Last Movie you Watched?

Armond's review doesn't get my hopes up, but I might check it out.

http://cityarts.info/2011/11/30/the-disillusionists-the-artist-dumbs-down-movie-love/

He's responding to the Best Picture win and being a bit disgruntled about it. He's not completely wrong when he describes THE ARTIST, but he does neglect to mention many of THE ARTIST's finer points, and THE ARTIST is really not meant to be anything more than a fluff piece, so it naturally can't withstand such scrutiny.

RE: Armond's mockery of the title, it's worth noting that the title wasn't Hazanavicius' idea:

Quote :

“I didn’t choose that title,” he said, laughing. “The working title was ‘Peppy and George,’ and then it was ‘Beauty Spot’ [referring to the trademark look that Valentin gives Peppy]. I like that concept. The producer asked me what I thought of ‘The Artist.’ To me, [Valentin] is proud, selfish, egocentric. I don’t see how he’s an artist, but he thinks he’s an artist. Thomas said just try [using the title], just to see. Maybe the title is to convince other people. I think it works, but also it reminds me of the way they used to introduce characters in silent films [with title cards]. But I think maybe for him, it’s a very meta title, just in a way.”

FourDot wrote:

Often the case with a lot of decent films that get vitriol flung at them because they won or were nominated for Oscars. It's frequently the worst thing that can happen to a film.

Sure is, at least when it's a lightweight pleasure, like THE ARTIST.

FourDot wrote:

I'm looking forward to The Artist. Hazanawhatsisface and his DP look like they've done a fine job of recreating an authentic silent film look.

It breaks with that look every now and again, but for the most part, the cinematography is really a fine reproduction of that style, and it was the beauty of the film that most often captivated me. There's one shot involving a staircase that I particularly adore.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Heat (1995)

I'd say it's "simmering good", but never great to me. A steak with no sizzle, but a pretty juicy and satisfying steak. I sit back with my belly full, but it's not the greatest meal I've ever had.

Maybe there's not enough propulsion in the narrative. Maybe I'm a moron and can't see the light. It presents a great panorama of these people's lives, but something about how the film moves seems off to me. I will say, even though I'd already made this discovery, that I have changed sides in the eternal, life-defining question of "Pacino or De Niro?". I'm squarely in the Pacino camp now. He's so God damn alive. He's amazing to watch, so loose and so totally present in every moment. There's never a false moment with this guy in a film like this... even if he does tend to yell a little sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2BBvVwOFdE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s81gWFanDO0

Helluva cast, too. Pre-Fatass Kilmer. Two Hannibal villains with the underused (in general) Levine and Noonan. Danny Trejo. Tom Sizemore. Wish that guy wasn't so fucked up with drugs, he's a terrific actor, a great presense on screen, and he seems like a tough motherfucker and we need more tough motherfuckers in Hollywood these days. They should make THE TWLIGHT SAGA: TOM SIZEMORE KICKS THE SHIT OUT OF THE TWILIGHT KIDS: PART I.

Kevin Gage was great in this as the seedy psycho Waingro. Making him a hooker killer was maybe a little superfluous, though.

William Fichtner is always welcome. Had no idea Jeremy Piven was in this, but I hadn't seen this flick in years. Jon Voight, so wrong for Jim Phelps, so right for the ultra seedy motherfucker he plays here. And the ladies were good.

Yeah, that's about it. I enjoyed it. THE DARK KNIGHT is basically a Michael Mann Batman film, but this has much better writing and actual emotional depth. Nolan should have gotten Goldenthal. I liked the Moby song too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_2i7ziBcZ4&feature=related

HEAT is one of my favourite films. I always love watching it around Christmas for some reason.

Watching E.T. right now. Blub.

Wonderful film. Very fitting for Christmas.

Possibly Williams's greatest score too (just next to CLOSE ENCOUNTERS).

Currently watching Die Hard. For a DVD it looks great when played on PS3.

The Three Musketeers (1993)

4/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108333/

An fun-ride adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas novel with Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland and Chris O'Donnell and Tim Curry and Oliver Platt.

Gabrielle Anwar, Julie Delpy and Rebecca DeMornay as the eye candy makes it even more entertaining!!

Point Blank (1967)

4.25/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062138/

They don't make movie tough guys like Lee Marvin anymore!

Director John Boorman's (Deliverance, Excalibur) well made crime thriller with a simple plot: Walker just wanted what was his - $93,000!!

I love Johnny Mandell's score. It's ridiculously hard to find though.

Sharky wrote:

I love Johnny Mandell's score. It's ridiculously hard to find though.

I like the sound of his heels in the scene where he walks through the Airport Terminal

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

I found it competent... but not compelling.

The first two had highly idiosyncratic directors who brought their own touches and worked with flimsy scripts. The third had the AntiChrist of Cinema, who brought his own style (that of absolute shit - with lens flares), and that one had... I don't even recall WTF happened in that script, I pretty much tuned out of that film. It was just a shit overload.

On the fourth pass at M:I, they have what is most certainly the best though-out plot... No, the only thought-out plot... of these movies. I mean, stuff actually makes sense. There's some motivation. And it's actually directed well and has a nice sense of humor. I do think it gets a little jokey, though, to where it verges on comedy to me.

But it failed to excite me. Maybe because the villain is a sorta non-entity. His reasons for doing this are barely there. More importantly, the actual threat of nuclear war seems barely there to me. Hunt on the side of the building and Daniel Craig in the magnet suit both had more suspence to me than the missile flying around near the end.

But it's a watcable flick. The action is well-handled. Abrams can't direct anything at all, but he's particularly horrible at action sequences. The action here is good. You can actually see what's happening! Hirsch did a good job on the editing. The dialogue scenes come off, and Simon Pegg doesn't annoy me here!

Cruise is good. Daniel Craig is good, and he does a fine American accent. It's gonna be weird to see him take over this series if he does. He'll be in Bond and in M:I. ....... Paula Patton gets the job done, but she's not very interesting to me. Nice boobs, though. And Pegg isn't annoying. I was hoping Wilkinson would be the new M:I M, seeing as Cruise has a new boss in every movie. That hope was short lived. I really enjoyed Anil Kapoor.

That's about it.

-MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II
-MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
-MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL
-MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III

I find the first film more interesting and atmospheric than GP. I think there is room for more films in this series. Hey, we can't get worse than III. On that note, I hope they get Bird to direct the new Trek. J.J. 666 Abrams is probably attached, sadly. I would have prefered a reboot, following the original concept of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, but at least this was about the team. And at least it didn't have traitors within the American government. That shit is so old.

I'd like a reboot, though. Assemble the team from second season of the old show. Get a good story. Ditch any and all unprofessional pathos. Have it be about a team of pros doing their f-ing job and not sitting around crying about their f-ing job.

Oh yeah......................................

The music in GHOST PROTOCOL was complete crap. Seriously, it's like valium. The rendition of the main theme on the opening credits... Who actually gave THAT the green light? It's like the orchestra was in a closed garage with a car motor on, slowly dying from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Oh yeah again.

Bird's sensibilities, like Abrams, don't seem to include any sexiness. I noticed that quite a bit in III as it was domestic BS. But it struck me in GP. Granted, the script doesn't really call for sexy stuff, but there is just nothing sexy about this movie. Like sexy in terms of a sense of fun, if that makes sense. Not simply having to do with sex. The first two flicks are like sports cars. III is a Geo Metro, and GP is an American-made Ford or Dodge. It's just blunt and unsexy.

I agree for the most part, except I thought it was better than the first. Not as visually great but it felt more focused than the rest of the films. One of the first things I thought about was that Brad Bird should do Trek 2. I think with GP he proves to be a good workmanlike director. He won't blow anyone's socks off but his work beats a lot of the kind of crap that passes as film making these days. I think it's a very good rebound after III and I agree that I wouldn't mind seeing the series continue after GP. It feels like the film where it finally found the niche for the franchise, except it's at 4 instead of 2 or 3. Perhaps the next one could be a little more sexy.

