Amph What was the last movie you saw? (Ver. 2)

I started watching Somewhere In Time. I really like it so far.
Such a beautiful score.

Minty's 10 Things You Didn't Know About Somewhere In Time is quite informative although I got majorly spoiled by the last (#1) point. Serves me right watching Minty's vid first.
It's good though.

 

I'm a big fan of Somewhere in Time but I can't dispute any of the faults mentioned. The score is what does the heavy lifting as far as the romance goes. Combined with the visuals and the beauty of both Reeve & Seymour I give the romance a pass. I've also visited Mackinac island and stayed at the hotel on a lovely family vacation. There is a section of the hotel devoted to the film and they host a yearly convention. Going back to the score, the main theme turns up in Groundhog Day when Phil (Bill Murray) plays the piano.

 

Your reviews are always great, but this is the funniest line you've come up with in quite some time. I laughed very loudly.

As with Somewhere in Time, you are spot on, though I do Ian McKellan's scenes or at least his first one where he gets himself into a full lather over Arianism and the Nicaean Council. He's havin' fun.

 

I was amused in an “I recognize this reference” fashion and the fact that it was such an obscure but historically vital thing to get worked up over. But I think the best part of that scene is Hanks just sitting around and occasionally chipping in with attempts to get a little knowledge drop in so everyone knows he’s smart too, and occasionally going “Not again, now this is going too far!” whenever McKellen really gets on a rant. You can see the writers just straining to try to figure out how to break it up from just being McKellen monologuing absurd exposition for like ten minutes.

 

When I was 20 or so I read Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum, an amazing read, an intellectual tour-de-force that boils down to being a parody of historical conspiracy theories. It really warped my fragile little mind. I didn't get around to reading The Da Vinci Code when was released, but I thought it was going to be something similar to Foucault's Pendulum so I really eagerly watched the film. I was wrong.

Side note: Referring to Leonardo Da Vinci as "Da Vinci" is like referring to Jesus of Nazareth as "Of Nazareth." But miraculously, the title is not even the dumbest part of it all.

 

Man I’ve read enough MacCulloch to know people absolutely get worked up into a lather about Arianism, it’s the only believable part of the film.

Famously Umberto Eco once referred to Dan Brown as something like his bastard.

 

I was just googling whether Eco had ever commented on Dan Brown, and came across the following quote by Eco:

"The author Dan Brown, is a character from Foucault’s Pendulum! I invented him. He shares my characters’ fascinations—the world conspiracy of Rosicrucians, Masons, and Jesuits. The role of the Knights Templar. The hermetic secret. The principle that everything is connected. I suspect Dan Brown might not even exist."

 

Believers in either Arianism or its homonyms tend to be crazy.

 

No Time for Comedy. The producers of a new Broadway comedy about New York high society bring the playwright to town to perform some rewrites, only to discover that he is Jimmy Stewart, a hayseed from a tiny town who knows nothing of Park Avenue except what he’s picked up by osmosis. As he becomes a figure of contempt to the horrified snobs realizing that they have committed themselves to the hands of this hick poseur, his innocent charm appeals to the lead actress, Rosalind Russell, who protectively takes to him and falls in love. This is a fantastic, hilarious premise, but the problem is, it’s not actually what the movie is about.

Instead, Stewart’s play immediately proves a success, he and Russell get married, he goes on to establish himself, and then, as he faces writer’s block, a vain, scheming socialite with a penchant for chasing successful men she can “inspire” to new artistic heights seduces him. Russell indignantly dumps Stewart once he’s under this hussy’s spell and ends up with the socialite’s much-cuckolded now-ex-husband, a similarly sensible, suffering type. But her passion is still obviously for the Stewart she fell in love with, and of course they’ll reconcile.

This, too, is a solid premise, but it sits uneasily with the notion of Stewart as the winningly naive hayseed; in fact the initial setup seems to have little to do with how the story actually plays out. The film needs to focus on one or the other idea, not both. I would prefer the first, a cleverer and more original one whose potential is barely exploited beyond a scene in which Stewart is offered chocolate mousse but does not recognize it, despite writing it into his play. He has no idea what it actually is, he explains, he just knew that it sounded sophisticated.

The outcome is a film that is decent entertainment, but nothing special, and disappointingly fails to tap the one real well of comedy it has uncovered. Instead it just sort of passes by, squandering Stewart’s aw-shucks talent. Its most delightful moment has nothing to do with itself: Stewart shares a scene with a cab driver played by Frank Faylen, a premonition of George Bailey and Ernie the cabbie that will tickle any It’s a Wonderful Life fanatics like myself.

 

Stalag 17 At ease! I don't care that its less than 6 months since I last saw this. American WWII prisoners of war have to find out who in their barracks is revealing their secrets to the Germans and so thwarting their every move. Suspicion falls on hustler William Holden, but can he find the real culprit before his camp mates decide to kill him. This has a great cast of characters, it effortlessly switches from comedy, with its eclectic range of characters and guards, to a serious POW escape movie. I would go so far as to say its my favourite WWII movie. Its a christmas film too, so theres no excuse not to watch it this month.

 

Love STALAG 17!

And from the "You learn something new every day" file - I always assumed that "Hogan's Heroes" was openly based on STALAG 17, with some obvious changes and a MUCH MUCH MUCH more comedic approach. In fact, I think it adds to the fun of watching STALAG 17 if you are familiar with Hogan's Heroes, as it then plays out like a twisted multiversal story in which Sgt Schultz and Col Klink go from goofy bumblers to darkly sinister villains. In fact, in both STALAG 17 and "Hogan's Heroes", the sergeant who deals with the POWs is named "Sgt Schultz"! However, when AndyLGR's post led me to look into this, I see that there was even a lawsuit over this, with those behind Hogan's Heroes denying there was any connection. I have to say, I can understand why those behind STALAG 17 begged to differ!

But yeah, STALAG 17 is well worth a watch, and as I note above, I think if you are familiar with Hogan's Heroes you will enjoy the suggestion of the "multiverse" angle.

 

The Man With Two Brains

1983....a simpler time when Ronald Reagan was only just beginning to ruin the world and slapstick sprinkled with butts and boobs passed for quality cinema. Steve Martin was a rising megastar and Carl Reiner was still alive and writing/directing. I remember seeing this movie on SelecTV which was a pay service much like HBO when it first came out. We needed a special antenna on the roof of the house and a decoder box for it to work. The Merv Griffin part of the story is still the funniest. If you know you know.

I don't think it aged as well as Steve Martin has but it has its moments.

 

Somewhere In Time
1980

John Barry's score is essential here. He lost both of his parents prior to scoring this picture and it really shows in his emotional and heartfelt music. And the use of Rachmaninov is perfection.

Christopher Reeve gives a nuanced and subtle performance and I felt his love and loss as portrayed onscreen. The whole cast is good. It was nice to see Christopher Plummer in a brief but memorable role.

The movie is shot really well too and I can see why it has become a cult classic. I really enjoyed it as it extremely well made on every level.

Minty points out many interesting similarities to Cameron's Titanic in his SIT video; it seems JC took great inspiration from Somewhere In Time.

 

I got new glasses this week. Upon getting home and turning on the tv I noticed how much sharper the images were. So, Attack of the Clones is on and oh yes, this is a wonderful visual difference.

 

raging bull (1980) - one of a few classic scorsese films that i'd somehow missed until now. i liked it a lot, but the group i watched it with was mostly underwhelmed so ymmv. i found the cinematography captivating throughout and deniro's performance was equally so, even if it did sort of become the trope of what an oscar-bait performance is all about. pesci is also great in this. hard to find anyone to actually root for in this one, but i found myself invested nonetheless.

 

You're supposed to root for Salvy (Frank Vincent).

 

Raging Bull is a great film, but man, it's exhausting, the relentlous anger and aggression is so tiring.

 

I thought Raging Bull was great, and I generally dislike sports movies.

 

I'm ready to get set. I'm watching Frozen II and Menzel has a badass and beautiful voice. INTO THE UNKNOWN!

