MovieChat Forums > Aylmer > Replies
Aylmer's Replies
I might be of a small minority but I really thought Plank and MacArthur fit the characters a lot better than Pacino and DeNiro. TAKEDOWN suffers from inferior cinematography, less violence, and smaller scope (pun intended) but I think it's a little leaner and meaner than HEAT, which is almost more of a mood piece at times than a crime thriller. I don't feel like the Natalie Portman subplot added that much to HEAT, plus all the stuff with VAN ZANT just muddied the waters and took the film a little off course. Both films have good casts overall littered with A-movie and B-movie actors with Xander Berkeley in both films (though much smaller role in HEAT in an added scene that ripped off an episode of "Crime Story" line-for-line). I loved how he played Waingro and a sniveling idiotic coward as opposed to the guy in HEAT who was an actual scary tough guy.
Pacino and DeNiro are better actors and play the characters both as seasoned professionals. Plank and MacArthur both feel like up and coming nobodies out to prove themselves, both as actors and within the confines of the narrative. It sets it up to be a little more tense, at least in terms of both characters having a little more to lose. The Drama in HEAT was a little overplayed too at times, like when Pacino has that extended scene hugging the dead prostitute's mom for an extended period of time. It seemed to me like an excessively emotional moment over the death of an inconsequential character.
If anyone reads up on John DeLorean I think it's pretty clear what Efron did to himself. I think the story of him falling down and breaking his jaw was just a cover for the fact that the results of his surgery weren't the greatest.
I think from a mere "getting caught" perspective, their chances of getting caught for mere armed robbery (considering how many pains they went through to cover their tracks) was about 5%. When Waingro killed the guard, and for clearly no reason, he upped their chances of getting caught to 50% since the police would now have access to a lot more resources to investigate them, plus their chances of a life sentence were near 100% if they were caught. By killing the rest of the guards, they maybe reduced their chances of getting caught to 30%.
What I think was dumb was how they handled kicking Waingro out of their group. It was clear De Niro was mad at him and wanted to kill him, and even DOES try to kill him when they went into the parking lot. This doesn't make a lot of sense though as De Niro did advocate paying him off just a few minutes earlier. If the plan was to kill Waingro all along, why be hostile with him in the diner? It would have made a lot more sense for De Niro to "play along" and welcome Waingro to the team, and then kill him later when Waingro had guard down. Either that or pay him off and let him take the full HEAT on his own, though that would have risked the group getting identified if Waingro was ever later captured or turned himself in and took a plea deal. So it would have made a lot more sense (and been a lot more professional) had De Niro just been patient and acted understanding, then just killed Waingro later.
It also doesn't really make sense as otherwise De Niro is a total professional throughout the movie aside from his ditching his escape attempt at the end to get his revenge on Waingro. I guess it is consistent, but at the same time not logical behavior. Does he just lose all professionalism and higher reasoning when it comes to his sheer hatred of and desire to kill Waingro? He really doesn't like people who bring unnecessary HEAT into his life...
Maybe not quite -the- goriest or most disgusting film by a stretch. There's plenty of low budget German gore movies (by the likes of Olaf Ittenbach etc) and even some American straight-to-video horror movies (see a lot of these Unearthed cheapies) that have more blood and guts. However for a professional movie with actually good production values and a sense of humor, it's probably the goriest you'll find.
It is kind of a stretch for sure but the bad guys must have either followed the chopper (with their trucks?) or had hiked to the location with full gear and it all just happened to time out that way. Then when the shooting started, they had a truck on standby which drove in to pick up the daughter and then drove out with all of them. We don't know exactly how much time elapsed when Matrix was in his shed getting his weapons ready and Jenny was hiding under the bed. That could have been a 5-15 minute window and long enough for a truck to zoom in and pick her and all the bad guys up except Cervantes, and for someone to tamper with Matrix's car.
Interesting how this movie and BLADE RUNNER seem to have something in common in having so many different cuts released on media over the years. Both movies didn't do well at all at release but have gone on to achieve some sort of cult notoriety, though BR greatly eclipses the fanbase of ALEXANDER. Odd that both have musical scores by VANGELIS and I would wager the two have a lot of other things in common that I'm not even noticing.
Both release situations confound me to some degree.
BR I think was a minor classic - excellent production and costume design, plus a neat dreary tone and top-notch cast. However it was undone by extremely simplistic storyline and lack of action or any character dynamics beyond the face value. The various cuts do nothing to undo the film's problems though removing the narration did radically change the tone of the movie. The narration made it a little more accessible for kids, though you could argue they shouldn't be watching the movie in the first place.
ALEXANDER was a mess to start with though it did have some visionary battle scenes and nice scope here and there. The various cuts help it move a little faster in some areas though they don't really make it a better movie.
It seems like these films are both on some kind of scale where as one side is to make the film move faster and be more exciting and the other side is to make it move slower but be more immersive and comprehensive. BR works better in my opinion from being slower and more immersive but ALEXANDER needed to move faster... which is why I think the second cut was the best for it. It's a delicate balance for both films to hit especially as that balance doesn't fully address the problems with either film. There's only so much you can do in the editing to save a dull script, bad casting, etc.
I think De Niro's comments as of late are beyond moronic, and that he hasn't made a worthwhile film in nearly 30 years (though JOKER had its moments). However I do not hold that against his early work as most everything he did up to RONIN were excellent films and his performances were generally powerful and excellent. TAXI DRIVER, CASINO, GOODFELLAS, HEAT, THE KING OF COMEDY, the CAPE FEAR remake etc are all among my favorite films. He's even great in his early smaller supporting roles in MEAN STREETS and BLOODY MAMA. Generally the tone of these movies is not really liberal in the modern sense of the word either, but then again I wouldn't consider Trump to really be that much of a conservative.
It does shake my opinion of an actor when they come out as some political activist one way or the other (I'd prefer actors just stick to acting and out of politics or social commentary), but I try not to let it affect my opinion of the films themselves. An exception I would make for newer films though where the box office matters, and would boycott movies Bri Larson has been in due to some of her comments, but then again I've never been interested in Marvel movies anyway (or most movies in general made in recent years either).
Ted Rusoff is the voice of the general played by Mike Monty. I even had Rusoff over at my house once to identify voice actors. He pointed out the Blueheart voice as being Del Russel. He may have been mistaken though as it could also have been Russel Case, as both were dubbing voices in Italy as well as bit-part actors there at the time. I believe Beatrice Ring is dubbed by Pat Starke if memory serves me right.
I talked to Beatrice Ring once upon a time and she said it was Fulci who directed everything she was in. Fulci was a very hands-on director and typically hyper-fixated on things like the effects. Unfortunately, I think he was sick on the ZOMBI 3 shoot so was kind of "checked out" while directing, which left his crew to sort of set up things the way they were used to. The crew he was given was Mattei's (or producer Franco Gaudenzi's) regular crew including the DP and all the art department, costuming and effects people. That made the film, as messy as the production way, pretty consistent between the Fulci-directed scenes with the main characters and the second unit stuff that Mattei and Fragasso came in and shot after Fulci had left. They probably sped-up a lot of the goofy scenes like the fast-forward zombie in the gas station in post production as well, which Fulci had nothing to do with.
Mattei was very much a "master shot only" director and didn't go in for close-ups and dynamic coverage like Fulci would. Fulci had practically nothing to do with the editing and his regular editor Vincenzo Tomassi was on other things. Without Tomassi editing and Fulci supervising him, the whatever style was created in the shoot was likely lost in the edit in order to keep the overall film consistent and as cheap as possible, which is all producer Gaudenzi cared about.
Well if he's indeed that wealthy already (which you never know for sure how much of that is really cash or investment properties, etc) he might do it for even less. Depends on his enthusiasm for the script. In my limited experience working with wealthy actors, they'll get around their salary demands and annoying agents (which is just a coded excuse to demand a higher salary) if they like a script enough.
Well Mad Max was a much more sedentary role than say INDIANA JONES since Max mainly drives and ambushes as opposed to brawling and running around. I think it's perfectly logical you theoretically make an excellent Mad Max movie starring a 68 or even a 75 year old Mel Gibson and it'd turn out much better than either of the two more recent IJ movies... and it could be done at a fraction of the budget. Since Mel isn't a big star anymore and needs the work, his paycheck won't eat up $25 million anymore. Hell you could let him direct AND star in the thing and he'd probably do better than Miller would at this point and he'd be happy to do it for a million or two.
I can say from my experience, being lightly stung by a Portuguese Man o War at Daytona Beach in 2022, that it's actually surprisingly easy to stay calm when battling a malevolent sea creature. Rather than scream in pain and immediately swim/run back onto the beach in blind fear, I was entirely stoic about the entire affair and even swam down to fight back so that it never hurts anyone ever again. True story.
I think I caught this movie at the perfect age - being maybe 11 or 12 when I first saw it. At the time I felt that it was extremely exciting, action packed, somewhat edgy, had the right blend of humor, and even taught me a little about 1960's Japanese culture. I remember laughing with my friends at all the rag dolls flying out of exploding helicopters and the sheer ridiculousness of things like the magnet used to pick up the enemy car.
Fast forward 30+ years and I still get pulled back into that juvenile mentality when I watch the film. I admit now that the film does has a lot of major problems and Connery looks very bored throughout the film, but it also impresses me more with the technical qualities such as Barry's musical score and some of the fun directorial touches that I never picked up on as a kid.
It certainly holds up much better, in my opinion, than the much sillier DIAMONDS and the dryer earlier Connery ones like FROM RUSSIA, not to mention what the series morphed into over the next decade. That ending action sequence in the volcano base still stands as a climactic Bond highlight with excellent editing, staging, sound, and production design. It must have been mind-blowing at the time, long before the 80's action boom with more grand-scale chaos, violence, and pyrotechnics than even the typical war movie of the period.
I think that's an unfair simplification of why someone would like or not like an actress. I personally like Pam Grier and think that she's both attractive and very talented for someone who didn't have much formal acting training and I've never heard any right wingers (which constitute most of my movie nerd friends) ever criticize her or her presence in a movie. There are a lot of mixed or racially ambiguous actresses who have a broad mass appeal like Rashida Jones, Tracee Ross, Aubrey Plaza, etc. and a lot of the same crowd despises actresses like Bri Larson more from what they say than their identity per-say.
It's true that CG isn't always completely awful. Most of the effects in Rogue One (outside of the terrible Uncanny Valley Peter Cushing - though I found the attempt fascinating) and Rise of Skywalker (as awful as the movie was) were actually pretty good. The planet explosion in Rise of Skywalker was actually much better and more realistic than the 1997 Star Wars CG update which I thought looked terrible then, and looks even more terrible now. I'll actually take the 1977 planet explosion over the 1997 one, as you get an actual sense of power and dynamism from the practical explosion (jump cut and all) that you don't get from the CG one.
But generally the best effects these days are when practical and CG are composited together in a decent way - kind of like that how that movie DOOMSDAY did very well the time.
ROTJ suffered the most from the 1997 meddling of all the original Star Wars movies, but it's odd that they didn't touch the super star destroyer much at all. Today I think they could do a much better job updating all the effects if someone really wanted to, but I think Lucas is fairly satisfied with all his meddling and Disney still hasn't made a profit overall from buying the franchise, so doing an extensive (and expensive) update on the effects yet again would be akin to squeezing blood from a turnip.
Ages ago in the late 1990's when I was in High School, I ran a horror-themed website in which Aylmer, the parasite from "Brain Damage" was the main character. The website is long gone but the moniker stuck. Sadly I even walked by Zacherly at a horror convention a few times in 2009 but didn't make the mental connection that he was the voice of Aylmer, and we never spoke.
I look at most Godzilla movies as heavily flawed, even well-remembered ones like GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA. However I do find myself, just as I did as a child, rating them on how many effective moments they have. TERROR OF MECHAGODZILLA had that excellent sequence with Mechagodzilla and Titanosaurus destroying downtown Tokyo while Ifukube movie blares ominously. It added a lot of gravity and enjoyment to an otherwise underwhelming Godzilla movie. GODZILLA VS. MECHAGODZILLA also had that great scene set in the burning oil refinery.
Similarly, this movie overall comes off as unfortunately both addle-brained and slow paced. It means it essentially has no audience because adults will roll their eyes at the absurdity and children will be bored. There are a few extremely effective moments though mostly focused in the mid-movie attack on the city, such as the atmospheric shots of the planes dropping flares in a desperate attempt to lure Godzilla back out to sea. The sound design really helps too, especially when you consider how primitive the Japanese film industry was in the 1950's.
My favorite part of the movie is after the prisoners (in an admittedly dumb plot point) crash into the oil refinery and set the whole thing on fire, Godzilla turns his head ominously and gets drawn in. The American dub even accentuates it with some eerie 1950's stock horror movie music playing over the shot of the burning refinery, almost hinting at some impending spiritual doom for thousands of people. It still runs a chill up my spine, even 30+ years after first seeing the movie.
So I am reluctant to write this movie off entirely. Something like GODZILLA's REVENGE is far easier for me to discount, as I don't think there was even a single thing in that movie which actually worked, if even for a brief moment.
I've got two other major reasons:
1) TOO LONG - the movie is easily 40-50 minutes too long. It could easily be trimmed down to be a lot leaner and meaner without such a convoluted plot in the last hour. A little added voiceover could smooth things over. I was reluctant to watch it in the theater because I basically had to sacrifice an entire evening to do it, and I am sure a lot of other people felt the same and decided against going.
2) Not different enough from FURY ROAD to be worth it. All the Mad Max movies are pretty radically different from one another except this and FURY ROAD. They have different lead actors for sure but thematically and in terms of imagery and editing they look and feel very similar. The film's marketing failed to make it seem different enough to bother with if you have already seen FURY ROAD and felt satisfied with that experience. The only people who saw it are those who wanted "more of the same" which is exactly what the movie is. It has so many call-backs to the other Mad Max films that it gets to be head-spinning. The entire ending of the movie is patterned closely after the 1979 movie's climax right down to the torture scene.
It would have been an even more comical movie if Kirk and his crew kept going back and forth in time to deliver messages one-by-one until the probe was satisfied that the conversation was concluded.
I think the whole reason Kirk sends the message is because he and his crew need to be exonerated of their piracy charges and this was their only shot at redemption. If they went back in time, got the whales, and then took them to the future, who would have known if they hadn't warmed them up with the message beforehand. Similarly, if they merely went back in time to 1986, got two whales, and then repopulated the species in 2100 or something BEFORE coming back to their own time, they would have saved the earth from all kinds of death and destruction but would not have saved their own skins as the probe would have not caused the ruckus in the first place. They would have saved more lives but ended up in jail (except for Spock I guess), so Kirk made a self-serving utilitarian decision in when to time travel, how many lives to save, and when to send his message.
yeah I agree they look fake and hate them too but unfortunately market conditions mean that CGI-generated movies are going to be ever more ubiquitous into the future.