I could only make it through that prologue. Then I sampled scenes up to the end. I was just too bored and disappointed.
This appears under the label of Star Trek. But it is so different from everything Trek was set up to be it could rather be sold as something else.
Why is Paramount thinking that they can do this without alienating the fan base?
I hope the next season of Strange New Worlds will not lean into this cynicism, too.
Is that the film that was supposed to be a series starring Michelle Yeoh? I haven’t watched anything Trek-related in a while now, and based on the reactions here, I doubt that I’ll watch this. It’s too bad that it’s so disappointing. I ran hot and cold on her character in Discovery because, as good as Yeoh is, the writing never established her as the main character … which she should have been, in my opinion.
“The Seventh Seal” is a film that I have wanted to see for years, the whole idea of a knight playing a game of chess with “death”, with his life at stake, really intrigued me and I finally watched it last Sunday.
To be honest, that didn’t sit well with me. Disappointingly little was done with the entire above idea. Of the hour and a half, it only takes about ten minutes at most.
It is also not returned to in the last part of the film, so there is no climax and death suddenly comes for the knight and - apparently - his company. Of course you can explain that with whatever you do, you can’t beat death, it always comes for you when your time is up, but then the previous scenes of the chess game between the two opponents were actually redundant.
What we do get for the rest of the hour and a half is the adventures of a number of incredibly sketchy characters, with regular bland, annoying, comical or, for me, uninteresting religious scenes, which made the relatively short playing time quite a chore for me.
Through the knight, a very young Von Sydow, we are presented with a number of life questions, such as: What is the meaning of life? Is there life after death and does God exist? To which we don’t get any answer, by the way.
It’s all quite depressing. Fortunately, there were the sparkling Bibi Andersson and the more inscrutable Gunnel Lindblom to lighten the mood, but that was certainly not enough.
Maybe this kind of movie isn’t just my cup of thea.
A quiet place: Day one
I loved the first film, was disappointed by the second one, and I did not think that concept could lead to anything new or interesting, so I skipped this film last year.
I only thought I would sample it as a free streaming choice for a few minutes - but those minutes were enough for me to know that this is an absolutely intriguing and different take on the original idea.
I should have known because it is directed and written by Michael Sarnowski who made the wonderful and tender “Pig” with Nicolas Cage in a career saving performance.
“Day One” takes place in New York, not in the country like the first two “A quiet place”-movies, and while that city has been invaded by aliens so many times, this film still makes it look different and interesting because it focuses on two people who probably are left behind after the evacuation has already begun.
The really courageous thing is that the main character, played by the marvelous Lupita Nyong´o, is a terminally ill cancer patient who has no chance of surviving anyway. The film adopts her perspective without falling into the trap of telling the usual “triumph of finding meaning again in life”-trope. Instead, while still showing how she does cling to life, she is mostly trying to survive a bit longer, until she finds a meaningful end.
That a major studio blockbuster allowed such a story is baffling but I applaud this wholeheartedly. Apparently, in the horror genre, serious filmmaking is still greenlit.
And that surprise also applies to the second character, a young man played by “Stranger Things”-Joseph Quinn, who is absolutely no cool guy, no hero, no jokester. Instead he is so deeply terrified by the alien threat that at first he can hardly move. He clings to the main character, needs her comfort, and only gradually begins to help her, because they both depend on each other. It is a wonderfully honest relationship which makes the film a compelling portrait of real people having to come to terms with something which is just terrible and unexplainable.
Of course, a film like this has to offer action and horror setpieces, and it does so with aplomb and inventive variations.
But the heart of this film are these two characters and their emotional journey.
While the first two movies were rather typical horror genre pieces, this one is a character drama, and one of the best movies of 2024.
Bergman did not have any definitive answers to give. The film is about raising questions in the minds of its viewers.
There are moments of hope. Though Block does not get any answers from the condemned girl or Death itself, he does have the beautiful interlude where he enjoys strawberries and milk with Mia and her family.
There is also the scene where the knight distracts Death with the chess match long enough for Mia, Jof, and Mikael to escape the forest, thus allowing Block to accomplish the “meaningful deed” he told Death about in the first sequence. While death may be the end for all people, there remains the possibility of acting with compassion toward others despite the inevitability of death.
To be honest, I didn’t realize that the knight distracted death so that the family could escape his eye and run away and therefore he still accomplished his good deed.
Thanks for pointing this out to me. For me, this makes the film a little more satisfying.
I am glad. THE SEVENTH SEAL means a great deal to me, since it was the film that introduced to me the idea that movies could be philosophical, and tell a story at the same time. I remember the shudder my teenage self experienced watching Block confess to a monk (including his strategy against Death), only to have the monk reveal himself to be Death itself.
But you can see almost immediately that it is death itself, right? Well, I have a gigantic screen and that probably helps, but I realized within a second or so that it was him and I didn’t really understand why Block didn’t notice this.
The audience can see it is Death before Block can. In fact, we see Death turning, so as to obscure itself from Block’s vision.
There is also the issue of Block being so caught up in his own anguish that he is not seeing the world around him with clarity. His gaze is very inwardly-directed at this moment.
I gave into the hype and watched Wicked (2024). I’m not going to lie, as someone who isn’t the biggest musical fan, I enjoyed it. Plus, our own Michelle Yeoh is one of her generation’s most talented actresses. Ariana Grande kind of reminded me of Jessica Chastain and Bryce Dallas Howard at certain times and looks. Overall, bring on The Good Part this year!
SHOUT AT THE DEVIL (1976)
It took me forever to get around to this one, but I found it a solid effort and definitely one of Roger Moore’s better non-Bond vehicles. He holds his own here opposite Lee Marvin, which is no mean feat, and together they have a great on-screen chemistry (and reportedly got along like a house on fire off-camera, even though I’d never have imagined them as compatible types).
The film veers between comedy and violence in a way that I’m not sure entirely works, but Marvin in particular seems to be having a blast as a cantankerous, conniving drunkard. The scenery is gorgeous, even though filming in South Africa generated controversy at the time and still feels uncomfortable 50 years on. Also the fact that the two heroes of the story, these hard-fighting, hard-drinking, trouble-prone rascals, are ivory hunters by trade can put a bit of a strain on the “ain’t they lovable” schtick. A placard at the start of the film assures us no animals were harmed in the making of the film, but that still doesn’t make it fun to watch elephants being shot down. Also, as is often the case with these “great white hunter” flicks, the natives are little more than set dressing and cannon fodder, and die by the score.
The villain, a WW1 German officer, is despicable but also kind of a fat clod, so you’re never quite sure how to take him. Imagine if Colonel Klink were murderous and as hard to kill as Jason Voorhees and you’ll get the idea.
I don’t know, it’s a mixed bag, I suppose, but overall a good watch with some solid action and a few good laughs. In particular, there’s a drawn-out fight scene between the principals that’s very well staged and shot, and possibly Roger’s best. Also some great costuming, sets and locations that give it all a sweeping sense of scale.
Filmed between TMWTGG and TSWLM, it features a number of Bond alums. For starters, it’s directed by Peter Hunt, with John Glen on board as second unit director, production design by Syd Cain, model effects by Derek Meddings, camera work by Alec Mills and Alan Hume, titles by Maurice Binder…and probably some other connections I’m missing.
It does feel a bit on the long side, however, even at just over two hours. Maybe it’s just me. Amazingly, Hunt’s original version was supposedly 50 minutes longer before he was ordered to trim it down to allow for more screenings per day. Much as I enjoy seeing Roger in his most handsome period and getting to do things he normally didn’t get to do, I’m not sure I’d have made it through a version of this film that was an hour longer.
Forgot to mention, for those of you who’ve loved Roger’s disguises as old men, old ladies and hobos on TV, and clowns and gorillas on the big screen, Shout At the Devil gives you a chance to see him go undercover in blackface. 