 

It Should Happen to You. Like a lot of fifties movies critiquing emerging elements of American culture, this only feels more relevant today. Judy Holliday stars as a recently fired model in New York. Likable but a bit dopey, she craves fame without a real reason why. She runs into young documentarian Jack Lemmon, making his film debut, and he immediately falls for her, and then sees a vacant billboard in a prominent location. She’s suddenly seized by the idea of putting her name up on the billboard. It might help promote her career, but most importantly it will make her feel like a success to see her giant name looming over everyone. She rents the billboard, and the cryptic sign makes her a public sensation, amplified after soap executive Peter Lawford, desperate to have the space, swaps her for six other billboards. She starts doing TV appearances and events as the woman behind the mystery billboards, so enraptured by her fame that she doesn’t realize her stiff performances and fleeting notoriety are making her popular as a figure of fun and a public spectacle, a curiosity rather than a star. Lemmon, who likes her for her, just can’t understand her obsession with attention and tries to warn her against it, but she ditches him for rich, glamorous, but sleazy Lawford, until she finally wakes up and realizes it’s better to be happy being herself, a normal person, than to debase herself for an obsession with rising above everyone else.

It’s a message that clearly grows out of the increasing power of television contributing to celebrity culture, people growing up dreaming of Hollywood stardom, and the sense that the culture was becoming debased by advertising and the aggressive grasping for attention, issues contemporary to the fifties. But the premise feels astonishingly relevant to today, as the internet has hyper-accelerated the craving for fifteen minutes of fame. People are desperate to become influencers, online personalities, viral sensations. They will do anything to get attention without any clear idea why it’s so important to be a star. Holliday, enthralled by the idea of simply being famous, could be any of the people desperately screaming into the void for attention, convinced the public will flock to their reaction videos or Twitch stream to give them the fame they just know they deserve. It’s a devastatingly insightful portrayal, and Holliday is fantastic. Lemmon is a bit less successful, mostly because his character is reduced to haranguing Holliday as the voice of reason. He’s right as he critiques her folly, but the film doesn’t manage to make the spectacle of him chewing out his would-be-girlfriend’s life choices appealing. Like, guy, why don’t you just move on if you think she’s being a narcissistic dummy instead of self-righteously berating her? Nobody likes to see that. The result is that the movie’s character dynamics don’t really work, Lemmon being wasted in a role that makes little use of his quick-witted charisma, and both lead characters a little too short on the likability that would have you rooting for them to get back on the right track. It might have been better off had it simply been a blistering satire and not tried to be a romantic comedy. As is, it’s intriguing and insightfully pointed, but doesn’t quite find a tone and energy to fully succeed.

 

I watched 2 M Night Shymalan films.
The Village.
I love this movie. It's just so well done, from the James Newton Howard score to the Roger Deakins cinematography. Great cast, from Joquin Phoenix to Bryce Dallas Howard to William Hurt to Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson. It's not a horror movie, it's a romance at its heart. M Night says he regrets marketing it as a horror film, as a lot of people were diappointed. I bought the twist, although I get some didn't. Just a really well made and moving film.
The Happening.
After really enjoying my village rewatch I decided to give this one another shot. How bad can it be? Woof. This is truely one of the worst films of all time. I don't even know where to begin. It plays like a Spaceballs version of his movies. An admittedly cool concept (trees releasing toxins as they feel threated) is just done in such an absurd manner. Mark Wahlberg is at his best/worst as a science teacher. (really) John Lequizamo plays a math teacher. Do not send your kids to this school. Zooey Deschenal looks stoned the entire film. Full of unintentially hilarious scenes, I really don't know what M Night was thinking. It is Mystery Science Theater levels of horrible. So maybe worth watching in a group if you want to laugh at it. One scene where Wahlberg talks to a houseplant is Nic Cage "the bees" level of bad.

 

The later revelation that Ian McKellan's character is one of the villains almost makes how wrong he is in the scene about the Nicaean Council seem clever. Almost.

Yeah, I ******* spoiled it. Who gives a ****?

 

John Barry was the composer I believe. Fun fact: he wrote the James Bond theme even though Monty Norman is credited for it. Barry replaced Norman after Albert Broccoli fired him during the production of Dr. No.

 

John Barry's score for Somewhere In Time is brilliantly moving and emotional. I hear lots of influence from the great Romantic composers like Brahms, Liszt, and Mahler.

And the use of the Rachmaninov Paganini variation is brilliant; one of the most effective uses of music for a film I've ever seen/heard.

 

It's been a very long time since I've seen Raging Bull. The only thing I remember about it was the rage at potentially overcooking a steak, because that defeats the purpose of a steak. I agreed with him completely.