aimless-46
Joined Dec 2003
Badges8
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings641
aimless-46's rating
Reviews720
aimless-46's rating
"The War Lover" (1962) is a micro version of Preminger's "In Harm's Way" (1965). Just strip away the macro aspects and focus on Commander Eddington (Kirk Douglas), Jere (Brandon De Wilde), and Annalee (Jill Haworth). They correspond to Buzz (Steve McQueen), Bo (Robert Wagner), and Daphne (Shirley Anne Field).
Buzz is the testosterone fueled misogynistic title character, like Eddington full of self-destructive impulses and persumptuous notions about his importance; racing toward a final act of redemption. Bo and Daphne are mostly observers, like Nick Carraway filled with fascination and judgment.
Until my recent viewing I don't believe that I even knew of the existence of "The War Lover". I immediately sent links to several friends who share my interest in WWII aviation. I have a special interest as 50 years ago I was stationed just a few miles from Bovingdon Airfield where much of the location shooting took place.
The historical elements of the film are its strength as they do an excellent job of putting viewers on board an authentic B-17 bomber. Even demonstrating each enlisted man's gun position and the role of each officer.
You also get a look young Brit Michael Crawford, barely 20. He does no singing.
Buzz is the testosterone fueled misogynistic title character, like Eddington full of self-destructive impulses and persumptuous notions about his importance; racing toward a final act of redemption. Bo and Daphne are mostly observers, like Nick Carraway filled with fascination and judgment.
Until my recent viewing I don't believe that I even knew of the existence of "The War Lover". I immediately sent links to several friends who share my interest in WWII aviation. I have a special interest as 50 years ago I was stationed just a few miles from Bovingdon Airfield where much of the location shooting took place.
The historical elements of the film are its strength as they do an excellent job of putting viewers on board an authentic B-17 bomber. Even demonstrating each enlisted man's gun position and the role of each officer.
You also get a look young Brit Michael Crawford, barely 20. He does no singing.
"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (1970) was more enjoyable than I expected. Over the years I have watched portions of the film but this time the pure nostalgia was enough to keep me engaged for the entire running length. The camp elements are awkwardly inserted and dumb things down a bit.
For most of the film the almost wholesome tone reminds you of Debbie Watson and "The Cool Ones" (1967).
Dolly Read is incredibly photogenic and Director Russ Meyer included frequent extreme close-ups of her face. They seem to have known what they had and very little of her scenes was left on the cutting room floor.
From the first frame you know that this is technically a quality effort, with good film stock and a first class production crew. Read's acting is decent enough especially when contrasted with the acting of Cynthia Myers, the other centerfold model turned actress.
The film itself is too long - 109 minutes - and would benefit from considerable trimming. The change of tone during the last 20 minutes is too contrived but probably understandable given that Hollywood went very dark after the Manson killing just the year before. They explictly state that this is not a sequel to "Valley of the Dolls" (1967) but the ghost of Sharon Tate hangs over this entire production.
"The blue pill" is the darkest thing in the 1967 "Valley of the Dolls", where it refers to prescription pills like Valium. The name "dolls" is used for these pills and mirrors how children use dolls for comfort. The 1970 film might not be a sequel but it continues the concept of taking drugs as a feminist act.
Abortion is awkwardly inserted into the narrative and for no purpose, as is the long overused practice of reflexively attributing violence and perversion to those of gay and transexual orientation.
For most of the film the almost wholesome tone reminds you of Debbie Watson and "The Cool Ones" (1967).
Dolly Read is incredibly photogenic and Director Russ Meyer included frequent extreme close-ups of her face. They seem to have known what they had and very little of her scenes was left on the cutting room floor.
From the first frame you know that this is technically a quality effort, with good film stock and a first class production crew. Read's acting is decent enough especially when contrasted with the acting of Cynthia Myers, the other centerfold model turned actress.
The film itself is too long - 109 minutes - and would benefit from considerable trimming. The change of tone during the last 20 minutes is too contrived but probably understandable given that Hollywood went very dark after the Manson killing just the year before. They explictly state that this is not a sequel to "Valley of the Dolls" (1967) but the ghost of Sharon Tate hangs over this entire production.
"The blue pill" is the darkest thing in the 1967 "Valley of the Dolls", where it refers to prescription pills like Valium. The name "dolls" is used for these pills and mirrors how children use dolls for comfort. The 1970 film might not be a sequel but it continues the concept of taking drugs as a feminist act.
Abortion is awkwardly inserted into the narrative and for no purpose, as is the long overused practice of reflexively attributing violence and perversion to those of gay and transexual orientation.
Anybody can write a mystery story with an unexpected or impossible to guess ending. You just reveal so little that the viewer has nothing with which to piece together the puzzle. But a great mystery story plants enough clues so that at the end the viewer can look back and see that the clues were there but misdirection and the timing of certain revelations caused them to be missed or the dots to not be connected. "The Sixth Sense" (1999) is a good example.
Misdirection can be something as basic as playing to a viewer's tendency to make assumptions about stereotypical characters or plot lines. Or it can be simple chaf, timing a critical revelation or a plot hole at a point where there is so much action or information introduced that it gets lost in the confusion and is not the subject of critical analysis.
"Devious Nanny" works so well because Olesya Rulin is physically perfect for the role and a good enough actress to discretely develop the dimensionality of the Amber character. The viewer immediately buys into her as Lifetime's standard nymphet-like nanny. Her perky zest a clever facade which occasionally slips and reveals her flaws but only to viewers. The story relies on viewers compounding this misdirection by running with it into the world of stereotypes which they are soon applying to all the characters.
The well staged catfight is seen through the lens of viewer misconceptions. It is believable enough to be nicely erotic so that they last thing viewers are doing is applying focused brain power toward exposing plot holes or encouraging disbelief.
Acting for the camera direction teaches you that the quality of acting performances vary not just because of disparities of talent but also because of disparities in energy. Some actors insist on working harder and all things being equal their performance is better for it.
Watch Rulin carefully. She is not chewing the scenery, in fact in many ways she is underplaying the character. But her focused energy is adding nuance and details to each scene. She is selling the story ever moment her character is in the frame. Its really an impressive job and a director's dream.
Misdirection can be something as basic as playing to a viewer's tendency to make assumptions about stereotypical characters or plot lines. Or it can be simple chaf, timing a critical revelation or a plot hole at a point where there is so much action or information introduced that it gets lost in the confusion and is not the subject of critical analysis.
"Devious Nanny" works so well because Olesya Rulin is physically perfect for the role and a good enough actress to discretely develop the dimensionality of the Amber character. The viewer immediately buys into her as Lifetime's standard nymphet-like nanny. Her perky zest a clever facade which occasionally slips and reveals her flaws but only to viewers. The story relies on viewers compounding this misdirection by running with it into the world of stereotypes which they are soon applying to all the characters.
The well staged catfight is seen through the lens of viewer misconceptions. It is believable enough to be nicely erotic so that they last thing viewers are doing is applying focused brain power toward exposing plot holes or encouraging disbelief.
Acting for the camera direction teaches you that the quality of acting performances vary not just because of disparities of talent but also because of disparities in energy. Some actors insist on working harder and all things being equal their performance is better for it.
Watch Rulin carefully. She is not chewing the scenery, in fact in many ways she is underplaying the character. But her focused energy is adding nuance and details to each scene. She is selling the story ever moment her character is in the frame. Its really an impressive job and a director's dream.
Insights
aimless-46's rating
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken
