What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

I've re-watched Excalibur as part of my quest to find the 100 films of the 20th century.
For the first half hour or so I was seriously invested, rooting for the guy who gets the sword (surely that's not a spoiler), and suddenly they start to do slapstick moments and I found it tonally confusing and frustrating (similar to the two Musketeers films from the 1970s).

The 1980s epic dark fantasy genre has to be one of the most noticeable trends in film history even if it's easy to see how it all came about.
Overall, I think it often falls between two stools, and regardless of how I feel about Game Of Thrones, it does satisfy its audience with an uncompromising vision.
I guess back in the 1980s they tried to make it as all-inclusive as possible, a darker Star Wars but then...not too dark.

Having said that, there is something irresistible about the legend of Camelot (the one from 2017 being the worst version I've seen) and I'm almost certain I've watched a Camelot TV series in the early 1980s. I remember it as being atmospheric and somewhat eerie, but I was very young so that may have affected the viewing experience.

I wonder why Disney hasn't jumped on the bandwagon (again) with a live-action remake of The Black Cauldron. Not that I need it, it's the animation that makes these films so very charming in the first place, but at least it would be more interesting than a remake of The Lion King or yet another interpretation of Snow White.

 

[Crimson]

SATURDAY NIGHT (2024), about the filming of the first episode of SNL. Not quite a drama and not quite a comedy, the film was enjoyable enough without really amounting to anything. Mostly I though the cast did well playing such famous people, except when trying to recreate classic comedy bits which was doomed to failure. Like BEING THE RICARDOS from a few years ago, which was also about filming a TV episode in a short period, this show weaves in events that had nothing to do with the time in question. In this case, Milton Berle is given an oddly prominent role, even though his infamous appearance on SNL came much later.

Bonus points for having a movie poster that captures the spirit of the era, arguably better than the movie itself.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

And today arrived: The Mirror Crack'd for a rewatch

I considered adding it to my watchlist. But then my heart sank at the thought of watching Lansbury's Marple so soon after last year's rewatch of the Joan Hickson series which I consider definitive. I dare say I could get lured in by the camp, though.

Apparently I was...


The Mirror Crack'd (1980)

All things considered, the news is good. Expectations were well and truly in check and the film was consequently very enjoyable.

The massive big-name cast helped this particular adaption, making it feel like a glamorous ensemble piece rather than a Miss Marple instalment (think of those glossy Seventies disaster films and you're practically there). And it needed that distraction.

Angela Lansbury gives it her best but, despite one or two moments where I could suspend disbelief enough to believe her in the role, she's simply miscast. She doesn't look, sound or act quite right for this character. But such a fundamental error doesn't have to be damaging to one's enjoyment of the film. After all, Margaret Rutherford's comic roly-poly interpretation is about as far as one can get from Agatha Christie's creation, but there's no denying she's entertaining as a multiversal alternative. Lansbury's interpretation of the character seems to bridge the gap, falling somewhere between Rutherford's daft and quirky old bag and Joan Hickson's sharp, birdlike creature who misses nothing. Lansbury isn't as entertaining as Rutherford or as authentic as Hickson, but in a film in which the character is overshadowed by the larger-than-life theatricals who invade St. Mary Mead, she just about gets away with it.

For me, the only truly unforgivable choice is a scene in which Jane Marple - for no particular reason, apparently - smokes a cigarette. Adding insult to injury, she doesn't even inhale. Mostly she just holds the cigarette by her face and the once or twice she took a puff it was blown out before it even hit the roof of her mouth. Watching her here, Lansbury doesn't appear to be a smoker so this is rather a bizarre choice for a character who isn't said to smoke.

The film looks very of its time, in a good way. Despite the period dressing, many of those Kent location shots made me feel nostalgic for the late Seventies/early Eighties. It's just the cinematography. It's (almost) as glossy as you'd expect a film with this cast to be. Yes, it does look at times like an image of how this Brit thinks many Americans think most Brits live (all that's missing is the fog), but that's the charm of Miss Marple's world anyway.

There's something surprisingly complementary about the fusion between brash, glossy American stars and quirky eccentric British character actors. It feels as though it shouldn't work, but it does. If anything, the strangest-feeling scenes are those between two American actors, Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis, simply because of the height difference between them. With no attempt to disguise it here, Hudson towers over Curtis who must have had a crick in his neck from playing these scenes .I haven't seen Hudson in too many dramatic roles, but he's pretty decent here, particularly in his final scenes. Of the British actors, Richard Pearson (best known to me as Mole in The Wind In The Willows) would later appear in the BBC's adaption of The Moving Finger, while Margaret Courtenay would go one better by appearing in the final BBC Miss Marple adaption... The Mirror Crack'd From Side To Side!

