What have you watched recently? 3D!

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121266895#Comment_121266895

Best war film ever made. That bullet tracer scene is absolutely genius, I had the film up full blast on the speakers the first time I watched it, I may as well have been in that field too when those bullets went flying.

The first 30-40 minutes of the film is executed in a dull, slow and drudge-like way akin to Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Stalker', then after the tracer bullet scene the whole thing literally descends into a total war Hellscape. Total Hell where the main character in this thing has aged 20 years within the space of 1 hour.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I watched Cocaine Bear last night and I've never been so disappointed by a film. It was boring AF.

Someone posted a weird rant in the Barbie thread a while ago about advertisers lying to people to trick them into seeing Barbie. They were talking nonsense but I kept thinking about that when watching Cocaine Bear. That trailer promised so much, I'd have been really mad if it'd paid to see it in the cinema off the back of the trailer.

johnny_ultimate

The Zone of Interest

https://youtu.be/r-vfg3KkV54?si=bTGpAJFDOu0cMUqn

If you thought Jonathan Glazer's Under the Skin was an icy, off-putting affair, he's only doubled down on that in his remarkable, long-awaited follow-up. Here, he's made a film that coldly, clinically focuses on the Auschwitz commander Rudolf Höss and his family as they live their pampered lives on the outskirts of the horrific concentration camp. It's an unsettling portrait of - to use a cliche - the banality of evil, but what astounds here is the formal rigour with which Glazer explores it. No atrocities are shown on screen - it's perhaps the closest a fiction film has come to espousing the filmmaking principles Claude Lanzmann explored in the peerless documentary Shoah. Static, often hyper-real shots indifferently capture the comings and goings of the family. But just to the edge of the frame, we see smoking chimneys. arriving trains and barbed wire fences, never letting us forget the horrors beyond.

Amplifying that further is the astonishing, unsettling sound design - a soundscape where the discomforting noises in the muffled background emphasise that these people are going about their lives while unspeakable evil unfolds just over the wall. The other essential piece is Mica Levi's sparsely deployed, hauntingly industrial score. There's nothing I've experienced in a cinema recently quite like the impact of this film's soundscape blasting through the speakers - whether it's the sound of a muffled gunshot or the eerie brute force of Levi's final composition.

It's quite the film - daringly confrontational and unwelcoming, but a studious bit of filmmaking that offers a chilling perspective on one of humanity's darkest chapters.

The Burial

https://youtu.be/ZOhIdaufd3Q?si=2pIxn3wDiOmiqRHm

Remember the 90s? They're back, in legal thriller form!

An unapologetic throwback to the days when the courtroom drama was among the most reliable of multiplex entertainments, just this time released straight to a streaming service (Amazon) where such films go to die these days. It's 'based on a true story' bonafides can't cover up just how silly a lot of this is - completely OTT and indulgent stuff, hitting all the predictable beats. But it's also quite a lot of fun, thanks mainly to a pair of powerhouse performances in Jamie Foxx as an outlandish lawyer proudly out of his depth and Jurnee Smollett as his much more qualified corporate-backed legal opponent. Tommy Lee Jones shares dual-billing with Foxx as the 'small businessman' ('small' in the American sense that he's rich but not super-rich), but his job is mainly to offer some more reserved civility while the courtroom fireworks fly.

This is not a great film, but it is an entertaining one - a film that's mostly flash and crowdpleasing spectacle, but there are some lazy autumn evenings when that's all you really need.

monkeyactive

Rob Roy

Took Rob out for a spin. Man there are some great performances In this . Tim Roth, Brian Cox and John hurt knocking it out of the ball park. It's very well paced and edited , it clips along very nicely , builds plot intersped with action and swordplay. Attention to detail regarding costume etc is top class. It has not aged badly at all. If it were released tomorrow I would not bat an eyelid.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121286753#Comment_121286753

The ending is great.

It remains unfortunate that 'Rob Roy' was overshadowed by the vastly inferior 'Braveheart'.

pixelburp

Akira (1988)

The original & only prior watch of this was one of those experiences I took upon myself out of cultural obligation, but maybe too young/stupid/uncultured to understand it as anything more than a kickáss movie that looked cool as shít - with some gnarly body horror as events unravelled. Ain't nothing wrong with that, I might add.

To watch it again was an entirely different experience, this time finding the subtext such that I'd speculate if this might rank as high as Godzilla in interrogating Japan's collective sense of trauma & guilt over its unique & tragic atomic legacy. With, ya know, some gnarly body horror as events unravelled. This was a world in media res, where Tokyo was already coming away at the seams long before Tetsuou's sudden degradation into a monster: protests quickly morphed into riots; urban rot & violence suffocating and surrounding even the upper levels of cyberpunk opulence; a rogue Colonel believed himself Lord Protector as he casually shuttered what was left of democracy; while scheming politicians' own power disintegrated as they bickered among themselves. And all this born from the ruins of an apocalyptic event caused by an ineffable power; one that had since become part mystical, another part scientific conspiracy - but entirely endemic.

What still astounded without caveat and nearly 40 years after its release was the level of fidelity, fluidity and motion in the animation. It was something to behold. With CGI in 1988 still nothing more than an expensive folly, this was hand-drawn animation taken to a phenomenal level that even to this day is arguably a little unmatched. There were scenes I sensed would now be thrown to a render farm, as opposed to what must have been painstaking hours of drawing; a commitment right down to the smallest moments, like a character's neck & gaze turning gently as they watched something they approached.

And with all that beautiful and expressive motion, you'd have forgiven the movie if the action was sparingly sprinkled across the film - but Akira's was constant and visceral from the very first scene; a thrilling bike chase an introduction to how things would start - and continue. A constant stream of tangible, crunchy violence and set-pieces throughout the two hour runtime; it barely took a breath, the pace was breakneck. To a fault, if I'm honest.

Adaptations are a tricky needle to thread: compromise is often the necessary evil during translation, no more than when going from the written word to that most visual medium in cinema. While many a tome and epic has proven problematic by their sheer scope & volume: ask Tom Bombadil how he felt about the Lord of the Rings adaptation. So given that Akira the movie was sprung from a 2,000 page Manga novel, you could appreciate the need for brevity at every moment: watching this was like experiencing four different movies at once: not so much a sense of tones jarring, but just the sheer density of events and characters big & small left you feeling there was much sometimes critically underdeveloped. To the film's credit though, I wasn't left utterly confused either. Much was left unexplored, but not to the extent it became an incoherent mess.

The question of running time seems perennial and has once again arisen with the Killing of Flower Moon, but leaving aside the probable reality that the animators could only perform so much magic, 2 hours wasn't remotely enough for this thing; another 30 minutes of subplot or world-building garnish would have been appreciated. Not least 'cos Tetsuou went from a teenager with misplaced anger, to a mutating physic behemoth with misplaced anger in what has to be record time for the genre. Either way, it still all looked cool as shít.

HalloweenJack

Don't Look Now

I had seen this a few times but stumbled across it again last night.

Its a good study of two people mourning in their own ways. I hadn't remembered how the tone shifts after the lovemaking scene and spirals into desperation as it races towards the end. My understanding is that this act repairs their relationship but they still need to come to terms as individuals with their loss.

Another thing I hadn't appreciated before is how the John character is throwing himself into his work to distract himself not only from loss but also from what he knows is coming, given the blind sister says he has 'second sight', a sort of 'If I don't think about it, it won't happen'.

The visual aspect (how is winter in Venice not going to be atmospheric) and the music is still haunting and fair play to the two leads because a lot of the film's essence depends on their performances.

That sex scene looks authentic but also awkward, like two jigsaw pieces that just don't fit right.

~Rebel~

Saw "Anatomy of a Fall" last night, think its out in ireland next week. Phenomenal, hugely recommend. Just enthralling in its ambiguity.

monkeyactive

Limbo

An art house modern Film Noir style Detective film set in the Australian back end of nowhere where a Detective with personal baggage is sent to look into a cold case involving the disappearance of an aboriginal girl. I enjoyed it. Its in Black and white. Similar enough to the likes of Mystery road and Goldstone for a cynical eyebrow to twitch but in fairness it does have its own thing going.

pixelburp

High and Low (1963)

Ok, maybe this is now my favourite Kurosawa flick.

A distinctly bifurcated feature, where a taut chamber drama suddenly, but not jarringly, pivoted into a prototypical police procedural that was engrossing in its own way. The drama kicked off as something quite theatrical with an almost claustrophobic setting of a living room; what might otherwise have come across a little stagey was counteracted by Kurosawa's usual supernatural ability for blocking: all his tricks were put to good use in a predominantly one room environment to heighten an otherwise mundane location; and each character constantly moved around as hierarchies and power shifted during the tense hours following the (mistaken!) kidnapping that functioned as the inciting incident. Then, with a chaotic interstitial set aboard a train and all shot handheld, the focus shifted to the shoe leather and necessary monotony of the police investigation. Yet it wasn't monotonous to watch as Kurosawa managed to make the routine of an active investigation quite riveting; while the style turned into something a bit more matter-of-fact in places, little moments of important minutiae were highlighted to the audience by a sudden change in composition, or a sudden pause in motion - or in one specific, spectacular case, a single splash of colour to emphasise an earlier detail returning to the fore. 

It's a well known phenomenon that there has been an increased appetite for all things forensic, the catalyst perhaps the "true crime" podcast or streaming shows like Mindhunter; but by and large I think Hollywood has tended to skirt around all that evidence gathering and testimony as a dramatic device - preferring the cheap melodrama and individualism of Sherlock'esque savants with uncanny abilities where others cannot see the patterns. Moments of Eureka! preferred to the simple diligence of a reality that tends towards something more communal. Something that can be tough to work into standard narrative convention - but in the right hands too it can be engrossing in its own way.

So for a 60 year old film to feel both like a prototype yet still an outstanding example in that approach is kinda crazy: maybe it also speaks to cultural difference where I'd draw comparison between America's predominance towards an individualistic mentality, compared with the lingering caste structure of Japan; something perhaps evident with constant deference from the police towards the nexus of the crime, the wealthy businessman Gondo. Indeed it left a constant sense of the peculiar that the film's moments of empathy were not directed towards Gondo's chauffeur; instead the father of the son actually kidnapped kept his head bowed like he was ashamed of it all, all while others chastised his behaviour - including the police! No, instead his employer and all the monetary or career damage caused by the whole affair was what received sympathy.

And in Gondo himself it was yet another barnstormer from Toshiro Mifune, where this time his standard resting energy of simmering physicality was played as something impotent: he fumed (mifune'd if you will?) and often stood with a rigid posture like he was holding it in, powerless as he could only stomp and snap as his livelihood and fortunes whithered in the face of a necessary sacrifice. And if I didn't quite share the script's insistence towards sympathy for Gondo at first, Mifune wore me down through that sense of a wounded & once-powerful animal now brought down low, rendered in that characteristically Japanese sense of formal emotionality. Even at the end, all he could do was watch in silent & sullen confusion as the motives for the kidnapping were laid bare in front of him.

Indeed if I did have a grumble, it's that while the movie made sure we also saw the kidnapper's perspective at all times - perhaps making it more a three-part structure than one of two halves - it never quite managed a convincing landing in terms of motivations. I couldn't draw the connection that lead to kidnapping and murder. It was hurried and when it was explained it left me feeling a bit underwhelmed - albeit relieved it wasn't something more melodramatic like a scorned illegitimate child. But as is often the case in life, the journey was more entertaining than the destination

Decuc500

Code of Silence

Widely considered the best Chuck Norris film, it was originally written as a Dirty Harry script but Clint Eastwood turned it down so Andrew Davis came on board as director, cast Norris and moved the setting to Chicago.

It’s a gritty and violent film in that 80’s way. Probably did a roaring trade in video rental shops. Norris’s cop has to protect an Italian mobster’s daughter after the Italians crash a Columbian drug deal and the Columbians want revenge.

Davis went on to direct two of the best actions films of the 90’s, Under Siege and The Fugitive, and you can tell he knows his way around a shootout. Indeed, one brilliant chase scene on top of the L train through Chicago is a dry run for The Fugitive.

