spite of truth, it doesn't really ring true. Yes, it's about systemic racism and black people's voices being taken away, but it's a film of a certain type, and this type of film is difficult to truly get right.

As such, there's nuance and balance amiss, and whilst it doesn't need reason, because it's undoubtedly timely in equating confederate soldiers with the likes of the Proud Boys, it's quite on the nose and forced as opposed to being genuinely satisfying.

Monae is good, though, and there's a visually striking sequence in the final act, whilst I do admire the ambition and to some extent, the vision here. But it also falls foul of poor plotting and inconsistencies that raise questions more than creating tension.

I hadn't seen your review, Greystoke. You hit the nail on the head regarding poor plotting and inconsistencies, inconsistencies that are glaringly obvious once we've had the 'reveal', which itself is telegraphed way too early. It's a shame, because it is a good-looking movie, especially at the start, the scenes at the plantation and then the apartment are rich in colour.

[keninlincs]

Last night i watched "Twice told tales" with Vincent Price in 3 stories of the macabre,i had forgotten i had it until Shane mentioned it a while back,pretty Hammy but a nice waste of 2 hours.

I think you've mentioned a few Vincent Price films recently, Ken. One you might really enjoy is a pretty obscure western called More Dead Than Alive. You might have seen it, of course. It was made around the same time as The Trouble With Girls, and Price has a similar look and character to his role in that film, playing the manager of a small wild west show.

Clint Walker stars as a former outlaw trying to go straight, and this would have been a great role for Elvis, although there would have been no money in it. Mike Henry is one of the antagonists, and whilst the kid is a bit miscast, this is quite an adventurous film. And I hope it isn't a spoiler to say that Price has one of the best death scenes of his career.

..

Thanks Hugh,i shall watch that this week and let you know what i think.

[pmp]

Today the German blu ray edition of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films arrived through the door. Having had a quick glance at a few of them, I can confirm that they are the same restorations that we already have on DVD. The main difference is that the picture is considerably sharper on the blu ray, and the black and white cinematography is, well, a little blacker and a little whiter. Sadly, I can't show you a comparison as my PC for some reason doesn't like the DVDs!

I watched Hound of the Baskervilles tonight, and will hopefully watch the rest in order over the coming weeks. It must have been longer than I thought since I had watched it last as I had forgotten about certain sequences. Not only does version benefit from Rathbone and Bruce, but also a twenty-year-old Richard Greene is very good, too. But I'm not going to go into a review here as most will have already seen it. Since I saw it last, though, I've seen the German production from 1929, a very fine late silent starring Carlyle Blackwell as Holmes. This is available on a region A blu ray from Flicker Alley and comes with the 1914 German production, too (which is absolutely bonkers, I might add!). The 1929 version is, I think, even better than the Rathbone one and well worth seeking out if you can. But the 1939 version clearly has more historical significance as it kicked off the Rathbone/Bruce partnership of 14 films and dozens of radio adaptations.

There is an extra on the disc that wasn't on the DVD set, which is the East German TV version of the film, first aired in 1984. From what I've read, there are certain sequences that are slightly different, and the dubbed dialogue is also not always a direct translation of the actual dialogue - so I've read online, but I'm not going to watch 80 minutes of it to find out! I believe both films are included in regular German-dubbed versions on this set, but I didn't check - I will when I watch Adventures in a day or two. Menus are in English, Italian or German.

[pmp]

Today the German blu ray edition of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films arrived through the door. Having had a quick glance at a few of them, I can confirm that they are the same restorations that we already have on DVD. The main difference is that the picture is considerably sharper on the blu ray, and the black and white cinematography is, well, a little blacker and a little whiter. Sadly, I can't show you a comparison as my PC for some reason doesn't like the DVDs!

