Last Movie You Watched? 6.0

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

That said, I will agree with you that Ang Lee's HULK is far more interesting and truly cinematic than the entirety of Lars Von Trier's filmography.

Bold claim. I'd love to see what such a remark would do to a room full of would-be cineastes.

I live for that kind of reaction. When I finally tour the US, you, Brown and I must troll hipster film students in Lower East Side or Brooklyn.

Manhunter wrote:

The Magnificent Ambersons

Very good first impression of it, direction and acting, also the intelligent dialogue that I'm used to in Welles. It's a dynamic film, both in narrative and in terms of cinematography and editing.
I guess the original cut was very different and isn't to be found anywhere?

You are correct, sir. About 40min got scissored out, and there is no Welles cut in existence, since Wise apparently didn't ever think about sneaking a director's cut out of the building before helping butcher it. I don't know if it is on a level with what was done to GREED (I'm thinking it was actually worse myself), but the lost Welles cut, based on the original script and recollections by principals of what was shot, sounds like a completely adequate followup to KANE, which would place it as a genuine film milestone instead of a fascinating and visually-striking semi-misfire..

Watched Angel Heart last night. Few horror films ever made are better than this one.

Alan Parker is one dull director.

Not a fan of The Wall, Sharky? ;)

Underworld: Awakening (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1496025/

88 min running time and 10 min of it is credit so the movie only actually ran for 78 min, just when it was getting good, it ended and now we have to wait for a sequel

What a rip!

Because of that, I dropped it by 2 full point and I am only rating it 2/5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Curious. It goes nowhere, it just keeps going. But I enjoyed every minute of it. Not like really enjoyed, but I never got bored by it. Even though the whole thing lacks momentum and feels like a prequel to THE AVENGERS rather than it's own film. Favreau may not be a great director visually, but I do like the film's spirit, vibe, and humor. That's how I feel about the first one too. And as with the first one, RDJ really is the heart of this film being watchable, but I like the whole cast. I think RDJ and Paltrow work well together, and I like all of the supporting people. Rockwell and Shandling especially, though with all that plastic surgery Shandling is starting to look like John Travolta in HAIRSPRAY to me. I really, really prefer Cheadle to Howard by the way. Can't say that enough.

SLJ is welcome, I guess. I like the Agent Coulson guy too. ScarJo. As an actress....? But otherwise, holy Jesus.

MARVEL-O-Meter

1. HULK
2. IRON MAN
3. IRON MAN 2
4. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER
5. FANTASTIC FOUR
6. THE INCREDIBLE HULK

The first IRON MAN wins out over the sequel because it did what it did and accomplished it and didn't try to do three things at once while not really accomplishing much of anything. IRON MAN is it's own story, while IRON MAN 2 is part of a story.

Sykes, I wanna see THE INCREDIBLE IRON THOR.

And I want a ScarJo for more sinister purposes.

I didn't like IRON MAN 2 as much the first time I saw it, but liked it more on my second viewing, and when I watched THE PRE-VENGERS edit I made I liked it the best of the three included films. I'd only rank it a little under the first film because, as you've noted, it comes across very unfocused. I didn't even notice til my third viewing that the subtext is that Stark LET Rhodes take the Mark II suit because he thought he was dying and trusted Rhodey to replace him.

One thing I like in the Iron Man movies is that these characters don't become other people when they put on the suits -- it's not dual identities, the suits are tools being used to an end. Iron Man is a name the press came up with and right away Stark admits to being the man in the suit. Same with the other characters -- the names "Iron Monger" and "War Machine" are used in dialog coyly in regards to Stane and Rhodes but the characters aren't referred to as such when in the armor. Similarly, Vanko is never referred to as "Whiplash" or "Crimson Dynamo." The best Iron Man comics (the Michelinie/Layton run of the 1980s) recognized that Stark is the same guy in or out of the suit -- he's not like a Batman split personality or something.

Making Justin Hammer a young "wannabe Stark" and casting Rockwell really was a genius move -- it enables the scenes with the villains to maintain some of the energy of the scenes with Stark. In the comics Hammer was a much older character, inspired by Peter Cushing.

