The mafo's MoFo 100 List
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
Well, I've called you crazy and now I'm going to ask you a question. Have you ever seen either of these films
Radio On http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079773/
Lie With Me http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418832/
Both sound interesting and I thought that, with a few other people on the site, you may've actually seen one or both of them. As you have a thread for this, I thought I'd post here rather than a PM.
Radio On http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079773/
Lie With Me http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418832/
Both sound interesting and I thought that, with a few other people on the site, you may've actually seen one or both of them. As you have a thread for this, I thought I'd post here rather than a PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Nope. I haven't seen either one. Are you recommending them?
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
King Kong (Peter Jackson, 2005)
I know we have a few MoFos who don't especially care for the newest King Kong, but I'm a big fan of the film. Jackson found the right balance between crafting a loving homage to the 1933 original (his favorite film growing up) and retooling it for the CGI era. I admit that I'm usually not a fan of remakes, but I find this one to be the best version of the classic story. Although Jackson can be accused of making this Kong "too-everything" (too long, too bloated, too much CGI, too much emotion, etc.), he does accomplish quite a bit in the way of suspense, action, spectacle and a believable Beauty and the Beast story with terrific performances as the couple by Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, the latter aided by the effects team. Jackson's production designers also got to create the spectacular New York City of the '30s and the exotic, otherworldly Skull Island where Kong and the other huge creatures from the past still roam in the wild.
The film is basically divided into three parts. Part One (52 minutes) begins in Depression-era NYC where comic actress Ann Darrow (Watts) has just lost her gig and is contemplating going to work at the burlesque house to earn enough to eat. At the same time, movie producer/director Carl Denham (Jack Black) has just learned that the studio heads hate the rushes from his latest "wildlife" picture and are going to fire him, so, escorted by his assistant Preston (Colin Hanks), he gathers together what he can and hightails it towards the ship waiting to transport him across the ocean to the mysterious location where he wants to finish up his project without the studios' help. His primary problem is that he's lost his leading lady, and Fay Wray isn't available since she's off working with Merian C. Cooper. (A nice in-joke since Wray played Ann in the '33 King Kong and Cooper co-directed it. There are several such references throughout the film.) Luckily for Carl, he comes across Ann and entices her to join him when he mentions that his film is being scripted by playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), an author with whom Ann would like to work. They get to the ship just before the studio execs and are introduced to Capt. Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann) and his crew which includes First Mate Hayes (Evan Parke), teenage former stowaway Jimmie (Jamie Bell) and Lumpy the cook (Serkis). Jack is also aboard ship, even if it originally isn't his idea. During the voyage, Denham gets plenty of footage with Ann and her leading man, prima donna Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), but the captain isn't happy that he's sailing for an uncharted island, and then he learns that Denham has a warrant out for his arrest. Just when it looks like they'll divert to Singapore to hand Denham over to the authorities, the ship enters a fog bank and eventually reaches Skull Island.
All the supporting characters seem to have some back stories going on. For example, the Captain seems to be a very soft-spoken guy but you can tell that he's at sea hiding from some haunted past. However, the most affectimg relationship of the lesser characters is the father-son one between Hayes and Jimmie. Hayes is trying to teach Jimmie life lessons, and Jimmie has just begun reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness, so their discussions of that book seem to be playing out in their true life adventure on the sea and at Skull Island. A relevant line is when Hayes tells Jimmie that the novel "isn't an adventure". After the setup and intro, Part Two (84 minutes) gets into the rock 'em, sock 'em action and creepy suspense, and this is where Jackson both pays faithful adulation to his fave film and deliberately tries to go into overdrive with a series of pumped action scenes which recreate but go well beyond the source. The original had one T. Rex; this one has three. [Note: Kong's battle with the three is both hilarious and has some startling 3-D looking shots, mostly involving the dinosaurs trying to eat Ann. I've heard some viewers complain that this fight scene is ludicrous and defies the laws of physics. Well, if you really think about that while watching a movie about a giant ape fighting three dinosaurs in 1933, then you probably shouldn't be watching this movie (and most fantasy) in the first place.] The original had one mad stampeding dinosaur; this one has dozens. The original had to cut out the gross-out scene with giant bugs and headsuckers; this one includes it using the original's storyboards.
The other thing which separates this Kong from the original is the emotional empathy between Kong and Ann. In the original, Ann was terrified of Kong throughout the movie and showed no other emotions toward him. Kong was interested in the way Ann smelled. In fact, he pokes her with his finger a few times and then raises it to his nose to get a good smell of her. He's obviously fascinated with Ann, but she just wants to get away from the "Monster". In the 1976 remake, which was also updated to the '70s, Jessica Lange doesn't even play Ann. Instead, she plays Dwan and she's terrified initially by Kong, but later when they spend some quiet time alone and she finds Kong to be her protector against even worse beasts, Dwan even gets turned on by what Kong can do to her body! She does feel some love for Kong though, however it's nothing like the attachment which develops between this version's Ann and Kong. Eventually, Ann holds on tight to Kong when she sees that he's the one who can save her from Skull Island's scary fauna. She also introduces Kong to the concepts of humor and beauty. There is a deep, mutual bond between the two characters which I find totally natural, no matter how many times I've heard somebody call it weird or stupid. So, even if some find this movie redundant or a vulgar waste of money, I find it a good, old-fashioned entertainment, but with a lot more heart and soul than the other versions.