PTH2009

Watched the new Rise Of The Footsoldier Vengence

Christ how are they still making these movies, the story in parts was pathetic and the amount of blood & guts was crazy

Apparently more to come in the series

tesla_newbie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121339628#Comment_121339628

Surrounded by Kants

PTH2009

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121357024#Comment_121357024

No way the Tate from part 1 would be anyway friendly with someone who Cross dresses

Same with how Tucker seems to have gotten more friendly in the later films.

santana75

Dream scenario

Saw this on a whim yesterday and I was very pleasantly surprised. Its a pretty sharp satire on the fickle nature of modern society. Some laugh out loud moments with Nic Cage putting in a brilliant performance.

Decuc500

The Bride Wore Black

For some reason this is the first film I’ve seen from Francois Truffaut. It won’t be the last.

A woman whose husband is killed on their wedding day vows revenge on the five men who are responsible. She crosses out their names from her little black book when she kills them one by one. There is a Bernard Hermann score. Sounds familiar, yet Quentin Tarantino claims to have never seen it (according to Wikipedia anyway). It’s not really an exploitation movie like Kill Bill. Instead, it’s in the style of classic Hitchcock.

It’s such an impressive movie. The camera movements are very stylish and flamboyant, Jeanne Moreau is great as the stone cold woman of revenge, the Hermann score is of course pure Hitchcock/De Palma. I think I'm going to enjoy catching up on Truffaut's earlier New Wave films.

monkeyactive

The Killer,

David Finchers latest on Netflix.

I thought it was lacklustre dull and by the numbers.

Fassbenders assassin character was impossible for me to care about. He was a walking paradox. On one hand a supposedly cold killer for hire who would think nothing of wasting innocents but then we are supposedly meant to buy the impetus for his emotionally charged revenge spree being that he cares so much for his partner (who wasn't even murdered just beat up badly). Having seen the unforgettable likes of Bardems Anton Chiguh and Billy BoBs Lone Mavlo this attempt at the cold ruthless determined hitman just seemed extremely limp and third grade.

The whole thing struck me as a poor mans John Wick / Equaliser / Jason Bourne less the redeeming characteristics of those films. The line between satire and intense seriousness was often badly blurred. In one intense brutal fight scene Fassbender scrabbles in a drawer for a weapon and to his disappointment pulls out a mini lemon zester, totally at odds with the tone of the scene.

Many of the tropes in the film have already been painfully well worn and exhausted such as the long civilized chat between two adversary's when one realises they have been cornered and are drawing last breaths.

The whole film is punctuated by Fassbender's chant like monologue repeating some kind of mantra about focusing" don't improvise ,anticipate" while the whole time he is getting caught off guard and having to improvise.

The film is shiny and slick looking but it just reeks of lack of creative flare with a very dull plot. Fassbender is never really challenged. He just goes about his revenge spree with out much real issue despite one crazy fight. Thoroughly uninteresting stuff I found. Grand for a Wednesday night if your stuck for a film but from David Fincher I had higher expectations.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I watched Jaws for the first time and loved it. I'll spare you all my rambling thoughts but I found myself still thinking about it with a sense of excitement today. I can completely understand how someone would see that film and be driven to want to make films themselves. So good.

HalloweenJack

Ed Wood

I've always liked Tim Burton and have a lot of time for Johnny Depp (at least pre-POTC) and I'd heard plenty about the real-life director the film is based on.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It plays up to the reputation Ed Wood had. At times, its played in a camp, hammy style but there are some tender moments as well. Martin Landau in particular is astounding as Bela Lugosi. Burton did a great job at capturing the 50s zeitgeist and it really feels and looks like a film from the time, from the black and white to the swipes to the camera shots used. Its a homage not only to Ed Wood but to films from that era.

I've read that there's a certain degree of artistic license but I did get a good sense of Ed Wood being a spirited dreamer while being surprisingly comfortable with his cross-dressing at a time when it was seen as extremely deviant behaviour.

Highly recommended film.

Tony EH

^

My fave Burton movie and, really, the only one I can watch repeatedly. A great yarn even if you don't know anything about Ed Wood himself.

pixelburp

The Truman Show (1998)

A film that perhaps once existed as something prescient of a nascent social media age, but is there now an argument The Truman Show has instead come out the other side to become kinda hokey and redundant?

