Where Eagles Dare

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Where Eagles Dare!

Original image located here. Accessed 25th April 2025

Should I be watching a war movie on Anzac Day? That's a very good question. Nevertheless, I have been wanting to see this for a long time so now is as good a time as any. I guess.

But no matter: This was gripping stuff, following a commando unit on a rescue mission. Richard Burton is certainly a presence and Clint Eastwood is effectively carrying over his Man With No Name persona into a different setting. The set pieces are great and there's some great actions scenes - not least that nail-biting sequence on the cable car. And there is some intrigue that one wouldn't find in a war movie - surprising but welcome. 

I've heard some comments comparing this to a James Bond movie but hey, whatever works. After all, anyone can come up with a war setting but it takes a visionary to do something different with it.

Tarzan

  And this week's Friday night movie has been... Tarzan!

Original image located here. Accessed 18th April 2025

I never saw Tarzan - or Mulan for that matter - when it was originally in theatres. At that time I was in college and my interests were being directed elsewhere. Furthermore to watch a Disney animated film back then was, in my mind, dismissed as 'kid's stuff'. 
But now, I'm an adult and I see no reason to care any more - especially as I continue to lurch through middle age. In addition, I have heard some good things about Tarzan so maybe it's time to give this a look with fresh eyes. 

So does this count among the Disney Renaissance? I have spoken previously about the post-Renaissance years, which is now recognised as the Experimental years, but is there an overlap between the two? Indeed, one could make the argument that the Experimental years began post-Lion King as those have not had the widespread recognition comparable to Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin/Lion King.

All right, enough delaying: This movie was fantastic. It wasn't just the astonishing animation, but a lot of stand out moments: The soundtrack courtesy of one Phil Collins. The theme of family. The gorgeous artwork. But the real star is Jane: She was a great character in her expressive, adorkable, probably-inspired-by-Jane-Goodall glory - helped immeasurably by the voice acting of Minnie Driver. And seeing her relationship with Tarzan progress is one worth following. 

I have heard that Tarzan himself functions as an analogy for people with Autism. Certainly I can see it and yes it does seem plausible, what with him being socially awkward and how he is treated by the people around him. Having said that, maybe I should've watched this during it's original theatre run as it could've helped...

Anywho, this was great stuff and yes, I think this could easily stand amongst Disney's best.

Mr Peabody and Sherman

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Mr Peabody and Sherman!

Original image located here. Accessed 11th April 2025

I watched a lot of Rocky and Bullwinkle when I was a kid. So I was already familiar with these characters and their shtick. Needless to say, I was perplexed to see that someone decided that these two should have their own full-length feature. I mean, is this the type of thing that will sell to the kids of the 2010s, let alone anyone who was a kid in the 1950s?

So it seems that I needn't have worried: This was hilarious with some real laugh-out-loud jokes, snappy dialogue, some clever use of visuals, gags that are anything but archaic, and some actual heart - not to mention various allusions to the source material. It is like that the makers realised that this wasn't that big a property so they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted - and so they ran with that.

Like I said I had no idea who green-lit this but I never would've guessed it produced such a gem. 

The Queen of Versailles

And this week's Friday night movie has been... The Queen of Versailles!

Original image located here. Accessed 4th April 2025

It seems this year that I have been, once a month, watching a documentary, that started in one direction but ended up in a completely different direction. So lets keep that particular train going.

This documentary is a fascinating one as it tells a familiar story: A couple are intent on building their dream house but, due to meddling from the bank, they are forced to abandon this plan and settle for something smaller. So what makes this story different? The couple in question are an excessively wealthy businessman and his trophy wife: David and Jackie Siegel. 

So whilst this documentary starts with their original plan - a monumental mansion inspired by the Palace of Versailles - what happens next has such plans going belly-up with the financial crash of 2008 and these two settling for something lesser.
Now given that the super wealthy are hardly flavour of the month material at the moment, is this documentary condemning or sympathetic? The answer is both. Yes this couple make some poor spending decisions (especially Jackie), yes they have an oblivious approach to their situation, and yes they are effectively living in their own super-wealthy bubble. But at the same time, they are facing a lot of problems that the rest of us will face: limited funds, struggling to pay off debts and longing for a financial breakthrough. 

Make no mistake: These people are pretty much awful people who do dumb things and have a limited view of the world. And yet seeing them humbled in such a manner one can't help but feel sense of sympathy.
Maybe not a lot but its there.