I watched Hound of the Baskervilles tonight, and will hopefully watch the rest in order over the coming weeks. It must have been longer than I thought since I had watched it last as I had forgotten about certain sequences. Not only does version benefit from Rathbone and Bruce, but also a twenty-year-old Richard Greene is very good, too. But I'm not going to go into a review here as most will have already seen it. Since I saw it last, though, I've seen the German production from 1929, a very fine late silent starring Carlyle Blackwell as Holmes. This is available on a region A blu ray from Flicker Alley and comes with the 1914 German production, too (which is absolutely bonkers, I might add!). The 1929 version is, I think, even better than the Rathbone one and well worth seeking out if you can. But the 1939 version clearly has more historical significance as it kicked off the Rathbone/Bruce partnership of 14 films and dozens of radio adaptations.

There is an extra on the disc that wasn't on the DVD set, which is the East German TV version of the film, first aired in 1984. From what I've read, there are certain sequences that are slightly different, and the dubbed dialogue is also not always a direct translation of the actual dialogue - so I've read online, but I'm not going to watch 80 minutes of it to find out! I believe both films are included in regular German-dubbed versions on this set, but I didn't check - I will when I watch Adventures in a day or two. Menus are in English, Italian or German.

That's encouraging. I should make a move and get this set. But I did think a U.K. release would have happened by now.

Especially as this one was released in 2012, and in 2011 in the US. Only Hound is available in the UK, which is ridiculous. As it is, the difference isn't great enough between DVD and blu ray (same restorations) to spend a vast amount of money on this as it is, but for £40ish for 14 films, this is a bargain - and it's likely to cost more than that if a UK release appears.

[pmp]

Today the German blu ray edition of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films arrived through the door. Having had a quick glance at a few of them, I can confirm that they are the same restorations that we already have on DVD. The main difference is that the picture is considerably sharper on the blu ray, and the black and white cinematography is, well, a little blacker and a little whiter. Sadly, I can't show you a comparison as my PC for some reason doesn't like the DVDs!

I watched Hound of the Baskervilles tonight, and will hopefully watch the rest in order over the coming weeks. It must have been longer than I thought since I had watched it last as I had forgotten about certain sequences. Not only does version benefit from Rathbone and Bruce, but also a twenty-year-old Richard Greene is very good, too. But I'm not going to go into a review here as most will have already seen it. Since I saw it last, though, I've seen the German production from 1929, a very fine late silent starring Carlyle Blackwell as Holmes. This is available on a region A blu ray from Flicker Alley and comes with the 1914 German production, too (which is absolutely bonkers, I might add!). The 1929 version is, I think, even better than the Rathbone one and well worth seeking out if you can. But the 1939 version clearly has more historical significance as it kicked off the Rathbone/Bruce partnership of 14 films and dozens of radio adaptations.

There is an extra on the disc that wasn't on the DVD set, which is the East German TV version of the film, first aired in 1984. From what I've read, there are certain sequences that are slightly different, and the dubbed dialogue is also not always a direct translation of the actual dialogue - so I've read online, but I'm not going to watch 80 minutes of it to find out! I believe both films are included in regular German-dubbed versions on this set, but I didn't check - I will when I watch Adventures in a day or two. Menus are in English, Italian or German.

That's encouraging. I should make a move and get this set. But I did think a U.K. release would have happened by now.

Especially as this one was released in 2012, and in 2011 in the US. Only Hound is available in the UK, which is ridiculous. As it is, the difference isn't great enough between DVD and blu ray (same restorations) to spend a vast amount of money on this as it is, but for £40ish for 14 films, this is a bargain - and it's likely to cost more than that if a UK release appears.

I did think when Hound of the Baskervilles was released on Blu-ray, that it would have been followed by a box set, and whilst it was Optimum that released the DVD set, the way Eureka have been digging into the Universal vaults had me thinking it might be on their slate.

40odds is a good price, though. And I have seen it much higher. I just bought Indicator’s Sweet Charity Blu-ray, which I've also been delaying in getting, but 17.99 was also too good of a price. And I finally managed to get Second Sight’s Walkabout Blu-ray, which vanished soon after release, but has never appeared as a standard edition. I paid over the odds, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the restoration. And what seems to be a nice package.