And on Simon Pegg. See what I mean? Big difference when he's not working on a lame script by Orci and Whatshisface.

GP may be the more focused film, but I find the first more intriguing. I think it was Vesper who said it had a more adult tone. GP was almost verging on Scooby-Doo to me in a strange way. But I like that Bird made it as a piece of entertainment.

I'll also say that the first film also had an actual spy feel. The other films make IMF look like commandos.

I think M:I would maybe actually work better as a TV film. Less focus on action, more on intrigue. And less need for a movie star to head the thing. Trek certainly belongs on TV. Maybe M:I really does too. Or it should come off more as a heist film. Like the Ocean's movies. Without the smugness.

Back to OCEAN'S THIRTEEN.

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

It pissed me off less than the other two, thus it's my favorite of the three.

Honestly, I marginally enjoyed this one. It felt a little more like a movie and less like a pointless exercise in "style". And it had Pacino in it.

Seeing Pacino made me think of how these films would be better with a cast that had more personality. The Rat Pack had vibrant personas, and were world class entertainers. The new movies just have actors. Clooney has charisma, but isn't really that interesting a human being. Pitt is a good actor, and the ladies like his face. Not very interesting as a person, though. Damon? About as interesting as a friend's relatives. The 11 should have been...

Roger Moore as Danny Ocean
Burt Reynolds as Turd Ferguson
Joe Pesci
Gary Busey
Christopher Walken
Nick Nolte

etc.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

2.5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

it was alright - not fantastic or great - just mindless entertainment to kill 2+ hrs

The Adventures of Tintin - I loved it... it really brought me back to when I was 7-8 years old. I didn't pay too much attention to how loyal the film was to Hergé, but it did feel 100% Spielberg. As excellent as the art direction and choreography were, the film was carried by the voicework of Bell, Serkis, Craig, and co. Craig and Serkis in particular ham it up, but never to an obnoxious extent. Actually, the absence of the typical pop-culture references and exaggerations present in most American animated films is the most refreshing factor. Tintin is as old-school an adventure as one can find these days. I couldn't ignore some of the faults though, such as the "dead eye" syndrome. Although that's part of the source material, the rest of the motion capture and realistic photography were so well done that the beady eyes were an unnatural fit. The construction crane fight also looked out of place, especially given the enticing back story of the Haddock-Sakharine feud and that it already follows a number of loud action set-pieces. In any case, it's a shame that some audiences seem to vote with their wallets for the likes of Chipmunks instead, but it's their loss. I think that Tintin is right up there with Triplettes de Belleville, WALL-E, and Up as one of the finest animated movies of this century so far. 8/10

Maybe I'll check out Tintin on DVD or Blu. It had looked like the least interesting movie to me.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Maybe I'll check out Tintin on DVD or Blu. It had looked like the least interesting movie to me.

To each his own. To enjoy Tintin, you got to be in the right mood for a simplistic family-friendly adventure. Just like you have to be in a certain mood to go and see something like Girl with a Dragon Tattoo or Tree of Life for instance.

GeneralGogol wrote:

The Adventures of Tintin - I loved it... it really brought me back to when I was 7-8 years old. I didn't pay too much attention to how loyal the film was to Hergé, but it did feel 100% Spielberg. As excellent as the art direction and choreography were, the film was carried by the voicework of Bell, Serkis, Craig, and co. Craig and Serkis in particular ham it up, but never to an obnoxious extent. Actually, the absence of the typical pop-culture references and exaggerations present in most American animated films is the most refreshing factor. Tintin is as old-school an adventure as one can find these days. I couldn't ignore some of the faults though, such as the "dead eye" syndrome. Although that's part of the source material, the rest of the motion capture and realistic photography were so well done that the beady eyes were an unnatural fit. The construction crane fight also looked out of place, especially given the enticing back story of the Haddock-Sakharine feud and that it already follows a number of loud action set-pieces. In any case, it's a shame that some audiences seem to vote with their wallets for the likes of Chipmunks instead, but it's their loss. I think that Tintin is right up there with Triplettes de Belleville, WALL-E, and Up as one of the finest animated movies of this century so far. 8/10

how does it compare to the BEST animated feature film I'd ever seen?

Heavy Metal?

It compares really well ... there's a scantily-clad, big-titted Amazonian animated chick on screen every few minutes in Tintin.

Or maybe I made that up.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Tux was pretty much on the money with his review as was Prisoner Monkeys in the MI thread but I'll chip in anyway. This series has never been great, let alone good. I enjoyed the first one on the minimal popcorn entertainment level but need to watch it again, I thought the second one sucked and the third one instantly bland and forgettable

The first act feels quite Bondian with the technology used by the IMF agents such as the retina-identifying hologram-like projector and the remote-controlled magnetic floater or whatever those things are called are quite marvellous. There's a scene early on in the film involving a holographic moving hallway was quite effective I was laughing continuously for a good two minutes, in awe of what was happening, and didn't for one second question the validity of it.

Bird knows how to direct a coherent action sequence. His direction is serviceable in the sense that the action actually has clarity and doesn't venture into excessive shaky camera-work, but without a memorable script or an interesting story, we're left with something that is entertaining for a little while considering some of the set pieces are solid, but not something to be remembered for more than a small amount of time.The opening Russian prison brawl and the sandstorm-plagued car chase and the Burj Khalifa scene have the desired effect in IMAX but won't be memorable.

Cruise does his usual schtick, smile and look good, and here, it seems that he was trying to make us take his character more seriously. The amount of humor his character has exhibited in past installments is kept to a bare minimum this time around, but there are still moments where the Cruise we all know shines through, so take that as a good or bad thing. I was thinking Simon Pegg would have made a decent Q had EON gone for him as he injected much needed humour to make sure the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. and it's a surprise to see Jeremy Renner, stretching some comic muscles and building a great relational chemistry with Pegg. Paula Patton looks hot in her dresses and has a good catfight but doesn't do much else.

There are many problems. The final act in Mumbai feels anticlimatic albeit with a funny cameo by Anil Kapoor. The villains were especially bland, and it's a shame that Léa Seydoux isn't in the film for very long, because I actually think her villainess had some potential. Michael Nykvist is almost worse than that dullard Dougray Scott in MI2. The writing varies from okay, cheesy and just plain cliché. Instead of taking the series forward in a significant way, the writers, who's work had been restricted to "ALIAS" is derivative and lacks substance especially with the subplot involving Brandt. The ending in particular will mean nothing to those who never watched the third one, and even if you've seen the third one , it's nothing to write home about. Ving Rhames have a cameo that's about a minute long, and according IMDB got paid $7.7 million for it :shock:

I place this as perhaps 2nd best of the franchise next to the original which I need to reassess only because we get some coherent action sequences and some attempt at character development than the other sequels.

I was not impressed by Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol.

The only thing that impressed me was Paula Patton!!



it's not too late to recast Skyfall and replace what's her name?

that talent-less African Actress.

she's so forgettable in everything, I cannot even remember her name!

even during the Skyfall official announcement, she was BLAND and BORING as if she was a fifth wheel!!

that's how talented she is!!

Actors and Actresses have been replaced in mid-productions of a movie before, even the ones in the major roles; it happens all the time!!

UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS PAST LIVES. Beautifully shot in rural Thailand, Apichatpong Weerasethakul's film, the winner of last year's Palme d'Or at Cannes, demands patience and an open mind (not to mention a very high tolerance of "arthouse"-ishness) but unfolds as captivatingly enigmatic, charming fare for the viewer in the right frame of mind (those not in the right frame of mind will probably find it empty, pretentious and boring as opposed to contemplative and compelling). Often hypnotic and dreamlike, it's a film to be experienced rather than understood - like life itself, perhaps (which may be one of the film's points).