I've heard a lot better stuff from Barry. The score is serviceable for the film but hardly memorable.
Pretentious is an understatement. How many people think going into this film that this is about Scott as an eccentric who thinks he's Holmes and a real "Dr. Watson" joining him that's going to result in solving something legitimate? It's nothing of the kind. Scott isn't solving a damn thing legitimately and yet at the same time the script is making us think something has to happen because we have this side-bar of his brother being blackmailed and how his brother wants him committed to get access to his money but at the same time the blackmailer is trying to kill Scott so the brother can get the money and be able to pay the blackmail! (!). But this is all side-bar and NOTHING Scott and Woodward does gets them close to that because it's all about the artsy-fartsy pretentiousness of Scott making speeches about the human condition etc. and one of those "maybe the insane are really more sane" type lessons and by the end it's degenerated into rank stupidity.
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35760
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
My formal review:
STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER
6.5/10
Brought back to salvage the concluding chapter in Disney’s so-called “Skywalker” series, director J.J. Abrams does something interesting with STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER: he and co-writer Chris Terrio basically act as if its tepid, divisive Rian Johnson-helmed predecessor, “The Last Jedi,” never existed. Did that visit to the intergalactic casino ever happen? Where are the “Jedi Kids”? Are characters played by Laura Dern and Benicio Del Toro even canon now?
“Episode IX” plays like a direct sequel to Abrams’ “The Force Awakens,” or at the least, a second installment he didn’t get to make – tonally, visually, it “fits” with that film, while avoiding basically anything to do with “The Last Jedi” outside of where its characters are positioned at the outset. It even seems to go out of its way to avoid referencing anything that even happened in “Last Jedi,” while bringing back Abrams’ penchant for recycling material amongst a bevy of bland, forgettable action.
The plot – which evaporates so quickly that you’ll soon forget what the characters are even doing – finds Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) back and among the living (don’t ask how this happens; a reprisal of dialogue from “Revnege of the Sith” is all you’ll get). In one of the movie’s few interesting elements, it turns out the First Order is just a front for the revival of the Empire (surprise!), yet it would’ve been more effective had this material been incorporated to some degree in the previous picture. Out to stop him is Rey (Daisy Ridley), who’s basically become a full-fledged Jedi still wondering about her parents’ identity, as well as Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), now the First Order’s ranking leader but dubious about the newly-revived Emperor’s power grab.
“Skywalker” is unquestionably a more respectable, entertaining film than “The Last Jedi,” with its most satisfying attributes coming through the character arcs of Kylo and Rey. Driver proves to be the most compelling presence in these three films, with his conflicted nature and unpredictable performance bringing a much-needed shot of energy to all the scenes he’s in. While Ridley’s performance has basically become a flatline – she generates the same emotional response in scene after scene, seldom providing an indication of her heroine’s growth – her scenes with Driver still retain their interest.
Regrettably, their sequences are sabotaged by mostly banal action, boring supporting characters, and a maddening number of things that never pay off. Abrams struggles to find a function for either John Boyega’s Finn or Oscar Isaac’s Poe – so much that Finn’s repeated line “I’ve got to tell Rey something!” inexplicably has no resolution at all. Meanwhile, a kiss between two leads that does occur near the end generated widespread laughter and groans from the audience I was sitting with. Other characters come and go, mostly without any consequence (Keri Russell has a worthlessly underdeveloped role in particular), while Billy Dee Williams saunters in for a few minutes, looking as if he was trying to find the salad bar while dressed up in Lando Calrissian garb.
To his credit, Abrams does provide some interesting visual flourishes – a light-saber duel on the downed remnants of the second Death Star is played out against a turbulent sea with humungous waves – and a mercifully short reprisal of original trilogy star appearances, Lando notwithstanding.
What it all amounts to, though, is a disconnected trilogy that doesn’t function as a cohesive whole, the product of focus groups, studio executive notes and Disney’s corporate filmmaking mentality – there’s no doubt the studio’s investment in release dates, as opposed to screenplays, was clearly felt here. While Abrams is no Lucas, one gets the sense had he been employed to shepherd the story through the second film (instead of hiring/firing Colin Trevorrow and then bringing in Rian Johnson, who should’ve been axed), this trilogy may have had a fighting chance to at least function more coherently than it ultimately does.