We now live in an era where "Influencers" and streamers broadcast a heavily curated, often sponsored facade of their own lives; and while not 24/7 streamers' own schtick demands constant material no matter how trivial or inane (I remain baffled how watching people play video games is more entertaining versus, ya know... playing the damn things. Old Man Yells At Cloud). Modern digital media has become buttressed by thousands of Trumans: a small cabal of lurid hyper-successes above scores again of pretenders prostrating themselves in front of a fickle audience for their supper. Smash that Like button, ring that bell, sign up to Patreon - please watch me.

The only functional difference between these performers and Truman Burbank is that Jim Carrey's character had no self-awareness of the lie surrounding him. So our actual reality is the alternative ending to the film, where the subject simply accepted their status and willingly continued the fabrication. As can be often the case, real life rings a little more dystopian.

Anyway, leaving aside that extended brainfart and whatever relationship the film has with the zeitgeist, what a blast I had watching this again. This was expertly balanced in being both perfectly taut and loosely playful at the same time: a looseness that surprised 'cos I had forgotten just how late into the film Ed Harris' important figure actually appeared; but such was the excellence of this film's structure and editing his arrival was precisely timed. It was a moment that served to encapsulate how darkly funny and obscene Truman's life had become. Where emotional authenticity was nothing but a facade, directed by an unseen god who by his own words, reckoned he knew Truman more than the man himself.

There were a couple of FX shots that were kinda terrible as those early-but-cheap attempts at CGI often were; while it remained one of those concepts that perhaps benefitted from not thinking too carefully on how this fake world worked - or indeed the exact appeal of the show in the first place. Indeed perhaps the only tonal misstep on reflection was presenting the in-movie audience as ordinary, empathetic creatures: we saw them cheer Truman's burgeoning curiousity - yet weren't all these people complicit in his imprisonment in the first place? Still, that's reaching for quibbles when overall my reaction was of something highly entertaining, often darkly funny, briskly paced, and humane while still being optimistic - despite the rictus-grin horror that was Truman's life.

And then there was Carrey himself: almost every time through his career where he has ducked away from the hyperactive insanity of his comedies, all that natural timing and physicality has only served to make the dramatic roles more impactful. I've long thought it, but films like this reinforced the belief that comedians make for great dramatic actors 'cos their natural sense of timing and closeness to the folly of the human condition sometimes brings more theatricality sure - but without the trade on emotional vulnerability. So all the rubbery movement from films like Liar Liar was there with Carrey's performance, just dialled back into something more internalised, repressed even. Added into that was the consideration this was made at the height of his comedic powers when all Carrey's insanity was a money-printing machine. Maybe there was a degree of something retrospective or personal in this film of a man living a life of constant scrutiny by an audience baying at him to entertain.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121389214#Comment_121389214

Would have to agree with @Tony EH that it's Burton's high watermark, and it's a shame that he didn't dovetail more into "simple" stories like this, rendered with a little bit of his off-kilter panache. His career really cratered into becoming an anaemic gun-for-hire, when maybe he could have had more Ed Wood level movies, work his craft a little.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121366114#Comment_121366114

Follow this with The 400 Blows, you're gonna have lots of fun. That's my first of his so gonna watch The Bride Wore Black next.

pixelburp

Wages of Fear (1953)

Watched this with a degree of enthusiasm, and somewhat belatedly too, knowing it as the original version of a longtime favourite film - and William Friedkin's true Best Film, shush - 1977's Sorcerer.

I've no clue where the consensus lands when pitching the two films against each other, even accounting for the resting presumption that remakes trend inferior compared with the original; but for my taste, this was the lesser, slower vehicle. I couldn't honestly have picked an aspect that I thought rose above Friedkin's own attempt: his was earthier, sweatier and more viscerally thrilling on a moment to moment basis when the nitroglycerin hit the fan. I think my only real criticism of Sorcerer might be the length of time spent with the cast's backstories against the explosive mayhem that followed them, but each little vignette had their own charms; and while Wages... did start out in its central, shítty location the tone of the village's characters veered too often into something almost goofy. The facade of joviality dropped once money was on the table, and the stakes became literal life or death, but there was less of that sense of pure animalistic desperation seen in the later movie. There was a ... jauntiness that seemed at odds with the concept.

Now as its own creature, this was perfectly solid 1950s entertainment - and an interesting time capsule of French cinema released a shade before the much-vaunted New Wave kicked off. And it was a film utterly unburdened by the restraints placed on contemporary American cinema thanks to the puritanical moral constipation of the Hay's Code; the violence was raw, the sexuality naked (literally and figuratively), and the morality of its cast quite unapologetically blunt & crass. The camera lingering on the sight of a leg mangled & smashed by a truck's wheel was quite shocking - for a film this old. Even Sorcerer's violence wasn't this crunchy.

Yes, the film paled in comparison with the 1970s attempt but what was there still entertained all the same, still thrilled once the nitroglycerin burdened trucks started moving. And maybe if push came to shove characters like Luigi were better than later on, with Sorcerer's band of ghosts a broadly detestable bunch. Wages... was also a film entirely(?) without a soundtrack, again a cute reversal to Sorcerer's audio singular landscape: no artificial adjustment of emotion needed, not when a truck was teetering on the edge of a bridge made of rotten wood; or when a character waded through a lake of oil, the actor clearly uncomfortable as the oil lapped around his mouth. Perhaps ultimately, that's where a fairer assessment originated when comparing this and its sibling: that both Wages... and Sorcerer had a commendable physical manifestation of its set pieces. Bar the usual crappy looking rear projection when inside the trucks, everything looked like an in-camera effect - no models or cheats spotted. 

Then there was all the material I could only charitably call "of its time": I'm more than capable at shelving my modernity to ignore or contextualise older movies' social failings or differences, labelling them as simply emblematic of that time. But then when on multiple occasions the ostensible lead characters here made crude, sexualised jokes about the native black population, it got a little hard to park my discomfort. Going double when the only female character in the entire film was a simpering, leg-hugging idiot whose sole purpose was to loudly fawn after Yves Montand's Mario - even as the man literally pushed her off a moving truck. It was just ... a shade too much to ignore or park my conscious brain from noticing. It wasn't ruinous to the experience, but definitely coloured it a little.

Tony EH

I've often thought that Friedkin's movie would have been better received if it had just been called 'The Wages of Fear', instead of the ludicrously obscure 'Sorcerer', which has to be one of the worst titles with which to sell the film. The title becomes clearer when one is watching the film, of course, but as an enticement to actually walk off the street and into the cinema to watch a picture it's a disaster. And in the days when audiences just turned up at the cinema and made their choice there and then on what to watch, the title and poster of 'Sorcerer' was never going to be an attraction to the general audience. Although one would have to question whether the general audience of 1977 would actually want to go and see a remake of a French film (albeit a popular one), even if 'Star Wars' wasn't playing on the next screen.

But yeah, and I've said this before, I have long considered 'Sorcerer' to be the superior version of the story. For sure Clouzot's effort is great in it's own right and I own both. But the build up and back story in the 1953 film is a hell of a lot duller than in the 1977 film, while at the same time being interesting enough to allow the viewer to want to see where the tale will lead. But Friedkin's decision to actually show the reason why his protagonists are in the situation they are in, before they undertake their dangerous mission, makes for a far more compelling entre.

There may also be a personal factor at play for my elevation of one picture over another though. I grew up in the 80's watching 70's films on TV. And 'Sorcerer' is, most definitely, a "70's" film. Not as much in terms of fashions, setting, mannerism, or language. But in a style that is unmistakably 1970's cinema. It's shot on film. It feels gritty. It feels nasty and real. Of course, Geroges Clouzot's version was also shot on celluloid and is gritty too. The town of Las Piedras has the definite feel of isolated grime and despair. A hell hole where the dubious, the unfortunate and the desperate get washed up...and getting back out is beyond the means of most people. But Friedkin's movie has that genuine bluntness that characterised 70's Hollywood, which was a thorough rejection of the Hollywood artifice that drenched its output in previous decades. Something that Clouzot's French movie lacked somewhat, even if his movie had a certain bluntness to it as well.

Both films are truly greats. But if I want to sit down to a film about desperate men driving nitroglycerin to help put out a fire at an oil station, then 'Sorcerer' gets the nod.

silliussoddius

But are they both as good as Vertical Limit?

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121406016#Comment_121406016

Showing the backstories also meant the very last moment landed far better in Sorcerer: the tragedy and waste of it all felt more gut wrenching given it was a hitherto forgotten detail about the character's predicament from his past life. We don't even see what happens - but you just know. I always forget how Sorcerer ends and go "ah yeah, fúck".

Wages' ending was instead just an "Idiot Ball" moment and kind left a sour taste where they just scribbled out a quick downer end. And even though a downer it kinda came from that sense of jauntiness that as you pointed out, just didn't exist in the more cynical, nasty minded 1970s film.

The name was and still is monumentally stupid, Star Wars or no Star Wars. Without knowing the backstory I'd wonder was that more of Friedkin's Exorcist clout being flexed; cos I don't believe for a second any studio wanting to make money off an expensive shoot like that would have gone with such an obscure, off kilter name. "Wages of Fear" is a fantastic name in the first place, it couldn't have done the film any worse than "Sorcerer". The best ever movie with the worst ever name? 🤔

Still kinda surprised nobody has picked up this idea again for another go: it's a cracking set up and one you can tell without necessarily stepping on the toes of the prior version.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121406942#Comment_121406942

Never saw it, had to look it up! But as it's not Sorcerer I will say: no, no it's not 😎

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121408000#Comment_121408000

I've a tendency to be forgiving of the end of the 1953 film because it's obviously a reactionary countenance (as in an acceptance) to the standard ending of a 1950's film, where there's usually a happy ending and heroes get to walk away with a relative satisfaction. But yes I find myself, once again, in complete agreement with you and your "idiot ball" assessment and it's one of the worst things about Clouzot's film. Even as a kid I thought WTF was that? It's just a terrible conclusion and there's no other way around it. At the same time it's difficult not to like 'The Wages of Fear' as it's just such a damned interesting yarn, especially when weighed up against other films of the 50's. I still regard it as one of the best films of that decade, although it would come behind the likes of '12 Angry Men' or 'Bad Day at Black Rock'.

I suppose, also, that Friedkin's remake is just one of those rare examples of a remake being superior to the original, even if the original is a genuinely great film. It's the perfect example of that unusual parallel where both films are genuine classics in their own right.

As to the name, yes, it's always been a confounding thing as to why Friedkin picked that name and I've never really bought into his Star Wars excuse as to why the the film didn't do that well at the BO during the year in question. It's just a dumb name to call your film, especially when it's a remake and a remake of a film with a foreign title. Is it a case of Friedkin getting above himself? I'd say there's a good case for that. But it's a shame he chose that path.

Regarding "another go", I genuinely hope it's never done. Because 10 to 1 there'll be no joy there.

De Bhál

Pig

Movie with Nicholas Cage in the lead role. It had good moments but probably not one I'd watch again.

bnt

Saving Mr. Banks, the story of how Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) finally persuaded author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) to let him make a movie of her book Mary Poppins. It was OK for a Sunday afternoon, I suppose, but not a lot happens, to be honest. It might be true to life in that Travers' involvement was limited to some pre-production, but it might have been nice to have some more detail about the production. All we hear about the casting is that Travers tried to veto Dick Van Dyke, but got ignored.

storydove

Going through a 70s & 80s mood at the moment.

Yesterday I watched River's Edge (1985), it stars Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover and Iona Skye. It was a surprisingly dark tale, showing the lack of empathy in modern life. Also Dennis Hopper shows up in it, his brand of crazy fits in perfectly with the listless, hopeless world that's portrayed.

Earlier today I looked at The Woman in Red (1984), Gene Wilder and Kelly LeBrock. Some of the humor doesn't date well, but the movie has it's moments. Gene getting petulantly angry, to put his wife off the trail of his potential affair, cracked me up.

Just finished watching Capricorn One (1977). OJ Simpson the murderer is in it, he has a supporting role as one of three astronauts. Elliot Gould shines as the investigative journalist.