u/Hurdy_Gurdy_Man_84

Source:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdwecMhpDjH/

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdwgC7ypK51/

What are the people's thoughts here on Alfred Hitchcock's 'Marnie'?

As for me, my thoughts are of a rather mixed nature. Subject-wise, it echoes Hitchcock's previous films Spellbound as well as Vertigo, as it deals with the psychoanalysis of a traumatized person as well as a man's obsession with an icy blonde.

I liked the acting by both Connery and Hedren, esp. Connery who is saddled with a character who is not exactly likeable or agreeable and potential dislike for such a character could very well extend to dislike for the actor's performance itself. I maintain that one of the reasons why Connery was so believable as James Bond was because underneath the suave and sophisticated veneer as well as the sense of duty and loyalty towards his job as well as country, there were also dark undercurrents of barely restrained violence and amorality, always threatening to come up to the surface. Connery could project that duality extremely well.

On the flip side, the eventual revelation in the climax was not particularly shocking or satisfying and I think it has not aged well. The controversial scene (won't name it, those who have seen the film, will know what I am talking about) that occurs roughly around the middle of the film, also left a bad taste in my mouth.

Singham (2011) marks a milestone in Rohit Shetty's career, as in it was his first non-comedic project which was successful at the box office. It helped erase the "comedy director" mark on him. It was also after Singham that he became recognizable to the general public, as he started appearing on TV shows such as Comedy Circus and Khatron Ke Khiladi as a judge.

As for the film, while its first two acts are good as they closely follow the original Tamil film, its third act is messed up big time. The antagonist having all but won and the protagonist deciding to take the law in his own hands in desperation, is a hallmark of more cynical and realist films such as Ardh Satya or Shool, not an escapist crowd-pleaser like Singham. By going down that path, the makers dilute the message as well as entertainment factor. This becomes more stark when compared to the original, where the protagonist battles the antagonist using both brawn and brain, systematically dismantling his criminal empire, ending where it is the antagonist who makes a fatal move in desperation, in turn giving the protagonist the excuse to move in for the final attack.

After its sister film Kickboxer was expanded into a franchise in the 90s, Bloodsport got its own (unrelated) sequel series. While the Kickboxer franchise has the Sloan family as its unifying factor, the Bloodsport series doesn't repeat any characters and instead settles on the Kumite tournament as the common factor.

Bloodsport II (1996) :

Daniel Bernhardt plays Alex Cardo, an art thief who is imprisoned, learns advanced martial arts from a wise old inmate (James Hong) and participates in the Kumite as a token of his gratitude. Pat Morita also shows up in a side bit.

As is de rigueur for these genre flicks, Bernhardt is good-looking, tall, broad and well-muscled. While his acting never rises above passable level, his imposing screen presence and formidable fighting skills make up for it.

However, the wraparound story of James Hong telling this to a group of children was overtly corny and could have been scrapped entirely. The villain is also nowhere as memorable as Chong Li (Bolo Yeung), a feature that would repeat in the next two films as well.

Bloodsport III (1996) :

Once again, the film uses a wraparound story of Cardo narrating the main events to his young son sometime in he future, a device that serves absolutely no purpose and could have easily been scrapped.

The film also makes the gravest of errors by killing James Hong off in his introductory scene. The villain (John Rhys-Davies) makes this happen, as he hopes this would coerce Cardo to fight in the Kumite. It all turns out to be pointless anyway, as he changes his mind later and tells all his men that Cardo should not make it to Kumite at any cost. 🤷🏻

The Kumite itself is considerably low-budget this time, feeling like a strictly local event rather than international.

Bloodsport 4: The Dark Kumite (1999) :

This had got to be the case where an original script was re-tooled to fit into an existing franchise. Bernhardt returns but plays an entirely different character named John Keller.

This film has the poorest rating of all films in the series and it isn't difficult to see why. There is almost no visible budget for anything, whether for cast, crew, locations and fight choreographers. Kumite seems to be an entirely secret as well as illegal tournament where death row inmates are coerced to fight for their freedom.

I have little doubt in my mind that notorious B-movie schlockmeister Albert Pyun was behind this misguided venture. Its direction is credited to someone called Elvis Restaino, but I strongly suspect that Pyun was responsible for directing most of this, fell out with the producers later and they removed his credit. Either that or Restaino was willfully mimicking Pyun's directorial trademarks ... and why would anyone aspire to that? Add to it the fact that Pyun also directed two films in the sister franchise Kickboxer.

In summation, these sequels are perfect fodder for bad movie aficionados as well as cine-masochists, great howlers to make fun of.

I was planning to share my thoughts on this film for quite a while now. I did not expect this film to leave me in such a state of emotional turmoil.

I thought that instead of simply making a text-only post, I should include the clip of Jane Seymour's monologue on "the man of my dreams" which she spontaneously ad-libs in the middle of a performing in a play, going off script. She directs her words to a man (Christopher Reeve) in the audience, who unbeknownst to her, is a time traveller from the future.