When “The Force Awakens” hit theaters in 2015, many fans felt the rush of nostalgia and flocked to the film – yet with 5 movies having been cranked out in four years, it’s safe to say that thrill is now gone (sadly that sentiment can be felt with John Williams’ music as well, which disappointingly falls flat here). Regardless of what you think about George Lucas, there was a point to both of his Star Wars trilogies, and a cogent message that these Disney films mimics but doesn’t entirely comprehend. His creative impulse has been disappointingly left frozen in carbonite, stranded in a cinematic realm far, far away from 2019.
STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER
6.5/10
Brought back to salvage the concluding chapter in Disney’s so-called “Skywalker” series, director J.J. Abrams does something interesting with STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER: he and co-writer Chris Terrio basically act as if its tepid, divisive Rian Johnson-helmed predecessor, “The Last Jedi,” never existed. Did that visit to the intergalactic casino ever happen? Where are the “Jedi Kids”? Are characters played by Laura Dern and Benicio Del Toro even canon now?
“Episode IX” plays like a direct sequel to Abrams’ “The Force Awakens,” or at the least, a second installment he didn’t get to make – tonally, visually, it “fits” with that film, while avoiding basically anything to do with “The Last Jedi” outside of where its characters are positioned at the outset. It even seems to go out of its way to avoid referencing anything that even happened in “Last Jedi,” while bringing back Abrams’ penchant for recycling material amongst a bevy of bland, forgettable action.
The plot – which evaporates so quickly that you’ll soon forget what the characters are even doing – finds Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) back and among the living (don’t ask how this happens; a reprisal of dialogue from “Revnege of the Sith” is all you’ll get). In one of the movie’s few interesting elements, it turns out the First Order is just a front for the revival of the Empire (surprise!), yet it would’ve been more effective had this material been incorporated to some degree in the previous picture. Out to stop him is Rey (Daisy Ridley), who’s basically become a full-fledged Jedi still wondering about her parents’ identity, as well as Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), now the First Order’s ranking leader but dubious about the newly-revived Emperor’s power grab.
“Skywalker” is unquestionably a more respectable, entertaining film than “The Last Jedi,” with its most satisfying attributes coming through the character arcs of Kylo and Rey. Driver proves to be the most compelling presence in these three films, with his conflicted nature and unpredictable performance bringing a much-needed shot of energy to all the scenes he’s in. While Ridley’s performance has basically become a flatline – she generates the same emotional response in scene after scene, seldom providing an indication of her heroine’s growth – her scenes with Driver still retain their interest.
Regrettably, their sequences are sabotaged by mostly banal action, boring supporting characters, and a maddening number of things that never pay off. Abrams struggles to find a function for either John Boyega’s Finn or Oscar Isaac’s Poe – so much that Finn’s repeated line “I’ve got to tell Rey something!” inexplicably has no resolution at all. Meanwhile, a kiss between two leads that does occur near the end generated widespread laughter and groans from the audience I was sitting with. Other characters come and go, mostly without any consequence (Keri Russell has a worthlessly underdeveloped role in particular), while Billy Dee Williams saunters in for a few minutes, looking as if he was trying to find the salad bar while dressed up in Lando Calrissian garb.
To his credit, Abrams does provide some interesting visual flourishes – a light-saber duel on the downed remnants of the second Death Star is played out against a turbulent sea with humungous waves – and a mercifully short reprisal of original trilogy star appearances, Lando notwithstanding.
What it all amounts to, though, is a disconnected trilogy that doesn’t function as a cohesive whole, the product of focus groups, studio executive notes and Disney’s corporate filmmaking mentality – there’s no doubt the studio’s investment in release dates, as opposed to screenplays, was clearly felt here. While Abrams is no Lucas, one gets the sense had he been employed to shepherd the story through the second film (instead of hiring/firing Colin Trevorrow and then bringing in Rian Johnson, who should’ve been axed), this trilogy may have had a fighting chance to at least function more coherently than it ultimately does.
