Kubrick often needed a co-scenarist to bounce things off of, and to provide material that he would re-write.
4 Likes
Interesting double feature. Casablanca, a movie about undying love, and EWS, about love dying.
6 Likes
Twisters (2024)
Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell
Dir. Lee Isaac Chung
Not really sure where to go with a review of this one othe than to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The 1996 film starring Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt didn’t really need a sequel, and didn’t get one for nearly 30 years. At the same time, however, Twisters isn’t necessarily a sequel to that film in the strictest sense of the word, very much existing as its own thing, albeit within the universe of the original, which we’re let in on thanks to a couple of nods here and there. The film is stronger for this, venturing out to chase the storms in different, yet still somewhat familiar, ways.
Much like the 1996 film, Twisters is wonderfully cast. I wasn’t at all familiar with Daisy Edgar-Jones prior to this film, but that’s certainly changed now. She was fantastic, anchoring the film with a presence that completely sells the viewer on the many facets of her character, the grief that is always in the background and guiding her path forward after the opening of the film as well as the curiosity and drive that she has for chasing the storms and trying to make a difference for the people around her. Edgar-Jones will definitely be one I’ll be paying attention to moving forward.
And then there’s Glen Powell, who again firmly plants his flag here in his quest to take over the reigns as Hollywood’s top movie star once Tom Cruise finally allows him to do so. He’s fun in this film, with his “Tornado Wrangler” character being a spot-on send-up of the influencer class that has taken over social media, yet even from the start he hints that there is more to his character than the arrogant know-it-all he presents himself as for the ever-discerning social media lens. Hopefully Amazon already has him penciled in as Felix Leiter for the upcoming film.
Stretches of the film play into familiar territory. We see our storm chasers trying to set various instruments of measurement into the path of the storms, something that the entirety of the original film was based upon. But, then again, there’s only so many things that you can do in a film about storm chasers. There’s also several moments that are direct call-outs to the 1996 film, with the rodeo and then the finale both feeling like they are referencing the iconic F4 tornado scene in the 1996 film where the storm sneaks up on the drive-in crowd as they watch Kubrick’s The Shining.
The film is at its best, however, when the call backs are left aside, as fun as they are, and the special effects (which are fantastic) and, especially, the dynamic between Edgar-Jones and Powell are allowed to the forefront to steer the film.
For whatever reason, I’d been putting off watching this film even though it had been sitting in the Peacock queue for quite a while. I’m glad I finally got around to it.
6 Likes
I agree. Twisters was really good. Certainly better than I had been expecting. It is definitely worth a watch.
Funny you should mention that. I’m getting ready to do a casting list of the Felix Leiter novel The Hook And The Eye, and he is my choice for playing Leiter.
5 Likes
You should watch „Under the banner of heaven“, a mini-series starring Andrew Garfield and her. Absolutely riveting.
4 Likes
I had him as Leiter as well in the “Casting the Continuation Novels” thread. I’ve seen him in a few more movies since then, and the more I see him, the more I’m convinced that he’s about as big of a slam-dunk casting choice for Felix there is.
I’ll have to check that out. Thanks. 
6 Likes
Yeah, Glen Powell is a pretty solid choice. The only other actors that really came to mind for Felix Leiter was Ryan Gosling and Scott Eastwood, but Powell is younger than both, looks more like Leiter than either of them, and in a casting situation is cheaper than Gosling but more of a star than Eastwood. Plus, he’s a Texan! 
3 Likes
Either Gosling or Eastwood would be good, although Gosling might be just a touch too famous for the part. Powell is starting to approach that, but he hasn’t been in the limelight in a major way for anywhere near as long as Gosling has. Gosling was already a major movie star by the time that The Dark Knight Rises was released, a film in which Powell appeared in the legendary role of Trader #1 and has the exchange with Bane: “This is a stock exchange. There’s no money here you can steal” “Oh, really, then why are you people here?” I’m not as familiar with Eastwood, but he does look the part, for sure.
I could easily see a scenario where they load the cast for Bond 26 with recognizable talent but have the actor playing Bond himself be a rising star that maybe some are familiar with, but doesn’t necessarily have widespread recognition. That could put people like Powell into play as Felix. When you look at Villenueve, most of his films have a decent number of recognizable names (Hugh Jackman, Jake Gylenhaal, Amy Adams, Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Josh Brolin, etc.) and even the character actors that appear in his films tend to be the more famous character actors (Melissa Leo, Maria Bello, Paul Dano, etc.). I could easily see them loading the rest of the cast up like this in support of a lesser known actor in the part of Bond.
