Last Movie you Watched?

Harmsway wrote:

That said, my favorite Burton films are still ED WOOD and SWEENEY TODD.

SWEENEY TODD does nothing for me. I love the musical (the '79 production), but I thought the film was visually dire, uncompelling and miscast.

Sharky wrote:

SWEENEY TODD does nothing for me. I love the musical (the '79 production), but I thought the film was visually dire, uncompelling and miscast.

I think it's one of Burton's most elegant, focused films. Gorgeous cinematography and production design. And I don't think it's miscast, really, in that the cast all fit Burton's vision of the roles very well. It's not, per se, a definitive adaptation--and SWEENEY TODD has been reimagined so much that there never could be such a thing--but it's a film that works quite well on its own terms.

Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd for me too, although I'm also quite fond of Batman Returns.

We'll never agree here Harms here. SWEENEY TODD is an ugly, digitally graded mess. Typical of films released in 2006.

BATMAN RETURNS is easily the best of the two Burton flicks.

Sherlock Holmes : A Game Of Shadows - pretty good, a little overlong and 'faffy' in places maybe and with some over-stylised direction from Ritchie. But the 'upping' of the action, camp and 'bromance' elements make for a fun action-adventure romp overall.

Sharky wrote:

We'll never agree here Harms here. SWEENEY TODD is an ugly, digitally graded mess. Typical of films released in 2006.

BATMAN RETURNS is easily the best of the two Burton flicks.

Agreed about SWEENEY TODD.

I think Burton's best films are ED WOOD and BEETLEJUICE. I hope DARK SHADOWS turns out well.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)



Why did I buy these movies?

Perhaps I can give the set to someone else for Crimbo after I watch them.

Thoughts on ELEVEN? Is aight. Decent lite entertainment. Three problems for me. In no order.

1. No suspense. At least not to me. How can I feel glad and relieved when they pull off the caper when the whole thing feels like a walk in the park. These guys are not the Rat Pack, so they can't hold my interest enough on their own amidst a leisurely pace. Off course, the Rat Pack didn't hold my interest in what I saw of the original - which I thought straight up sucked. There's no real build up to the actual caper, and it feels just as lax as the rest of the film.

2. It's not nearly as funny nor as cool as it thinks it is, and it obviously thinks it is. These guys are not the Rat Pack.

3. These guys are not the Rat Pack. Shit, half of them are barely on the F***IN' radar.

So the film to me is hollow, meaningless, suspenceless, unfunny, and sports Don Cheadle doing a crap Brit accent. I thought he'd shed it after his first scene, like it was a disguise. But it stayed.

But it's shot fairly well.

Oh yeah. Julia Roberts. Don't care for her, so that whole angle was nothing to me.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Watchable, but underwhelming. The script just feels undercooked. DePalma directs well enough, but it just doesn't have the jazz or flair of his better films. It's like he's on autopilot. The sequences are well-concieved and pretty well done, but the story doesn't really compel.

Pretty good cast. Jon Voight is very wrong for Phelps, IMHO. But he's playing Evil Action Movie Phelps, so he's right for that. Seriously, there isn't enough justification for him to be so evil in the script, but Jon Voight sells the evil with his presence. It's like this guy has always been evil, rather than him going bad. A Phelps becoming disillusioned would have been interesting, and I think that's what is going on here. But the guy shoots his own wife! He's just born evil!

I do wish Kristin Scott Thomas had lived longer. One of my favorite actresses. But Emmanuelle Beart is a satisfactory replacement and in pretty much any other movie would be my favorite. The other people are good too. I especially like Redgrave, another favorite actress.

I dunno. Weak story, Phelps being illogically evil, the concept of the old show being flushed down the toilet to make room for a Tom Cruise James Bond movie. DePalma's involvement is what makes this film at least worth a peak to me.

I've seen a few recently...

Let The Right One In (2008)

While I'm nowhere near as enamored with this film as most, I certainly see its quality in a decade where the horror genre as a whole and the sub-genre of vampire films have taken a dive unlike any other period in history, this film is a creative and refreshing submission to both areas.The movie has its lengths though and its minimalistic dialogs just don't feel like they are enough to get the point across. The 1980s suburban Sweden makes for a very bleak scenery and atmosphere, as well. The showdown at the swimming pool is quite shocking and I admit to being surprised Still, I felt like something was missing.

Near Dark (1987)

Retro 80's vampire madness similar to Lost Boys, all the way down to bad haircuts and synthesiser music. Successfully combines the horror genre with action and hints of western. This is probably the most believable you can get with vampires and it's a steady debut by Bigelow. I don't think she's ever made anything as unique since. The performances are effective especially Paxton and Henriksen and the sequences are just way too interesting. I love the score from Tangerine Dream, it truly brings the movie together.

