Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
59% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 163 reviews)
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: An all-star cast
From: 20th Century Fox
This is not better than the 1974 version, although as I heard people say this beforehand, I was not disappointed when this was only "fine". I give some thoughts below:
Yes, Wednesday night I saw the 1974 Orient Express as preparation for seeing this brand new version of the Agatha Christie story. It hasn't had the most rave of reviews so my expectations were lowered, which was good. This was fine and does seem like "an old-timey film" but it is not the Sidney Lumet version. The general plot is the same, but there were some changes compared to the earlier film and judging by a review I heard, the Hercule Poirot seen here is not the classic literary character. While watching the film I wondered if he was supposed to have Asperger's or not; to borrow a phrase, think Tony Shaloub's Monk TV character and that's the Poirot in this movie. If you love the character, you might be quite aggravated at this interpretation.
I won't go into detail on the other changes as it's spoilers, except that more time was spent outside the train than I expected. I am not sure if those changes were needed, or even how many of them worked. At least the film has nice cinematography and the talented cast does well with what they're given. I just preferred how the 70's movie did things instead; that had more sleuthing and finding clues, while this was more explaining things and at times you don't see how Hercule discovered some clues so it's like he pulled it right out of his ass.
Oh, and I know people weren't happy Johnny Depp was in this film, despite the character's ultimate fate. I imagine some would like a few recently exposed (oh wait, bad choice of words, sorry) problematic actors to be Ratchett instead... and be stabbed multiple times in real life.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Murder On The Orient Express (The 70's Version)
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Starring: An incredible cast, as I mention below
From: Paramount
Last night seemed like the best night to finally see this film. I am glad I did, as I explain below:
As the Kenneth Branagh film is just about to be released to cinemas, I figured last night was the perfect time for me to see the 1974 movie version, directed by Sidney Lumet and featuring an incredible cast. Even if there wasn't the new flick, I still should watch a movie that brings together Albert Finney, Martin Balsam, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York, and Richard Widmark.
Honestly, before the film I was in the dark about the plot aside from the setting and how the hero has to solve a murder while the train is stuck and stopped due to snow. I hadn't read the Agatha Christie novel... heck, I haven't read any of her novels period. Indeed, the plot was famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. He was an eccentric individual; then again, there were plenty of over the top characters here. As it was not a subtle story as presented, that is why many of the characters played it loud.
I dare not spoil the story; I imagine that while there are many who are familiar with the plot in some way, there will be many others who are not. I'll just say the film does highlight some lines of dialogue and you'll probably spot those moments; it does come into play at the denouement as Poirot explains his theory of what happened. It is a deal where once things are explained, what is said early in the film makes sense. The very beginning spends a few minutes showing a Charles Lindbergh's baby being kidnapped-esque story where the famed aviator's child is taken, held for ransom, then killed. This movie's kidnapping was of the Armstrong family's tyke being taken and killed; it does factor into what happens on the train.
In short, while over the top this is still a fun movie to watch. Besides, I did guffaw at what the hangup was of Perkins' character. Yes, it actually was what you'd guess it would be.
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Starring: An incredible cast, as I mention below
From: Paramount
Last night seemed like the best night to finally see this film. I am glad I did, as I explain below:
As the Kenneth Branagh film is just about to be released to cinemas, I figured last night was the perfect time for me to see the 1974 movie version, directed by Sidney Lumet and featuring an incredible cast. Even if there wasn't the new flick, I still should watch a movie that brings together Albert Finney, Martin Balsam, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York, and Richard Widmark.
Honestly, before the film I was in the dark about the plot aside from the setting and how the hero has to solve a murder while the train is stuck and stopped due to snow. I hadn't read the Agatha Christie novel... heck, I haven't read any of her novels period. Indeed, the plot was famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. He was an eccentric individual; then again, there were plenty of over the top characters here. As it was not a subtle story as presented, that is why many of the characters played it loud.