Dehnam and the crewmembers are able to capture Kong and take him back to NYC where he displays the Ape as the Eighth Wonder of the World. Denham is really depicted as a weasly guy who'd probably sell his mother to get a hit in the entertainment business. Jack turns out to be a decent heroic figure. [Note: the original Kong has Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) as the First Mate on the ship who was a heroic figure and Ann's human love interest. This film seems to turn that character into three characters: Brody's playwright, Parke's first mate, and Chandler's vain actor who, not so coincidentally, is named Bruce.] Part Three (40 minutes) is what happens when Kong is in NYC, leading up to the climax at the Empire State Building. We are witness to another array of spectacle and action made all the more fun by it occurring in a meticulously-recreated 1930's Times Square and environs. I don't think I need to go into any details about these scenes, but they don't disappoint me at all. Kong himself remains dignified right up to the very end.
I want to add that I grew up with the 1933 King Kong, and it was instrumental in my falling in love with the movies. The fact that you could see such things which were impossible has a big effect on a youngster. I think it's a classic and that everyone should watch it. My rating for it is . However, I don't lionize it as others do. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects are incredible and a lot of fun, but the acting in the film isn't really A-quality. I mean, Fay Wray is beautiful and can scream with the best of them, but her co-stars aren't all that hot. Armstrong can play a big producer OK, but it's superficial, and Bruce Cabot is on the wooden side as the hero. Another thing is that the beginning is a little slow-moving. (Yes, I realize that many viewers complain that Part One of the 2005 version is slow and irrelevant, but I actually enjoyed the added time to get to know the characters. Even if many of the characters and their relationships don't "pay off" in the context of the plot, they do add depth and mystery to the film. I realize that some people today will just find the acting and FX of the original too hokey, but it's a real movie-movie, and I keep finding plenty of hokey acting and FX in today's films.
I know we have a few MoFos who don't especially care for the newest King Kong, but I'm a big fan of the film. Jackson found the right balance between crafting a loving homage to the 1933 original (his favorite film growing up) and retooling it for the CGI era. I admit that I'm usually not a fan of remakes, but I find this one to be the best version of the classic story. Although Jackson can be accused of making this Kong "too-everything" (too long, too bloated, too much CGI, too much emotion, etc.), he does accomplish quite a bit in the way of suspense, action, spectacle and a believable Beauty and the Beast story with terrific performances as the couple by Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, the latter aided by the effects team. Jackson's production designers also got to create the spectacular New York City of the '30s and the exotic, otherworldly Skull Island where Kong and the other huge creatures from the past still roam in the wild.
The film is basically divided into three parts. Part One (52 minutes) begins in Depression-era NYC where comic actress Ann Darrow (Watts) has just lost her gig and is contemplating going to work at the burlesque house to earn enough to eat. At the same time, movie producer/director Carl Denham (Jack Black) has just learned that the studio heads hate the rushes from his latest "wildlife" picture and are going to fire him, so, escorted by his assistant Preston (Colin Hanks), he gathers together what he can and hightails it towards the ship waiting to transport him across the ocean to the mysterious location where he wants to finish up his project without the studios' help. His primary problem is that he's lost his leading lady, and Fay Wray isn't available since she's off working with Merian C. Cooper. (A nice in-joke since Wray played Ann in the '33 King Kong and Cooper co-directed it. There are several such references throughout the film.) Luckily for Carl, he comes across Ann and entices her to join him when he mentions that his film is being scripted by playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), an author with whom Ann would like to work. They get to the ship just before the studio execs and are introduced to Capt. Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann) and his crew which includes First Mate Hayes (Evan Parke), teenage former stowaway Jimmie (Jamie Bell) and Lumpy the cook (Serkis). Jack is also aboard ship, even if it originally isn't his idea. During the voyage, Denham gets plenty of footage with Ann and her leading man, prima donna Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), but the captain isn't happy that he's sailing for an uncharted island, and then he learns that Denham has a warrant out for his arrest. Just when it looks like they'll divert to Singapore to hand Denham over to the authorities, the ship enters a fog bank and eventually reaches Skull Island.