Winter's Bone (2010)

A good-yet-unremarkable film with a simple yet somewhat perplexing, often slow plot. It's almost as if, not just the cast but the entire film, was built as a supporting cast to give Jennifer Lawrence more exposure and assure a comfortable and impressive performance and it's probably a decent projection of what we can expect from her in the future, but I don't think she'd have gotten as much attention if she weren't such a looker. Needless to say, I won't mind watching her evolving as an actor and this is quite possibly the most obscure movie ever nominated for Best Picture.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Awful.

Quote :

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Watchable, but underwhelming. The script just feels undercooked. DePalma directs well enough, but it just doesn't have the jazz or flair of his better films. It's like he's on autopilot. The sequences are well-concieved and pretty well done, but the story doesn't really compel.

Pretty good cast. Jon Voight is very wrong for Phelps, IMHO. But he's playing Evil Action Movie Phelps, so he's right for that. Seriously, there isn't enough justification for him to be so evil in the script, but Jon Voight sells the evil with his presence. It's like this guy has always been evil, rather than him going bad. A Phelps becoming disillusioned would have been interesting, and I think that's what is going on here. But the guy shoots his own wife! He's just born evil!

I do wish Kristin Scott Thomas had lived longer. One of my favorite actresses. But Emmanuelle Beart is a satisfactory replacement and in pretty much any other movie would be my favorite. The other people are good too. I especially like Redgrave, another favorite actress.

I dunno. Weak story, Phelps being illogically evil, the concept of the old show being flushed down the toilet to make room for a Tom Cruise James Bond movie. DePalma's involvement is what makes this film at least worth a peak to me.

It needed a better third act. The initial train sequence is fine but the helicopter/tunnel action sequence is out of a completely different film (Goldeneye's first draft if you want to be super specific) to the rest of it and is too simple an ending for all the psychological weaving and suspense sequences of the rest of the film.

Still, the supporting cast and the adult tone alone make it the best of the four.

I've never had a problem with Voight and his character but I owe absolutely no loyalty to the tv show.

Vesper wrote:

I've never had a problem with Voight and his character but I owe absolutely no loyalty to the tv show.

It's not out of loyalty that I dislike what they did. I think the show had a great concept, and there was no reason to ruin it. If you're gonna make an adaptation, be faithful at least to the concept unless you've got a good idea of how to change it. That's what I think. A movie following the format of the show (with a good script first and foremost) could be really fun. Just put the show on screen. How hard is that? But almost no one who makes a movie from an old TV show ever does.

Anyway...

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

AKA: Summer Blockbuster: The Opera

I feel like an asshole, but I really enjoyed this movie. Like I got a lot of giddy enjoyment from it. It's Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS if it chugged a gallon of Mountain Dew. Phelps is gone, as is any semblence of the show. It's time for full-on Dumbassery, and John Woo just does it exceedingly well. If viewed as a comedy, this movie can be a lot of fun. It's batshit crazy, and everyone has a mask of everyone else in their pocket. The hero and villain chest bump each other by jumping off of motorcycles that then explode. It reminds me of the delightfully nutty and absurd TRANSPORTER, where Jason Statham outruns a flying plane... ON FOOT. Like THE TRANSPORTER, this flick does come apart a little in the second half, though not as bad as in TRANSPORTER (though that film's chase near the end ressurrects the film). I really enjoyed the NOTORIOUS ripoff stuff in Spain with what is basically a 90mph dance number in cars near a cliff. If only they'd have fucked in the car that was hanging off the cliff. I thought Newton was terrific and she and Cruise had pretty good chemistry. I just wish it had followed the NOTORIOUS mould more, and hadn't ditched Newton in the last act. She's just standing on a cliff for 20 minutes.

Sometimes a movie reaches a threshold of absurdity mixed with being well-crafted where I can't help but enjoy it.

So, which do I prefer? Maybe the second as an overall experience.

What you think make of the score, Tux?

Sharky wrote:

What you think make of the score, Tux?

By Hans? I liked it. Elfman's left me a little cold. I was gonna ask why they didn't approach Lalo. Or did they? Hell, I wish they had hired hom for all the films. I thought the score here was pretty good. I liked it more than his Batman stuff, even if all of his stuff sounds pretty much the same to me.

Gonna watch III now. I gotta work at 7AM tomorrow and it's 11:21 as I type this. But I'm stubborn. Let's see how much more I can hate J.J. Abrams seeing as he's gonna keep me up tonight.

