(this blog was begun the night of Monday October 7, 2019)
Tonight's movie was "Many Rivers To Cross" (1955), A Western romantic comedy starring Robert Taylor and Eleanor Parker. The genre is one you don't see very much. I know of Western comedies; "Blazing Saddles" comes immediately to mind, and I know of Western musicals such as "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" in which romance is the main theme, but I can't think of any other Western rom/coms off hand that combine both elements.
At any rate, the year is 1798 and we are in the backwoods of Kentucky. Robert Taylor is "Bushrod Gentry", a frontiersman in the Daniel Boone mode, complete with coonskin cap. When we first encounter Bushrod, he is under attack by a gang of Shawnee Indians. Fighting is one of Bushrod's major talents, and he is doing pretty well against four Shawnee, but then he is down for the count after being stabbed in the shoulder. Now at a disadvantage, he is just about to be overwhelmed, when we hear "bang! bang! bang"!, and down the Indians fall.
I realize I left out a "bang"! for the fourth Indian, but one must write in rhythmic sentences and the extra syllable would've upset the flow. But rest assured that the fourth guy went down too, because the shooter was none other than the rootin' tootin' Mary Stuart Cherne, played by the statuesque Miss Parker. She can blaze a trail as well as any man, can win any shootin' contest and even has her own Indian guide. She's a badass who comes from a family of Irishmen, three brothers and their father. Mary Stuart is the only girl in the family, but you'd never know it except for her looks.
For the third movie in a row, marriage is an issue. Mary's father (Victor McLaglen, a favorite of John Ford) wants her to find a man so she won't spend her life tomboying around in dangerous Shawnee territory. After rescuing Robert Taylor, she settles on him as a prospective husband. He, however, is having none of it. Taylor is his own man, a lone operator of the type who - in Hollywood movies of the period - "doesn't trust women" in the sense that he thinks they are trouble because they want to tie him down, and he must be free to live life on his own terms, in this case out in the wilderness.
I must interject here to say that I am only interpreting the character's motivations and fictional personality. I myself wish I were tied down, haha, and had a nice lady who would like to marry me. :):)
So please don't confuse me with Bushrod Gentry in the movie. If I had Eleanor Parker chasing after me, I'd give up frontier life immediately, and the plot would be over. :)
But this is a 1950s Western rom/com, so Taylor, as Bushrod, must remain irascible. He doesn't dislike women, but is just a man's man who prefers fighting to romance. But wait a minute! Everything is mixed up, because Eleanor Parker prefers romance, and she has chosen Taylor to be her husband, but she is more than capable of fighting him too, or at least pursuing him to the ends of the Kentucky wilderness to ensure that matrimony will ensue.
I liked "Many Rivers To Cross" but I didn't love it, and the reason was the script. You know how sometimes I rave about movies that have "no fat", in which nothing extraneous is present and every scene leads into the next? That's not the case here. For me, there too much time was spent establishing Bushrod's macho credentials. For the first half of the film, he gets into one fight after another - all humorously staged - with Parker's brothers, her suitors, and other tough guys who want to prove something by calling him out. I was thinking "I get it already, he's unbeatable". I wish they would've spent more time with Bushrod out in the wilderness and perhaps made more of Parker's attempts to track him down. She shines in her role - steals the movie, really - and besides being a stone cold knockout, Parker shows she's also got a little bit of Lucille Ball in her, i.e. a tall redhead who's good at goofy comedy.
There was one bonus to all the fight scenes : at one point, Alan Hale Jr. shows up at the cabin to pound Bushrod into the ground. He plays Eleanor Parker's rejected boyfriend. On hand are Parker's three brothers, who also want to beat up Bushrod because he is refusing to marry their sister. One of the brothers is played by none other than Russell Johnson, and so in this scene you get The Skipper and The Professor in the same room, nine years before "Gilligan's Island" began. :)
It's possible that I'm missing something, or that I need to see the movie again, because although it's overall IMDB was average (6.3), the written reviews - of which there were many - were all laudatory. Many folks rated it 10/10 or 8/10 at the very least, and called it a gem of old-fashioned romance. The fans loved Taylor and Parker (both of whom are great) and several said that they've watched the film many times. So perhaps I need to do that myself, maybe in the New Year.
For now, however, I'm just gonna give it 1 1/2 (one and a half) Thumbs Up, while still giving a recommendation to fans of romantic comedy. Ironically, if the script had concentrated more on the romance and the "wilderness aspect" of the story, rather than on the hijinx, I might have been more enthusiastic. It's certainly not a bad film, and with Taylor and Parker you can't go wrong, but I thought it could've been better.
Next time I watch it, I'll probably change my mind and give it a rave review. ////
Well, that's all for now. It's Tuesday Afternoon, so please cue The Moody Blues as I head out the door. I'm going to the Libe in search of horror movies to begin the Halloween viewing season. Thank goodness there is no Dodger game today to get nervous/depressed about, lol.
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon, and I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
"Tammy and the Bachelor" starring Debbie Reynolds and Leslie Nielsen
Tonight I watched Debbie Reynolds in "Tammy and the Bachelor" (1957), and it was almost like a case of "cinematic deja vu" because of the similarities to last night's "Cluny Brown" with Jennifer Jones. Like Cluny, Reynolds as "Tammy" lives with an elder male relative who acts as her guardian. For Tammy it is her grandpa, played by Walter Brennan (pronounced Wuaul-tuh Brinnin in a halting and slightly wizened tone of voice). Also like Cluny, Tammy is an innocent with no formal education who comes from a lower economic background, and in Tammy's case she is downright poor. She lives with Grandpa Brennan in a cabin by a swamp in rural Mississippi. He does the best he can for Tammy, but is soon jailed for making corn whiskey at an illegal still. He intended the money to go towards Tammy's college education, but really - does she need one?
Again, like Cluny Brown, Tammy seems both childlike and wise beyond her years. She spouts mile a minute cornpone insight that can transfix any listener, and she also has an unshakable faith in God.
As the movie begins, Grandpa and Tammy come to the rescue of a man (Leslie Nielsen) who has crashed his small plane into the swamp. They take him in at the cabin and nurse him back to health, and in the process Tammy falls for him because, like Charles Boyer in "Cluny Brown", Nielsen is handsome and a gentleman. With Grandpa Brennan soon to go to jail, he arranges for Tammy to stay with Nielsen at his aunt's antebellum mansion. This is once again akin to the plot in "Cluny Brown", in which Cluny is sent away by her Uncle to work at a resort manor.
And, just like in "Cluny Brown", when Tammy arrives at the mansion - which is used by Lesie Nielsen's relatives to stage plantation-era reenactments - she immediately offends the "propah" (proper) mores of the wealthy folks with her countrified motor mouth and overeager demeanor.
The storyline between these two films is almost interchangable, except that there is no Charles Boyer figure in "Tammy and the Bachelor" to act as matchmaker and all around go-between. One of the aunts, played by Mildred Natwick, is a Bohemian, however, and she takes to Tammy in spite of the strong disapproval of her stand-offish sister, played by Fay Wray in a rare, unsympathetic role.
Wray is Leslie Nielsen's mother (again, the overbearing mother figure, like in "Cluny Brown"), who wants him to marry the beautiful debutante Barbara, who comes from an approved family. It would merely be a marriage of convenience, though, because Nielsen doesn't love Barbara nor she him.
Tammy is in love with Nielsen, but for most of the movie he treats her like a kid.
How do you think it will turn out?
One thing must be said for certain, and I was already beginning to come to this conclusion after watching a few of her other early films after she passed away in December 2016 : I think Debbie Reynolds was as talented as they come, maybe even on the level of Judy Garland. I know that's saying a lot, but when you see her carry a movie as she does here, and you hear her sing, and see her hold her own while dancing with Gene Kelly in "Singin' In The Rain", and observe her incredible onscreen charisma and the energy of her performances, you can't help but think that, as an all-around star, an overall performer in the cinema, she was one of the greats.
I loved "Tammy and the Bachelor". It is a good deal more sentimental than "Cluny Brown", which was played almost entirely for laughs, and you may need to get your hanky out once or twice, but mostly you will have fun enjoying Tammy's company, as all the characters in the movie come to do as well.
Two Big Thumbs Up, then, for "Tammy". Watch it as a double feature with "Cluny Brown" or on successive nights as I did. They are two peas in a pod, those gals, and are certain to brighten your day.
It's me again, gearing up for this afternoon's game between the Dodgers and the Nationals. I am gonna predict that the Boys In Blue will wrap it up tonight, to avoid having to come back home and face Stephen Strasburg in a Game Five do-or-die situation. That would, er, not be too good.
So, go Dodgers!
I am gonna go, too, first to the Libe and then back to Pearl's. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Again, like Cluny Brown, Tammy seems both childlike and wise beyond her years. She spouts mile a minute cornpone insight that can transfix any listener, and she also has an unshakable faith in God.
As the movie begins, Grandpa and Tammy come to the rescue of a man (Leslie Nielsen) who has crashed his small plane into the swamp. They take him in at the cabin and nurse him back to health, and in the process Tammy falls for him because, like Charles Boyer in "Cluny Brown", Nielsen is handsome and a gentleman. With Grandpa Brennan soon to go to jail, he arranges for Tammy to stay with Nielsen at his aunt's antebellum mansion. This is once again akin to the plot in "Cluny Brown", in which Cluny is sent away by her Uncle to work at a resort manor.
And, just like in "Cluny Brown", when Tammy arrives at the mansion - which is used by Lesie Nielsen's relatives to stage plantation-era reenactments - she immediately offends the "propah" (proper) mores of the wealthy folks with her countrified motor mouth and overeager demeanor.
The storyline between these two films is almost interchangable, except that there is no Charles Boyer figure in "Tammy and the Bachelor" to act as matchmaker and all around go-between. One of the aunts, played by Mildred Natwick, is a Bohemian, however, and she takes to Tammy in spite of the strong disapproval of her stand-offish sister, played by Fay Wray in a rare, unsympathetic role.
Wray is Leslie Nielsen's mother (again, the overbearing mother figure, like in "Cluny Brown"), who wants him to marry the beautiful debutante Barbara, who comes from an approved family. It would merely be a marriage of convenience, though, because Nielsen doesn't love Barbara nor she him.
Tammy is in love with Nielsen, but for most of the movie he treats her like a kid.
How do you think it will turn out?
One thing must be said for certain, and I was already beginning to come to this conclusion after watching a few of her other early films after she passed away in December 2016 : I think Debbie Reynolds was as talented as they come, maybe even on the level of Judy Garland. I know that's saying a lot, but when you see her carry a movie as she does here, and you hear her sing, and see her hold her own while dancing with Gene Kelly in "Singin' In The Rain", and observe her incredible onscreen charisma and the energy of her performances, you can't help but think that, as an all-around star, an overall performer in the cinema, she was one of the greats.
I loved "Tammy and the Bachelor". It is a good deal more sentimental than "Cluny Brown", which was played almost entirely for laughs, and you may need to get your hanky out once or twice, but mostly you will have fun enjoying Tammy's company, as all the characters in the movie come to do as well.
Two Big Thumbs Up, then, for "Tammy". Watch it as a double feature with "Cluny Brown" or on successive nights as I did. They are two peas in a pod, those gals, and are certain to brighten your day.
It's me again, gearing up for this afternoon's game between the Dodgers and the Nationals. I am gonna predict that the Boys In Blue will wrap it up tonight, to avoid having to come back home and face Stephen Strasburg in a Game Five do-or-die situation. That would, er, not be too good.
So, go Dodgers!
I am gonna go, too, first to the Libe and then back to Pearl's. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, October 6, 2019
"Cluny Brown" starring Jennifer Jones and Charles Boyer
(this blog was begun Saturday night, October 5 2019)
Sorry I missed ya last night. I didn't have a movie because Grim came over. He wanted to play me a cd by a new favorite band of his called Starcrawler; young kids from L.A. all around 21 years old with a female singer who has a decadent rock star persona reminiscent of the 70s. I thought they sounded okay but weren't really my thing.
Tonight I did watch a movie, and it was a good one : "Cluny Brown" (1946), directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch and starring Jennifer Jones, my favorite actress, as a young English woman who lives with her Uncle, a plumber. Only Lubitsch, the king of velvety-smooth light comedy, could start a movie with a stopped up sink.
A wealthy society man (Reginald Gardiner) is preparing to host a party for 50 guests, but his kitchen sink won't drain and he can't have that. So he calls for a plumber, and after a while Charles Boyer appears at his door. Now, if you know Charles Boyer (pronounced Boy-yay), you know he is not going to be playing a plumber in any movie, haha, and in this case he is a writer from Czechoslovakia, in England as a refugee hiding from Hitler. If you looked up "suave" in the dictionary, and then looked up "gentleman" right after that, you would see Charles Boyer's picture next to both words. He was one of the coolest guys ever to appear in movies, and here we see that he can excel in comedy too.
When he arrives at Reginald Gardiner's door, Gardiner assumes he is the plumber, but of course he is not. He actually seems to be crashing the party as an early arrival, but then we are distracted from this by another knock. It is young Miss Jones, lovely as always, but daffy too this time. She tells Gardiner that she is the niece of the plumber he was expecting. Her Uncle has been delayed and she is substituting for him. Here the comic premise kicks in, because we are in 1940s England, and it is unheard of (said in a proper Brrritish accent) that a woman should engage in such filthy, manly work. A woman plumber? Egads! But Mr. Gardiner does need his sink fixed pronto, as his guests are due to arrive at any moment, so he allows Cluny to chance the repair. She is already halfway to the kitchen anyway. Cluny is an exuberant young woman who operates without a filter. At first glance she seems like what was once called a Holy Fool, meaning a blessed idiot, or a savant. But she's really much more intelligent than that, in fact she is wise. It's just that she verbalises every thought that comes to mind, and because of this trait she seems to be an airhead.
She's good with a wrench, however, and she fixes Reginald Gardiner's sink, but in doing so, she offends the Upper Crust-y standards of the staid dinner guests. Word of her importune behavior gets back to her Uncle - who did not know she was standing in for him - and to avoid further embarassment he sends Cluny off to the countryside to be employed as a maid, at a resort/mansion run by a wealthy upper class couple.
From there, the plot will begin. Upon her arrival at the estate, Cluny is instructed in the proper etiquette of a servant, which she has a hard time following. She isn't rebellious in the least, just free sprited and has difficulty restraining herself. When she mutters a dinner suggestion to the Lord of the manor, his wife and the other servants are horrified. Worse still when she drops a silver tray of lambchops on the floor. They ultimately forgive her mistakes, though, because she is lovable and also emotionally fragile, and above all is eager to please.
Her Uncle's desire has been to see her get married, so that she will not become a spinster who is forever in his care. Cluny knows this, and seeks to meet a nice man who might be suitable. Wouldn't you know it, but right then who should arrive at the manor but Charles Boyer? How Ernst Lubitsch is that? :)
Boyer seems to know everyone, no matter where he travels, and the younger set among these well-heeled types are aware of who he is. Peter Lawford, the Lord's handsome son, is in fact a fan of Boyer's and has read all his books, which are anti-fascist in nature. There is a political thread running beneath the surface of the script, but Lubitsch never dwells on it. Instead, he concentrates on romance. Boyer becomes everyone's matchmaker. Though he finds the young Lady Cream (yes, that's her name) very attractive, he knows that Lawford has eyes for her, and so he steps aside to promote their relationship, even though at first they cannot stand one another.
Really though, it is Cluny whom he takes under his wing. They both find their second meeting to be a product of fate, and Boyer has been taken by Cluny's goofy charm ever since the first dinner party at the beginning of the movie. He is secretly in love with her, but he backs away like a gentleman once again when she tells him that she has found a nice man in the village who is ready to propose marriage. Boyer is crushed but will never show it, for he is far too distinguished. But when he sees what an absolute dweeb the man is - a stuffed-shirt pharmacist whose life is run by his mother - he takes it upon himself to secretly sabotage the relationship. Sometimes Cluny doesn't really know what's best for her, and in this case, marriage to the uptight pharmacist would be a disaster.
How will things work out? Will Peter Lawford and Lady Cream ever stop fighting and declare their mutual love? Will Cluny come to her senses and drop the pharmacy goon before it's too late?
Charles Boyer to the rescue in both cases! Let's all say Hooray for Boy-yay! :)
This is his film as much as it is Jennifer Jones', and their contrasting styles work together to ensure once again the perfection of The Lubitsch Touch that we have become accustomed to seeing in all of his films. It is a liquid quality in every facet of the filmmaking, from the seamlessness of photography and editing, to the actors' movements onscreen, to the recitation of every line of dialogue. There is no mistaking an Ernst Lubitsch movie; he is right up there with Preston Sturges as one of the kings of sophisticated comedy.
I give "Cluny Brown" Two Huge Thumbs Up. The restoration by Criterion is spectacular, as if you were watching it brand new in the theater. Jennifer Jones sparkles in the title role. If you love her as much as I do, you will not want to miss her here as a sweet young lass who just happens to be handy with a wrench. And in the bargain you get Charles Boyer, leading the way. //////
Well, that's all for now. It is of course now Sunday afternoon. We had good singing in church, and now I am gonna head out for a quick CSUN walk before returning to Pearl's to make supper and watch the Dodgers beat Washington. They've got Ryu on the mound, so it should be a shoo-in...right?
Wait, don't answer that.
I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time and we'll find out then. :):)
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sorry I missed ya last night. I didn't have a movie because Grim came over. He wanted to play me a cd by a new favorite band of his called Starcrawler; young kids from L.A. all around 21 years old with a female singer who has a decadent rock star persona reminiscent of the 70s. I thought they sounded okay but weren't really my thing.
Tonight I did watch a movie, and it was a good one : "Cluny Brown" (1946), directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch and starring Jennifer Jones, my favorite actress, as a young English woman who lives with her Uncle, a plumber. Only Lubitsch, the king of velvety-smooth light comedy, could start a movie with a stopped up sink.
A wealthy society man (Reginald Gardiner) is preparing to host a party for 50 guests, but his kitchen sink won't drain and he can't have that. So he calls for a plumber, and after a while Charles Boyer appears at his door. Now, if you know Charles Boyer (pronounced Boy-yay), you know he is not going to be playing a plumber in any movie, haha, and in this case he is a writer from Czechoslovakia, in England as a refugee hiding from Hitler. If you looked up "suave" in the dictionary, and then looked up "gentleman" right after that, you would see Charles Boyer's picture next to both words. He was one of the coolest guys ever to appear in movies, and here we see that he can excel in comedy too.
When he arrives at Reginald Gardiner's door, Gardiner assumes he is the plumber, but of course he is not. He actually seems to be crashing the party as an early arrival, but then we are distracted from this by another knock. It is young Miss Jones, lovely as always, but daffy too this time. She tells Gardiner that she is the niece of the plumber he was expecting. Her Uncle has been delayed and she is substituting for him. Here the comic premise kicks in, because we are in 1940s England, and it is unheard of (said in a proper Brrritish accent) that a woman should engage in such filthy, manly work. A woman plumber? Egads! But Mr. Gardiner does need his sink fixed pronto, as his guests are due to arrive at any moment, so he allows Cluny to chance the repair. She is already halfway to the kitchen anyway. Cluny is an exuberant young woman who operates without a filter. At first glance she seems like what was once called a Holy Fool, meaning a blessed idiot, or a savant. But she's really much more intelligent than that, in fact she is wise. It's just that she verbalises every thought that comes to mind, and because of this trait she seems to be an airhead.
She's good with a wrench, however, and she fixes Reginald Gardiner's sink, but in doing so, she offends the Upper Crust-y standards of the staid dinner guests. Word of her importune behavior gets back to her Uncle - who did not know she was standing in for him - and to avoid further embarassment he sends Cluny off to the countryside to be employed as a maid, at a resort/mansion run by a wealthy upper class couple.
From there, the plot will begin. Upon her arrival at the estate, Cluny is instructed in the proper etiquette of a servant, which she has a hard time following. She isn't rebellious in the least, just free sprited and has difficulty restraining herself. When she mutters a dinner suggestion to the Lord of the manor, his wife and the other servants are horrified. Worse still when she drops a silver tray of lambchops on the floor. They ultimately forgive her mistakes, though, because she is lovable and also emotionally fragile, and above all is eager to please.
Her Uncle's desire has been to see her get married, so that she will not become a spinster who is forever in his care. Cluny knows this, and seeks to meet a nice man who might be suitable. Wouldn't you know it, but right then who should arrive at the manor but Charles Boyer? How Ernst Lubitsch is that? :)
Boyer seems to know everyone, no matter where he travels, and the younger set among these well-heeled types are aware of who he is. Peter Lawford, the Lord's handsome son, is in fact a fan of Boyer's and has read all his books, which are anti-fascist in nature. There is a political thread running beneath the surface of the script, but Lubitsch never dwells on it. Instead, he concentrates on romance. Boyer becomes everyone's matchmaker. Though he finds the young Lady Cream (yes, that's her name) very attractive, he knows that Lawford has eyes for her, and so he steps aside to promote their relationship, even though at first they cannot stand one another.
Really though, it is Cluny whom he takes under his wing. They both find their second meeting to be a product of fate, and Boyer has been taken by Cluny's goofy charm ever since the first dinner party at the beginning of the movie. He is secretly in love with her, but he backs away like a gentleman once again when she tells him that she has found a nice man in the village who is ready to propose marriage. Boyer is crushed but will never show it, for he is far too distinguished. But when he sees what an absolute dweeb the man is - a stuffed-shirt pharmacist whose life is run by his mother - he takes it upon himself to secretly sabotage the relationship. Sometimes Cluny doesn't really know what's best for her, and in this case, marriage to the uptight pharmacist would be a disaster.
How will things work out? Will Peter Lawford and Lady Cream ever stop fighting and declare their mutual love? Will Cluny come to her senses and drop the pharmacy goon before it's too late?
