Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

Harmsway wrote:

DARK PASSAGE (1947, dir. Delmer Daves)

Of the four Bacall/Bogart films, I've only seen THE BIG SLEEP, but I've never be overwhelming fond of that picture. DARK PASSAGE, though, really struck a chord with me. PASSAGE may well contend with IN A LONELY PLACE for the title of my favorite Bogart flick.

I never made it through the whole film. First person POV for a whole movie just doesn't work for me.

I watched Boorman's EXCALIBUR. I absolutely loved it, whatever flaws are there. A savage parade of lunacy.

EXCALIBUR is entertaining, but I'm with William Goldman on the ending. There's a lot of down time with Percival riding off to chuck the sword, then not doing it, then riding back, and Arthur still bleeding out, wondering what is up with you dude, I gave you a direct order as captain of the round table, and finally Percival gets rid of the thing back to the surehanded hag of the lake and then goes BACK to Arthur, who has given up & let them sail him off to Valhalla.

There's a lot of wasted movement there. Doesn't wreck the movie, but definitely knocks it down some.

Still think that having Nicol Williamson record a phone message would be even cooler than James Earl CNN.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

DARK PASSAGE (1947, dir. Delmer Daves)

Of the four Bacall/Bogart films, I've only seen THE BIG SLEEP, but I've never be overwhelming fond of that picture. DARK PASSAGE, though, really struck a chord with me. PASSAGE may well contend with IN A LONELY PLACE for the title of my favorite Bogart flick.

I never made it through the whole film. First person POV for a whole movie just doesn't work for me.

It goes normal after about the first third, if I recall properly. I'm not particularly keen on DARK PASSAGE but I remember enjoying it somewhat. I certainly think both THE BIG SLEEP and KEY LARGO are vastly more entertaining pictures.

trevanian wrote:

EXCALIBUR is entertaining, but I'm with William Goldman on the ending. There's a lot of down time with Percival riding off to chuck the sword, then not doing it, then riding back, and Arthur still bleeding out, wondering what is up with you dude, I gave you a direct order as captain of the round table, and finally Percival gets rid of the thing back to the surehanded hag of the lake and then goes BACK to Arthur, who has given up & let them sail him off to Valhalla.

There's a lot of wasted movement there. Doesn't wreck the movie, but definitely knocks it down some.

Still think that having Nicol Williamson record a phone message would be even cooler than James Earl CNN.

Well, I hate fantasy and I still liked it. I'm the guy who'd rather put a power drill to his skull than watch LOTR.

Before I'm off to bed I've been enjoying Jones' score.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

DARK PASSAGE (1947, dir. Delmer Daves)

Of the four Bacall/Bogart films, I've only seen THE BIG SLEEP, but I've never be overwhelming fond of that picture. DARK PASSAGE, though, really struck a chord with me. PASSAGE may well contend with IN A LONELY PLACE for the title of my favorite Bogart flick.

I never made it through the whole film. First person POV for a whole movie just doesn't work for me.

The first-person POV stuff is only for the first third of the film.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO was alright, but beyond that I'm no fan of Gus Van Sant.

I found the majority of it pretty torturous, although part of that was probably having to watch it in a film appreciation class.

You're not alone. I can't stand MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO.

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO was alright, but beyond that I'm no fan of Gus Van Sant.

I found the majority of it pretty torturous, although part of that was probably having to watch it in a film appreciation class.

You're not alone. I can't stand MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO.

I meant relative to the rest of Gus Van Sant's stuff.

Have 2 Statham films to drool over...

Blitz, which seems to be British, and The Mechanic, which is definitely American.

I'll write about the films in the reverse order in which I watched them...

3) Scarface (1983, dir. Brian De Palma)

A film about a boastful piece of criminal shit. Completely over-the-top and pathetic, it lacks any emotional significance. It's far away from serious filmmaking; it feels as if being designed for the mindless, gangster- and brutality addicted youth. I loathe it, and I hate De Palma for having made it. I saw the uncut version for the first time, and it didn't considerably improve on the first viewing. After the masterpiece BLOW OUT, De Palma obviously decided to make films for the masses, and the box office successes of CACKFACE, THE UNTOUCHABLES and MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE prove that this decision was right for filling his pockets.


CARRIE
BLOW OUT
OBSESSION
CARLITO'S WAY
MISSION TO MARS
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE
THE FURY
THE BLACK DAHLIA
RAISING CAIN
SISTERS
BODY DOUBLE
FEMME FATALE
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
THE UNTOUCHABLES
SCARFACE
CASUALTIES OF WAR

(not changed since the second viewings of FF and SF)


2) World Trade Center (2006, dir. Oliver Stone)

A pretty restrained film about unusual 9/11 heroes that bravely persevered under tons of WTC debris. It's believable and leaves aside pathos. Cage is fairly good again. The film feels honest to me. It also leaves away political context and focuses on the work of policemen, paramedics and firefighters. (Though the Jesus stuff was superfluous - he wouldn't wear a crucifix; he wasn't a Catholic, but a Jew, after all ).


