#How Long Is Lawrence Of Arabia Film? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stewblog · 2 months

Text

Dune: Part Two

In my review of Dune: Part One three (!) years ago, I described it as a compelling and arresting “half” of a story. It’s an assessment that held up nicely on a recent revisit. But now that Part Two has arrived, how does Denis Villaneuve’s adaptation of this sci-fi cornerstone shake out? Dear reader, allow me to tell you.

Epic filmmaking comes along only rarely. James Cameron wants his Avatar films to feel this way, but they come across as technologically impressive and little else. Not since Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lord of the Rings have we seen a series of films that feels fully awe-inspiring and materially impactful in the way that Dune: Part Two often feels. But this is not an emotionally riveting drama, this is an intergalactic tragedy that serves as an epic-scale warning about the dangers of unbridled power and ambition, as well as the poison of religious manipulation and fervor.

The ending of Part One served as a fitting cliffhanger. It was half the tale, but it was the end of Paul Atreides (Timothee’ Chalamet). Forced into exile by the treachery of the Emperor (Christopher Walken) and the vengeful violence of Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard), Paul was no longer intergalactic royalty. He is now, as Part Two opens, at the mercy of Arrakis’ Fremen, and thus begins the journey of Paul Maud’Dib.

But where Part One was a film composed largely of exposition, explanation and setup, Part Two is almost entirely payoff. If your lingering complaint with Part One was its somewhat passive tempo and lack of action, boy are you in luck. While I wouldn’t go so far as to describe the film as “action packed,” it’s a consistently thrilling ride as the insurrection unfolds. Villaneuve displays a mastery of scale and impact, delivering setpieces that recall moments like the Battle of Aqaba in Lawrence of Arabia (if T.E. Lawrence had stormed that city riding a titan-sized sandworm, of course). It is, at its core, as stark a battle of good versus evil as anything we’ve seen in a while on a scale like this.

But while there is a stark morality found in the core of the film’s values, its characters are often much more complex. With the Harkonnens having laid waste to House Atreides and taken over spice harvesting, Paul and his mother, Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) are now at the mercy of the Fremen. But it isn’t long before he ingratiates himself into their tribe and proves himself a capable ally in the fight against Arrakis’ destructive new overlords. This happens in no small part due to the fanaticism of Fremen leader Stilgar (Javier Bardem), who fully believes the “prophecies” seeded millennia ago that point to a man like Paul arriving to become their messiah, the Lisan al Gaib. And while Paul himself considers such prophecies nonsense, he becomes more and more willing to play into them for his own aim of avenging the murder of his father and the slaughter of his House. This all culminates with events and a decision that are chilling and horrifying in equal measure.

And that’s what ultimately makes this now completed film so compelling. There are no real heroes in the story of Dune. There are no noble motives being pursued (by the major players, at least). There are only murderers, manipulators and those seeking raw vengeance at the expense of all else. And yet Villaneuve’s craftsmanship makes such sordid trappings feel engaging and even relatable. Paul’s descent into becoming a vengeful warrior and religious scion is, in its own way, heartbreaking, especially given the emotional toll it takes on Chani (Zendaya), the woman he comes to love. Their relationship is the emotional throughline of the whole story, and it’s anchored by the terrific performances from Chalamet and Zendaya. Chalamet becomes far more formidable as a leadership figure than I honestly thought he had in him when Part One began, but he more than capably sells the dramatic shifts Paul makes both internally and externally. Zendaya’s work is much more subdued at times, but her magnificently expressive face provides the necessary window. If nothing else, few in Hollywood have a better “mean eyes” expression than her.

The entire cast is as on-point, as they were in Part One. Those wishing Javier Bardem had more to do last time out ought to be beyond pleased as Stilgar becomes a dominant presence as his zealotry evolves from mildly comedic to spine-chilling. It’s a true sight to behold and Bardem fully sells the weight and intensity and genuine passion this character experiences. The true standout, though, is Austin Butler as Feyd, the psychotic nephew of Baron Harkonnen. He disappears under a pale sheath of facial prosthetics and weirdo vocal choices to deliver a truly unnerving and hateful villain.

Butler’s look and performance meshes perfectly with the stunning monochrome aesthetic of his homeworld, Giedi Prime. A stark, nearly sterile landscape overtaken by hauntingly smooth architecture that looks sort of like what you’d get if H.R. Giger tried to blend his work with the Art Deco style. It’s as memorable a sci-fi landscape as we’ve seen in ages. At minimum, you’ve never seen fireworks like these people fire off.

At the end of it all I was left in mild awe at what Villaneuve had accomplished. Dune, the novel, was a work that I had to force myself to get through. It always kept me at arm’s length, I felt. And yet somehow Villaneuve and company have managed to translate that into one of the most enrapturing and engaging epics that Hollywood has seen in its modern era. Some may be frustrated at the feeling that we are once again left on a cliffhanger (of sorts), but the point at which Dune: Part Two cuts to credits feels as natural an endpoint as Part One. This is the conclusion of yet another definitive chapter in Paul’s journey, even as it immediately begins a new one. I can’t wait to see how Villaneuve pushes it further.

#dune #dune part 2 #timothee chalamet #zendaya #movie reviews #javier bardem #rebecca ferguson #josh brolin #austin butler

5 notes · View notes

langernameohnebedeutung · 11 months

Note

You mentioned Meredith Vickers from Prometheus in blorbo post and HOLY SHIT, you've thrown me right back in the blorbo trenches. I watched that movie to kill time, and came out of gnawing at my own flesh about (im)perfect daughter (im)perfect son subtext... like, god THIS was my Succession long before Succession graced our screens. I have So Many Blorbo Feelings about her! Please share yours as well

!! But exactly this! Yes!

The thing is, there is this really big focus on the dysfunctional relationship between Weyland and David - but most of the time when I engage with the fandom, Vickers is kind of reduced to this secondary bully when really, she's also a deeply wounded person and her relationship to Weyland and her trauma are at least as complex. Even on the more redditor-side of fandom, I've heard a thousand times "why does it matter that Weyland is her father, how is this an important reveal" and this just tells me that they never noticed her as a character, never really engaged with her as anything other than a plot-device. But if you pay attention to her, to her actions, to her rivalry with David - then finding out that she's Weyland's daughter makes all of that fall into place.

There is this really interesting theme where she tries to be as inhuman as possible - immediately doing push-ups after waking from cryosleep while everyone else is puking their guts out, the deleted scene where she is disgusted/annoyed by Janek's little christmas tree, the flamethrower scene, even her clothing and style at the beginning of the movie - which is why Janek asks her if she's a robot, too, but she's deeply offended by the notion (by the way, I once thought about this one AU idea where it turns out that she is, in fact, a robot, and it is kind of a controlled experiment on Weyland's part and she gets away at the end either with Janek or Shaw and she has to work through that).

Like...literally, she is so fascinatingly robotic at times:

She just desperately wants to be good enough, strong enough to be recognised as a human being and a person (and I think this is also a relevant theme about womanhood, the idea of her trying to be recognised as a person, as a child, as an equal to her "brother", of working harder than your male peers just to be taken seriously, acting colder than them to be taken seriously...)

Generally, despite the grand themes, they really break down to an abusive family situation where both children blame each other and envy each other instead of realising that their parent is neglecting and mistreating them both (Though I think David is less caught in than loop, I just don't think it makes as much difference in his books) But also, there is this one deleted scene where she tells David that "these idiots are about to infect my ship🙄🙄🙄🙄" and I loved this moment where they actually formed a small in-group in her eyes, them vs. the idiots...) Also, I like that as I mentioned, her clothing and style is very "robotic" at the beginning, but you can actually see her look become more "human" as the film progresses and I love that too. (Also I love that David actually plays up his own android-ness when he wants to annoy her like 'cup of tea, ma'am?' after she threatened to kill him. Really making her feel like she just yelled at a roomba). I actually believe that because of her resentment of David, she actually comes close to seeing him as a person - because resenting a device would be pointless - but that idea itself is insane and she would sound insane if she brought it up. So she is stuck working side by side with her fucking nemesis who can always hide behind being a fucking machine. Even stuff like David's obsession with Lawrence of Arabia or dying his hair - for everyone else, that's just a funny robot quirk but for her, it's probably maddening as hell. Especially because she doesn't know if he's doing it on purpose or whether she's starting to imagine things. Especially when he's clearly aware of this and can dial it up and down on purpose when he's feeling vindictive)

And then there is her relationship with Weyland. For one, you have the distance between the two of them. Weyland doesn't mention that she is his daughter in the big recorded hologram speech - he only talks about David (and how soulless he is). She literally has a different last name (is she married? were her parents not married? did she take on a different name to step out of his shadow? In fact, even that she is on board is really telling because if she was his heir, you would assume that she wouldn't accompany such a risky, potentially one-way mission, thereby risking the company legacy)

There is so much resentment between Weyland and her - but also, I genuinely believe that she loves her father (unlike David, who is just programmed to obey him - but who Weyland actually talks to and confides in instead of her). We know Weyland has this extreme god-complex where he wants to be a creator and he wants to archieve godhood for humans - for himself - by showing the Engineers everything he has accomplished and that they should give him immortality in return when he's already dying. And then you have Vickers reminding him that "A king has his reign and then he dies" - in a way, she is his reminder of humanity, his memento mori (his human daughter). She is the only person in the universe who can give him her honest opinion, actually freely criticise him - but at the same time, that only causes him to push her away further because he cannot stand that. She sees him as human and she's the only person who cares about him as a human, as her human father, but because he tries to erase that part of himself and become god, she has to watch him destroy himself and take them all with him. For Weyland, creating David was a crowning moment for him, for the entire human species. That was the moment THEY created life and became equals with the Engineers. And as his daughter, she cannot live up to that, no matter how much power and success she has and now much tea David has to pour for her.

I just think she's neat, okay 😭

#prometheus #fandom

14 notes · View notes

skitskatdacat63 · 2 months

Note

hi catie u can write as many paragraphs on any film that u watch!!! i think that would be neat :)

also DISCLAIMER i havent watched killers of the flower moon, nor have i fully researched the real life event, but i feel like one of the reasons that people think it’s peak cinema is that it’s really really long and (i am assuming) that it has some interesting cinematography?

idk it reminds me of oppenheimer (film i actually watched). like its good-ish, super lengthy, and portray historical events. the visuals were fantastic but i don’t think it was absolutely perfect and the best film of the century, etc etc…

i honestly dont know where i was going with this so sorry for the super lengthy ask 😭

OKAY THEO THANK YOU FOR FREEING ME FROM THE SHACKLES OF MY INSECURITY

Okay as a preface. Watched this with my mom who read the book it's based off of, so that's an additional perspective I'm gonna touch on, and also was very glad to have. And also YES I HAVE SEEN OPPENHEIMER!!!! Seriously my ultimate film of 2023, probably one of my favorite movies I've ever watched. And I guess I thought that, because I enjoyed that, I would enjoy Killers of the Flower Moon(KotFM from now on), for the exact reasons you stated! Also I'm trying to watch all the oscar nominated best pictures before the event lol!

I will rant now, thank you :)

I'm sorry but like I genuinely don't understand how it's so highly acclaimed???? Like how are all the popular/majority of reviews positive?? Did we watch the same film????? Have I somehow lost my taste for cinema???? It's just like, any argument I've seen about why it's actually amazing is so easy to dispute??

"It's about how evil can be done by normal people and that's why it's from the perspective of the perpetrators blah blah" Well, I just watched The Zone of Interest, and I think it portrayed that concept wayyyyy better. Everything was so off-putting and disturbing, and it was from the perspective of the perpetrators, just like KotFM! And you literally never see those getting murdered, because it's all off screen and yet you still feel disgusted and feel terrible about what's happening, even though you didn't techinally see anything that happened. Meanwhile in KOTFM, the Osage are there on screen, actively being exploited and murdered, and I just don't feel attached to any of it, because it wasn't fleshed out well. And to add on, my mom said so much of the stuff involving Leo's character, yknow the character they picked as the main character instead of the actual Native Americans, was just completely made-up! Wasn't in the book at all!!! Martin Scorcese said that he read the book, and immediately thought that it was a book that needed to be adapted to film. And then just fucking makes up shit???? Yes certainly you have to add narrative stuff into a movie when adapting from a book, but to just make so much shit up just so you can portray it from a different angle is so bullshit to me.

"Every minute in the almost 3½ hour runtime is justified" I am convinced people are straight up lying, I'm sorry. It's not like I don't enjoy long movies! Loved Lawrence of Arabia, that's literally almost 4 hours long. Loved Oppenheimer, that's 3 hours long. I like long movies but oh my god, this was just a complete slog. And I kept seeing people say that the last hour was the best, well I'm sorry but after having to sit through 2½ torturous hours, I just have no mental energy left for what's apparently called the best part. I hate that people always start calling movies with long runtime cinema. Yes there are movies I definitely think are worth the long runtime; this one was not one of them.

"The main heart of the movie is the romance" Oh my god, this bugs me so much. I was so happy about Lily Gladstone winning and being in teh running for awards....until I watched the actual movie. Her romance with Leo's character literally makes no sense, and I felt just so ???? about it. The movie wants you to think they're so compelling and that it's so unfortunate that Leo's character is doing these terrible things to this woman he loves and her family, but they literally spent zero time fleshing the relationship out???? It was literally like, oh hey they're in a relationship now, don't really get why, but okay. There's actual reasons about why she would marry him(she literally needs a white man's permission to get access to her own money), but no nooooo they're so in love. There is zero build up. She knows he wants her money, he has literally zero charm, and yet she marries him and says "yeah I know he wants my money, but he's handsome!!" In what world!?!?!?? And a lot of the last section is like, awww they're hugging...even tho he murdered her whole family. And its just you get zero sense of any love between them, because they failed to build it in the first place, and certainly you could make this plot compelling but it's just not!!! It's not!!!!!

Another thing is that for basically all of the movie, I really couldn't get a grasp of anything that was going on. It didn't feel like a connected narrative for me, it felt like vignettes. Like, oh hey we're in this scene now I guess, I don't really know how this connects, or whats going on, or where we are in the story! It just felt very discombobulating for me, maybe I'm stupid, but I couldn't get a grasp on it. And I basically knew the plot, and so did my mom of course, but neither of us could really follow it so, maybe that's not a me problem, but a problem with the film! And I think vignettes can be used well, I thought The Zone of Interest did it really well, where you're just voyeuristiclly watching the family, and there's really no narrative, bur it was really effective. KofFM was more like, oh they're trying to tell a story here, but just not ...well. it's even worse when it's so long, because you're just feeling constantly unconnected from the story and its a slog and it's terrible, etc etc. You're just watching the characters fucking meander around, and you're like, man, would love it if it felt like the plot was actually progressing. And so much of it felt like the big events happened off screen, and you're kinda just told that they happened.

Also okay so the book itself is framed somewhat as a murder mystery. It's very well researched, and it slowly gives you the truth, as if you're learning it alongside the actual people involved. In the film, it's literally so obvious within the first 15 mins who the bad guys are. So you're just spending the whole film, watching all these characters(who you really have no reason to care about imo) die, and they all come off as so naive, and you're just furiously gesturing like "does no one notice these cartoonishly bad guys!?!?!?!?!" Yes, you can do a film where you know the truth from the beginning and watch the cast find out, that's a great concept! But this just made the native American characters come off as stupid and naive, and you're supposed to feel bad for them, and I do, but because I know the actial history, not because anything the film is showing me. Again, they don't flesh out the characters well at all imo, so you watch then die, and you're like, okay this person died, this is a depressing situation, but god, can they figure it out already. Again, the narrative with Lily Gladstone's character is that she loves her husband, so she can't really see what's going on. But. That love is not believable. And before they're in love, she's very suspicious of him, and yet now somehow when he's killing off her whole family, it's fine?????

Ugh okay yeah I don't know what else to say, except thst I just feel like I wasted so much of my time, and it really sucked out my energy. I'd like to be more concise, and I probably have more complaints but again, it really just killed my brain. And also that's its very frustrating and isolating when you hated a film, and then all the reviews are extremely positive and you can't see where any of them are coming from. The funniest part is that my mom and I are like wow this movie feels like it's been going on a while, let's check how much is left! Literally only halfway through. I really could not fully focus after that because I was like, I cannot do almost 2 more hours of this shit. I wanted to finish it because i was really hoping it would pick up, and I would realize why everyone likes it so much, but that never happened, I just felt increasingly bored and done with it. I think with Oppenheimer, a film I love, I was originally kinda unsure but as it kept going, I fell in love with it and didn't want it to end; so I guess I was hoping that would happen with this and it never did. It just got increasingly more boring for me, and I just got more aggravated about it. Also cannot believe I saw reviews saying of Scorcese's films, this one was better than The Departed. Absolutely no way.