4 Likes
Fuze.
Because sometimes, I want to watch something that isn’t an adaptation, sequel, remake, or reboot. Also, it’s nice to watch a British film every once in a while.
An unexploded WWII bomb is unearthed at a London building site, causing a lockdown and an evacuation as the army is brought in to deal with it. But at the same time, a gang of criminals are pulling a bank robbery.
Having experienced an unexploded bomb event about a decade ago, I was dubious about how much excitement you could get from this premise, as most of my memories were of the inconvenience more than anything else. But fair play, the scenes with the bomb were suitably tense, and they interwove nicely with the robbery story.
Another thing that struck me was that they didn’t feel the need to manufacture tension by having the army and the police at odds with each other. Everyone was working towards a common goal, which was refreshing.
I doubt this film will have any kind of long-term impact, but it was entertaining enough for its runtime, a brisk 90 minutes.
4 Likes
Yes, Ryan Gosling is too big a star to play Felix Leiter in a regular James Bond film such as Bond 26. However, as the starring role in a FELIX LEITER story like The Hook And The Eye, he could easily be the right man for THAT role–and he, admittedly, was my first thought for the part. But when I remembered Glen Powell, the more I thought about it, I realized he is the better choice for Leiter regardless of size of the role. And as for Scott Eastwood, I’ve liked him in what I’ve seen of him, but he would be better off as a Leiter in a regular Bond film.
3 Likes
The problem with Powell is that he was starting out to be the next big superstar - and then he had major flops in a row. Right now he is in desperate need for a hit, otherwise he will become the next, well, Clive Owen.
But would he accept a second banana role now? Once you‘re hyped as leading man you are not likely to go back.
And if you do, your career has changed.
2 Likes
I think he already did that with Twisters, to be honest. I guess technically he’s a “co-lead”, but that movie is really Daisy Edgar-Jones’ film with Powell there as support for her. He makes a loud entrance into the film, but from that point, he’s basically there as a support for her as well as a romantic foil.
I could see Bond being spun for him in a similar way. I think it’s very much on the table that Amazon will want to pack the film with recognizable faces in the co-lead and supporting parts, much in the same way that the original run of Batman films were stacked in the supporting cast opposite less established leads in the role of Batman himself. Being an integral part of that approach for a massive franchise like Bond could end up being appealing, potentially. Also the prospect of working with Villeneueve might appeal as well.
And, with the potential for spin-offs very much on the table with Amazon, it could be sold to Powell as a launching point for his own film or series with him in the lead as Leiter, which might make the part much less of a “second banana” type of role. Between that and the chance to hitch his wagon to Bond as a means to try to jumpstart things for himself, I could see Amazon and/or Villeneueve framing the part for him in a way that he might find appealing, much in the same way Tom Cruise was able to convince him to take the Hangman role in Top Gun: Maverick after he was passed over for the role of Rooster.
4 Likes
I agree and think this would be a good idea. It would be a strong indication from Amazon they’re taking the job seriously and it would generate positive vibes. I suspect actors like Powell would jump at the chance to appear in a Bond movie, no matter the size, especially if it can be long term. I could see the association helping their career, not harming it.
3 Likes
I could see it as being even more enticing should it come with the possibility of a Felix Leiter spinoff film/series, which we all assume Amazon will want to do in some form. If they’re spinning off characters from Reacher, surely the side characters from Bond have a bit more of a profile with audiences. And, if we’re getting spinoffs, I would much rather see a Felix Leiter spinoff rather than the umpteenth different take on Q and Moneypenny, as that would be a much more natural direction for the Bond franchise to go.
4 Likes
Joker (2019).
As with Home Alone (1990) at Christmas, I read the shooting script of the movie before watching the movie itself, in a long while. More or less, the shooting script has pretty much all the scenes in the movie. Sure, some lines are cut, and scenes are filmed uniquely from the presentation in the screenplay. The one scene that was known to be improvised is Arthur’s random cleaning out his fridge and hiding in it. Joaquin Phoenix thought it added to the randomness of Arthur. As someone said on a forum from somewhere, the screenplay is the definition of “show, don’t tell.” Lots of vague descriptions of little actions, not just for the characters. In the version that I have, there is an interview Q & A with Todd Philips, as there is a lot of information about how it came to be. It’s worth purchasing for the Q & A alone.
As for the movie itself, it’s still a favorite of mine. While I wish there were some characters from the comics in it, (namely Dr Hugo Strange, The Ventriloquist and the Toyman), it works with its generally original characters. I feel that it is one of the best Robert De Niro performances since Jackie Brown. Murray Franklin was generally just doing his job, although he should have asked Arthur to use the videoclips from his standup. He might have lived to tell the tale. An underrated actor in the movie is Leigh Gill as Gary, Arthur’s short and mistreated (but nice) coworker. He is enjoyable, as one of the two nice people in the movie (the other being the Arkham Clerk played by Brian Tyree Henry). The showdown at Murray Franklin’s show is worth watching the whole movie for. As for Thomas Wayne, it was a bit of a change to what people are used to. There was a lot of dark humor in the foreshadowing in terms of his being called a hero, when his son Bruce will become the ultimate hero. Jessica Chastain said it best about Joaquin Phoenix and his performance: It’s one of the best pieces of acting that I’ve seen. I think the same here. Switching emotions at a random moment is tough to do when acting, and Phoenix does it beautifully. He earned his awards sweep. While I don’t hate Folie a Deux, I do feel that it was a missed opportunity, in particular with the lack of comic book characters listed above, making it a musical, and Lady Gaga being underused as Harley Quinn. Honestly and ironically, I think Joker 2019 would be a great stage play. Hopefully that will happen one day, as comic book characters deserve to be shown on stage as very much. Also, I hope Clayface takes some (but not a lot) of influence from this movie. More comic book villain characters (namely from DC) are welcome. Joker was relevant for its time and it still is. It’s message for me is be kind, you don’t know what personal problems and battles someone else is dealing with. Highly recommended, in particular with these tough times.
Here’s a link to buy the version that I have.
2 Likes
Last weekend I watched
Saterday afternoon Dirty Harry on 4K. It’s still a very good influencual cop movie, with Clint Eastwood in his most famous part and directed in his typical economic style by Don Siegel (Invasion of the bodysnatchers, The Killers). Together they made five movies, or six if you count Eastwood’s debut as director with Siegel as a barman. It has a great 4K transfer and a lot of extra’s. I watched the movie plus all extra’s between 13.30 and 20.30, that is seven hours straight!
Sunday evening, after talking here a little about this personal favorite I knew I had to see it again:
Vertigo!!! My favorite Hitchcock. The 4K is realy fantastic but every version actually is.
There was a time I watched this movie every weekend and every weekend I liked it better and half in the movie Hitchcock does something that normally isn’t done, you don’t give away the clue, but he does and it depends on my mood of the day if I like it or not while watching and I never know in advance how I will feel about it. I have no idea if I am the only one who experience it that way, but I do.
Anyway it is a fantastic movie with the gorgeous Kim Novac (Rrrrr!!!) in a kind of (or not realy) double part.
And monday afternoon I watched the new 4K version of Ben-Hur (and a tale of Christ) which is the best ever version I have ever seen. The colours and sound are briljant. The horse race is so well directed, edited and photographed. You realy have the feeling Heston and Boyd are racing themselves, but ofcourse there are stuntdoubles, images are being accelerated and there is background projection, but still while watching it you believe it are Heston and Boyd who are racing for their lives.
And you get the feeling Ken Adam saw this movie before he designed the Aston for Golfdinger.
5 Likes
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) - dir Terrence Fisher, starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee
Dracula (1958) - dir Terrence Fisher, starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee
I’ve been down a bit of a rabbit hole and have started exploring Hammer Horror. I want to discuss these two together due to the fact that they are reinventions of two of the most iconic monsters, and the amount of shared cast and crew.
Of the two films, I felt The Curse of Frankenstein was superior. Before this, my main point of reference was Frankenstein, so I found the shift in focus genuinely interesting. Unlike the book, the creation of the creature becomes the centre of the story, and more importantly, it becomes a character study of Victor Frankenstein.
He starts with what seem like noble goals, or at least understandable ones, but the film doesn’t take long to show where that leads. What begins as grave robbing quickly escalates into something much darker. Desecration becomes routine, and eventually he crosses the line into murder, all in pursuit of the same goal. It’s that steady escalation that makes the character so compelling to watch.
Peter Cushing is great in the role and really carries the film. There’s a control to his performance that keeps Frankenstein engaging even as his actions become more extreme.
Christopher Lee does the best with what he has. It’s a shame that, for an actor with such a distinctive voice, he has no lines here, but his physical presence still works. And, in a broader sense, this feels like the film that set him on the path toward becoming one of Hammer’s defining monster actors, so there’s something fitting about that.
Dracula also makes a notable shift in perspective from Dracula, with Van Helsing positioned as the clear protagonist, while much of the supporting cast is made up of remixed or simplified versions of characters from the book.
