Last Movie You Watched? the 8th

Largo's Shark wrote:

That kind of direction is one of my biggest issues with contemporary (mostly American) indie films. A lack of affect, and a sort of moral, ethical and intellectual cowardice. Prozac cinema.

Todd Haynes, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Olivier Assayas, Anton Corbijn, Gus Vant Sant, Steven Soderbergh, Nicolas Winding Refn, Steve McQueen, Richard Linklater, Michael Haneke, Marc Forster, Sofia Coppola, David Fincher all suffer from this bourgie aloofness. No stomach. No conviction.

I absolutely agree with paragraph one, and agree with the bolded directors in paragraph two (and would defend those left unbolded). I also roll my eyes at the phrase "bourgie [sic] aloofness".

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

That kind of direction is one of my biggest issues with contemporary (mostly American) indie films. A lack of affect, and a sort of moral, ethical and intellectual cowardice. Prozac cinema.

Todd Haynes, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Olivier Assayas, Anton Corbijn, Gus Vant Sant, Steven Soderbergh, Nicolas Winding Refn, Steve McQueen, Richard Linklater, Michael Haneke, Marc Forster, Sofia Coppola, David Fincher all suffer from this bourgie aloofness. No stomach. No conviction.

I absolutely agree with paragraph one, and agree with the bolded directors in paragraph two (and would defend those left unbolded). I also roll my eyes at the phrase "bourgie [sic] aloofness".

Knew you'd hate bourgeois, so I tried to slip it in with a truncation. You don't have to be a Marxist post-grad to use and agree with that phrase. I despise socialism and all other brands of monetarism from Smith and Bastiat to Hegel and Keynes, but I still recognise the historical truths of class.

BTW, have you seen HUNGER or SHAME?

You'd honestly defend Soddenturd, whose latest film is quite literally "Prozac cinema?"

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Just happened to be by the tv last night when Collateral started...with both Tom Cruise and Jaime Fox.

I thought I'd be changing the channel after a chatty conversation in the cab with Fox and Jada Pinky but it got good after Cruise jumped in the cab. In fact, Cruise wasn't bad as a psycho hitman - he had an interesting personality that made the film worth watching. Hard to believe he is so reviled in real life because some of his movies are actually good.

Fox wasn't bad either...read he got nominated for Best Supporting Actor in this film (I thought Cruise was the supporting actor since Fox has way more screen time). This film was from 2004, 9 years before Fox made his shitty comments about the superiority of black entertainers. If you can briefly put that out of your mind, it was a good watch. Might get it on dvd...I spotted it for under 5 bucks.

I hate to admit, but I do enjoy almost all of Tom Cruise's films, especially his action/adventure films, which he's done quite a few of. This one with Fox was quite good. I'm currently enjoying rewatches of MI Ghost Protocol. He makes well produced films and generally carries the ball quite well himself, IMHO of course.

Manhunter wrote:

Skyfall (2012, dir. Sam Mendes)

Watched it with my brother. The central villain character is unbelievable - his motivations, the fact that he meanders between supposedly brutal lover and suppressed faggot, his ludicrously incredible seeming computer wizardry super powers, his antics when he has the chance to finally kill M in the chapel, when in the Parliamentary interrogation room he had seemed determined and able to just shoot her dead. The ludicrous plot points of Silva knowing everything beforehand, from being caught by Bond, knowing that Q would use the MI6 computer to analyse his own one, the fact that he would be held prison in a cell that was also linked to MI6 computer (when MI6 was residing in a provisional HQ, below the ground, when they might as well have locked him into an old-fashioned, but still safe cell with non-electric doors), him knowing that Bond would catch him at the exact spot where Silva had planted a bomb, at the exact time when an empty tube train was driving by above that spot; the implausibility of Silva breaking into the town hall so easily; the fact that so much is ripped off from other films (6 plot points from TWINE re-hashed; some central points of the second act stolen from TDK; my brother too immediately said the ending was taken from A-Team and Silva being caught in the glass cell from LAMBS; the fact that Bond's character arc has 29 (!) strong similarities to ROCKY BALBOA (there is a whole thread about it, you cannot deny it).
There are other things I don't like, like Bond not preventing Patrice from shooting an innocent guy - my brother told me he could not understand why Bond didn't do anything; his behaviour is inhumane, it goes against human nature. There is no reason for him to stay in the dark, because he eventually attacks Patrice anyway shortly after, and when he trades the chip he gets active and gets noticed anyway. Marlohe acts well, but the dialogue is pretty meh, it wants to sound smarter than the writers actually are (a P&W problem). The same is true of a lot of the dialogue, particularly the ham-fisted one in the razor blade scene - old dog, how original. It also doesn't make sense for Bond to go to his parents' house in order to stop a terrorist who has been presented as unbeatable and fiendishly dangerous (I won't repeat all my arguments). I also don't like the NuQ and Moneypenny origin stories, they don't suit the characters at all, and are hamfisted (as far as MP is concerned, definitely). Having her be a field agent is a dumb idea. She is forced into the casino scene, which leads me to another big complaint that runs throughout the whole film - the shoved-in humour (most of the time bad humour) every other second, even at places where Bond is in danger, fighting the devil, or when the focus should be on characters (like Severine), Bond's reaction to the exploding DB 5, his quip about never having liked the house, the ejector seat "joke", the lame banter between Bond and Eve (casino, shaving scene, at the new HQ etc.) and many other poor attempts at having humour for crowd-pleasing's sake.
The whole part in which Bond gets killed (no-one survives that fall), is leading a purposeless life on a remote island (the scorpions nonsense, reminds me of the mongoose stuff from CR), and Bond getting informed about the attack on MI6 via CNN. The agents identity on one hard-drive plot nonsense (stolen from MISSION IMPOSSIBLE), the you-tube nonsense, the unconvincing and dull Bond is an old dog/examination part, Bond once again breaking into M's flat. There is even more than all of the above-mentioned (Superman-Bond hanging to the elevator), but I want to come to an end now.
Probably the only thing that has improved on my cinema viewing is the cinematography, thanks to the Blu. (I bought it, because amazon had a really good offer). It has a nice look to it and some fine shots, but isn't much better than in most of the Bond films. The QOS cinematography is superior. They cannot sell the locations anywhere near as good as they used to, in most of what they did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but in general, the look is certainly something to follow in the films to come. Some of the deliberately dour atmosphere I do not like, and the idea of having a sniper and fistfight scene only lit by neon lights doesn't work either, it simply doesn't look good, and the incidents of the brawl are hardly discernible.
The score sounds like the result of a co-operation between Arnold and Zimmer-the-Man.
People always told me that in other scenarios than the Scotland one Silva would have smelled a rat (which isn't necessarily so, it depends on the exact details of such an alternative scenario), but why Silva doesn't smell a rat when he is flying over Scotland, completely undisturbed by air control, is way beyond me...
They've used the backdrop of Bond's old family lodge for a mere crazy shoot-out and mega explosions action crapfest, without telling us anything new or significant about Bond and his past. The unimaginative psychological examination with the lame cliché of word associations sets up the notion that Bond must have experienced something disturbing back at the place (or that something about the mysterious SKYFALL irks Bond a lot), but in the end we do not get any answers. And why does Silva say it all had to end in the Bond family chapel - he doesn't have any connections to the family, or does he? And why the mother complex?
There are more things that irk me, but the ones mentioned should suffice.
The only scene that is really good is the one following the overrated and somewhat dull long-shot introduction of Silva, the Wilhelm Tell scene, with the nice choice of music - but only up to the point when tremble-handed, out-of-depth Bond shoots several of Silva's gunman almost simultaneously, and Silva gets caught, and the film descends into unimaginative, nonsensical action film madness.
[

Nice job Manhunter. My own basic general complaint with SF, is that it's a film that demands that it be taken oh so serioulsy, yet it leaves itself vulnerable to criticism in so many areas. So rip away! Good job! The movie is practically begging for it.
I can't fuss over most of the so-called story credibility, because if you make the effort to really suss it out, and it does take some effort, most of it does fall into place, which makes the film not unlike many other Bond films that at first blush do seem unfathomable. Bond films generally ask us to suspend disbelief, so I am OK for example with Bond surviving his plunge off the bridge. It's not impossible, so I can roll.
As for borrowing from other films, that's OK too IMO. If anything, it might be construed as creative or fun use of homage.
SF has many strengths, not the least of which is its' cinematography or its' defty weaved dramatic themes. It's a quite watchable film, smart film even, in fact quite worthy of repeat viewing, as I am discovering with my blu-ray copy, but it's quite trashable as well, in that it also seems to be so very pleased with itself. Not the worst thing IMO to knock it down a few pegs. Bravo!

Largo's Shark wrote:

Knew you'd hate bourgeois, so I tried to slip it in with a truncation. You don't have to be a Marxist post-grad to use and agree with that phrase. I despise socialism and all other brands of monetarism from Smith and Bastiat to Hegel and Keynes, but I still recognise the historical truths of class.

BTW, have you seen HUNGER or SHAME?

You'd honestly defend Soddenturd, whose latest film is quite literally "Prozac cinema?"

Yeah, but honestly people who use the phrase "bourgeoise" tend to be disaffected upper middle class white university students pretending to have a political opinion and joining Occupy movements to get back at Mommy and Daddy for not buying them that Smart 3DTV they wanted. I can't take it seriously. Sort've like how while I support feminism I stop taking any feminist seriously the instant she says "patriarchal hierachy" -- doesn't matter how true it is, it's just reeks of cliché and the second someone says it I start wondering if they've actually thought about what they're saying or if they're just saying that to fit in with the ivory tower.

And I also don't think that the style of direction you're criticizing has anything to do with classism, either. I think it's just the end result of the beloved European/Canadian cinema verité ideal of pretending like you don't give a damn bleeding from documentary (where it belongs but is in fact least possible) to docudrama to indie drama and now to Hollywood.

I "liked" HUNGER, in that I thought it was well made, but my first thought after watching it was "well, now I've seen that and thus never have to see it again." The only bit I'd ever agree to rewatch would be The Dialogue Scene.

And I really like Sodenbergh. I love his SOLARIS. (PS. I hate Tarkovsky's, which suffers far more from pretentious detachment than anything Soderbergh's done). I like OCEAN'S ELEVEN and THIRTEEN, so sue me. I like THE LIMEY, I loved CHE, and I liked HAYWIRE. I like his editing style. I actually like that when he tackles a genre he adopts that genre's style (Kubrickian Sci-Fi, Hollywood Heist, Post-war Drama, etc.) I wouldn't defend all of his oeuvre (I did hate GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, it's exactly the sort've detatched mumblecore bullshit you're criticizing, but again that was just the genre he was doing that time round) but I like what I like.

I wonder if tiff is Manhunter's "brother" referenced in his review?

dr. strangelove wrote:

I wonder if tiff is Manhunter's "brother" referenced in his review?

I say, we never see them in the same room either... :*d*:




(just jesting, Tiff!)

Hot Enough for June

released as Agent 008 3/4 in the States this was one of those myriad films that cashed in on the Bond craze (this being released in 1964). Bond connections come in the form of Syd Cain (perhaps explaining the look of the film in parts) and Sylva Koscina who screen tested for Tatiana in FRWL. Maybe also the opening of the film which sees John Le Mesurier handing in the effects of an agent, the camera cuts to a drawer with a card marked 007 which is taken out and replaced by one reading DECEASED.
Other than this it is an unremarkable film. It plods along with nothing too exciting happening. The best bits tend to involve Robert Morley and dear old Dirk Bogarde must've looked back on this as one film to forget.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Yeah, but honestly people who use the phrase "bourgeoise" tend to be disaffected upper middle class white university students pretending to have a political opinion and joining Occupy movements to get back at Mommy and Daddy for not buying them that Smart 3DTV they wanted. I can't take it seriously. Sort've like how while I support feminism I stop taking any feminist seriously the instant she says "patriarchal hierachy" -- doesn't matter how true it is, it's just reeks of cliché and the second someone says it I start wondering if they've actually thought about what they're saying or if they're just saying that to fit in with the ivory tower.

And I also don't think that the style of direction you're criticizing has anything to do with classism, either. I think it's just the end result of the beloved European/Canadian cinema verité ideal of pretending like you don't give a damn bleeding from documentary (where it belongs but is in fact least possible) to docudrama to indie drama and now to Hollywood.

I think a sort of ivory tower privilege comes into it, along with what you've said. People who've spent their whole lives wrapped in a white upper middle class bubble, and who've never once done a proper day's work (Sophia Coppola I'm looking at you), which unfortunately today are the same people who tend to use "bourgeois."

That said, point taken. I'll just find a more creative way of saying the same thing.

I will say in Sofia Coppola's defense that she isn't the sole thing ruining Godfather Part III.


Yeah, that's about all I will say in her defense.

Here's a filmmaking tip: When your movie's trailer is better than your movie, you've got a big problem (looking at you, Marie Antoinette -- and Terminator Salvation, actually, now that I think about it...)

There's nothing wrong with THE GODFATHER: PART III. LOST IN TRANSLATION on the other hand....

Largo's Shark wrote:

There's nothing wrong with THE GODFATHER: PART III. LOST IN TRANSLATION on the other hand....

That's similar to something I've always believed, which is that GODFATHER III is only "bad" because you're comparing it to other GODFATHERs. Compared to the vast majority of movie output it's still pretty damn great.

Also, am I the only one getting sick of Bill Murray's "sad old man indie" phase? It was cute at first, but having to sit through BROKEN FLOWERS in Film Appreciation class a few years back really kills it.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Also, am I the only one getting sick of Bill Murray's "sad old man indie" phase? It was cute at first, but having to sit through BROKEN FLOWERS in Film Appreciation class a few years back really kills it.

When he's with Wes Anderson he's fine.

I can agree with that.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I will say in Sofia Coppola's defense that she isn't the sole thing ruining Godfather Part III.

Yes!

Don't forget her big crooked nose!

It was very distracting!

Watching Ronin

How did Gregor (Stellan Skarsgård) get away?

At the shoot out with the Case minders, after Gregor made the switch, he told DeNiro that he was hit and he will meet him at the Safe House.

But the French SWAT team was arriving at the same time in those white vans and cars at the left shot of these screenshots.

I watched the first two GODFATHER films a few weeks ago. I don't own PART III anymore, and I haven't seen it in several years. I do recall Sofia Coppola being a huge weakness. Along with Al dressing like Mr. Rogers.





I'd rather just watch CARLITO'S WAY.

Loomis wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

There are more things that irk me, but the ones mentioned should suffice.

No, go on.

I am already glad I could remember enough after each of my two viewings so far.
All I'll add is that the good ideas are few and far between and are usually accompanied or followed by a lot of bad ones.
I really liked the way they paralleled Bond's situation in the service to the Fighting Temeraire. It's a nifty idea, and Q teasing Bond is quite funny, and Bond's initial answer is good too, if by "bloody big ship" he is referring to his own physical strength or maybe his perceived importance for the service (I am not sure this was Logan's intention). But the rest of the scene with its talk about freckles and the references to old-style Q-branch gadgets shows that not everything hacked around a theme is automatically great writing (the same goes for other parts of the film as well).
While I quite like the very beginning of the film, the PTS clearly is representative of a lot of what is wrong with the whole film. Firstly, the Ronson bit is strangely unengaging and unaffecting in direction; then the dumb "hard-drive" plot point is introduced, and while I was thinking I was enjoying a decent, low-key PTS, as soon as Bond follows Patrice, a by-the-numbers chase ensues that feels like a lame copy of QUANTUM OF SOLACE that itself was already heavily drawing from BOURNE. What's more, the sequence is filled to the brim with lame gags (the rear-view mirrors, the Beetles, the adjusting of the cuff buttons and more). What annoys me is the fact that the tone of the Ronson scene is immediately dropped and every attempt at a serious thriller is thrown out the window, and, like with the Madagaskar bit of CR, we get a minimum of exposition and story-telling before an overlong (and silly and boring) action sequence starts off, in this case, it lasts ten minutes. Then we go back to pseudo drama - take the bloody shot/ the ludicrous fall into the water).
The PTS already includes a lot of what a good film shouldn't be.
I'd also like to put down why I do not like the introduction of Silva, it obviously has to do with the dialogue (but also camera and set design), but Bardem's efforts make this scene enjoyable enough (though I cannot help but getting the impression he's playing a gay, toad-faced computer wiz there). He is greatly dubbed, and I'm curious as to how he speaks in the English version which I have yet to see.



Mississippi Burning (1988, dir. Alan Parker)

Mostly good film based on real-life events, but I don't know to what extent. The direction is as honest and restrained as it should be (haven't been truly disappointed by Parker yet), Hackman is once more on good form. As much as I love a good 80s synth score, this one here does not fit the 60s American South backdrop at all and sounds like it was stolen from Carpenter.

Hilly wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

I wonder if tiff is Manhunter's "brother" referenced in his review?

I say, we never see them in the same room either... :*d*:




(just jesting, Tiff!)

I just long for the day when Bond can cease having trust issues and just go about his business from film to film; for the day when he drinks heavily again just for the pure Bond indulgence of it all, as opposed to being down in the dumps.
In the meantime if Manhunter and others want to unload on the Craig films, especially the most recent one, whose producers/filmmakers I'm sure are convinced that they now walk on water, I'm good with it. Keep these people humble!!!