Anyways this was extremely salty, oops. Wish I could get those 3 hours back, and watch some other movie instead. I wanted to watch Dallas Buyers Club or Tár, but I just feel like I've wasted enough mental energy tonight. Also lol, kept meaning to post this but it's deranged, but I'm talking about movies already and my brain is all over the place so might as well! I really want to rewatch Interstellar, but I feel like it'll completely emotionally destroy me again so I can't. Y'know when you just like a movie so much and ir means so much to you that it's just way too emotionally investing to rewatch!?!??! But I keep thinking about it, bcs im super into matthew mcconaughey rn, but god I really can't or I'll just be sobbing and hurting.

* oh also. My original complaint abt this was that they used a historically inaccurate word. They used the word "genocide" which certainly describes the situation they're in, BUT THAT WORD WAS NOT INVENTED YET!!!!! It's so easy to check that??? Like we know when and who coined it???? Little things like that really bug me, sorry LOL. Its like man, you can't check that one little thing??

#catie is: extremely salty #oh my god im so sorry for this its so fucking long #but thank you theo truly for getting rid of my inhibitions #so hahaha here you guys go. i guess.#oh wait forgot to mention smth funny #when talking about oscars with my mom #she said that martin Scorcese should win Best Director bcs its a shame hes never won it #anf then midway thru this shes like nah he doesnt deserve it for this LOL #catie.asks.

3 notes · View notes

ghostofadeadpoet · 2 years

Text

they don't make films like this anymore

Movie: Lawrence of Arabia Directed by David Lean Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn

“If you are the man with the money and somebody comes to you and says he wants to make a film that's four hours long, with no stars, and no women, and no love story, and not much action either, and he wants to spend a huge amount of money to go film it in the desert--what would you say?” - Omar Sharif.

I never reviewed this masterpiece because I felt that analyzing it might lose its magical charm. Sometimes it feels ridiculous to dissect films that are perfect. Why do I love this movie so much? I don't know.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the cinematography is beautiful, the editing is smooth and ahead of its time, extraordinary script and the most fabulous duo on-screen — Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif. Despite all these, I won't point at any of them to say why I love this piece of art so much.

Lawrence of Arabia is one of those films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apocalypse Now, where it's not the individual characteristics that make it a masterpiece but how every aspect of the film is in a state of flow. It reads like a poem instead of a novel. An epic ballad about a tormented hero who is unsure whether he's the hero or the villain of his own story.

It's the filmmaker's vision that creates masterpieces. Not the technicalities. While I don't like saying 'They don't make films like this anymore,' it's sadly a fact. I hope producers would stop being a bunch of pussies and take risks as they did with auteurs like David Lean, Coppola and Kubrick. Until then, we're stuck with mid-budget epics like The Northman. The Dune gave a glimmer of hope, but it was only because it was an adaptation of a popular novel. Kino is fucked forever. Fuck the corporates. OMG, how did this turn into a rant?

Follow me @ghostofadeadpoet on Instagram

#kino #cinematography #filmmaking #kinoposting #alecguinness #60s #lawrence of arabia #david lean #omar sharif #peter o'toole #old hollywood #old movies #british cinema

44 notes · View notes

ocd-kenobi · 2 years

Note

I’ve seen that you and @predator-padawan have said you both are huge classic movie fans. As I am a big fan of both of your blogs and love and respect your guys’ opinions on SW. I was wondering if as a young (and shy hence the anon) person trying to really get into film if you guys have a list of must watch movies?

Hello!! This is the sweetest most wonderful ask we could ask for. @predator-padawan and I are happy to share some recommendations, but I cannot call anything a "must-watch" simply because I don't know your taste in movies and also because they all have different kinds of upsetting content, which I'll try to mention. I'm also going to keep it in the realm of "classic film for Star Wars fans" because I always have more fun getting into something if it's through the lens of something I'm already interested in!! Also, just to be open about bias, I'm capping "classic" at 1970, I don't know anything about silent film, I only like gay movies, and this list is very English-speaking-heavy; if you're interested in a more international exploration of film history, send a separate ask haha.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) - I'm guessing you've seen me and @predator-padawan and @flashbulb-memory yelling about Brick from this movie/play! Played by Paul Newman, he's THE depiction of gay repression/internalized homophobia in film. It's all absolutely intentional, so this movie is a great exercise in catching SUBTEXT, as opposed to shipping. It all takes place in a very tense and hostile white Southern family household, a "return to hometown" kind of thing. So trigger warnings for families fighting, lots! of yelling, alcoholism, threats of domestic violence, infidelity, and yeah, homophobia. It's a very uncomfortable movie to watch and the payoff is great. My other favorite Tennessee Williams movie adaptation, Suddenly, Last Summer, is even more uncomfortable and tense to watch, but I also recommend if you like this one.

Strangers on a Train (1951) - Hitchcock psychological thriller, based on a book by Patricia Highsmith (who wrote the books Carol and The Talented Mr. Ripley are based on, both gay classics) and adapted to screenplay by Raymond Chandler (my favorite noir writer.) Very tense, very horrible people involved, very psychologically unstable gay character. But god, it's so much fun. Also, the carousel fight scene at the end is one of the best fight scenes ever. Up there with the lightsaber duel on Mustafar lol. It's not Hitchcock's best movie and not even one of his most popular, but it's a good primer in how he does gay characters and subtext in the psychological thriller genre. Plus you get the comfort of knowing at least a gay writer was involved in creating the characters in the first place.

Some Like it Hot (1959) - Everyone should watch this movie, that's all.

Seven Samurai (1954) - I recently rewatched this because of Star Wars, and it really is helpful as a framework for what George Lucas thought was cool and inspiring when he made the original trilogy. Also hugely influential on American cinema (at least indirectly, through the rework The Magnificent Seven, which is also great.) It was fun to watch this film eight a very sharp editing style and see how Lucas tried (it appears to me) to replicate with very odd results.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - Speaking of sharp editing, this is my favorite film on a technical level. It also has one of the most heartbreaking gay romances of all time. (Again, yes, this was intentional subtext, and while Omar Sharif's character is not historically accurate, Lawrence himself was definitely a gay masochist as depicted in the movie.) It's well over three hours long and is about war, English imperialism, and the imperialist origins of the modern Middle East, so be prepared for that. Pretty much all of David Lean's films can be summed up by "English people are so fucked up, isn't it fascinating how fucked up English people are?" Also, you get to see Alec Guinness in brown face, hmm.

Brief Encounter (1945) - My actual favorite movie :) "English people are so fucked up, isn't it fascinating how fucked up English people are?" Also, the forbidden romance of George Lucas's dreams. (It actually is only romantic because the play/screenplay were written by a gay man.)

Singin' in the Rain (1952) - I want to have one proper musical on here, so here it is. I could go on and on for days about Gene Kelly's dancing :)) but I won't. This movie is just cute and hilarious and probably gives you all the background info about classic Hollywood you need. Plus, Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher's mom :))) For extra enjoyment, keep in mind that it's a jukebox musical; the songs were not written for the story, rather the story was worked around the songs.

Red River (1948) - IF you're up for a Western (which I believe is historically important to understanding all American film), start with this gay cinema classic. It's insanely gay. I lose my mind every time we watch it. We've talked about Obikin AUs of it lol. Horrible depictions of Native Americans, which I always use to reflect on what that indicates about the time the movie was made and the history of Hollywood in general. Also very long; I recommend watching with a friend to chat with during long cattle drive scenes.

I'm going to say that Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (1962) are must-watches if you're at all interested in Hollywood history or women/what Hollywood does to women. Sorry all of my recommendations have murder and psychological torture in them lol.

I just keep thinking of more, so I'm going to stop myself for now. Come back if you've already seen these and want a different list!

@predator-padawan do you have any additions?

#film recs #film bro Star Wars fangirl solidarity #Hitchcock #tennessee williams

22 notes · View notes

mcbitchtits · 9 months

Text

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of His Old Movies

https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/indiana-jones-5-dial-of-destiny-raiders-inspiration.html

Raiders of the Lost Ark raided all of cinema for inspiration. With Dial of Destiny, the franchise steals only from itself.

By Sam Thielman

July 01, 2023

In her now-famous pan of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Pauline Kael excoriated Steven Spielberg and George Lucas for wasting their talents on a film that aspired to be a B movie. “Spielberg—a master showman—can stage a movie cliché so that it has Fred Astaire’s choreographic snap to it,” Kael said. She had his number: The film (and the pair’s three sequels) is a sort of kitchen-sink pastiche, not of a single style of filmmaking but of everything the moviemakers loved from their own childhoods—Carl Barks comics, Citizen Kane, Gunga Din, Lawrence of Arabia, Stagecoach, Lost Horizon (the remake of which it actually raided for footage), and the cheap adventure serials that the two men had seen as children. That struck Kael, who also loved the artistic heights to which movies could aspire, as an unpardonable liberty to take with the audience.

She had the audience wrong, though—at least the part of the audience that was the age of the filmmakers. “The moviemaking team appears to have forgotten the basic thing about cliff-hangers: we had a week to mull over how the hero was going to be saved from the trap he’d got himself into,” she sniffed. Nope: Studios like Republic released serials weekly in the 1930s and ’40s in an effort to keep moviegoers returning regularly, but by the time the Indiana Jones team was soaking up stories of spacemen and lost treasure in the ’50s, those serials had migrated to television. In one story conference, Lucas said he wanted Raiders to have some kind of death-defying moment every 10 to 20 minutes, more or less mimicking the experience of watching several installments of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon uninterrupted, since that was how they aired on TV in the ’50s. Young people were used to drinking in set piece after set piece, and two technically brilliant filmmakers with enough money to make a feature were happy to crank up the energy way past the tolerance of their elders.

I can personally attest to the queasy pleasures of the serial experience. When I was a kid, my dad, anxious, like all dads, to introduce his offspring to artifacts of his own childhood (which, in his case, was roughly contemporaneous with Spielberg’s), scored an unexpurgated copy of Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe on two VHS cassettes. I loved them. In fact, I found them hard to stop watching even after far too long in front of the television, and at least once I managed to creep downstairs to the VCR on a Saturday morning when most of the house was asleep and binge the entire thing in a single face-melting four-hour sitting. (Feel free to do this yourself if you want.) Raiders is probably my favorite movie, not least because it’s the skeleton key to so many other films that inspired its two colossal auteurs, and perhaps that is why it is so uncomfortable to hear echoes of Kael’s dismissal in my own distaste for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, allegedly Harrison Ford’s final adventure as the whip-cracking tomb raider.

For the original film, Lucas and Spielberg gleefully pilfered stories of adventure from foreign civilizations, the basic atomic unit of American pop culture during their formative years in the ’50s. Hiram Bingham had “discovered” Machu Picchu in 1911; in 1954 Barks had replaced him with Scrooge McDuck, and Hollywood had made him into a louche jerk named Harry Steele (Charlton Heston) in Secret of the Incas. The Raiders team stole their hero’s wardrobe from Secret—costume designer Deborah Nadoolman said the crew watched the film together several times—and the boulder sequence from Uncle Scrooge. When Indy channels a shaft of sunlight that reveals the location of the movie’s sacred MacGuffin, a scene lifted from Secret of the Incas, he’s dressed in a near-exact copy of T.E. Lawrence’s Bedouin garb in Lawrence of Arabia. It’s a slightly embarrassing quote—not as embarrassing as Shia LaBeouf’s Mutt Williams appearing in costume as Marlon Brando in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull—but perhaps it’s a little charming even so, not unlike catching a kid trying to wear his dad’s suit.

Spielberg and Lucas were also vigilant stewards of popular culture, not just appropriators of it. Star Wars may have looted Akira Kurosawa’s Hidden Fortress, and Indy may be an amalgam of Toshiro Mifune characters, but Lucas paid that debt back in literal dollars, forcing Fox to finance Kurosawa’s Kagemusha as a condition of distributing The Empire Strikes Back. Both he and Spielberg worked to make the Japanese auteur’s final film, Dreams, a reality. A long-overdue restoration of Lawrence of Arabia had stalled out; Spielberg and Martin Scorsese (who plays Vincent van Gogh in Dreams, incidentally) got it rolling again.

But watching Dial of Destiny, it’s hard not to think that Indy’s world was a lot bigger in 1981. We more or less have the Republic serial model back again in the form of the Marvel movies and TV shows, which deploy every few weeks and draw liberally on the chase-scenes-and-quips model perfected in Raiders and strung out enjoyably across Temple of Doom and Last Crusade and even parts of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. During Dial of Destiny, we no longer see references to movies made before Star Wars; instead, the new film, directed and co-written by James Mangold, is an homage to the other Indiana Jones flicks, with Mads Mikkelsen’s baddie at one point jacking his whole outfit from Raiders’ Arnold Toht and, at another, donning René Belloq’s white suit and fedora. John Rhys-Davies reprises not just his role as Indy’s faithful counselor Sallah but the few bars of H.M.S. Pinafore he bellows at the end of the original film. Indy and Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), on the outs at the beginning of Dial, reenact Raiders’ “Where does it hurt?” scene right before the camera discreetly gives them some privacy as the film ends. And that scene in which a sunbeam reveals the location of the titular relic is back, except this time to nod to Raiders rather than to shine a light on a forgotten Charlton Heston vehicle.

These Easter eggs can be tough to swallow if you really remember Raiders with any admiration. Though he softened over the years, Ford’s Indiana Jones began cinematic life as an almost irredeemable monster; that’s the whole point of Belloq, a dashing fascist fashion plate who tends to saunter off with the treasure Indy bleeds for. “It would take only a nudge to make you like me—to push you out of the light,” Belloq teases. Indy’s love interest, Allen’s indomitable Marion, is proof of Belloq’s observation—Indy took advantage of her when she was “a child,” she says (15, if you do the math). What makes Marion’s get-well kisses so sweet is that they don’t actually come to anything. Indy falls asleep—he’s overmatched, just as he always is, beginning in the very first sequence, when he nearly gets himself squashed by a boulder and loses the treasure into the bargain.

Nerds have debated whether or not Dr. Jones actually accomplishes anything over the course of the film, cosmically speaking—the ark of the covenant turns out to be perfectly capable of defending itself after he fails to do so—but the movie’s most important stakes have to do with the disposition of its hero’s soul, not the wrath of God. Ford is blindingly handsome and as charming as one of Indy’s hated snakes, but can a morally compromised predator become someone genuinely worth loving?

It’s a much more interesting question than anything in Dial of Destiny, which declares itself to be thematically interested in whether history and the people who love it matter anymore. The text of the film answers the question in the affirmative, but everything else about it says “not if we can help it.” In the Disney galaxy of intellectual property, the Indiana Jones franchise is one of the smaller constellations, and its affection for films of a bygone era is its least marketable quirk.

Things have changed, largely because of Lucas and Spielberg. The films they fought to see recognized as great works of art now not merely have become canon but have aged into snootiness; whether or not it inspired the terrific truck chase in Raiders, Stagecoach is generally the purview of film buffs, now a tweedier demographic than the kind of nerd who dreamed up Indiana Jones. Same with Lawrence of Arabia, Lost Horizon, and the rest. Instead, everything looks like a Spielberg movie, even when it’s not. Our world is now filled with Apple products that look like set dressing from Minority Report, and moviemakers like J.J. Abrams have constructed entire visual styles out of E.T. The most popular show on the most popular streaming service is a travesty of Spielberg’s work in every sense of the word. We have more, but we draw on far, far less.

Raiders was conceived as a sumptuous meal of elegantly plated junk food, prepared in the firm belief that it’s actually not as bad for you as its detractors have declared. “In addition to the artistic pleasure given by comic stories and drawings such as Carl Barks’, comic art has something to say about the culture that produces it,” Lucas wrote in his introduction to a collection of the Barks stories that had so inspired him. And so it was, he and Spielberg believed, with children’s television and corny Westerns. The old serials were produced with a large measure of cynicism—some sequences of Flash Gordon are just footage from other films, notably the German mountaineering adventure movie The White Hell of Pitz Palu (starring Leni Riefenstahl!). But Lucas and Spielberg have forcefully and successfully made the case that low-cultural art is hugely valuable artistically and monetarily, and that case wasn’t generally accepted when Flash Gordon was being produced.

