The Beatles: Get Back (2021)60/100 – Observations from a lifelong Beatles fan. First, this really didn’t need to be just shy of 8 hours in length. While I love the voyeuristic fly on the wall aspect of watching the Fab Four in their creative processes, I know I could have cut this down to 3 hours max. To have access to over 60 hours of film and be left with a bloated documentary that only shows mere moments of their brilliance is such a disappointment. It’s a shame that film doesn’t exist of them making the "White Album", where a lot of the discord that would eventually lead to their dissolution, took place. This smacks a bit of being a whitewash by the two surviving Beatles by putting a happier face on the time this project was being made. Let’s face it, McCartney and Yoko Ono took a lot of heat in the years post-breakup for the band’s demise. Here, we really don’t see much of the bossy McCartney which caused a long friendship with George Harrison to disintegrate. And Yoko Ono barely elicits one emotion throughout the length of this film. You do get to see her shrieking like a banshee, which really became trying and had me hitting the + 30 seconds button like Tommy playing a pinball machine. Michael Lindsay-Hogg at one point in the film says, “There’s a lot of good stuff in the documentary, but there’s no story.” This film kind of makes it look like Lindsay-Hogg cooked up the turmoil through edits of the fights that must have taken place, to make his film more interesting, but are nowhere to be found here.
As for the music, it’s the only moments in the film where your attention is being held. The payoff is the eventual concert on the rooftop of the Apple building and it doesn’t disappoint. Here’s a band that hadn’t performed live for over 3 years, yet it looks like they never stopped. The sound is rich and full, showcasing why the Beatles were leaps and bounds beyond the talents of mere mortal bands that were their “contemporaries”. And finally, I like many others around the world, believe that Phil Spector butchered the album. Hearing them do these amazing songs in a raw form, without Spector’s intrusive “Wall of Sound”, amply illustrates what the world lost when the four went their separate ways after Abbey Road. The real beneficiary of the breakup was George, who was always my favorite Beatle, as he went into the studio and recorded “All Things Must Pass”, the album that released Harrison from the chains of bondage that the Lennon-McCartney partnership had forged. Neither John Lennon, nor Paul McCartney ever released an album post-breakup that reached anywhere near the strata of this seminal work from the “quiet Beatle”. I’m now glad that they never reunited; Harrison needed the freedom to be himself, without his Beatle brethren.
One thing the documentary lays waste to is some of the things that Lennon said in his Playboy interview about the session. Paul didn't write Get Back as an attack on Yoko Ono, nor did he look at her when he sang the line "get back Jojo...Go home!". There's a moment early in the first episode where Lennon hasn't arrived at Twickenham and Paul is just piddling around on his bass and you see the framework for the song being hatched in Paul's brain. Throughout the first and second episodes, you see Lennon & McCartney adding new lines to the song. There's no malevolence towards Ono in this part of their creative process for the song. The things Lennon conjured up in his head for that interview never happened and probably was due to his discouragement at how his career was turning at that point. I've never blamed Ono for breaking up the Beatles. I think the Lennon we all saw in the mid to late seventies was her doing, but not when he was still in the band. In fact, I've seen other video of Linda Eastman adding her two cents in where it wasn't probably needed. She could be seen as "Yoko"ing Paul with her opinions too. The Beatles broke up because George was tired of only getting his allotted two songs on an album. There's another moment in the documentary where he bemoans the fact to John that he has enough songs to fulfill his part of the next 10 Beatles albums. You can sense his frustration at this fact and the result would be "All Things Must Pass". And he's right, the first two albums in that three album release are all quality songs that would have made his statement prophetic.
Year: 1930 Film Studio: Universal Pictures Genre: War, Classic, Drama Length: 134 Min.
Director Lewis Milestone (1895)
Writing Erich Maria Remarque (1898)...Novel "Im Westen Nichts Neues" Maxwell Anderson (1888)...Adaptation & Dialogue George Abbott (1887)...Screenplay Del Andrews (1894)...Adaptation C. Gardner Sullivan (1884)...Supervising Story Chief
Producer Carl Laemmle Jr. (1908)
Cinematographer Arthur Edeson (1891)
Music
Stars Louis Wolheim (1880) as Kat Katczinsky Lew Ayres (1908) as Paul Bäumer John Wray (1887) as Himmelstoß Arnold Lucy (1865) as Professor Kantorek Ben Alexander (1911) as Franz Kemmerich Scott Kolk (1905) as Leer Owen Davis Jr. (1907) as Peter Walter Rogers (1906) as Behn
Review The first blockbuster anti-war film of the sound era, this timeless classic still has relevance today. Though the acting is a little over the top (no pun intended), the extensive battle scenes bring about a realism that would not be seen in subsequent war films, until the release of Saving Private Ryan almost 65 years later. Its message was driven home in a speech made by Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres) as he addresses the next wave of eager volunteers, at the school he had once attended. Before he allows them to become cannon fodder for the arrogant and egocentric generals who are waging this war of attrition, he tries to dissuade them by stating, "We live in the trenches and we fight. We try not to be killed - that's all!" Baumers message would fall on deaf ears not only with these students, but also with the viewing public, for in just 3 years an obscure ex-army corporal from Austria, would begin his ascent to the mantle of dictator of Germany. His mesmerizing orations on national pride and racial purity would galvanize the central European countries into a true axis of evil and sink the world into the abyss of a second world war.