All the supporting characters seem to have some back stories going on. For example, the Captain seems to be a very soft-spoken guy but you can tell that he's at sea hiding from some haunted past. However, the most affectimg relationship of the lesser characters is the father-son one between Hayes and Jimmie. Hayes is trying to teach Jimmie life lessons, and Jimmie has just begun reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness, so their discussions of that book seem to be playing out in their true life adventure on the sea and at Skull Island. A relevant line is when Hayes tells Jimmie that the novel "isn't an adventure". After the setup and intro, Part Two (84 minutes) gets into the rock 'em, sock 'em action and creepy suspense, and this is where Jackson both pays faithful adulation to his fave film and deliberately tries to go into overdrive with a series of pumped action scenes which recreate but go well beyond the source. The original had one T. Rex; this one has three. [Note: Kong's battle with the three is both hilarious and has some startling 3-D looking shots, mostly involving the dinosaurs trying to eat Ann. I've heard some viewers complain that this fight scene is ludicrous and defies the laws of physics. Well, if you really think about that while watching a movie about a giant ape fighting three dinosaurs in 1933, then you probably shouldn't be watching this movie (and most fantasy) in the first place.] The original had one mad stampeding dinosaur; this one has dozens. The original had to cut out the gross-out scene with giant bugs and headsuckers; this one includes it using the original's storyboards.
The other thing which separates this Kong from the original is the emotional empathy between Kong and Ann. In the original, Ann was terrified of Kong throughout the movie and showed no other emotions toward him. Kong was interested in the way Ann smelled. In fact, he pokes her with his finger a few times and then raises it to his nose to get a good smell of her. He's obviously fascinated with Ann, but she just wants to get away from the "Monster". In the 1976 remake, which was also updated to the '70s, Jessica Lange doesn't even play Ann. Instead, she plays Dwan and she's terrified initially by Kong, but later when they spend some quiet time alone and she finds Kong to be her protector against even worse beasts, Dwan even gets turned on by what Kong can do to her body! She does feel some love for Kong though, however it's nothing like the attachment which develops between this version's Ann and Kong. Eventually, Ann holds on tight to Kong when she sees that he's the one who can save her from Skull Island's scary fauna. She also introduces Kong to the concepts of humor and beauty. There is a deep, mutual bond between the two characters which I find totally natural, no matter how many times I've heard somebody call it weird or stupid. So, even if some find this movie redundant or a vulgar waste of money, I find it a good, old-fashioned entertainment, but with a lot more heart and soul than the other versions.
Dehnam and the crewmembers are able to capture Kong and take him back to NYC where he displays the Ape as the Eighth Wonder of the World. Denham is really depicted as a weasly guy who'd probably sell his mother to get a hit in the entertainment business. Jack turns out to be a decent heroic figure. [Note: the original Kong has Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) as the First Mate on the ship who was a heroic figure and Ann's human love interest. This film seems to turn that character into three characters: Brody's playwright, Parke's first mate, and Chandler's vain actor who, not so coincidentally, is named Bruce.] Part Three (40 minutes) is what happens when Kong is in NYC, leading up to the climax at the Empire State Building. We are witness to another array of spectacle and action made all the more fun by it occurring in a meticulously-recreated 1930's Times Square and environs. I don't think I need to go into any details about these scenes, but they don't disappoint me at all. Kong himself remains dignified right up to the very end.
I want to add that I grew up with the 1933 King Kong, and it was instrumental in my falling in love with the movies. The fact that you could see such things which were impossible has a big effect on a youngster. I think it's a classic and that everyone should watch it. My rating for it is . However, I don't lionize it as others do. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects are incredible and a lot of fun, but the acting in the film isn't really A-quality. I mean, Fay Wray is beautiful and can scream with the best of them, but her co-stars aren't all that hot. Armstrong can play a big producer OK, but it's superficial, and Bruce Cabot is on the wooden side as the hero. Another thing is that the beginning is a little slow-moving. (Yes, I realize that many viewers complain that Part One of the 2005 version is slow and irrelevant, but I actually enjoyed the added time to get to know the characters. Even if many of the characters and their relationships don't "pay off" in the context of the plot, they do add depth and mystery to the film. I realize that some people today will just find the acting and FX of the original too hokey, but it's a real movie-movie, and I keep finding plenty of hokey acting and FX in today's films.
I recently rewatched it about 3 weeks ago (bought the double disc for 7 bucks) and your opinion on the attraction between kong and the girl is evident and Indeed believable. Though Jackson seems to be overly intrigued by this idea and works vigorously to pull this element of the story off. Almost as if he knew that this element might be his only creative contribution to originality in an otherwise recreation with today’s F/X. All is impressive from the look, to the CGI, to the atmosphere and to be honest the film really doesn't fail by much it just doesn't fully live up it to itself and the original. Sometimes it's as simple of a question as this. Did we really need a remake of King Kong ?
X
User Lists
Nope. I haven't seen either one. Are you recommending them?
