Last Movie you Watched?

Blade Runner


No need to mention that, in HD, this was the first time I really watched this film. ;)
The miniatures, settings and special effects are certainly admirable and of the highest order. The dark atmosphere and the many details are indeed something to marvel at. It was the first time I spotted the glowing umbrellas (not knowing beforehand there were any in the film ). The themes the film touches upon, the question about what is human, the questioning of the according characteristics, and the blurring of the separating line between humans and replicants, are well presented, but only alluded to. This makes the film more grown up than the dumb and talky TDK and its ilk. But whenever fight scenes are involved, the film feels a bit too silly, a bit embarrassing. I wonder why they were filmed that way. I also think that Hauer gives a wonderful performance, considering the facets between being a machine with many human characteristics and a being becoming increasingly more human he has to portray. Also, the way memories and their meanings as well as other elements of the human life are presented make for some interesting thoughts.
There is still something to figure out for me for the next viewings. I like the film, even if it is not a film that really affects me, so it's not one of my personal favourites, at least not in the highest echelon. And I also think Vangelis' music is very favourable to the film, some really wonderful bits.

Brighton Rock (1947)

back when Lord Attenborough was an actor, playing creepy bastards like Pinky and long before Hermione Baddeley ended up as a maid in Mary Poppins.

Contagion: 2011,
Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard, Lawrence Fishburne, Jude Law and a whole bunch of other names.


I'm sure this was a very good movie, but I was bored to tears. Jude Law was kind of funny, but hey if you want two hours of movie-stars playing doctors, fighting a deadly virus, conversing earnestly in medical speak and modeling the latest hazmat wear - this is your film. Go nuts!
I'm bothered that Toronto didn't get any mention. No, it was all Chicago, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong and Minneapolis too for crying out loud.
Toronto was only the number 2 SARS city in the whole world in 2003, not that any of us here really noticed, but we got a lot of media attention everywhere else. You'd swear we were dropping on the street, if you didn't actually live here.
The Rolling Stones and AC/DC even did a SARs concert for us, but could Damon and company come here and give us a piece of a real movie epidemic, where lots of people, really actually do get killed?! Noooooo, of course not.
Just another reason to carp about my least favourite actor, "Bond is a misogynist" Damon.
All the same, I think I might wear a surgical mask for the next week and refuse to shake hands with anyone.

just because I learned lots of stuff about viruses.

With TIFF in town, I checked out the world premiere of Luc Besson's The Lady. Besson is of course better known for his action movies, but I wasn't that surprised to see him direct an Aung Sang Suu Kyi biopic. Like in the The Big Blue, which I saw a few weeks ago, The Lady's protagonist also sacrifices being with her family for a passion that has come to dominate her life. Besson likes to craft strong female characters, like Nikita, Mathilda, or Milla Jovovich's Leeloo. Suu Kyi, as portrayed by Michelle Yeoh, is a delicate and graceful woman. In typical Besson fashion, her physical fragility is symbolically emphasized in contrast to the brutality of the Burmese military thugs. The villainous Burmese junta is portrayed as too cartoonish to my liking though. Besson included elements of mysticism in the conflict between Suu Kyi and the nasty dictator, yet they were simplistic too. What chewed up a lot of screentime was Suu Kyi's family life. David Thewlis isn't the best thesp in the world and is initially awkward, if not excrutiating, to watch as Suu Kyi's husband. It's a peculiar character that takes some time to get used to. In the end, I sympathized with him as much as with Suu Kyi. Eric Serra's score and the cinematography are top notch, as expected.

About Michelle Yeoh - this was my first live viewing of a Bond girl. Watching her interact with fans and the local Burmese community on the red carpet, I realized just how down-to-earth and beautiful a lady she really is. While I doubt the film or its actors will be top contenders come awards season, it was a special moment being part of this first screening with the director and cast. The five-minute applause at the end was well-deserved.

Manhunter wrote:

Blade Runner


No need to mention that, in HD, this was the first time I really watched this film. ;)

It's a Blu-ray that I have seriously considered. The five-disc is only about ten bucks more than THE FINAL CUT.

Quote :

About Michelle Yeoh - this was my first live viewing of a Bond girl. Watching her interact with fans and the local Burmese community on the red carpet, I realized just how down-to-earth and beautiful a lady she really is.

That's interesting. I didn't know we had a real live lead Bond-girl in town for the TIFF. Awesome. And I'd been most most impressed that Megan Fox was here again.

Watched Conan the Barbarian (2011) and found the movie very enjoyable, probably because I am also a big fan of "the Savage Sword of Conan" comics. This movie had that feeling more than a real REH written tale. Also visually it was a feast and there was less campy fun that plagued the Schwarzenegger movies, which is a good thing in my personal view. Momoa can actually act. There were a few times during the movie when I actually laughed with delight at Momoa's Conan. Whether it was a mirthless grin, or a particular bit of action, Momoa's Conan has a ruthless, cunning intelligence behind most of his actions. I wouldn't mind a few sequels, perhaps a bit closer to the REH source material but in a similar vein.

Like the recent Solomon Kane movie (which I liked) this Conan is a whole improvement on the old version and I can only hope that REH's hero's get some more screentime in the near future.

The Falcon out West (1943) an old b/w whodunnit of 64 minutes in which the hero Tom Lawrence solves murder and this time in Texas. Some nice moments that reminded me of the old Repunlic western serials. I find the Falcon series most enjoyable, this being the 8th in the series.

Once Upon a Time in America

I've understood much more of it than on my first viewing. Then it confused me, mostly because of the realistic crass brutality, most notably the rape scene(s?). It says a lot about Noodle's personality if you consider what he's doing in the car, in stark contrast to the romantic pomp he had staged for his childhood love just before the incident. But right after it he seems to get serious qualms about it.
The narrative, including the intricate switching of time levels, the detailed sets, the wonderful Morricone score, the intense and authentic acting (De Niro and Woods, as well as the kids), the restrained and considerate direction, make this a fully elaborate and impressive film experience. Why Raging Bull is considered the best film of the 80s is way beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEKywn7fhVo#t=6s

Serenity (2005)

Budget for STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE - 115 million
Budget for STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES - 120 million
Budget for STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH - 113 million
Budget for STAR TREK (2009) - 150 million
Budget for SERENITY - 39 million

Combined budget of Prequels and STAR TREK: POS - Roughly 500 million dollars.

Yep.

CUL-DE-SAC (1966, dir. Roman Polanski)

A pleasingly weird black comedy.

Harmsway wrote:

CUL-DE-SAC (1966, dir. Roman Polanski)

A pleasingly weird black comedy.

Wasn't he arrested for having sex with a minor? I'm wondering if his pervesions influenced his films.

Harmsway wrote:

CUL-DE-SAC (1966, dir. Roman Polanski)

A pleasingly weird black comedy.

I really want to see it.

Midnight in Paris was a joy. I didn't know what to expect, but I loved it. Left the theater both joyful and thoughtful. Definitely a good thing to see on a hump day.

lalala2004 wrote:

Midnight in Paris was a joy. I didn't know what to expect, but I loved it. Left the theater both joyful and thoughtful. Definitely a good thing to see on a hump day.

This movie was great. One of Woody Allen's all-time best. I don't know anyone that's seen it that didn't really like it. I've recommended it to lots of people and they've all found it to be a very enjoyable experience. The premise is quite original and very well done.
I like the way Woody cast Owen Wilson to basically play a young Woody Allen. It's quite funny. Now that Allen has aged, he's just cast Wilson to play a younger version of himself. Wilson very convincingly channels the younger Allen.
But what makes the film so interesing I think is the time travel. The manner in which Wilson meets various historical-giants of the 1920's Paris arts-scene, is quite well done.
I laughed so hard when he met Hemingway.
"Oh pleased to meet you. You're an author too?
"Yes"
"What's your name?"
"Hemingway" :affraid:
The scene works so well, because Hemingway is not yet famous, yet Owen knows exactly how famous he will become, and practically falls over, when he realizes who he has just been so casually introduced to.
Allen reveals many other famous names just as deftly, and when you are not quite expecting it.
Excellent film.

Battle of Britain.

naturally I suppose the aerial shots make it worth something but maybe the sprinkling of well known faces in the cast be it Chris Plummer, Robert Shaw or Kenny More, Nigel Patrick and Barry Foster. If the film served any purpose it was to head films in the future, such as Dark Blue World, have in-colour shots of 'battle' without needing to mess about with archival footage (that used to blend in seamlessly with the likes of Reach for the Sky). A fair few quotable lines ("Don't just stand there, get one up!"), slightly iffy back projection, not enough Hurricane's for obvious reasons, a decent enough score by Goodwin (at short notice, and yes the Walton's score good).

being Battle of Britain Day and all. As Edward Fox remarked so cheerfully, "Thanks awfully old chap."