It has been over 80 years since this film was made and we are still making the same mistake as the characters in this story. We have yet to learn that waging war is neither noble nor chivalrous. It is the death and maiming of men, women and children. Our politicians sow the seeds of patriotic fervor and reap the destruction of country and lost innocence.
Review Criterion - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence. - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right. - Historically important film, considered a classic. - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch. – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture. - Borderline viewable. – A bad film that may have a moment of interest. – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points. – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life. - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
I having been trying for the last couple of hours to rip the audio from this video. I can't seem to get any program, which is suppose to be able to rip audio, to work. I only need the first three minutes of audio, as I want the opening theme of the series. Can someone please extract the first 3 minutes of audio and upload it to Rapidshare for me? Once I have that portion, I'm pretty sure I can edit what I want out of it. Thanks in advance
I've just spent the last week and a half creating a complete collection of Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons over at Criticker. There is exactly 1005 animated cartoon shorts in this collection. It's my goal to go through every cartoon on this list and update all the pertinent information, plus upload new title cards, YouTube videos and mini-reviews for each. I've already added 59 missing shorts to the database to make this collection complete. If you have a Criticker account, I'd appreciate it if you take a look at it, and if you like what I've done, star the collection. The more stars a collections receives, the closer it moves to the number one spot for that collection's subject. There are other Looney Tunes collections over there, but everyone is incomplete or is only for a specific decade, and if I can get this collection to the top, it will give other LT/MM fans the chance to watch many shorts they've never seen before.
Oh, in the future weeks and months... I also plan to do this kind of collection for all the major animation studios. Next will probably be the Fleischer Studio, so that means Popeye and Bettie Boop.
Thanks in advance to anyone who stars this collection.
Over on another forum, we're doing a retro award marathon for 1957. We are also including short films in this marathon, and after watching my first short, decided to start my own LT/MM marathon for here.
Year: 1962 Film Studio: Les Films du Carrosse, S.E.D.I.F. Genre: Drama, Romance Length: 106 Min.
Director François Truffaut (1932)
Writing Henri-Pierre Roché (1879)...Novel François Truffaut (1932)...Adaptation And Dialogue Jean Gruault (1924)...Adaptation And Dialogue
Producer Marcel Berbert François Truffaut(1932)
Cinematographer Raoul Coutard (1924)
Music Georges Delerue (1925)...Composer
Stars Jeanne Moreau (1928) as Catherine Oskar Werner (1922) as Jules Henri Serre (1931) as Jim Vanna Urbino (1929) as Gilberte Boris Bassiak (1928) as Albert Anny Nelsen (1942) as Lucie Sabine Haudepin (1955) as Sabine, la petite Marie Dubois (1937) as Thérèse
Review
I love Jeanne Moreau, she's one of my favorite actresses of all time. But I've found the one film where every quality that I find alluring, is missing from her performance. I couldn't for the life of me, understand what made these two friends fall head over heels, madly in love with her character Catherine. Sure she's independent and recklessly spontaneous, but she's also borderline psychotic, and to be honest, a bit of a bitch. I could understand Jules falling for her, as he seemed to be the most emotionally weak of the two men, and Catherine's almost masculine nature might have been the tonic he needed. It was Jim's relationship with her that I found completely implausible. Early in the film, she shows him a bottle of sulfuric acid that she keeps with her to "Throw into the eyes of the man who tells her lies". Ding...ding...ding!!!! An alarm should instantly have gone off in his head, that she's has a screw loose somewhere, and she's not someone to become completely immersed with in a relationship. But that's exactly what he does, and in the end, pays a price for it.