Anyone else seen either of them?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
#153 Ben-Hur (William Wyler, 1959) -AND- #154 Quo Vadis (Mervyn LeRoy, 1951)
-AND-
It's rather interesting that the 1950s began and ended with two gargantuan American epics about Rome during the beginning of the Christian era and that Miklos Rozsa composed the scores to both films. 1959 saw Ben-Hur win 11 of its 12 nominations (Room at the Top beat it out for Best Adapted Screenplay) and to this day, that remains tied with Titanic and The Return of the King as the greatest winner of Oscars in a single year. Charlton Heston even won best actor, and even though I thought he was better in Planet of the Apes and The Big Country (another Wyler flick), Chuck does turn in a sincere and extremely-physical performance. The film is often criticized nowadays as being slow as molasses, and I'll admit that the first hour (or about one-fourth) is rather sluggish although it's certainly never boring. This section covers the birth of Christ and the remeeting after many years of Jewish nobleman Judah Ben-Hur (Heston) and his childhood best friend, the Roman Massala (Stephen Boyd). This sets up Judah being thrown into the Roman galleys as a slave and his mother and sister being imprisoned and later becoming lepers. Later on, Judah rescues a Roman general (Jack Hawkins) and becomes his adopted son, as well as the greatest chariot racer in Rome, so that when Judah returns to Jerusalem, he's able to challenge Massala in one of film's all-time classic action scenes.
Besides being about Ben-Hur and the use of 70MM Cinemascope, the film is a low-key presentation of the life of Christ who is occasionally seen in the distance or up close from behind. Jesus never speaks in the film, but his life parallels Ben-Hur's and actually makes sense of all of Judah's trials and tribulations. This is where Ben-Hur draws much of its power since it's one of the few films concerning the Christ which actually shows him actively doing anything without getting into trouble. Just about the biggest thing which Jesus does in this movie is to give Ben-Hur a drink of water when he was tired and thirsty, and this incident stays with Judah's life all the way until the crucifixion where he realizes that Jesus was that man who gave him a will to go on even though he didn't know him and couldn't comprehend why he helped him. Since Ben-Hur is basically a tale of revenge, this parallel story of Jesus and forgiveness just makes the whole thing play out much more complexly, as well as maybe giving your tear ducts a workout. Welshman Hugh Griffith gets extra points for playing an Arab who hires Ben-Hur to ride his white Arabian horses in the arena, and Finlay Currie is another connection to Quo Vadis; here he plays one of the three Wise Men who returns to seek out the grown Jesus and unhappily stumbles upon his horrifying fate.
----------------------------------------------------------
Quo Vadis was made in 1951 before there were any widescreen film processes regularly used in filmmaking, but it's still crammed with action and spectacle. First off, and you may already know this, but I'm a huge fan of Deborah Kerr, and she may well look more beautiful here than she ever did. She plays a slave who was adopted by a Roman general who subsequently became a Christian, that underground sect where many of its members are condemned to death just by loving and following Jesus. Robert Taylor plays a Roman officer who is immediately smitten with the Kerr character but fears when he learns that she's a member of the Christian cult. This is the romantic plot which drives the film, but an even more-interesting subplot involves the crazed Nero (Peter Ustinov) who wants to be the greatest Emperor which Rome has ever seen, so if he has to burn down the city while composing a song to create a New Rome, so be it! Nero can even blame the Christians on the burning and send them all to the Colisseum where they will become victims of lions, tigers and bulls who would like nothing better than to rip them to pieces while the crowd roars for more and more blood.
Even though this film is shot in the more-squarish 1:33 ratio, it's crammed with action, not only involving the scenes in the Colisseum but also the spectacular burning of Rome where seemingly thousands of extras have to escape through blocked-off sewers and roads. Jesus is not actually in this film because he'd already been crucified, but Peter (Finlay Currie, again) and Paul (Abraham Sofaer) make appearances and have some lengthy scenes where they preach Christianity, mostly involving the Sermon on the Mount. This film runs about 170 minutes which is almost an hour shorter than Ben-Hur (when you include all that film's musical interludes when the film isn't actually playing). Together, they make for one gigantic representation of what Hollywood thought of Christianity as box office, as well as sex and violence tempered with a message of "love". The heroes or heroines always get the message while the insecure villains just never see it, all the way right up to their dying moments. I recommend both films, but as you can see, you have to be ready to invest a considerable amount of time in each, and if you have a problem with Christianity, even in its "formative stages", you may want to steer clear. However if that's true, I shudder to think of all the other problems you may have with watching certain movies.
Happy Viewing!
-AND-
It's rather interesting that the 1950s began and ended with two gargantuan American epics about Rome during the beginning of the Christian era and that Miklos Rozsa composed the scores to both films. 1959 saw Ben-Hur win 11 of its 12 nominations (Room at the Top beat it out for Best Adapted Screenplay) and to this day, that remains tied with Titanic and The Return of the King as the greatest winner of Oscars in a single year. Charlton Heston even won best actor, and even though I thought he was better in Planet of the Apes and The Big Country (another Wyler flick), Chuck does turn in a sincere and extremely-physical performance. The film is often criticized nowadays as being slow as molasses, and I'll admit that the first hour (or about one-fourth) is rather sluggish although it's certainly never boring. This section covers the birth of Christ and the remeeting after many years of Jewish nobleman Judah Ben-Hur (Heston) and his childhood best friend, the Roman Massala (Stephen Boyd). This sets up Judah being thrown into the Roman galleys as a slave and his mother and sister being imprisoned and later becoming lepers. Later on, Judah rescues a Roman general (Jack Hawkins) and becomes his adopted son, as well as the greatest chariot racer in Rome, so that when Judah returns to Jerusalem, he's able to challenge Massala in one of film's all-time classic action scenes.
