I have been on a bit of a Columbo kick lately but it’s likely been 10 years since I saw this one. Going to try and cue it up some time in the next week.
2 Likes
I look forward to your analysis.
1 Like
By the way: at least in Germany the Bond movies once again are only available on Amazon prime for one more week.
Weird. I thought they own them now. Is the planned hiatus working for them better than having them on offer all the time?
2 Likes
Artificial scarcity.
2 Likes
They most likely want you to have to double-dip and purchase them on physical media as well. In the new era of moving towards digital-first media, the companies most likely want to make everyone aware that they don’t really own the films they’re paying for, but rather that the company themselves own them and will dictate to you when, where, and how you can watch them, unless of course you shell out even more money to purchase your own physical copy of it.
1 Like
It’s all about monetizing them. Unless they cause a ton of people to sign up for Prime, they’re not actually making Amazon money having them on their own service.
In the past year in the U.S., the Bond movies have been on Max, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount Plus and Hulu. Licensing them to those services for an exclusive period is how they make the $$$.
4 Likes
One more week in Canada as well. I was surprised, as I’m used to movies and TV shows being on a service for about a year (if not more) before they leave. I never did find the exclusive Prime content they talked up earlier in the summer.
2 Likes
3 Likes
GLADIATOR II–in theatre.
Having made a significant contribution to the neo-peplum 24 years ago with GLADIATOR, Ridley Scott renews his acquaintance, and enhances his contribution, with GLADIATOR II. Rome is more decadent one-quarter century down the line, while CGI is more advanced, and Scott a more assured director.
As before, the film opens with the Romans conquering a foreign peoples, but there is an air of melancholy here: the winning general seems none too happy with what he has accomplished. Paul Mescal’s Lucius is a great, but reluctant fighter.
Is the film, as many people contend, a retread of the original? It has the same basic plot, but the film resolves the story in a different way. The movie both intensifies its predecessor, and comments upon it. GLADIATOR II also has Denzel Washington being a star and having a ball, with Scott looking on in delight.
And thinking of our recent conversations about the need for the fantastical, GLADIATOR II is not anything if not fantastical. Sharks, a rhinoceros, mutant baboons–everything Ancient Rome needed, but never had (not to mention decadent queer emperors and toadying Senators–callbacks to peplum’s glorious past). There is even a SPARTACUS shoutout.
Upthread, I found one of SAF’s concise insights:
Director and script go together here very well.
7 Likes
Sorry to interrupt, but to make my next entry in the Casting the Continuation Novels thread, I need someone to make a another post there. Thanks.
In the mail tonight was a copy of “Films in Review” from January 1958. I bought it for its cover, a picture of Marlene Dietrich from WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (which did not make their ten best list for 1957).
Glancing through it, I came across this opening sentence for a review of PATHS OF GLORY: “For those who do not mind pacifist propaganda, and are not concerned with possible adverse reactions of our allies, Paths of Glory can provide 86 minutes of rather harrowing cinema.”
4 Likes
Two interesting articles from The Hollywood Reporter about the components of Glicked:
4 Likes
Why isn‘t it „Wickiator“?
4 Likes
I have been seeing Glicked.
The question is–how to pronounce it.
1 Like
Outland
Yes, I know. 1981. And I only wanted to see it because of James Bond in a SciFi-Thriller, what´s not to like?
Well, I remember being a bit lukewarm about it afterwards (hey, no spaceships?) and while I must have seen it again on DVD somewhere around the 00´s (no pun intended) I never thought too much of it, nor of Peter Hyams.
Now, after watching “The Name of the Rose” again (after lots of, lots of years) and enjoying Connery so much in it (the film is pretty well structured but has a few things I am not so fond of) I thought I give “Outland” another try.
And, surprise, surprise, I loved it! Yes, yes, the setdesign (and even kind of the title sequence) are an ALIEN rip-off (as Hyams himself officially concurred) and it´s all mainly a HIGH NOON IN SPACE concept.
But it is wonderfully filmed (Hyams always excels during action sequences - the pursuit through the station is tough and exciting, and people get hurt during it, so no contemporary video game fighting with no consequences). And Connery delivers a really great performance, captured by Hyams in intelligent framing choices, allowing him even character illuminating monologues in close up) and Frances Sternhagen as the no nonsense, sardonic doctor is another highlight. Peter Boyle as the manager who is only after performance enhancing and the big bucks is a great villain and, quite frankly, could fit right in contemporary times.
And it all moves fast and efficiently, under two hours, something too few movies dare to do these days.
