Telluride 2008 Festival
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

My Ponderings on Cinema

  • A Touch of Moustache

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Touch of Evil  (1958)

    About 10 minutes in to watching Touch of Evil, a thought occurred to me: Charlton Heston doesn't look particularly Mexican.  Most of the "Mexicans" are white actors with a little darkening make up and a silly sliver of a dark moustache.  Quite frankly, the moustaches look ridiculous.

    Touch of Evil is a great movie, but the fake Mexican moustaches are distracting.

  • 1967 - Year of the Definitive James Bond Movie

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Casino Royale  (1967)

    Hopefully the recent release of the new Casino Royale will prompt some to watch the 1967 version.  Considering that so many Bond "fans" try to cover up the existence of this old classic, it may be that it stays buried.  What a tragedy.

    You see, the 1967 production of Casino Royale is actually an art film.  But it's an art film that is under no circumstances to be taken seriously.  Every step of the way, the film is a strange combination of comedy, surreality, and just plain confusion, all built upon the improbability of the James Bond mythos.  But, that's actually the point of the film.  The whole thing is an exercise in craziness.  The goal was to take the user from the comfortable convention of the English gentleman spy into a world that completely fails to hold any coherency.  It does so slowly, at a walking pace.  The layers of incomprehension are slowly added and woven in, all using the suspension of disbelief needed to enter into Bond's world in the first place.

    All too often Casino Royale is dismissed, but it is a great and entertaining film.  Just remember that there will always be this accomplishment in cinematic lunacy hidden under the new, far less imaginative, version of Casino Royale.  Remember the zaniness.


  • The Sand Pebbles: Another Example of Why Steve McQueen was Great

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Sand Pebbles  (1966)

    The Sand Pebbles is one of those unconventional war movies that deserves far more recognition than it gets.  Both for the performances and the matter that it treats.  The eight Academy award nominations are well deserved, that it did not win any of them is very much undeserved.

    Once again, Steve McQueen turned out a brilliant acting job.  A cool, quiet unassuming navy engineer with more backbone than any other sailor on the ship.  If there's three things Steve played well in his career, its characters that are cool and quiet, characters with a lot of backbone, and making all those cool, quiet, steely characters unique.  And it's not just Steve that pulled off a great performance in this one.  In this film we get the shining performances from the supporting cast.  In particular, we get to see a young Candice Bergen shine as the love interest.  It's a good reminder that she was a talented actress prior to her career of poking fun at Dan Quayle.

    And the historical matter is quite interesting too.  The Sand Pebbles is set around an American gunship caught in the middle of the Chinese Revolution.  An odd sort of perspective as it was a conflict where the Americans were caught in the middle of something they had no interest in.  It's nice to see a war film that isn't on one of the World Wars, Vietnam, or the Gulf.  McKenna and Anderson deserve a bit of recognition for doing a bit of research and writing something other than one of the old Hollywood formulae.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<November 2006>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2930311234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293012
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement