in recent times i have, look you see, discovered a most lovely and useful thing. this thing is called a "website", and you find it on something called the "internet", which you may well have heard of, even if only in passing in some periodical or news editorial.
anyway, this website i speak of is called Network, and you may (if you are using this "internet" business) care to visit it yourself. this you can do by "clicking" your "mouse" over these words in a different colour from the rest of this text. up to you, really, but if any of the rest of this post inspires some form of interest then you could do a lot worse than browse away.
for the most part (or if you will predominantly) the site specialises in providing for sale films and televisions shows, mostly of a British origin, which are either rare, obscure, largely forgotten about or just not generally spoken of. they are ones which tend to, or generally, be recalled fondly by a fairly decent number of people who saw them, but not quite so large a number of people to warrant a big, old fashioned whistles and bells release. best of all, perhaps, is that they are made available for sale at most agreeable and reasonable prices. which is how i came to take a chance on two films that i had not, in all truth, ever heard of before.
whereas the precise quality of Commodore 64 mode images renders redundant any need or cause for clarification, yes, the two films shown above are the ones you think. this would be The Man Who Haunted Himself, starring a pre-James Bond (Sir) Roger Moore, and Ransom, starring a decidedly post-James Bond (Sir) Sean Connery. hence the title of this post. due to (presumably) an administrative oversight neither of them were actually official Knights of the Realm at the stage they made these motion pictures, so as callous and as crass as this may be i am afraid for the rest of this post i am obliged to not use the "Sir" title for either. unless i forget and do it by mistake.
the truth is i have misplaced (or lost) the receipt or bit of paper what came with the discs. but, if i remember right, both (as in each) were south of £5 a go, with it being entirely possible that they in practical terms were even south of £3 each. although the two films did sound unusual and interesting to warrant interest anyway, it was this pricing which secured purchase. the two films having a common role like between the lead actors did not come into my thinking, and really only came to mind when i considered writing of them.
is it so that these films are any good? as it turned out, yes, indeed they are. whereas neither is likely to be considered the pinnacle or epitome of the works the Knighted Bonds did away from the role they are most closely (and fondly) associated with, these two films are most agreeable, acceptable and quite interesting viewing. do be careful reading on, then. every care shall be taken to avoid such, but from now on one of those *** SPOILER WARNING *** things are in place.
let me commence, then, with The Man Who Haunted Himself. there are a number of valid reasons for doing so. included in this is the fact that it is the one i watched first, it came out before the other one and represents the work of a Knighted Bond pre-James Bond. should you disagree with my view on this, then yes, absolutely feel free to scroll down and just start reading the other one first.
plot? yes, the film has one. Roger Moore plays a bloke who runs a massive electronics firm. He is involved in a nasty, near fatal car crash. on recovery, strange things happen. people report him behaving erratically and making out of character decisions, whilst some strangers appear to believe they have a (quite) intimate relationship with him. what is going on would be the question posed by the film. does he have an impersonator, or doppelganger, running around, or is he suffering with delusions, or a split personality?
the blurb (or text) on the back of this handsome Blu Ray and DVD combo pack states rather than suggests that The Man Who Haunted Himself presents Roger Moore's "career defining performance". i am not at all sure that i am comfortable with this. but, in fairness, i would also find it a challenge to name what i considered to be such a performance. when i think of any given Bond film he was in, they would be better described as "most iconic" than "career defining". well, you decide what that is, if you are worried, and go with it.
for a film certified PG by the notoriously prudent and easily upset BBFC, a bit of a surprising scene crops up where you can, for about a second, see the partially exposed breast of a lady, and a hint of nipple too. such things usually got censored by the BBFC, or smacked with an 18 (or X) certificate. presumably this moment escaped the ever sharp and ready scissors of the censors for sheer contextual reasons. it has (or sadly had) always been the case that ladies have (or had) a penchant, or proclivity, to disrobe in the presence of Roger Moore. this was just how it was. but, still, even if this was perfectly normal, to accept such was an unusual and rare indication of being progressive and applying common sense by the BBFC.
essentially the film (and yes i am still speaking about The Man Who Haunted Himself here) is a standard 30 minute episode of Tales Of The Unexpected, or The Twilight Zone to give a nearest closest comparison for American / rest of world readers, reasonably and plausibly stretched out across the length of a ninety minute motion picture. this allegation, accusation or if you are harsh criticism of the film is levelled against other movies, with The Sixth Sense always coming to mind.
it is a film well worth watching, both for the plot and story itself and yes, indeed, Roger Moore is rather good in it. how many times, exactly, one could watch the film is a bit debatable. once you have the gist or have seen it and are aware of the "twist", i suspect it is not engaging enough to warrant a repeat viewing. certainly, i have felt no need to watch it again. to this end the lavish presentation of the film on DVD and Blu Ray would seem excessive, but maybe some who do see this as Roger's career defining role appreciate the option of having the film on two variations of optical disc technology.
on to Ransom, then, which i think Sean Connery went on to make after he had finished with all that James Bond business. well, yes, kind of. this film came out in 1975, four years after his last classical performance in the role, but of course this is also before he was somehow tempted ($$$$£££££) back into the role for Never Say Never Again. for those reading this outside of the UK (and nearly all are welcome here), this film got released in the rest of the world as The Terrorists, which makes a good deal more sense as a title.
rather than just being a whole bunch of scenes filmed of Sean Connery walking around in a hat, yes, indeed, this movie does have a plot. the British ambassador to Scandinavia (which is bewilderingly presented as a country here) is being held hostage by a notorious (and very much wanted) terrorist. a slightly less notorious and wanted terrorist (played by Ian McShane) hijacks a plane to help him escape in. enter Sean Connery as the best security man in the whole of Scandinavia to come and sort it all out, with the strict instruction that no one (at least in terms of hostages) is allowed to die.
a most agreeable and enjoyable "action thriller", overall. the plot and script are quite good, and there are some really excellent plot twists and turns which makes the film engaging and compelling viewing. much like The Man Who Haunted Himself i am not sure what value there is in a second or third look at the film (although you only get the Blu Ray here), but then again i could totes see me randomly watching this once every five to ten years, recalling how good it was.
earlier, as opposed to later, i mentioned that Ian McShane is in it. this film is another example of the remarkable career transformation he went under. from the 80s onwards, he is generally regarded as the heartthrob of housewives everywhere, with Lovejoy in particular cementing this position. and yet in the 70s he made an impact on movie lovers with his perpetual skill at playing effeminate, mincing and rarely equalled homoerotic criminals. most would cite his work in Villain as being the personification of this. here, though, in his dapper brown (i think) flared suit, eloquent gloves, cultivated hair and cute high heeled boots, his "gay people can steal planes" performance really is quite superb.
what of Sean Connery? and nudity? yes. for no reason whatsoever, in the middle of all this terrorist and hijack business, we get a needlessly long scene of Sean Connery having a shower, showing off his generous body hair which he appears to have been most proud of. also, we get to see him dabble in a dimension of acting that was denied to him within the confines of playing James Bond. that would be his versatile and dynamic talent for immersing himself in a role via note perfect accents. in Ransom, his deft Scandinavian accent is equal to, or on a par with, his Spanish accent in Highlander, his Russian accent in The Hunt For Red October, his Japanese accent in Rising Sun and possibly his notable Oscar winning American-Irish accent in The Untouchables. here the excellence of Sean Connery perfecting the accent is accentuated and enhanced with some trickery (or cheating) by having exclusively British actors voice all the other Scandinavian characters. also, the tacit or unspoken implication of whatever nationality of character it is that Sean Connery is cast to play is that the character has "Scottish heritage", which explains away any Edinburgh "twang" that seeps into any performance you care to name.
yes, absolutely i would recommend or endorse anyone watching Ransom, or The Terrorists which really does seem to be a better title. a great strength of Sean Connery is that he is always watchable in whatever he does, and usually he selected films that were, at worst, "not bad" to appear in. i can remember renting another 70s film in which Sean Connery saves the day, Meteor, for 50p, off of the video shop at the nearby petrol station, and that one was also good.
an interesting link between the two lead actors in these films (other than the stated obvious shared role one) is that both feature them sporting perfectly cultivated facial hair. for Sean Connery this was, of course, not unusual at all. it seems he made it a point, post being cast in the role, of not being clean shaved in any non-James Bond film he ever appeared in. different for Roger Moore, of course. as the personification of a true English gentleman, he (it seems) saw any form of facial hair as an indication of being lower class, or suspicious, or being a scoundrel. it must have taken some severe coercing to get him to have a moustache in this film, i expect.
sorry to any of you who wanted some screenshots of the actual films, in particular those of you eager if not keen to understand more of the nudity i mentioned. when it came down to it, i simply could not be bothered to do so.
well, there you have it. both films now seem to sell for north of £5, rather than the special price i got them at. no matter, i would suggest both are worth the price, even if you watch just the once. no harm shall befall you and no regret shall enter your life if you elected to watch either or both. rather, i would hope, you get to have a most agreeable and enjoyable entertaining amount of time in doing so.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment