- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#11
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 09:44:36 AM
What did the prophet prophesize?
#12
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 09:40:48 AMPROVIDENCE (1977):
In the past I've mentioned my movie-loving friend David, who once played a thinly veiled version of director James Foley in one of my plays. Recently David turned 70 and when I asked him what kind of present he'd like, he told me he wanted a copy of this rather obscure feature from Alan Renais, director of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD and NIGHT AND FOG. David last watched it in the early 80s and hadn't been able to find a copy since. His wish was my command, and David enjoyed revisiting PROVIDENCE so much he asked me to watch it w/ him again last week. Wow, it's a movie.
David Warner is on trial for murder and Dirk Bogarde is the prosecutor. Warner is acquitted (quickly, not a spoiler) and Bogarde is immediately non-plussed, then even moreso when he comes home (to his lovely mansion) and finds Warner hanging out w/ Mrs. Bogarde (Ellen Burstyn). For better or worse, Bogarde is also having an affair - with (of all people) Elaine Stritch, who (as other characters acknowledge) looks about 20 years too old for Dirk. (Bogarde and Stritch were both in their 50s and Bogarde was actually 4 years older than Stritch irl, but Bogarde looks great as usual and Stritch looks like Stritch.) Every now and then the action pauses and cuts to John Gielgud, soliloquizing as he suffers (maybe dies slowly) in bed. Oh yeah, there's also some sort of fascist regime rounding up the elderly, and a subplot involving lycanthropy, and a football (aka American soccer) player who runs through scenes intermittently for no apparent reason.
But wait! About 2/3rds of the way through (and after Bogarde begins to climactically brandish a revolver), there's a reveal of sorts........ not exactly a twist, but a change of setting that provides a new perspective on the characters and their relationships. What was a highly Pinteresque, nearly absurdist exercise in formalism becomes involving and even emotionally affecting, at least in an odd manner. Warner's performance is typically odd as well, and Burstyn (still a huge star after EXORCIST and ALICE DLHA) behaves in a mostly arch, artificial fashion, though by design I think. Weirdly enough, the legendarily acidic Stritch actually is grounded and relatable here.
PROVIDENCE succeeds though because of Bogarde and Gielgud, who eventually get to share the screen. Gielgud was a universal signifier of Quality Acting before I was born and in my youth I only knew him for his Academy Award-winning role in ARTHUR
and then a bit later in CALIGULA (which isn't, tbh, a good reflection of Gielgud's talent). In PROVIDENCE, he savors every elliptical crypticism as if it was Shakespearean gold and truly earns his rep. And Bogarde effortlessly delivers a parade of eloquent, caustic, heartfelt, and always compelling Oscar nom-reel clip contenders, unknowing or indifferent to the fact he's acting in a bizarre French artfilm that most US and British Academy voters will never bother to watch. Class act.
4.5/5 Great film, exactly what you'd expect and want from the author of MARIENBAD.
In the past I've mentioned my movie-loving friend David, who once played a thinly veiled version of director James Foley in one of my plays. Recently David turned 70 and when I asked him what kind of present he'd like, he told me he wanted a copy of this rather obscure feature from Alan Renais, director of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD and NIGHT AND FOG. David last watched it in the early 80s and hadn't been able to find a copy since. His wish was my command, and David enjoyed revisiting PROVIDENCE so much he asked me to watch it w/ him again last week. Wow, it's a movie.
David Warner is on trial for murder and Dirk Bogarde is the prosecutor. Warner is acquitted (quickly, not a spoiler) and Bogarde is immediately non-plussed, then even moreso when he comes home (to his lovely mansion) and finds Warner hanging out w/ Mrs. Bogarde (Ellen Burstyn). For better or worse, Bogarde is also having an affair - with (of all people) Elaine Stritch, who (as other characters acknowledge) looks about 20 years too old for Dirk. (Bogarde and Stritch were both in their 50s and Bogarde was actually 4 years older than Stritch irl, but Bogarde looks great as usual and Stritch looks like Stritch.) Every now and then the action pauses and cuts to John Gielgud, soliloquizing as he suffers (maybe dies slowly) in bed. Oh yeah, there's also some sort of fascist regime rounding up the elderly, and a subplot involving lycanthropy, and a football (aka American soccer) player who runs through scenes intermittently for no apparent reason.
But wait! About 2/3rds of the way through (and after Bogarde begins to climactically brandish a revolver), there's a reveal of sorts........ not exactly a twist, but a change of setting that provides a new perspective on the characters and their relationships. What was a highly Pinteresque, nearly absurdist exercise in formalism becomes involving and even emotionally affecting, at least in an odd manner. Warner's performance is typically odd as well, and Burstyn (still a huge star after EXORCIST and ALICE DLHA) behaves in a mostly arch, artificial fashion, though by design I think. Weirdly enough, the legendarily acidic Stritch actually is grounded and relatable here.
PROVIDENCE succeeds though because of Bogarde and Gielgud, who eventually get to share the screen. Gielgud was a universal signifier of Quality Acting before I was born and in my youth I only knew him for his Academy Award-winning role in ARTHUR
and then a bit later in CALIGULA (which isn't, tbh, a good reflection of Gielgud's talent). In PROVIDENCE, he savors every elliptical crypticism as if it was Shakespearean gold and truly earns his rep. And Bogarde effortlessly delivers a parade of eloquent, caustic, heartfelt, and always compelling Oscar nom-reel clip contenders, unknowing or indifferent to the fact he's acting in a bizarre French artfilm that most US and British Academy voters will never bother to watch. Class act.4.5/5 Great film, exactly what you'd expect and want from the author of MARIENBAD.
#13
Good Movies / Re: 100 THREE-WORD movie title...
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 09:25:32 AM15.) BRING IT ON
#14
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by claws - Today at 09:23:08 AM
#15
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by bob - Today at 09:15:48 AM
Where's the money?
#18
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by FatFreddysCat - Today at 08:17:47 AM"Star Trek: Into Darkness" (2013)
In the second film of J.J. Abrams' "reboot" trilogy, Kirk and crew are sent to the edge of Klingon space to capture a terrorist (Benedict Cumberbatch) who's got a major grudge against Starfleet. Just as much action packed fun as the first film. Leonard Nimoy returns for another brief appearance as Old Spock, but disappointingly, still no Shatner cameo. Followed by "Star Trek: Beyond."
In the second film of J.J. Abrams' "reboot" trilogy, Kirk and crew are sent to the edge of Klingon space to capture a terrorist (Benedict Cumberbatch) who's got a major grudge against Starfleet. Just as much action packed fun as the first film. Leonard Nimoy returns for another brief appearance as Old Spock, but disappointingly, still no Shatner cameo. Followed by "Star Trek: Beyond."
#19
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Dr. Whom - Today at 03:34:46 AMQuote from: M.10rda on May 25, 2026, 11:14:28 AMDoctor, I recall from my youth that when Gance's NAPOLEON was discussed, it was referred to as being much longer than 560 minutes - like somewhere in the 17-25 hour range. Was there once a version that was that long, but the majority of it has been lost? Or (as you suggest in your review) did Gance intend that length but he just never managed to produce the balance?
Small correction to my original reply: the director's cut was a whopping 9:22. I watched the Brownlow restoration of 5:32. There is also a 7 hour restoration by the Cinémathèque française.
#20
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Dr. Whom - Today at 03:27:15 AMNapoléon (1927) suite et fin
So, I made it through. Now, this is undoubtedly one of those movies that is used to separate the men from the boys when it comes to Serious Movie Lovers. Part of this is no doubt the sunken cost fallacy: after sitting through it, you feel this has got to be a masterpiece, otherwise you've wasted your day. Also, after a while Stockholm Syndrome sets in.
First of all, it truly is impressive. If there ever was a movie that merited the label 'grand historical fresco', this is it. I don't know to what extend all the various techniques were common at the time, but Abel Gance literally uses every trick in the book.
However, it is painfully slow. After 333 minutes Napoleon is just embarking upon his career. All the things he is known for (conquering Europe, Egyptian expedition, Russian Campaign, return and defeat at Waterloo) are still in the future.
More seriously, it is a blatant piece of Napoleonic propaganda that makes Leni Riefenstahl look subtle. After a couple of hours, this gets tiring.
Finally, there is little dramatic tension. Napoleon doesn't find his destiny or has to face choices. History just happens with Napoleon being Napoleon throughout.
Interesting to watch if you like early filmmaking, but no need to see all of it.
So, I made it through. Now, this is undoubtedly one of those movies that is used to separate the men from the boys when it comes to Serious Movie Lovers. Part of this is no doubt the sunken cost fallacy: after sitting through it, you feel this has got to be a masterpiece, otherwise you've wasted your day. Also, after a while Stockholm Syndrome sets in.
First of all, it truly is impressive. If there ever was a movie that merited the label 'grand historical fresco', this is it. I don't know to what extend all the various techniques were common at the time, but Abel Gance literally uses every trick in the book.
However, it is painfully slow. After 333 minutes Napoleon is just embarking upon his career. All the things he is known for (conquering Europe, Egyptian expedition, Russian Campaign, return and defeat at Waterloo) are still in the future.
More seriously, it is a blatant piece of Napoleonic propaganda that makes Leni Riefenstahl look subtle. After a couple of hours, this gets tiring.
Finally, there is little dramatic tension. Napoleon doesn't find his destiny or has to face choices. History just happens with Napoleon being Napoleon throughout.
Interesting to watch if you like early filmmaking, but no need to see all of it.