Now the companies that generate mass entertainment seem concerned primarily with wresting away the rights of artists and forcing every narrative angle to rebound back into intellectual property that they control directly. Stories must form part of a big collective mosaic of trademarked distinctive likenesses, deepening characters and complicating their stories only when those characters can be repurposed for another iteration. The opening sequence of Dial of Destiny, in which Ford is computer-graphically de-aged back to 1981, reads almost as a threat: “Like this?” it seems to say. “There’s more where it came from.” Imagine if Lucas and Spielberg had to dress up Indy as Lawrence not because they loved the David Lean movie but because Hasbro had a line of Lawrence of Arabia action figures coming out. “Essentially, George Lucas is in the toy business,” Kael wrote. She hadn’t seen anything yet.

#indiana jones #dial of destiny #hm. did i write this?#spoilers #possibly

3 notes · View notes

unfortunately-a-fangirl · 10 months

Note

Since you asked several I got another

What piece of art has made you cry the hardest?

Ended up being a really long one. Rest is below the cut, but I don't really cry all too much. It's really hard for me, I don't know why, but it is annoying. For most of these it's to the verge of tears, though Everything, Everywhere, All at Once got a Death of a Salesman type cry out of me.

In terms of Film:

When Marnie was There (2015), The Wind Rises (2016?), and Everything, Everywhere, All At Once (2022) all got me real close to crying. EEAAT specifically hit me really hard, because pointing at the screen Joy is just like me for realsies (she isn't but the story was something I sympathized with). When Marnie was There was a story that I think spoke to me somewhat when I was younger, but I didn't realize it, and I wasn't really prepared to process what it got me to feel. The Wind Rises is just about an artist fundamentally, though the framing is about the construction of the Zero, the film is adapted from a manga Miyazaki wrote, which was in turn based loosely on a series of dreams he had where a role model he had would visit him, and (to bring it back to point) it comes through in the film as Miyazaki thinking about how his career is coming to a close. That's what I think, at least.

Also, not crying, but I'm still thinking about Lawrence of Arabia (1963?). It's a film that stays on my mind and I'm not sure Why.

In terms of Television:

Puelli Madoka Magi Magica (2011-2011) I think yoinked the most tears out of the tear ducts. Themes surrounding the social contract, loss, and lesbianism + the USB-ification of a certain member of the cast early on really helped get me invested early so that seeing homura and madoka's actions in the final episodes + rebellion really hit hard. Idk stories about having to sacrifice memories really strike me in a specific way. For other TV shows, uhh MST3K probably got me rolling on the floor more than once. It's really good!

In terms of Video Games (if the LoC says they're art, they're art to me):

Disco Elysium (2019, 2021).

In terms of Music:

Windows 96's 100 Mornings has a very listless feel to it that really got me to cry a bunch when I was younger, though now it's more just listless and a sort of wall-staring component for me (cf. Boa's Duvet, or Gorillaz's Melancholy Hill)

Though uh what was it Jesus Beleibt Meine Freude? by Bach also got me staring at walls and ceilings largely because like, you know, the funny evangelion song, but it's been exorcised of all sadness by Mister Manticore's JESUSINVIETNAM. I would need to think hard, but Chernaya Noch, Hills of Manchuria, Gloomy Sunday, and probably a few others got me sad and crying at times. But I don't think I have much in terms of music to cry to.

In terms of painted works:

idk man, not much off the top of my head, sorry. Theres a lot of pretty art out there and the Romantics always sort of got that same wall-stare out of me as mentioned above. Emphasizing a hollowness I feel within myself

ANYWAY :] thanks for asking a lot of the things mentioned here are good :[ some aren't, but thanks!!!

#an ask thing! :)#an ask thing about *me*!!!

2 notes · View notes

mindoniel · 1 year

Photo

I was tagged by @uneassasymphonie to show my 4 favourite films, so let’s give it a try:

1. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - almost four hours long masterpiece. The landscapes and atmosphere! Soundtrack! Dialogues and acting! The dynamics between Lawrence and Ali! It got me interested in the life of T.E. Lawrence and since then my life hasn't been the same. The movie and history are two separate things, but I still think it’s one of the greatest and most beautiful historical epics. Everytime after watching it I feel like I’ve been on a great journey.

2. Ravenous (1999)- homoerotic cannibals? Yes, please! I firstly watched it because of the Terror fandom and Atun-Shei Films. I haven't seen a movie like this before. It has dark (sometimes absurd) humor, horror elements, bizzare soundtrack and the symbolism and the topics that it touches! Hunger, addiction, desire, cowardice, morality, manifest destiny and homoeroticism & cannibalism of course. Funny and dark, entertaining and thought-provoking... Perfect!

3. Treasure Planet (2002) - pirates in space and it’s all steampunk! I got a DVD for my 5th birthday. I was rewatching it several times a day, several days in a row and till this day I remember many of the lines. I’m not a sci-fi fan, but I was captivated by Treasure Planet’s world, story and characters. First movie that I was obsessed with.

4. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) - again a movie from my childhood. All 3 parts are important as a whole story but the first one is still my favourite. I was basically growing up with the characters and the last part came out when one of the chapters of my life was also at an end (perfect timing, life!). I always loved how dragons and vikings were designed here and how the relationships and maturing of the characters were shown. And most importantly Hiccup felt so relatable to me. I may say that I looked at him and I saw myself…

So these are the movies that I rewatched the most and feel a strong emotional connection to. And since it’s „4 favourite movies” and not „tv series” I didn’t include The Terror, but it has equally the first place in my heart. And if I was to choose only non-animated films I would probably go for Master & Commander (2003) and maybe Union of Salvation (2019) or Grand Budapest Hotel (2014). But I also had a Tolkien phase and still respect Lord of the Rings. I love rewatching all of them

I’ll tag @habemuscarnificem @chris-pikes @seashantseas and @comradebread and see what happens

#but there is so much more that i didn’t include #mostly historical films horrors westerns and animations #maybe i will list some of them someday #and thanks for tagging me!

4 notes · View notes

mygreatadventurehasbegun · 1 year

Note

Top 5 popular movies you still haven't seen, top 5 movies with the worst costuming, top five comedies, top five movies other people generally dislike that you enjoy

Top Five Movies I haven't Seen:

Vivacious Lady- though I found it at my library yesterday, so I'm watching it tonight or tomorrow!

Deception- A Bette Davis/Claude Rains melodrama where he's the antagonist?? Yes, please!!

Pearl- After watching X a couple weeks ago, I definitely need to see Pearl! I had heard of it, of course, and was originally going to just watch that, since I heard good things...but X was available for free, briefly, and then I discovered that Pearl is a prequel! And it looks like such a cool horror flick.

Lawrence of Arabia- It's been on my list for a long time...but it's so damn long, that it's tough to find the time to watch it!

Deathtrap- It looks like such a fun mystery thriller! And it would be nice to see Christopher Reeve playing someone other than Superman.

Top Five Movies with the Worst Costuming

Little Women (2019)- I mean, I've written about my loathing for this movie and its costumes so many times, it's no surprise that this is number one.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)- Honestly, this isn't a critique of the entire film's costumes...just the two ball gowns, which clash so much with the rest of the fantasy 18th century clothing, and it makes me sad.

Phantom of the Opera (2004)- Another one where the costumes aren't atrocious...but you can tell that they just didn't have much of a budget. So when you compare them to the stage production, everything pales in comparison...especially because the lighting/cinematography is so bright and washed out that you can see everything. The costumes might have looked better if there were more shadows or darkness.

I honestly cannot think of two more movies where the costumes annoy me, so I'm going to make the last two TV Shows!

Reign- I have never seen this show...but...I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that that is not how they dressed in the 16th century.

When Calls the Heart- this show is supposed to be set in the early 1900s.

