Last Movie You Watched? 6.0

LOL, j7wild's post.

The Avengers (2012)

What a load of fun. It would have been embarrassing had all that build up with the five flicks sputtered with this, but nah. Marvel earns my respect for making sure they had a winner with this. So yeah, it is easily the best of the Marvel Universe flicks. All the characters get to shine, it's well paced, Whedon doesn't get TOO jokey, and overall it's like I said first time, a load of fun. Well done Marvel.

Marvel Universe Ranking:

THE AVENGERS
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
THOR
THE INCREDIBLE HULK
IRON MAN
IRON MAN 2


WB/DC, you better get your shit together. And stop relying too much on Nolan, let him have more of his own pet projects.

j7wild wrote:

Lady Beware (1987)



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093379/

Sex maniac stalks Hot Pittsburgh Window Dresser played by 21 year old Diane Lane.

There is no reason whatsoever to watch this cliche filled B-Movie except to see Diane in different states of naked sexyness

2.75/5

I'll be watching this one for sure.

Makeshift Python wrote:

LOL, j7wild's post.

I had some extra spare time the last month to catch up on fooling around with stacks and stacks of DVDs that have been sitting on my TV for a long time; a few them for over 2 years

Spiderman 2

The most amazing part is that this film premiered 2004 when I still regard it as 'newish' I must be getting old!

Anyways I really enjoyed reacquainting myself with the film, like the first I was glad to find Maguire much better than I recall, while Dunst generally uglier & worse. Raimi packs quite a lot into a 2 hour runtime, certainly can't complain he wasn't ambitious and for the most part it comes off very well, Doc Ock is very well realised and played, it has aged well even from the effect pov imo.

8/10

trevanian wrote:

/]\
Terrific music too (especially over the end credits.)

To be honest, I thought the score was one of the film's most hackneyed elements. Too over-dramatic in a TV movie-ish kinda way.

THE BIG CLOCK was decent. Charles Laughton was immense, but the film was a bit all over the place tonally. Is it a suspense thriller? A comedy? The entire thing just feels ridiculous. A strange, unique, and watchable piece of noir, but a tad too light.

lachesis wrote:

Spiderman 2

The most amazing part is that this film premiered 2004 when I still regard it as 'newish' I must be getting old!

Anyways I really enjoyed reacquainting myself with the film, like the first I was glad to find Maguire much better than I recall, while Dunst generally uglier & worse. Raimi packs quite a lot into a 2 hour runtime, certainly can't complain he wasn't ambitious and for the most part it comes off very well, Doc Ock is very well realised and played, it has aged well even from the effect pov imo.

8/10

I recall prefering it to the first film. Molina was the best thing about it.

Get ready for SPIDER-MAN 3, aka: SPIDER-MAN: 3 FILMS IN 1.

I keep switching between whether 1 or 2 is the better film. 2 has the better villain, but 1 also has a more straightforward approach I think is better for those kind of superhero flicks. Plus the 1:85 aspect seems to suit SPIDER-MAN better than 2:35 the sequels went with.

I also tend to flip-flop on whether I prefer film 1 or film 2. I wouldn't consider either an ideal Spidey film, however. I have yet to see that, and I doubt AMAZING is going to change my mind.

I'm also up in the air about them.

I will say it's a shame we never got to see Malkovich as Vulture.

The Avengers

Had a few small sputterings of brilliance, but on the whole a disappointment and a bit of a waste of time. My main objections:

1) It was obvious the relative dominance of each character's powers was determined more by the ego of the actor than the inherent ability of the character. I rolled my eyes in disgust when Thor, a god ffs, could not get the better of Iron Man in their confrontation. If you can control lightening and can't best a man in a metal suit then something's seriously amiss.

2) There was no real story, or primary character arc. There was a bunch of competing egos, but no real main character to draw one emotionally into the movie.

3) This is more a personal thing but I just can't fully get engaged with heavily CGI laden action sequences.

4) I don't know who was smoking what in the 60s when the idea or the "tesseract" came about but it really is a daft idea that should have been left in the archives. Here you have all these characters with fascinating possibilities and the only thing they're concerned with is...a glowing cube.

5) I couldn't help but feel a bit manipulated by how hard it seemed the film was trying to retroactively justify much of America's toxic and paranoid foreign policy of the last few decades.