1) The Birds (1963, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

A film about inexplicable (to the film characters as well as film interpreters) attacks of birds on inhabitants of a small coastal village near Frisco.
It's not a mere disaster flick, it gives us interesting character constellations and a well enough story alongside the terrific action sequences. It is unnecessary to give the birds and their attacks a symbolist reading, but if we do and follow the "sexual tensions" stuff then I ask myself why the birds attack the farmers and the school children, if the tensions about "winning" or "keeping" Mitch are between Melanie, the (female) teacher, and mother Brenner? The interpretations I've heard of don't convince me, in fact, they appear as silly as thinking that Walker was a ghost.
It's not quite Top Ten Hitchcock, but a very good horror thriller nonetheless. The effects are excellent. Hadn't seen it in perhaps 20 years.

Two Way Stretch

great bit of fun with Peter Sellers and again with Bernard Cribbins. Indeed I sort of view it as a partner to Wrong Arm of the Law. Sellers' trio of chums (including the great David Lodge) breakout of prison to steal some diamonds, get back into prison and then go through with their release the next day. What would it be without Lionel Jeffries and his infamous prison guard 'Sour' Kraut? Funny. Witty. Fantastic.

All I can and usually say about SCARFACE is that I enjoy the hell out of it. But there's no contest between it and CARLITO'S WAY.

SMALL CHANGE (1976)

A very interesting look at the lives of children. I've always thought of this as a sweet film, and can see where Spielberg has grabbed ideas from Truffaut through out his career. I like that Truffaut offered us little characters of all different backgrounds, from the little girl whose parents want her to have a designer bag, to the boy who is motherless with a paraplegic father, to the boy who suffers daily abuse from his family members. The teacher's words toward the end of the movie, regarding the innocence of childhood, resonate when the film is over. Truffaut doesn't shove feelings or emotions down your throat, and leaves it up for the viewer to create their own conclusions and feelings. I think that's what separated him from his New Wave colleagues and American contemporaries.

Manhunter wrote:

A film about a boastful piece of criminal shit.

Myopic bullshit. It's about Hollywood.

Manhunter wrote:

Completely over-the-top and pathetic, it lacks any emotional significance.

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

Manhunter wrote:

After the masterpiece BLOW OUT, De Palma obviously decided to make films for the masses...

That kind of "enlightened cinephiles > ignorant plebs" false dichotomy is ruining film appreciation today. BLOW OUT was made for the same audience that SCARFACE was, whether you like it or not. That fact that different audiences hold them as "their own" was never part of their design. Never confuse hindsight with truth.

Dredd

Enjoyed it. 3D seems to work better on this one than when I saw Avengers, although the glasses weren't the same and were less comfortable. Still, a chin you could crack granite on, and never breaks his expression - perfect. Lots of blood and gore, up close and personal.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

A film about a boastful piece of criminal shit.

Myopic bullshit. It's about Hollywood.

Manhunter wrote:

Completely over-the-top and pathetic, it lacks any emotional significance.

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

Manhunter wrote:

After the masterpiece BLOW OUT, De Palma obviously decided to make films for the masses...

That kind of "enlightened cinephiles > ignorant plebs" false dichotomy is ruining film appreciation today. BLOW OUT was made for the same audience that SCARFACE was, whether you like it or not. That fact that different audiences hold them as "their own" was never part of their design. Never confuse hindsight with truth.

It's sad BLOW OUT didn't find a bigger audience.

Kind of strange that it didn't as it's probably Travolta's best performance and he was still very popular at that point in his career, and it was right before it sunk down to movies like PERFECT and the one with the talking babies and dogs.

Well, it was released in the summer and wasn't a happy and bright movie.

And there's no dancing, makes sense.

That hooker does some fancy footwork in the john.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

I can't take anyone who uses the word "bourgeois" in a context other than parodying turn-of-the-century socialist propaganda seriously.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

I can't take anyone who uses the word "bourgeois" in a context other than parodying turn-of-the-century socialist propaganda seriously.

It's still relevant today.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

I can't take anyone who uses the word "bourgeois" in a context other than parodying turn-of-the-century socialist propaganda seriously.

It's no relevant today.

I agree.

*cough*

ASYLUM (1972, dir. Roy Ward Baker)

Gotta dig a movie that unites Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom, Patrick Magee, Charlotte Rampling, and Robert Powell.

Ravenstone wrote:

Dredd

Enjoyed it. 3D seems to work better on this one than when I saw Avengers, although the glasses weren't the same and were less comfortable. Still, a chin you could crack granite on, and never breaks his expression - perfect. Lots of blood and gore, up close and personal.

Saw it in '2D', enjoyed it too. Certainly a more accurate depiction of the character and the mood of the comic than Stallone's 'let's have the helmet come off about 10 minutes in and saddle him with a 'comedy' sidekick' effort.