I'm ten minutes in to M:I III. I have an idea. Sharky, Ambler, Salome, and myself will infiltrate Paramount Studios. Sharky will pose as a young composer, Ambler a screenwriter, Salome is the honeytrap, and I'll be wearing a Shatner mask and fat suit. We will frame Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman as Al-Qaida operatives... Or something. They will be disgraced, and will never be able to work in Hollywood ever again or make any more movies or TV shows.

Who accepts this mission? I know Sykes and Python might be interested.

^ Mission approved.

Quote :

It's not out of loyalty that I dislike what they did. I think the show had a great concept, and there was no reason to ruin it. If you're gonna make an adaptation, be faithful at least to the concept unless you've got a good idea of how to change it. That's what I think. A movie following the format of the show (with a good script first and foremost) could be really fun. Just put the show on screen. How hard is that? But almost no one who makes a movie from an old TV show ever does.

I meant that more along the lines of I've never seen the show so I'm not able to judge a change in characterisation. I don't have too big a problem with it in principle because as you say, everybody does it.

I think they still use the concept a fair bit in the first one, the botched op at the start, the CIA heist and the (initial) train sequence are all group efforts. That's all the major set pieces bar the one lifted straight from France's Goldeneye draft. It's only once they get to the baggage cart and onto the top of the train that it becomes Tom Bond, IMO.

And then, well, the other movies.

Quote :

Sometimes a movie reaches a threshold of absurdity mixed with being well-crafted where I can't help but enjoy it.

That's my take on M-I:II. And some of the less-liked-on-the-interwebz Bond films.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm ten minutes in to M:I III. I have an idea. Sharky, Ambler, Salome, and myself will infiltrate Paramount Studios. Sharky will pose as a young composer, Ambler a screenwriter, Salome is the honeytrap, and I'll be wearing a Shatner mask and fat suit. We will frame Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman as Al-Qaida operatives... Or something. They will be disgraced, and will never be able to work in Hollywood ever again or make any more movies or TV shows.

Who accepts this mission? I know Sykes and Python might be interested.

"I am DOWN."

Fast Five (2011)

Speaking of absurd flicks... This series never really interested me that much. I saw the first one when it came out on DVD like what, TEN years ago? Christ. Haven't really watched it since then but maybe I'll revisit it one day. I never saw any of the sequels except for TOKYO DRIFT on an HBO viewing, which I liked except the lead (the car chases made up for that nonentity Lucas Black). From what I remember the first film was basically POINT BREAK with cars. Cop friends a criminal, loyalties torn, ect. That usual stuff. Here, it's purely heist film that wears the absurdity on its sleeves. It's a lot more loose and fun than what I remember of the first film. That's the impression I got from the trailer which was enough to make me wanna rent this. There is that theme of family and friendship, at times becomes OBVIOUS but hey its a positive one I guess, while I can't remember what DARK OF THE MOON was about.

So yeah, good fun. Always nice to see a popcorn flick using real stunts, that's what I dug about this one. I think a huge chunk of the budget was just crashing cars.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I think a huge chunk of the budget was just crashing cars.

Universal won't mind - the only things they produce that make any sort of money either have "Fast" or "Bourne" in the title.

I wouldn't mind seeing Fast Five, purely because I endured the other four pieces of shit and this one sounds like it at least knows what it's doing on some level. I think I'm entitled to at least an hour and a half's worth of actual entertainment for my efforts.

Fast Five got me curious enough to check out the rest of the movies. I mean a film that's titled 2 Fast 2 Furious sounds like it could be idiotic fun, but then it had John Singleton of all people direct it.

Hostel: Part III (Video 2011)

3.5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255916/

For a straight to video release, this is much better than the previous two that were directed by Eli Roth (this one is not).

It actually had a bit of a story line and character development and it wasn't just in your face Blood and Guts and Gore Horror Porn!!

Makeshift Python wrote:

Fast Five got me curious enough to check out the rest of the movies. I mean a film that's titled 2 Fast 2 Furious sounds like it could be idiotic fun, but then it had John Singleton of all people direct it.

That's the most tolerable of them. It's still woeful, but at least Singleton jazzes up the visuals a tad, and has the ever-compelling (!) Cole Hauser as a villain whose villainy is perhaps a touch inappropriate for the tone of the film.

Plus, it's got David Arnold!

True, he's no Bryan Tyler.

Yeah. Watching M:I III now. Paused at 36:30. Felicity's head exploded and I didn't care. What that supposed to be an emotional moment? The level of imcompetence in this movie is overwhelming. It's actually worse, maybe, than nuTrek. And the whole thing looks like a viscous turd.

How can anyone think Abrams is a good filmmaker, let alone the next Spielberg?

It's called fanboys.