Talking of Optimum, and Eureka, there's still several DVD titles from them which have never seen an upgrade, which is something that crossed my mind last night. Considering the way 88 Asia and Eureka are handling so many martial arts movies, and oddities from Hong Kong and Japan, the Sonny Chiba sets from Optimum are long overdue for an upgrade. As is Eureka’s release of Hanzo the Razor.

Some of the Eureka titles are selling out on pre-order or just days after going on sale, and it's difficult to determine what might go, when some titles do hang around. I cancelled my Lucky Stars pre-order for the sake of waiting a week and getting it packaged in with a few other things, and as luck would have it, it was out of print in about two days.

Yes, I was too late initially for the latest (last?) Buster Keaton set from Eureka. Luckily, they got some returns, which I managed to pick up further down the road.

Returning to the Holmes set, apparently the restorations being used on DVD and blu ray were all done between 1993 and 2001, which might explain why they are hardly jumping off the screen.

[pmp]

Today the German blu ray edition of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films arrived through the door. Having had a quick glance at a few of them, I can confirm that they are the same restorations that we already have on DVD. The main difference is that the picture is considerably sharper on the blu ray, and the black and white cinematography is, well, a little blacker and a little whiter. Sadly, I can't show you a comparison as my PC for some reason doesn't like the DVDs!

I watched Hound of the Baskervilles tonight, and will hopefully watch the rest in order over the coming weeks. It must have been longer than I thought since I had watched it last as I had forgotten about certain sequences. Not only does version benefit from Rathbone and Bruce, but also a twenty-year-old Richard Greene is very good, too. But I'm not going to go into a review here as most will have already seen it. Since I saw it last, though, I've seen the German production from 1929, a very fine late silent starring Carlyle Blackwell as Holmes. This is available on a region A blu ray from Flicker Alley and comes with the 1914 German production, too (which is absolutely bonkers, I might add!). The 1929 version is, I think, even better than the Rathbone one and well worth seeking out if you can. But the 1939 version clearly has more historical significance as it kicked off the Rathbone/Bruce partnership of 14 films and dozens of radio adaptations.

There is an extra on the disc that wasn't on the DVD set, which is the East German TV version of the film, first aired in 1984. From what I've read, there are certain sequences that are slightly different, and the dubbed dialogue is also not always a direct translation of the actual dialogue - so I've read online, but I'm not going to watch 80 minutes of it to find out! I believe both films are included in regular German-dubbed versions on this set, but I didn't check - I will when I watch Adventures in a day or two. Menus are in English, Italian or German.

That's encouraging. I should make a move and get this set. But I did think a U.K. release would have happened by now.

Especially as this one was released in 2012, and in 2011 in the US. Only Hound is available in the UK, which is ridiculous. As it is, the difference isn't great enough between DVD and blu ray (same restorations) to spend a vast amount of money on this as it is, but for £40ish for 14 films, this is a bargain - and it's likely to cost more than that if a UK release appears.

I did think when Hound of the Baskervilles was released on Blu-ray, that it would have been followed by a box set, and whilst it was Optimum that released the DVD set, the way Eureka have been digging into the Universal vaults had me thinking it might be on their slate.

40odds is a good price, though. And I have seen it much higher. I just bought Indicator’s Sweet Charity Blu-ray, which I've also been delaying in getting, but 17.99 was also too good of a price. And I finally managed to get Second Sight’s Walkabout Blu-ray, which vanished soon after release, but has never appeared as a standard edition. I paid over the odds, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the restoration. And what seems to be a nice package.

Talking of Optimum, and Eureka, there's still several DVD titles from them which have never seen an upgrade, which is something that crossed my mind last night. Considering the way 88 Asia and Eureka are handling so many martial arts movies, and oddities from Hong Kong and Japan, the Sonny Chiba sets from Optimum are long overdue for an upgrade. As is Eureka’s release of Hanzo the Razor.