Charles Boyer to the rescue in both cases! Let's all say Hooray for Boy-yay! :)
This is his film as much as it is Jennifer Jones', and their contrasting styles work together to ensure once again the perfection of The Lubitsch Touch that we have become accustomed to seeing in all of his films. It is a liquid quality in every facet of the filmmaking, from the seamlessness of photography and editing, to the actors' movements onscreen, to the recitation of every line of dialogue. There is no mistaking an Ernst Lubitsch movie; he is right up there with Preston Sturges as one of the kings of sophisticated comedy.
I give "Cluny Brown" Two Huge Thumbs Up. The restoration by Criterion is spectacular, as if you were watching it brand new in the theater. Jennifer Jones sparkles in the title role. If you love her as much as I do, you will not want to miss her here as a sweet young lass who just happens to be handy with a wrench. And in the bargain you get Charles Boyer, leading the way. //////
Well, that's all for now. It is of course now Sunday afternoon. We had good singing in church, and now I am gonna head out for a quick CSUN walk before returning to Pearl's to make supper and watch the Dodgers beat Washington. They've got Ryu on the mound, so it should be a shoo-in...right?
Wait, don't answer that.
I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time and we'll find out then. :):)
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, October 4, 2019
"Tales From The Darkside" + Stephen King + Rendlesham
Tonight I started to watch a movie called "King Of The Underworld", starring Humphrey Bogart, but about ten minutes in I realized I'd seen it before, probably about a year ago. That's happened to me a couple of other times. Because I see so many movies, and consequently because I am always searching for movies I haven't seen, every now and then I put one on hold without recognizing the title : "Oh, it's got Humphrey Bogart? Better reserve it". And this time, when I started to watch, I began to recognize familiar scenes right after the opening credits. I still gave it ten minutes, just to be sure, and then I pulled the plug. It was unfortunately too late to start another movie, as the other ones I picked up from the Libe had running times too long to finish in the remainder of my evening break.
So, I did the only sensible thing - I opened my newly purchased box set of "Tales From The Darkside : The Complete Series", and I watched the first two episodes. I mentioned, maybe yesterday, that my friends and I loved "Darkside", which was created by George Romero of "Night Of The Living Dead" fame and ran on commercial television from 1984 to 1988. The quality of the episodes was not on the level of "The Twilight Zone", but they were still fun, and spooky in a "makeup and set decoration" way, and the writing was fairly inventive. It was a fun series, meant to recreate the "Creepshow" vibe that Romero brought to the big screen in 1982.
A cool thing happened just as the first episode began. Now, keep in mind that I had not seen this show in over 30 years, but as it started, I recognized the eerie theme music from the second it began playing. Like "Twilight Zone", the theme consists of just a few notes, but what was weird was that, from the moment I heard them, it was like I was watching the show back in the day, like I knew the theme by heart because I heard it every week. Accompanying the theme is the show's opening narration, which is classic, and is enunciated in a Paul Frees-ian voiceover that hints at knowledge of Something Beyond.
"Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But, there is - unseen by most - an underworld, a place that is just as real but not as brightly lit. A dark side".
It was a classic opener for a horror anthology show, because it suggested a glimpse of any imaginable nightmare within the realm of the proposed "Dark Side".
As for the dvd presentation itself, the picture quality is a little below standard. The episodes have not been remastered and are taken from the original videotapes, so some background details are a little fuzzy. It's still very watchable, however, especially if you have seen far worse : the picture quality on "Tales Of Tomorrow" is abysmal, but even that doesn't get in the way of enjoying the show, which is fantastic. So I can put up with the subpar clarity on "Tales From The Darkside".
What I love most about the show is that it takes me back to the 1980s, such a great time in my life and a decade that was all about having a good time. We had big hair, we wore colorful clothes and Crayon shoes (remember those?), we listened to Van Halen, we watched spooky horror shows that gave us goosebumps, and it was all a blast. The 80s were The Fun Decade. ////
Well, it's me again and it's the next afternoon. I got my Opeth ticket this morning, for their show next March at the Hollywood Palladium. Their new album, "In Cauda Venenum" is a freakin' masterpiece. Even on first listen I was blown away by how good it is. You should check it out if you like progressive music. I have begun a new book, "The Institute" by Stephen King, and as always with SK, I can't put it down. It is about "special" kids - telepaths and telekinetics - who are kidnapped from their parents by government agents and taken away to a place called "the institute" that is hidden away in a forest. There, they are tested and used for their psychic abilities.
I am also finishing up "The Rendlesham Enigma", which has completely blown me off the map. Regarding what author and main Rendlesham witness Jim Penniston dealt with in the aftermath of his experience -which took place in December 1980 - there are parallels to what happened to me in September 1989. Penniston was subjected to sodium amytal hypnosis and had his memory partially wiped (mine was wiped entirely). He was also aggressively interrogated by AFOSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations) and told not to talk about what he saw. He was also ordered to sign a non-disclosure statement by "other" agents who never identified themselves.
Sound familiar?
Well anyway, I am learning a lot from this book, and if you were part of the 1989 experience, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to read "The Rendlesham Enigma". Finally, I believe I will be writing very soon about my kidnapping experience at the hands of Jared Rappaport. It's an ugly story, and I know I already told it when I wrote my book back in 2006-7, but in reading Jim Penniston's account of the Rendlesham Forest Incident I have been extremely impressed with the attention to every exact detail in his account, almost as if he and his co-author Gary Osborn have conducted a forensic examination of the experience. This is what I want to do with the Rappaport Incident, to go over it moment-by-moment and write down every last detail that I can remember, and also to offer comments based on analysis of those details. I may not start this writing immediately, but it will be soon.
That's all for now. Have an awesome rest of the day, see you tonight at the usual time! :):)
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
So, I did the only sensible thing - I opened my newly purchased box set of "Tales From The Darkside : The Complete Series", and I watched the first two episodes. I mentioned, maybe yesterday, that my friends and I loved "Darkside", which was created by George Romero of "Night Of The Living Dead" fame and ran on commercial television from 1984 to 1988. The quality of the episodes was not on the level of "The Twilight Zone", but they were still fun, and spooky in a "makeup and set decoration" way, and the writing was fairly inventive. It was a fun series, meant to recreate the "Creepshow" vibe that Romero brought to the big screen in 1982.
A cool thing happened just as the first episode began. Now, keep in mind that I had not seen this show in over 30 years, but as it started, I recognized the eerie theme music from the second it began playing. Like "Twilight Zone", the theme consists of just a few notes, but what was weird was that, from the moment I heard them, it was like I was watching the show back in the day, like I knew the theme by heart because I heard it every week. Accompanying the theme is the show's opening narration, which is classic, and is enunciated in a Paul Frees-ian voiceover that hints at knowledge of Something Beyond.
"Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But, there is - unseen by most - an underworld, a place that is just as real but not as brightly lit. A dark side".
It was a classic opener for a horror anthology show, because it suggested a glimpse of any imaginable nightmare within the realm of the proposed "Dark Side".
As for the dvd presentation itself, the picture quality is a little below standard. The episodes have not been remastered and are taken from the original videotapes, so some background details are a little fuzzy. It's still very watchable, however, especially if you have seen far worse : the picture quality on "Tales Of Tomorrow" is abysmal, but even that doesn't get in the way of enjoying the show, which is fantastic. So I can put up with the subpar clarity on "Tales From The Darkside".