I dare not spoil the story; I imagine that while there are many who are familiar with the plot in some way, there will be many others who are not. I'll just say the film does highlight some lines of dialogue and you'll probably spot those moments; it does come into play at the denouement as Poirot explains his theory of what happened. It is a deal where once things are explained, what is said early in the film makes sense. The very beginning spends a few minutes showing a Charles Lindbergh's baby being kidnapped-esque story where the famed aviator's child is taken, held for ransom, then killed. This movie's kidnapping was of the Armstrong family's tyke being taken and killed; it does factor into what happens on the train.
In short, while over the top this is still a fun movie to watch. Besides, I did guffaw at what the hangup was of Perkins' character. Yes, it actually was what you'd guess it would be.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Nature Boy
Last night I saw an ESPN documentary and it was on a topic of interest to me, as I explain below:
I am a pro wrestling fan (I don't watch modern wrestling as I think most of it is insufferable; it'd take far too long to go into detail as to why) so of course I'd have to see this ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. It's been on the shelf for awhile, so after a commercial break they had to do a cut-away and mention Ric Flair's recent serious medical issues, where he had to defy the odds just to survive. Nature Boy did show that he led a very hard life and that was the main cause of those health problems.
The film was rather straightforward: his childhood and life before pro wrestling were discussed, then the incredibly difficult training he had to do in order to even become a pro wrestler... it was like a Marines boot camp. His rise in the 80's to usually being the champ in the rival organization to the WWF is shown, and it was made clear his federation was the polar opposite of the cartoony WWF, and instead it was blood and guts and something adult men would enjoy, where often wrestlers would be bleeding.
It was also shown how the Flair character has become popular in pop culture, with many entertainers and athletes enjoying his catchphrases and his cockiness. The character was an arrogant rich playboy who bragged about how great he was, the Lear jets he flew around in, all the partying, and all the women he bedded. Of course that would be appealing to plenty of people. Unfortunately, he lived that character 24/7; it's bad enough that at the time the popular pro wrestlers were rarely at home so they missed their kids growing up... his nonstop partying and sleeping around led to several failed marriages and his children resenting him. What happened to his son Reid... very sad; I don't want to reveal it for those who don't know and want to see this in the future. I'll just say it's heartbreaking.
Me, I am a pro wrestling nerd so I knew most of what was in the documentary beforehand. Heck, I've even read Flair's autobiography back in the day, which was good. I wish this would have been longer than about 70 minutes; various things were glossed over and I know it's hard to cram all that info into 70 minutes, but this doesn't go above “fine” in my eyes. My prior knowledge does color things and if you only knew about Ric casually, I am sure you'd rate this differently. At least there wasn't too much revisionist history going on and the film was honest in showing he led a flawed life and while he was great in his job as professional wrestler, his personal life was a mess. Thankfully he doesn't drink or party anymore and he's with a woman who cares about him and she should be a stable influence for him.
Oh, and it was neat seeing all those wrestling clips, photos, and comments from various wrestling personalities. I hadn't seen too many pictures of Flair before he became Ric Flair, so that was a treat.
I am a pro wrestling fan (I don't watch modern wrestling as I think most of it is insufferable; it'd take far too long to go into detail as to why) so of course I'd have to see this ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. It's been on the shelf for awhile, so after a commercial break they had to do a cut-away and mention Ric Flair's recent serious medical issues, where he had to defy the odds just to survive. Nature Boy did show that he led a very hard life and that was the main cause of those health problems.
The film was rather straightforward: his childhood and life before pro wrestling were discussed, then the incredibly difficult training he had to do in order to even become a pro wrestler... it was like a Marines boot camp. His rise in the 80's to usually being the champ in the rival organization to the WWF is shown, and it was made clear his federation was the polar opposite of the cartoony WWF, and instead it was blood and guts and something adult men would enjoy, where often wrestlers would be bleeding.
It was also shown how the Flair character has become popular in pop culture, with many entertainers and athletes enjoying his catchphrases and his cockiness. The character was an arrogant rich playboy who bragged about how great he was, the Lear jets he flew around in, all the partying, and all the women he bedded. Of course that would be appealing to plenty of people. Unfortunately, he lived that character 24/7; it's bad enough that at the time the popular pro wrestlers were rarely at home so they missed their kids growing up... his nonstop partying and sleeping around led to several failed marriages and his children resenting him. What happened to his son Reid... very sad; I don't want to reveal it for those who don't know and want to see this in the future. I'll just say it's heartbreaking.
Me, I am a pro wrestling nerd so I knew most of what was in the documentary beforehand. Heck, I've even read Flair's autobiography back in the day, which was good. I wish this would have been longer than about 70 minutes; various things were glossed over and I know it's hard to cram all that info into 70 minutes, but this doesn't go above “fine” in my eyes. My prior knowledge does color things and if you only knew about Ric casually, I am sure you'd rate this differently. At least there wasn't too much revisionist history going on and the film was honest in showing he led a flawed life and while he was great in his job as professional wrestler, his personal life was a mess. Thankfully he doesn't drink or party anymore and he's with a woman who cares about him and she should be a stable influence for him.
Oh, and it was neat seeing all those wrestling clips, photos, and comments from various wrestling personalities. I hadn't seen too many pictures of Flair before he became Ric Flair, so that was a treat.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
I Still Don't Care For Super 8
I watched and reviewed Super 8 back around 6 years ago, and I only thought it was OK. The scenes with only the kids was pretty good, the scenes with kids and adults was only alright, and adults only was pretty bad. That's what I thought then, and that's what I think now after revisiting the movie last night. Plus, it doesn't help the movie's cause that the 2017 It and Stranger Things have a lot in common and those two things did it better than Super 8 did.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Friday, November 3, 2017
Have Rocket, Will Travel
Have Rocket, Will Travel (1959)
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: David Lowell Rich
Starring: The Three Stooges, Jerome Cowan, Anna-Lisa, Don Lamond
From: Columbia
Note that I won't be talking about the Three Stooges shorts I see on this page; that'll be Letterboxd only. In case you forgot, my page is here. Below I talk about this feature film, which does not have Curly or Shemp or even the much-maligned Joe Besser, but instead Curly Joe:
This is the perfect time for me to say that in the future, I'll sometimes (and maybe it'll be often during some stretches) I'll go through all the shorts that The Three Stooges did. I have them all on DVD and as I am able to do so on Letterboxd... I will try not to blow up everyone's stream and I'll space out the reviews if I do a bunch in one day. I imagine they won't be as lengthy as what I usually do, but it's just a guess. I've literally watched the Stooges since I was a little kid so doing this and seeing 190 shorts will be awesome; many of them are at least good, although the last few years were pretty rough.
Note that this is a feature-length movie, done after Columbia decided to stop doing shorts. The times have changed as all the other studios stopped doing those by then. Columbia did various shady things involving the Stooges but that's another topic for another time. As the shorts ended up on television in the 50's and were a huge hit, no surprise Columbia decided to have them do feature films; back in the day Moe preferred the trio not do theatrical movies as that'd be more difficult in every way. As things changed... by this time, Curly and Shemp died and Joe Besser left the act. They found Curly Joe DeRita and he was fine, although him acting like Curly was just not the same as the original article.
As for the Stooges in outer space, it is quite silly. They are janitors at Not NASA (a common trope for the trio is them having “common-man” jobs such as plumber, sanitation, carpenters, etc. It made sense during the Great Depression era as of course the audience could easily sympathize; that trope stuck) and they manage to create a fuel that allows Not NASA's rocket to actually work. Due to hijinx they end up on the rocket and fly to Venus, where wackiness happens. There's a talking unicorn, a giant tarantula that shoots a laser beam, and machine has wiped out man; I will presume that idea has existed in science fiction long before the late 1950's.
This isn't as good as many of their shorts but I can still say the movie is average. While the story is rather slapdash, at least there's still the slapstick the Stooges are legendary for. Of course I've always enjoyed that, but there are other things, like the wordplay, sight gags, and one-liners, which you get some of here. There is also material that makes fun of the rich; there's another Stooges trope from the 1930's. I laughed enough where I can't say this is poor or lousy; it's just OK.
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: David Lowell Rich
Starring: The Three Stooges, Jerome Cowan, Anna-Lisa, Don Lamond
From: Columbia
Note that I won't be talking about the Three Stooges shorts I see on this page; that'll be Letterboxd only. In case you forgot, my page is here. Below I talk about this feature film, which does not have Curly or Shemp or even the much-maligned Joe Besser, but instead Curly Joe:
This is the perfect time for me to say that in the future, I'll sometimes (and maybe it'll be often during some stretches) I'll go through all the shorts that The Three Stooges did. I have them all on DVD and as I am able to do so on Letterboxd... I will try not to blow up everyone's stream and I'll space out the reviews if I do a bunch in one day. I imagine they won't be as lengthy as what I usually do, but it's just a guess. I've literally watched the Stooges since I was a little kid so doing this and seeing 190 shorts will be awesome; many of them are at least good, although the last few years were pretty rough.
Note that this is a feature-length movie, done after Columbia decided to stop doing shorts. The times have changed as all the other studios stopped doing those by then. Columbia did various shady things involving the Stooges but that's another topic for another time. As the shorts ended up on television in the 50's and were a huge hit, no surprise Columbia decided to have them do feature films; back in the day Moe preferred the trio not do theatrical movies as that'd be more difficult in every way. As things changed... by this time, Curly and Shemp died and Joe Besser left the act. They found Curly Joe DeRita and he was fine, although him acting like Curly was just not the same as the original article.
As for the Stooges in outer space, it is quite silly. They are janitors at Not NASA (a common trope for the trio is them having “common-man” jobs such as plumber, sanitation, carpenters, etc. It made sense during the Great Depression era as of course the audience could easily sympathize; that trope stuck) and they manage to create a fuel that allows Not NASA's rocket to actually work. Due to hijinx they end up on the rocket and fly to Venus, where wackiness happens. There's a talking unicorn, a giant tarantula that shoots a laser beam, and machine has wiped out man; I will presume that idea has existed in science fiction long before the late 1950's.
This isn't as good as many of their shorts but I can still say the movie is average. While the story is rather slapdash, at least there's still the slapstick the Stooges are legendary for. Of course I've always enjoyed that, but there are other things, like the wordplay, sight gags, and one-liners, which you get some of here. There is also material that makes fun of the rich; there's another Stooges trope from the 1930's. I laughed enough where I can't say this is poor or lousy; it's just OK.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Poltergeist
Poltergeist (1982)
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: Tobe Hooper... and Steven Spielberg, so the rumors say
Starring: Craig T. Nelson, JoBeth Williams, Beatrice Straight, Heather O'Rourke, Dominique Dunne
From: MGM
I am a little late with this, but oh well. This is still very good; a lot of legend surrounds the film, and you shouldn't let that overwhelm the movie's qualities on its own:
This movie was shown on Turner Classic Movies (on Halloween) and it seemed like a fitting way to end this Halloween season of watching scary, spooky movies. Of course I had seen this before (including once at a revival screening) but the last viewing was before I joined this site in early 2013 so I had never rated/reviewed the film until now.
