Hello and welcome to more Eccentric Spheres!
Today I want to share a documentary about historical mysteries. Every now and then I like to watch stuff like this as it tickles the imagination. Whether these are actual mysteries or creative fiction, I leave up to you. I'm keeping it short as my brain is still at leaking out of my nose. Stupid winter flu....
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0aK1P-MpWM
This week I want to continue the tradition and talk about:
This game is the latest in the Sniper Elite franchise, and was released in January 2025.
Mechanically it is almost identical to Sniper Elite 5, which isn't strange since it is the same engine, meaning that it is a gorgeous game. The game-play is very similar from the players perspective, but there are some differences.
First off, we have a new protagonist. In Resistance we play as British SOE agent Harry Hawker, but if this feels wrong, there are two free DLC's that add our classic main hero Karl Fairburne as well as Marie Chevalier. These DLC's also add a couple of weapons so grab them even if you want to play as Hawker.
The weapon list is different as well, with some guns returning from SE5 and some being new. There are a few new weapons strewn about the maps that we haven't seen before that can be picked up and used temporarily. There is also a new type of ammo, explosive bullets, that are fun but not terribly useful, at least in my experience.
The perhaps biggest change is with the enemy soldiers, who have much sharper senses than before. Both their eyesight and hearing is considerably better than in SE5, and you will find yourself being spotted much easier. Another change is with enemy helmets that can now tank damage a bit better. Occasionally they will even deflect rifle bullets not to mention pistol ammo, unless you use armor piercing rounds. That said, I find that enemies go down easier than in SE5 so it is a pretty good trade-off.
The maps are perhaps a bit smaller than in SE5, but are by no means small and definitely as devious as before. Dense, detailed and brimming with things to be discovered and collected. There are rooftops, hidden passages, tunnels and small hideouts to help you get through the game. Some players have criticized SE:Resistance for having “empty maps” and I can see where they are coming from even though I don't really agree. In SE5 the maps have an equal distribution of enemies all around, but in Resistance they are more clumped up and often in places you can't see at a distance. There were many times where I shot what I thought was a lone enemy only to have his death alert six or seven enemies at once. Tricky but fun. The flip side is that there are some pretty empty parts of the map as well, which feels odd, mostly because I'm used to the more even spread of foes.
I have as of writing played the main game all the way through once, with my current run being my own invented No Hit Challenge where I have to restart the map if I take any damage from any source. When I wrote about this challenge I intended to restart the whole game, but that is too boring and frustrating in the long run, so I modified the rule set to only restart the map. I know nothing about the mission DLC's but once I get them I will probably drop a line here.
To summarize, if you like Sniper Elite 5, there is no reason to not play Resistance, they are pretty much cousins. Some small differences but nothing too alien. I would say SE5 is the better game but there is a lot to like in Resistance.
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
For Eccentric Sphere number 700, we're at the final part of my top four movies on Letterboxd:
Where Eagles Dare (1968).
This WWII action/adventure/thriller came about because Elizabeth Taylor's kids requested that her husband, Richard Burton, should make a movie they were allowed to watch. So Burton contacted producer Elliot Kastner for “some super hero stuff”. Kastner called Alistair MacLean who gave him the script in six weeks and later wrote the novel based on his own script. The title was Castle of Eagles, which Kastner hated and changed to Where Eagles Dare after Shakespeare's Richard III: "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch"
The plot in a nutshell is this: An American general has been shot down on his way to coordinate the invasion of Europe and been taken to Schloss Adler for interrogation. An MI6 team lead by Major Smith (Burton) is sent to get him out before the Germans can learn the invasion plans. Along for the ride is Lieutenant Schaffer (Clint Eastwood), a US Army Ranger. Things start going wrong almost immediately, but Smith is a clever fox and Schaffer a total badass, so we move on towards an exciting finale.
There is something I need to get out of the way now. Where Eagles Dare is full to the brim with errors. Uniforms are wrong, vehicles - including a helicopter, are used that were created after the war, hair styles (particularly the ladies) are wrong, bomb timers are too modern, the list goes on and on. This is something that normally annoys me a great deal, but when it comes to Where Eagles Dare, I don't give a damn! I love this movie despite all the errors.
Where Eagles Dare is the quintessential agents-behind-enemy-lines movie. Pretty much every piece of media that sneaks around in Nazi castles owes something to this movie. Return to Castle Wolfenstein even has a similar cable car. The Dirty Dozen (1967) is older but I don't think it is as influential.
The soundtrack likewise wins the gold medal for this type of story. The rolling military drums that lead into a bombastic score is simply perfect and will stick around in your head well after the movie is over.