When “The Force Awakens” hit theaters in 2015, many fans felt the rush of nostalgia and flocked to the film – yet with 5 movies having been cranked out in four years, it’s safe to say that thrill is now gone (sadly that sentiment can be felt with John Williams’ music as well, which disappointingly falls flat here). Regardless of what you think about George Lucas, there was a point to both of his Star Wars trilogies, and a cogent message that these Disney films mimics but doesn’t entirely comprehend. His creative impulse has been disappointingly left frozen in carbonite, stranded in a cinematic realm far, far away from 2019.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
52 Pick Up (1987) 1 of 10
=Yikes, did I go wrong with my Kino purchases. Three blind buys, three losers and this was the worst of them all. I have not seen much of John Frankenheimer's work post-Black Sunday, but it's patently obvious the man's quirk for gratuitous exposure that he first did in "Seconds" really unleashed itself in the 80s ("Holcroft Covenant" has a tasteless extended drag queen/nudie sequence that he concocted, yet in his commentary track he patted himself on the back for being restrained in his violence!). This film already gives us shaky premise that ANYONE married to Ann-Margret would be dumb enough to cheat on her as Roy Scheider does (but hey, this is also the era of "Fatal Attraction") and sets himself up for trouble. But what could have been an interesting story becomes an endless parade of distasteful scenes in nude sex parlors (for which Frankenheimer recruited porno actors) that show not a drop of restraint (I can now totally understand why Vanity felt the need to renounce all phases of her career when she became born-again given what she does in this film. It got to a point where I was turning my head every few seconds because I just couldn't take what I was seeing). We get Clarence Williams III going full psycho mode not once but twice to excess; we have the utter absurdity of this massive conspiracy being committed against Scheider by three guys for what basically amounts to glorified chump change even by 1987 standards, and finally we have an explosive climax that I could already smell from a mile off before it happens that did little to undo the sense of feeling I needed to bathe after seeing this film. (And throw in a cheapo awful synth score that is oh-so-80s and you can't even get the redeeming value of a great score in a bad film).
=Yikes, did I go wrong with my Kino purchases. Three blind buys, three losers and this was the worst of them all. I have not seen much of John Frankenheimer's work post-Black Sunday, but it's patently obvious the man's quirk for gratuitous exposure that he first did in "Seconds" really unleashed itself in the 80s ("Holcroft Covenant" has a tasteless extended drag queen/nudie sequence that he concocted, yet in his commentary track he patted himself on the back for being restrained in his violence!). This film already gives us shaky premise that ANYONE married to Ann-Margret would be dumb enough to cheat on her as Roy Scheider does (but hey, this is also the era of "Fatal Attraction") and sets himself up for trouble. But what could have been an interesting story becomes an endless parade of distasteful scenes in nude sex parlors (for which Frankenheimer recruited porno actors) that show not a drop of restraint (I can now totally understand why Vanity felt the need to renounce all phases of her career when she became born-again given what she does in this film. It got to a point where I was turning my head every few seconds because I just couldn't take what I was seeing). We get Clarence Williams III going full psycho mode not once but twice to excess; we have the utter absurdity of this massive conspiracy being committed against Scheider by three guys for what basically amounts to glorified chump change even by 1987 standards, and finally we have an explosive climax that I could already smell from a mile off before it happens that did little to undo the sense of feeling I needed to bathe after seeing this film. (And throw in a cheapo awful synth score that is oh-so-80s and you can't even get the redeeming value of a great score in a bad film).
Last edited by Eric Paddon on Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
地獄 (Jigoku) 0/10
Every so often you get a sobering reminder that just because the Criterion Collection releases a movie, it doesn't mean the film is a "classic", nor even particularly good (or in this case even watchable).
Jigoku (the Japanese word for "hell") is ostensibly a horror movie, but plays like a ludicrous soap opera for a good two thirds of its running time. The story concerns a young university student who accidentally runs over and kills a drunk in the middle of the road, then flees the scene. The remorseful protagonist then goes for a ride in a cab with his fiance, but the cab driver loses control of the wheel and crashes the car, killing both himself and the girl. Unable to cope with their daughter's death, the girl's parents kill themselves. The protagonist goes to visit his own parents in a nursing home, where the manager of the home has decided to save money by feeding the residents spoiled fish for dinner.
Then the mother of the drunk who was run over catches up with the protagonist, and she (with the help of her son's prostitute girlfriend) strangles him to death -- just as the nursing home residents all die simultaneously of food poisoning.
Then -- suddenly -- all the characters find themselves in in Hell. An endless barrage of schlocky, tasteless maimings, impalings, dismemberings, burnings, and other torments of the damned pervade the last half hour of the movie -- with absolutely no satisfactory resolution.
This is without a doubt one of the worst screenplays ever written, with no cohesive narrative arc or character development. And worst of all, it isn't even "so bad it's funny".
Awful, from top to bottom.
Every so often you get a sobering reminder that just because the Criterion Collection releases a movie, it doesn't mean the film is a "classic", nor even particularly good (or in this case even watchable).
Jigoku (the Japanese word for "hell") is ostensibly a horror movie, but plays like a ludicrous soap opera for a good two thirds of its running time. The story concerns a young university student who accidentally runs over and kills a drunk in the middle of the road, then flees the scene. The remorseful protagonist then goes for a ride in a cab with his fiance, but the cab driver loses control of the wheel and crashes the car, killing both himself and the girl. Unable to cope with their daughter's death, the girl's parents kill themselves. The protagonist goes to visit his own parents in a nursing home, where the manager of the home has decided to save money by feeding the residents spoiled fish for dinner.
Then the mother of the drunk who was run over catches up with the protagonist, and she (with the help of her son's prostitute girlfriend) strangles him to death -- just as the nursing home residents all die simultaneously of food poisoning.
Then -- suddenly -- all the characters find themselves in in Hell. An endless barrage of schlocky, tasteless maimings, impalings, dismemberings, burnings, and other torments of the damned pervade the last half hour of the movie -- with absolutely no satisfactory resolution.
This is without a doubt one of the worst screenplays ever written, with no cohesive narrative arc or character development. And worst of all, it isn't even "so bad it's funny".
Awful, from top to bottom.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Lol...sounds horrible!!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Absence Of Malice (1981) 8 of 10
-Revisiting this for the first time in decades reveals a film that is now amazingly prescient in relation to the garbage of the last few years. The whole sleazy operation of Bob Balaban's Justice Department task force to use the press to try and rope Paul Newman into being cooperative with their big investigation could easily parallel the recent antics of the FBI, Peter Strzok, the Steele Dossier and the damage inflicted on the likes of Carter Page and Michael Flynn for the sake of trying to nab the "big" story. Balaban's Elliot Rosen shows exactly what is meant by the "Deep State" and unfortunately we don't have enough Wilford Brimleys who are ready to move quick to "drain the swamp" as it were (Brimley utterly steals the picture in his one scene and shows how he put himself on the map as an actor)
-The film isn't perfect. The machinations to make Newman and Sally Field come together for one bedroom scene are forced and seem designed to cater to the belief that the leading man and woman should have a scene like that along the way. In addition, Field's editor Josef Sommer is never held accountable for the fact that *he*, not Field was the one who pushed for the more unsavory details about Melinda Dillon to be published, which drives her to suicide. Perhaps though that's why the fate of Field's character is a bit ambiguous at the end. I used to think she got fired, but looking at it now, that's not so clear. In addition, Newman is presented from the outset as totally clean without a hint of ambiguity to keep us guessing for just a little bit. The script could have played that out for a while.
-Revisiting this for the first time in decades reveals a film that is now amazingly prescient in relation to the garbage of the last few years. The whole sleazy operation of Bob Balaban's Justice Department task force to use the press to try and rope Paul Newman into being cooperative with their big investigation could easily parallel the recent antics of the FBI, Peter Strzok, the Steele Dossier and the damage inflicted on the likes of Carter Page and Michael Flynn for the sake of trying to nab the "big" story. Balaban's Elliot Rosen shows exactly what is meant by the "Deep State" and unfortunately we don't have enough Wilford Brimleys who are ready to move quick to "drain the swamp" as it were (Brimley utterly steals the picture in his one scene and shows how he put himself on the map as an actor)
-The film isn't perfect. The machinations to make Newman and Sally Field come together for one bedroom scene are forced and seem designed to cater to the belief that the leading man and woman should have a scene like that along the way. In addition, Field's editor Josef Sommer is never held accountable for the fact that *he*, not Field was the one who pushed for the more unsavory details about Melinda Dillon to be published, which drives her to suicide. Perhaps though that's why the fate of Field's character is a bit ambiguous at the end. I used to think she got fired, but looking at it now, that's not so clear. In addition, Newman is presented from the outset as totally clean without a hint of ambiguity to keep us guessing for just a little bit. The script could have played that out for a while.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35760
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Gary Chang -- one of those guys you wonder how he ever got hired to score movies, especially coming in an era when so many great composers were working. And Frankenheimer kept using him a bunch of times!(And throw in a cheapo awful synth score that is oh-so-80s and you can't even get the redeeming value of a great score in a bad film).
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) 9 of 10
-The best time to watch this film for me is just after Christmas, not so much because of the fact the main action takes place during that time but because I mentioned five years ago the last time I reviewed and saw this how I associate this film with my 1984 Christmas break and a friend and I rented this, DAF and Octopussy and hooked up two VHS machines to run off a boot copy!
And the end of the year also calls to mind this film as the end of the 60s and the whole era of style associated with the Bond films in that period. "Diamonds Are Forever" even with Connery's one-shot return anticipates the 70s Bond films as opposed to looking back as OHMSS did.
-The tragic ending gets more poignant as one gets older I think. Although DAF did end up being a fun film IMO, it would have been so much better if Lazenby hadn't foolishly bailed out and listened to bad advice from "friends" and returned so that DAF could have been a true continuation and settled the matter of Blofeld once and for all (perhaps if Lazenby had returned, they would have also gotten Savalas back since he is the definitive screen Blofeld IMO).
-The Blu-Ray I noticed this time *really* seems to dial down the music a bit more so than earlier releases. I could barely hear it in some stretches while the dialogue and sound/fx was really ramped up a bit too much.
-The best time to watch this film for me is just after Christmas, not so much because of the fact the main action takes place during that time but because I mentioned five years ago the last time I reviewed and saw this how I associate this film with my 1984 Christmas break and a friend and I rented this, DAF and Octopussy and hooked up two VHS machines to run off a boot copy!
And the end of the year also calls to mind this film as the end of the 60s and the whole era of style associated with the Bond films in that period. "Diamonds Are Forever" even with Connery's one-shot return anticipates the 70s Bond films as opposed to looking back as OHMSS did.-The tragic ending gets more poignant as one gets older I think. Although DAF did end up being a fun film IMO, it would have been so much better if Lazenby hadn't foolishly bailed out and listened to bad advice from "friends" and returned so that DAF could have been a true continuation and settled the matter of Blofeld once and for all (perhaps if Lazenby had returned, they would have also gotten Savalas back since he is the definitive screen Blofeld IMO).
-The Blu-Ray I noticed this time *really* seems to dial down the music a bit more so than earlier releases. I could barely hear it in some stretches while the dialogue and sound/fx was really ramped up a bit too much.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
OHMSS still makes my eyes water...great film. The only other Bond film that gets my eyes wet is SKYFALL. Both handled the death of Bond's loved one well.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
OHMSS is not only my favorite Bond film, it is one of my favorite films of all time. It also contains (unsurprisingly) my favorite scene in any Bond picture -- when 007 is trapped at the ice rink, cold, afraid, exhausted, and it's only a matter of time before Blofeld's thugs find him. Then Tracy shows up. It's a wonderful moment, as we see Bond is for once not invincible, and a woman is the one who comes to his rescue -- but not just any woman. Tracy is an extraordinary character, the one who not only saves Bond's life (at great risk to her own), but also conquers Bond's heart.
Agreed on how it is not only the last of the 1960s Bond films, but the last of the 1960s style of Bond films. I think Lazenby is terrific and while I like Roger Moore, I'd love to have seen Lazenby in more Bond pictures. John Barry's score is one of his best as well.
