I've Been Going to the...MOOOOvies

[kipper]

2 hours ago, RainbowElf said:

The Godfather movies this weekend, except maybe not the third part as it sucks and I can’t stand to see Francis daughter as Michael Corleon’s daughter as she can’t act for shit.

There are only TWO Godfather films.  That 3rd thing Coppola signed off on was travesty.  One thing both Michael Corleone or his father would have NEVER done would be to seek the advice and council of women. In GFIII Michael shares way too much information with his wife Kate and his sister Connie, a total departure from his character.

At the end of Godfather II as an aged Michael was sitting alone at his compound in Tahoe reflecting on where his life had ended up and remembering all the people he had both loved and "dealt with" in his family, and why he was so reviled in the end while his father loved?  That was the END of the story, it didn't need a part 3.

I have always thought an interesting film would be a prequel story covering the early lives of the three brothers (Santino, Fredo, and Michael).  Some very interesting back stories there.

 

[kipper]

5 hours ago, Strider said:

Well, yeah, but the difference is that "Bullitt" wasn't trying to sell San Francisco as another location. "Bullitt" was very clear about it taking place in San Francisco and using real San Francisco locations. 

What kipper was explaining was the common feeling all Los Angeles natives have when we see Hollywood passing Los Angeles and its locations off as other cities and countries. 

For many years I kept a list of every time I noticed a Los Angeles location being used for somewhere else in a movie. I'll have to try and dig it up. As kipper has posted above, The Bradbury Building was a favourite for many filmmakers. Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead and the Malibu and Santa Monica Canyons were also popular stand-ins for other places.

My biggest complaint about Bullitt is actually elements of the car chase---which was the  best part of the film.  During the chase they used too many of the same cars in the traffic shots over, and over, and over again. Even before I was keen at watching films for continuity errors in production, the shots of the same green VW and the white Pontiac seemingly showing up at every street, cross street, and heading in every direction near the Mustang and the Charger-- was obvious even then. I'm sure that in the edit bay they were going, "shit, wish we had some more footage so we don't have to keep using those shots of the same cars!"

The Bradbury Building: Usually a field trip destination for elementary school students back in the day. Along with Grand Central Terminal near Olivera Street. The art deco train terminal is featured in many Hollywood films.

 

Yes, Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead often depicted as some European mountain area. And of course the epic background of  Vasquez Rocks in the canyon pass between the San Fernando Valley and Antelope Valley.  Too many films to mention for that location, including Star Trek too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_productions_using_the_Vasquez_Rocks_as_a_filming_location

 

Star Trek

 

Blazing Saddles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[redrum]

7 hours ago, Strider said:

Well, yeah, but the difference is that "Bullitt" wasn't trying to sell San Francisco as another location. "Bullitt" was very clear about it taking place in San Francisco and using real San Francisco locations. 

What kipper was explaining was the common feeling all Los Angeles natives have when we see Hollywood passing Los Angeles and its locations off as other cities and countries. 

For many years I kept a list of every time I noticed a Los Angeles location being used for somewhere else in a movie. I'll have to try and dig it up. As kipper has posted above, The Bradbury Building was a favourite for many filmmakers. Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead and the Malibu and Santa Monica Canyons were also popular stand-ins for other places.

In the 'Sand Pebbles' commentary, the final scene was actually a set built in Malibu. Many tricks like Hitchcock used to do. (Movie Magic) The Bradbury bldg. also used in an episode of 'The Outer Limits' with Robert Culp. I'd love to visit it.

[paul carruthers]

There's a myriad of Chaplin films I would like to watch like Monsieur Verdoux, but I can never find the time...

[kipper]

All this talk about SF, car chases, and location shots.... I remembered I had this in my cloud DVR recorded off of TCM:

"What's Up Doc?" (1972)

What a treat this was! Hadn't seen this since I was a teenager when it came out.

Very, very, funny--- well written and directed.  There is a line near the end where the phrase, "Love is never having to say you're sorry" that they made fun of and I laughed out  loud. The joke being it was a line from "Love Story" (1970) which Ryan O'Neal starred in along side Ally MacGraw.  I'm sure I didn't get the joke 48 years ago when I first saw this.

 

 

 

 

[redrum]

My biggest complaint about Bullitt is actually elements of the car chase---which was the  best part of the film.  During the chase they used too many of the same cars in the traffic shots over, and over, and over again. Even before I was keen at watching films for continuity errors in production, the shots of the same green VW and the white Pontiac seemingly showing up at every street, cross street, and heading in every direction near the Mustang and the Charger-- was obvious even then. I'm sure that in the edit bay they were going, "shit, wish we had some more footage so we don't have to keep using those shots of the same cars!"

 

I know what you're talking about. What got me more was how they could go from Bernal Heights/Portrero Hill to the Marina district in an instant. The two areas are probably about 5 miles from each other. But like I said, it was for the locations.

Currently watching this. I love the sound track.

[redrum]

 

[redrum]

 

[RainbowElf]

18 hours ago, kipper said:

There are only TWO Godfather films.  That 3rd thing Coppola signed off on was travesty.  One thing both Michael Corleone or his father would have NEVER done would be to seek the advice and council of women. In GFIII Michael shares way too much information with his wife Kate and his sister Connie, a total departure from his character.

At the end of Godfather II as an aged Michael was sitting alone at his compound in Tahoe reflecting on where his life had ended up and remembering all the people he had both loved and "dealt with" in his family, and why he was so reviled in the end while his father loved?  That was the END of the story, it didn't need a part 3.

I have always thought an interesting film would be a prequel story covering the early lives of the three brothers (Santino, Fredo, and Michael).  Some very interesting back stories there.

 

I think they could’ve continued The Godfather story, but not  the corny story they used, they could’ve made Al Neri the boss if Michael Corleone wanted to retired, they were basically using Connie as the underboss lol. 
 

I heard the only reason this movie was made was to compete against Goodfellas which came out around the same time, Goodfellas blew The Godfather III away.

[RainbowElf]

Watching I Spit In Your Grave, Never got to see this,

Edited September 20, 2020 by RainbowElf
Typo

[redrum]

3 minutes ago, RainbowElf said:

Watching I Spit In Your Grace, Never got to see this,

(Grave) I remember that.

Edited September 20, 2020 by redrum

[RainbowElf]

7 minutes ago, redrum said:

(Grave) I remember that.

Just corrected it.

[Strider]

12 hours ago, kipper said:

All this talk about SF, car chases, and location shots.... I remembered I had this in my cloud DVR recorded off of TCM:

"What's Up Doc?" (1972)

What a treat this was! Hadn't seen this since I was a teenager when it came out.

Very, very, funny--- well written and directed.  There is a line near the end where the phrase, "Love is never having to say you're sorry" that they made fun of and I laughed out  loud. The joke being it was a line from "Love Story" (1970) which Ryan O'Neal starred in along side Ally MacGraw.  I'm sure I didn't get the joke 48 years ago when I first saw this.

 

 

 

 

My dad was in San Francisco on business while they were filming this movie and got to see quite a bit of filming at the hotel and the chase scenes. He made sure to take us to see the movie opening night.

My favourite Barbra Streisand movie...she never looked better than in this movie. "What's Up, Doc?" is also the rare modern reboot of a classic (1938's "Bringing Up Baby") that holds its own and is just as good. I watch it at least once or twice every year.

[Strider]

20 hours ago, paul carruthers said:

There's a myriad of Chaplin films I would like to watch like Monsieur Verdoux, but I can never find the time...

Time? That's all I've had since March 19. 😮

39 minutes ago, RainbowElf said:

Watching I Spit In Your Grave, Never got to see this,

The original "I Spit On Your Grave" or the reboots? Ever see "The Last House on the Left", Wes Craven's slasher version of Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring"?

[kipper]

7 hours ago, RainbowElf said:

I think they could’ve continued The Godfather story, but not  the corny story they used, they could’ve made Al Neri the boss if Michael Corleone wanted to retired, they were basically using Connie as the underboss lol. 
 

I heard the only reason this movie was made was to compete against Goodfellas which came out around the same time, Goodfellas blew The Godfather III away.

 

Of course Goodfellas blew it away. Because Goodfellas is honest story telling and movie making. It respected the story of the NYC mob of that era in the '70s enough to tell it correctly.

The story of Micheal (and the juxtaposition presented of his father Vito ways of doing things) was a complete story by the end of Godfather II. There really was nothing more in my opinion to tell of that story. By the end of GFII the prediction of Don Corleone's in GFI of how the drug business would be too difficult to control as a business, and would strain the balance the NYC mob (5 families) and the "powers" of government, politics, and law enforcement that the 5 families  had been able to achieve and effectively control in the decades after the "Castellammarese War of 1930" was proven to be an accurate prediction by Vito Corelone. Any hope of becoming legitimate to a degree where Micheal could become a Governor, or a Senator---- was just too heavy a lift really,  despite Don Vito's desires for his son and the family. Because eventually everyone will end up eating their own---same as happened in Sicily before Vito came to America. The son's challenges would prove to be a far more difficult goal than what the father's success had been during a more violent and brutal time in the early 20th century. 

The reason the first two Godfathers were so compelling, is because the story is one framed in many historical accuracies--- and  as an audience we could touch and feel the story having it as one which was so close to how those things really were in NYC at that time. We are therefore carried along with something we know is or could be real. Even as outsiders to the life, we know it existed. So, we not only believe the characters, we can empathize with many of them. It was a brutal life, but one which many did not originally choose; it  was what it was to be in that life, but it was the traditions and the rules which made it work.

GFIII however becomes a ridiculous fantasy fiction on the level of some really bad film like 'National Treasure'.  Goofy, unbelievable, lacking all of the entertainment value which even the worst of the James Bond or Star Wars franchise installments could deliver. And proof that when Hollywood studios eventually throw enough money at a director, some will eventually cave in and be willing to paint their next Picasso with a box of crayons on the back of piece of cardboard and then either happily or reluctantly go ahead and cash the check.  I hate the fact that Coppola caved under pressure to do this film, I hate that Pacino signed on--- it was a huge mistake.  Hollywood is too into creating franchise stories, and we know what franchises get us--- McDonalds, Panda Express, and Taco Bell.  The mob stories which were told beyond and separate from the ending of GFII which worked are Goodfellas, Casino, and Donnie Brasco among others.  None are franchise stories.

But I still believe a Godfather prequel could be done. One which fills the gap in the story from after Don Corleone's emergence as one of the heads of the 5 families and after his sons are born, to the point before Micheal gets out of the Marines and Connie's wedding.  But it would take a strong team of writers and a director willing to tread so carefully and effectively within the framework of the original Godfather novel, and the first two films.  A director who would not be bullied by the studio to insert some stupid crap into it.  It would not be big flash and bang, car chase and explosion CGI filled made for the  Chinese (China) audience cluster fuck like most of Hollywood's current crap-factory shit.

Edited September 20, 2020 by kipper

[RainbowElf]

1 hour ago, Strider said:

Time? That's all I've had since March 19. 😮

The original "I Spit On Your Grave" or the reboots? Ever see "The Last House on the Left", Wes Craven's slasher version of Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring"?

The original, yes I saw Wes Cravens movie it was sick.

[kipper]

1 hour ago, Strider said:

My dad was in San Francisco on business while they were filming this movie and got to see quite a bit of filming at the hotel and the chase scenes. He made sure to take us to see the movie opening night.

My favourite Barbra Streisand movie...she never looked better than in this movie. "What's Up, Doc?" is also the rare modern reboot of a classic (1938's "Bringing Up Baby") that holds its own and is just as good. I watch it at least once or twice every year.

Loved the location shots of the Hilton hotel in SF. Would have been cool to have been your pop to see the filming.

Like I said, I  had forgotten about this film, and being older and understanding the craft more than when I was a kid, I really appreciate the screenplay, the direction, and Streisand's wonderful performance. As well as so many of the various actors in the film--- like the Judge in the courtroom and Eunice (Madeline Khan).   Comedy is so much more difficult to do than any other genres. Timing has to be perfect, and without great writers you have nothing to work off of in the first place no matter how good the actors are. I love screwball comedies. My favorite of all time is The Out of Towners (1970) with Jack Lemon and Sandy Denny.  Either that or The More The Merrier (1943) with Jean Arthur and Joel Mcrea.

 

Yeah, Babs is kind of cute in this film. That sexy Bugs Bunny "gal" that Garth fantasized about in Wayne's World probably was on his mind. LOL.  The jokes are really good and they come quickly like a machine gun. And the comedy action as precise as a Buster Keaton bit.  No wonder the film came in 3rd in revenue for 1972 behind The Godfather and the Poseiden Adventure .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[redrum]

The Out of Towners

One of my favorites.

[kipper]

58 minutes ago, redrum said:

The Out of Towners

One of my favorites.

Hysterically funny. Both Jack Lemon and Sandy Denny comedy masters.

And then the remake with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn--- a total snoozefest disaster. Proving sometimes you just leave a thing alone, you can't always top--- or come close to an original concept. Too many moving parts in a film like the original Out of Towners that can no longer really be duplicated.

 

[redrum]

1 hour ago, kipper said:

Hysterically funny. Both Jack Lemon and Sandy Denny comedy masters.

And then the remake with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn--- a total snoozefest disaster. Proving sometimes you just leave a thing alone, you can't always top--- or come close to an original concept. Too many moving parts in a film like the original Out of Towners that can no longer really be duplicated.