Peter Cushing is solid in the role, bringing a sense of authority and control, but it’s really Christopher Lee who gets the chance to shine. He actually has dialogue this time, even if most of it is concentrated in the opening stretch, but after that his performance is carried almost entirely through presence. He feels imposing without needing to say much, which suits the character well.
The film builds effectively towards its climax, and the final showdown stands out as a highlight. It’s a strong, physical confrontation, elevated by some great practical effects that give it real energy and immediacy.
I do plan to continue exploring Hammer Horror. Unfortunately, the direct sequels to both films are only available to rent on Amazon, while the originals were included, so I may hold off on those for now. That said, there are still plenty of others to dive into. The Mummy feels like the obvious next step…
8 Likes
Magic
Richard Attenborough´s 1978 psycho-drama about a failed magician turned into a successful ventriloquist avoiding a background check necessary for his signing by a network for an own show is a fascinating and extremely well-told story about trauma. Anthony Hopkins stars and completely convinces as a basically sad and troubled loner developing a split personality with the puppet he voices, but Ann-Margret as his former classmate trying to make a living as an innkeeper is just as great, delivering a layered performance full of heartbreak and hope.
Legendary writer William Goldman adapts his own novel once again with the finesse and true masterful know how it should be taught to writers AND directors working today. You can tell a story about complex characters in a concise running time and make every turn count with surprise yet paying off every nuance you introduced along the way. Attenborough directs wonderfully as well, without showing off camera moves - it´s all about choosing the right angles and helping your performers to give the best they can. Jerry Goldsmith’s mournful score is perfectly underlining the melancholy and the mounting dread.
These days, the film would be made with tons of gore and a pounding score of abrasive sound design, at least two hours long full of filler scenes.
But it´s the quiet power of Attenborough´s direction which is so much more effective.
4 Likes
Foxcatcher (2014 film starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo, with brief appearances by Vanessa Redgrave): For me, anything with Steve Carell and Mark Ruffalo is worth watching, and to have both of them in the same film is an even bigger invitation.
This is a disturbing film based on the real-life events of John Du Pont, an American millionaire who started his own private wrestling facility on his estate, named Foxcatcher. Two brothers, Mark and Dave Schulz, are 1984 Olympic gold medalists in wrestling. In setting up his training facility, du Pont hopes to elevate the sport of wrestling in the United States. He invites Mark to train there, and urges Mark to bring his brother along. Dave turns down the offer because he doesn’t want to uproot his family.
Mark trains with his teammates at the du Pont facility in Pennsylvania. Later on, after du Pont has a dispute with Mark, Dave brings his family to live on the Foxcatcher estate so that Dave can take over training. Mark isolates himself from both Dave and du Pont and begins training alone. After du Pont’s mother dies, things begin to unravel, bringing Mark and du Pont into a downward spiral that reaches a tragic climax.
Interestingly, this film is told primarily from the perspective of Mark Schulz. I read about a documentary called Team Foxcatcher in which Mark is barely mentioned, and Dave Schulz is the one most prominently featured. I wonder why Mark was so prominently featured in the fictional version, and all but ignored in the documentary. It could be because Foxcatcher was based on Mark’s memoir.
4 Likes
ENTER THE DRAGON (Robert Clouse; 1973)
In spite of having grown up during the 70s and 80s I never got around to watching one of those three or four most influential Bruce Lee flicks that kicked off the martial arts genre for good in countless cinemas around the globe (and the Kung Fu tv show of 1972, in spite of supposedly having been influenced by a concept Lee pitched in Hollywood, doesn’t really count).
Now ENTER THE DRAGON is on Netflix and I decided to give this a try. In 1973 (and with Lee dying shortly after production wrapped) this was a hugely influential action film whose martial arts premise lent itself more or less plausibly from Hong Kong’s gun laws. Traces of ENTER THE DRAGON’s DNA can be found in nearly every close quarter fighting scene and video game that came after this. Countless martial arts careers in entertainment were based on this in the 50 years since.
If I’m honest I was underwhelmed. Some of the fighting scenes are no doubt impressive, but choreography, composition and cinematography, cutting and montage have made giant leaps since and the visuals are fairly unspectacular. Even weaker is the story itself, a fairly straightforward infiltration tale - with a tacked on vendetta - like Modesty Blaise did it four or five times in the novels alone before ENTER THE DRAGON, with significantly more suspense and thrills. Storywise this is below The A-Team level.
To me the only significant scene was the mirror maze that possibly influenced Scaramanga’s Fun House maze and shooting gallery. Other than that it’s a piece of its time, interesting mostly for its cultural echoes.
3 Likes