Agreed on how it is not only the last of the 1960s Bond films, but the last of the 1960s style of Bond films. I think Lazenby is terrific and while I like Roger Moore, I'd love to have seen Lazenby in more Bond pictures. John Barry's score is one of his best as well.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Poseidon Adventure (1972) 8 of 10
-Keeps improving with age IMO in this age of CGI fakery and shallow one-dimensional acting. The key IMO has to go to Ronald Neame's direction and knowing how to get more out of the actors, and also the outstanding sets (I haven't seen "Cabaret" which won the award, but I can't believe for one minute the Art Direction was superior there to what William Creber came up with, with his meticulously perfect upside down sets taken from the Queen Mary), low-lit cinematography and John Williams score.
Beyond The Poseidon Adventure (1979) 1 of 10
-A few months back I came into possession of the lost, longer TV cuts of a number of late 70s disaster films, and I finally decided to force myself to endure my way through this film (probably the most important new scene is at the end where we get a final one with Jack Warden and Shirley Jones). Because Irwin ran out of money to do the final F/X shot in "Poseidon Adventure" showing the ship sink, that left the door open for him to do some kind of sequel project, although the first idea he had, according to Carol Lynley, was to have the survivors en route to testify at the hearings into the disaster and getting trapped in a train when the tunnel collapses (and Gene Hackman once told a story on the Tonight Show of getting a sequel pitch where he would have played Reverend Scott's twin brother!). Irwin then decided to go for some pirate angle of salvage, and Paul Gallico the original novel author of Poseidon Adventure, actually wrote a sequel novel based on the film which had Rogo, Martin and Manny Rosen implausibly going back aboard while two rival salvage teams arrived. Irwin didn't use any of the novel's plot points other than the fact that the nurse character from the original played by Allen's wife in the original film now survives (It's not clear in "Beyond" the movie but Shirley Jones is supposed to be Sheila Matthews character. The scripts for both movies give her the same name, Gina)
Irwin of course should have left things alone. This film and "The Swarm" are rightly cited for destroying Irwin Allen's reputation as the "master of disaster" and many times I've noted how his decision to direct both films did that since Allen, to put it bluntly is not a good director of actors in dramatic moments. But revisiting this film, I suddenly realized for the first time that not enough has been said of how awful and I mean AWFUL Michael Caine is in both films that consequently, not enough blame has been given on Caine for taking viewers out of these films and making it hard to enjoy them in a "so bad it's good" way. In both films, when we get introduced to our leading man, he comes off as arrogant, smug and frankly not very likable that as a result the viewer is taken out of "rooting" for the guy. In "Beyond", Caine comes across the wreck and does he have the slightest concern for the fact that hundreds of people are dead or that there might be others trapped? No, all he cares about is that the bank is going to impound his tugboat and he wants to get inside and loot the Poseidon of the passengers belongings to save his tug! This is more than just a script failure it's also reinforced by a bad Caine performance and bad direction. Then if that isn't bad enough, we have Sally Field who acts like she's back in "Gidget" with her over-perkiness and inappropriate quips. She has admitted more than once she got roped into doing this film by an agent who convinced her it would be a box office hit and then fired him afterwards.
It'd be pointless to fault the film for not observing even one smidgen of continuity with the original film (There is one ghoulish moment when a stock shot from the original reveals the body of Stella Stevens). Irwin Allen to be blunt, never cared about things like that and figured all audiences cared about was set pieces and action. It was only when he had others do the directing and got quality script work from a Stirling Silliphant that the results in the original film and "Towering Inferno" made the films more than just great action spectacle. The problem with "Beyond" is that he just gives us on the cheap repetitive action set-pieces from the original with a group of unlikable characters and a muddled plotline of salvage that makes no sense whatsoever.
One moment of unintentional hilarity for me. Peter Boyle (a warmed over Borgnine clone), when he gets lathered up about young Mark Harmon making a move on daughter Angela Cartwright at one point shouts, "I own a bar in Morristown, New Jersey! I know what goes on!" I now live in Morristown, but when I saw this in 1979, it was in next-door Madison, New Jersey and I will never forget to this day the laughter and wild applause that erupted from the audience when he out of the blue said Morristown. So the film did give me my most memorable childhood cinema audience moment!