Top Five Comedies:

The Philadelphia Story

How to Steal a Million

Clue

Drop Dead Gorgeous

The Princess Bride

Top Five Movies you enjoy that other people Generally Dislike

Phantom of the Opera (1943)- I feel like if you're a Phantom purist, you probably don't like this movie, as it changes too much from the book...and I've seen a lot of general "meh" reviews on the movie...I DON'T CARE, I LOVE IT SO MUCH

Drop Dead Gorgeous- Now, I don't think people dislike this movie, in general, but I can totally understand if people don't like it...this one is interesting, because I feel like if you grew up at a very particular time, you love this movie. But I feel like most people who watch it for the first time nowadays don't love it, because there are moments that...have not...aged well. The "r" word gets thrown around a lot...there's one side story where a white girl keeps referring to herself as Asian-American...I can see why it's not for everyone. But as a MN girl who was a teenager when this movie came out, there's no way I cannot love it.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers- Another movie that maybe hasn't aged that great...I feel like this one has a lot more "general dislike", and I totally get why...I just like it for the fun musical numbers and tone, while totally agreeing that on first viewing, there are definitely some issues...I mean, it's about a bunch of brothers that kidnap the girls they have crushes on. I mean, if you examine it, you can talk about how the character of Millie generally takes no shit from her brothers-in-law, and teaches them how to be decent people...but I mostly watch it for the choreography, lol.

Little Women (1949)- I wouldn't say this one is generally disliked; it's just usually put down lower on the list of LW adaptations. People who love the 1933 version call this one a tired retread, people who like the newer adaptations think this one is boring. But there is something about this one that I just love...and it is probably my personal favorite (while admitting that the 1994 film is the best film overall)

Tuck Everlasting- I don't think this film is necessarily hated, but I know it's very different from the book and it changes a lot/leaves stuff out, etc. And I think most people give it an "it's ok, I guess" review, and then promptly forget about it. But I saw this movie before I knew the specifics of the book, and I really enjoyed it. I still watch it every once and a while, and it gives me a bit of nostalgia...and I do think it's a very pretty movie...really nice cinematography and set/costume design.

*This last one was tough, cause I don't have that many "unpopular opinions" when it comes to movies...at least for films that I like (obviously really disliking LW '19 is an unpopular opinion)...so some of my choices were sort of "middle of the road".

#asks #little women #the philadelphia story #how to steal a million #phantom of the opera #beauty and the beast #drop dead gorgeous

6 notes · View notes

orlaite · 1 month

Note

favourite boutique bluray you own? favourite 4K you own? what movie deserves a 4K the most? most overrated 4K? physical media pet-peeve?

My favourite, favourite boutique is the Criterion The New World bluray. I mean just look at it. The Tree of Life Criterion is in very similiar packaging but it's slightly thinner and is decorated by stills from the movie and not original artwork. The Tree of Life Criterion is also amongst my faves but this one is just the Top Dog.

My favourite 4K is the Lawrence of Arabia limited edition steelbook. It was my White Wale for so long as I got into the movie right after the steelbook went out of sale and I even remember seeing it being launched and thinking "oh wow that steelbook looks great and this is supposed to be one of those classic GOATs. Should I blind-buy it?" but then I was too money-sensible... But it is mine now! And even with the amount of hype and expectations I built up from a year of pining for it it didn't disappoint. It's the most beautiful 4K scan of one of the most beautiful movies ever made and I'm so glad I own it and get to watch it in quality that good!❤️

And the movie that most desperately needs a 4K release is a contemporary of LoA: Ben-Hur (1959). I don't understand why WB won't release a 4K when the film was scanned in 8K for the bluray release! They're sitting on a HQ scan of one of the most beautiful, epic, critically and commercially acclaimed movies of all time and they're satisfied with it not having a 4K?? Seeing how marvelous the LoA 4K looks made me thirst all the harder for a Ben-Hur 4K and more classic 70MM films on 4K in general. @ Warner Brothers get your house in order and give the people what they want!

I don't have any one specific 4K I'd call overrated but most modern movies I've watched on 4K have been very underwhelming... I think classic movies, shot on film and with different conventions and attitudes wrt: lighting, production design, effects, colour, etc etc show up much better on 4K than modern digital photography and all that entails do. They look better than their bluray counterparts, no doubt, but the only modern movie I've seen in 4K that really wow'ed me was Interstellar with it's full-screen IMAX scenes - whereas almost all classic movies I've seen of 4K has really blown my socks off.

As for physical media pet-peeves: double-stacking the 4K discs so they get scratched super easily, the slipcover lottery, 4K's that don't come with a standard bluray (like my Arrow Robocop 4K), how difficult and expensive it can be to find the movies I want when my taste is older and more niche cinema... And I was really pissed by the way the Avatar 4K's were sold. When Avatar: TWOW came out on physical they released the original Avatar on 4K as well, and I bought the TWOW 4K steelbook. Then a year later both Avatar and Avatar: TWOW get new collectors editition 4K steels with Dolby Vision and lots of extra special features?? That was low.

#asks #ty for the ask taylor❤️❤️❤️

1 note · View note

tixersdotcom · 1 year

Text

Although a lot of us have entered the "John Wick" franchise thinking that it's its own thing, a mere peek into the history of cinema will show that action-packed series owes a lot to samurai films, Westerns, and of course, action films from the days of yore. And Chad Stahelski and his incredible team are well aware of that, and they wear their inspirations on their sleeves. All the "John Wick" films are filled with references, Easter eggs, and homages to films and literature, and "John Wick: Chapter 4" is no different. Since we probably have a long way to go, let's not waste any time and get on with it. Major Spoilers Ahead Dante's Inferno "John Wick: Chapter 4" opens with lines from Dante's Inferno. When John Wick met the Bowery King for the first time, he said that John's descent into Hell had begun, thereby referencing Dante's Inferno from "Divine Comedy," which involved Dante going to Hell via nine stages of suffering with a poet of Roman descent, Virgil. John technically has been through Hell; he has almost died, and he has returned to the world of the living. Now, he's about to unleash Hell on those who've wronged him. So, maybe the repurposing of the famous poem doesn't exactly mean that John is journeying into Hell. In fact, he's becoming the personification of Hell, and everyone has to pass through him to survive. BTW, out of all the action scenes in "John Wick 4," John personally appears in a total of 9 setpieces. So, the allegory makes sense. The first one is in Morocco, the second one is on the rooftop of the Osaka Continental, the third one is in the glass panes of the Osaka Continental, the fourth one is against Killa, the fifth one is at the 7th arrondissement of Paris, the sixth one is at the Arc de Triomphe, the seventh one is in that house, the eighth one is on the Montmartre stairs, and the ninth one is the duel at the Sacré Coeur. Lawrence Of Arabia David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" match cut a close-up shot of Peter O'Toole blowing out a burning matchstick with an extremely long shot of a sunrise. After lighting up a pentagon in John Wick's training room, the Bowery King takes a deep breath and then blows out the matchstick. That's when editor Nathan Orloff cut to a shot of the sunrise. I don't think that's where the references end because the horse riders of the High Table and John Wick riding in the distance, barely recognizable due to the heat shimmer, echo the shot of Sherif Ali arriving at his well. Ned Kelly Ned Kelly's apparent last words are brought up multiple times to comment on accepting death because Wick and Winston are not just preparing themselves to confront death, but accept it as well. But, probably more interestingly, Kelly and his gang were synonymous with a bulletproof suit that protected their chest, shoulders, back, and crotch, along with a helmet that protected their head. That was all the way back in 1879. Meanwhile, "John Wick" imagines a future where assassins can wear a three-piece bulletproof suit that can even resist bullets from a shotgun. Marquis' Father Can Be A Follower Of Martha Beck When Winston and Charon meet Marquis Vincent de Gramont, he says that his father used to tell him that how one does anything is how one should do everything. Apparently, the aforementioned quote was coined by Martha Beck, who is an author, life coach, and public speaker with various degrees from Harvard University. So, it seems like one of the writers, or Chad himself, is a fan of Beck and, hence, has decided to include her teachings in this circus of violence. Zatoichi The first name that comes to everyone's mind upon seeing Donnie Yen's Caine, a blind, cane-sword-wielding mercenary, is Zatoichi. Created by Kan Shimozawa, the character made his first appearance in a 1948 essay and eventually went on to feature in 26 films while being portrayed by Shintaro Katsu, Takeshi Kitano, Show Aikawa, and Shingo Katori. Caine's penchant for not being interested in gambling is probably a subversion of Zatoichi's habit of gamb

