Sleuth

During a discussion about Michael Caine, a friend recommended:

Sleuth (1972),

so that is what I watched.

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier), a rich and celebrated author of murder mysteries (think Agatha Christie) invites Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) to his country manor for a chat. Turns out that Milo is having a relationship with Andrew's wife, Marguerite. Andrew isn't opposed to this affair as he has a girlfriend of his own, but he is concerned that Milo isn't rich, and can't afford Marguerite's expensive lifestyle. The last thing Andrew wants is for Marguerite to come back once he's finally rid of her. Andrew has a plan, and this plan is dangerous.

Sleuth is directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz who amongst many works co-wrote and co-directed Cleopatra (1963). This was his last film as he was both ill and suffered an accident on set confining him to a wheelchair.

Wyke's expansive manor is the sole set of Sleuth and it is a magnificent setting. The large old manor is filled with not only games of all sorts but also automata that move and make noise. Personally I wouldn't stay a day in a house filled with those soulless staring horrors, but I'm not an eccentric author.

The core of Sleuth are Olivier and Caine. Caine was the third choice for the role and was ecstatic to play against the great Olivier. When they met Caine asked how he was supposed to address Olivier. He answered: "Well, I am the Lord Olivier and you are Mr. Michael Caine. Of course, that's only for the first time you address me. After that I am Larry, and you are Mike."

Later on after an emotional scene Olivier told Caine "I thought I had an assistant, Michael. I see I have a partner." Caine said this was the greatest compliment he had gotten as an actor. High praise indeed.

I am doing my damnedest to avoid spoilers but it is hard. The dialogue is superb, and both Olivier and Caine are perfect. In fact, I can't say anything about the score as the only music I even noticed was when Olivier plays “Anything Goes” at full volume. This is how engrossed I got.

So, do I recommended this movie? Absolutely! Sleuth is an amazing movie from beginning to end. I do need to point out that it is 168 minutes and you have to pay attention throughout. If you are screwing around on your phone you're going to miss everything, but it so worth it. I wanted to watch a really good movie and I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Sleuth is a bizarre masterpiece worth every second of your time, but do try to watch it without looking it up. This movie doesn't deserve any spoilers.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Two Richard's and a Roger.

Quite by chance I saw a movie clip with Roger Moore, Richard Harris and Richard Burton, so I sat down and watched:

The Wild Geese (1978).

A wealthy banker hires an unscrupulous mercenary, Colonel Faulkner (Burton) to put together a team in order to rescue Julius Limbani, the president of an unnamed African country. There has been a coup and Limbani is being held by the new dictator. Faulkner gets in touch with his old friends Captain Janders (Harris) and Lieutenant Fynn (Moore) and together they assemble a team of veterans who although highly experienced are a bit long in the tooth.

A simple synopsis, but to avoid spoilers I'll keep that short. The Wild Geese is a bit over two hours long, so I'm sure you can guess things don't go entirely smoothly for the mercenaries. We do spend a lot of time on the setup, the planning and the execution, but that only eats up half the run time.

I have no technical complaints, it is a very nicely put together film, although it has the typical over-powered grenades that fling bodies around like rag dolls. There is an odd part where they plan to hit the compound where Limbani is held at predawn, but the raid happens when the sun is high. My other and bigger complaint is the scene on the bridge. In a nutshell, the mercenaries are attacked while crossing a bridge and instead of getting off the bridge they just stand there, something experienced soldiers wouldn't do. Then as the team becomes separated as the bridge is out of order, they shout plans as where to meet up again, but there is no water! The river bed is completely dry and it would have taken them ten minutes tops to cross. Very silly and some frustratingly bad writing in an otherwise good movie.

It is the actors that are the biggest draw here. Burton, Harris and Moore in one movie is a real treat. Burton especially is showing his age, but he still has his old steel here, which goes a long way to sell the character. Moore, who was in the middle of his Bond career adds the charm and Harris the heart. A really good trio and apparently they all worked well together. Moore did request fewer lines when acting with the two others and explained the request with: "You don't seriously expect me to act against these guys?"

