I did not remember writing about this film before, and that seemed strange to me because it is an old favorite. It turns out that it was not neglect on my part to cover the film, but rather my faulty memory, because I have a post up about this from a 35th Anniversary screening , so just five years ago. You can go there to read my comments on the film, I have not changed my opinion one iota, this is the movie that the original Trekkers will remember as the finest in the series.
At the end of a long holiday weekend, I looked back on the last month and realized that seven out of the last nine films I have written about, are older films that were getting screenings at a theater. I love new movies as much as the next person, but I'm beginning to think that August and September are months that studios don't want us to see new films. The National Cinema Day that happened on Saturday with $3 admission at most theater chains, resulted in "Spider-Man No Way Home" being the top film of the weekend, with a few minutes of added content for a movie that opened last December and has been on home media for months. Maybe instead of the discount, all the theaters could offer a huge choice of classic films for the weekend, I'd be up for that.
This version of Star Trek II was a director's cut that Nicolas Meyer oversaw. As I was watching the film last night, I noticed the several slight changes that had been made. This was the same version of the movie that I wrote about five years ago, but I think it must be only the second time I have seen this version because the changes stood out for me. I worry about people tinkering with films after they have been released. George Lucas almost ruined his original Star Wars Trilogy with the refinements he made over the years. This sort of change however is not technical in nature, it is editorial and it works really well, so don't be put off if you are a purist, the movie still works.
Earlier this year, we passed by "Giant" at the TCM Film Festival because it is a three hour and twenty-one minute film that would have blocked out a couple of other things we were interested in. Lucky for us, the local Alamo Drafthouse scheduled a screening on this long weekend, so we did get a chance to see this George Stevens film on the big screen.
I have seen this film before but Amanda had not. The pairing of Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor is a compelling enough reason to see the film. Add to the mix, James Dean's final screen performance and his second posthumous Academy Award Nomination, and it becomes an essential for cinema buffs. I have always enjoyed the film but I have never thought it was as compelling as so many others seem to feel about it. Now that I live in Texas, I appreciated the first part of the story a lot more and the attitude that Texans have about the state is more relevant to me. Still, this is a big soap opera, with a little fantasy history and social consciousness weaved in to make it feel more significant.
Rock Hudson received his only Academy nomination for this film, and he probably deserved the acclaim for the movie, especially for the second half of the story. Bick Benedict is a headstrong traditionalist who clashes with his eastern bred wife over local politics and the condition of the Mexican workers who populate the large ranch they own. At times he sounds like one of those Southerners who argued for segregation because it was the culture, rather than racial animus that drove their opinions. His slightly inebriated acknowledgement that Angel Obregon, the Mexican kid who is joining the Army, is the best man on the ranch, illustrates that he is simply blind to how this tradition could be seen as prejudicial. His pious protestations about his daughter-in-law being a fine gal, gives way toward the end when he is forced to see the injustices being thrown her way simply because of her heritage. His character as the greatest attitude change in the story arc.
Elizabeth Taylor is fine in her role but the character is always a bit impertinent and forthright in her opinions. The best stretch of her performance is buried in the middle of the film during the couples brief separation. They still have problems when they are reunited, but you can see from her performance that Lesley feels those difficulties are surmountable once they are together again. James Dean was honored in a lead acting category, but his role is very secondary until the final act, and even there it is minimal. I did appreciate the early section where he is enamored of the new Mrs. Benedict, but he is constrained by the situation and her clear messages that she only has eyes for her husband. The visit to his small part of the ranch to share a cup of tea was his best scene in my opinion. I thought the drunken Jett of the last section was a little overdone.
I had forgotten that Rod Taylor was in this picture, and that is understandable since it is a very tertiary role. Dennis Hopper is incredibly young and a little wooden but he comes across quite sincerely. Chill Wills is in a much more familiar part here than he was in "The Deadly Companions" which I saw earlier this year for the Strother Martin Wednesday series I did this summer. It is a big cast and the movie looked great but it's length was a bit much. "Lawrence of Arabia" is nearly twenty minutes longer, but never feels long to me. This felt quite padded at times. Still it was a great movie and great seeing it on the big screen.
"Jaws" on the big screen, of course I am going to be there. This is a cinematic experience and no matter how great the home video releases are (and yes I will be buying the 4K Upgrade being promoted by the current release) one should always see "Jaws" in a theater when it is possible. The screen size and sound are probably going to be superior, but even more than the technology, you are seeing the movie in the place it was made for with people who have the same desire as you, to sit in a theater to experience this masterpiece. The only question is whether the tweaking for 3-D enhances or detracts from the experience.
So we went to two screenings, back to back in different theaters. The first had a 3-D presentation so let me start with that. "Jaws" is a perfect film, so it doesn't really need anything else to gin it up, but there were interesting moments in the film with the 3D effect. The Billboard Public Service announcement does pop a bit more and it does draw your eye to the graffiti artist's work. The scene in Quint's workshop was also a little more intriguing because some of the production background stands out more. Some of the effect was distracting however since you start looking at the things that are different rather than the things that are important. Quint's limerick gets pushed to the background because the foreground with Ellen Brody is now the 3D focus in the scene. I don't know that it lessens the film but it does alter the perspective you have and that was a little disconcerting.
The second screening was in the New IMAX where the screen size is substantially bigger and the quality of the sound and projection has been carefully adjusted to perfectly fit the venue. This was the experience I preferred. The movie looks great in both versions, but without the 3D effect, the experience is the way you are usually engaged with the film which is probably more comfortable.
I liked that the sound in the theater allowed me to hear Brody repeating the directions for the knot he is trying to tie while the reel is slowly being taken. Most mixes focus on the clicking of the reel and obscure the off screen sounds as a result. You also can make out more of Quint's improvised lyrics for 15 Men on a Dead Man's Chest.
I am still trying to figure out what Ellen was serving at dinner, but the rest of the scene was solid with Sean imitating his father and providing a great emotional arc for Chief Brody. I have literally seen this movie over a hundred times and I still get bits and pieces of new insight each time. This is the first time it dawned on me that Meadows is driving Mayor Larry Vaughn's car when they track down Brody at the ferry. Why the Mayor gets out of the passenger seat in this scene probably has something to do with framing the scene, but once I realized it, the moment felt strange.
We are going back for a third screening today, just because we can.
As is usual when "Lawrence of Arabia" is on the Big Screen within range, we went again to see one of the greatest cinematic experiences ever created. The Paramount Theater in Austin is finishing off their Summer Classic Movie series with some great ones. "2001" and "The Godfather Part II" are also set for the next wee, and I may try to get to at least one of those, but "Lawrence", always.
I've written about this movie several times and each time I do, I try to find a different angle to focus on. This time I'm going with something that has been staring us in the face for 60 years, but we don't really take notice, Lawrence is a funny guy, and David Lean inserts a lot of funny moments into the film. It's easy to see the story arc of our central character by how his mischievous nature and dry wit, wither in the second part of the film.
Lawrence delights in his insouciant manner with his military superiors. He acknowledges to one General that it is his manner that makes him appear to be insubordinate when he is really just delighting in word play and his own perspective on things. He can also laugh at others and take delight in the two boys who become his servant/worshipers. It is only after the loss of one of them that the bemused smile that is usually on his face fades. It comes back briefly when the battles are won or when he foolishly chooses to enter a town with a Turkish garrison. After the sadistic treatment he receives from the Turkish Bey, he almost never smiles again.
Other characters have to cover the humor in the post intermission segment of the film. Ali pleads with God on behalf of his friend, Auda pontificates with a poisonous wit now and then, and General Allenby and Mr. Dryden provide asides and barely hidden smiles to keep a bit of humor in the film in those grimmer scenes.
It was a long day and my companion had utilized most of her energy at work that day, so I was a little concerned that the long movie and the late evening might cause some drowsiness. The temperature in the theater solved that problem. I have not been so chilly in the desert since I saw "The English Patient" in winter at the Rialto theater where the heater had gone out. I guess they were overcompensating for the weather here in Austin.
I am not sure why this movie was released the last week of August. It is a quality piece of film making with a thoughtful theme and delicate performances from the two leads. This feels like a Spring or Fall release, not something that you dump with the action/horror trash that makes up the usual fare at this time of year. When the Lion in the MGM logo that came up in front of the film did not roar in the traditional way, I wondered what was happening. Maybe someone at MGM decided it would be triggering, or maybe that Idris Elba had enough lion roars from his film out just two weeks ago. It did make me question the thinking at the studio, and after seeing the film, I believe I was right in thinking someone in marketing has screwed up.
George Miller has been responsible for some odd films over the years. The two "Babe" pictures run in the opposite direction of his Mad Max films, and "Happy Feet", the less said about the better. "3000 Years of Longing" is a non-traditional narrative about narratives. Alithea, the subject of the initial story is a character who studies, records, interprets and investigates literary narratives. The idea that this person should be the one to discover the story revealed when a Djinn gets released from his captivity is a good one. By making her the receiver of the story, she can stand in for the all of us as skeptic and captivated audience. Idris Elba as the ancient Djinn with a story to tell is a more compelling character than the doctor he played in the recent "Beast". It feels odd to have him in back to back weeks as the lead of the major film opening that Friday. The character here is more compelling and he requires the skills of an actor to keep us enthralled in the story.
This movie reminds me of a movie from almost thirty years ago, Wayne Wang's "Smoke". The subject matter is completely different, but the films both feature narrators telling stories that pull us in. The stories may not be essential but they are compelling. What Miller has done is ladled on the visuals to go with the stories that our protagonists are sharing. This works especially well in the setting of the hotel room in Istanbul. As the two characters converse and we see the story being told by the Djinn with magic, color and incredible visual detail. Solomon's musical instrument, the concubines of the imbecile brother who will become king, the inventions of his greatest love, all are amazing images that Miller and his team deserve credit for. The three stories told in this sequence are fascinating, but sometimes they feel arbitrary, like they have to evoke the cautionary tales of wishes being granted. The problem is that the rules seem inconsistent, and that matters because when the location of the story moves to modern London, the film runs out of steam and it does not have a clear set of rules to fall back on.
Tilda Swinton plays the most normal character I have seen her as in a movie in a long time. Her career justifies her willingness to engage in the stories, but the change in her desires at the close of the middle section was abrupt, and the ground rules were ambiguous, in spite of her exposition then and at the end of the movie. As I look back on the film, I see some foreshadowing of the final outcome that I noticed but did not connect to the story. That's because we get side tracked in a totally superfluous side story about a couple of busy body old ladies living next door. Their only reason for being there is to provide a completely unnecessary woke moment, but as a piece of misdirection, it works to make the Djinn's physical shift a surprise.
In the end, I was glad I saw the film and I liked the slightly melancholy happy ending. The plot is supposed to be told to us as a fairy tale, so I suppose that can excuse some plot contrivances and holes in the logic of the story. I mostly did not care because the two leads engaged in conversation, with the advantage of a visual palate to complete the stories that are being shared, was compelling enough for me. It may be a languid trip for some, but it was a pleasant journey with a nice fairy tale feel.
I was unable to find a Fathom Events Trailer for the screening of Dr. No last night, so instead you get this original trailer which is a lot of fun in itself.
I was only four when Dr. No was first released so I obviously did not see it then. It wasn't until the late part of the sixties that I caught up with it in a double bill with either "Thunderball" or "Goldfinger", I can' quite remember the match up. Whichever one it was , the other played on a separate bill with "From Russia with Love". That's how I first saw the original four James Bond films.
Three of my five favorite 007 films are from the original Sean Connery list. "Dr. No" clocks in at number 4 of all the James Bond films for me. It was the first film in the series that launched my sixty year love for all things Bond. It is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book with a few minor changes (there is no giant squid and SPECTRE has been retconned into the film series).
Dr. No looks great on the big screen, this was a Digital Projection so there were no flaws from the film stock, it looks like it was from the remastering done for the Blu-ray set that came out ten years ago. I have been to Jamaica, although not Kingston, and the ocean and islands do look like what you see in the film. It is a beautiful place although I know there are some dark places that you probably don't want to visit.
When I was getting ready for "Spectre", I did a countdown of 007 films, with the top seven reasons to love each film. For "Dr. No" here are the seven things I picked. There are some additional reasons you should invest in seeing this film. Although he is the first of the sacrificial lambs to go in Bonds place over the years, Quarrel is also one of the most memorable. John Kitzmiller, who played Quarrel, was an actor I'd never looked up before, but there are a couple of important highlights to mention. He won the Best Actor Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1947, but even better, he was born in my parents hometown of Battle Creek Michigan. The parts that don't age well are when Bond orders him around when they are on Crab Key, you know, "Fetch my shoes" and that kind of stuff. Still he was a salwart companion and ally of 007, and he died bravely fighting dragons.
This was the introduction of the Monty Norman theme, jazzed up by John Barry, which has had some controversy over the years but for which the late Mr. Norman deserves credit for writing. The theme gets used as a running score element and is mixed with some of the Island tunes that set the locale. The scene in the nightclub with all of the patrons dancing to "Jump Up" has plenty of visual charm in a simple way, and the "Three Blind Mice" calypso version is used with the Maurice Binder titles and transitioned to a live shot very effectively at the end of the titles. This is also a film notable for not having a pre-title sequence.
As a Fathom Event, they always put in a little extra. The Trivia screen shots were a nice touch before the movie, and they included a statement from Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson on the passing of Sean Connery from two years ago. After the movie, there was a long featurette on Daniel Craig called "Being James Bond", it is not on my Blu-ray copy of "No Time to Die", but it was clearly prepared as a promotional piece for the last of Craig's Bond films. This was a legacy screening so it did not feel inappropriate to me to include it in the show.
If you look at the masthead of this site, or count the number of posts relating to the 1975 classic, you will know how much I love Spielberg's "Jaws". In fact, in a couple of weeks there will be more posts because it is getting a release in IMAX and 3D. That may make it a little unfair to compare today's film to the beloved shark story, but in many ways it is the same story, simply adapted to a different environment. "Beast" is a nature gone malevolent film where instead of a shark we get a lion. There is an initial attack, and then the slow burn discovery of the continuing danger, followed by an extended sequence where man is pitted against nature in a single vehicle that is crippled. There are plenty more comparisons to come but I'll save those to first talk about whether the film works.
Idris Elba has been in 30 films in one form or another in the last 10 years. Before that he was in a bucket load more and some essential television shows, so it is not a stretch for him to have to hold the attention of an audience for 90 minutes. The part of Doctor Nate Samuels is low key and calm in the face of overwhelming danger. The Doctor has two children that he has brought to South Africa to visit the home of their deceased mother. The husband and wife were separated at the time of her death and as a doctor, he feels guilt about not being able to do more about the cancer that killed her. It is a cliched trope that a trip like this is designed to repair the estrangement he has with his teen daughters. That the relationships will have to be repaired under the most pressure filled scenario is typical in a movie like this [Bruce Willis and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in Live Free or Die Hard is an example of the stress repairing parental bonds trope].
The premise is simple, the family in emotional crisis suddenly finds itself under attack from an outside source. In this case the threat comes from a rogue lion, angry about the slaughter of it's pride and reeking vengeance on all humans it encounters. In the opening sequence we get a night time attack on the poachers left behind to clean up after the initial destruction of the pride. There are a couple of moments that feel like a mid-night swim and the CGI lion is pretty effective at providing jump scares. When Elba and his friend Martin, played by Sharlto Copley, come across a decimated village, it's as if Brody and Hooper are finding Ben Gardner's boat, only this time Brody brought his kids with him. Later, it turns out that Martin is also Quint, intrepid hunter of poachers and the victim of the creatures he tries to protect.
The lion attacks on the vehicle that the doctor and his daughters are trapped in are pretty dramatic and scary. The idea that the lion is using one of our characters as bait is similar to the mysterious behavior of the shark in "Jaws" going under the boat. Animals are inscrutable, but they do follow their nature, and we were given a foreshadowing lecture on lion behavior that tips us to how this is ultimately going to be played out. Of course a couple of characters have to do some stupid things to keep the story going in a few spots and that does undermine the value of the film.
I don't know of anyone who wants to see animals harmed as a part of the story, but as this tale goes on, you really are rooting for something to happen to this lion. The most brutal violence on an animal is in the openings sequence, so if you get through that you will be OK. We mostly see the aftermath of the mauling that the humans get, but in the climax we are given a pretty graphic depiction of what happened to a variety of characters, and it happens in broad daylight, so night does not cover up what is going on. The locations look beautiful and there is some terrific nature photography early on, but once the peril starts, the plot takes over and most of the shots are about building fear rather than amazing footage.
"Crawl" was a similar story from a couple of years ago. It was much more aware of it's exploitation roots and leaned into them to make an effective summer entertainment. "Beast" has a little too much sincerity to pull off the entertainment value at an equally high level, but it mostly works. That is due to the two leads and the premise, more than anything else.