What I love most about the show is that it takes me back to the 1980s, such a great time in my life and a decade that was all about having a good time. We had big hair, we wore colorful clothes and Crayon shoes (remember those?), we listened to Van Halen, we watched spooky horror shows that gave us goosebumps, and it was all a blast. The 80s were The Fun Decade. ////
Well, it's me again and it's the next afternoon. I got my Opeth ticket this morning, for their show next March at the Hollywood Palladium. Their new album, "In Cauda Venenum" is a freakin' masterpiece. Even on first listen I was blown away by how good it is. You should check it out if you like progressive music. I have begun a new book, "The Institute" by Stephen King, and as always with SK, I can't put it down. It is about "special" kids - telepaths and telekinetics - who are kidnapped from their parents by government agents and taken away to a place called "the institute" that is hidden away in a forest. There, they are tested and used for their psychic abilities.
I am also finishing up "The Rendlesham Enigma", which has completely blown me off the map. Regarding what author and main Rendlesham witness Jim Penniston dealt with in the aftermath of his experience -which took place in December 1980 - there are parallels to what happened to me in September 1989. Penniston was subjected to sodium amytal hypnosis and had his memory partially wiped (mine was wiped entirely). He was also aggressively interrogated by AFOSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations) and told not to talk about what he saw. He was also ordered to sign a non-disclosure statement by "other" agents who never identified themselves.
Sound familiar?
Well anyway, I am learning a lot from this book, and if you were part of the 1989 experience, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to read "The Rendlesham Enigma". Finally, I believe I will be writing very soon about my kidnapping experience at the hands of Jared Rappaport. It's an ugly story, and I know I already told it when I wrote my book back in 2006-7, but in reading Jim Penniston's account of the Rendlesham Forest Incident I have been extremely impressed with the attention to every exact detail in his account, almost as if he and his co-author Gary Osborn have conducted a forensic examination of the experience. This is what I want to do with the Rappaport Incident, to go over it moment-by-moment and write down every last detail that I can remember, and also to offer comments based on analysis of those details. I may not start this writing immediately, but it will be soon.
That's all for now. Have an awesome rest of the day, see you tonight at the usual time! :):)
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, October 3, 2019
"Rolling Thunder" starring William Devane, Tommy Lee Jones and Linda Haynes
(this blog was begun the night of October 2, 2019)
Tonight I watched an old favorite of mine called "Rolling Thunder" (1977). Back in the 1970s, there was a company called American International Pictures (AIP for short), which was run by a producer named Samuel Z.Arkoff. He and AIP specialized in low budget exploitation pictures, but by and large their movies were well executed and always entertaining. There was a sub-genre in those days that you could think of as "movies about small-town Texas". No one ever came out and called it a genre, or even a sub-genre, but during the 1970s - when cinematic realism came into being - you started seeing a lot of movies made in the South or Southwest, about blue-collar folks like truckers ("White Line Fever"), or right wing Sheriffs ("Walking Tall", "Macon County Line"), or rebels.......hell, one of our favorites (meaning my friends and I) was a movie about a young rebel called "A Small Town In Texas" that starred Timothy Bottoms, an excellent young actor who has since been forgotten. But yeah, I loved those southern-fried Texas-style movies, with their realistic location shoots and their "hard guy" premises, and many of them were produced by Sam Arkoff and his American International Pictures.
The script for "Rolling Thunder" was written by Paul Schrader, who also wrote "Taxi Driver", one of the greatest screenplays in all of cinema. Every line sounds real, the way the characters would really speak, and every scene moves the story forward, there is not an ounce of fat. Schrader tackles a similar theme with "Rolling Thunder" - that of a Vietnam vet who has come home traumatised and unable to adjust to civilian life - but in this case he gives it a different twist. "Taxi Driver"'s lead character Travis Bickle was restless and pro-active in his desire to "clean up" New York. He was a psychotic who planned his attacks, even though the folks he went after deserved what was coming to them. In "Rolling Thunder", the returned POW Major Charles Rane (played by William Devane) comes home dead inside. He receives a hero's welcome, but can barely muster a reaction. Then his wife, whom he hasn't seen in almost ten years, lowers the boom that she has another man in her life and wants a divorce. Devane reacts to this news with no expression. Because of his experience in the Vietnamese POW camp - where he was tortured - he can't feel anything anymore. In this way he is the opposite of Travis Bickle, who feels everything acutely.
Devane will have his emotions reawakened in due time, by a gang of Texas rednecks who carry out a home invasion on him and his family. They are after a box containing thousands of silver dollars that was given to Devane as a gift by a local car dealer. He returns home one day to find these men already in his house. They hold him at gunpoint to demand the silver, but at that moment his PTSD kicks in and he reverts to his prisoner of war mindset. In 'Nam, he was put through far worse than anything these lowlifes can dish out (or so he thinks), and so he refuses to divulge where he has hidden the silver dollars. This refusal to give in, on Devane's part, will set in motion a chain of events that will motivate him for the second half of the movie.
At the time "Rolling Thunder" was released, I was 17 and I loved what you might call "revenge movies", flicks where good guys got tortured in the first act, and then got their revenge, sometimes savagely, on the bad guys by the end of the movie. Think movies like "Death Wish" (and many other Charles Bronson flicks) or "Walking Tall" again. In the '80s I also loved "Rambo". You get the idea.
Well, "Rolling Thunder" is the Gold Medal Standard of the Revenge Movie. After what happens during the encounter with the robbers inside his home, Devane is awakened from his emotional stupor, but only in the sense that he can now feel his rage, which includes the rage at his former captors from the POW camp. All of that built up anger is ready to come out now, and it will be directed at the men who invaded his home and forever changed his life.
Accompanying him on his quest will be a new girlfriend, played by an actress named Linda Haynes. She is very good in her role as a young waitress who had worn Devane's POW bracelet (Google that term) all during the war. Haynes very nearly steals the movie with her natural onscreen persona, and it is a wonder to me that she did not go on to have a bigger career.
Also co-starring is Tommy Lee Jones, as Devane's dead-eyed young compatriot "Johnny Vohden", with whom he shared the horrific POW camp experience. Jones' character is perhaps even more emotionally impaired than William Devane, but he will stick with the Major through thick and thin, just as he did during the war. Schrader and director John Flynn explore the bonds between the two men, and it is clear that their loyalty to one another, created by their mutually endured experience, supersedes any other relationship in their lives.
This was the first time I had ever seen Tommy Lee Jones, and I can remember thinking, "wow, who is this guy"? He really made an impression in this film, especially at the end, and he also gets a few of the best lines in the movie. As with all "macho man movies" that came out during the 1970s, there were always a handful of highly memorable lines of dialogue in each one that my friends and I would repeat for months afterward. "Rolling Thunder" has some classics that I remembered to this day, and even though this was the first time I had seen the film in over 30 years, I knew when they were coming, and mouthed them to myself, haha, along with the actors on the screen.
I give "Rolling Thunder" Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, just so long as you take it for what it is, a violent movie about mistreatment and revenge. But is also has a lot of insight. Paul Schrader was at the top of his game as a writer at this time, and after "Taxi Driver" I would say that "Rolling Thunder" is the next best thing he's ever written. The movie was filmed in dirt-road locations in San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, and also in Mexico, to give it an authentic look, and the direction by John Flynn is straightforward and also without an ounce of fat. Call it a companion piece for "Taxi Driver", highly recommended. ////
It's me once again. I hope you are enjoying your afternoon. I am heading over the the Libe right now for more movies, and I will see you tonight!
Tons of love in the meantime. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight I watched an old favorite of mine called "Rolling Thunder" (1977). Back in the 1970s, there was a company called American International Pictures (AIP for short), which was run by a producer named Samuel Z.Arkoff. He and AIP specialized in low budget exploitation pictures, but by and large their movies were well executed and always entertaining. There was a sub-genre in those days that you could think of as "movies about small-town Texas". No one ever came out and called it a genre, or even a sub-genre, but during the 1970s - when cinematic realism came into being - you started seeing a lot of movies made in the South or Southwest, about blue-collar folks like truckers ("White Line Fever"), or right wing Sheriffs ("Walking Tall", "Macon County Line"), or rebels.......hell, one of our favorites (meaning my friends and I) was a movie about a young rebel called "A Small Town In Texas" that starred Timothy Bottoms, an excellent young actor who has since been forgotten. But yeah, I loved those southern-fried Texas-style movies, with their realistic location shoots and their "hard guy" premises, and many of them were produced by Sam Arkoff and his American International Pictures.
The script for "Rolling Thunder" was written by Paul Schrader, who also wrote "Taxi Driver", one of the greatest screenplays in all of cinema. Every line sounds real, the way the characters would really speak, and every scene moves the story forward, there is not an ounce of fat. Schrader tackles a similar theme with "Rolling Thunder" - that of a Vietnam vet who has come home traumatised and unable to adjust to civilian life - but in this case he gives it a different twist. "Taxi Driver"'s lead character Travis Bickle was restless and pro-active in his desire to "clean up" New York. He was a psychotic who planned his attacks, even though the folks he went after deserved what was coming to them. In "Rolling Thunder", the returned POW Major Charles Rane (played by William Devane) comes home dead inside. He receives a hero's welcome, but can barely muster a reaction. Then his wife, whom he hasn't seen in almost ten years, lowers the boom that she has another man in her life and wants a divorce. Devane reacts to this news with no expression. Because of his experience in the Vietnamese POW camp - where he was tortured - he can't feel anything anymore. In this way he is the opposite of Travis Bickle, who feels everything acutely.
Devane will have his emotions reawakened in due time, by a gang of Texas rednecks who carry out a home invasion on him and his family. They are after a box containing thousands of silver dollars that was given to Devane as a gift by a local car dealer. He returns home one day to find these men already in his house. They hold him at gunpoint to demand the silver, but at that moment his PTSD kicks in and he reverts to his prisoner of war mindset. In 'Nam, he was put through far worse than anything these lowlifes can dish out (or so he thinks), and so he refuses to divulge where he has hidden the silver dollars. This refusal to give in, on Devane's part, will set in motion a chain of events that will motivate him for the second half of the movie.
At the time "Rolling Thunder" was released, I was 17 and I loved what you might call "revenge movies", flicks where good guys got tortured in the first act, and then got their revenge, sometimes savagely, on the bad guys by the end of the movie. Think movies like "Death Wish" (and many other Charles Bronson flicks) or "Walking Tall" again. In the '80s I also loved "Rambo". You get the idea.
Well, "Rolling Thunder" is the Gold Medal Standard of the Revenge Movie. After what happens during the encounter with the robbers inside his home, Devane is awakened from his emotional stupor, but only in the sense that he can now feel his rage, which includes the rage at his former captors from the POW camp. All of that built up anger is ready to come out now, and it will be directed at the men who invaded his home and forever changed his life.
Accompanying him on his quest will be a new girlfriend, played by an actress named Linda Haynes. She is very good in her role as a young waitress who had worn Devane's POW bracelet (Google that term) all during the war. Haynes very nearly steals the movie with her natural onscreen persona, and it is a wonder to me that she did not go on to have a bigger career.
Also co-starring is Tommy Lee Jones, as Devane's dead-eyed young compatriot "Johnny Vohden", with whom he shared the horrific POW camp experience. Jones' character is perhaps even more emotionally impaired than William Devane, but he will stick with the Major through thick and thin, just as he did during the war. Schrader and director John Flynn explore the bonds between the two men, and it is clear that their loyalty to one another, created by their mutually endured experience, supersedes any other relationship in their lives.
This was the first time I had ever seen Tommy Lee Jones, and I can remember thinking, "wow, who is this guy"? He really made an impression in this film, especially at the end, and he also gets a few of the best lines in the movie. As with all "macho man movies" that came out during the 1970s, there were always a handful of highly memorable lines of dialogue in each one that my friends and I would repeat for months afterward. "Rolling Thunder" has some classics that I remembered to this day, and even though this was the first time I had seen the film in over 30 years, I knew when they were coming, and mouthed them to myself, haha, along with the actors on the screen.
I give "Rolling Thunder" Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, just so long as you take it for what it is, a violent movie about mistreatment and revenge. But is also has a lot of insight. Paul Schrader was at the top of his game as a writer at this time, and after "Taxi Driver" I would say that "Rolling Thunder" is the next best thing he's ever written. The movie was filmed in dirt-road locations in San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, and also in Mexico, to give it an authentic look, and the direction by John Flynn is straightforward and also without an ounce of fat. Call it a companion piece for "Taxi Driver", highly recommended. ////
It's me once again. I hope you are enjoying your afternoon. I am heading over the the Libe right now for more movies, and I will see you tonight!
Tons of love in the meantime. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
"Juggernaut" starring Richard Harris and Omar Sharif
(this blog was begun the night of October 1, 2019)
Tonight's movie was "Juggernaut" (1974), a good old fashioned 1970s-style disaster movie about a British luxury liner that is discovered to have seven bombs hidden aboard. The ship is out to sea when a call comes in to the London police department. A smooth-voiced maniac is on the line, demanding an enormous ransom in exchange for the information on how to diffuse the bombs, which will sink the ship if they explode. Anthony Hopkins is the Police Superintendent who takes the call.
I'm sorry, but I must jump in here to say that Anthony Hopkins was a different Anthony Hopkins in the early years of his career. He was handsome and thin, with a shock of longish dark hair that fell across his face, and he actually seemed like a normal actor in those days, a far cry from the certifiable gent who made a later-year career out of playing "Hannibal Lecter". I am of the opinion, and I only slightly jest, that certain actors are such psychos in real life, that it is only the fact that they are in movies that keeps them out of an asylum for the criminally insane. Joe Pesci is one such psycho actor. :)
And Anthony Hopkins is another. His physical transformation alone from his early career to his "Lecter" years is telling. In the old days he played a good guy and looked normal. Now, I wouldn't wanna meet him in a dark alley. :)
Yep, some actors are psychos who get paid to be crazy on screen.
But yeah, end of tangent! "Ad, you have gotta stop interrupting your train of thought".
I know. It's annoying and I apologize.
Hopkins' role turns out to be a minor one in any case, though he does have a personal stake in locating the mad bomber; his wife and two children are among the 1200 passengers on board the endangered vessel. The real star of the show is the great Richard Harris, who plays the captain of the Royal Navy's bomb squad. His team is flown out to the ship's location in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and tasked with diffusing the bombs. The tension builds even before his team is even aboard, as they parachute into a stormy sea and are lucky to even land near the pickup boats that will take them to the ship. Director Richard Lester, who made his name with two classic Beatles movies : "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help", spends much time in the ocean with the bomb squad. We see that even after they struggle to get into the rubber boats, they still face the extreme challenge of boarding the gigantic cruise ship by climbing the rope ladders that are flung from its deck. Throughout the movie we can see that Lester had a big budget to work with, and here, as the squad fights the ocean, he makes the most of his many camera angles taken from above and down in the water, because he wants us to feel every bit of it's power.