ling. But since Yen is from Hong Kong and Zatoichi is Japanese, I am not sure if the comparison is fair. By the way, Yen has played a blind action hero before in "Rogue One." And going by the tease at the end of "John Wick 4," he'll be playing Caine for a long time now. The Menpo Mask The High Table soldiers from "John Wick 3" wore pretty generic-looking but bulletproof masks. The ones in "John Wick 4," though, wear bulletproof menpo since they are Japanese. Traditionally, the menpo was worn by samurai warriors in feudal Japan. But since this is modern Japan, you see gun-wielding soldiers wearing it, thereby keeping up with the times and staying in touch with their roots. Flash Point No, I'm not talking about the DC comic series, the DC animated film, or the upcoming "Flash" movie, which is based on "Flashpoint." I'm talking about the Hong Kong action film by Wilson Yip featuring Donnie Yen, marking the duo's second collaboration and paving the way for many future collaborations. Anyway, in a kinetic fighting scene in "Flash Point," Donnie Yen did a wind-up punch, something that's usually seen in animated fighting scenes. But he did it with such conviction that no one batted an eye, and it became instantly iconic. In "John Wick: Chapter 4," we see Yen do it again after displaying his other iconic move, i.e., the flurry of punches made famous in "Ip Man" (another film by Wilson Yip and starring Donnie Yen). Bruce Lee Although the origins of the nunchaku are iffy, if you mention that particular weapon, everyone associates it with Bruce Lee because he was the one who made it incredibly popular, at least in films. So, when John Wick starts using a nunchaku to bash anyone and everyone around him, you can feel the spirit of Bruce Lee flowing through that scene. In addition to that, Donnie Yen's black suit, white shirt, and black tie ensemble is probably an homage to Bruce Lee, something that Yen incorporated into the film to push back against the racist characterization of his role. This isn't the first time the franchise has referenced Lee because "Chapter 2" had an entire fight sequence set in a room full of mirrors, much like the one from "Enter the Dragon." Sammo Hung Scott Adkins as Killa in that purple three-piece suit is a very obvious homage to the legendary Sammo Hung's appearance in "SPL: Sha Po Lang." Guess who else was in that movie? That's right. Donnie Yen. Well, "John Wick: Chapter 4" isn't the first time that Adkins has appeared across Yen. Adkins has also worked with Yen in "Ip Man 4." Although Adkins doesn't share screen space with Marko Zaror (who plays Chidi) in this film, they've worked together before in "Undisputed III: Redemption” and "Savage Dog." By the way, if you are hearing the names of Scott Adkins and Sammo Hung, or even Donnie Yen, for the first time, there's no need to be ashamed. Just make a note of it and start watching all the incredible work they've done. I Am Klaus If the director, writers, and Keanu himself punch me for saying what I am about to say, I'll totally take it. But when Klaus kept saying, "I am Klaus," I was instantly reminded of this running gag from Craig Ferguson's era of "The Late Late Show," where he and his fellow robot skeleton, Geoff (Josh Robert Thompson), pretended to be German. Geoff dubbed himself Klaus and kept saying, "I am Klaus," at the end of every sentence. If not that, it can be a homage to Groot from "Guardians of the Galaxy," who can only say, "I am Groot." John Wick Self References The first "John Wick" film had the titular character running after Iosef in a club called the Red Circle while wading through a sea of people dancing between pulsating lights. After losing sight of him, Wick unleashed his gun-jutsu on Iosef's henchmen, and it ended with Wick being thrown off the balcony by Kirill, played by Daniel Bernhardt. Echoes of that scene are there in the fight sequence in Killa's nightclub (which is a

combo of Kraftwerk Berlin and the Alte Nationalgalerie), down to the rave, the music, and Wick's fall from a great height. There's no Bernhardt in this scene because Kirill was technically killed in "John Wick." But the actor has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo when the assassins in Paris prepare their guns because Bernhardt has a long working relationship with Keanu and Chad. Additionally, Winston repeats a line from "Parabellum" as he sees the commencement of the attack of the assassins on Jonathan. Eugène Delacroix The place where Winston meets the Marquis is filled with paintings. The ones that I noticed are "The Raft of the Medusa," "The Barque of Dante," "The Death of Sardanapalus," and "Liberty Leading the People," among many, many others. Winston says that the painting "Liberty Leading the People" represents the cost of tyranny. But, as per Delacroix, that's liberty personified, and she is leading the people to freedom. Given the context of the scene in "John Wick 4," it makes sense because John is looking to be free of the bindings of the High Table, while Winston is seeking the cessation of his exile. When Winston begins to leave, Vincent reminds him that if Wick loses the duel, he has to die with him. Winston looks at the painting next to him, which is "The Raft of the Medusa" by Théodore Géricault, and repeats Ned Kelly's saying. I am not sure if there's any thematic significance there, but I don't think it'll be a stretch to say that there's a direct line between the painting's commentary on survival by cannibalizing one another and everything that's happening in "Chapter 4" for the sake of survival. On a side note, this scene and the conversation kind of reminded me of a similar scene set in an art museum in "Skyfall" between James Bond and his quartermaster. 'Mission: Impossible—Fallout' "John Wick 4" has a pivotal scene at the Trocadéro Square, where the location and time of the duel are decided, and an action scene at the Arc de Triomphe, where Wick is chased by a bunch of assassins. "Mission: Impossible – Fallout" had a pivotal scene at the Trocadéro Square, where Walker revealed his true intentions, and an action scene at the Arc de Triomphe, where Ethan Hunt was chased down by the French police. Given how "Mission: Impossible — Fallout" was one of the greatest action films of the past decade, it makes sense to tip one's hat to that film. Yes, it can be totally random. But given how prominent "Fallout" was, I think it was on Chad and the rest of the team's radar before going into their own film. The Matrix John Wick, played by Keanu Reeves, sits in the Mairie des Lilas subway station and waits for the train to arrive. Subway stations and trains were a big part of Neo's (also played by Keanu Reeves) journey in "The Matrix" and "The Matrix Revolutions." The connections do not end there, of course. Laurence Fishburne has played the role of Morpheus in "The Matrix" franchise, and he also portrays the Bowery King in the "John Wick" films. Chad Stahelski, the genius behind the "John Wick" franchise, has also been a part of the stunt team in "The Matrix" movies along with David Leitch. Chad doubled for Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix" films and showed up as a major character named Chad in "The Matrix Resurrections." The subway scene in "John Wick 4" has Wick standing in front of a mirror, which is an object that's used to bring someone out of the Matrix and later used to travel between locations inside the Matrix. There's a long-running fan theory that the entirety of the "John Wick" series is a simulation that Neo is in. Caravaggio During the subway scene, the painting titled "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" by Caravaggio shows up as the Bowery King hands over Wick's newly made suit. The painting depicts Thomas the Apostle's doubts about the resurrection of Jesus Christ as he wanted to know if Christ had been really killed and then resurrected. John Wick has a lot of Christia