Besides being about Ben-Hur and the use of 70MM Cinemascope, the film is a low-key presentation of the life of Christ who is occasionally seen in the distance or up close from behind. Jesus never speaks in the film, but his life parallels Ben-Hur's and actually makes sense of all of Judah's trials and tribulations. This is where Ben-Hur draws much of its power since it's one of the few films concerning the Christ which actually shows him actively doing anything without getting into trouble. Just about the biggest thing which Jesus does in this movie is to give Ben-Hur a drink of water when he was tired and thirsty, and this incident stays with Judah's life all the way until the crucifixion where he realizes that Jesus was that man who gave him a will to go on even though he didn't know him and couldn't comprehend why he helped him. Since Ben-Hur is basically a tale of revenge, this parallel story of Jesus and forgiveness just makes the whole thing play out much more complexly, as well as maybe giving your tear ducts a workout. Welshman Hugh Griffith gets extra points for playing an Arab who hires Ben-Hur to ride his white Arabian horses in the arena, and Finlay Currie is another connection to Quo Vadis; here he plays one of the three Wise Men who returns to seek out the grown Jesus and unhappily stumbles upon his horrifying fate.
----------------------------------------------------------
Quo Vadis was made in 1951 before there were any widescreen film processes regularly used in filmmaking, but it's still crammed with action and spectacle. First off, and you may already know this, but I'm a huge fan of Deborah Kerr, and she may well look more beautiful here than she ever did. She plays a slave who was adopted by a Roman general who subsequently became a Christian, that underground sect where many of its members are condemned to death just by loving and following Jesus. Robert Taylor plays a Roman officer who is immediately smitten with the Kerr character but fears when he learns that she's a member of the Christian cult. This is the romantic plot which drives the film, but an even more-interesting subplot involves the crazed Nero (Peter Ustinov) who wants to be the greatest Emperor which Rome has ever seen, so if he has to burn down the city while composing a song to create a New Rome, so be it! Nero can even blame the Christians on the burning and send them all to the Colisseum where they will become victims of lions, tigers and bulls who would like nothing better than to rip them to pieces while the crowd roars for more and more blood.
Even though this film is shot in the more-squarish 1:33 ratio, it's crammed with action, not only involving the scenes in the Colisseum but also the spectacular burning of Rome where seemingly thousands of extras have to escape through blocked-off sewers and roads. Jesus is not actually in this film because he'd already been crucified, but Peter (Finlay Currie, again) and Paul (Abraham Sofaer) make appearances and have some lengthy scenes where they preach Christianity, mostly involving the Sermon on the Mount. This film runs about 170 minutes which is almost an hour shorter than Ben-Hur (when you include all that film's musical interludes when the film isn't actually playing). Together, they make for one gigantic representation of what Hollywood thought of Christianity as box office, as well as sex and violence tempered with a message of "love". The heroes or heroines always get the message while the insecure villains just never see it, all the way right up to their dying moments. I recommend both films, but as you can see, you have to be ready to invest a considerable amount of time in each, and if you have a problem with Christianity, even in its "formative stages", you may want to steer clear. However if that's true, I shudder to think of all the other problems you may have with watching certain movies.
Happy Viewing!
Last edited by mark f; 04-21-10 at 09:02 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
OK. For people who care, I spent about three hours going through here and fixing up all the photos and videos. I hope that will last for a while now. 
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So many of the films on your list I enjoy mark. I agree that films including Elmer Gantry and The Innocents are masterpieces. Why can't we get along and focus on the films we mutually like.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Sometimes it's as simple of a question as this. Did we really need a remake of King Kong ?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
#155 - Glory (Edward Zwick, 1989)
A powerful anti-war film which also pays great honor to ALL the men who served, died and suffered during the American Civil War, Glory focuses on the African-American experience as seen through the eyes of a somewhat naive young white officer (Matthew Broderick), from a rich family, who agrees to lead the all-black, all-volunteer regiment which actually includes one of his best and smartest friends (Andre Braugher). His second-in-command (Cary Elwes) helps him to whip the men into shape, and that's part of what's significant about the film. All men are created equal. The blacks are not given a free ride and are trained and punished just as anyone would no matter what their race is. True, it's a haunting moment when Denzel Washington's character is whipped for going AWOL to get decent shoes (and it's plain as day that he was similarly whipped by his slavemaster). At the time, Spike Lee, who had made Do the Right Thing the same year, complained that the film was tainted because it was told from a "white boy"'s perspective, even if it was based on a true story and the Broderick's character's diary. Although I love the Spike Lee Joint, I find it a bit ironic that Lee decided that he could use racist whites (and blacks and every other race) to tell his fictional tale but that he bemoans the fact that whites and blacks comingle in a true telling of an American tragedy.
Broderick is extremely affecting as the young officer who matures under fire, and even though Washington received a Best Supporting Oscar, the emotional centerpiece of the film for me is the incredibly-dignified Morgan Freeman character. He's one of the most-respectable and sincere characters in any war movie, but that's what makes Glory a great film; it honors the characters and their almost unbelievably-hopeless situation. Glory is one of those films which regularly gets shown in public schools although it received an R-rating because there are a couple of ultra-violent battle scenes where people's heads explode just like the watermelon in The Day of the Jackal. Those scenes are shocking but fleeting, so I would say that Glory is probably a film which actually deserves the PG-13 rating because I believe it's an important film for parents to watch with their own children. It's not nearly as gory as Saving Private Ryan which I'd show to kids too, but I believe that they should be slightly older than those who watch Glory.
The film is presented elegantly by Zwick. He's able to contrast the rich white families with the poor blacks while still showing how men from extremely different backgrounds can bond together to work for the greater common cause. Slavery and racism are rampant themes in the film but they aren't especially shoved down your throat. The film works mostly because it's based on true characters and those characters basically all agree in what their intentions are and what they have to go through to accomplish them. Another significant part of the film is the wonderful musical score by James Horner, accompanied by the Harlem Boy's Choir. The film is quietly powerful, especially the heart-wrenching finale. If you truly believe that all men are brothers and that some things are worth dying for, it's almost mind-blowing in its simplicity. I think that forgotten screenwriter Kevin Jarre deserves some major credit for the film's success.
EDIT:
Now that I've watched it again, I can tell you a few mistakes I made in my "review" above. First off, Matthew Broderick's tale is not told through his diary but rather by the letters he wrote to his mother. The film begins incredibly intensely at the battle of Antietem where he leads men into what is basically a hopeless charge into a well-defended Confederate position and he's shot in the neck. Frederick Douglas (Raymond St. Jacques) has a small role as a character who advocates the forming of the all-black regiment as a way to promote pride in his race and enable them to take a hands on approach to their recent "emancipation" by President Lincoln in 1863.
There are several rousing scenes involving the blacks not getting shoes and uniforms, their being paid less than a white soldier, and several run-ins with blatant white racists, so perhaps the film is not quite as subtle as I would hope, but as I mentioned before, Do the Right Thing can not be construed to be subtle at all either. One of my fave scenes is near the ending, after the regiment learns that they've been chosen to lead the charge on an incredibly fortified Southern fort along the beach. The night before their suicide mission, the entire regiment gets together around the campfire to pray and sing hymns to their God to give thanks for being able to fight for themselves against injustice. "Oh my Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord... " with plenty of clapping and chanting. I was pretty much crying during the entire film, certainly from the opening scene all the way up to the ending. I could go into more detail about such things as the illiterate stutterer Jihmi Kennedy who's a crack shot to the look on Broderick's face in front of a burning building when he realizes that he and his men have become dupes in a looting spree down South. The "Merry Christmas" exchange between Braugher and Broderick is also very memorable. It all adds up to a powerful experience for any and all watchers of this great American classic.
A powerful anti-war film which also pays great honor to ALL the men who served, died and suffered during the American Civil War, Glory focuses on the African-American experience as seen through the eyes of a somewhat naive young white officer (Matthew Broderick), from a rich family, who agrees to lead the all-black, all-volunteer regiment which actually includes one of his best and smartest friends (Andre Braugher). His second-in-command (Cary Elwes) helps him to whip the men into shape, and that's part of what's significant about the film. All men are created equal. The blacks are not given a free ride and are trained and punished just as anyone would no matter what their race is. True, it's a haunting moment when Denzel Washington's character is whipped for going AWOL to get decent shoes (and it's plain as day that he was similarly whipped by his slavemaster). At the time, Spike Lee, who had made Do the Right Thing the same year, complained that the film was tainted because it was told from a "white boy"'s perspective, even if it was based on a true story and the Broderick's character's diary. Although I love the Spike Lee Joint, I find it a bit ironic that Lee decided that he could use racist whites (and blacks and every other race) to tell his fictional tale but that he bemoans the fact that whites and blacks comingle in a true telling of an American tragedy.
Broderick is extremely affecting as the young officer who matures under fire, and even though Washington received a Best Supporting Oscar, the emotional centerpiece of the film for me is the incredibly-dignified Morgan Freeman character. He's one of the most-respectable and sincere characters in any war movie, but that's what makes Glory a great film; it honors the characters and their almost unbelievably-hopeless situation. Glory is one of those films which regularly gets shown in public schools although it received an R-rating because there are a couple of ultra-violent battle scenes where people's heads explode just like the watermelon in The Day of the Jackal. Those scenes are shocking but fleeting, so I would say that Glory is probably a film which actually deserves the PG-13 rating because I believe it's an important film for parents to watch with their own children. It's not nearly as gory as Saving Private Ryan which I'd show to kids too, but I believe that they should be slightly older than those who watch Glory.
