What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by profondo rosso

The Killers (1964)
Attachment 172059

First time I have seen this film and thought it was fantastic. A gritty crime thriller starring the always brilliant Lee Marvin and the sassy Angie Dickinson as the main protagonists along with a brilliant performance by John Cassavettes. The film without spoiling too much is about two killers (Marvin and Clu Gulager who I thought was mesmerising as a child like cold blooded killer who obviously enjoys his job...a little too much) who are contracted to kill Cassavettes, but when the hit turns out too easy cue flashbacks and breadcrumbs that led to why.
Attachment 172057

The film involves a lot of brutality for its day, hanging women out of windows, slapping / punching women in the face, torture scenes to get information, cold blooded kills and a great dialogue.
Attachment 172058


In the making off Dwayne Epstein (wrote Lee Marvin's biography) talks about how Tarantino took the quick witted dialogue of everyday things that you see between Travolta and Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction, from the conversations that Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager have throughout this movie. In between conversations about hits they exchange information about vitamins / holiday resorts.

I also did not know that Lee Marvin in his own life probably suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome form the second world war, feeling guilty about 240 out of 247 of his platoon being killed and him feeling guilty all his life about surviving! hence the alcoholism and an attraction to violent roles. Lee Marvin for me epitomises screen presence and I love to watch his films. The only weak link in the film is Ronald Reagan, who is not that bad but he is starring alongside some screen greats and this exposes him. Apparently Lee Marvin was a real nice guy off screen and always liked honesty and was upfront and got on with everyone but never liked Ronald Reagan as he said he was full of bullsh*t.....no surprise there then!

This film was originally just made for t.v in the USA but released over here in cinema's and won Lee Marvin a BAFTA!

A cracking film, excellent interesting extras on this arrow release and brilliant picture quality. Highly recommended.
Attachment 172060

Agreed great film. Does start to lag as soon as Lee Marvin isn't on the screen though.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by profondo rosso

The Killers (1964)

Have you seen the 1946 film of the same name (also based on the short story by Ernest Hemingway) and directed by Robert Siodmak, starring Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Charles McGraw, William Conrad, Edmond O'Brien, and Sam Levene?

If not, you should remedy that as soon as possible because it's brilliant and I prefer it to the 1964 version.

[profondo rosso]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Have you seen the 1946 film of the same name (also based on the short story by Ernest Hemingway) and directed by Robert Siodmak, starring Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Charles McGraw, William Conrad, Edmond O'Brien, and Sam Levene?

If not, you should remedy that as soon as possible because it's brilliant and I prefer it to the 1964 version.

I know of its existence Nos but not seen it, I will remedy that today and try find a copy at the right price, thanks. Is it a similar storyline?

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by profondo rosso

I know of its existence Nos but not seen it, I will remedy that today and try find a copy at the right price, thanks. Is it a similar storyline?

It's exactly the same story, but there are some slight differences because it was made nearly 20 years earlier when the violence in the 1964 one would have been unthinkable. If you can afford it, the Criterion Collection DVD set contains both versions and is a top release.

[profondo rosso]

As I have the 1964 arrow I have just bought the arrow 1946 to go with it, I do like uniformity on my shelves I will leave my review after seeing it.

[J Harker]

Just got in from Spectre.
Decent film, not quite up there with Skyfall but certainly no Quantum of Bollocks either.
Daniel Craig is starting to look a bit bored now so it may be for the best that this be his last turn as Bond.

[JoshuaKaitlyn]

1968: part 3

If.... - I'm going to say 'pretentious'. I didn't hate it but for me this is one of those movies that people claim greatness for but for me it really does nothing...the black & white sections are just that...B&W, not significant to the story not even for art’s sake...just cheaper film stock!

The Boston Strangler - Started with something else entirely different at first then realise it was from 1971! So abandoned that, (it was boring me) and went with this. Tony Curtis, Henry Fonda and George Kennedy star.

Barbarella - WTF! Yeah it’s another virgin film for me, Jane Fonda is very nice to look at but what the hell was that? Very much a late 60's / early 70's psychedelic trip. Not entirely sure whether this is crap or great!

?

Carry on Up the Khyber - Number 16 and another of my favourites, Angela Douglas' fourth and final 'Carry On'. Best gag: Bernard Bresslaw's 'Bungdit Din' telling the Fakir to leave....."Fakir...Off!"

If You Meet Sartana Prey For Your Death - The first Sartana movie, starring Gianni Garko it was followed by four official sequels but like Django it would have numerous copycats.

Will Penny - Billed as an adult western this Chuck Heston picture is bleak, desolate and dirty. Unfortunately it’s also boring, (as much as I like Heston movies).

Oliver! - Carol Reed's multi Oscar winning musical, it’s OK if overlong!

Once Upon a Time In the West - A cinematic masterpiece, Sergio Leones spaghetti western in my view is one of the greatest pictures ever made! The reveal of Henry Fonda as the villain after the McBain family massacre is great as is the duel between him and Bronson's 'Harmonica', add to that the score from Ennio Morricone and you have perfection! The Dollars trilogy is great but this blows them out of the water!

Django Prepare a Coffin - Terence Hill takes over the role from Franco Nero in one of the many Django sequels / copycats pictures that were made following Sergio Corbucci's 1966 original.

The Blood of Fu Manchu - Jess Franco takes over directorial duties for the fourth installment in the franchise and throws in some boobs and the odd swear word but unfortunately it doesn’t make the film any better. This is actually the worst Fu Manchu film I've seen yet.

and thus ends 1968. I'm on track to finish the 60's by the end of the year.

[Prince_Vajda]

Originally Posted by JoshuaKaitlyn

1968: part 3

Barbarella - WTF! Yeah it’s another virgin film for me, Jane Fonda is very nice to look at but what the hell was that? Very much a late 60's / early 70's psychedelic trip. Not entirely sure whether this is crap or great!

?

It also very much depends on the mood of the viewer. After a hard day's work, I'll love a loony flick like Barbarella. To me, it is silly fun and a great example of late 60s movie making. David Hemmings' performance as Dildano is epic.

Originally Posted by JoshuaKaitlyn

Once Upon a Time In the West - A cinematic masterpiece, Sergio Leones spaghetti western in my view is one of the greatest pictures ever made! The reveal of Henry Fonda as the villain after the McBain family massacre is great as is the duel between him and Bronson's 'Harmonica', add to that the score from Ennio Morricone and you have perfection! The Dollars trilogy is great but this blows them out of the water!

A great film indeed, with excellent actors and quite a few memorable scenes. Overall, however, I think it is a tad overrated. I prefer gritty raw spaghetti westerns like The Great Silence, Django, or A Bullet for the General . I also very much liked For a Few Dollars More back in the day. Then again, I adore almost every film with Eastwood and/or Kinski.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by JoshuaKaitlyn

If.... - I'm going to say 'pretentious'. I didn't hate it but for me this is one of those movies that people claim greatness for but for me it really does nothing...the black & white sections are just that...B&W, not significant to the story not even for art’s sake...just cheaper film stock!

I love the film, and the whole 'Mick Travis Trilogy', but don't read anything into the changes between colour and monochrome, because it was done out of necessity rather than any aesthetic or narrative reasons.

[JoshuaKaitlyn]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I love the film, and the whole 'Mick Travis Trilogy', but don't read anything into the changes between colour and monochrome, because it was done out of necessity rather than any aesthetic or narrative reasons.

If I'm honest once I've seen the movies I do a read up on them, and I was intrigued as to the colour changes and when I read that there was nothing significant about them I think it 'coloured' my overall opinion of the film.