more movies

hey there


well, then. in filling the yards of time afforded by fighting the invisible war against the new plague by staying home (mostly) as instructed, i have had the chance to watch a few more movies, look you see. actually quite a few things, not all of them films, and even of the movies what i watched it is not so that all are reflected here.

if for any general reason someone, or anyone, has anything resembling a passing interest in what i watched and what i may think of such, well then this is going to be a mildly acceptable read for you. should it be so that your interest level sits somewhere below the acute threshold i have mentioned, well, perhaps you might at the least enjoy the pretty, well designed pictures.

one of them "abstract collage" things i like to do, then, even though it is not particularly a collage, or abstract for that matter. random, perhaps, as there is no particular level of sense or thought into the way each is placed. certainly, or mostly, not in any order of watching.

for the sake of polite, rather than ill or uncouth, manners, the common accepted etiquette on nicer corners of an internet suggests that one of them *** SPOILER WARNING *** things is most appropriate here. and so you have such in place, although of course it will be my steadfast intention not to ruin any overt experience for your own watching.

there are several concerns, problems, issues and ostensible 'downsides' to the modern wonders of "streaming services". but, and many would say mostly, it is so that there are many wonderful benefits, indeed advantages to it all. in regards of the latter, a positive would be being able to see films that you kind of wished to, over the years, but never got around to, with considered convenience and no further cost than what you have already paid.

such an instance (or example) would be getting to see any number of "classic" live action Disney films from years gone by, which for reasons unknown never got all that much of a release, or level of availability, around the world. well, at the very least, it was so that the video rental area of the petrol station at marton shops could only stock a very finite number of titles.

it would be due to a Disney+ existing that, at last, then, i came to watch a movie called That Darn Cat. this was one movie that i had a level of awareness of from reading books and magazines, but was never afforded the chance or opportunity to watch. a great shame, as it has that Roddy McDowall in it. but, better late than never, as they say about such matters, and so at last i have seen it.

was the film worth the wait, as in is it any good? rather dated, is my main reflection, which one could easily comment on a motion picture from north of 50 but south of 60 (at time of writing) years ago. the story, or plot, is decent enough, but some of the values expressed are a trifle alarming for a film intended as family viewing. no, i am not one of these "woke" or social justice warrior types, but still, to see Frank Gorshin out of Riddler out of Batman be genuinely scary as he motions and threatens to hit a captive lady is not quite what i would expect of a U (universal, suitable for all) certificate film, especially not with the high propensity for draconian censorship the BBFC has.

but was it worth watching? not, in truth, really. had this indeed been available to me in the early 80s, that era when being able to rent a film of your choice on video and watching seemed amazing and fantastic, then i might have appreciated it more, especially as i would have been in my tens or early teens. me, thirty or so years on, found this film somewhat oddly paced and dragging a bit, and could not really see much that would let me agree with considering this a "classic".

another, or if you will one more, "advantage" of all these streaming things is the ability to watch films that were universally proclaimed to be absolute rubbish and to be avoided at no further cost than the subscription you have paid for anyway. why you would watch such probably comes down to a curiosity factor, and so, noticing it available on that there Netflix thing, i decided to have a go at Eye See You, perhaps better known as D-Tox.

when i say that it was spoken of as to be avoided at all costs, as far as i can remember D-Tox was an early adopter, or instance, of a brand new form of dismissive reviews. the new technology of the early 2000s enable all sorts of new criminal, or illegal, activity, and so it was that people could say of this that it "was not even worth the effort of watching a pirate copy".

yes, i am aware of me not really saying that much of this motion picture with regards to plot, quality, etc, but it strikes me as being more of interest to explore the 'infamous' reputation it has. let me not repeat much of which is known, or which has already been written of. instead, i refer you to this link, with particular emphasis on the comments by Stallone on the film. he deserves a lot of credit for his frank and candid comments, for it gives a clear insight into why it is so that sometimes really, really bad films get released. if you accept, of course, that no one sets out to make a rubbish film on purpose. doing so would strike me as being rather expensive an act of folly, but what do i know.

plot? we find Stallone as some sort of FBI (or similar) detective, on the hunt for an elusive serial killer type. alas, as is so often the case in the cinematic (or straight to video, or on streaming content) tellings of such, the evil serial killer type elects to "make it personal" and engaged in some cat and mouse, or shadow boxing / dancing, with the detective. eventually (again, as is common in such films) the killer strikes a really personal blow. just about slightly bucking the trend of such, instead of going off on vengeance, it leaves our detective broken, and off to a "detox" sort of place to try and recover or recuperate. where, of course, the serial killer follows him.

the intention seems to have been to make a crime thriller which is almost as comfortable as what is expected of the genre to give audiences the familiar stuff they want, yet apply a (slight) spin on it to make it more appealing. it fails, miserably so. ultimately it is really as bad as "Lethal Weapon meets The Thing (or Alien)", which is what it descends into. possible elements of suspense were (in)famously tossed away early doors. if you happened to see the trailer then you got the crystal clear voice of the killer. should you have not seen the trailer, well, early on you get a partial profile view of him; one that matches precisely one of the people who "could" be the killer in the second half of the film.

despite the (very lazy) stereotype, Stallone is very much an accomplished actor and talented director. he knows enough to know when those around him doing either are woefully out of their depth. you get to watch him care less and less as the film progresses, for he is clearly honouring a contract to be in the film despite it being obvious no one knows what they are doing. well, sort of watch. my single biggest issue with D-Tox or if you prefer Eye See You (both are rubbish names) is that it is literally too dark most of the time, and you cannot see a single thing going on for many minutes in a row. avoid this film, don't dabble with it no matter how curious you are.

sometimes, perhaps more often that we would thing, an above average to superb level motion picture "fails" on release. every now and then such garners retrospective success, be it financially or by becoming a "cult classic", whatever the latter actually means.

reasons for this can relate to simply being released "at the wrong time", insufficient marketing taking place or the maker and the studio of and behind the film having a complete brain melt which sees them seek to ruthlessly destroy any chance of success for no apparent reason. it would be the latter two which are of most relevance to Sorcerer, which i picked up on one of them blu-ray discs rather than watching on a "stream".

plot? four men from different corners of the world find themselves on the run after committing unforgivable crimes from which there can be (hence the unforgivable part) no redemption. they all end up in the same variation of a 'metaphor' thing for "hell", hiding and working in brutal conditions for an oil company in an unspecified third world nation in south america. whilst having varying degrees of regret for their crimes (none through to all, via some), each very much regrets where it is their life choices have brought them to. after enduring a considerable amount of time in this place, a task is offered; one that will either kill them or give them a chance of "freedom".

if that sounds interesting, intriguing or a good idea for a film, well, it jolly well does turn out to be so. and yet the film was not at all successful on release. there are any number of reasons for this, but the main one as far as i can see is that it has a title which makes next to no sense. whilst a secondary vehicle in the film is called Sorcerer, it makes little sense to name the film this. nor does the curious reason why director William Friedkin called it so, claiming it all to be metaphorical, having defined a sorcerer as an "evil wizard" and directly implying an evil fate for evil. had it been named something which made more sense - say, for instance, The Wages Of Fear, as was the title of the novel on which it was based - then maybe audiences who would have liked and appreciated the film would have been drawn to it. also, in fairness, it was released around the time of Star Wars, which proved to be tricky to drag audiences away from repeat viewings of.

exactly why the film studio stood by and let the director give the film a name which made little sense, and would prove to be difficult to market, is unclear. in terms of when it was made, well, at this stage in history it was so that William Friedkin was the man who made The French Connection and The Exorcist. two films as astonishing and brilliant as they were financially successful. questioning him would, i suppose, have been a bit like going up to, for a random example, Spielberg after he had just delivered Raiders Of The Lost Ark and then E.T,, telling him, "no, no, let me tell you a better thing to call your next movie, you need help".

all sorts of strange tales from the making of the film exist. these range from Friedkin reportedly trying to very directly undermine the film because he did not like the ostensible star, Roy Scheider, or at the least believed he should not be in the film, through to Tangerine Dream somehow delivering an amazing, perfect soundtrack for the film, despite not being allowed to actually see the film they were making music for. this all adds to the mythos of the film, i suppose. what i would rather just do is suggest that if you've never heard of it let alone seen it, then give you assurance of how excellent Sorcerer is and not hesitate in encouraging you to see it.

on to more "modern" or "recent" cinema adventures, then, with me watching a film made not only this century, but within the last year or so. and one that i really had no intention of ever watching. yes, Guy Richie's return to the area which he undoubtedly does better than anything else (much) he tries, the world of ostensibly London (innit) based crime with The Gentlemen.

my lack of wish to watch it wasn't because the film didn't sound decent, just an at the time lack of time to watch all that seemed interesting took hold. but, the level of time at home due to the invisible war on the plague took care of that. also, Dad wished to see it, hence me getting the film, and he was most insistent that i watch, as he considered it brilliant.

plot? a sleazy, sh!tbag, stereotypical tabloid journalist (Hugh Grant) attempts to blackmail, or solicit a bribe, from London's leading drug baron (Matthew McConaughey) to prevent an expose thing about him being published. complicating matters would be the fact that the baron is attempting to "retire" and sell his business interests on, with varying levels of success, as well as the inadvertent involvement of a quasi Irish boxing coach (scene and film stealing Colin Farrell). cue twists, turns, the inevitable, the surprising, the predictable, a formidable level of violence and the most excessive use of the "c" word which i have ever encountered in any motion picture.

it's not bad, to be sure. basically, this is the kind of film most of us wished Guy Richie had kept making after the spectacular masterpieces of Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. this is just as funny, well paced and entertaining as them two, drawing all strength from some stellar performances from the perfectly cast actors and actresses (or actress, in fairness).

well, it feels like i am short-changing The Gentlemen by writing not so much as the other films, but there we have it. one of them films which has a set audience, it is just how bothered said audience can be to muster the effort to watch highly predictable yet enjoyable more of the same stuff.

something of an unexpected (by the majority, at least) thing for these "streaming" service types to do was to go right ahead and make their own products. and not just cheap and cheerful stuff to give quantity over content, but well made, high cost stuff. but, with the streaming market getting saturated and more companies jostling to licence already made content, that is precisely what Netflix has taken a shine to doing.

and why not, in particular if they can make things as polished, smart and perfectly enjoyable as Extraction. i ended up watching this one as young William saw a trailer for it, figured he probably would not be allowed to watch it but all the same asked if i would mind watching to check. indeed, it is not suitable for such a young audience, but i thanked him as i enjoyed it, as i did one other Netflix thing he was keen on but ultimately too young after i had watched it, Death Note or something.

plot of Extraction? standard, stock summer blockbuster material, in truth. a super duper amazing always do good hero, played by Chris Helmsworth out of Thor, is a specialist in rescuing people what have been kidnapped and that. when a young lad who happens to be the son of some sort of drug lord is kidnapped by another drug lord, off he goes to India to rescue him. this all seems straightforward, but lies, deception and that sort of thing all come to be.

what i thoroughly enjoyed about this film was that it was, apparently, not meddled with to meet any set criteria or potential target demographic. it's very much an 18 certificate thing, with no punches pulled. had a traditional major studio got their hands on this, you'd expect them to water it all down, so that a wider audience could potentially be open to it with a lower age certificate, and so dilute the project. effectively, it seems, the likes of Netflix have free hit freedom. they have no immediate worries over the "box office" or receipts for any one film they make, for monthly turnover is more or less a given constant with subscriptions. if it "flops", then no big loss as such, they just know that their customer base wants something different and so doesn't make something like this again.

oh, trust me, there are at least 10 or 12 Netflix originals that i have started to watch and then switched off, for they were rubbish. the "biggest" perhaps was Stranger Things. whilst series one was excellent, it became clear that series two existed just to set up a third, so i tuned out.

so yes, this is exceptionally well made, and is constantly, graphically and splendidly violent. do not claim no warning was given prior to me saying this is absolutely a film well worth seeing. the door at the end of the film is, and i am fairly sure i had a spoiler warning earlier, open to a sequel to this film, if enough fellow subscribers watched it then hopefully they make such. unless i am very much mistaken, this is the first big budget action film predominantly set in India what i have seen since the classic Bond film Octopussy came out. not a fantastic fact, but still, noteworthy.

a Disney 'classic' what the video shop at the petrol station at marton shops did stock was The Spaceman & King Arthur. i can recall renting it at least once, and watching it one morning with my brother and sister, somewhere during 1983 or 1984. with fond memories i hoped to find it in on this Disney+ thing, but got quite disappointed when it did not turn up on a search.

happily, merrily or indeed verily (whatever the latter means), the film is very much available on this service, only under a silly name, Unidentified Flying Oddball, which is presumably what it got released in America as.

the plot? let me try. someone or other is encouraging the American government, or military, to approve a launch for a deep space mission, or maybe one that intends to do time travel. they, as you would expect of American government types, refuse as there is great risk to a human life. so, whoever is pitching the idea gets someone to make an android or robot thing to pilot it, which they do, and so the project gets a green light. but then there is a mix up on launch, but of course, to be sure, and so the android and the bloke what made the android end up getting blasted into space. it is there where they somehow do a time travel thing, and magically end up at what is presumably Camelot, the castle and court of King Arthur.

i watched this with William, as i did That Darn Cat. the difference was that neither of us got bored with this one. for the most part William thoroughly enjoyed the adventure and wonder of the story, but also found the special effects of the time (especially where you could see the wires than enabled flying) hysterically bad. for my part, despite the obvious disappointment and emotional scarring left by the wrong name being on the front, i was delighted to find that my fond memories were right to be, and it was a highly entertaining, fluffy bit of nonsense fun.

yes, you are seeing right. that is indeed the Rodney Bewes, for many the self-styled "thinking man's Derek Nimmo", both on the poster and in the film. he portrays, elegantly so, a sort of monk or squire or servant type character; one easily bribed or coerced into doing stuff on the promise of being given an item of pornography as a reward for doing so. indeed this is an unusual plot device for a Disney film, but there we have it.

do i find this whole Disney+ thing agreeable? mostly, yes, although it does not get used so much, at least not by moi. in regards of the shiny things they sold it on, well, i have seen the original 6 (six) Star Wars films more than enough times, Mandalorian is excellent, Rogue One would be nice to watch again, the three new Star Wars films had some ok moments and never trouble me again with something like Solo. those Marvel films were more or less excellent, but designed to be as disposable as comic books originally were, so there is no compelling wish to watch again.

but, then, the rest of the family like watching the ones i have mentioned above. as for me, well, i am quite content to watch The Black Hole and The Spaceman & King Arthur again and again, plus some other classics what i had not seen. my one gripe, however, would be that the Nilsson music provided, Robin Williams starring version of Popeye is not on the service. quite strange, as it was a Disney VHS and DVD release.

finally, then, and accidentally the most recent i watched, it would be back to that Netflix thing for Polar. it is one of several titles that i have on my "to watch" list, and i finally watched it.

the appeal was that it has Mads Mikkelsen out of Hannibal in it, and generally he is good in all what he is in. also, it had one of them "18" certificate things on, so it promised much violence. with regards to that, i did indeed get a lot more violence than i had expected, considerably more.

plot? Mads is some top level assassin, evidently part of a well organized corporate business of assassins. he has a tidy pension set up, which is handy, as retirement is mandatory at the age of 50, which he is approaching. however, the ostensible CEO of this corporate concern, played (rather surprisingly) by Matt Lucas, has been engaged in embezzlement and general fraud, seeing the pension pot as an asset rather than a liability. to ensure that he can continue using the funds, he has the on paper good idea of simply killing off assassins just before they reach 50, so that their pension defaults to him anyway. as you may well suspect, Mads (whose character name is Duncan something or other) is not really keen or eager on this, and so resists. rather violently so.

this film is excessively loaded with quite significant levels of polished, perverse, graphic and frequent scenes of sex and violence and prostate checks. you have been warned. it is darkly funny and wonderfully entertaining. mostly Matt Lucas was distracting, as he seems keen to play the role in the style of Eddie Izzard, which just had me wondering why, exactly, they did not just get Eddie Izzard to do it. maybe they tried, and he was having none of it.

also of note was a cameo by Richard Dreyfuss. you, if you would be like me, may find yourself sat there going "is that him" when he is on, and eventually going, yes, indeed it is. nice one.

did i mention that Polar is astonishingly absurdly and audaciously violent? well, it is, so audiences should proceed with caution, and i don't think it was intended as a film for all the family to watch. my understanding is that it is based on some sort of comic or 'graphic novel' thing. rather like Death Note or whatever it was called, i neither know nor care how faithful or loyal an adaptation it is, all i know is the film in front of me was very good indeed.

right, well, i think that's enough of my writing for now. but, for the sake of stuff seeming to be complete, yes, here is a 'reverse' take on the "abstract collage" thing from the start. you never know, if you read all of this backwards then it might enable such to make sense.

i am never really sure (for you can never really tell) if anything i put up here will be of any interest to anyone, but if for some reason any of this particular post has been, nice one. many thanks indeed for reading, or just having a bit of a gander.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!