Once the team is on board, the action shifts almost entirely to the attempts to diffuse the bombs. Though in places we are diverted back to Scotland Yard and their co-ordinated search for "Juggernaut", for most of the rest of the 109 minute film we are in the ship's hold with Harris and his most trusted teammate David Hemmings ( another late great British actor from the 70s who also did the narration on Rick Wakeman's "Journey To The Center Of The Earth"). Richard Lester uses close-ups of the inner workings of the bombs and of Harris' expressive eyes and face to build tension, as he must choose, by knowledge and deduction, which screws to loosen and which wires to cut - without blowing the whole ship to Kingdom Come.
Meanwhile, Captain Omar Sharif tries to keep his 1200 passengers calm. They are aware of what is taking place, and Sharif enlists the ship's jovial activities director (Roy Kinnear) to keep them entertained with music and dancing and much food and drink.
"Juggernaut" has a mostly British cast and the interiors were filmed at Shepperton Studios, so I suppose it was a UK production. I do remember seeing an ad for it when it was released, and I am wondering why my friends and I did not go see it as we loved these kinds of movies. I will give it Two Solid Thumbs Up, however, and encourage you to see it yourself. Kino Lorber has done a very nice job with the dvd. The film looks great and every dollar of it's budget is up there on the screen. This is all life-size stuff here, no CGI, just big time studio filmmaking as it was done in the 1970s, when disaster film blockbusters came into being.
I'm gonna do a database search on Richard Harris. Man, was he ever great. It might have to wait a few weeks because I am gonna be switching into Halloween season horror mode very soon, but I'll keep him in mind for the near future and we'll see what else we can find with Mr. Harris.......and wow!, I just now Googled him, and I see that his birthday was October 1, 1930. So I unknowingly saw "Juggernaut" on his birthday. Pretty cool......./////
Well, it me again. I just now received in the mail the complete TV series of "Tales From The Darkside", a great 1980s horror anthology. We will be cracking that one open in the next few days and pounding a few episodes......
That's all for now. See you tonight as usual! Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight's movie was "Juggernaut" (1974), a good old fashioned 1970s-style disaster movie about a British luxury liner that is discovered to have seven bombs hidden aboard. The ship is out to sea when a call comes in to the London police department. A smooth-voiced maniac is on the line, demanding an enormous ransom in exchange for the information on how to diffuse the bombs, which will sink the ship if they explode. Anthony Hopkins is the Police Superintendent who takes the call.
I'm sorry, but I must jump in here to say that Anthony Hopkins was a different Anthony Hopkins in the early years of his career. He was handsome and thin, with a shock of longish dark hair that fell across his face, and he actually seemed like a normal actor in those days, a far cry from the certifiable gent who made a later-year career out of playing "Hannibal Lecter". I am of the opinion, and I only slightly jest, that certain actors are such psychos in real life, that it is only the fact that they are in movies that keeps them out of an asylum for the criminally insane. Joe Pesci is one such psycho actor. :)
And Anthony Hopkins is another. His physical transformation alone from his early career to his "Lecter" years is telling. In the old days he played a good guy and looked normal. Now, I wouldn't wanna meet him in a dark alley. :)
Yep, some actors are psychos who get paid to be crazy on screen.
But yeah, end of tangent! "Ad, you have gotta stop interrupting your train of thought".
I know. It's annoying and I apologize.
Hopkins' role turns out to be a minor one in any case, though he does have a personal stake in locating the mad bomber; his wife and two children are among the 1200 passengers on board the endangered vessel. The real star of the show is the great Richard Harris, who plays the captain of the Royal Navy's bomb squad. His team is flown out to the ship's location in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and tasked with diffusing the bombs. The tension builds even before his team is even aboard, as they parachute into a stormy sea and are lucky to even land near the pickup boats that will take them to the ship. Director Richard Lester, who made his name with two classic Beatles movies : "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help", spends much time in the ocean with the bomb squad. We see that even after they struggle to get into the rubber boats, they still face the extreme challenge of boarding the gigantic cruise ship by climbing the rope ladders that are flung from its deck. Throughout the movie we can see that Lester had a big budget to work with, and here, as the squad fights the ocean, he makes the most of his many camera angles taken from above and down in the water, because he wants us to feel every bit of it's power.
Once the team is on board, the action shifts almost entirely to the attempts to diffuse the bombs. Though in places we are diverted back to Scotland Yard and their co-ordinated search for "Juggernaut", for most of the rest of the 109 minute film we are in the ship's hold with Harris and his most trusted teammate David Hemmings ( another late great British actor from the 70s who also did the narration on Rick Wakeman's "Journey To The Center Of The Earth"). Richard Lester uses close-ups of the inner workings of the bombs and of Harris' expressive eyes and face to build tension, as he must choose, by knowledge and deduction, which screws to loosen and which wires to cut - without blowing the whole ship to Kingdom Come.
Meanwhile, Captain Omar Sharif tries to keep his 1200 passengers calm. They are aware of what is taking place, and Sharif enlists the ship's jovial activities director (Roy Kinnear) to keep them entertained with music and dancing and much food and drink.
"Juggernaut" has a mostly British cast and the interiors were filmed at Shepperton Studios, so I suppose it was a UK production. I do remember seeing an ad for it when it was released, and I am wondering why my friends and I did not go see it as we loved these kinds of movies. I will give it Two Solid Thumbs Up, however, and encourage you to see it yourself. Kino Lorber has done a very nice job with the dvd. The film looks great and every dollar of it's budget is up there on the screen. This is all life-size stuff here, no CGI, just big time studio filmmaking as it was done in the 1970s, when disaster film blockbusters came into being.
I'm gonna do a database search on Richard Harris. Man, was he ever great. It might have to wait a few weeks because I am gonna be switching into Halloween season horror mode very soon, but I'll keep him in mind for the near future and we'll see what else we can find with Mr. Harris.......and wow!, I just now Googled him, and I see that his birthday was October 1, 1930. So I unknowingly saw "Juggernaut" on his birthday. Pretty cool......./////
Well, it me again. I just now received in the mail the complete TV series of "Tales From The Darkside", a great 1980s horror anthology. We will be cracking that one open in the next few days and pounding a few episodes......
That's all for now. See you tonight as usual! Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
"The Battle Of Russia" (from the "Why We Fight" series)
(this blog was begun the night of Monday September 30, 2019)
Tonight I watched a documentary called "The Battle Of Russia", which was part of the famous "Why We Fight" series that was released in theaters during World War Two. There were seven films in all, this one was the fifth and consisted of two parts running 84 minutes, making it a little longer than the other episodes, which averaged around an hour in length. In the case of the war in Russia (then known as the Soviet Union) there was much ground to cover, both literally and figuratively. The first fifteen minutes of the movie comes across almost as a "study film" of the kind they used to show us in elementary school. As the narrator informs us that "Russia is a rich country", we are given a tour of it's vast farms and gigantic factories. We are shown it's array of natural resources and given a list of statistics, and in watching this one would come to the conclusion that Russia is very wealthy country indeed, bursting with goods, including 55% of the world's oil.
I must interject briefly to say that, from what I understand, Mexico is a similarly wealthy country - rich in natural resources - but Mexico is always portrayed as being poor, and after WW2 ended, what children of my generation were taught and shown was that the Soviet Union (meaning Russia) was also very poor. We saw pictures of "babushkas" (heavy set old women wearing mu-mu dresses) pushing brooms in Red Square and were told "this is Russia".
We were given propaganda, in other words, and when I was a kid, it was common knowledge that Russians had an inferior lifestyle and crumbling infrastructure because of their socialist economy and communist ideology.