The film is presented elegantly by Zwick. He's able to contrast the rich white families with the poor blacks while still showing how men from extremely different backgrounds can bond together to work for the greater common cause. Slavery and racism are rampant themes in the film but they aren't especially shoved down your throat. The film works mostly because it's based on true characters and those characters basically all agree in what their intentions are and what they have to go through to accomplish them. Another significant part of the film is the wonderful musical score by James Horner, accompanied by the Harlem Boy's Choir. The film is quietly powerful, especially the heart-wrenching finale. If you truly believe that all men are brothers and that some things are worth dying for, it's almost mind-blowing in its simplicity. I think that forgotten screenwriter Kevin Jarre deserves some major credit for the film's success.
EDIT:
Now that I've watched it again, I can tell you a few mistakes I made in my "review" above. First off, Matthew Broderick's tale is not told through his diary but rather by the letters he wrote to his mother. The film begins incredibly intensely at the battle of Antietem where he leads men into what is basically a hopeless charge into a well-defended Confederate position and he's shot in the neck. Frederick Douglas (Raymond St. Jacques) has a small role as a character who advocates the forming of the all-black regiment as a way to promote pride in his race and enable them to take a hands on approach to their recent "emancipation" by President Lincoln in 1863.
There are several rousing scenes involving the blacks not getting shoes and uniforms, their being paid less than a white soldier, and several run-ins with blatant white racists, so perhaps the film is not quite as subtle as I would hope, but as I mentioned before, Do the Right Thing can not be construed to be subtle at all either. One of my fave scenes is near the ending, after the regiment learns that they've been chosen to lead the charge on an incredibly fortified Southern fort along the beach. The night before their suicide mission, the entire regiment gets together around the campfire to pray and sing hymns to their God to give thanks for being able to fight for themselves against injustice. "Oh my Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord... " with plenty of clapping and chanting. I was pretty much crying during the entire film, certainly from the opening scene all the way up to the ending. I could go into more detail about such things as the illiterate stutterer Jihmi Kennedy who's a crack shot to the look on Broderick's face in front of a burning building when he realizes that he and his men have become dupes in a looting spree down South. The "Merry Christmas" exchange between Braugher and Broderick is also very memorable. It all adds up to a powerful experience for any and all watchers of this great American classic.
Last edited by mark f; 06-06-15 at 09:41 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
...the emotional centerpiece of the film for me is the incredibly-dignified Morgan Freeman character.
Also, Quo Vadis, eh? I'll have to check it out, I love a good classic epic, widescreen or no widescreen. I liked El Cid, which I saw thanks to your recommendation, so I'll probably like this one as well.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
X
Favorite Movies
Thanks, Harry. I can count on you to respond. Welcome back. What's the best film you've seen lately?
I actually just wrote that Glory post from scratch. I think I'm going to watch it tomorrow with a friend, but if I can somehow make myself cry over my own silly words, something is hopefully 'sweet-smelling in Denmark", and it's a significant film I'm trying to pass on to the next generation.
For me, the highlights of Quo Vadis are actually all the scenes with Peter Ustinov's Nero and how his entourage all suck up to him no matter how idiotic his actions are. It's really quite satirical if you look at it separated from the more-simplistic, sincere Christian scenes. Then again, the film really piles on the atrocities left and right in the arena. HA! It wasn't even directed by DeMille!
Welcome back. What's the best film you've seen lately?I actually just wrote that Glory post from scratch. I think I'm going to watch it tomorrow with a friend, but if I can somehow make myself cry over my own silly words, something is hopefully 'sweet-smelling in Denmark", and it's a significant film I'm trying to pass on to the next generation.
For me, the highlights of Quo Vadis are actually all the scenes with Peter Ustinov's Nero and how his entourage all suck up to him no matter how idiotic his actions are. It's really quite satirical if you look at it separated from the more-simplistic, sincere Christian scenes. Then again, the film really piles on the atrocities left and right in the arena. HA! It wasn't even directed by DeMille!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
That's a pretty good review considering it's from scratch. I've seen the film a couple of times now but it'd be hard for me to write something about it without having it fresh in the memory. Well, something significant that is, like you did. Heck, I don't even write anything about the films I've just watched (heh heh) let alone something I last saw a couple of years ago.
X
Favorite Movies
Well, you probably have to earn a living, while I'm Underchieving Bum Number One (that almost makes me sound like a Super Hero!!) HA!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What's the best film you've seen lately?
