Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 11, 2019 8:45:07 GMT -8
Yesterday, on Amazon Prime Video, I watched Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, and Cliff Robertson. I know I’ve seen bits of this before. I may have even watched it on TV. But typically you haven’t really seen a movie if viewed on TV because they are often heavily edited. The commercial breaks interrupt the flow of the movie as well. I like a good spy thriller, so I sat down and watched this one from 1976. Redford and Dunaway are in their prime. Cliff Robertson seems past his. But the main problem with this movie is the plot. Redford works for the CIA in some small branch that reads books that are published throughout the world. In these books they are looking for coded messages. Redford notices something in a book and sends it on to headquarters. Soon after, his entire office is assassinated. He happened to be out getting take-out for the office crew. Long story short, there is a cabal within The Company (the CIA) that wants to take over the oil in the Middle East. And they have a plan that even Cliff Robertson admits could work. (Whether he is in on it or not is not firmly established.) You first have to ask yourself: Why would a secrete cabal within The Company bring such notice to itself by wiping out an entire branch because of some obscure book reference? They never make clear how any of the stuff they find in book can at all be established as secret code nor why a secret cabal within the CIA would communicate in this way. So it’s a big hash from the get-go that never gets any better. Max von Sydow further muddles things because he’s a hit man who actually isn’t after Redford (I guess) put has been hired by the CIA to take out some people. But he may be after Redford in the sequel. If there was a sequel. Which there wasn’t. It’s a truly horrible plot that is saved, to the extent it is saved, by the star power of Redford and Dunaway. Their relationship is highly un-PC. It’s based on Redford kidnapping her (he needs a safe place while on the run). She’s a bit of a recluse and succumbs to Redford’s charms, including leaving her tied up in her own apartment for a day. But who can resist Redford? Their relationship is actually the only reason to watch this. They are interesting together as she tries to figure out if Redford is a kook or is actually legitimately on the run from bad guys deep inside the government. By all means, watch this for the star power. But the plot sucks. A strange transformation happens to Redford. He is presented as a bookworm recruited by the CIA for his academic knowledge, not his Bond-like skills. But when he’s on the run, he suddenly becomes MacGyver. It’s got star power. It’s got great cinematography. But it’s got a rotten plot and an unsatisfying ending. In the end, I find this to fit the category of over-rated.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 11, 2019 9:28:28 GMT -8
I saw this in the theaters at the time, and probably recall enough to answer your questions. Von Sydow's assassin character was after Redford on a contract from a particular CIA leader. When he eliminates that leader at the behest (presumably) of higher-ups in the CIA, it invalidates his contract to kill Redford. He also seems to admire him (particularly the way Redford used him to get to the leader -- calling him up, asking a "survey question" about whether the condor is an endangered creature, and using his communication skills to find out who the assassin calls).
As for the basis, as best I could tell the idea was that some book came too close to their plans, so they had to eliminate the office (presumably anyone there could be aware of what was in it). One assumes they would also have targeted the author and maybe the editor, but if so we never hear about it. The logic behind this would probably be the investigation of Cleve Cartmill and John W. Campbell after Astounding printed a story about an atomic bomb. Of course, Cartmill and Campbell weren't murdered, or even threatened with dire consequences, but never mind.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 11, 2019 9:49:20 GMT -8
That’s a good description of the whole Max von Sydow thing. And it works a teeny bit. But the rest of the structure of this film is so faulty that the Sydow thing is a bit gadgety. More Sydow less Dunaway and Robertson probably would have been a good idea. Flesh out that bloodless pragmatist aspect of Sydow.
But no one but Redford can make those old 70’s clothing look so good. As one expressive reviewer note:
As to why anyone would potentially risk their operation by killing an entire office is never explained. That office produces from what we can see, at best, sketchy and highly speculative guesses at what might be some kind of intelligence being transmitted through the plots of books (which was Redford’s specialty).
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 11, 2019 11:55:15 GMT -8
I watched this with a friend back in the mid 70s. Both of us were employees of CIA and we laughed so hard people around us turned and stared. The reality of intelligence work and the fantasy, in the movies, of what we actually do are so different as to be on different planets, maybe different dimensions. Redford and Dunaway are, at this point, the top of their star power and that is the only element that carries the movie.