“Yes, I know we’re filming in South Africa during the apartheid regime and making heroes of elephant poachers, but I need something that will get people talking about this film! Who’s got ideas?”
Oh my, they really checked all the boxes there…
Small wonder I never got a chance to watch this, it doesn’t seem to have had a long theatrical run here. And if it was shown on tv that was probably during the late 80s on a weekday between 02.00 and 04.00 AM, if at all.
I think I have read enough not to watch this thing.
I’m quite conflicted about the film, really. On the one hand, I like Marvin and Moore, the cinematography is quite good and it’s always nice just to see Roger in a film that’s not marred by utter ineptitude behind the camera. But yeah, there’s plenty of reasons not to love it, as well.
Roger seemed to have a knack for self-sabotage. I recently re-read his LALD “Diaries” and you can tell he was pleased that the Bond role was starting to open doors for him, with offers pouring in. But even at the height of his Bond-powered box-office clout, he just kept picking projects that were either fatally flawed at their core or should have been obviously unsavable even at script stage.
Big names, money and talent obviously went into “Shout At The Devil,” “Gold” and “The Wild Geese,” but they start with a strike against them with the stubborn decision to film in South Africa at the height of apartheid (if Roger somehow couldn’t have anticipated the complaints raised about that the first time, surely he must have caught on by the third). All three films have their merits, but in the end what must have looked to Roger like chances to elevate himself to the levels of his A-list co-stars end up remembered more as “A-listers go slumming with Roger Moore.”
“Escape to Athena” is another head-scratcher. WW2 period piece “caper” movies were a fairly bankable sub-genre in the 70s, but Roger opts to play a Nazi officer?! The limited exposure to his “German accent” on The Saint not being enough punishment, now we get two hours of it? Of course he ends up a hero of sorts by the end, but if “elephant poacher” is a hard hurdle to clear in the “lovable rogue” sweepstakes, “Nazi Major” is even worse.
I really want to love anything with Roger in it, but he seems to have been his own worst enemy when it came to career choices. Some of these films did fairly well financially, but in general they do not age well and consequently are largely forgotten.
What I read sometime ago about it is that elephants realy were shot but that it were animals which would be shot anyway. I can’t remember why, maybe to control the amount of animals or something, but since I read this, it feels more than akward to watch a scene in which “our heroes” are killing elephants, I just don’t want to watch it. It feels not okay.
I was looking for signs that the elephant shootings were “archival” or documentary footage, but it doesn’t appear so. My wife pointed out that elephants are indeed trainable, but I don’t know if they can be trained to fall down like they’ve been pole-axed. I also considered the possibility they were shot with tranquilizers, but somehow I never imagined the results being so immediate.
Interesting to consider they could have been elephants who “would have been shot anyway,” but that would still make the opening placard (“no animals were harmed”) a lie.
It’s the kind of thing that might have passed for “manly” in an old Clark Gable or John Wayne film in the 30s or 40s, but it definitely leaves a bad taste in this one. Herein lies the real danger of “period” films: either you present your characters with the attitudes of the time – which are often repellant to us today – or you sanitize them by grafting on modern values and attitudes, which makes them feel false and contrived and agenda-driven.
And – spoiler alert – the heroes end up losing all the harvested ivory when their boat is sunk anyway, which makes it all seem even more pointless and grim.
John Wick 1-4.
Absolutely disgusting.
Great fun.
I also did a John Wick run this week. You nailed the series as a whole. I’ll still give Ballerina a chance. Now onto Die Hard!
Now Jim, what’s wrong with killing people with a pencil?
You’ve done it many a time just writing a shopping list.
I’ve done it twice. Okay, not “great fun”, but very practical. 
Okay, kinda fun, but also entertaining. It stokes ones “legend” status and scares bloody Hell out of former “KG- used to be” types.
Just sayin’
