I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that
- Feb 10, 2018
- Discovery One
Thanks, Randy M., I really knew very little of the role of producers, except from the film of that name, & that was a stage production. Yes, WC was known for his gimmicks. A wonder he thought he could direct R's Baby. I know that Mel Brooks made a drama, but was careful to avoid his name being associated with that film.Different studios at different time periods. RKO put Lewton in charge of a project he didn't want and pretty much left him alone to do it, so he made it his own. His movies were nothing like the Universal horror pics of the 1930s, avoiding established monsters. It strikes me as a parallel to the changes from Lovecraft/Weird Tales horror stories to something like Fritz Leiber's "Smoke Ghost" and Robert Bloch's "Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper."
Further, Lewton chose his directors and at least two were new to directing (Robert Wise, Mark Robson), without whatever clout Polanski had because of his boy wonder reputation from Repulsion and Knife in the Water. Jacques Tourneur, according to IMDB, had more experience than I thought he had, but it doesn't look like he was an established director. And, too, I think Castle had the rep of being a hack, his gimmicks drawing more attention than his skill as a director.
You know Last Jedi got pounded by some fans, tho it did good box office, I thought it was an awkward , sot of kind of, rework of The Empire Strikes Back, but then they have been recycling SW lore to closely in these films. However I thought it was OK , not clear what SW fans want??Just watched The Last Jedi on Netflix. It was better than what I was led to believe. Not on par with the original trilogy, and too much Disney flavour (especially with the social message concerns). Still, I enjoyed it.
What confuses me is the new Thrawn book. Disney kinda cancelled the expanded universe and Heir to the Empire. Then there is a Thrawn book, but no Thrawn in the movies. How's that going? Have you read the new Thrawn book?You know Last Jedi got pounded by some fans, tho it did good box office, I thought it was an awkward , sot of kind of, rework of The Empire Strikes Back, but then they have been recycling SW lore to closely in these films. However I thought it was OK , not clear what SW fans want??
I thought Rouge One and Solo were better as stand alone. Solo was not a great sidebar for SW but I was surprised at the poor box-office.
We got this one some time ago because we were trying to get a different version of the novel. (The Russian miniseries version, by the way, is extremely faithful to the book, and very good.) It was odd to see 19th century Russia translated into 20th century Japan, but it was interesting.The Idiot (1951) Akira Kurosawa directed; Toshiro Mifune & Takashi Shimura; but neither are Samurai. "It is based on the novel The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky" (wiki). Masayuki Mori as Kinji Kameda, the idiot, Toshiro Mifune as Denkichi Akama, who is competing for the love of a woman with the idiot. Wikipedia says that 100 minutes were cut from the film, but TCM showed it & it ran just short of 3 hours.
I guess I have seen maybe 1 of Kurosawa's films that did not involve killing, but even this one, though I would compare it to FOREST GUMP, had some killing in it. It is mostly about a guy who had been identified as a war criminal after WWII, and sentenced to death. He was exonerated of the charges as he was waiting his turn facing the firing squad. He described the eyes of one who went before him, & that was very intense. So, he was apparently so relieved to be freed, he lost his sanity.
There are two young women whom he loves, one of which has a bad reputation, The conflict between these two spans most of the film. Both find the idiot pure, etc., & that seems to be their main attraction to him. He also has inherited a ranch, & this is mentioned several times.
Interesting film, not the least bit slow, despite being nearly 3 hours.