You'd never know any of this, however, judging from the reverse propaganda we are given in the narration of "The Battle Of Russia". Watching the first fifteen minutes, you would think this was a Soviet produced film, made to promote business for that empire. Knowing though, that major Hollywood bigwigs Frank Capra and Anatole Litvak were two of the directors of the "Why We Fight" series, you can only wonder what happened over the years between 1943 and 1947 to turn Russia into our greatest and most enduring enemy. "The Battle Of Russia" rightly describes and promotes the heroism of the Russian army as well as its citizens - and the war would have been lost without the effort of the Russians - but again, the narration and overall presentation of the film not only suggests but strenuously endorses the long standing historical grandeur of Russia and the Russian people, who are again rightly portrayed as stoic survivors overcoming impossible odds in fighting the onslaught of the German Blitzkrieg that overran Russian borders beginning in late 1941.
I guess my point is that, watching the film, which was produced as the war was being fought, the Russians - as a country, as a people and as an army - are shown to us as being not only heroes who were essential to winning the war (which is true), but also as an ally on the same level as we now consider the countries of NATO, the European Union, or even Israel. Really, if this film were released today, the viewer would walk away thinking that Russia was our closest ally and an heroic country to be looked up to.
Watch it for yourself and see.
And so my question again is, what happened to turn this alliance completely in the other direction?
Of course, the easy answer is that is was Soviet expansion after the war was over, which ran concurrent with the beginning of the nuclear arms race. The Russians also captured their share of Nazi scientists - as did we - and we were concerned about the technological advantage this might provide them.
At any rate, despite the unsuspected ultra pro-Russian slant of the film (and I am not complaining about it but merely making an observation), there is no question that the actual war footage we are shown is some of the most harrowing that can be imagined. The suffering of the Russian people during the Battle of Leningrad, in particular, was difficult to watch, and it is miraculous and of course a testament to their resilience that they not only survived but ended up driving the Nazis out of their city.
The tide turned after that, and the Germany army began to retreat from Russia. This was the turning point of the war, and after Leningrad it was all over for Adolph Hitler.
The film is a historical essay, so there is no plot for me to describe. If you are a WW2 buff, you may already know the chronology of what took place after the Nazis invaded Russia. But you know something? I think a film like this should still be shown in high school history classes, so that nobody ever forgets what an all-out battle for survival looks like in a World War. I am dismayed by the rumors that today's young people - the so-called "Millennials" - know nothing of world history, and worse, that they don't care. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then the burden of responsibility is on the schools and universities to teach them about these things, so that it never happens again.
I myself plan to watch the other available films from the "Why We Fight" series, and I highly recommend "The Battle Of Russia" to anyone with a desire to know just how incredibly difficult it was for that country to throw off the German War Machine, and what it cost them in lives.
26 million Russians died in the five years of World War Two. That's almost half of the entire war dead of 60 million. It comes out to roughly 14,000 people per day - soldiers and citizens - that were killed, every day for nearly five years.
Try to imagine having lived through that. We are lucky we didn't have to.
But we should never forget it, and we should never allow world history to become passe. /////
See you tonight, tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight I watched a documentary called "The Battle Of Russia", which was part of the famous "Why We Fight" series that was released in theaters during World War Two. There were seven films in all, this one was the fifth and consisted of two parts running 84 minutes, making it a little longer than the other episodes, which averaged around an hour in length. In the case of the war in Russia (then known as the Soviet Union) there was much ground to cover, both literally and figuratively. The first fifteen minutes of the movie comes across almost as a "study film" of the kind they used to show us in elementary school. As the narrator informs us that "Russia is a rich country", we are given a tour of it's vast farms and gigantic factories. We are shown it's array of natural resources and given a list of statistics, and in watching this one would come to the conclusion that Russia is very wealthy country indeed, bursting with goods, including 55% of the world's oil.
I must interject briefly to say that, from what I understand, Mexico is a similarly wealthy country - rich in natural resources - but Mexico is always portrayed as being poor, and after WW2 ended, what children of my generation were taught and shown was that the Soviet Union (meaning Russia) was also very poor. We saw pictures of "babushkas" (heavy set old women wearing mu-mu dresses) pushing brooms in Red Square and were told "this is Russia".
We were given propaganda, in other words, and when I was a kid, it was common knowledge that Russians had an inferior lifestyle and crumbling infrastructure because of their socialist economy and communist ideology.
You'd never know any of this, however, judging from the reverse propaganda we are given in the narration of "The Battle Of Russia". Watching the first fifteen minutes, you would think this was a Soviet produced film, made to promote business for that empire. Knowing though, that major Hollywood bigwigs Frank Capra and Anatole Litvak were two of the directors of the "Why We Fight" series, you can only wonder what happened over the years between 1943 and 1947 to turn Russia into our greatest and most enduring enemy. "The Battle Of Russia" rightly describes and promotes the heroism of the Russian army as well as its citizens - and the war would have been lost without the effort of the Russians - but again, the narration and overall presentation of the film not only suggests but strenuously endorses the long standing historical grandeur of Russia and the Russian people, who are again rightly portrayed as stoic survivors overcoming impossible odds in fighting the onslaught of the German Blitzkrieg that overran Russian borders beginning in late 1941.
I guess my point is that, watching the film, which was produced as the war was being fought, the Russians - as a country, as a people and as an army - are shown to us as being not only heroes who were essential to winning the war (which is true), but also as an ally on the same level as we now consider the countries of NATO, the European Union, or even Israel. Really, if this film were released today, the viewer would walk away thinking that Russia was our closest ally and an heroic country to be looked up to.
Watch it for yourself and see.
And so my question again is, what happened to turn this alliance completely in the other direction?
Of course, the easy answer is that is was Soviet expansion after the war was over, which ran concurrent with the beginning of the nuclear arms race. The Russians also captured their share of Nazi scientists - as did we - and we were concerned about the technological advantage this might provide them.
At any rate, despite the unsuspected ultra pro-Russian slant of the film (and I am not complaining about it but merely making an observation), there is no question that the actual war footage we are shown is some of the most harrowing that can be imagined. The suffering of the Russian people during the Battle of Leningrad, in particular, was difficult to watch, and it is miraculous and of course a testament to their resilience that they not only survived but ended up driving the Nazis out of their city.
The tide turned after that, and the Germany army began to retreat from Russia. This was the turning point of the war, and after Leningrad it was all over for Adolph Hitler.
The film is a historical essay, so there is no plot for me to describe. If you are a WW2 buff, you may already know the chronology of what took place after the Nazis invaded Russia. But you know something? I think a film like this should still be shown in high school history classes, so that nobody ever forgets what an all-out battle for survival looks like in a World War. I am dismayed by the rumors that today's young people - the so-called "Millennials" - know nothing of world history, and worse, that they don't care. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then the burden of responsibility is on the schools and universities to teach them about these things, so that it never happens again.
I myself plan to watch the other available films from the "Why We Fight" series, and I highly recommend "The Battle Of Russia" to anyone with a desire to know just how incredibly difficult it was for that country to throw off the German War Machine, and what it cost them in lives.
26 million Russians died in the five years of World War Two. That's almost half of the entire war dead of 60 million. It comes out to roughly 14,000 people per day - soldiers and citizens - that were killed, every day for nearly five years.
Try to imagine having lived through that. We are lucky we didn't have to.
But we should never forget it, and we should never allow world history to become passe. /////
See you tonight, tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)