Lets look at the actors. Richard Burton's career was on the decline but he was still big enough to get top billing. His health wasn't good and his drinking was bad, but the old theater actor comes out in full force. He is perfect as Major Smith. Smith may be a bit long in the tooth but he has all the experience in the world. He commands the room effortlessly and thinks as fast as Schaffer is with a gun. Clint Eastwood is likewise perfect. Cool as ice and tough as steel, perfect for backing up the older Smith. Another character I need to mention is Mary played by Mary Ure. She infiltrates the castle ahead of Smith & Co. She faces the Gestapo alone and she pulls the trigger without hesitation when needed to. In other words she is the professional she has to be to get the job done. An excellent example of a strong female character.
I could go on, but you really ought to watch this movie yourself. Where Eagles Dare is a bit silly and over the top, but the story is absolutely top notch and there is no shortage of thrills.
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
It is time to look at movie number three of my Letterboxd top four:
Goodfellas (1990).
In a way I can't believe I haven't talked about this movie before. I have certainly compared others to it in the past, and always as 'not as good as Goodfellas'.
This crime epic directed by Martin Scorsese is based on the book Wiseguy by Nicolas Pileggi, who also co-wrote the screenplay, and chronicles Henry Hill from a teenager to adulthood and his rise and fall as a career criminal.
It's worth noting that this movie is based on real events with actual people, crimes and other happenings that took place. However, it isn't and was never intended to be a historical record. Some things are changed and the actors don't really look or act 100% like their real life counterparts.
As usual I won't include any important spoilers, but in a sense you can't spoil Goodfellas. Even if I told you everything that happens, it is still worth watching. It is that good.
Like I mentioned, we meet a young Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), who states “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster”. So he gets involved as a runner and helper in Paul Cicero's crew. He meets and later works with Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) and James Conway (Robert De Niro) as he grows up. We get a great view into the inner workings of gangster life in the 60's through to the 80's. It's worth noting that these guys are gangsters, or goodfellas, but not Mafia. Paul Cicero is Mafia, but the guys are essentially protected earners who work under but don't belong to the Mafia. This is an important distinction.
Goodfellas is simply beautiful. The way Scorsese filmed it is at times almost unbelievable. The actors are perfect, the dialogue and the narration is incredible, the score is brilliant and the story illustrates how lucrative yet perilous the gangster life is. Money, mistrust and murder rule their lives, and to show weakness is suicide. I've always loved that they show you why someone would join that life, but also why it will almost always bring you down as well. Goodfellas isn't really a cautionary tale, but it can serve in that capacity.
Goodfellas is my favorite gangster movie of all time. There are many good ones out there, but to me not even the mighty Godfather trilogy can unseat Goodfellas, and I can't really tell you why that is. Certainly the Godfather movies are brilliant, yes even the third one is good, but Goodfellas does something special. It is a question of 'the sum is greater than the whole of its parts' but there is something more that escapes my grasp.
Goodfellas set the bar for gangster movies incredibly high. So high in fact that Scorsese himself has never reached it again. Sure Casino (1995) and The Irishman (2019) are good but nowhere near Goodfellas. I'll end with this: if you like gangster movies and you haven't seen Goodfellas for whatever reason, watch it as soon as possible. I can't imagine you'd be disappointed.
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
In this second part of my top four movies on Letterboxd, we're looking at my favorite western:
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966).
Back when I was a kid, I didn't like westerns. I found them boring and uninspired, but in part this is because I knew nothing about the time and place they portray. Then I saw The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and all that changed. I'm still not a huge fan of the genre, but thanks to this movie I have seen and enjoyed quite a few westerns, but this movie is special.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is set during the U.S. Civil War, with the hunt for a great treasure as the central plot item. With a runtime of almost three hours, this movie takes its time getting to where it's going, and even though it might seem lost at times, the director Sergio Leone knew what he was doing. You could accuse him of wasting time, but that would be wrong. A detailed synopsis is impossible, but the plot is a vehicle to explore the characters. The treasure is a MacGuffin, a narrative catalyst to motivate the main characters, beyond that it's irrelevant.
The title characters referred to are The Good, aka Blondie (Clint Eastwood) a morally gray gunslinger who does what he needs to in order to survive. He lies, cheats, double crosses and steals, but he isn't cruel and he won't shoot a man in the back.
The Bad, or Sentenza, aka Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is a proper villain. There is nothing he won't do to achieve his goal, but he is a professional monster. If he has no business with you he'll just ignore you, but if you have something he wants, you are in real trouble. What makes him really stand out is the fact that he likes being a villain, he really enjoys murder and cruelty.
Finally, The Ugly or Tuco (Eli Wallach) is the middle man between Blondie and Angel Eyes. He is a scoundrel, and a very bad man, but nowhere near as wicked as Angel Eyes. A career criminal through and through, he nevertheless has some scruples left and a much tarnished sense of shame. He is also somewhat of a comedic relief character.
It's important to understand that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly doesn't have a hero. The closest we come is Blondie, but he's in it for himself and not for any altruistic or heroic reasons. He comforts a dying soldier because he feels sorry for him, but he doesn't go out of his way to do this. There is no “I must do this to save the day” motif, it is all about survival, revenge and greed for everyone involved. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is also a study of morals. If Blondie isn't careful he will become like Tuco or even Angel Eyes. Tuco isn't that removed from Angel Eyes to begin with but, to sound melodramatic, his soul isn't damned just yet.
A note about the music is a must. One can't mention The Good, the Bad and the Ugly without everyone hearing the iconic score in their heads. Ennio Morricone scored a perfect bullseye and this score has to be up there with the all time greats.
For me, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the western. No other comes close, not even the other two entries in the Dollars Trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More) that preceded it. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but I don't care. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is imperfectly perfect. It has action, tension, sadness, humor and lots and lots of twists. It is grand and epic but also down to earth and grimy. It also has one of the best pieces of cinematic advice ever: "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!"
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
I actually had something else planned for this week, but I was asked why I hadn't talked about one of my top four movies on Letterboxd, and it got me thinking. The reason is simple: I tend to write about movies that are new to me, not movies I've seen a dozen or so times over the years. However, that changes now. If I can place four movies in my 'favorite of all time' then I should expand on them a bit. To be fair, I had a real problem adding only four movies in that category, but four is all Letterboxd gives and I can't change that.
This week we're talking about:
Angel Heart (1987).
This Noir style thriller/horror is based on the novel Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg, and though it keeps quite a bit from the book, it changes more than it retains.
It's 1955, and we meet Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke), a small time private investigator from Brooklyn. He gets a call from an attorney, Winesap, who wants Harry to meet his client Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro) for a missing person case. Cyphre wants Harry to find Johnny Favorite, a popular singer from before the war, due to an outstanding contract they had. Favorite might be dead, but in either case Cyphre just needs to know where he's at. Harry embarks on an investigation that takes him from a frozen New York to the sweltering heat in New Orleans, and what he finds on the way is a thrill and a half. People get murdered, tensions rise and the question becomes can Angel find Favorite before he goes down for Favorite's crimes?
Directed by Alan Parker who also directed Mississippi Burning, Midnight Express and Evita amongst others, Angel Heart is a masterpiece of tension and foreboding. Besides Mickey Rourke and De Niro, we get Lisa Bonet in her first movie role. Rourke was so good in Angel Heart and his previous movie 9 ½ weeks that those in the know started calling him the new Brando. High praise, but he goes above and beyond in Angel Heart. The role of Harry Angel is not an easy performance, but Rourke knocks it out of the park and then some.
So without spoilers, what makes Angel Heart so good? Besides the acting and directing and the amazing, brilliant soundscape it 's all about atmosphere and detail, both of which this movie has in spades. The constant focus on spinning fans is very important. The use of ice to foreshadow death is clever but it is the use of creepy dreams, visions and recurring elements that really pushes things to the next level. The veiled woman in black, the descending elevator shadow, reflections, the mysterious pentagram jewelry that keeps popping up, it all matters. Add to this all the 'blink and you miss it' moments that explain so much if you only catch it, and you have a masterpiece on your hands.
Angel Heart is not however a perfect movie. The ending has some unfortunate missteps, but they are so small in the grand scheme that I don't mind. I'm not going to do my usual 'do I recommend it' because it is already in my top 4 favorite list which speaks for itself. Just be aware that Angel Heart contains a lot of graphic imagery so kids should not be present.
Finally I want to mention a Youtube channel called CineG. He has dissected Angel Heart down to the bone and this playlist goes through it in amazing detail. However, DO NOT watch these videos until you have watched the movie first! This is spoiler city and Angel Heart does not deserve spoilers, it needs to be experienced in all its suffocating panicked glory.
That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a documentary about Kruschev, but this time we're turning the clock back to the aftermath of the Russian revolution.
In the aftermath Lenin was the undisputed master of the Soviet Union, but he was ill, seriously ill and soon died. Left behind were the top leaders of the party; Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Pyatakov and Stalin.
Everyone besides Stalin were intellectuals, educated intelligent men well versed in political theory and able to debate on the subject with anyone. Stalin was essentially a thug. Little schooling to speak of, but he had funded the revolution with robberies, extortion and murder (amongst other things) when they desperately needed money, so Lenin was forced to give him something, so Stalin was made General Secretary. On the surface this was a nothing job, but Stalin for all his sins was a survivor and a natural schemer. He cleverly used his position to make himself the master of the Soviet Union, but how did this come about? Especially against the intelligent strategist Trotsky?
This is what this week's documentary is about. This is a decent documentary with mostly French historians translated to English but also some information from Trotsky's grandson. There is also really good film footage from those days, really interesting stuff. I wish it had gone deeper into the subject, but it will give you a good general grasp on the events following the death of Lenin.
That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!
Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IcDdKkfprg&list=WL&index=13