This is my third film by Truffaut, and I've come to this conclusion...he should have been a cinematographer as opposed to a director. His films have a unique look and quality that make them fascinating and beautiful to look at, but at the expense of depth in his screenplays. I found this to be the case with The 400 Blows, as there just didn't seem to be enough exposition as to why Doinel becomes delinquent. In Jules and Jim, a bit more time spent with the three main characters in the beginning of the film may have shed some light as to why both men desire her. It's only mere moments after their first encounter with Catherine that Jules professes his desire to marry her. Up until this point, both men were engaging in all kinds of spurious and spontaneous relationships with varied woman, so why was this one different?
Getting back to the look of the film, I found many scenes breathtakingly beautiful and completely absorbing, such as the scene where Catherine is reciting her letter as Jim is racing back to their cottage in Austria. Her face is superimposed against the backdrop of the trees rolling pass the train, and it is one of the most creative moments I've ever witnessed in a film. The whole atmosphere of the film is carefree and breezy, and back in 1962, this must have been extremely refreshing, especially when you consider that Hollywood was completely immersed in bloated grand epics at that time. But I look for the complete package when I watch a film. I not only want the great framing and beautiful cinematography, but I want depth and believability in its story. And this film just doesn't fulfill my desires. The moment that pushed it over the edge for me is when Jim is in the theater watching the newsreel of the Nazis burning books and Jules and Catherine are seated a few rows behind him. This scene comes fast on the heels of a moment where Catherine pulls a gun on Jim and tries to kill him and he flees their cottage in desperation. Yet he nonchalantly joins the couple as if that bit of history never took place, and with devastating circumstances for his character. All in all, Jules and Jim is a beautiful viewing experience, but will leave an unfulfilled desire for more balance in the overall concept.
I will definitely give it a second chance and hopefully it will reveal a little bit more of what I'm looking for the next time. It took me three attempts to get through it over the last three years since I purchased it. Now that I've finally finished it, it may prove a bit easier on the second viewing... I hope.
Review Criterion 5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence. 4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right. 4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic. 3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch. 3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture. 2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable. 2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest. 1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points. 1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life. ½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
This is a game we play over at the Filmspotters forum...
Pretty simple, I post the first five keywords from a film at IMDB and whoever get's it right first gets a point. If no one can guess it with the first five words, then I add the next five keywords, and so on until someone gets it right. First person to 10 points wins. And remember, you are on the honor system.
SCOREBOARD
samuelrichardscott Jon Silence_of_Lambs Achim dfmorgan DJ Doena Eric GSyren goodguy Tom
9 8 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
First film:
Love | Waitress | Garden Gnome | Happiness | Hypochondriac
Last Thursday, my wife was doing a load of laundry when she yelled...Something bad's happening. I went into the laundry room and I could smell burnt electronics. The washer was still working, but I shut it down immediately. I tried to restart it, but no luck. Now, my wife is panicking because we couldn't really deal with having to buy a new washer. That night, after she went to bed, I went online to see if there was anything that I could do to fix it. After doing a complete brake job on my car last spring, and feeling confident in my abilities, I figured why not? After some surfing, I found out that my Maytag Neptune had been recalled due to a faulty motor control board. Unfortunately, this recall ended a few years ago. Our washer was no longer under warranty, but there was a motor conversion kit available to fix the problem. Replacing a motor and the electronic control board on a washer seemed kind of beyond my abilities, but I was told by a repair person on ApplianceBlog.com, that it was a simple plug and play type repair. Well, he was right, it took me less than an hour to fix, and now I don't have to buy a new washer.
There is something so satisfying about fixing something complex on your own and saving money in the process. If I had to replace the washer, it would have cost me at least $700. For less than $200, I have a new motor and new electronics that should give me another 5 -7 years on this washer, which I bought in 2001. Sweet!
Panic in the Streets A Streetcar Named Desire Gentleman's Agreement
Baby Doll The Last Tycoon
A very good director who has made some seminal films of the 50's. It shames me that I still haven't watched East of Eden. And I've only seen bits and pieces of Splendor in the Grass and America, America.
Has anyone else noticed the surge in earthquakes around the world in the last ten days? Turkey, Fiji, Peru and the Aleutians have all had sizable earthquakes in the last week or so. When you toss in that rare earthquake in Virginia a couple of months ago, it kind of makes you wonder if the Mayans may be on to something.
Back in my younger days, there was a television program which tried to teach kids about science, nature and society, it was called The ABC Afterschool Special. It ran for over twenty years and won all kinds of Daytime Emmys for their outstanding work. The first episode that I watched was the inaugural episode about man's role in the extinction of native species of animals. The episode was called The Last of the Curlews which was adapted from a successful novel from the 60's by Fred Bodsworth. I was eleven years old at the time of its airing, and it made a die hard environmentalist out of me. I was surfing YouTube and came across the whole film and wanted to share it with everyone. It's only about 45 minutes long and is really a very moving story, give it a look. I hadn't seen this in 39 years, but was amazed at how many images from this film still lingered in my mind.