The monologue scene is followed by a small clip where she gets her photograph taken and smiles radiantly when she sees the same man arrive in the room. This scene is significant, because the photograph taken at that moment is the very photograph which the man saw in the future and fell in love with her.

As for the film, where should I begin? I have already stated that the film has got me super emotional, especially when Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody or John Barry's theme music starts playing.

The cinematography is simply astounding. DoP Isidore Mankofsky used two different film stocks for the scenes set in present and past, due to which the latter scenes look brighter, sunnier and more colourful. There are many striking shots, such as when we first glimpse Elise McKenna in the reflection of a window, or the split diopter shot when Elise and Richard are reunited.

This is the kind of film where the viewer has got to buy into the lush romantic vibe and go with the flow, otherwise the film is likely not to work for the viewer. The romance seems more dictated by the necessity of plot rather than logical or believable, as the two protagonists only spend some time together and know each other only in a superficial manner.

The film is not without its flaws. I hate the subplot with Christopher Plummer. It serves no purpose other than a poorly-conceived attempt to create some obstacle to the romance of the protagonists and ends with a whimper. I might also be committing additional blasphemy by announcing that I find Plummer to be a very stiff actor to the point of being an automaton. His expressions, posture, body language, diction - everything comes across as phoned-in to me. I know he is respected and even beloved by many ... but I have been unable to see it, so far. Maybe I haven't seen him in the right kind of roles yet.

A smaller niggle is that most of the humorous scenes don't land, such as when Richard travels to 1920, finds himself in someone's room and has to hide himself from them. Luckily there aren't all that many of those to be anything more than a niggle. I appreciated the author Richard Matheson's cameo, though.

Spoilers on a major plot development follow. If you haven't seen the film, do not click.

>!One of the biggest complaints I have seen is that people are confused as to why he couldn't travel back in time when he had already managed to do it once. I have read a lot of comments on this in multiple forums and here is my hypothesis:!<

>!In the beginning, his former professor tells him that time travel can be physically exhausting. Which is evident in his state when he comes back to the present. It's possible that he simply did not have much energy left to repeat the process.!<

>!Another reason could be that he realizes that in his timeline, the actress spent a lonely life and died alone. There were reports of a mysterious man being seen with her who suddenly appeared and vanished just as suddenly. Richard realizes that destiny itself has decided that his and Elise's time together was never going to be more than those two days and one night. This knowledge and realization ultimately crushes him, to the point that he simply... stops. Perhaps he has resigned himself to life not being worth going on and the hope of reuniting with Elise in the afterlife.!<

Take a look at the third paragraph. So much concentrated stupidity.

What were the hit films of Dev Anand and Shammi Kapoor of the 60s? Were they not rom-coms? What are the likes of Paying Guest, Tere Ghar Ke Samne, Tumsa Nahin Dekha, Professor etc?

After the rise of Angry Young Man in the 70s, rom-coms started to get rare. But even then, the blockbuster Satte Pe Satta is primarily a cross between a family comedy and rom-com.

More than this kind of inaccuracy, it's his blatant disregard for rom-coms as a genre itself that angers me. As if people who make and watch rom-coms are somehow inferior/un-Indian. इतनी ही अपनी मर्दानगी दिखाने की चुल मची है तो फौज में भरती हो जा | ऐसी सर से पैदल बकवास मत कर | तेरी माँ-बहन-बीवी के सामने ये सब बोलेगा तो एक हफ्ता खाना नहीं मिलेगा |

Sanjay Chhel was a great dialogue writer. His work on Rangeela, Daud, Yes Boss and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, among others, is fantastic.

However, when making a film, only relying on your skills as a dialogue writer is not enough. Your screenplay has to make sense and has to have an even flow. Khoobsurat's screenplay comes across as a loosely woven series of skits instead of a smoothly flowing story. Many scenes simply come and go without having any bearing later in the story. Conflicts between characters pop up suddenly and are also resolved in an equally lazy fashion.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Bawarchi told the same story with a lot more conviction and steadiness, with more memorable characters as well as the actors who played them. Khoobsurat has a large and talented supporting cast but most of them don't have particularly memorable lines or scenes.

Sanjay Dutt valiantly tries to inject life into the film with his comedic timing, despite being somewhat miscast in a soft guy role. Urmila, sadly, isn't given much material to showcase her comedic chops, which is a shame because she had shown that she could be funny in Daud.

In summation, what I enjoyed long ago in childhood doesn't have the same appeal to me anymore. The film has not changed, it's I whose sensibilities have changed. Back in the day, I may have been satisfied with a few individual parts that worked but today, I prefer to look at and evaluate the whole project, which falls short of my expectations.

I can recommend this film to people who fall into two categories. (A) fans of Sanjay Dutt and (B) those who are prone to enjoy average family-oriented comedies without any high expectations.

One of the best endings of any film anywhere, EVER, in my opinion. The slow buildup, the hesitation leading to acceptance, accompanied by the divine score by Ravi Shankar.

I dare anyone not to shed a tear or two at the culmination of this scene, especially when you have sat through all three films at a go.