Last Movie you Watched?

j7wild wrote:

Rope (1948)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040746/

A Hitchcockesque study in the worse and best of human nature

4.25/5

What a coincidence.

j7wild wrote:

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?

COONSKIN?

Cimarron (1931)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What's Your Number? (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770703/

silly fun movie with a few moments and Anna Faris is HOT

4/5

Elf, for the first time ... goofy, corny and sentimental for sure, but also sweet and good-natured. And there's nothing wrong with that at Christmas. :)

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL. Probably the best of the franchise. It's a little overlong, and the story is more than a little garbled, but the thrills and spills are first class.

The Wizard of Oz

Not as much fun as when I was 8.

VAMPYR (Carl Th. Dreyer, 1932)

The last time I saw this movie, it was a really shitty print with awful subtitles and it made no sense at all. I still loved it, but I loved seeing this restored Criterion version even more!
A very, very inspirational movie to an aspiring filmmaker.

Loomis wrote:

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL. Probably the best of the franchise. It's a little overlong, and the story is more than a little garbled, but the thrills and spills are first class.

I think it's the only balanced and straight forward movie of the series, the only one where the director - for better or worse - doesn't put a huge stamp on things. It's the functional one in the series. But I still find the first two more interesting.

Grand Hotel (1932)

Grand Hollywood entertainment. Didn't knock me off my feet, but I admired it's deftness and spirit.

I'm on a quest to see every Best Picture winner before Billy Crystal saves the Oscars. Why? No reason beyond a compulison. Right now I'm at 54/83.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Loomis wrote:

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL. Probably the best of the franchise. It's a little overlong, and the story is more than a little garbled, but the thrills and spills are first class.

I think it's the only balanced and straight forward movie of the series, the only one where the director - for better or worse - doesn't put a huge stamp on things. It's the functional one in the series. But I still find the first two more interesting.

I think I do as well. And that's probably because (and for all their faults) the De Palma and Woo outings do undeniably bear much more of a directorial stamp, and the first two M:I movies also have a very strong and unique visual identity - their own iconography, if you will. No film looks quite like De Palma's M:I. No film looks like quite like Woo's M:I-2. By contrast, though, GHOST PROTOCOL does look (and feel) like a few other movies - watching it, I was reminded strongly of Bourne, the Brosnan Bond era, M:I-3, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, and even SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (Anil Kapoor's casting doesn't help). Bird even seems strangely in hock to De Palma's M:I, what with the Andreas Wisniewski cameo (but it's nice to see old Necros and Tony from DIE HARD getting some work) and another cameo at the end that I won't reveal because it's a bit spoilerific.

None of that is to say that GHOST PROTOCOL isn't extremely well-done and entertaining, though, or even that Bird's direction is pedestrian - on the contrary, he shows a lot of flair and genuine wit. But, yeah, with the first two M:Is there's certainly more of a feeling of An Auteur(TM) in the director's chair, stamping his own Personal Vision(TM) on things, for better or worse, as you say.

I'll add that I didn't see GHOST PROTOCOL in IMAX, but I'll certainly do so if I get the opportunity (haven't seen any feature film in IMAX, truth be told, although I have seen some shorts in IMAX, at the National Media Museum in Bradford, twenty years ago now). Hopefully when GHOST PROTOCOL is released on Blu-ray the IMAX scenes will automatically enlarge to fill the entire TV screen, as with the DARK KNIGHT Blu-ray. At the cinema where I saw the standard print of GHOST PROTOCOL, the aspect ratio was the usual 2.35:1 throughout, although it was easy to tell which scenes were the IMAX ones because the image would suddenly seem to become rather sharper and clearer.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/

Best Picture of the Year and Rooney Mara deservingly deserves to earn a Best Actress Academy Award!

She nailed Lisbeth Salander 100%!!

The Iron Lady (2011)
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd

More horrendous than you can possibly imagine.

Armond loved it, and he's definitely no Thatcherite.

http://cityarts.info/2011/12/13/thatcher-sings/

FourDot wrote:

The Iron Lady (2011)
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd

More horrendous than you can possibly imagine.

Really? Why? I'm looking forward to this film. Would you mind telling us more, giving us a review or a mini-review?

And who the heck is this Armond geezer I'm always seeing mentioned here?

Loomis wrote:

And who the heck is this Armond geezer I'm always seeing mentioned here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armond_White

Probably the best article I've seen about his criticism:

http://catecinem.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/whitewatching-armond-on-pauline-kaels-legacy/#more-570

Lloyd's direction is insanely poor, creating no mood, no atmosphere... instead the film is a series of montages, which I guess is how it's written. There's nothing to hold onto in the film at all as a result - it takes place only a few years ago, with Thatcher's dementia, unable to let go of Dennis' memory, forgetting who's who, et cetera et cetera (actually the introduction to this is well done, and perhaps the only cinematically compelling part of the whole film).

