Last Movie You Watched? Mark 9

Inherent Vice (2014)

Huh. Not really sure how I feel about this one. I like it in parts, such as the cast, cinematography, score, ect. As a whole? I feel like I need to give this another watch when it hits on video. It's what you've probably heard before: A strange noir tale from the perspective of a stoner, and it's literal about it at times. Can't tell you how it compares to PTA's other work, since the only other film I've seen of his was THERE WILL BE BLOOD (which I love) and the short CIGARETTES AND COFFEE, but I can say I enjoyed those a lot more.

Will be interesting to see how this film holds up through the years. I keep hearing/reading how some compare it to THE BIG LEBOWSKI, but I dunno if this will hold up to that level because it isn't as goofy and digestible for many, especially considering its longer running time.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Well, that editorial policy didn't mean hasty judgements, it prevented them. The point was to not make any judgement until you were sure of your position. However, I concede that it may not be possible in a 24-7 media world.

Anyway, no apology required, but I am interested in understanding how and why your position on Mann and De Palma changed. (Changing tastes might make an interesting new thread.) Was it to do with you getting older, greater personal experience or a purely artistic reevaluation?

I rewatched several of De Palma's movies early last year. The one thing that stood out more than anything else was a visual artistry that is now largely lacking in Hollywood.
We discussed this before, but someone like Nolan (who is both a critical darling and a box office monster) has yet to produce a sequence as cinematically rich as (to give just one example) the museum scene in "Dressed to kill".
I would put Scorsese in the same category, which is why I still have a lot of time for his more recent features.
If we have any auteurs left at all, none of them seem very enamored with the medium itself. At best they appear to be story tellers who settled upon cinema as their medium.

I'd throw Paul Thomas Anderson in there too. Maybe the Coen Brothers as well. Anderson slightly more on the "visual artistry" side and the Brothers slightly more on the storytelling side.

Harmsway wrote:

Out of any of Mann's films, BLACKHAT is closest in feel to MIAMI VICE (which has, incidentally, gone through something of a critical reappraisal and is now regarded by many as one of Mann's masterpieces).

Cool. I always liked MIAMI VICE.

Last film I saw was:

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014, directed by Wes Anderson - my first Wes Anderson, incidentally). As a piece of storytelling, I wasn't quite sure what to make of it - it sometimes comes across as little more than a shaggy dog story, with a tremendous amount of cleverness and wit (both verbal and visual) on display, yet little in the way of genuine emotion. Mind you, I was almost never bored (and, in this era of overlength, HOTEL's relatively trim 100-minute running time seems something of a breath of fresh air), and my attention was certainly riveted throughout by the film's sheer visual brilliance. The production design and cinematography are breathtaking, to the point where I struggle to think of a better-looking film that I've seen in recent times.

22 Jump Street (2014)

It got chuckles at out of me. I enjoy it more for the chemistry between Hill and Tatum, which still blows my mind that they work well together. Nice to see this not take itself too seriously with the idea that it's a sequel. Sort of like how GREMLINS 2 satirizes the first film and mocks the idea of a sequel, though with this one it's more fratboy humor but it has a certain charm.

Salomé wrote:

If we have any auteurs left at all, none of them seem very enamored with the medium itself.

This seems a bit too pessimistic to me. There's plenty of room to be bitter about the state of cinema, but we still have plenty of talented auteurs interested in cinematic form (take, for instance, James Gray or Johnnie To).

Loomis wrote:

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014, directed by Wes Anderson - my first Wes Anderson, incidentally). As a piece of storytelling, I wasn't quite sure what to make of it - it sometimes comes across as little more than a shaggy dog story, with a tremendous amount of cleverness and wit (both verbal and visual) on display, yet little in the way of genuine emotion. Mind you, I was almost never bored (and, in this era of overlength, HOTEL's relatively trim 100-minute running time seems something of a breath of fresh air), and my attention was certainly riveted throughout by the film's sheer visual brilliance. The production design and cinematography are breathtaking, to the point where I struggle to think of a better-looking film that I've seen in recent times.

I can't imagine what I'd have made of that if it was my first Anderson. His unique style of diorama cinema can be astonishing, and Grand Budapest Hotel takes that to dizzying extremes.

Of his films, I'm most partial to The Life Aquatic, but that's a minority view, since it's widely regarded as one of his weaker efforts. I also love Moonrise Kingdom.

I thought "Moonrise Kingdom" was the best in terms of marrying his visual style with the narrative.

Hard Eight (1996)

Much enjoyed that. Phillip Baker Hall is was great to watch, I wonder why his career never went beyond supporting roles and nameless government heads. Also watched CIGARETTES AND COFFEE again just as a warm up. Will see BOOGIE NIGHTS sometime this weekend.

Harmsway wrote:

Of his films, I'm most partial to The Life Aquatic, but that's a minority view, since it's widely regarded as one of his weaker efforts. I also love Moonrise Kingdom.

Well those are my least favorite Anderson films persnoally

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014, directed by Wes Anderson - my first Wes Anderson, incidentally). As a piece of storytelling, I wasn't quite sure what to make of it - it sometimes comes across as little more than a shaggy dog story, with a tremendous amount of cleverness and wit (both verbal and visual) on display, yet little in the way of genuine emotion. Mind you, I was almost never bored (and, in this era of overlength, HOTEL's relatively trim 100-minute running time seems something of a breath of fresh air), and my attention was certainly riveted throughout by the film's sheer visual brilliance. The production design and cinematography are breathtaking, to the point where I struggle to think of a better-looking film that I've seen in recent times.

I can't imagine what I'd have made of that if it was my first Anderson. His unique style of diorama cinema can be astonishing, and Grand Budapest Hotel takes that to dizzying extremes.

Well, of course, I knew Anderson to be one of those turn-of-the-century indie-sensibility hipster auterist johnnies (like Sofia Coppola or Spike Jonze), so I certainly didn't sit down to HOTEL in anticipation of meat-and-potatoes fare. Quite the contrary. I reckoned, correctly, that it would be very much a film that needed to be approached on its own terms and in the right frame of mind. It wasn't really any more out-there than I'd bargained for. But I see what you mean - I'm still processing my reactions to it, unsure as to whether it was really my cup of tea and whether I want to see more of Anderson's work or just leave things as they are.

Still, as I say, I found HOTEL so extraordinary to look at that I may find Anderson one of those (surprisingly few, given that cinema is chiefly a visual medium) directors who's worthwhile purely for his visuals.

I'm not a big Wes Anderson fan but I thought BUDAPEST HOTEL had enough meat to go along with the style. I think it's probably his best film. That or TENENBAUMS or BOTTLE ROCKET.

Speaking of the best looking movies of 2014:

IDA

Probably the best looking movie of last year. Really enjoyed it.

Xenia93 wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Of his films, I'm most partial to The Life Aquatic, but that's a minority view, since it's widely regarded as one of his weaker efforts. I also love Moonrise Kingdom.

Well those are my least favorite Anderson films persnoally

You are not alone regarding the former, but the latter received a lot of praise.

I think they're his richest films, thematically speaking, and teach emotional depths that the rest of his work doesn't.

bitchcraft wrote:

American Sniper.

It's ok but I'm not seeing the Oscar potential. Best scenes involve Sienna Miller, esp in the bar.

Fake babies galore.

Spoiler:

The film blew me away.

First of all, Bradley Cooper can give up acting now. He will never top this performance. It's the role of a lifetime. This was when he officially peaked. Everything else will be downhill from here. The Oscar for Best Actor should be his because he connected with me and the rest of the audience in a way I doubt the other nominated actors could. It was raw...it was powerful. He really did turn in the performance of a lifetime.

Eastwood...he should probably quit at this point. Go out on top. I haven't seen a lot of Eastwood's films (the last one I remember was GRAN TORINO) but this would have to rank among his best, if not the best.

Sienna Miller...criminal how she got overlooked in the Best Actress category. Probably should have been nominated. She's finally good and in something I wanted to see. I can see why, though, with two bigger stars like Eastwood and Cooper getting all the attention how the Academy overlooked her, but she's every bit as good as Cooper.

Didn't notice the fake baby until it was pointed out to me, and probably would never have noticed it if someone had said something; I think that now hat the fake baby has become a MEME, people are going to start spotting "the fake baby" in every scene (even the ones where it's clear a real baby is used), just like some people see Jesus Christ in billboard ads for spaghetti or in the bark of a neighbor's tree.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

First of all, Bradley Cooper can give up acting now. He will never top this performance. It's the role of a lifetime. This was when he officially peaked. Everything else will be downhill from here. The Oscar for Best Actor should be his because he connected with me and the rest of the audience in a way I doubt the other nominated actors could. It was raw...it was powerful. He really did turn in the performance of a lifetime.

My fave scene with him was when Chris was between a rock and a hard place with that little muslim boy who picked up the rocket launcher...and having to do his duty if he didn't drop it...wow.

Also loved the nod to The Punisher.

[quote="Harmsway"]

Xenia93 wrote:

You are not alone regarding the former, but the latter received a lot of praise.

I think they're his richest films, thematically speaking, and teach emotional depths that the rest of his work doesn't.

I just couldn't get into MOONRISE KINGDOM. I just thought that was the one film where his quirkiness and style suffocated everything out of the film. I've never been a huge fan of his style (BUDAPEST is one of the films where I feel like his style is for a purpose) and in KINGDOM it just felt like he dedicated everything to style and not enough to everything else.