The rest of the actors are good, again no complaints although everyone else is overshadowed by the trio, even though a few are given quite a lot of screen time.

Still trying to avoid spoilers, I feel I should point out that this is not a fun movie. It is very grim at times even though the soundtrack is trying to sound upbeat with an almost comedic tone. Being a movie about mercenaries it is also pretty bloody, but it doesn't wallow in gore in any way. It is a kind of classy brutality if that makes sense.

Beyond what you see on screen it is also almost miraculous that they managed to keep both Harris and Burton sober during the shoot. Both were heavy, and I do mean heavy drinkers, but they stayed sober the entire time with the help of copious amounts of soda and jumping around. According to IMDB Harris told Burton: “"Whenever you feel like a drink, do like I do, jump up and down." For the rest of the production, both men were seen daily in all sorts of unlikely situations hopping like kangaroos”.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. The Wild Geese is one of those movies that is grim and violent, but it is also really good. It's not a feel good adventure but a lesson in how cold and brutal the world can be and why being a mercenary is not a fun job. The movie does telegraph some things that happen if you're paying attention, but it is done very well.

That 's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Horror of Dracula

For the longest time I thought I had seen this movie, but I hadn't, so I watched:

Horror of Dracula (1958).

This is Hammer Horror's first Dracula movie and yes it stars Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The reason I thought I'd seen this is due to the somewhat confusing movie titles. I had seen Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) and Count Dracula (1970). Since they all pretend to be in the 1800's and because Stoker's book has been retold in film as much or more than Batman's origins, I got confused.

Now that we're on track, lets look at Horror of Dracula, or Dracula as it was originally called. They changed the name to avoid confusion with Dracula (1941) starring Bela Lugosi. (See what I mean with the titles?) In this version we get most of the familiar names, but a lot has been changed. Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula to be the librarian instead of as an estate agent. He is also there to straight up kill Dracula whom he already knows is a vampire. There are other such changes as well. Dr. Seward is only a doctor and doesn't hunt vampires. Lord Arthur Holmwood loses his title and is married to Mina, while Lucy is his sister and is engaged to Harker. Also, Dracula doesn't go to England. These changes were done for financial reasons as Horror of Dracula had a fairly small budget. At first I was a bit surprised and confused at the changes, but they work. The script writer Jimmy Sangster did a very good job shrinking the story without losing the important and impactful parts.

The score is a somewhat typical 50's bombastic affair that works well to heighten the scenes. Not something I'd sit down and listen to, but not unpleasant by any means. Visually Horror of Dracula is a feast. Stylish, elegant and well shot, I have no complaints whatsoever. The cinematography isn't amazing but solid. It does what it is supposed to do.

It is the actors who really shine here. Lee is great in his first outing out of the ten times he played Dracula. Elegant and charming when he needs to but wildly feral when angry. The rest of the time he's a dark towering menace that commands the room effortlessly. Cushing is likewise superb. He brings together the steel of the vampire hunter with a gentle sympathy for those afflicted by Dracula. Michael Gough plays Arthur Holmwood who accompanies Van Helsing for a lot of the movie, and serves as a bit of audience surrogate at first as he needs things explained and then, once he is convinced, joins in to end Dracula.

Horror of Dracula is also as far as I can tell, the first movie where the victims really show his seductive powers. They wait for him with both fear and excitement. Tame by today's standards but I have to assume that in '58 it was pretty scandalous to show a lady make herself ready to receive Dracula in her bedroom. There is no burglary here, no hypnotism to hide behind, they want him, in fact they act almost like addicts desperate for a fix. Today we're used to vampires being sexy but back then it was another story.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. Hammer made a lot of movies back in the day, and while some are not terribly good, Horror of Dracula is great. Watch it without expectations and just enjoy the spectacle. If you only want to watch one film where Lee plays the count, make it this one.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

There is so much more to learn.

I have recently been watching Middle-Earth lore videos and they are really fascinating.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a lot in his lifetime. Pretty much everyone has heard of The Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. Some have heard of the Silmarillion as well, but there is a massive list of books in his name. Some are his letters, some are poetry and some are things his son Christopher edited together. Full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography

But back to the videos. I have been watching a few different channels, but In Deep Geek is one I'm confident in recommending. There is other stuff on there as well, but I haven't watched those. What I like is that everything is based on Tolkien's actual writings, there is no guess work or 'your guess is as good as mine' things presented as fact.

Here is a playlist of almost 200 videos to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMI2M4Uu44&list=PLVTclEEyY1SKFumpT86h-y6jikkEUKIAH 

 So, if you like Middle-Earth and want to learn more, like what were the Barrow-Wights? Or what was The Watcher outside Moria? Perhaps you want to learn why Sauron had no idea The Shire existed or indeed what Pipeweed is, then make yourself comfortable and enjoy.

 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

   

The People Who Own the Dark

This week I watched:

The People Who Own the Dark (1976).

This Spanish thriller, with an admittedly great title, is not really what you would think from the front cover or the blurb. A small group of powerful and influential men head to a large old villa (called a castle) for some debauchery. The owners of the house have procured some willing women but just as the drug fueled festivities are about to begin, the house is shaken by a massive force. When the party-goers come up from the cellar they find the maids completely blind. Being the men they are they soon realize that there has been a nuclear war. When they head down to the local town, they find that everyone there has also been struck blind. The synopsis states that “soon they discover the existence of a sinister group called The People Who Own The Dark”. This statement is misleading but not entirely false.

The blind villagers are the people who own the dark, even though the promotional material wants to make it look like there is something deeper and even more sinister. What is interesting is that the main antagonists in the movie are the blind villagers who act essentially like zombies. They move in groups and attack the main characters furiously. (They have some reason for this, but that is spoiler territory). The blind do function better than one might think even though they can't see, which gives them a very menacing presence.

The People Who Own the Dark is a pretty well made movie despite the vague element of exploitation and sleaze. There is barely any nudity and the blood is fairly muted. It is the psychological elements that stand tall. Partially the horror of Nuclear Armageddon and partially the fear of being targeted by a large group out to kill you. There is also the element of general survival what with the radiation and all.

The actors are all veterans and the director León Klimovsky who also directed The Werewolf vs the Vampire Woman handles things competently. There is nothing more to really say on that matter, either for or against the movie.

The exploitation element is a bit odd to be honest. Since the movie was never going to use it, why was it included in the first place? It could just as well have been a hunting weekend or someone's birthday. This is even odder when you factor in the clumsy marketing attempt that focuses on just that element that then barely shows up. If you sat down and watched The People Who Own the Dark because you were in the mood for some 70's sleaze you'd be pretty damn disappointed.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, it is actually pretty good. By using a horde of blind people that can think instead of the tired, cliched shambling horde of the undead, we get a pretty neat and scary threat. The movie is a bit too short to really explore the situation the main characters are in so we don't get any deeper message, but what is there is well worth watching. The People Who Own the Dark was never going to be a masterpiece or even a cult classic, but I for one was not disappointed.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Night Moves but not Bob Seger

Because I liked The Conversation (1974) a friend recommended:

Night Moves (1975).

Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is a Hollywood private investigator who is hired by an aging minor star to find her runaway teenage daughter Delly (Melanie Griffith). He finds out from Delly's on/off boyfriend Quentin (James Woods) that she left for Florida where her stepdad Tom (John Crawford) lives. With his own marriage teetering on the edge, Harry goes off to find the runaway but he will find more than he expected and in more ways than one.

It is worth pointing out that The Conversation and Night Moves are completely different movies. The only thing they have in common is Gene Hackman as a private investigator and being made in the mid 70's. Both movies are good but The Conversation is in my opinion better by a clear margin.

