Nachos Libre
We got this on DVD for Christmas. I had thought it looked dubious in the movies… and we didn’t finish it tonight. We got about 2/3 of the way through and then gave up. It’s just silly. And not particularly funny, nor original. The best thing was the sidekick – he was good.
Nicholas and Alexandra
As I mentioned a while ago, we put on a showing on this film at school for the kids doing Revolutions (we’re doing Russia, of course, and eventually China, which is a bit scary for me…). Very few turned up, which was a bit disappointing, but since I hadn’t seen it it was at least a good chance for me to watch it.
It was made in 1982, and it moves very slowly. Very slowly. If it wasn’t for the historical aspect, I would go so far as to say that it was very boring. Except for the point at which I realised that Ra-Ra-Rasputin was played by Tom Baker; that was a very funny moment, almost brain-messingly so.
The most interesting part was how the relationship between Nicky and ‘Sunny’ (I think that was her nickname) was shown… which makes sense, given the title. Most of the time, she is shown as completely domineering, which I think does indeed have some historical evidence to back it up. There are a few occasions where Nicky stands up to her, but very few. And Nicky’s reaction when he has to admit his abdication to Alexandra – it was amazing, and heartbreaking, and horrifying as well – that he broke down, and seemed almost to have a nervous breakdown, I think from the sheer shame of the event. I wonder how much evidence there is to support that idea.
We didn’t get to the end – it was hometime right when Lenin started doing his April Theses thing. Related to this is one of my biggest beefs with the film: I don’t think Trotsky had anything to do with Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1905 – in fact, not even by 1917, really – and yet in the film they are shown together right back as far as Bloody Sunday, almost. Pft.
Kerensky was probably my favourite bit-part. Possibly because I think he is in ‘real life’, too.
Ghostrider…
… was forgetable.
We went to see it on the spur of the moment today, since we were at Highpoint anyway. We’ve been wanting to see it at least partly because bits of it were virtually shot in our backyard (virtually as in nearly in our backyard, not virtually as in concerning computers. And where ‘nearly’ is a few km away).
Basically, disappointing. I don’t know what Cage has done, but he is looking less craggy and character-ish, and more Tim Allen, which was a bad thing for the character in this film. I thought the effects were ok, although J disagrees about that; the female character was pretty pahetic – partly her acting, largely the script. With which I have several major issues – like lack of character and/or plot development. It would have been heaps better if the devil characters had been more interesting, and there had been more back story: like, why were they going against Mephistopheles? And why were they so damned easy to beat? I think I’ve mentioned this before – I like it when villains actually make sense, when you can appreciate the twistedness of their logic. And the same goes for Meph himself, here: yep, he’s the Devil (well, it seems like he should get the ‘the’, but I’m not convinced it’s justified), but… so what? I need a bit more to go on!
It was redeemed by being about half shot in Melbourne. It is always fun to spot places you know/ have been to in films. The amount shot in the cemetry didn’t seem to justify the weeks that the film crew spent there, blocking off the road….
Witches of Eastwick
I couldn’t get my video (so very retro) of The Mummy to work tonight, so I have been stuck watching The Witches of Eastwick.* It’s pretty bad. The finale is ridiculous. Susan Sarandon is dreadful, although I quite like both Pfeiffer and Cher (she’s probably the best of the lot). Truth be told, the main reason I don’t like the movie is Jack Nicholson. I really, really can’t stand him. At any time. No, that’s not true; he was great as the Joker. But that is absolutely it. Urgh.
*Yes, I know I didn’t have to watch it, but I’m home alone and writing reviews so I wanted something on the screen.
The pants may not fit, and the hat will
It is official, people! Official! There is going to be a fourth Indiana! Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford have all confirmed it – it’s being filmed this year. Wahoo! Not entirely convinced by a 60+ year old Indiana, althouh Connery was pretty old when he last played Bond.
But who cares? Wahoo! Indiana Jones IV!
Bond. James Bond
I liked this movie.
I liked that this line only occurs once, and only as the last line of the movie (hmm. Spoiler?)
I really liked that this was designed as the first Bond but was still made as an ultra modern movie – the development of Bond as a man and as a spy is something that fascinates me and has never really been explored in any other movies.
I liked that there were no gadgets, not even any Q (hmm. Another spoiler). And that the only SFX were explosions, which to my mind aren’t real FX.