The flashbacks are a rote, admittedly well-cut series of factoids that give you a chronicle of Thatcher's life, her rise to power, and the extraordinary fact that "Hey, it was a woman doing all this!" Lloyd slaps together some images demonstrating just how extraordinary and unusual it all was, but doesn't seem to have anything further to say on the subject after introducing it. When the men chuck her out at the end, it seems perfectly reasonable. She's being a bitch. The prejudices she would have had to face aren't explored, they're just shown once or twice without real commentary.

At one point Thatcher bemoans the fact that everyone in the present day wants to know about feelings; wheras it's thoughts that compel her. It's a shame that the film doesn't do likewise, since its "exploration" of Thatcher's life is fairly empty-headed. The entire damn thing exists as a platform for Streep to imitate Thatcher, and she's very good at it, no doubts there, but personally I think that political biopics should actually try and explore the subject (crazy, I know). Something like Young Mr. Lincoln, using a specific incident to provide a prime example of the man and how and why he affected people so. Or Nixon, which is sympathetic to its protagonist while also pulling no punches and questing deep into the subject's soul to find out why he did what he did. The Iron Lady, however, merely wants to say that its subject was strong, independent, and a woman, which made her extraordinary - that is of course true, but it's not a film, it's a brochure accompanying a museum exhibit.

That's all I'm really going to go into, since I'd much rather watch the cricket and am kinda pissed off that I missed the Indian collapse for that rot.

FourDot, diggin' the Aldrich.

The Fury (1978)

I really enjoyed it. It felt disjointed (best word I can think of), but by Jove I never found it boring. Loved the ending. Wish I hadn't spoiled myself on that part before I saw it.

Kirk Douglas was still a pretty tough MF here. I liked Amy Irving. And Carrie Snodgrass. Also the quite attractive Fiona Lewis. Pity she dropped off the radar.



She's like a cross between Jackie Bisset and Jenny Agutter.

John Cassavetes and Charles Durning are always good. The score is quite good too. Would have loved to have heard a Herrmann score, though.

FourDot wrote:

Lloyd's direction is insanely poor, creating no mood, no atmosphere... instead the film is a series of montages, which I guess is how it's written. There's nothing to hold onto in the film at all as a result - it takes place only a few years ago, with Thatcher's dementia, unable to let go of Dennis' memory, forgetting who's who, et cetera et cetera (actually the introduction to this is well done, and perhaps the only cinematically compelling part of the whole film).

The flashbacks are a rote, admittedly well-cut series of factoids that give you a chronicle of Thatcher's life, her rise to power, and the extraordinary fact that "Hey, it was a woman doing all this!" Lloyd slaps together some images demonstrating just how extraordinary and unusual it all was, but doesn't seem to have anything further to say on the subject after introducing it. When the men chuck her out at the end, it seems perfectly reasonable. She's being a bitch. The prejudices she would have had to face aren't explored, they're just shown once or twice without real commentary.

At one point Thatcher bemoans the fact that everyone in the present day wants to know about feelings; wheras it's thoughts that compel her. It's a shame that the film doesn't do likewise, since its "exploration" of Thatcher's life is fairly empty-headed. The entire damn thing exists as a platform for Streep to imitate Thatcher, and she's very good at it, no doubts there, but personally I think that political biopics should actually try and explore the subject (crazy, I know). Something like Young Mr. Lincoln, using a specific incident to provide a prime example of the man and how and why he affected people so. Or Nixon, which is sympathetic to its protagonist while also pulling no punches and questing deep into the subject's soul to find out why he did what he did. The Iron Lady, however, merely wants to say that its subject was strong, independent, and a woman, which made her extraordinary - that is of course true, but it's not a film, it's a brochure accompanying a museum exhibit.

That's all I'm really going to go into, since I'd much rather watch the cricket and am kinda pissed off that I missed the Indian collapse for that rot.

Interesting review. Thanks.

" . . . it's not a film, it's a brochure accompanying a museum exhibit."

Zing.

I feel I should specify that "rot" is in reference to watching the film itself, rather than being asked to elaborate on my thoughts. ;)

Harmsway wrote:

" . . . it's not a film, it's a brochure accompanying a museum exhibit."

Zing.

Have you seen it, Harms?

Nope. No interest in doing so, either. But that's a great little one-liner.

I'll be checking it out regardless, purely for the subject matter, but I'll wait till it hits DVD. I don't see much point in seeing a film like this one on the big screen. No parliamentary debates in IMAX.

Well I'll be checking it out in January. Though I could understand missing it out if you're an American or Ozzie. From what I gather, a lot of the subtleties might be missed on those without a certain understanding of British politics. Just like how W. went over many heads.

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Only a handful of Best Picture winners have truly impressed me - this is one of them. I think it's both loose and well-crafted, but I'm unable to articulate on that. One of the best Hollywood New Wave films I've seen, and one of my top films I've seen this year.