This month some of the best (in no particular order) I've seen include:
The Terrorizer (1986, Edward Yang)
Intentions of Murder (1964, Shohei Imamura)
The Days of Eclipse (1988, Alexander Sokurov)
Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (1936, Jean Renoir)
Punishment Park (1971, Peter Watkins)
A Fugitive from the Past (1965, Tomu Uchida)
Workingman's Death (2005, Michael Glawogger)
Last Holiday (1950, Henry Cass)
Hard for me to name the best out of the bunch, but I'm really liking the Japanese these days. I've seen many excellent films these last few months, I was going to mention the ones I liked best in the Movie Tab someday soon but haven't gotten around to it yet. I managed to get invited to a site that has pretty well every rare film you could imagine but never be able to find, and some. All available to download, for those that aren't opposed to the torrent world that is. It's a goldmine for a film geek like myself. Actually, you'd probably love their selection of films.
By the way, I found The Adventures of Prince Achmed. Haven't watched it yet, but I'll get to it soon enough and let you know what I think.
X
Favorite Movies
No, Harry, that was there all the time. I'm happy that you liked Last Holiday. That one is a real forgotten gem, but looking at your list, they most all seem underseen and underappreciated. I hope that Prince Achmed is the restored version with the rousing score.
Glory - continued...
Now that I've watched it again, I can tell you a few mistakes I made in my "review" above. First off, Matthew Broderick's tale is not told through his diary but rather by the letters he wrote to his mother. The film begins incredibly intensely at the battle of Antietem where he leads men into what is basically a hopeless charge into a well-defended Confederate position and he's shot in the neck. Frederick Douglas (Raymond St. Jacques) has a small role as a character who advocates the forming of the all-black regiment as a way to promote pride in his race and enable them to take a hands on approach to their recent "emancipation" by President Lincoln in 1863.
There are several rousing scenes involving the blacks not getting shoes and uniforms, their being paid less than a white soldier, and several run-ins with blatant white racists, so perhaps the film is not quite as subtle as I would hope, but as I mentioned before, Do the Right Thing can not be construed to be subtle at all either. One of my fave scenes is near the ending, after the regiment learns that they've been chosen to lead the charge on an incredibly fortified Southern fort along the beach. The night before their suicide mission, the entire regiment gets together around the campfire to pray and sing hymns to their God to give thanks for being able to fight for themselves against injustice. "Oh my Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord... " with plenty of clapping and chanting. I was pretty much crying during the entire film, certainly from the opening scene all the way up to the ending. I could go into more detail about such things as the illiterate stutterer Jihmi Kennedy who's a crack shot to the look on Broderick's face in front of a burning building when he realizes that he and his men have become dupes in a looting spree down South. The "Merry Christmas" exchange between Braugher and Broderick is also very memorable. It all adds up to a powerful experience for any and all watchers of this great American classic.
I hope that Prince Achmed is the restored version with the rousing score.Glory - continued...
Now that I've watched it again, I can tell you a few mistakes I made in my "review" above. First off, Matthew Broderick's tale is not told through his diary but rather by the letters he wrote to his mother. The film begins incredibly intensely at the battle of Antietem where he leads men into what is basically a hopeless charge into a well-defended Confederate position and he's shot in the neck. Frederick Douglas (Raymond St. Jacques) has a small role as a character who advocates the forming of the all-black regiment as a way to promote pride in his race and enable them to take a hands on approach to their recent "emancipation" by President Lincoln in 1863.
There are several rousing scenes involving the blacks not getting shoes and uniforms, their being paid less than a white soldier, and several run-ins with blatant white racists, so perhaps the film is not quite as subtle as I would hope, but as I mentioned before, Do the Right Thing can not be construed to be subtle at all either. One of my fave scenes is near the ending, after the regiment learns that they've been chosen to lead the charge on an incredibly fortified Southern fort along the beach. The night before their suicide mission, the entire regiment gets together around the campfire to pray and sing hymns to their God to give thanks for being able to fight for themselves against injustice. "Oh my Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord... " with plenty of clapping and chanting. I was pretty much crying during the entire film, certainly from the opening scene all the way up to the ending. I could go into more detail about such things as the illiterate stutterer Jihmi Kennedy who's a crack shot to the look on Broderick's face in front of a burning building when he realizes that he and his men have become dupes in a looting spree down South. The "Merry Christmas" exchange between Braugher and Broderick is also very memorable. It all adds up to a powerful experience for any and all watchers of this great American classic.
Last edited by mark f; 06-25-10 at 03:59 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I hope that Prince Achmed is the restored version with the rousing score.
edit: And how about that ending to Last Holiday, didn't see that coming. Another film that I saw somewhat recently with an interesting ending was Renoir's La Chienne, have you seen it?
X
Favorite Movies
No, I haven't seen that particular Renoir film although I have seen six of his from the 1930s. I don't seem to be able to get it from my rental services either. Last Holiday is one of my faves. Did you notice that the beginning and the ending are the same scene?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Did you notice that the beginning and the ending are the same scene?
X