After finishing this, I happily returned to the Blu-Ray supplements of the original to get a reminder of what the difference between a good film and a BAD film is!
-Keeps improving with age IMO in this age of CGI fakery and shallow one-dimensional acting. The key IMO has to go to Ronald Neame's direction and knowing how to get more out of the actors, and also the outstanding sets (I haven't seen "Cabaret" which won the award, but I can't believe for one minute the Art Direction was superior there to what William Creber came up with, with his meticulously perfect upside down sets taken from the Queen Mary), low-lit cinematography and John Williams score.
Beyond The Poseidon Adventure (1979) 1 of 10
-A few months back I came into possession of the lost, longer TV cuts of a number of late 70s disaster films, and I finally decided to force myself to endure my way through this film (probably the most important new scene is at the end where we get a final one with Jack Warden and Shirley Jones). Because Irwin ran out of money to do the final F/X shot in "Poseidon Adventure" showing the ship sink, that left the door open for him to do some kind of sequel project, although the first idea he had, according to Carol Lynley, was to have the survivors en route to testify at the hearings into the disaster and getting trapped in a train when the tunnel collapses (and Gene Hackman once told a story on the Tonight Show of getting a sequel pitch where he would have played Reverend Scott's twin brother!). Irwin then decided to go for some pirate angle of salvage, and Paul Gallico the original novel author of Poseidon Adventure, actually wrote a sequel novel based on the film which had Rogo, Martin and Manny Rosen implausibly going back aboard while two rival salvage teams arrived. Irwin didn't use any of the novel's plot points other than the fact that the nurse character from the original played by Allen's wife in the original film now survives (It's not clear in "Beyond" the movie but Shirley Jones is supposed to be Sheila Matthews character. The scripts for both movies give her the same name, Gina)
Irwin of course should have left things alone. This film and "The Swarm" are rightly cited for destroying Irwin Allen's reputation as the "master of disaster" and many times I've noted how his decision to direct both films did that since Allen, to put it bluntly is not a good director of actors in dramatic moments. But revisiting this film, I suddenly realized for the first time that not enough has been said of how awful and I mean AWFUL Michael Caine is in both films that consequently, not enough blame has been given on Caine for taking viewers out of these films and making it hard to enjoy them in a "so bad it's good" way. In both films, when we get introduced to our leading man, he comes off as arrogant, smug and frankly not very likable that as a result the viewer is taken out of "rooting" for the guy. In "Beyond", Caine comes across the wreck and does he have the slightest concern for the fact that hundreds of people are dead or that there might be others trapped? No, all he cares about is that the bank is going to impound his tugboat and he wants to get inside and loot the Poseidon of the passengers belongings to save his tug! This is more than just a script failure it's also reinforced by a bad Caine performance and bad direction. Then if that isn't bad enough, we have Sally Field who acts like she's back in "Gidget" with her over-perkiness and inappropriate quips. She has admitted more than once she got roped into doing this film by an agent who convinced her it would be a box office hit and then fired him afterwards.
It'd be pointless to fault the film for not observing even one smidgen of continuity with the original film (There is one ghoulish moment when a stock shot from the original reveals the body of Stella Stevens). Irwin Allen to be blunt, never cared about things like that and figured all audiences cared about was set pieces and action. It was only when he had others do the directing and got quality script work from a Stirling Silliphant that the results in the original film and "Towering Inferno" made the films more than just great action spectacle. The problem with "Beyond" is that he just gives us on the cheap repetitive action set-pieces from the original with a group of unlikable characters and a muddled plotline of salvage that makes no sense whatsoever.
One moment of unintentional hilarity for me. Peter Boyle (a warmed over Borgnine clone), when he gets lathered up about young Mark Harmon making a move on daughter Angela Cartwright at one point shouts, "I own a bar in Morristown, New Jersey! I know what goes on!" I now live in Morristown, but when I saw this in 1979, it was in next-door Madison, New Jersey and I will never forget to this day the laughter and wild applause that erupted from the audience when he out of the blue said Morristown. So the film did give me my most memorable childhood cinema audience moment!
After finishing this, I happily returned to the Blu-Ray supplements of the original to get a reminder of what the difference between a good film and a BAD film is!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35760
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I'll part company with you on half of your astute write-up Eric -- THE SWARM has some wonderfully terrible moments of unintentional comedy and Caine's absurdly over the top performance is part of it for me. It's a very entertaining bad movie capped with some lively Goldsmith cues.
BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, on the other hand, is just agonizingly boring, with nothing to really enjoy about it. So dull and lifeless, it's the worst of all of Allen's features by a longshot. The score by Jerry Fielding is also horrid, sounds like it's out of some Steve Reeves Hercules movie from the '60s.
I'd like to see Warner release WHEN TIME RAN OUT at some point.
BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, on the other hand, is just agonizingly boring, with nothing to really enjoy about it. So dull and lifeless, it's the worst of all of Allen's features by a longshot. The score by Jerry Fielding is also horrid, sounds like it's out of some Steve Reeves Hercules movie from the '60s.
I'd like to see Warner release WHEN TIME RAN OUT at some point.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I'll grant that "The Swarm" is better in the sense of being a 3 to 4 star of 10 rather than 1 of 10. Goldsmith's score obviously is a difference (Fielding's I don't hate, but it's more generic TV-movie type) But Caine is equally bad in both films as a pompous know-it-all that we're supposed to identify with and in "The Swarm" no one points out to him how some of *his* decisions end up killing more people. Whereas Field is annoyingly perky in Beyond, in "Swarm" we get a bad leading lady who is at the opposite end of the spectrum with Katharine Ross's valium-induced performance.
Yes, we need "When Time Ran Out" too. And we could also use Blu-Ray releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" but with the new Fox/Disney angle in place I fear that chance may have passed (surprised TT didn't tackle those titles)
Goldsmith's score obviously is a difference (Fielding's I don't hate, but it's more generic TV-movie type) But Caine is equally bad in both films as a pompous know-it-all that we're supposed to identify with and in "The Swarm" no one points out to him how some of *his* decisions end up killing more people. Whereas Field is annoyingly perky in Beyond, in "Swarm" we get a bad leading lady who is at the opposite end of the spectrum with Katharine Ross's valium-induced performance.Yes, we need "When Time Ran Out" too.
And we could also use Blu-Ray releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" but with the new Fox/Disney angle in place I fear that chance may have passed (surprised TT didn't tackle those titles)-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35760
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Ugh, Katherine Ross. I can firmly say I've never been a fan! She's pretty much blank in everything.
ALIEN NATION never showed up either, and that would've been an obvious one for them to release. I think they even promised it at one point.
There are a number of international releases on those I believe...I wonder if Nick was waiting for newer masters to surface on them (or else he just wasn't interested for whatever reason) and the transfers were old/outdated (like the FLINT movies and some of the other early TT releases).And we could also use Blu-Ray releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" but with the new Fox/Disney angle in place I fear that chance may have passed (surprised TT didn't tackle those titles)
ALIEN NATION never showed up either, and that would've been an obvious one for them to release. I think they even promised it at one point.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
IMO, the *dumbest* thing Charlton Heston ever did on-screen was when he threw Stephanie Beacham over for Katharine Ross on "The Colbys". It should have been the other way around! (Bringing Beacham to the attention of US audiences was the one redeeming point for the existence of that program).
I'll have to make due with the DVD releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" if we never get a Blu-Ray. The one annoying thing about "Balloon" is it's one of those older releases with widescreen on one side and full-screen on the other and that means I can't put the disc in a storage album! (I never put double sided discs in an album)
(Bringing Beacham to the attention of US audiences was the one redeeming point for the existence of that program).I'll have to make due with the DVD releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" if we never get a Blu-Ray. The one annoying thing about "Balloon" is it's one of those older releases with widescreen on one side and full-screen on the other and that means I can't put the disc in a storage album! (I never put double sided discs in an album)