As for the folks at Langley, it one of the funniest movies ever made, suitable as misinformation for the uneducated, uninformed and just outright stupid. I suspect even James Angelton might have cracked a smile.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 11, 2019 12:35:13 GMT -8
Well, you could always detail the errors for us (unless they would be classified information, of course). Think of it as providing an education. I'm assuming the basic plot is one of the inaccuracies.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 11, 2019 15:40:08 GMT -8
That’s heartening to know I wasn’t way off base in thinking that maybe this “CIA” meant “Clueless Investigative Acting.” But I will say, Redford and Dunaway bring a lot of stylishness to this CIA.
I have a retired firefighter brother. He doesn’t laugh at some of the stuff he sees in movies and TV shows, but he lets me now what the reality is. He thought “Backdraft” was fairly realistic except for the fact that in most of the scenes, you would have seen almost nothing because of the smoke. But the needs of the movie are that there’s no use spending all that money on name actors if you can’t see them.
I wonder what New York cops think when they see “Blue Bloods.” They must howl. But then again, I have no idea what is normal in The Big Apple. And for goodness sakes don’t watch “Rescue Me” on Amazon Prime. If this is the state of the FDNY, they’re in big trouble.
I think the TV show, “Emergency.” was much more realistic. But my brother did say that some of the shenanigans that went on in the firehouse as portrayed in “Rescue Me” are pretty realistic. Crude. Vulgar. Childish. But put a bunch of men together like that, and they’ll find a way to blow off steam in interesting ways.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 12, 2019 8:03:07 GMT -8
This isn’t amongst “The Ranks of the Over-Rated.” I may have to change the title of this thread to “Bad Plot Gimmicks.” That would be the unifying factor in regards to watching Raise the Titanic. I’m about halfway into this. They’ve found the Titanic. The titanic cast includes Jason Robards, Richard-Francis-Jordan, Anne-Cathy-Ryan-Archer, and Alec Guinness. Chief Peter B. Clifford is in this as well asCaptain Joe Burke. Character actor M. Emmet Walsh plays Master Chief Vinnie Walker. Raise the Titanic is basically TV-movie quality. What’s interesting is to see Alec Guinness gives such a phoned-in performance on the side-character he plays (some kind of steward who sailed on the Titanic). It makes me think that it must be the directors who can be heavily responsible for the performances actors give. Left to their own devices, I wonder if many of them would be so great. The gist of the movie is wonderfully ridiculous, and far worse than even Three Days of The Redford. The U.S. military has plans to build an impenetrable shield against attack that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. All they need is a power source. For some reason (and I forget the premise), there is a rare mineral they that can only be found in the baggage compartment of the Titanic. (No, I’m not making this up.) Don’t ask why that is the only source. In a meeting of minds between Robards and Jordan, it’s determined that the Titanic is much too deep (wherever it is) to recover the mineral. So Jordan pipes up with the brilliant idea of something like “Well, if we can’t come to the Titanic, let the Titanic come to us.” Put that in the category of “Easier said than done.” So even though it’s deemed impossible for divers to get to the Titanic it’s deemed possible to just raise the whole ship. They’ll use the latest submersibles, of course, to first find it and then to rig it for floating. They’ll fill it with foam and then attach some flotation devices to the side. They’ll then set charges to release the suction-hold of the bottom. Obviously at the time they had no idea that the Titanic had broken in two. All the while the Russians have a spy on board and are getting play-by-play from some traitor, but we know not who. The film has a nice score. It’s based on a book by Clive Cussler. From what I’ve read, it’s a somewhat loose adaptation. Apparently the plot of the novel was not closely followed and the ending completely changed. One reviewer says “The acting was indifferent.” That’s a good way of putting it. He also says it cost $40,000,000 to make it, was hyped as a blockbuster, but was a flop at the box office (“there’s barely enough plot to make a b-movie”). Still, it’s not horrible, just sort of dull and TV-movie-ish.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 12, 2019 8:48:00 GMT -8
I've heard of Raise the Titanic, but never seen it. Evidently I didn't miss anything. That's an utterly insane premise, though I can understand that raising it (in parts, though that may not have been known at the time) would probably be more feasible than using individual divers at that depth.
There are some pretty good TV movies, by the way. I rather liked Crowhaven Farm even if it is basically Rosemary's Baby mixed with reincarnation for historical revenge. (But the torture known as peine forte et dure -- actually mentioned in passing in a Sherlock Holmes story, though I don't recall which except that it featured a female villain -- was used not for punishment or even eliciting confessions but simply to force the accused to accept trial, which in theory was voluntary.) Another good one is the Rehearsal for Murder, a clever detective movie starring Robert Preston and also featuring Lynn Redgrave and Patrick MacNee, among others. (Preston was also in another one, involving the father of a rape victim avenging himself and facing trial, but I don't recall the title.)
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 12, 2019 12:23:02 GMT -8
After a little checking in wikipedia and imdb, I found that the second Preston TV movie was Outrage!, also featuring Beau Bridges as the father's lawyer and Burgess Meredith as the trial judge (though the judge who let the rapist off on a technicality is also a character). It's basically an attack on technicalities, which in this case meant that a suspect already charged with another was entitled to his lawyer even if he waived that right. Apparently something like this is or was a genuine legal technicality.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2019 7:42:57 GMT -8
They do finally raise the Titanic. The Russians threaten to interfere but are rebuffed by a show of Naval force. Why any kind of force is not already there and present is strange. They are, after all, recovering a mineral that will build an impenetrable wall against nuclear missiles. But the whole thing is treated like a Sunday outing. There is not a Marine in sight — even though they know they have a Russian spy on board. And we never find out who that spy is.
But later, after letting a Russian helicopter bring a Russian onboard the Titanic to make his demands (Why? Why?), Robards then says “Watch this.” Then a U.S. sub surfaces and there’s a fly-over of jets. Yawn. The Russian is subdued. We are left wondering where is McCloud to take over this operation. Or Cannon. Or even Jessica Fletcher. This is bad TV. Why are we sitting in a movie theatre watching this junk at movie prices?
They tow the Titanic back to San Francisco for a bad-CGI boat parade. There are moments in this that could have been grand in the hands of another filmmaker. Here, they’re just a bridge to the next bad scene.
And that bad scene is Richard Jordan and the wholly uncharismatic David Selby finding the Byzantium hidden away in a grave. (The boxes onboard the Titanic in the safe were full of gravel.) Jordan informs Selby that, well, in theory the Byzantium would go toward a missile defense system but it might well go toward making a bomb. (Geez….now you get a conscience, Mr. Jordan.) So Selby waffles. Jordan waffles. They decide to not dig up the grave and just leave the Byzantium hidden. After all, you can’t trust the U.S. military. Never mind that the grave diggers they have hired and who are standing right there during all this would likely be compelled to come back later to see what so interested these two guys about the grave.
There is all kinds of awful to this movie. Director Jerry Jameson has a decidedly kitschy TV aesthetic. He’s directed a lot of Mod Squad, Cannon, The Six Million Dollar Man, Ironside, The Streets of San Francisco, McCloud, Hawaii Five-O, Magnum, P.I., Jake and the Fatman, Dallas, Dynasty, and Murder, She Wrote and other TV episodes. Had this been a Quinn Martin production, it still would have been considered awful.
It’s difficult to decide the unintentionally funniest moment. My pick is when they are dropping (just dropping) lights and things onto the Titanic site at the bottom of the ocean. A large piece of equipment, about the size of a truck, gets caught in Titanic’s superstructure. Two submersibles are sent to try to shift it into position. Anyone who was ever watched a National Geographic underwater special knows that submersibles are particularly paranoid about getting any of their lines (or selves) caught up in anything.
But these two submersible just grab hold of this big metal structure. One pulls while the other pushes. Of course the whole things comes down on them and traps them. The only way then to free them is to get the Titanic up as quickly as possible. So they set off a whole bunch of explosives and do so. Yawn. I would have sent The Six Million Dollar Man after them.
I will say, it would have been very cool if, in reality, they could have raised the Titanic in one piece. Unfortunately is was thoroughly split in two. And who knows what interesting things they would have found in the safe?
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 13, 2019 8:05:07 GMT -8
This sounds confusing. I thought the secret whatever was on the ship, and now it's in a grave? Sounds like someone was channeling The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly if that was the case.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2019 10:07:19 GMT -8
Hahahaha. Yes. A good way to put it.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 13, 2019 13:35:32 GMT -8
Raise the Titanic is one of Clive Cussler most popular books staring his on-going hero Dirk Pit. It is easy to understand that it makes a poor movie. I did not think much of it either. However, the books are fun to read and escape into an alternate reality for a while. Much like the James Bood novels of Ian Fleming no one expects them to really match the real world. I give the movie two stars, out of five, just for being entertaining.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2019 14:54:31 GMT -8
Thanks for the feedback on the book, Artler. I can’t say that I was ready to run out and read a Clive Cussler book. But neither would it be fair to hold him to what the director of some Mod Squad episodes did to one of his books for a movie. I wonder if Richard Jordan hit his peak in “Logan’s Run”? It seems to me he should have had a larger career than Banacek or Kojak episodes, let alone this movie. He was good, however, in The Yakuza with Robert Mitchum, Ke Takakura, and Brian Keith. He was “Hawk” in “Rooster Cogburn” as well. And lest I forget, I thought he was fantastic as Duncan Idaho in David Lynch’s adaptation of Dune. Maybe that’s the thing. He seemed better suited for scifi. And, of course, he does fine work in one of his most notable movies, “The Hunt for Red October.” He died way too young (56) in 1993. If I was making a scifi movie, I would cast him in it no matter what.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 14, 2019 11:45:19 GMT -8
I have not seen that version of Les Miserables. Nor have I seen Captains and the Kings. I'm going to move that to the top of the must-see list. If I can find it. Best I can do is about $35.00 for the DVD set of "Captains and the Kings" on eBay.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 14, 2019 13:38:46 GMT -8
Jordan's last movie was Gettysburg. He was Brig. Gen. Lewis A. Armistead. If I recall correctly he passed away before the movie was released. A shame, he was an excellent character actor.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 14, 2019 13:45:50 GMT -8
Well, Armistead was killed at Gettysburg (at or over the wall during Pickett's charge), so I suppose that's appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 21, 2019 22:00:07 GMT -8
Simon was notorious at National Review decades ago for never seeming to like anything.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 22, 2019 9:01:36 GMT -8
LOL. What an incident.
Wow. What a great put-down. I tried to watch Cats one time. I honestly could not see the point.
Ouch. But then that is probably true of most.
A lot of people are contemptible assholes, abusing others without reason, and then complain that they are victims. Those who are particularly intelligent and talented (as obviously he was) often suppose the normal rules don’t apply to them. I don’t know enough about Simon’s work to say one way or the other. But what is readily apparent is that Communist-infiltrated society (especially magazines) have no room for anyone who doesn’t automatically praise women performers.
And you can stretch out those caveats enough to conclude that most of society now has no room for anyone speaking the truth, let alone simplly having a strong opinion that might ruffle the feathers of snowflakes.
This is a good bit:
One can certainly agree with that. We see the culmination of movies-made-for-children in the awful Marvel and DC comic book movies. That said, I don’t mind a little bit of childishness such as in the first three Star Wars moves. But when they did the prequels, they were particularly and specifically awful because the childish factor had run amok. Now, when these movies aren’t being childish they are simply weighed down by political correctness and feminism.
This is an excellent bit as well:
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 30, 2019 8:49:01 GMT -8
Weren’t we just talking about the Broadway musical, “Cats”? Well, it was with some Shadenfreudian pleasure that I read this morning that the movie version is doing badly and Universal Pictures could take a 100 million bath with it. RedState Review: Is the Film ‘Cats’ that Bad, Or is it Worst-Of-The-Year Bad?Why does this matter to me? Because I tried watching a Broadway presentation of “Cats” a few years back (likely on Netflix) and couldn’t make it through 10 minutes. It was that bad. I didn’t see the appeal. The article (perhaps with justification) puts the problem down to the bad CGI. Another article I saw on Drudge said the same thing. But to me it seems obvious that if you take something that’s awful and enlarge it by making a movie of it, you’ll just have larger awful. How the heck is this any different from the Broadway production?
|
|