n imagery. John Wick kind of looks like the most popular depiction of Jesus Christ. He technically dies in "Chapter 3" and is resurrected in "John Wick 4." I don't think anyone casts doubt on his return. But there's this underlying theme that if Wick manages to beat Caine and Vincent at the duel, he'll become a "sect," which is exactly what happened when Christ returned from the dead. So maybe that's the parallel that is being drawn here. 'The Warriors' This one is pretty simple. Walter Hill's "The Warriors" had a radio announcer updating the progress of the protagonists as they make their way through New York City while being attacked by the antagonists. The final act of "John Wick: Chapter 4" features Wick going all the way from the 7th arrondissement to the Sacré-Cur, while a radio jockey updates the assassins about Wick's location and plays songs like "Nowhere to Run" and "Marie Douceur, Marie Colère" to set the mood. It's kind of hilarious that the radio channel is named WUXIA, which is the genre that films like "14 Blades," "House of Flying Daggers," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "Hero," and "Shadow" belong to. 'Constantine' Dragon's Breath! I can't believe that tons of people claim that they love Keanu Reeves' "Constantine" and that they want a sequel. And yet, when Dragon's Breath showed up, and Wick used it to shoot up a bunch of assassins, not a lot of people noticed the "Constantine" reference. Anyway, Dragon's Breath is a rare piece of weaponry that was given to John Constantine to fight off literal demons. Yes, both of those characters, played by Keanu Reeves, are named John. Both of those characters are associated with Christian imagery. And both of them have now used a firearm called "Dragon's Breath." Is John Wick secretly John Constantine? No, but you are free to use your imagination. 'Door,' 'Hotline Miami,' Or 'Malignant' After the bike chase and before climbing up the stairs, John Wick has to fight a bunch of assassins in an abandoned apartment. It's a single-take or one-take sequence. But instead of doing it the traditional way, with the camera following the character from behind and then inserting cuts whenever something crosses the frame, Chad and his team go for a top-down angle, likely with the help of a drone camera. Hence, we get an eagle's-eye view of the whole scene. There are similar scenes in the 1988 film "Door" by Banmei Takahashi and the 2021 James Wan film, "Malignant." At least, these are the two films that come to mind. In addition to that, there are tons of top-down shooter games, but the one that makes heavy use of a shotgun is "Hotline Miami." It can be either of them or none of them, but there's no doubt about the fact that it's a fantastic action sequence. 'Amélie' As per Letterboxd, Chad Stahelski loves "Amélie." That's what brought him to the Sacré-Cur. But during that process, he discovered the side steps leading up to the location. And that's why we got that painful but hugely enjoyable fight sequence on the Montmartre stairs. The Pencil John Wick is famous for using a pencil to kill people. We saw him actually do it in "Chapter 2." But in "Chapter 4," it's actually Donnie Yen's Caine who puts a pencil through Chidi's hand. Given Caine and John Wick's friendship, it's possible that Wick acquired the ability to use a pencil like a knife from Caine. 'The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly' Well, there are several references to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," directed by one of the most prolific filmmakers, Sergio Leone. John Wick having echoes of the Man with No Name, played by Clint Eastwood, is as clear as day. Then there's Shamier Anderson's Mr. Nobody, who is literally a man without a name. Blondie, or The Man with No Name, possesses a pocket watch that plays music when opened. Caine possesses a similar pocket watch, which has a photo of his daughter in it. And then there's the duel between Caine and Wick, complete with Western-esque music mixed with Wic

k's theme. Conclusion These are just some of the references, Easter Eggs, and homages in "John Wick 4." Some of them have been purposefully inserted into the film by the makers, and the rest are parallels that I have observed. They can be correct, or they can be wrong. Either way, it greatly impacted my viewing experience. That said, if you notice any inspirations, hat tips, or details other than the aforementioned ones, please feel free to share them with "John Wick" fans.

2 notes · View notes

artistic-lightcycle · 2 years

Text

Movies starring Peter O'Toole I watched until now, rated on their weirdness

6. Stardust (2007)

- Peter doesn't have a main role. Story is okayish. There are a lot more weird films.

5. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

- The Movie for Peter O'Toole. It's long but not weird at all. Well you have the whole masacre thing and the ending seems rushed but it's a good movie.

4. Ratatouille (2007)

- is it a main role? Not really. Well I mean do I have to say a lot about Ego? His office has the shape of a coffin.

3. Casanova (2005)

- I know I know it's a tv show more or less but anyway. Old Casanova has some weird moments but then again he's giacomo casanova.

2. Whats new pussycat (1965)

- where to start with this. Another main role another mental illness. Michael James has ISSUES. And the whole hotel scene get's weirder and weirder with every minute.

1. The Night of the Generals (1967)

-oh boy. Boy o boy. I still don't know what this was. But hey Omar Sharif. (Even if they whitewashed him???) I do respect how on point the acting of Peter was. But everything in this is just fucked up crazy shit.

Mentions:

(I did see Troy but it was sooo long ago that I don't remember much. I also know about how to steal a million and rulling class but never watched them. So yeah)

#peter o'toole #movies #do not judge me #or do judge me but I will stand behind this xD #Night of the Generals and Whats new pussycat are the weirdest.#fact

9 notes · View notes

rookie-critic · 1 year

Text

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey (2023, dir. Rhys Frake-Waterfield) - review by Rookie-Critic

On January 1, 2022, the classic Winnie-the-Pooh character lineup became public domain, meaning anyone and everyone could use the names and likenesses of these characters without any threat from Disney of legal action. Of course, less than half a year later, it was announced that an independent British director would be making a horror film based off the property, and thus Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey was born. I love stuff like this: I think it's hilarious, I think it's fun, and, if done right, it can be genuinely good to boot. I was excited going into the film, and was ready to see Pooh Bear and Piglet go on a Roger Corman-esque, Birdemic-y B-movie murder spree. That definitely happens, although the results were definitely mixed at best.

I'll start with the positives this time, and say the most impressive thing by far in this is the Winnie the Pooh head. From what little promotional material I'd seen prior to watching the movie, Pooh and Piglet's heads kind of just looked like rubber Halloween masks, which can provide a lot of hilarious campy fun, so I wasn't complaining, but that's not what they ended up being at all. Pooh's head reads as fully animatronic; the ears wiggle, the mouth moves, the area around the eyes moves, it helps bring so much personality to the this murderous version of the character. Piglet's is a little less impressive and doesn't have as much articulation as Pooh's does, so he definitely feels a little more mask-y, but like I said before, that provides its own level of campy charm. I'll also give the actors credit: I wouldn't call the acting in this movie good, by any means, but for something like this you're normally getting the bottom of the barrel scrapings and some truly horrible performances, but these weren't terrible. Nikolai Leon, who plays Christopher Robin, I especially took note of. Again, it wasn't "good" acting, but I was surprised by how not awful it was.

Sadly, I think the good stops there. I had a good handful of issues with Blood and Honey, and none of them have to do with the quality of the film's technical side. Yes the CG blood was bad, yes the camerawork was sloppy, blah blah blah, whatever. This is the Winnie the Pooh slasher flick, I'm not looking for Lawrence of Arabia. There are two big problems with this film. One is that, even taking into consideration an almost entirely female cast and the fact that this is a horror movie, the film seems maliciously cruel towards women. The second is that, for something with as hilarious of a concept as this and that seemingly had some decently creative ideas, the kills and the scares were kind of boring. As far as that first problem goes, this is something we've seen time and time and time again in horror, especially in slasher films. There are a lot of tired, sexist tropes that just don't seem to die, and Blood and Honey contributes to a lot of them. I actively rolled my eyes multiple times, including an incredibly uncomfortable scene in which a female character with no arc and no defining characteristics is brutally killed in a gruesome way that, to me, went on for way too long, with some incredibly unnecessary nudity thrown in for good measure. It's not as bad as THAT kill scene from the first Terrifier film, but it wasn't fun to watch, nonetheless. Our main character, who surprisingly isn't Christopher Robin (another issue I had), is given this empathetic and traumatic backstory that Frake-Waterfield had absolutely no interest in weaving into the larger narrative, which really begs the question as to why we even bothered with anyone other than Pooh, Piglet, and Christopher Robin to begin with. The central group of women really only exist as cannon fodder for our beloved children's story characters, and the setup as to why this had happened to the furry residents of the Hundred-Acre Wood was interesting enough to be able to carry a 90-ish minute film by itself. Instead, we get something that's largely a "paint-by-numbers" B-movie slasher film, which leads me into my second problem from earlier; the movie as a whole, and specifically the kills, feel really uninspired. There are moments where there seem to be sparks of creative instinct (Pooh has the absolutely wild ability to control the bees that inhabit the Hundred-Acre Wood, there's a scene in which Pooh whips Christopher Robin with the nail end of Eeyore's tail, stuff like that), but these ideas go largely unexplored. Instead, we're relegated to watching Piglet and Pooh chase after our protagonists with chains and sledgehammers for most of the film, and that's really too bad.

I don't mean to rant and make it seem like I'm taking the Winnie the Pooh horror film too seriously, because I definitely was not, but I feel like there are ways to make these really low-concept, dumb-but-fun, shtick-y horror films not suck, and it's not even that hard. Just be creative, have fun, and stay away from harmful and tired genre tropes, simple. While this film certainly had fun, and was running at maybe 20% creativity, it just couldn't accomplish what it set out to do.

Score: 4/10

Currently only in theaters.

2 notes · View notes