Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Scars of Dracula (1970) in Movies
Nov 17, 2020
Start From Scratch
Scars of Dracula- is the sixth Dracula film from Hammer and fifth starring Christopher Lee. Its a re-introducting to Dracula, even though its the six one in the Hammer franchise. Its also takes place after Taste, so im not sure why their did do a re-introducting. Anyways
The plot: Bat's blood hits Dracula's (Christopher Lee) ashes, and he rises again to fight a couple (Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley) looking for trouble.
It also gives Lee more to do and say than any other Hammer Dracula film except its first, 1958's Dracula.
This film breaks the continuity maintained through the previous entries in the Hammer Dracula series: whereas at the end of the preceding film, Taste the Blood of Dracula, the Count met his end in a disused church near London, this film opens with a resurrection scene set in Dracula's castle in Transylvania, with no explanation of how his ashes got there (although, they might have been returned from England, as a contingency, by the young acolyte from the prologue of Dracula A.D. 1972). Furthermore; in Scars of Dracula, the Count has a servant named Klove, played by Patrick Troughton; in the third film of the series, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has a servant named Klove (played by Philip Latham) who appears to be a different character, though identically named. The disruption of continuity caused by Scars of Dracula reflects the fact the film was originally tooled as a possible reboot of the series in the event Christopher Lee elected not to reprise the role of Dracula.
The British Film group EMI took over distribution of the film after Warner Bros., Universal Pictures and other American studios refused to distribute it in the U.S. It was also the first of several Hammer films to get an 'R' rating.
Its a good film.
The plot: Bat's blood hits Dracula's (Christopher Lee) ashes, and he rises again to fight a couple (Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley) looking for trouble.
It also gives Lee more to do and say than any other Hammer Dracula film except its first, 1958's Dracula.
This film breaks the continuity maintained through the previous entries in the Hammer Dracula series: whereas at the end of the preceding film, Taste the Blood of Dracula, the Count met his end in a disused church near London, this film opens with a resurrection scene set in Dracula's castle in Transylvania, with no explanation of how his ashes got there (although, they might have been returned from England, as a contingency, by the young acolyte from the prologue of Dracula A.D. 1972). Furthermore; in Scars of Dracula, the Count has a servant named Klove, played by Patrick Troughton; in the third film of the series, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has a servant named Klove (played by Philip Latham) who appears to be a different character, though identically named. The disruption of continuity caused by Scars of Dracula reflects the fact the film was originally tooled as a possible reboot of the series in the event Christopher Lee elected not to reprise the role of Dracula.
The British Film group EMI took over distribution of the film after Warner Bros., Universal Pictures and other American studios refused to distribute it in the U.S. It was also the first of several Hammer films to get an 'R' rating.
Its a good film.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Devil Rides Out (1968) in Movies
Feb 26, 2018 (Updated Feb 26, 2018)
Classic Hammer horror plays it very straight with Dennis Wheatley's genteel tale of satanic goings on in the home counties. Christopher Lee gets the opportunity to play the good guy, for once, and really makes the most of it; hard to imagine anyone else playing the part better. That said, he's given a run for his money by Charles Gray in what was really a career-defining role for him.
It all seems a bit quaint and somewhat bourgeois by modern standards (they never bother to explain why devil-worship is quite such a bad idea, it's taken for granted that good and evil are quite inflexible), and there are a few amusing holes in the plot, but there are some great set-pieces and the supporting cast are also on form. Very much a film of its time, but still entertains today; not especially scary, though.
It all seems a bit quaint and somewhat bourgeois by modern standards (they never bother to explain why devil-worship is quite such a bad idea, it's taken for granted that good and evil are quite inflexible), and there are a few amusing holes in the plot, but there are some great set-pieces and the supporting cast are also on form. Very much a film of its time, but still entertains today; not especially scary, though.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Walk the Line (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Condensing something as vast and complex as the life of a person into a film is often a daunting task. With so many events that comprise the span of an individual, knowing what to cover and what to omit is a daunting task for any writer. For an icon like Johnny Cash, this task becomes monumental as not only does the history and humanity of the individual need to be captured, but the very soul of the artist as well.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
