rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

I second THE BIBLE, that's a visually spectacular film from a cinematography and music standpoint -- absolutely unique and compelling. Rewatched it last year. The Blu-Ray holds up incredibly well, and I find that's a film that was ahead of its era in terms of its composition and overall style. Much more so than the well-intentioned yet slow-going GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD with its all-star and yet awkward cast and placid pacing.

As for Dick Burton, his at-times unintentionally funny performance is, for me, one of THE ROBE's highlights. It's more a sword-and-sandal movie with a religious twist than it is a straight Biblical epic to speak, but that's what I enjoy about it, along with the score. And, of course, this guy...



BTW while not one of my favorites Capelight released a new Mediabook Blu-Ray/DVD of GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD in Germany, allegedly with some minor transfer improvements (They claim on Facebook "the new release is based on the old master. We maximised the data rate by transferring all bonus material to an extra Blu-ray and avoiding with any elaborate menu design. This has improved the picture quality").

https://shop.capelight.de/gesamtkatalog ... OX3UtBC2Uk

[Eric Paddon]

Interestingly, Jay Robinson became a born-again Christian in the 70s after his life had bottomed out with drug use and a brief jail sentence. His autobio that came out at the time goes into that in detail (though I can't vouch for whether he stuck to it the remaining decades of his life).

Part of the totality of my viewing experience at this time is to reread the works of and watch the video lectures of IMO the finest of New Testament era scholars and historians, Dr. Paul Maier, who in the late 60s wrote a novel "Pontius Pilate" that would have made an outstanding movie because Maier, as a historian, carefully constructed his fictional through-line around all existing facts (using no fictional characters) to tell us a plausible story of how things unfolded based on plausible interpretations of the known evidence (in this case, tying Pilate's actions to the events in Rome where the downfall of Tiberius's anti-Jewish right-hand Sejanus had led to a policy aimed more at placating the Jews and thus, the threat by the Sanhedrin of "If you free this man you are no friend of Caesar!" may well have been a veiled reference to how freeing Jesus would have been seen as a sign that Pilate was still following the line of the disgraced Sejanus). Whenever Maier delivers a lecture on the New Testament era and the historical evidence it is done with great clarity for the lay person.



I also enjoy listening each year to a wonderful audio drama "The Luke Reports" produced in six parts over a period of six years in the early 2000s by the Focus On The Family Radio Theatre series. This series did a number of wonderful faith based dramas and adaptations of classic literary works using talented British actors and this one, one of their more ambitious ones, gives us the fictional through-line of Luke journeying through Judea and Galilee in the time of Nero to interview people and compile the accounts for the Gospel on the life of Christ and running into the obstacles along the way as tensions between Zealots and Romans keep mounting. The radio series lasted from the late 90s to the early 10s when budget cutbacks led to its end (along with the departure of the series primary writer, Paul McCusker who became a Catholic convert) and is IMO the finest example of modern Christian audio drama there's been.

New viewing. Some vintage live TV productions. The 1952 Studio One production "Pontius Pilate" with Cyril Ritchard isn't connected to Maier's late 60s novel but has a compelling first half taking place during the Crucifixion followed by a weak second half of Pilate in political exile and being haunted by his past decision (by contrast, Maier's novel properly notes that scholars don't record a horrible fate for Pilate. He was recalled by Tiberius after using force in Syria, but Tiberius died before hearing his case and there the early historians stop. Maier says Pilate likely spent the rest of his years in quiet retirement on a government pension. However he does give credence to the idea that Pilate's wife became an early Christian).

Also viewed the 1961 Hallmark Hall Of Fame "Give Us Barabbas" with James Daly, which is one interesting speculative take on the fate of the man whose life was spared so Christ could die. The 1961 movie is another take of course, and one of my favorites which I'll be viewing tomorrow.

[Monterey Jack]

-Star Wars (1977): 10/10

-The Empire Strikes Back (1980): 11/10

-Return Of The Jedi (1983): 8.5/10



Finally picked up a copy of the "Despecialized" versions of the Star Wars trilogy for a song on Facebook, and find it queerly apt that a series of movies about a scrappy, ragtag group of rebels fighting back against a monolithic Empire had to have the vastly-superior theatrical cuts preserved in the best quality by talented bootleggers than by the original creator and the company that bought him out. Watching these versions for the first time since 2015 (when I dragged my laserdisc player out of mothballs in the lead up to the release of The Force Awakens, with each movie split across five CAV disc sides! ) made me appreciate them all the more, all of the half-assed revisionism Lucas started inserting into the films almost three decades ago swept away and allowing the viewer to appreciate the groundbreaking visual effects the way they were meant to be seen. And the movies retain a dramatic and emotional heft none of the myriad of Prequels, Sequels and endless churn of D+ "product" will ever match, charting the journey of Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker from callow, whiny farmboy to seasoned Rebel pilot to zen Jedi Master in a manner that's sure, compelling and yet never once sacrificing a sense of ebullient fun. Even the trilogy's flawed concluding chapter, Return Of The Jedi, plays far better in comparison to what would follow in the decades since, capping off the trilogy with a rousingly compelling flourish. With John Williams' soaring music providing deft counterpoint to Lucas and his tech wizardry, the Star Wars trilogy thankfully stands alone as the pinnacle of special effects of the era, and it's shameful how Disney has strip-mined its iconic simplicity and resonance to weaponize it as a vehicle for sour gender and "inclusivity" politics, completely botching the sense of scruffy B-movie entertainment value these films had in spades. Oh well, at least now I can enjoy these films in their glittering original forms, no longer drenched in CGI ketchup or with Darth Vader bellowing "NOOOOOOOOO...!" as he throws the Emperor down a shaft to his death.

[Eric Paddon]

I got my despecialized editions six or seven plus years ago. Someone who is no longer here gave me grief about that. But as far as I'm concerned, if George Lucas wants to play this game of irresponsibility to historic preservation simply to cheat his ex-wife out of royalty money (I am 1000% convinced this is the reason why he has done what he has regarding the original cuts), I'm going to register what I think of that by getting what I can that will let me re-experience the innocence of what the trilogy first seemed like to me when I first experienced it. At present, younger generations who have been oversaturated with product (all of which I have never seen and never will) will never be able to get a sense of what it was like for those of us who experienced the films when they were new.

[Eric Paddon]

Added "Barabbas" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" to my viewing. The former, I am tempted to do my own commentary track for at some point to compensate for that disgraceful one on the Imprint Blu-Ray.

GSET despite the poor transfer of the current Blu-Ray at least looks better on the giant screen I've had the last couple years since my move. More details I never spotted before are evident (and for the first time I learned that famed poet Carl Sandburg can be seen in the crowd in Roman attire at the Crucifixion). I really wish I could find the original shooting script just to get a sense of what the missing footage that we'll never see again entailed.

The film's weakest part IMO is the Crucifixion and Resurrection because after making effective use of the locations for so much of the film, the Desilu soundstage origins for the climactic part of the story really come off as cheap looking. And the editing is too choppy in that sequence. "Barabbas" of course gives us one of the best filmed depictions of the Crucifixion because of the genius in taking advantage of the eclipse.

A pity that both films can't be done in Blu-Ray properly with beautiful transfers.

[Monterey Jack]

But as far as I'm concerned, if George Lucas wants to play this game of irresponsibility to historic preservation simply to cheat his ex-wife out of royalty money (I am 1000% convinced this is the reason why he has done what he has regarding the original cuts), I'm going to register what I think of that by getting what I can that will let me re-experience the innocence of what the trilogy first seemed like to me when I first experienced it.