The bitchy lines are great fun, particularly in exchanges between Liz Taylor and Kim Novak's characters. An early one yields the immortal:
​

Lola, dear, you know there are really only two things I dislike about you... Your face.

Incidentally, there's a slightly meta moment where Elizabeth Taylor's character looks in the mirror and says (to the best of my memory) "Lines, lines, go away. Pray, come back on Doris Day" (perhaps it was "bags" rather than lines. My memory is shocking). Rock Hudson is on the bed and gives a knowing look which feels dangerously close to breaking the fourth wall.

The black-and-white pre-credits sequence was very nicely done. I was watching with someone who had no idea what our film choice was, and he was convinced we were about to watch an old b/w film. If I hadn't known, I think I'd have been fooled up to the point Colonel Hall from Fawlty Towers' legendary Gourmet Night showed up.

During in a love scene where Taylor's character's character (she's playing an actress) is on a bed with a himbo, there were comments in the O'Drama household of "He looked just like Pierce Brosnan". And it turns out it was him.

I'll give the film this: it's dangerously easy to devour. Probably repeatedly. Dare I say I think I had fun.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

And now we actually have been watching the same film, although the fact that I had mentioned the DVD makes the situation a little less coincidental.

The film looks very of its time, in a good way. Despite the period dressing, many of those Kent location shots made me feel nostalgic for the late Seventies/early Eighties

For me it was the sax-y score which I always instantly associate with eighties TV and cinema. I'm not sure if it was the perfect choice for a 1950s period drama.

Yes, it does look at times like an image of how this Brit thinks many Americans think most Brits live

The colours on the DVD are a little oversaturated and that made it look like an English set in California.

The bitchy lines are great fun, particularly in exchanges between Liz Taylor and Kim Novak's characters

Yes, it seems rather cheeky for an Agatha Christie story. Miss Marple who describes murder victim Heather as a "bore", Lola referring to a film starring Marina "in her rags, looking like shit".

Jinks sounds like a fabulous un-used Dynasty name.

My favourite moment is when Edward Fox catches Liz pretending to be upset by quoting one of her previous character lines, followed by Liz' infectious and unglamorous cackling.
Personally, I think MIRROR is the least ambitious of the four big Agatha Christie films, but it does have the most impressive death scene.

Which, incidentally, happens in front of a mirror.

Cherry gave Miss Marple an account of what happened at the time Heather was poisoned, but did she also repeat word-for-word what was being said?
Who told Marple about Heather's infection, the most important detail that made it possible to reconstruct the murder scene?
Edit: what I mean is, who told Marple that Heather told Marina about her infection?

 

[Mel O'Drama]

And now we actually have been watching the same film

Huzzah!!

although the fact that I had mentioned the DVD makes the situation a little less coincidental.

Yes indeed. It was your earlier mention that made me take another look at this one. I thought if you thought it was good enough to purchase, then it was certainly worth me giving it a go.

For me it was the sax-y score which I always instantly associate with eighties TV and cinema. I'm not sure if it was the perfect choice for a 1950s period drama.

It didn't feel very Miss Marple, though it was pleasant enough.

that made it look like an English set in California.

Oh - I forgot to mention Miss Marple's drawing room set... very clearly a studio with fake flowers and shrubbery outside the window. For a few moments I hated it, then I bought into the stagey artifice and ended up quite liking it.

Miss Marple who describes murder victim Heather as a "bore",

In the Hickson version I do like the snobbery of the character (which I'm fairly sure is in the books as well). She's very old money and while looking at a various female corpses in the series she'd tut-tut about their "cheap finery" or "cheap and tawdry" accessories.

Lola referring to a film starring Marina "in her rags, looking like shit".

Oh, I didn't notice this. Perhaps because it came out so naturally. Or perhaps it was one of those scenes where I was transfixed by Lola's boobs, which constantly seemed to be trying to escape in different directions.

My favourite moment is when Edward Fox catches Liz pretending to be upset by quoting one of her previous character lines, followed by Liz' infectious and unglamorous cackling.

Yes, that's great.

who told Marple that Heather told Marina about her infection?

Didn't Marina relay that story to Inspector Craddock? She didn't specify the illness when she mentioned her special trip, but she certainly said that Heather had got up from her sick bed to attend. My guess is he then mentioned this to his aunt who put it together.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Didn't Marina relay that story to Inspector Craddock?

And perhaps I didn't notice that because I didn't know how important it was.
Funnily enough, I misremembered it as Heather being Marina's daughter, which may have been a distraction in the way I followed the story.
Certainly not a bad thing as it added an element of surprise.

LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (1961)



It looks great and it's an interesting idea, but I think it would have worked better as a short film, like an arthouse Twilight Zone episode or something like that.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Funnily enough, I misremembered it as Heather being Marina's daughter, which may have been a distraction in the way I followed the story.

What a great experience to go in expecting it to go a certain way and then find it doesn't. Even though I now struggle to think of an example, I'm sure I've had a number of similar experiences, and it can make the story new again.

 

[Willie Oleson]

BURNT OFFERINGS (1976)



Or Burnt Oliver who seems to have indulged in Californian sunshine. That's why they have to keep him wet.

If American Gothic is a genre then I think this is one of the better examples. I've seen worse, a lot worse.
The first half of the film is kinda sluggish, and the relentless ominous score only emphasises that it isn't terribly exciting to watch.
When the characters have to be characters and establish a sense of family it doesn't work at all, but once the terror picks up in the second half they only have to worry about that. From that point on it's an entertaining ride to the fabulous and bloody climax, with a few unintentionally funny moments but that doesn't count as a complaint.
I think it's a good-looking film that makes the most of its sets (real interior or not) and it never hurts when the upload comes in good picture quality (from blu-raayyy).
The very idea that you're living in a house together with a person you never see is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. It's almost like one of those infamously unseen sitcom characters.

My DVD player is behaving difficult, I guess it needs to be replaced. These throwaway things usually don't last more than two years, and less when used intensively.
Remember the times when these devices were indestructible? My microwave from the late 1990s still works like a charm.
But, enfin.

THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD (1975)



Now that's what I call proper recycling. As for the "electrifying motion picture"....well, not so much.
Somehow I know that Shirley MacLaine believes or believed in reincarnation, therefore I wonder it became topical in the 1970s. There certainly was a lust for the alternative stuff in horror films.
Apart from that, this is a painfully straightforward story that accepts reincarnation instead of exploring it. Somebody discovers that he used to be someone else and then tracks down those origins.
There is the tantalising aspect of going public and turn the whole world upside down, but unfortunately the main character nips it in the bud.

Nevertheless, thanks to the ever-reliable seventies cinematography and lovely score it's not a massive bore to sit through.
Margot Kidder is good and Michael Sarrazin has that dreamy je ne sais quoi (or is that a different phrasing for "Canadian"?).
There's two ways to look at the title: even more painfully straightforward than the story itself, or intriguingly Poe.
Right now I just want a reincarnation of my DVD player. Please help.

 

[Seaviewer]

Vivo (2021)
Animated musical with voice and songs by Lin-Manuel Miranda.
I watched Encanto not too long ago. Miranda seems to just about own musicals since his success with Hamilton (which ironically I have not seen).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

High Spirits (1988)

The name was familiar, and I'm sure I was aware of the existence of this film back hone it first came out, but I've never watched it.

I did not love it. The first half an hour or so is just painfully dull as the premise is established with a bunch of people we don't know or care about fake haunting another bunch of people we don't know or care about.

Things get a little more interesting when (le gasp) the real hauntings begin and Steve Guttenberg falls for ectoplasmic Darryl Hannah over live-but-frigid shrew of a wife Beverly D'Angelo.

Guttenberg does his Guttenberg thing, which is cute enough at times but not enough to overcome the film's many weaknesses (not least of which is Hannah's attempt at a lilting Irish accent). In the cold light of day it's an unfunny comedy with characters we never really get to know randomly falling for one another. The supernatural element is the film's USP, but frankly I'd much rather watch Blithe Spirit. It might have been made over four decades before this film, but at least it had a good script and story. High Spirits is just too boisterous and busy and feels it's trying to be too many things and succeeding at none.

The cast is an interesting hodgepodge of actors who were no doubt considered "hot properties" at the time (Steve Guttenberg, Darryl Hannah, arguably D'Angelo), early appearances from those who would go on to much better things (Liam Neeson) , a familiar face or two from television (Fawlty Towers' Connie Booth) and a horde of British and Irish character actors (including Liz Smith). Plus Peter O'Toole himself, who appears equal parts bored and confused the entire time.

For me, this is one of those films I'll watch just once.



​

BURNT OFFERINGS (1976)

I think you enjoyed this a little more than I did.

An impressive cast in a rather less impressive film that feels like a test run for various better projects such as The Shining and The Amityville Horror.

Everything about it feels horribly dated. The production values give it a schlocky TV movie feel. Quiet dialogue scenes feel at times like a bit of a chore and endless in a daytime soap kind of way. These are broken up by dramatic sequences that are intense and loud and shrill as only films of this era can be. And it all leads to a "what the hell did I just watch" kind of non-ending.

I can't tell if good editing is improving bad performances or bad editing is spoiling great performances. Oliver Reed and Bette Davis seem really good at times while at others Davis in particular seems to be phoning her performance in. Karen Black is an actress that I frequently find unintentionally funny anyway. The mobile face emotes fear or concern or whatever, while the delivery and body language make her seem disinterested and insincere at all times, almost as though she doesn't understand English and is reciting her dialogue phonetically without giving it any meaning. She's given an awful lot to do in this one, taking top billing over Oliver Reed!

The title makes it sound like a comedy, and I'm still not sure it wasn't.

 

[tommie]

Nosferatu (2024) on Christmas Day (which unfortunately gave me a manflu, but that's another story).

'Tis was okay, very stylish. I'll admit that it starting off tense sort made them miss the build that I usually enjoy. Bill Skarsgård of course is great as the utterly disgusting Count Orlock, but I did like Lily Depp in it too. I think with it being so long (132 minutes) it sort of started revealing some logical gaps in the plot that aren't as noticeable in the original 1922 film.

 

[Willie Oleson]

GOSFORD PARK (2001)

Are you okay?

Am I what?

It's like Merchant Ivory meets Downton Abbey, but without a distinctive storyline. Perhaps you could say that it redefines the period drama genre.
It only took me a few minutes to realise that this was going to be a very good one and I'm happy to say that that feeling never changed.
One of the most extraordinary aspects is its cinematographic fluidity, it doesn't cut between scenes - it glides. This almost creates the illusion of being inside the film as an invisible spectator. Or the killer.

It starts with the hectic activity of guest arriving at the estate and the servants who need to take care of everything. Dozens of character names are dropped within less than 10 minutes which should make it very challenging to watch, but it doesn't.
Even after the film had ended I still didn't know all the characters and their connections - love, family, business or otherwise - but it doesn't matter, it's all about the chemistry and tension, something that you notice or "overhear" without the need for specific details.
This also explains why the murder mystery is merely an inconvenience rather than a mystery. All we know is that the horrible host deserved to be murdered, maybe more than twice.
The parentage mystery doesn't play out as a spectacular reveal, it only highlights the mundanity of that situation at that particular time. And nice to see you again, Clive Owen.

Obviously the servants have to do all the hard work but it's not much better "upstairs" where the guests are trying to make conversation with people they don't like, or trying not to get angry.
Ryan Phillipe plays an actor who pretends to a be servant as a way to do research for his new role, but it's also implied that he's sort of a casting couch whore.
The servants don't take kindly to his trickery and their petty revenge is very entertaining to watch, but again, nothing takes centre stage.
The police officer in charge of the investigation is an incompetent windbag who ignores the evidence discovered by his assistant which, yet again, puts the focus on hierarchy rather than serious detective work.

The DVD picture quality isn't the best I've seen. Initially I was horrified by the excessive grain but thankfully that turned out to be rain.
Oh it's all very watchable but still I consider tracking down a more recent (and hopefully upgraded) release. If it exists at all.

 

[Toni]

My last movie of the year watched in a theater was "Nosferatu", the umpteenth version of the vampire saga. Not that I expected too much, but the movie is a creep fest, with lots of gore and no suspense at all because it doesn´t deviate too much from the Dracula previous versions. Poor Dafoe is completely miscast here in a supporting role that comes across as totally farcical.

I´m not a fan of the most celebrated versions like Coppola´s or even the Lugosi one, but I did enjoy Langella´s at the time. Here the actors seem to be out of their element, and the script desperately needed another revision.
Two good things about it:
- Johnny Depp´s daughter seems to be born to play her role, and it will probably haunt her in the future.
- The camera work is quite fascinating, and the way Photography plays with shadows and sepia tones is mesmerizing.
All in all, I liked better the "making-of" movie "Shadow of the Vampire" starring Dafoe as the actor who played the title role in the first "Nosferatu". Anyway, I do prefer this new one over the director´s previous film "The North Man", just abhorrent.

 

[Toni]

I finally watched, two days ago, the first (I think) non-Dracula remake of "Nosferatu", a 1979 German movie written and directed by Werner Herzog, and starring Nastassia´s daddy Klaus Kinski, Bruno Ganz as Harker, and Isabelle Adjani as Lucy, all three quite good. I watched what I think is the German edition, dubbed into Spanish.

Three weeks after seeing the new "Nosferatu" in the theater, I found out that the latter is mostly a shot-by-shot remake, with a lot of special effects trying to elevate the scaremeter and more sex and "grotesquerie" to satisfy the younger generations, so hooked on this through the streaming services.

Herzog´s version is clearly an homage to the 1922 original in every sense: from the emphasis on shadows and silhouettes, to the replication of a few sinister shots, to the acting style, so close to the silent era... The score is mainly composed by a few original cues, and classic pieces, quite melancholic when not directly somber. I was surprised to hear the famous chorus that Kate Bush re-used for her song "Hello Earth" after watching this movie.

Once the film is over, you realize a second reviewing is necessary because of the amount of creativity present in it. The plot follows the past and future versions, so to say, and doesn´t slow down to focus on artistic shots or old horror tropes. In this movie, atmosphere is everything!

Below you can watch the trailer, but I dare to say... beware the trailer!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

written and directed by Werner Herzog

I always confuse him with the other critically acclaimed German film maker Wim Wenders. Especially because they both made a film I disliked (very much).
But Werner Herzog has a large filmography therefore it wouldn't be fair to dismiss all of it based on one bad experience (very bad).

 

[Toni]

I always confuse him with the other critically acclaimed German film maker Wim Wenders. Especially because they both made a film I disliked (very much).
But Werner Herzog has a large filmography therefore it wouldn't be fair to dismiss all of it based on one bad experience (very bad).

Me too, I had to check it out before writing the post...

 

[Seaviewer]

A Dog's Purpose (2017)
Not too sure what to make of this.
On the face of it, a kids' film about life as seen through the eyes of a dog, but it goes into some fairly heavy territory like family violence, alcoholism, tragic loss, so I don't know who the intended audience is supposed to be.

 

[Willie Oleson]

WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY (2007)



I had never heard of this one before but suddenly it popped up in my youtube suggestions. I watched the trailer and it was the scene with Patrick Duffy (as himself) that made me decide to check it out.
Compared to the many parodies that came out it the 1980s, 1990s and even the 2000s I'd say that Walk Hard is a slightly more sophisticated version. It's over-the-top (obviously) but at least not as awful as the more cartoonish parodies like The Naked Gun or the Not Another Whatever Movie franchise.
There's the cast, the production, but more importantly the music itself. Despite being intentionally generic versions of the classics, it still sounds kinda good.
I guess a parody works best when it shows a little love for its subject rather than "hating" it.

The film's biggest flaw (imo) is that it sometimes forget to parody the biopic genre, and instead focuses on roasting its subject. It should be about Joaquin Phoenix, not Johnny Cash.
Walk Hard is crammed with funny details but they're often upstaged by the more obvious histrionics.
The first half is the strongest part, especially when Dewey's parents are still alive. After that it starts to go through to the motions in order to reach the finish of the 90+ minutes running time.

Which brings me to the question: does parody (possibly the most extreme version of comedy) ever work in the relentless fashion of a full length feature film?
Overall, I found it amusing rather than laugh-out-loud funny, and when it isn't funny at least it's not irritating.

Some additional random thoughts:
-I like the reference to modern(ish) music using samples from classic hit songs. Dewey's hit "Walk Hard" is used for a booty-ho rap song.
-I'm not a fan of cheesy montage sequences, but when it uses the hit by Vicki Sue Robinson I no longer have a reason to complain.
-funniest scene: Dewey's brother, accidentally cut in half by Dewey, is declared dead (!!) by the doctor, which makes mother Cox burst into tears. Margo Martindale is definitely one of the film's highlights.

I wouldn't recommend it as a film worth checking out, but if you plan on watching a parody movie then Walk Hard, despite its shortcomings, might be one of the better options.

Incidentally, I didn't see the scene with Patrick Duffy. Did it end up as a deleted scene or was the youtube upload incomplete?

 

[Crimson]

SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946)

I practically felt guilty hitting "play" on this one, given its reputation. I would have sworn I saw this movie as a kid, but not a single memory was sparked.

I didn't like the movie at all, but not for any reason I might have suspected. The film's portrayal of race, far from ideal, was also less awful than I expected given that the film is hidden away. Mostly, I just found the movie to be dull treacle. One catchy tune isn't much to build a movie around. This is the fakest of Old Hollywood artifice -- nostalgia for a time that never existed. Everyone in the movie smiled to such excess, I found myself wondering how much their faces must have hurt at the end of filming. Even the animated sequences were more noisy than funny, but then Disney's cartoon shorts of the day were never as good as those made by Warner Brothers or MGM.

 

[Toni]

Here is a movie I´ve watched that I´d like to recommend before talking about its production details: "The Man From Rome". This is its official synopsis:

A computer hacker penetrates Vatican security and sends an urgent anonymous plea to the pope. Handsome Father Quart, of the church's Institute of External Affairs, an arm of the Vatican intelligence, is dispatched to investigate. The message of the hacker concerns a crumbling 17th century Baroque church in the heart of Seville that apparently "kills to defend itself".

Isn´t the poster cool and old-fashioned?​

Starring Richard Armitage (from "The Hobbit" and "Berlin Station" fame), "CSI´S" Paul Guilfoyle, "Falcon Crest´s" Paul Freeman, Fionnula Flanagan, Féodor Atkine, and a bunch of good Spanish actors like Alicia Borrachero, Unax Ugalde, Carlos Cuevas and Jorge Sanz. Oh and then there is also model-turned-actress Amaia Salamanca, who looks very much like Keri Russell. You might know her from streaming shows like "Velvet" and "Grand Hotel". Yes, it´s a co-production between US, Spain, Italy and Colombia, but don´t let that scare you away, because the movie is very entertaining, though sometimes predictable.

I also happen to like this one...​

I must say that I expected the worst, but got a nice surprise. It´s a 2-hour suspenseful action movie that takes a bit from the James Bond saga, the "Da Vinci" adaptations, and even the long series of Liam Neeson films a la "Taken", though it´s not a masterpiece, but good to see how everything revolves around the story instead of the stunt casting, the CG effects or the sex scenes.

Here Armitage is a priest who works as an investigator for the Vatican and is sent to Seville to find the truth about some murders related to a church. He meets all the players in the game: an aristocratic Sevillian family with a matriarch and an unhappily married heiress, her corrupt future ex-husband, ready to make the deal of the century, and the other priests linked to the mystery, including some of them who are hackers!

Seville photographs nicely but it´s wasted though.​

The whole movie is filmed in exteriors from Roma, Madrid and Seville, and the action sequences are well-directed. Of course, it works because Armitage is in his element after playing so many agents (he took the role because he wanted to become a James Bond who also was a priest...). The supporting cast has been meticulously chosen, and all the actors speak English in the original version, even the Spanish ones, who are oddly dubbed in the Spanish version because...they don´t know the technique...! Now for the trailer.

​

The Colombian director said that the movie was not addressed to the Spanish audiences, but the international market, which was one of the worst PR statements that you can do when promoting a movie...in Spain. The script adapts a novel by Spanish author Arturo Pérez-Reverte (whose novel "El Club Dumas" was filmed as "The Ninth Gate" starring Johnny Depp).

Voilà another of Armitage´s hardest scenes...
​

I knew nothing about this movie when I found it while looking for more Armitage vehicles, and I was sad to see that it actually didn´t recover its budget (lost 7 million!). However, since it´s a Prime production I hope it will attract more people. There are clichés and a few unlikely things, but it´s entertaining and tells a story. By the way, its Spanish title is "Skin of Drum", meaning that Catholic Church is like that, that resists all blows. Not an awful depiction of religion at the end, but its vision isn´t perfect at all either.

Richard´s vision MUST be perfect!​

Note for the "Falcon Crest" fans: Paul Freeman has a special role here playing one of the priests. To be honest I didn´t recognize him (he sports white long hair and beard), until one scene when "war treasures" afloat in a conversation... He was in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and, of course, as Riebmann / De Bercy on "Falcon Crest". Funny how I needed this subject to identify him... This movie complete his "Raiders" trilogy and, surprise again, . Have you watched this film, @TJP? In Germany its title includes the subtitle of "Der Vatikan Code"!

Last but not least, the inspired score is signed by Spanish musician Roque Baños, also author of remarkable works in movies like "Sexy Beast", "The Machinist", "Don´t Breathe", "The Oxford Crimes", and "The Kovak Box" (another good example of Spanish co-production, highly watchable).