ScarJo has that great quality that I cannot take my eyes off her in IRON MAN 2 and AVENGERS -- she's good as a redhead. That being said, she's a LOT better in AVENGERS -- she actually has something of a character there.

Cheadle is much better than Howard -- I can't believe Howard felt he should be getting paid more than RDJ. No wonder Marvel fired him, I would've too for that level of stupidity.

Get ready for a TON of unnecessary Dutch angles in THOR, Tux.

I was gonna say that in terms of entertainment value during the movie, the first two really feel on the same level. Hell, this could be edited into one long movie, or be edited into PRE-VENGERS as the first two hours. It basically pulls a QOS, except for the "6 months later" thing.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Cheadle is much better than Howard -- I can't believe Howard felt he should be getting paid more than RDJ. No wonder Marvel fired him, I would've too for that level of stupidity.

Is he trying to overtake Jamie Foxx for Biggest Douchenozzle in Hollywood?

Yeah, unfocused is how it felt to me. I enjoyed it but I always had a hard time trying to figure out where it was going beyond a mad russian wanting to kill Tony for revenge. I like how Tony's alchohalism is handled, sometimes maybe too goofy but that's Tony for ya. ScarJo is definitely better in AVENGERS, and I was happy they changed her hair too.

:sleep:

Sharky wrote:

:sleep:

People will talk about what they talk about. Sorry if I'm a dullard.

Sharky thinks that if he bullies enough people, we'll step into line, I guess?

With IRON MAN 2 you can really feel that there's essentially two movies going on -- a sequel to IRON MAN and a prequel to THE AVENGERS. It's probably the Marvel movie hurt the most by that, because you get the sense that the change must've happened midway in production, because the Avengers elements in THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA are much more hollistically worked into the framework of the film.

I'm just having a laugh. Don't take it seriously.

Sharky wrote:

I'm just having a laugh. Don't take it seriously.

Maybe you picked up Ambler's Venom suit. ;)

Thor (2011)

Thoughts posted in the Marvel ghetto.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

A bit overlong and draggy in spots, but it's the ultimate in madcap slapstick and features the quintessential all-star cast. Well worth a watch.

GROUNDHOG DAY

Perilagu Khan wrote:

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

A bit overlong and draggy in spots, but it's the ultimate in madcap slapstick and features the quintessential all-star cast. Well worth a watch.

I've only been drunk twice in my life, and the first time it was just to see what it was like. I was at home, and I decided to watch that movie.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

A bit overlong and draggy in spots, but it's the ultimate in madcap slapstick and features the quintessential all-star cast. Well worth a watch.

I've only been drunk twice in my life, and the first time it was just to see what it was like. I was at home, and I decided to watch that movie.

Dick Shawn, Phil Silvers, Terry-Thomas and Jimmy Durante are a scream. As is Ethel Merman--literally!

I've never known Phil Silvers not to be a scream.

Even in [Carry On] Follow that Camel

hence time to check out this movie.

He just... sailed right out there.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

He just... sailed right out there.

And you're right, Hilly. Silvers was a treasure.

Because my wife had never seen them, and wanted to:

THE MATRIX (1999, dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski)

An adequately cobbled-together action vehicle with a bit more panache than most films of this type. What struck me on this viewing is how deeply indebted INCEPTION is to this film; INCEPTION takes as much from THE MATRIX as THE MATRIX takes from GHOST IN THE SHELL.


THE MATRIX RELOADED (2003, dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski)

A series of overcooked action sequences and little else.


THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (2003, dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski)

Dull. The second film, as flimsy as it was, did offer some mind-in-neutral popcorn entertainment, and further suggested some intriguing story possibilities with its cliffhanger ending. Alas, THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS just goes through the motions.

I've seen the first two films numerous times throughout the years. RELOADED is bloated with action sequences but most of them are pretty fun to watch. I've only seen REVOLUTIONS twice and both times it felt numbing because it felt like a rehash of everything we already saw in the first two and at the same time the sequences were repetitive (squids enter, mechas shoot them up, more squids arrive, more shooting, rinse and repeat).

THE ANIMATRIX was a much better sequel.