Lucas' treatment of three movies that are historically significant for their massive advancement of the art of visual effects is no less disrespectful to the numerous artists who toiled painstakingly to realize them than those idiots a year or so ago who took to throwing cans of soup at paintings in museums to protest fossil fuels. And at least those paintings were behind glass, so they were thankfully unharmed. They may be "his" movies, but he only directed one of them, and I can't imagine what the artists who have Academy Award statues on their shelves think of seeing their hard work covered up with horrendous CGI nonsense (that's already far more "dated" than the F/X they were intended to supplant!). And you KNOW that doing the right thing and restoring the theatrical cuts to 4K quality on physical media would generate so much goodwill -- and money! -- for Disney (a company that desperately needs lots of both) that you know they'd do it in an instant if it were not probably written into the contract they signed with Lucas to make the "special" editions the default ones for all time. It's like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, as far as I'm concerned. I paid $25 for the Despecialized cuts, but would pay over four times that to have them in 4K quality and loaded with extra features.

[Eric Paddon]

Got through "Jesus Of Nazareth" yesterday followed by "Passion Of The Christ." I think unfortunately "Ben Hur" will be missing the cut as tomorrow I will set aside for the shorter organ-score version of the silent "King Of Kings" and "Risen" to complete this year's cycle of viewing.

"Jesus of Nazareth" is so definitive in so many parts of its telling that as a result when it comes up short in other sequences it ends up being frustrating. I am though convinced that a couple errors may in fact be due to the difficulties of getting so many all star actors together at once. For instance, in the Nativity telling for some reason the Magi do *not* visit Herod The Great even though this is duly recorded in Matthew. And I can't understand why the script dispensed with Pilate sending Jesus first to Herod Antipas, even though that action would have perfectly fit Steiger's performance of Pilate as the overly bored bureaucrat.

It then occurred to me for the first time that the reason for why these scenes were scripted that way had everything to do with actor availability. In all likelihood they couldn't set up a shoot with Ustinov and the three big names playing the Magi (James Earl Jones, Fernando Rey, Donald Pleasence) on the same day and undoubtedly Plummer (whose Antipas is the *best* ever done of that character) couldn't make time for more shooting with Powell, Ian Holm etc.

While those decisions I can now understand, where I am less charitable to Zeffirelli is his skittishness with depicting the more overtly miraculous which is why he totally cut the Temptation scene altogether. Stills exist of Powell for the "command these stones be made to bread" moment so we know it was shot. This also accounts for his rather weak-tea post-Resurrection scene of Mary Magdalene being disbelieved by the Disciples and then it's only at the last minute where we get a post-Resurrection scene of Jesus (along the way Zeffirelli filmed and cut Jesus returning and the reproach to Thomas). It needed something stronger. I'm also less impressed by the need to use a fictional character (Ian Holm's Zerah as the driving engine of the Sanhedrin and the one responsible for making Judas betray Jesus).

The film as a whole is magnificent but because of its length it was going to be impossible to nail things perfectly. Still, it was nice to go through it and thankfully I re-edited the final part to get the missing scenes back in alongside the superior Blu-Ray quality footage.

[Eric Paddon]

The shorter cut silent "King Of Kings" and "Risen" conclude this year's Holy Season viewing for me (I compensated for skipping "Ben Hur" by listening to the score during my lengthy walk around the neighborhood). Didn't watch quite as much as I did in the past but again, the earliness of Easter this year accounted for that IMO.

To me, one of the most brilliant moments of "Risen" is when Tribune Clavius talks to the guard who was on duty at the time of Resurrection. He is a drunken wreck because his mind can't comprehend what he saw (you could have gotten a whole film focusing on this person's journey just as easily).

[Eric Paddon]

The Path To 9/11 (2006) 8 of 10

-I revisited this miniseries that has been suppressed since its original broadcast in 2006 and has no video release because of Disney's slobbering appeasement of Bill Clinton who objected to the fact that his administration was not depicted as perfect and free from error during the years prior to 9/11 when the plan was hatched and opportunities to take out Bin Laden were blown. I'd note that "Path" doesn't spare the Bush WH from responsibility either. That we're not able to watch and enjoy a great production that provides a compelling narrative of events from the first WTC bombing to 9/11 in a decent home video format is shameful IMO (but a nice reminder of how Elite Entertainment will bend over backwards to do the bidding of Democrat party bigwigs). The production works by following a "Tora! Tora! Tora!" like pattern of always identifying who is who at key moments and because the film has an anchor character in the form of Harvey Keitel's John O'Neill really helps. O'Neill was the FBI man in charge of the whole Bin Laden effort from the time of the WTC bombing up to early 2001 when he was forced out of the FBI into retirement, and then in an incredibly sad twist of fate, he became the WTC Chief Of Security just two weeks before 9/11 and died in the attack.

-I am grateful I have an uncut version of this, even if not in the best of quality because this and the big screen "United 93" are the two definitive dramatizations of 9/11 events I've seen.

[Paul MacLean]

The Ten Commandments (9/10)

My first viewing in five years. DeMille's picture remains one of great epics -- biblical or otherwise -- and every subsequent epic, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator, et all -- stands on its shoulders. I reviewed it in detail after my previous screening in 2019, and still stand by everything I had to say at the time:

viewtopic.php?t=1924&start=3555


Exodus: Gods and Kings (7/10)

I thought I'd revisit this and assess it in comparison to DeMille's effort. There are a lot of strong elements at work in this movie, chief among them its visuals. Exodus: Gods and Kings does look extraordinary, from the capacious sets to the exquisite costuming to the gorgeous lighting and Scott's unparallelled eye for staging, movement, etc.

I've honestly felt that Scott's visual style has been stuck in a bit of rut for about two decades -- at least as far as his approach to historic subjects; Kingdom and Heaven, Robin Hood and Napoleon have moments that look almost interchangeable. Not so much in Exodus: Gods and Kings. The imagery in this movie really "pops" at times, and has a freshness which is missing from a lot of Scott's other "costume pieces". Complimenting this is Alberto Iglesias' lush, melodic score, which is the best score written for a Ridley Scott picture since 1492 (except for the few moments that sound like Hans Zimmer -- apparently Harry Gregson-Williams composed some additional music, and is likely the reason for the "Zimmerisms").

Unlike The Ten Commandments, which was very stylized, Exodus: Gods and Kings goes for a much-more naturalistic approach to the drama. It's not an invalid approach, but the problem is Scott goes too far in the "naturalistic" direction. Moses was a larger-than-life figure -- and in 1956 Charlton Heston appropriately played the role with the bearing of benevolent power and authority (whether an Egyptian prince, exiled shepherd or Holy Deliverer). I really like Christian Bale as an actor, but he (with Scott's evident blessing) plays Moses as "a regular guy", and that just doesn't cut it for one of the great leaders in ancient history. I watch Bale's performance and feel like I'm looking at the fellow who mans the counter where I service my car.

Further, Scott tells the story of Moses as if there may have been no divine intervention whatsoever. Scott is a self-confessed agnostic -- which is fair enough -- but whether or not one believes in God, the parting of the Red Sea, etc., removing God from the story makes for a very boring take on the material. The plagues afflicting Egypt have a "rational" explanation, and even the crossing of the Red Sea is depicted as a stroke of luck enabled by a convenient tsunami. But is the idea of tsunami occurring at just the right moment any less plausible than God miraculously intervening?

The biggest problem by far in this movie is the way Scott's depicts God as little boy, which is just ridiculous. I'm not sure what Scott was trying to say with this casting decision -- and maybe he wasn't trying to say anything, he was just "trying something different". But it was a silly idea and seriously compromises the movie.

Apart from this, the film's dramatic tension gets a little slack in places as well. That said, the final half hour of this film -- as Pharaoh's army charges forth in pursuit of the Israelites, culminating in the Red Sea crossing -- is truly incredible, and some of Scott's best work. The ending of the film is also quite touching. One wishes that everything leading up to all this was as dramatically potent.

