MovieChat Forums > Aylmer
Aylmer (539)
Posts
Wouldn't Richard Dreyfus have lost his license?
times when Newt's British accent slips out
What was the first movie/TV show to theorize a virtual reality "Matrix"?
A few massive logic problems in the film
Anyone else love...
Wait... so it isn't Lorraine GRAY?
A Low-brow version of SORCERER set in the Arctic?
Anyone else just really hate the ending?
Wouldn't it be crazy if he's the man who history credits with...
An upgraded ending of the movie...
View all posts >
Replies
Yeah he hasn't done anything I'd rate as "excellent" since HEAT but I did rather enjoy COLLATERAL for what it was. The shot-on-video nature didn't bother me too much as it was sort of a crash course in how having two excellent performances at the center of a cheaply shot film can make it still look and feel expensive and mainstream.
I tried watching PUBLIC ENEMIES as I am a huge fan of all incarnations of DILLINGER. Unfortunately, despite having a huge stacked cast, that film just didn't do anything for me and I have yet to finish it.
I'd put Mann's best film as probably "THIEF" (or at least that's my personal favorite). All his 80's stuff is at least worthwhile, even THE KEEP which I know he himself despises but I still find it to be a work of genius. MANHUNTER I think is markedly better than the Brett Ratner remake up until the very silly climax with the shotgun.
I think it's folly to think that the Germans were quite as internally heartless as a lot of Western media would have you believe. While complicit in numerous war crimes and atrocities, I don't think there were were any examples I can think of where a general was executed for anything other than being connected with one of the failed plots to kill Hitler (like Rommel after July 20). Most likely if they mouthed off too much, they'd simply lose their job or get transferred like what happened to Manstein or most of the initial generals behind Barbarossa (like Von Bock and Von Rundstedt).
That said, Hitler's inner circle became more and more staffed due to loyalty over competence as the war dragged on. However even among loyalists, there are different degrees of how much resistance they'd put up to him, token or not. General Burgdorf there probably had to step in from time to time to reign Hitler in, both because he believed he needed to, plus he probably felt that Hitler wanted some occasional pushback and criticism. Notice that Jodl and Weidling argue with him as well, making him seemed almost ganged-up on until someone like Goebbels steps in and makes it clear everyone is loyal to him.
I've been around a couple super wealthy/powerful/famous people in my life and most of them didn't want to be surrounded by utter yes-men. They at least wanted a little "token" pushback or else their sycophants are too obvious and they get rid of them. Even people at the very top I think generally want to feel as though their cadre is authentically fans of them, not just mindless yesmen.
I feel that LA Takedown does not do as much as HEAT in terms of providing entertainment value or emotional investment, but considering it has about 1/20th the budget (if even that), it certainly is more than 1/20th as good (maybe about half as good) so that makes it something I wouldn't be too quick to discard IF you keep the budget in mind. That's sort of a philosophical issue with rating movies - is more expensive always better, and how much should a movie's budget factor into the appraisal of it.
There used to be a time when movies would boast how large their budget was in that it advertised to audiences that they are going to get to see something a lot of time and money went into. After CLEOPATRA became a debacle, plus other big-budget wastes like HEAVENS GATE, ONE FROM THE HEART, WATERWORLD, etc., "big budget" just wasn't the selling point it used to be. Then you get into my generation (X) where we were freshly cinema-conscious when low budget smash hits like BLAIR WITCH and CLERKS came out. However it is a bit counterintuitive to think a movie is better off with a low budget. I think nobody is that excited by cut corners just as much as nobody wants to see a movie with a lot of overindulgence either. HEAT I think doesn't seem overindulgent when watched in a void, but when you watch it and LA TAKEDOWN side by side, it does come off a little inefficient in terms of story-telling and casting. As to how much "efficiency" plays into audience enjoyment, I think it's a bit subjective as only us critical people even look into things like movie budget at all.
Personally I'd have loved to see Mann take all the money he spent on HEAT and give us 10 movies all with 1/10th the budget, which look and sound about as good as HEAT but with B-movie actors. It'd give us something in between.
I'm curious why it doesn't seem like, after the iconic COMMANDO, that he didn't really take off that far as a director. Sure there was SHOWDOWN IN LITTLE TOKYO which was "okay" but nothing special aside from the pairing of Brandon Lee with Lundgren and a couple good action setpieces here and there.
I've lately found myself re-appraising COMMANDO somewhat and I have decided that most of the fun comes from Arnie, the scriptwriter (De Souza), and the music (James Horner). Sure Lester tied them all together, but with all those ingredients in 1985, how do you go wrong? The action scenes are good but largely down to the sound design, editing, and the fact that they go on so long.
Damn, so the "That's a duck, man!" guy isn't still out riding busses around? :(
I will have to rewatch but certainly remember that a lot of the film was made in the exact same locations as CONAN THE BARBARIAN, including the mountain where Thulsa Doom's fortress would later be built 20 years later. I'm guessing Dino De Laurentiis knew people who owned land somewhere in Almeria.
I saw it over Xmas. Certainly a bad (and also boring - I fell asleep for 10 minutes somewhere in Act II) film but at least it was competently directed and good production values and cinematography. It was unfortunately just missing any sort of "hook" for the audience and just played things by the numbers. This applies to most recent Ridley Scott movies actually. It was also reluctant to deviate too much from the formula of the first movie, which itself was largely stolen from FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Would it be too hard to try and be a little more original? BARABBAS was a much better movie about gladiators, and it was focused on a fat middle-aged man who falls into gladiating because he feels guilt that Jesus died instead of him. Much more interesting than here in GLADIATOR II, avenging another dead family, and now it's ludicrous as we're expected to believe that the exact same thing happens to men who were father and son.
The most baffling part was the casting of Denzel Washington in a movie about ancient Rome. I know he's based on a character who was actually from (North) Africa, but would it be so hard for them to find a good Algerian/Moroccan/Tunisian actor? They wouldn't have the name value, but also wouldn't have been as expensive, and Denzel just does not fit the period or region at all.
Morgan Freeman fit a lot better into Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves because he actually played it as a foreigner and looks vaguely Tuareg or something if you squint hard enough. Denzel played it as though he stepped right off the set of Training Day and got into a toga.
Yeah I've had the same problem with the movie ever since I was a kid. The only explanation I figured then was that even as a dog, he was kinda a dumbass (note how clumsy it is chasing him vs. Dana's dog Zool was able to make arms appear in her couch and bring her toward it - giving you the impression that it was more powerful).
The other explanation I have come to more recently is that even though the people get possessed, they still retain their personality, it only accentuates the quirks. Kinda like how the creature in The Thing can store people's memories but at the same time can instantly transform into a violent monster once it gets cornered. With Dana it made her hyper-sexual (like she was suppressing it in her normal life) and with Louis it made him hyper-dumbass (I am sure he was aware he was kinda stupid and was doing his best to suppress it too). Note that even Zool was also kinda (comically) stupid because it believed Peter Venkman was the keymaster when he said yes, 10 seconds after he said no.
It certainly would fit the period because Italians were copying the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA model for years - make a TV series and ALSO edit into movie form for theatrical release. This also applied to Seagull Island, Yor the Hunter from the Future, Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, Hearts and Armor, etc. etc. etc.
The only issue I see with this hypothesis is that I have never heard of there being a longer version of this movie, be it a TV edit, director's cut, or anything like that at all. Perhaps it's just too obscure for anyone to even care? Even the hardcore Fulci fans tend to overlook this movie (myself included).
Also, isn't this movie from 1978? Why is it on here as 1980?
View all replies >