Some of the Eureka titles are selling out on pre-order or just days after going on sale, and it's difficult to determine what might go, when some titles do hang around. I cancelled my Lucky Stars pre-order for the sake of waiting a week and getting it packaged in with a few other things, and as luck would have it, it was out of print in about two days.

Yes, I was too late initially for the latest (last?) Buster Keaton set from Eureka. Luckily, they got some returns, which I managed to pick up further down the road.

Returning to the Holmes set, apparently the restorations being used on DVD and blu ray were all done between 1993 and 2001, which might explain why they are hardly jumping off the screen.

I didn't think anything new was done with them -- this is where the terminology between remastering and restoration often gets muddled. If there's nothing to restore, even if there's been a new scan or an upgrade, it isn't a restoration. And the DVDs were really good. As are lots of the Warner Archive DVDs. Which are more than acceptable if a Blu-ray never materialises. Although that would be much better, of course.

Indicator announced their July slate today, although Ishtar, The Day of the Dolphin, The Big Fix, and Invincible do very little for me. Maybe The Day of the Dolphin at some point, but this isn't one of their better announcements.

Same here, but I have some Indicator titles to catch up on, or to pick up in the coming weeks from their April and May releases - especially since HMV don't seem to stock any of the new titles, which seems a bit odd, especially as they are apparently secure financially.

Is Bringing Up Baby a UK issue, or just a US one?

[keninlincs]

Last night i watched "Twice told tales" with Vincent Price in 3 stories of the macabre,i had forgotten i had it until Shane mentioned it a while back,pretty Hammy but a nice waste of 2 hours.

I think you've mentioned a few Vincent Price films recently, Ken. One you might really enjoy is a pretty obscure western called More Dead Than Alive. You might have seen it, of course. It was made around the same time as The Trouble With Girls, and Price has a similar look and character to his role in that film, playing the manager of a small wild west show.

Clint Walker stars as a former outlaw trying to go straight, and this would have been a great role for Elvis, although there would have been no money in it. Mike Henry is one of the antagonists, and whilst the kid is a bit miscast, this is quite an adventurous film. And I hope it isn't a spoiler to say that Price has one of the best death scenes of his career.

..

I watchhed this film this afternoon,very entertaining indeed,and yes what an ending for Vincent Price.I enjoyed the film very much,Clint Walker was very goòd too,thanks for the share!

[pmp]

I saw Adventures of Sherlock Holmes tonight from the German blu ray set. Again, a nice transfer of a print that still has quite a few scratches etc. But it works well, nonetheless. This is possibly a better film than Hound - maybe because Holmes is actually on-screen for longer. Ida Lupino is also very good here. Interesting, though, that this one signals the start of when Holmes was portrayed in a less sympathetic way - an idea that reaches it's peak in S H in Washington, in which he comes over as absolute ar*e. In Adventures, he tells Watson "you are such a bungler," which hardly makes you sympathetic to the portrayal. The credits say this is based on the Gillette play, but it's really not - the only thing that remains is the presence of Moriarty.

As for Indicator, I might go for their 3 for £30 offer next week - although I shouldn't really after having bought a new sofa, chair and record turntable this week. Of course the latter broke down after I'd bought the other two!

[pmp]

Tonight I watched Tolkien, which features Nicholas Hoult in this biopic of the early years of the writer. Hoult, it has to be said, is excellent here - and I say that as someone who is often underwhelmed by his work. And the film is beautifully photographed, and much of the non-war sequences are very charming, and the last act ultimately moving.

There is much to enjoy here, despite it being a box office flop. However, the story it tells is very slight indeed. Not a great deal happens - and Tolkien was twenty years off writing the first book of his famous Middle Earth series at the point the film ends (except for the short coda). So, anyone wanting an insight into the writing of The Hobbit etc, is not going to find much here of interest. While Tolkien's love of language is explored, this is more about the love between four young friends as they grow up and ultimately go to war.

The war scenes are well-filmed, but I'm not sure the film totally works with the flashback structure of Tolkien in the trenches looking back on his early life - not least because this is a delicate and fragile film overall, which might account for it not doing very well in cinemas. But, speaking as someone who really has no interest in Tolkien's fiction, I enjoyed it very much because of, rather than despite of, the fact it is more interested in character than drama.

[pmp]

Tonight I watched Tolkien, which features Nicholas Hoult in this biopic of the early years of the writer. Hoult, it has to be said, is excellent here - and I say that as someone who is often underwhelmed by his work. And the film is beautifully photographed, and much of the non-war sequences are very charming, and the last act ultimately moving.

There is much to enjoy here, despite it being a box office flop. However, the story it tells is very slight indeed. Not a great deal happens - and Tolkien was twenty years off writing the first book of his famous Middle Earth series at the point the film ends (except for the short coda). So, anyone wanting an insight into the writing of The Hobbit etc, is not going to find much here of interest. While Tolkien's love of language is explored, this is more about the love between four young friends as they grow up and ultimately go to war.

The war scenes are well-filmed, but I'm not sure the film totally works with the flashback structure of Tolkien in the trenches looking back on his early life - not least because this is a delicate and fragile film overall, which might account for it not doing very well in cinemas. But, speaking as someone who really has no interest in Tolkien's fiction, I enjoyed it very much because of, rather than despite of, the fact it is more interested in character than drama.

I've still to watch Tolkien and have it on my watch-list somewhere -- might be one for tomorrow. Nice reminder. I do enjoy his fiction, though, and have been a fan of Peter Jackson's films, and I'm eager to see what Amazon does with their Lord of the Rings series, which is near production now. And touted at $465 million for the first series.

Is it a series that's going to offer something new in addition to the films, or something genuinely individual?! I won't say that it's unlikely or impossible. But I think it's more than putting a character or individual characters into a new story, or a new film, as with Batman or Spider-Man. Largely because it's a world, populated by characters. Interesting, though.

Next for me tonight is Love and Monsters. Not quite a directorial debut this time, but the second film from Michael Matthews. And with Dylan O'Brien in a leading role again.

Yes, I have Love and Monsters on my watchlist, too, although I'm rather surprised that O'Brien is revisiting this kind of territory after the Maze Runner films. I recently finally found The First Time starring him on blu ray. I saw it on streaming a couple of years ago, and thought it was very good. But it was made way back in around 2012, I think.

[ForeverElvis]

"Niagara" (1953):

Although I call myself a MM fan since I saw her in "Some Like It Hot" and "The Seven Year Itch", I missed this particular movie, until yesterday. The film reminds me a little of the Hitchcock thrillers from that time. Although Marilyn played her role as femme fatale superbly, I found myself a little bit more fascinated by Jean Peters... I have to admit that I'm more into the cute girl-next-door than the sexy vamp who tries to kill you as soon as she loses interest.

I watched a HD print of this film last year. I was struck at the vibrancy of the colors, so much more than I remember. HD really makes three strip technicolor pop!

I Also think that Marilyn was never more physically beautiful on film than in this.

[keninlincs]

Tonight I watched Tolkien, which features Nicholas Hoult in this biopic of the early years of the writer. Hoult, it has to be said, is excellent here - and I say that as someone who is often underwhelmed by his work. And the film is beautifully photographed, and much of the non-war sequences are very charming, and the last act ultimately moving.

There is much to enjoy here, despite it being a box office flop. However, the story it tells is very slight indeed. Not a great deal happens - and Tolkien was twenty years off writing the first book of his famous Middle Earth series at the point the film ends (except for the short coda). So, anyone wanting an insight into the writing of The Hobbit etc, is not going to find much here of interest. While Tolkien's love of language is explored, this is more about the love between four young friends as they grow up and ultimately go to war.

The war scenes are well-filmed, but I'm not sure the film totally works with the flashback structure of Tolkien in the trenches looking back on his early life - not least because this is a delicate and fragile film overall, which might account for it not doing very well in cinemas. But, speaking as someone who really has no interest in Tolkien's fiction, I enjoyed it very much because of, rather than despite of, the fact it is more interested in character than drama.