 

One of the best remakes I can remember was of the Bogart film 'Sahara.' Jim Belushi starred in the remake and it pretty much mirrored the original.

We went down to watch them filming 'The Towering Inferno' in SF at the 52 story B Of A building. (Where Scorpio shot the girl from in Dirty Harry). I got a glimpse of Paul Newman, but that was about it.

[kipper]

3 hours ago, redrum said:

One of the best remakes I can remember was of the Bogart film 'Sahara.' Jim Belushi starred in the remake and it pretty much mirrored the original.

 

We went down to watch them filming 'The Towering Inferno' in SF at the 52 story B Of A building. (Where Scorpio shot the girl from in Dirty Harry). I got a glimpse of Paul Newman, but that was about it.

I'm usually very disappointed with most remakes. Haven't seen Sahara yet, have to check it out.  One remake I thought I would hate but really enjoyed was 3:10 To Yuma. I really hope they never pollute Dirty Harry with a remake.  I was sad to hear the railroad overpass Callahan stood on before he leaped on to the bus was demolished a few years ago.

Another Eastwood film collaboration with director Don Siegel (Dirty Harry) that I really liked was Coogan's Bluff (1968).

I've seen plenty of film location shoots over the years. The biggest star I saw up close and had a chance to speak with Burt Reynolds during a shoot for the film Hustle (1975). I remember saying something goofy to him about how my mother was a huge fan of his, and Reynolds says, "have any pictures of her?"  with that devil's grin of his.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by kipper

[redrum]

 

[RainbowElf]

12 hours ago, kipper said:

 

Of course Goodfellas blew it away. Because Goodfellas is honest story telling and movie making. It respected the story of the NYC mob of that era in the '70s enough to tell it correctly.

The story of Micheal (and the juxtaposition presented of his father Vito ways of doing things) was a complete story by the end of Godfather II. There really was nothing more in my opinion to tell of that story. By the end of GFII the prediction of Don Corleone's in GFI of how the drug business would be too difficult to control as a business, and would strain the balance the NYC mob (5 families) and the "powers" of government, politics, and law enforcement that the 5 families  had been able to achieve and effectively control in the decades after the "Castellammarese War of 1930" was proven to be an accurate prediction by Vito Corelone. Any hope of becoming legitimate to a degree where Micheal could become a Governor, or a Senator---- was just too heavy a lift really,  despite Don Vito's desires for his son and the family. Because eventually everyone will end up eating their own---same as happened in Sicily before Vito came to America. The son's challenges would prove to be a far more difficult goal than what the father's success had been during a more violent and brutal time in the early 20th century. 

The reason the first two Godfathers were so compelling, is because the story is one framed in many historical accuracies--- and  as an audience we could touch and feel the story having it as one which was so close to how those things really were in NYC at that time. We are therefore carried along with something we know is or could be real. Even as outsiders to the life, we know it existed. So, we not only believe the characters, we can empathize with many of them. It was a brutal life, but one which many did not originally choose; it  was what it was to be in that life, but it was the traditions and the rules which made it work.

GFIII however becomes a ridiculous fantasy fiction on the level of some really bad film like 'National Treasure'.  Goofy, unbelievable, lacking all of the entertainment value which even the worst of the James Bond or Star Wars franchise installments could deliver. And proof that when Hollywood studios eventually throw enough money at a director, some will eventually cave in and be willing to paint their next Picasso with a box of crayons on the back of piece of cardboard and then either happily or reluctantly go ahead and cash the check.  I hate the fact that Coppola caved under pressure to do this film, I hate that Pacino signed on--- it was a huge mistake.  Hollywood is too into creating franchise stories, and we know what franchises get us--- McDonalds, Panda Express, and Taco Bell.  The mob stories which were told beyond and separate from the ending of GFII which worked are Goodfellas, Casino, and Donnie Brasco among others.  None are franchise stories.

But I still believe a Godfather prequel could be done. One which fills the gap in the story from after Don Corleone's emergence as one of the heads of the 5 families and after his sons are born, to the point before Micheal gets out of the Marines and Connie's wedding.  But it would take a strong team of writers and a director willing to tread so carefully and effectively within the framework of the original Godfather novel, and the first two films.  A director who would not be bullied by the studio to insert some stupid crap into it.  It would not be big flash and bang, car chase and explosion CGI filled made for the  Chinese (China) audience cluster fuck like most of Hollywood's current crap-factory shit.

Completely agree Kipper, whenever I watch The Godfather movies, I usually always skip the third one.

[RainbowElf]

Think I’ll watch Casino next.

Edited September 21, 2020 by RainbowElf
Typo

[2bitnogoodjive]