I'll always be a huge Ridley Scott fan, and pretty-much every one of his movies is worth watching for the visuals (and are amazing tutorials for any filmmaker). But this is one of his most frustrating pictures, because it has so much going for it, and could have been fixed with a few alterations (tighten up the pacing, get rid or that annoying kid and replace him with a disembodied "heavenly light" and voice-over from Alan Rickman or the like).

[Paul MacLean]

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan (6/10)

How many times are they going to remake this story?

Ok, I'll accept than an actual French adaptation of a story written by a Frenchman is valid. But this is a very uneven movie which ultimately doesn't work.

First the good. This film is visually sumptuous, with beautiful lighting and arresting use of locations and period buildings. The all-French cast is likewise terrific. Well, they seem to be anyway...

I was unfortunately only able to watch the dubbed version of this movie, and while the actors all give outstanding physical performances, it's of course impossible to judge their line-readings. And this brings me to the biggest problem with the English-dubbed cut -- the actors supplying the voice over are uniformly awful. The dubbing is honestly on the level of a bad 1970s Kung Fu movie (and I'm not exaggerating). The dubbed voices weren't recorded very well either, and it's obvious all the VO actors are a few inches from the microphone so they sound like sports announcers.

Fight scenes are overly frenetic, so-much-so they are hard to watch (and get confusing). The film also attempts to be "with the times" and depicts Porthos as bisexual (complete with a brief scene of him in bed with a woman and a man at the same time). The costumes aren't very accurate. Everyone is dressed in dreary earth-tones, and even Louis XIV sports a drab wardrobe, devoid of the lace and other finery befitting a 17th century king. In fact the gentry's costumes are scarcely distinguishable from those of commoners. Perhaps director Martin Bourboulon was worried that period-accurate costumes might look too flamboyant for modern audiences, I don't know. But it doesn't help the film.

The tone of this movie is also excessively dour and gritty -- in contrast to the adventurous fun of the Salkind / Richard Lester films of the 1970s (which remain by-far the best adataion of Dumas' stories -- though Stephen Herek's 1993 film was very good). The often-Zimmeresque score is terrible, devoid of themes (and even the scene where D'Artagnan and Constance kiss for the first time is underscored with a minimalist drone).

I'm sure this film plays better with the actual French actors' voices, but even so, it is just too dark, gritty and slow-moving to be entertaining.

[AndyDursin]

Apparently the 2nd half of that takes even MORE liberties with the source material than the first part!

[Paul MacLean]

The Beekeeper (8/10)

I love the films of Akira Kurosawa, David Lean and other great cinema artists...but sometimes I'm in the mood for mindless exploitation trash. And The Beekeeper delivers this in SPADES.

The film stars Jason Statham (you know what you're in for right there) as a reclusive beekeeper, who sets about avenging a friend who has been robbed of her entire life savings by phone scammers. In the course of the the story his predictably "mysterious past" is revealed. The premise is basically cribbed from The Equalizer, but the script is actually decent (and with a little re-writing might well have made a decent Equalizer sequel).

Predictably there's no end of graphic violence in this movie, which is frequently ridiculous, but that just adds to the charm. One scene in particular, where Statham does away with one of the lower-level baddies -- by trying him to an unoccupied truck which he sends careening into a river -- is one of the funniest things I've seen in over a decade! The film is set (again, like The Equalizer) in Massachusetts -- but the occasional establishing shots of the Berkshires or Boston can't hide that all the scenes with the actual actors are obviously filmed in England. The proliferation of British actors among supporting cast (including Minnie Driver, Jemma Redgrave and Jeremy Irons -- whose American accent leaves a bit to be desired) is dead giveaway too.

On a more personal note, I appreciated that this film centered on the punishment of phone scammers -- my dad got taken to one of those "You're computer is infected with a virus" websites last year, and promptly called the number and started giving them his information. Fortunately I was there and saw what he doing and put a stop to it. I doubt The Beekeeper will go down as "a cautionary tale" about the dangers of phishing scams -- but I did enjoy seeing those people eviscerated and burned alive.

High art it's not, but The Beekeeper is an hour and forty minutes of the best kind of cinematic garbage I've seen in years.