I've still to watch Tolkien and have it on my watch-list somewhere -- might be one for tomorrow. Nice reminder. I do enjoy his fiction, though, and have been a fan of Peter Jackson's films, and I'm eager to see what Amazon does with their Lord of the Rings series, which is near production now. And touted at $465 million for the first series.

Is it a series that's going to offer something new in addition to the films, or something genuinely individual?! I won't say that it's unlikely or impossible. But I think it's more than putting a character or individual characters into a new story, or a new film, as with Batman or Spider-Man. Largely because it's a world, populated by characters. Interesting, though.

Next for me tonight is Love and Monsters. Not quite a directorial debut this time, but the second film from Michael Matthews. And with Dylan O'Brien in a leading role again.

Yes, I have Love and Monsters on my watchlist, too, although I'm rather surprised that O'Brien is revisiting this kind of territory after the Maze Runner films. I recently finally found The First Time starring him on blu ray. I saw it on streaming a couple of years ago, and thought it was very good. But it was made way back in around 2012, I think.

I enjoyed Love and Monsters tremendously, and O'Brien has not only matured considerably since The Maze Runner films, he's perfectly cast in a film that is smart, fast-paced, funny and quite thrilling at times. Tonally, it's in similar territory to Tremors, although there's a Lovecraftian premise at play and, coincidentally, a story that follows in the wake of rockets being deployed to destroy a meteor that was heading for earth. This, after I watched the abysmal, Meteor, last week.

The set-up is told via sketches, which O'Brien’s character, Joel, draws in a journal, detailing the many creatures and monsters that populate a post-apocalyptic world. The rockets worked -- they just didn't forsee the bacteria and germs that would rain down from meteor particles and mutate the creatures of the earth. Although, not humans, or dogs, for some reason.

This was seven years in the past, but Joel, pining for his girlfriend, Aimee, played by Jessica Henwick, and still shell shocked from his experiences, can do little more than cook in his colony. Which is like an underground college dormitory. Humans can only survive underground at this stage.

But he finds Aimee on his radio and decides to travel the 85 miles across dangerous territory to see her. And we know from what Joel says that he hasn't seen, or done, that he's going to see and do those very things. Including befriending a dog, and spending time with a man and a young girl, who travel overground and teach him some valuable lessons.

Visually, it's very well realised and I was captivated by a world that's populated by giant frogs, snails the size of houses, Tremors-like Graboids, and creepy crawlies that kill or poison. O'Brien is on screen for a lot of the film himself, or with his dog, and he's an engaging presence in a film that has its tongue in cheek, with nods to Mysterious Island and a nice emotional undercurrent. There's shades of The Last of Us and A Quiet Place, too, and whilst an overarching metaphor about getting out and seeing the world, and doing things, is laid on a bit thick, I had a great time with this one.

This said, I did think it would have worked well as series, allowing more time spent on a place or certain creatures, much like The Mandalorian. But I wouldn't rule out a sequel.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Love and monsters" and also The Carey Mulligan film you mentioned a couple of posts back where she got a great revenge!

[keninlincs]

Yesterday i watched three british 60S thrillers
First up was village of the damned very good film,followed by "Children of the damned"which was not quite as good and then "Invasion" from 1965 which was written by Doctor Who writer Robert Holmes,and used again 5 years later in Jon Pertwee's first appearance as the Doctor and remade as "Spearhead from space" all in alĺ a good afternoons viewing

MV5BMWU4ZjcyYTEtN2IwZS00NTgzLTk4NTktYjQ5NmIwNDkzZTQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQ2MjQyNDc@._V1_.jpg

Children_of_the_Damned.jpg

MV5BMWU4ZjcyYTEtN2IwZS00NTgzLTk4NTktYjQ5NmIwNDkzZTQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQ2MjQyNDc@._V1_.jpg