That said I really enjoyed some elements-- Mark Ruffalo made an interesting and sympathetic Bruce Banner. I liked how they played up Captain America's virtues and how America has in many ways fallen from grace since WW2. And Robert Downey was witty and engaging as always. Jeremy Renner is one of my favorite actors but I don't think they used him to much effect here. I am very much looking forward to the new Bourne...

DRIVE

There are a lot of things I don't like about it, but I think Refn did well with creating some tense scenes and mimicking Paul Schrader.

And it's always good to see Albert Brooks.

SPELLBOUND

Liked it a lot. No idea why people claim the Dalí dream sequence is the only worthwhile part - the first portion at the mental hospital is pretty strong, and the relationship between Peck and Bergman is surprisingly convincing for how quickly it initially develops; the business with the straight razor is very tense; the flashback Peck has on the ski slope is utterly shocking. The entire thing is driven along by a ridiculous but strangely compelling plot with heaps of energy. The two leads are phenomenal, but Peck in particular. Honestly think it belongs right in the top-tier of Hitchcock's work, up there with VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, and THE 39 STEPS.

I had to laugh when I heard that Hitchcock disparaged Miklós Rózsa's quite wonderful score. Great director, total prick.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I recall prefering it to the first film. Molina was the best thing about it.

Get ready for SPIDER-MAN 3, aka: SPIDER-MAN: 3 FILMS IN 1.

Yes Molina is terrific...I am preparing for part 3 but I suspect I will need more alcohol on 'stand by' than I had for either of the first two installments.

Drax wrote:

The Avengers

Had a few small sputterings of brilliance, but on the whole a disappointment and a bit of a waste of time. My main objections:

3) This is more a personal thing but I just can't fully get engaged with heavily CGI laden action sequences.
...

Increasingly I find this a problem and I still believe its a fundamental mistake to persist with a CGI Hulk, good though the effect is, I am sure something like the WWE can supply somone sufficiently monsterous for his hulked out scenes and put something living at the heart of the action once more.

Marvel as a whole seem obsessed with the schoolyard theme of 'my hero can beat up your hero', having not seen Avengers yet I am hoping its not going to be too prominent.

RUMBLE FISH (1983, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

I was hoping for another TETRO, but I just couldn't get into RUMBLE FISH.


SNAKE EYES (1998, dir. Brian De Palma)

Better than its reputation.

Harmsway wrote:

SNAKE EYES (1998, dir. Brian De Palma)

Better than its reputation.

Agreed.

Harmsway wrote:

RUMBLE FISH (1983, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

I was hoping for another TETRO, but I just couldn't get into RUMBLE FISH.

I liked it a great deal, but largely due to its visual flamboyance rather than any dramatic qualities.

HJackson wrote:

I liked it a great deal, but largely due to its visual flamboyance rather than any dramatic qualities.

It was so over-directed that it began to irritate me. Maybe it was that the film was so over-serious; TETRO has a warmer, more humorous side, which cuts through a lot of the pretension.

HJackson wrote:

I had to laugh when I heard that Hitchcock disparaged Miklós Rózsa's quite wonderful score. Great director, total prick.

Wow, did he? The score was definitely one of the things that stood out for me.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

SNAKE EYES (1998, dir. Brian De Palma)

Better than its reputation.

Agreed.

Have yet to see it.

"Better than it's reputation" should be the tagline for every De Palma home video release.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Have yet to see it.

Nobody need rush to check out SNAKE EYES, but it has enough interesting flourishes and entertainment value that the experience of watching it is far from a total loss.

Makeshift Python wrote:

HJackson wrote:

I had to laugh when I heard that Hitchcock disparaged Miklós Rózsa's quite wonderful score. Great director, total prick.

Wow, did he? The score was definitely one of the things that stood out for me.

Rózsa talks about SPELLBOUND here from 10:09 to 11:25:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/hollywood/10257.shtml

Hugo (2011)

I'd have to confess I am not generally a Scorcese fan...at least not when he's in his comfort zone, but Shutter Island and now Hugo have taken me by surprise. This is a beautiful looking film, its gentle and yet driven with some nice character moments and stylised shots. I don't think it ever reeally hits the highest of gear but it holds the viewer well and delivers a real warmth without ever making you feel overly manipulated.

7/10

I can't see how anyone could think HUGO and SHUTTER ISLAND are better films than TAXI DRIVER, MEAN STREETS and WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR.

Sharky wrote:

I can't see how anyone could think HUGO and SHUTTER ISLAND are better films than TAXI DRIVER, MEAN STREETS and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER?

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like, and what I don't of course.