I won't rehash the story as I will assume most are familiar with it. Thus, I'll say this is still a very good film. It wasn't something I really watched as a kid so I don't have the “nostalgic feels” like some do. I can say it's a lot of fun as an adult. You get to know the average suburban Southern California family before things go terribly wrong. The parents are hippies from the late 60's so them smoking some pot in their middle-aged years isn't too surprising... except it's something you don't see in these sorts of movies in “modern times”, as things have changed. The handymen harassing the teenage daughter that is underage and the mom laughs as they interact with each other and she gives them a vulgar gesture... that seems odder now, and that's not even factoring in how it's REALLY creepy now in this current climate with how there have been so many in Hollywood who have been accused of heinous acts...
But anyhow, the special effects still work 35 years later (for the most part. Even if the “face in the bathroom” thing may not have aged well, it continues to be pretty gross) so that's why I say the film has remained an effective thrill ride which has both scary moments (I presume it's one of the reason why many are skeeved out by clowns) and exciting ones. I'll mention two last things. The first is “The Poltergeist Curse.” It is disturbing how real skeleton were used in the climax; I am not one for curses... but I of course feel bad for the cast members who passed away due to cancer or at too young an age. It is sad for a young woman to be strangled to death by an ex and a child to pass away due to something that was not diagnosed correctly. Then there's who actually directed the movie... I have no idea what to think as people have different stories over how much Spielberg actually directed instead of Hooper. I don't want to disrespect Tobe (especially considering he only passed away a few months ago) and even if he may have had “personal demons” at the time, I know this is a hotly debated topic and some have skillfully written how you can see some of Hooper's fingerprints all over the film so he did have an impact on how it turned out.
Point is, there is plenty of legend surrounding the movie. If you can forget all that and just focus on the ordeal the Freeling family went through, the film still works.
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: Tobe Hooper... and Steven Spielberg, so the rumors say
Starring: Craig T. Nelson, JoBeth Williams, Beatrice Straight, Heather O'Rourke, Dominique Dunne
From: MGM
I am a little late with this, but oh well. This is still very good; a lot of legend surrounds the film, and you shouldn't let that overwhelm the movie's qualities on its own:
This movie was shown on Turner Classic Movies (on Halloween) and it seemed like a fitting way to end this Halloween season of watching scary, spooky movies. Of course I had seen this before (including once at a revival screening) but the last viewing was before I joined this site in early 2013 so I had never rated/reviewed the film until now.
I won't rehash the story as I will assume most are familiar with it. Thus, I'll say this is still a very good film. It wasn't something I really watched as a kid so I don't have the “nostalgic feels” like some do. I can say it's a lot of fun as an adult. You get to know the average suburban Southern California family before things go terribly wrong. The parents are hippies from the late 60's so them smoking some pot in their middle-aged years isn't too surprising... except it's something you don't see in these sorts of movies in “modern times”, as things have changed. The handymen harassing the teenage daughter that is underage and the mom laughs as they interact with each other and she gives them a vulgar gesture... that seems odder now, and that's not even factoring in how it's REALLY creepy now in this current climate with how there have been so many in Hollywood who have been accused of heinous acts...
But anyhow, the special effects still work 35 years later (for the most part. Even if the “face in the bathroom” thing may not have aged well, it continues to be pretty gross) so that's why I say the film has remained an effective thrill ride which has both scary moments (I presume it's one of the reason why many are skeeved out by clowns) and exciting ones. I'll mention two last things. The first is “The Poltergeist Curse.” It is disturbing how real skeleton were used in the climax; I am not one for curses... but I of course feel bad for the cast members who passed away due to cancer or at too young an age. It is sad for a young woman to be strangled to death by an ex and a child to pass away due to something that was not diagnosed correctly. Then there's who actually directed the movie... I have no idea what to think as people have different stories over how much Spielberg actually directed instead of Hooper. I don't want to disrespect Tobe (especially considering he only passed away a few months ago) and even if he may have had “personal demons” at the time, I know this is a hotly debated topic and some have skillfully written how you can see some of Hooper's fingerprints all over the film so he did have an impact on how it turned out.
Point is, there is plenty of legend surrounding the movie. If you can forget all that and just focus on the ordeal the Freeling family went through, the film still works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)