Remember these days. "Liquour for three." Oh who else is on board?" "Oh, there is no-one else." Connery smiles. Leiter says, I gotcha. Audience is happy happy. All is well in the Bond-verse. Bond boards, settles in and discovers fat-bastard GF is also on the plane. Quips, "have you been invited for lunch with the President too GF." " You are such a smartass Bond" Bondseriously tiring of GF by now, engages the psycho one final time. GF's pathetic form is last seen being squeezed through a window like toohpaste, into the atmosphere enroute to an ingnominious crash landing at sea. Good riddance. Bond bails from out-of-control plane with living breathing not-dead, end-of-film Bond girl (named Pussy no less) and settles for happy interlude on remote island. No time to be rescued.
Audience leaves theatre smiling and happy. timmer if he was attending Bond movies in 1964 whould have been skipping home with delight, with big happy grin on his face. No complaints. Not one!!

Westworld

Very entertaining slice of early 70's sci-fi. Impressive debut for Michael Critchton in the directors chair as he weaves comedy, intrigue and thrills to good effect throughout. He is aided by three great performances and his own multi layered story. The film may feature dated technology but the ideas and themes seem more relevant today than ever, with Machines building other machines to the degree their human creators aren't absolutely sure what everything does and even the muted notion that computers could potentially suffer from a virus.

The blu-ray is not overly impressive on a visual level, with a lot of evident grain but little real boost to detail or sharpness, the sound is a different matter as the original 4 channel mix is redeployed to a rousing 5.1 surround.

A Liar's Autobiography - movie utilising various animation styles to tell the life story of the late Graham Chapman, with Chapman able to 'play' himself via the usage of audio recordings he made 3 years before his death in 1989 (with 'new' contributions from the other 5 members of Monty Python, of course). All the key events of Chapman's life are touched upon, but at 80 minutes this can't help but feel a little insubstantial (there are apparently many hours of the recordings).

lachesis wrote:

Westworld

Very entertaining slice of early 70's sci-fi. Impressive debut for Michael Critchton in the directors chair as he weaves comedy, intrigue and thrills to good effect throughout. He is aided by three great performances and his own multi layered story. The film may feature dated technology but the ideas and themes seem more relevant today than ever, with Machines building other machines to the degree their human creators aren't absolutely sure what everything does and even the muted notion that computers could potentially suffer from a virus.

The blu-ray is not overly impressive on a visual level, with a lot of evident grain but little real boost to detail or sharpness, the sound is a different matter as the original 4 channel mix is redeployed to a rousing 5.1 surround.

Excellent film, it really handles its themes well, as you say, and it's genuinely thrilling (like only few films are).


Il gattopardo (1963, dir. Luchino Visconti)

An epic film about an aging Italian prince in the 1860s who struggles to keep his family from sinking in prestige during a time of grave political and social commotions. The story-telling and direction are excellent, the cinematography stunning, the set design and costumes splendid, and the film features a considerable line of great performances, first and foremost Lancaster.
I got the impression that Stephens drew more than just a bit of inspiration for his Graves performance from Delon in IL GATTOPARDO. But don't get me wrong, Delon is, as usual, terrific here.
I've loved all of the Visconti films I've seen so far, besides this one, MORTE A VENEZIA in particular, but also ROCCO E I SUOI FRATELLI. Really need to see more from him. IL GATTOPARDO is marvelous. I watched the restored version on Blu.
(The film also features Terence Hill, so you can't go wrong).


Scanners (1981, dir. David Cronenberg)

Contains some trashy, unintentionally (?) funny scenes (the ones that feature the "scanning" process), but an interesting, trashy horror film nonetheless.
Happy 70th, David!

Django Unchained

Tarantino's schtick has become tiresome. This was a load of gratuitous wank drenched in red paint.

*spoilers ahead*

The movie could've been a half hour shorter if the Waltz character didn't shoot Titanic Guy for s***s and giggles. Basically knew full well that it could get Django, Mrs Django, and himself killed. Nonsensical even by Qunt T's standards.

Argo (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

This is a great movie but still, between this and Zero Dark Thirty, I would had rather the Academy picked the latter as Best Picture.

4.5/5

CJB wrote:

Django Unchained

Tarantino's schtick has become tiresome. This was a load of gratuitous wank drenched in red paint.

*spoilers ahead*

The movie could've been a half hour shorter if the Waltz character didn't shoot Titanic Guy for s***s and giggles. Basically knew full well that it could get Django, Mrs Django, and himself killed. Nonsensical even by Qunt T's standards.

I really don't get the hate for Django around here. Of all the films I've seen in the cinema thus far this year, it's second only to Malick's To the Wonder.