I liked the chase-scene that was on foot – oh my! – because it was very clever, and it had me cringing a number of times.
I liked Daniel Craig. Heck, he’s played an archaeologist before, so he must be good (Alex West in Tomb Raider).
I liked Vesper. She was the best Bond girl of the recent Bonds – I think she’s better than all of the Pierce Brosnan Bond girls. And her character was actually quite interesting and complex.
I liked this movie.
Bridge to Terabithia
They’re making a movie of it! Amazing. Another of the books that I grabbed from school the other day, which I haven’t read in a long while – I definitely read it in primary school, and I can’t remember if I’ve read it since. Anyway, I’ll have to read it again before I see the movie, I think. From the trailer, it looks very different from what I remember about the book – I thought the imaginary stuff was just that, imaginary – but the movie seems like it will make those things ‘real’.
What I really wonder is how they will deal with the ending. I know some kids’ movies don’t shy away from tragedy, but that far? It will be interesting to see.
[ominous] Dr Strangelove [/ominous]
or [perky] How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb [/perky].
That’s how the theatrical trailer presented it, anyway, and it was very apt.
The bro-in-law gave it to me a couple of Christmases ago, and I finally got around to watching it on Friday. It wasn’t entirely what I was expecting.
1. I hadn’t realised it was black and white.
2. I hadn’t realised Peter Sellers played three roles. That was cool.
3. I had no idea what the comedy in it would be like; that it was so esoteric was unexpected. I think I had thought it would be a bit more laugh-out-loud funny.
I did like it. Peter Sellers was very clever; I am not sure that I have seen him in anything else – which is a terrible burnish on my would-be movie guru plaque – but I was impressed by his physical comedy, as well as his absorption into the characters. It took me a significant while to realise that he was both Strangelove and the English dude; I didn’t realise at all that he was the president at all until maybe the end of the film!
I can’t imagine what it must have been like when it first came out. I am used to seeing apocalyptic movies, and I am not living in the Cold War so it doesn’t feel at all prescient. For a 60s audience… whew. Must have been a bit of a head-spin.
Still in the Kingdom of Heaven
Gosh, it’s so useful to have a leader who used to be a blacksmith, isn’t it? You can think up all sorts of useful little tricks to bring down the belfries.
And, much as I am embarassed to admit it, Orlando really is a bit of a cutie (sorry J, but he is). He does always play the same character, though… much like Hugh Grant. And bordering on being almost as weak-looking, too. Perfect for Paris Alexandros… what a pansy.
Kingdom of Heaven
So I borrowed this out for viewing with some students on a Medieval Day we had at school. We offered Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Monty Python and the Holy Grail also, and I watched the former. I was glad I did, since half way through one of the teachers came and asked whether I had seen it, and if I knew where to forward it to. I hadn’t, so I didn’t; she said the kids were getting bored because it was a talkfest, with very little fighting.
Anyway, we decided to watch it tonight, since it’s our Friday and there is nothing else on TV. It’s not quite as bad as the teacher suggested yesterday, but I can see why the kids were bored. The fighting is – well, I think it’s stylised in some ways, and there really isn’t as much as I had expected. I had thought that this was set during one of the actual Crusades, but it isn’t. (but OH – we just got to the Saladin bit, and that is clever! I knew the Saracen he didn’t kill wasn’t a servant or slave… oh hang on, I thought he was Saladin himself. OK, that’s not quite as cool as I originally thought. Oh well.).
There is a lot of talking. And some bits that I find highly dubious. However, the fact that I picked it was going to be Baldwin the Leper as king has me very smug (and the mask is very cool; I wonder how Edward Norton felt about that, since you basically don’t know it’s him). And the portrayal of Saladin is very positive, for a Hollywood film. Made in 2005… so after the latest crusade was preached by Bush… I wonder if that is deliberate.
Lots of familiar faces in this film too, which is fun. Reinault, he fauning leader of the Templars, was Menelaos in another role. Jeremy Irons, hurrah! Liam Neeson, for all of 10 minutes. Guy de Lusignan… what a different role for Martin Csorkas. I loved him in Aeon Flux, and of course as Celeborn. And the lord not killed by Orlando was blown up in Spooks in very sad fashion. (Notice how I am not bothering to mention Orlando? Pft. Playing Will, again, basically.)
Randomly Yours, Alex 