ALIEN: Romulus
The seventh film in the franchise. This time concentrating on twenty somethings. Who doesn’t think this is cash grab is very benevolent.
But…
I loved it. Despite all my fears this would be horrible, this film turned out to be my third favorite Alien movie (after the original, of course, and ALIENS), and maybe I even put it very closely before the Cameron sequel.
Why? Because it is offering interesting variations on the familiar elements and is truly relentlessly paced, making those two hours a really fun monster movie experience.
And once again, yes, this is IP milking. But this is the industry today. And if you can only do what gets greenlit at least do it as good as you can. These filmmakers have succeeded at that. Bravo.
6 Likes
As for my last movie watched, it was another Thanksgiving with The Godfather (1972). What can I say that hasn’t been said before? Every time that I watch it, I see something new. For everyone who likes the movie, I recommend reading Mario Puzo’s original novel. It has the same basic plot, with some side characters more developed. Including two subplots that involve minor characters from the movie. I also recommend the prequel The Family Corleone by Ed Falco. It is based on Mario Puzo’s original storyline for The Godfather Part 4. It would have been a prequel-sequel like Part 2 and Andy Garcia said it was nearly made. Unfortunately, Mario Puzo died and Coppola didn’t want to do it without him. I would love to see Vincent as the head of the Corleone family for a storyline, even as a novel. I’m honestly a big fan of Godfather Part 3, probably more than most!
As you said, above @secretagentfan it is IP milking. But, for The Godfather series as a whole, at this point, better a book than a movie!
5 Likes
As you should be. It was always my favorite, and even better in Coppola’s revision.
5 Likes
I too like Part Three more than most. - though to me it’s not in the same league as the first two. It’s a good film; the other two are legendary.
I thought it could have been a great movie with significant rewrites to the script and a few casting changes (especially George Hamilton and Sofia Coppola). That said, I remember one of the points Coppola’ made in his audio commentary for the blu-ray for part three. In essence, he said that the problem with sequels is you start to repeat notes. To some extent that was going to be a problem for part three no matter how well it was written/cast.
BTW - I recently listened to the audiobook on the making of the first Godfather - Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli (Mark Seal). Great read/listen. My take away - it’s amazing this movie ever got finished.
5 Likes
Do you mean the final director’s cut? I’m sure I have seen that, but I don’t think it’s what I have in my “DVD Collection” series featuring the three films and then a fourth bonus materials DVD. As I recall, Michael and Kay’s reconciliation made a lot more sense in that version than it did in the theatrical release.
I too like Part III better than popular opinion or the film critics would indicate, but I don’t think it holds a candle to Parts I and II, which are exceptional. However, I think it could have achieved greatness with one simple casting and story change: Robert Duvall as the consigliere (George Hamilton was just silly), and have Tom Hagen be the one who betrays Michael, not Eli Wallach’s Don Altobello character. Yes, I know that apparently Duvall asked for too much money. But having him in that pivotal role would have made so much more narrative and emotional sense.
Sofia Coppola got such an unfair thrashing in the media. I actually liked her in the role. She had a refreshing natural presence and was about the only one not chewing up the scenery. Most of the actors seemed to be overcompensating for the lack of coherence in the script. I loved Andy Garcia and would have enjoyed seeing him continue on in that role.
The subplot with the Vatican was actually pretty sophisticated, but unfortunately the sudsy family drama often pushed it to the back burner. And for heaven’s sake, with a film of this budget, surely they could have done a better job of matching Franc D’Ambrosio’s vocal track (because he really was singing) to his filmed opera performance. It was terribly distracting. I remember people in the theatre laughing because they assumed the actor was faking it, having been dubbed by someone else and doing a poor job of lip-synching.
But those complaints aside, I remember loving it at the time of its release, and going to see it at the theatre several times. For whatever reason, it carried a powerful resonance. Few films have had that kind of impact on me.
5 Likes
For me, what if great about TGP3/TDOMC is the way Coppola both repeats and varies the previous material (and along the way throws in references to IL GATTO PARDO for good measure).
For example, at the end of TG, the door closes on Kay–she is shut out of Michael’s world. In TGPART2, Michael shuts the kitchen door on Kay, when Connie has snuck her in to see her children. In the third film, when news arrives of Don Tommasino being killed, we watch through an open door as Kay walks (left) out of the frame. In the final variation, the woman has agency, rather than being an object acted upon.
Also, things are outsized in the third movie, as if the system dwarfs the participants, and the system is the author of events, and not the characters (the transition occurs at the close of TGPII.
7 Likes