What DVD have you just watched?

Hi Tony,

This is one of my frequently re-watched series. Like you I remember watching it when it was first broadcast, at the ripe age of 22, and being amazed that Donald Pleasance was playing a 'good guy'; his daughter also is one of the leads, I do not remember seeing her in anything else before or since.

As you say the sheer acting talent on display here is first class, and not wasted in any way.

'Mr Slope!!'.

M

Hi Mr Underhill, it's great to encounter another fan!

Alan Rickman's excellent and I suppose, given his modern fame, it's inevitable he receives star billing on the cover but in terms of acting there are several candidates on offer for the best actor in the series.

The usual gaping holes in the plot don't completely undo what was quite an entertaining film with some impressive CGI work, but somehow you just end up feeling like you've seen it all before. 

A tip: don't watch it on in-flight entertainment...

I watched Behind the Candelabra at the weekend.  After all the hype I have to admit I felt somewhat let down by the film itself.  Yes, Michael Douglas is very good as Liberace, and one's appreciation for his performance is perhaps enhanced by the fact that this is one character that you would never have believed or expected him to be able to pull off - but he so very nearly does. Trouble is, you never completely forget that it's Michael Douglas, and all the baggage he brings. The others have the same problem - there are times when you just feel like Mike, Matt, Rob and the gang just felt it would be fun to camp it up a bit.  It's fun to watch but it detracts from the film itself.  If you're expecting something like La Cage Aux Folles then you'll be disappointed.  The latter is a much more enjoyable film worthy of repeat viewing. Behind The Candelabra is worth watching (if only to see Michael Douglas in the lead role), but I cannot see myself going back and seeing it again.

Man of Steel

Watched on BluRay in glorious 2D, I'm amazed first of all at the art direction of this film - I thought the Krypton episode was done extremely well and a good setup for the rather simplistic brawler that follows.

Cheers,

EJ

Gotta disagree with you there Richard, I thought it was abysmal. There weren't so much "gaping holes" in the plot as Grand Canyons.

Yet another example of a studio blowing all the budget on a big name star and special effects while forgetting about script, art direction and photography. Personally I am sick and tired of being treated like some jock moron from Nowheresville Iowa by the studios, which probably explains why I go to the flicks (to see new releases) less and less. And don't even get me started on superhero films!

Just rewatched this after about 8 years. A chance to relive the good old days.

Not historically accurate, but much of the spirit of the time is there - and it's good fun.

Stoker

Powerful and very uncomfortable film.

Don't want to say too much, not sure I would recommend buying it, but it IS worth watching.

M

May I assume that you already have watched Tarkovsky's STALKER? That is a real masterpiece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM_GOpfEQUw

Hi Haim,

No, you can't assume that - thanks for the recommendation, I will make a point of watching it.

M

M,

I will try to watch it again as well. If you are interested, Francois Couturier has two fascinating recordings of music inspired by Tarkovsky's films:

http://player.ecmrecords.com/tarkovsky

Haim

Ordered. Thx for the music suggestion, I'll have a listen.

M

We watched this the other night :-

It's basically fricking big robots bashing the cr*p out of giant sea monsters. Very derivative of umpteen other disaster and monster movies but very entertaining for all that, and the special effects are quite stupendous!

A recommended watch for a bit of mindless mayhem.

LIke this one. Watched it again this afternoon with the kids. Very nice.

Surprisingly good and equally sweet follow-up to the first movie. 

Cheers,

EJ

The Hobbit

I saw this film at the cinema three times - in all three formats, and have now watched the blue ray twice, so why don't I like it as much as I WANT to like it?

I've decided that the reason is Peter Jackson; he desperately needs someone to say, 'enough is enough'. PJ just can't seem to stop trying up the anti, and in doing so he leaves me cold.

In the opening act of the film the dwarfs wash Bilbo Baggins' plates. The scene is well choreographed, the music is OK - so why did PJ get Andy Sirkus to make the dwarves super-dwarfish? Catch plates over your shoulders whilst looking the other way? Sling them at speed? Bash them with other plates? It is simply unbelievable, and in a film with enough fantasy to satisfy the most ardent nerd what I need is some grounding, something to make me believe these characters are real, not cartoon.

In getting to the mountains PJ decided to not use some form of magic to open the cave floor, but to use a mechanical effect, after all the viewer has got to be convinced by the reality of the capture! So let's send them down a ride at the end of which half of them would be dead, and the other half nursing serious fractures; then to rub it in let's have Bilbo fall seventy, or is that a hundred feet, down a crag, and just have a minor concussion - after all those fruiting bodies he lands on are rubber.

Time for the dwarves to escape. In the book this is down narrow tunnels, where the goblins get nervous with a wizard in front of them, and hang back. Not here, lets have hoards of disposable goblins, that are obviously feather light, as they are knocked aside so easily.

I could go on - but you probably get my point, or determinedly won't. Someone really needs to sit on PJ and tell him that some of his ideas are C**P.

Oh well, I am sure he will listen to me as he counts his ongoing piles of money, Oh Smaug the Terrible!

M

M, if you'd take the best bits (the opening, the council meeting, the encounter with Gollum, the scenes with Radagast (actually the 'footnote' scenes more than the Hobbit scenes), you'd end up with a fun prequel to the Lord of the Rings, in the same style. The lighter scenes with the dwarves, the goblin king, the trolls, etc are not even really funny and at best out of spirit with the later films and at worst disturbing. And I'm not looking forward to Steven Fry in part 2...

Cheers,

EJ

I think you make some good points Mr Underhill.  In part I enjoyed the LoTR trilogy because they made a good stab at trying to emulate the books (though I will confess to getting bored with Mr Tolkien's overly elaborate descriptions of meal times and the food eaten - a feature PJ thankfully eschwed).  The Hobbit, on the other hand, seems to go well beyond the book.  It is as if the film-maker thinks the story in the book needs embellishment. It doesn't.

MDS  

Working my way through Season 6 of "Mad Men" on Blu-ray. Some dark stuff going down for Draper & Co:

For the first time. Highly recommended.

Yes, this is great film which doesn't get the recognition is deserves.

MDS 

Agreed. A bit over-long, and it suffers from Stanley Kramer's trademark directorial stodginess, but a good movie with a sensational cast.

Whenever I watch Spencer Tracy I wonder if he might be the greatest screen actor who has ever lived - he's certainly the most natural (he doesn't really act, he just "is"). He is on great form here, and Schell thoroughly deserved his Best Actor Oscar.

One of the best films in the franchise

EJ