First off, the actors are all great. This was Melanie Griffith's first credited movie role, and as she wasn't even planning on becoming an actor, her portrayal of Delly is very good. To be fair, a teenage girl playing a teenage girl isn't exactly a strenuous job, but she is good.

Night Moves is also technically well made, even though you won't find any stunning visuals. I'd say that is more because they wanted a realistic, intimate close up feel rather than a sweeping cinematic experience.

However when I was done watching I couldn't help feel Night Moves was missing something. It might be I overlooked something subtle, I'm not sure. I love a movie that doesn't have to spell it out to the audience in ten foot tall letters, but being so subtle that important things are missed isn't good either. I am pretty sure a scene has to have been missing though. When Harry arrives in Florida he meets Delly and Paula (Jennifer Warren) who is stepdad Tom's girlfriend. Tom, a pilot, is off in his pontoon plane as Harry arrives, but we see him land on the water by his house. Then in the next scene they are all talking like old friends, but we never saw Harry and Tom meet, and that feels very odd in a movie that takes such pains to show small mundane details.

My other complaint is that the “big thing” falls a bit flat when it is finally revealed. Everything makes sense and there aren't any plot holes, it's more down to how the movie deals with it. I'm having real trouble explaining this without spoiling anything here. Imagine if Luke Skywalker upon learning that Vader is his father had shrugged and said “well, shit”. Underwhelming but technically correct. My Luke example is an exaggeration, but it points to how Night Moves felt in the end.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Despite my complaints, Night Moves is a good time. It stands tall as a good example of why 70's cinema was so great. Night Moves is one of those movies that are all about the experience, a ride if you will. Sure it has a few problems, but it is genuinely a good movie. It is a product of its time for all the right reasons.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Raw Deal

Growing up in the 80's, one name stood above all others in the action genre: Arnold Schwarzenegger. To my surprise I found one of his early action movies that I had never seen so I sat down and watched:

Raw Deal (1986).

Arnold plays Mark Kaminski, a former FBI agent forced to resign after being too brutal with a child murderer. His old boss Harry contacts him after Harry's son (also an agent) is gunned down on a protection detail. Harry wants Mark to infiltrate the Chicago mob that killed his son and bring them down from within. What follows is a lot of awkward conversations and lots of good action.

Raw Deal was made after The Terminator and Conan, and between Commando and Predator so the action is fine, but there is something odd with how the movie is made. The director, John Irvin, had previously made the amazing spy drama series Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but he clearly wasn't as comfortable in Hollywood as he was in his native UK. Raw Deal has some amazing shots, really nice ones, but those are few and far between, while the rest of the movie feels oddly amateurish. Schwarzenegger said he liked working on the movie since he could finally wear a wardrobe that was both comfortable and stylish. He also liked working with Irvin as he felt he became a better actor in the process. Raw Deal also stars Paul Shenar and Robert Davi, both veteran bad guy actors who effortlessly play their villainous roles. Honestly all the actors are good.

Raw Deal flopped pretty badly in cinemas upon release. It made a modest profit of $16 million which is embarrassing for a Schwarzenegger action piece, but I get it. As famous film critic Roger Ebert said: "This plot is so simple (and has been told so many times before), that perhaps the most amazing achievement of Raw Deal is its ability to screw it up. This movie didn't just happen to be a mess; the filmmakers had to work to make it so confusing."

I think he's being too harsh here, but Ebert isn't far from the mark. Some of the way the story is told needed a lot more space, so there are scenes that lead nowhere and make no sense. In a series these plot points and characters would make sense in a way they can't without more time. Example: early on we meet Mrs. Kaminski who is depressed and drinks too much, but she is never seen again. Why include her at all? Stuff like this makes the film weaker and the arguably competent action scenes can't make up for the stuttering pace.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. Raw Deal is by no means a bad movie, lets get that straight, but it is far from great either. Had they chosen a newcomer instead of Schwarzenegger, no one would ever have seen this movie. I guess it is best watched like I did, because I just wanted an 80's Schwarzenegger experience. I didn't have a bad time, but I'm also glad it wasn't longer.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

House Rules for Video Games.

I have previously talked about my No Hit Runs in the Sniper Elite games. I have completed SE5 and SE Resistance (though not the DLC's for that game yet) and I'm currently working on SE4. Being forced to restart a level if I take any damage from any source adds a lot of tension and is really fun, except when you are almost done with a massive level and make a mistake, but such are the rules.

I have also previously posted about the FailRace channel on Youtube and their super cool Survive the Hunt videos in GTA Online, where one person has to remain incognito while doing tasks and all the others are hunting him. Very tense stuff.

The reason why I mention this again is that yesterday I found a Cyberpunk 2077 Geoguessr video. The host has a bunch of screenshots which he posts on Discord and the last player to take an in-game photo of themselves at that location is eliminated. I'll embed that video below.

The video got me thinking about what are essentially house rules but for video games. Anyone who has played Monopoly with their family has probably played with house rules even if they didn't know it. Likewise, most tabletop RPG Gamemasters and their players make use of house rules. If a rule feels dumb or not fun, you can change it, simple as that.

But when it comes to video games, house rules are not quite as easy, as that would require changing the games code which makes it a mod and not a rule. You can of course use mods to make your challenge work, but as the examples I mentioned above show, you can make up new rules for a video game with only a bit of ingenuity. Of course you can't apply any challenge or house rule to any game, that won't work. I don't think it would be possible to play Cyberpunk 2077 as a No Hit Run, you'd get nowhere fast, but the Geoguessr video proves that there are options for even as complex a game as Cyberpunk.

Some games include pre-made challenges like how you can play through Dishonored 2 with no supernatural powers. The achievement list is a great place to start if this sounds like fun to you.

I guess I don't really have much of a point to this, except to point out that a house rule challenge can be a great way to revitalize a well loved game that is starting to feel a bit stale. If you have a game you love but can't really justify playing it yet again, have a think and see if you can't come up with a challenge or house rule for yourself. You might be surprised at how much fun it is. You don't have to worry about being original either, my Sniper Elite No Hit Runs were inspired by a guy (don't remember his name) who played all the Soulsborne games in a row without taking any damage, so happy gaming!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

What a title...

Continuing on my current journey of lesser known vampire movies, I watched:

The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman (1971).

Also known as La Noche de Walpurgis, Walpurgis Night, Shadow of the Werewolf and Werewolf Shadow amongst many other aliases, this Spanish horror movie is generally regarded as the film that kicked the Spanish horror boom of the 70's into high gear.

Straight off the bat, I need to say that this movie is a bigger mess than last week's entry. The picture quality of the version I watched was awful, so a few dark scenes were impossible to make out. I saw a mention online of nudity, but the version I saw had none, so be aware of that. As for blood, there is more gore in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, so no worries there if that isn't your thing.

The story more or less is this: Elvira (Gaby Fuchs) and her friend Genevieve (Barbara Capell) are writing their final university thesis. They call it an essay, but it's implied to be much bigger. The subject is Witchcraft and Satanism in medieval France, and they know of an obscure figure, Countess Wandessa Darvula de Nadasdy (Patty Shepard), a satanist who became a vampire to preserve her youth. Together they go off into the French countryside to find her tomb, but they get lost, run out of gas and meet Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy), who we already know is a werewolf, or to be pedantic, a wolf man. Think Lon Chaney Jr. He is also looking for the tomb, but the enourmous amount of ruins in the area makes it difficult. They accidentally revive Wandessa (of course) and the struggle to survive is on.

The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is the fifth movie in the Waldemar Daninsky saga, a series of werewolf movies whose continuity makes little to no sense. That only matters if you intend to watch them all. As for this movie, the script is unfortunately a mess, but some blame may lay on the various alternative cuts. Things are rushed beyond credibility and certain events make no sense. All of this is really frustrating because at its core The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is a good movie.

There are several scenes that are excellent and some of the ideas are really cool, but that all drowns in the chaos of the messy script. The general cinematography is good, and the actors are likewise solid. The special effects are lovely but the sound in the version I watched was abysmal, with sound effects drowning out dialogue and a nasty static buzzing filling in the silence.

But on the flip side, the vampires are awesome, the wolf man makeup is pretty good even though at times he sounds like a pirate trying to sound like a werewolf. The Spanish landscape is interesting but I don't get why they pretend to be in France as it makes no difference to the story. Maybe it's one of those things where it feels more sophisticated to be in a foreign country?

So, do I recommend this movie? I want to, I really do, but unless you have a good reason to watch it, find a better movie. At its heart The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is a good movie, but it is burdened with so many other problems that the final result falls flat. I hope and wish someone would remake it and do it right.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Blood Spattered Bride

I saw a video on Youtube about lesser known vampire movies and so I sat down and watched:

The Blood Spattered Bride (1972).

This Spanish retelling of Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu was also turned into film by Hammer Horror in 1970 with The Vampire Lovers, but both movies are very different.

A newly wed couple arrives at a hotel, but the bride, Susan (Maribel Martin) has a horrible vision and begs to leave immediately. The husband (no name given, played by veteran actor Simon Andreu) agrees and they travel to his massive old mansion. There Susan meets the groundskeeper, his wife the housekeeper, and their strange young daughter Carol. Soon enough, Susan starts to both see and dream about a beautiful blonde woman with piercing eyes. The dreams are very disturbing and Susan becomes increasingly unstable. Husband calls a doctor, the blonde, Carmilla, arrives in person and things spiral into violence and madness.

I need to be honest here. The Blood Spattered Bride is a mess of a movie. There are scenes that make no sense, and there are scenes that should go on but are cut short. When it was released in Spain in '72 it was savaged by the censors due to both the blood and the nudity, so this might be why. The nudity itself is apparently historic. If it is true, and I have no evidence to the contrary, then The Blood Spattered Bride is the first Spanish movie to feature full frontal nudity. It is also worth nothing that the nude body in question (Susan's) is probably not that of Maribel Martin as she was 17 during filming and therefore a minor. This is reinforced by the fact that you never see her face when the clothes come off. The camera either stays south of the neck or her hair falls strategically across her face.

To be fair, there isn't really that much blood, but what there is is pretty good. By keeping the amount of violent scenes low they are all the stronger. Nothing remarkable, but solid.

Besides some truly bizarre ideas, my biggest gripe is the personality of the husband, because he is also all over the place. Most of the time he is very caring and loving, but as an example, there is a scene where he apparently just for fun grabs his wife by the hair and starts to haul her up on a large rock, all the while laughing. Scenes like that make him pretty unlikable and as he is the closest thing we get to a hero, it makes it hard to sympathize with him against the vampire.

Carmilla is interesting though. Like the source material she is lesbian, but unlike Hammer's version who is more tragic, this Carmilla is pretty feral and an absolute man hater. I'm not reading between the lines just to be clear, she straight up says it. What I really liked about the Spanish Carmilla are her rings. She wears jeweled rings on each finger but she has them turned inwards with the gems to the palm. This small detail makes it clear that something is wrong with her without being too overt. An interesting little detail in my opinion. Oh, and it's worth noting that Carmilla can go out in the sun, that is also in the source material, so it isn't the movie being sloppy.

So, do I recommend this film? Yes and no. The Blood Spattered Bride is by no means a bad movie, but it is hard to call it good either. If you only want to watch one film version of Carmilla, watch The Vampire Lovers, but if you have no Hammer Horror left and are itching for a Gothic 70's vampire fix you can do a lot worse than The Blood Spattered Bride. Just keep the kids out of the room.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Göbleki Tepe

With Midnight, the next expansion for World of Warcraft around the corner, I've been too busy to watch a movie, but I have an interesting documentary for you.

Göbleki Tepe, or Göblekitepe, is an archeological site that was occupied around 8000 BCE in Upper Mesopotamia, what is today the Republic of Türkiye. It amongst other things sports advanced stone work that was presumed to not be possible at that time. 

Göbleki Tepe is one of those sites that threaten to upend what we think we know about the past and challenges generally accepted history and archaeology. So please enjoy.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

Warhammer Music.

Today I want to share a fun Youtube channel I tripped over by chance:

Adeptus Anthemicus

This is a music channel apparently run by one person from the UK. All the songs are Warhammer themed, both 40K and Fantasy, with a large portion being parodies on famous songs and some being originals in different styles such as folk and even death metal.

I haven't had the time to listen to all of them, but the dozen or so I've heard are amazing. I'll embed a few below. So, if you're in the mood, go and have a listen, the music is awesome and deserves more views. (Disclaimer: I do not know the creator at all.)

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

    

 

Nuremberg

Today we're looking at:

Nuremberg (2025).

This movie about the first Nuremberg trial is based on the 2013 book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai. The script is written by the director James Vanderbilt who also directed the rather good Suspiria remake in 2018.

We open the movie with Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe) surrendering to American soldiers. Next we meet US Army major and psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) who has been tasked with assessing the mental health and competency of the surviving top Nazis, particularly whether they are a suicide risk. Dr. Kelley is assisted by Sergeant Howie Triest (Leo Woodall) who speaks fluent german. Kelley is immediately fascinated by Göring who is highly intelligent and completely charming, and starts planning a future book.

At the same time, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) is pushing to set up the Nuremberg trials, arguing that they can't just kill the top Nazis without a trial. He encounters severe opposition from several directions, as there is not only no legal framework for prosecuting foreign nationals but a real fear of losing such a trial and thereby legitimizing the Nazis. It is no spoiler to state the trials do go ahead, and Jackson is aided by the British barrister Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Richard E. Grant).

The real focus of this movie are the actors. They are all amazing. Malek is good, but it is Crowe and Woodall that really shine for me. Russell Crowe especially does a great job going from affable and charming to monstrous and cold in a heartbeat. He goes from pleasant old Hermann to Reichsmarshall Göring in a blink and it is quite spooky.

Production wise, the movie is also really good. Nothing feels fake or out of place. Uniforms, sets, hairstyles and everything else all look and feel fine.

However Nuremberg has a big balance problem. Clocking in at a massive 148 minutes it still manages to rush through important parts while focusing on other less relevant bits. The big gotcha moment in court falls completely flat, I think it needed a lot more build up. At the same time we are treated to Kelley's arguments with fellow psychiatrist Dr. Gilbert (Colin Hanks) along with other scenes we don't need at all. Scenes of Kelley drinking in a bar do nothing except show he has a drinking problem, which isn't relevant either and leads to one of the biggest events that didn't happen in real life. (No spoilers).

The whole “can we even have a trial” part is really interesting and deserves further exploration in my opinion. Likewise, the discussions between Göring and Kelley are fascinating and we deserve more. We get practically nothing from the other Nazis which could have been used for Kelley's investigation into whether the Nazis were different somehow. It is all somehow rushed through with other bits crammed in that don't add anything worthwhile to the movie.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, ultimately I do think Nuremberg is worth watching at least once. As I said, it is very well made and the actors are wonderful but be aware of its flaws. Oh, and a warning: during the trial scene, they show real footage from the extermination camps, and while this is important in order to hammer home the full horror of the Holocaust, some viewers might not be able to handle it.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

It is a mystery.

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 

Sniper Elite Resistance

This week I want to continue the tradition and talk about:

Sniper Elite Resistance.

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!

 

Top Four part Four, Where Eagles Dare

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!

Top Four part Three, Goodfellas

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!

 

Top Four part Two, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

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!

 

Top Four part One, Angel Heart

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!