love

Poll

What should this month's theme be?

Silent Films
5 (27.8%)
Films from the 1960s
9 (50%)
Films about Film
4 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: March 04, 2012, 12:14:41 AM

Author Topic: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s  (Read 15097 times)

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2012, 10:45:35 AM »
I do like to quote George W. Bush whenever possible.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2012, 10:42:54 PM »

The Italian Job - It's been so long since I saw the remake that I've forgotten most of the details.  I remember Ed Norton (in a role that doesn't seem to exist in the original, unless I'm mistaken) and Seth Green as the annoying nerd and the Mini Coopers... and that's about it.  I'd even completely blanked on who the stars were.  So comparisons will not be forthcoming, which is probably just as well.

I love me some heist movies, I really do.  And part of the joy of heist movies is the meticulous preparation, the clever planning.  Unfortunately, we don't get much of that here.  The plans are handed to Michael Caine, fully prepared.  Even the tools to complete the job are prepared.  No one needs to work out much of anything.  You kind of wonder what the first hour of this movie is for, because nothing much of consequence happens.  We get the famous "blow the bloody doors" off scene (which doesn't really live up to the hype of being so frequently quoted, but maybe nothing could) and the scenes establishing Noel Coward as the kingpin financier operating from within prison are pretty neat.  Everything else is rather forgettable up until the heist itself.  Which is to be commended for its fantastic car choreography.  Seeing those little Mini Coopers zip around anything and everything is a blast, and easily the highlight of the film.  Probably the most enjoyable car chase footage I've seen besides Blues Brothers.

It's too bad nothing much else in the movie matches the entertainment level of those little cars.  The heist itself is mildly clever, but again, it'd be more satisfying to see more of the planning.  Caine and Coward are both a lot of fun, but the rest of the cast is either blah or Benny Hill... who I had hoped I'd never have to see again in my life.  Fortunately it's quite a small role, but that doesn't spare us from his dumb leering and ass-grabbery.  The Quincy Jones score is really spot on a lot of the time, but at the film's climax you're tormented with one of the most irritating songs I've heard in a long time.  It plays into the film's sometimes overwhelming British pride, which I guess is fun if you're English but it got kind of annoying for me.  I do want to applaud the ending, though.  I could make a terrible pun but it would be a giveaway (and it's probably been made a thousand times before), so I'll just say it's a real hoot.

Except for that song and being reminded of Benny Hill, I didn't truly hate anything in the film.  But except for the brilliant car chase and the final few minutes, I didn't truly love anything about it, either.  Rating: Fair

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2012, 11:26:29 PM »
Agree. Really the only thing they kept for the remake was what you liked: the Mini Coopers and a hint of the Quincy Jones score. The remake is better, but only by a bit and only because the original is okay but vastly overrated. Some people how that final song sticks in your brain, but like you I also resent the film for it. It's the main reason why I'll probably never rewatch this version.

Najemikon

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #83 on: March 15, 2012, 06:42:44 PM »
I can't disagree with you, Martin, but part of the reason I dictated it is that it is a true enigma that epitomises the 60s. Analyse it all you like and you're right, the remake is the "better", more competent film, but the original has character. Character that if you could bottle it, you'd make a fortune. The Italian Job is one of the most loved British films of at least the 60s and it seems to be so for only a handful of obvious reasons (Mini's, Caine, Coward, music) that in any other film would make it a cult oddity, yet everyone of a certain generation in the UK love it. Consider it against other Caine movies of the era like Get Carter, Zulu and Alfie, and The Italian Job should come off worst against all of them, yet I love it the most.

I will make an effort to disagree with you on a couple points. I think your ears hear overhyped dialogue because you've already heard it too many times perhaps? It does work when you come to it fresh. Kids respond very well to the film in particular and "You're only supposed to blow the bladdy doors off!" is the first poor impression of Michael Caine they attempt, in my experience. It and many other lines have a certain ring to them. And the music is persistent, but annoying? Nah!

It belongs to the Mini's though. I think that car is historically still the most popular in Britain and driving them was immense fun in ratio with running costs and reliability. I'm a 70s kid, but I still passed my test in the 90s in an original Mini that was still going strong. Honestly, I'd have one today as well, though not the new ones. They live on the charm of their predecessor but no way as nimble. They're bigger even, which is just silly.
Jon
"Get out of my way son, you're using my oxygen."
Catch up with reviews at my blog,

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #84 on: March 15, 2012, 08:56:42 PM »
Cool Hand Luke


What is there to say about Cool Hand Luke that hasn’t already been said a hundred times before?  A high point of 60’s cinema, which already has a number of high points.  A brilliant script.  Magnificent performances, headed up by one of Paul Newman’s greatest roles.  There wasn’t a dull moment, or a misstep in the entire film.  It is almost a perfect film.

The only thing left to talk about is the theme, although that has been covered ad nauseum.  The general consensus is that Luke is a Christ figure, a reanimation of Jesus in celluloid, transported to a Southern work farm prison.  Although I had never seen the film, I had heard this idea, and it was difficult to watch the film without looking for hints of messianic complex. 

Except that I found very little that was messianic, or Christ-like.  And being a Jesus-student, I should know. (Spoilers ahead)  Sure, Luke dies at the end.  He becomes a sign of deliverance.  He is unfairly treated and unfairly sentenced to death.  So those are elements.

But Luke isn’t a man seeking to save anyone.  He doesn’t even think he can save himself.  From the very beginning of the film, he felt he was destined to go nowhere.  Not because he needed to be anyone’s sacrifice.  I would say that Luke would claim that no one needed a sacrifice to be who they are.  Luke’s mother wasn’t particularly holy or heavenly-minded.  Rather, she is one of the most down to earth folks you’d ever meet.  And she isn’t there to hold her son after his death.  It is her death that sparks the events that flame into Luke’s demise.

Yet… and yet there is something.  Something about Luke’s story that gives a sense of religiosity to it.  If there is anything, I’d say it was this: Luke’s story is a gospel.  Not a gospel about a Messiah.  But a gospel about freedom.  A gospel particularly suited for those in prison. 

The original idea behind the old English term, “go-spel” is “good news” which is a direct translation of the Greek word “eu-angel-eo” which means “good message”.  The Greek word in the Roman era was a message of a victory or a message to a slave or prisoner about their freedom.  And Luke is one who lived out his message, who proclaimed his gospel to every prisoner that could see it, without words:

Every prisoner is already free.

Throughout this tale, Luke refused to be commanded, restricted or beaten into submission.  When he was locked in the box, he was free.  When he was bullied, he already had a plan to bring the bully down.  When he was beaten, he would choose to accept the beating, again and again, because no one could limit his freedom.  If he was in a place, he assumed he chose to be there.  He wouldn’t let anyone—not the warden, not the guards, not even God—tell him what to do.  He went when he wanted to go.  He stayed because it pleased him to do so.  And he never lost his freedom because, ultimately he had no fear, not even of death.   Because the one who does not fear death is slave to no one.

This is not a religious message, exactly.  But it is a gospel.  It is a proclamation of good news, of freedom for all.  Luke is a kind of a Messiah, but only in that he showed the way, much like Buddha did.  And his disciples told his story and proclaimed his message of freedom for those who needed to hear it.

This is not the message of Jesus.  Nor is it the life of Jesus.  Any similarities to other religions are just signs at how seriously the author and filmmakers wanted us to take this story. 
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 14979
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #85 on: March 15, 2012, 09:26:41 PM »
Really great review, I picked this especially for you because I knew you would find a way to discuss the religious aspects of this film with a unique and eloquent voice, one of the best reviews I have read from you.  I am so glad that you liked this film, and I think it warrants a thoughtful review such as yours.  It is consistently in my top 100 year after year.
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2012, 10:29:37 PM »
Thanks, ses!  And thanks for dictating it to me-- I just needed that little push.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #87 on: March 23, 2012, 02:39:59 AM »


After getting over the disappointment to find that this wasn't an instructional video detailing the complex procedure of killing a mockingbird (crickets...), I was pleasantly surprised by the poignancy and depth of the narrative that is To Kill a Mockingbird. It's sad, weird, and possibly gasp-inducing to say this, but I don't think I ever finished this book in junior high. Why, you might ask? Well, my family moved around a lot and moving took a lot of time. I was home schooled and such. Junior high was the worst, so of course it was Mockingbird that was the casualty of my reading childhood. Oh, I've read tons of classics - The Grapes of Wrath, The Yearling, Pride & Prejudice, etc. - but sadly I was halfway into the novel when we had to get up and move across the country. I arrived at school and they had long passed Mockingbird for a book that's so forgettable that it seems that I have forgotten it. Previous knowledge of the story is fuzzy. What went on there? How did this begin? Oh, enough scrambling to make up excuses for myself. Onto the review.

I loved To Kill a Mockingbird. Too many book adaptations of films have the directors over-blunt the narrative's themes and messages, but the director's hands are invisible - it is much a fantastical reality as it is unassuming and quiet. Perhaps it is in part to the focus of having kids being the protagonists that make it easier for the director to feel uncompelled to beat us over the head - you have to stay true to the eyes of children, not the eyes of writers, if that makes any sense. I respect that the story never cuts away from the children because it never gives three dimensions to the character of Atticus Finch, which is exactly how it should be. It is something Lee understands and it was something Malick understood last year - kids don't see their parents as three dimensional figures with a past that occurred before their very existence. It is only through the cracks, the crevices of their parents demeanor that a child can understand that there is more than meets the eye, that there is more to this man/woman than just the title of dad/mom/parent. The way that Atticus puts his arm around the ghost of his wife while sitting on the swinging bench, the reasoning Atticus gives as to why one shouldn't kill a mockingbird, the look in his eyes as he assures Tom that they'll win eventually - all cracks into Atticus' almost impeccable poker face. It is here that Peck fully forms a character out of a Superman (of sorts) of a character.

The film's centerpiece, the trial, was horrifying and difficult, but it was never like, say, The Help where the white people are EVIL! I genuinely felt sorry for Mayella, I cried for her, I felt bad for her, I could understand exactly where she was coming from. It was a failing of the times - not just racism, but of the times and of weak constitution. If Tom was let go, he would of been killed still. So the end result isn't what matters, but the execution of the events. It's a sad turn of events so the way that the story cuts you off from telling you the case early on gives it all the more power. The little glimpses we get are, of course, from the kids' perspectives which leads to much foreshadowing and suspense to find what the mystery that daddy Atticus is keeping us away from. The trial closes in tragedy, but it's understandable and expected. But in the film's very end, we watch as Atticus changes his ways. In the letting go of Boo, we realize that the only way to fight against society isn't to fight under society's rules, but by our own rules. While the film's very end is hopeful and uplifting, it is also somber. We can't trust the jury to be attached to the law, so, by turn, the lawyers, the police, and the politicians won't be. We will just let this one slide.

Still, though. A+

P.S. The music is awesome! Robert Duvall is amazing!
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 02:42:33 AM by Totoro »

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 14979
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #88 on: March 23, 2012, 06:25:47 AM »

Still, though. A+

P.S. The music is awesome! Robert Duvall is amazing!



So glad that you loved it!  It's my #1 movie, so I am always glad to read reviews like this.  I agree about the music, I listen to the score often, love Elmer Bernstein. 
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: March 2012 MDC: The 1960s
« Reply #89 on: March 24, 2012, 07:39:03 AM »
Culloden (1964) 8/10
 
Much like The War Game, this is a documentary style film about war. Instead of an alternate future, however, it depicts a historical battle and manages to make things work very well despite the inherent anachronism of a camera crew in the 18th century. When it comes to depicting the blundering build up, the brutal battle, and the bloody aftermath, Watkins doesn't slip up. The use of closeups works very well in conveying agony and bewilderment and, as you'd expect from a documentary style film, the very methodical pacing and matter of fact descriptions clash with the grimy visuals and leave strong impressions. Besides being a critique of a particularly bloody battle and the events that followed the film also works as a critique of war itself. How can someone participate in something like this and not be dehumanized? In that respect I think the choice of a historical battle, documentary style, minimally identifiable characters and a very short timeline, the battle is was barely an hour long, make it uniquely effective.