A WARNING: This will have you bawling like a baby at the end.
I need some help from one of you computer gurus out there. My computer is running strangely and after running my anti-virus and malwarebytes software, it's still doing the same thing. The CPU spikes out at 100% randomly and I have to wait for it to clear out before I can do anything else. This is a screenshot of the processes section of the task manager. Does anyone recognize anything here that might be causing this problem.
Another question...Do you see anything there that should be turned off and how would I do it?
Year: 1957 Film Studio: Paramount Pictures Genre: Western Length: 122 Min.
Director John Sturges (1910)
Writing Leon Uris (1924)...Writer George Scullin...Article "The Killer"
Producer Joseph H. Hazen (1898) Paul Nathan (1912) Hal B. Wallis (1899)
Cinematographer Charles Lang (1902)
Music Dimitri Tiomkin (1894)...Composer
Stars Burt Lancaster (1913) as Marshal Wyatt Earp Kirk Douglas (1916) as Dr. John 'Doc' Holliday Rhonda Fleming (1923) as Laura Denbow Jo Van Fleet (1914) as Kate Fisher John Ireland (1914) as Johnny Ringo Lyle Bettger (1915) as Ike Clanton Frank Faylen (1905) as Sheriff Cotton Wilson Earl Holliman (1928) as Deputy Sheriff Charles 'Charlie' Bassett
Review OK Corral... OK Corral there the outlaw band make their final stand OK Corral
You know you're in for a western treat when the opening song of the film is sung by Frankie Laine. For this second film about the Earp boys and Doc Holliday, the director is John Sturges, a director best known for his seminal western The Magnificent Seven and his epic WWII prison drama, The Great Escape. Sturges' films were known for having a fairly decent amount of action in them, and less of the psychological insights into his characters. This film is no exception. In terms of star power, this version goes for broke by having two of the biggest stars of the time play the pivotal roles of Earp & Holliday. Burt Lancaster plays Wyatt Earp with his usual bombastic flair and Kirk Douglas delivers his lines with the strained seriousness which he had become known for. Unfortunately, you never quite can see past the fact that it's Burt & Kirk acting, yet never becoming the characters. Another weakness in the film probably stems from the fact that a good portion of the budget went to pay their salaries, and not much is left over for the supporting cast of male actors. Lyle Bettger, known only to hardcore western junkies of the time as a bit character actor who played villains, is pretty unremarkable as Ike Clanton. You do have John Ireland playing Johnny Ringo, but just as with Lancaster & Douglas, you never can see beyond the fact it's Ireland acting his usual tough guy persona.
For the first time, we get a look at Big Nose Kate, the prostitute who was Doc Holliday's companion. But Hollywood was still being dictated to by the Breen office, and Jo Van Fleet is saddle with playing her as a desperate drunk, clinging on to Holliday as he self destructs. Rhonda Fleming is given a throw away role as a beautiful gambling lady whom Wyatt falls in love with. I guess this was suppose to be based on Josie Marcus, the dancer who would one day become Mrs. Earp, but she was never a big stakes gambler.
When time came for the famous shootout, Sturges decided that a quick shootout in a cramped opening abutting the stable wasn't exciting enough, so the altercation is spread out on the outskirts of town. Doc Holliday uses a six gun instead of a shotgun, which for some unexplained reason, is used by Wyatt Earp, instead of his famed Buntline revolver, which we see him play around with in an earlier scene. Now the historical inaccuracies comes fast and furious, as the action on screen plays out.
(click to show/hide)
Ike Clanton is gunned down by a shotgun blast from Wyatt Earp and Billy Clanton (played with all the method he could muster by Dennis Hopper) is wounded and meets his maker in a local store from a shot by a pistol packing Holliday.
I can understand taking a little poetic license with a story to spruce up the action, but they play so fast and loose, that this whole segment could have been supplanted into Sturges' next western Last Train from Gun Hill, and you wouldn't have never known the difference.
It's a fun ride, but when all is said and done, it never rises above a B movie western from the same era.
Boot hill Boot hill so cold so still There they lay side by side the killers that died in the gunfight at ok corral ok corral GUNFIGHT AT OK CORRAL
But damn if it ain't worth it just to listen to Frankie Laine croon that song.
Review Criterion 5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence. 4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right. 4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic. 3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch. 3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture. 2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable. 2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest. 1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points. 1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life. ½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
Show Posts
- The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
- Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
- Historically important film, considered a classic.
- An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
– A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
- Borderline viewable.
– A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
– Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
– A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
- A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