As for ZISSOU, I need to see it again. I definitely think there's a substance there (like you say) I just didn't find anyone interesting in that movie aside from Bill Murray. It's been quite awhile though, so it'd be worth me taking a peak at it again.

Xenia93 wrote:

I just couldn't get into MOONRISE KINGDOM. I just thought that was the one film where his quirkiness and style suffocated everything out of the film. I've never been a huge fan of his style (BUDAPEST is one of the films where I feel like his style is for a purpose) and in KINGDOM it just felt like he dedicated everything to style and not enough to everything else.

I felt the opposite regarding MOONRISE and BUDAPEST. In the former Anderson's idiosyncrasies helped frame the moving coming of age story. The later I found heartless and overindulgent - all of his worst tendencies rolled into one film.

AMERICAN SNIPER

Not bad, but felt rather long for a movie with basically no plot. I know lib types wet themselves over how "pro-war" the movie supposedly was, but honestly I came out of it thinking about what a clusterfuck US foreign policy is. Hell, I even felt for the kid with the grenade and contemplated what I would do if a foreign army invaded my country.

Cooper was quite good. An entertaining enough film that probably deserves neither accolades nor notoriety.

THE INSIDER (1999, directed by Michael Mann). A superbly-crafted, riveting film that has aged like fine wine. Have seen it a few times before, but this was my first viewing in several years. This time round, what struck me most is just how un-dumbed-down it is. It rarely seems "Hollywood" or seeks to hold the viewer's hand. It's remarkably rich in convincing detail, and there's a - so to speak - inside-the-Beltway authenticity to the dialogue. Terrific performances by Al Pacino, Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I felt the opposite regarding MOONRISE and BUDAPEST. In the former Anderson's idiosyncrasies helped frame the moving coming of age story. The later I found heartless and overindulgent - all of his worst tendencies rolled into one film.

Huh. I found KINGDOM to be the "heartless and overindulgent" film  I do need to see it again at some point. But as for BUDAPEST, I saw it as the one film where his quirky style actually justified itself. With that film the style is part of the substance, with all of the frames of narration building up to Zero's look back at his time spent at the Hotel ("We were happy there, once," he says) with rose-tinted spectacles. Heck even the aspect ratio changes to suggest nostalgia.

I like that in the time period in which the film is most "heavily perfumed" and saturated with Anderson's style (and subsequently Zero's nostalgia) is the time period in which many awful things are taking place. Zero (and Anderson by extension) spin it in such a way as to make it a comedy caper.

I saw the film as a strong champion of the necessity of storytelling, and I found Anderson's style appropriate to the tale (Ralph Fiennes') being told. I can see why some would dislike it, but I personally think it is one of his best.

CJB wrote:

AMERICAN SNIPER

Not bad, but felt rather long for a movie with basically no plot. I know lib types wet themselves over how "pro-war" the movie supposedly was, but honestly I came out of it thinking about what a clusterfuck US foreign policy is. Hell, I even felt for the kid with the grenade and contemplated what I would do if a foreign army invaded my country.

Cooper was quite good. An entertaining enough film that probably deserves neither accolades nor notoriety.

The movie has made $200m in 10 days in the USA. For a film to get summer-smash BO figures in January is unheard of. 2015 should break records all over.

Middle Men, on HBO.

First time I noticed Laura Ramsey.

It Happened One Night (1934)

Delightful Frank Capra comedy romance with the young Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert fine foils amid a teriffic set of characters. The source is well presented on the Criterion Blu Ray for the most part but one or two sequences are oddly very poor (heavily washed out).

8/10

BOYHOOD (2014)
directed by Richard Linklater

It's an interesting experiment. Linklater certainly challenges your expectations and patience, as this is a decidedly un-cinematic film. I can appreciate the direction he chose to take this, and I even think he succeeded rather wildly with what he set out to do in that regard, but I can't help but think that BOYHOOD feels a bit like a missed opportunity. At 2 hours and 45 minutes, it's awfully long for a film without much of a story. I'd say the novelty of the 12-year production could have been even more effective had it served as a function to an actual story, and not vice-versa (as it's presented here). I also found it difficult to overlook some of the acting, wherein almost every scene with this kid as a teenager is borderline cringe-worthy. Even still, BOYHOOD feels genuine and it has a lot of heart. At the very least, it's a downright compelling watch just to see these characters age.

THE EQUALIZER (2014)
directed by Antoine Fuqua

This one...I could take it or leave it. I've always found Denzel to be an intensely watchable actor, and that's really no different here, but seeing him run around a Home Depot killing bad buys with a rake and nail gun seemed a bit silly to me. The movie had a good thing going initially, especially with Chloe Grace-Moretz, but it's all traded-in fairly quickly for the usual flash. Not much to see here.

Ex Machina - gripping, thought-provoking sci-fi. If you're worried about what ever-advancing artificial intelligence might mean for the fate of the human race, unfortunately this will do little to reassure you.