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942, dir. Orson Welles)

A thoroughly respectable motion picture, though I am less fond of it than the lion's share of Welles cinematic contributions. AMBERSONS doesn't seem as assured as his other works; I am uncertain that Welles' forte is the more subtle kind of characterization that a film like AMBERSONS demands. And, of course, there is the matter of the re-editing of AMBERSONS, and the addition of that rather terrible ending. But it does have its fine moments.

The DVD release packaged with the Blu-Ray of CITIZEN KANE as an Amazon exclusive, though, isn't too shoddy, which is nice to see. It's extremely bare bones, but it looks nice, and enough effort has been put into the DVD packaging that I suspect it will eventually be available separately.

tiffanywint wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

Midnight in Paris was a joy. I didn't know what to expect, but I loved it. Left the theater both joyful and thoughtful. Definitely a good thing to see on a hump day.

This movie was great. One of Woody Allen's all-time best. I don't know anyone that's seen it that didn't really like it. I've recommended it to lots of people and they've all found it to be a very enjoyable experience. The premise is quite original and very well done.
I like the way Woody cast Owen Wilson to basically play a young Woody Allen. It's quite funny. Now that Allen has aged, he's just cast Wilson to play a younger version of himself. Wilson very convincingly channels the younger Allen.
But what makes the film so interesing I think is the time travel. The manner in which Wilson meets various historical-giants of the 1920's Paris arts-scene, is quite well done.
I laughed so hard when he met Hemingway.
"Oh pleased to meet you. You're an author too?
"Yes"
"What's your name?"
"Hemingway" :affraid:
The scene works so well, because Hemingway is not yet famous, yet Owen knows exactly how famous he will become, and practically falls over, when he realizes who he has just been so casually introduced to.
Allen reveals many other famous names just as deftly, and when you are not quite expecting it.
Excellent film.

I had no idea that time travel element was in it before seeing it, so I was pleasantly surprised :-)

On Film 4 on Wednesday night ... The Hunt For Red October.

Found it held up pretty well 20 years on, although ad breaks are never going to be a great help to any movie which is attempting to build suspense.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

On Film 4 on Wednesday night ... The Hunt For Red October.

Found it held up pretty well 20 years on, although ad breaks are never going to be a great help to any movie which is attempting to build suspense.

I can't watch movies with ads. I haven't in well over ten years.

ARSENAL (dir. by Alexander Dovzhenko - 1929)

One of the most powerful war films I've ever seen. A 19th century peasant community torn apart by the horrors of 20th century warfare. Pretty prescient stuff, considering when it was made. Some ground breaking edits (clearly studied by Hitchcock - the famous "percussive" axial cut's still shocking), use of Soviet montage, and Rodchenko-styled cinematography.

REPULSION(1965)
Roman Polanski, director

From a technical standpoint, it's marvelous. It's one of the most effective uses of black-and-white photography I've seen. It really makes the lighting pop, and combined with Polanski's claustrophobic camera and Catherine Deneuve's eerily restrained, distant performance, makes every single scene emit a constant sense of unease and dread. The story doesn't sound like much, but Polanski uses it as an opportunity to focus on the atmosphere and contemplate on the physiological underpinnings of the story by using some nice imagery (the dead rabbit, slowly decaying potatoes, cracks in the wall) and keeping the dialogue to an absolute minimum. Overall, I found REPULSION to be genuinely frightening. Somehow, that final shot that pans across the apartment really makes the whole thing come together.
8.5/10

Fright Night (2011) ... eh, I had quite a good time. Funny in places, decent-to-excellent SFX, and the Chris Sarandon cameo was pleasing. And HURRAH for David Tennant ... well, just because :D .

DRIVE (2011, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)

A super-violent, super-stylish bit of pulp storytelling that largely delivers the goods. DRIVE recalls some of the genre pieces of the 60s, 70s, and 80s (I think a bit of Boorman's POINT BLANK, though DRIVE never gets quite as spooky or psychedelic, and also calls to mind early Michael Mann), and not just in a, "Oh, those films were great, weren't they?" sort of way. This is an assured, striking exercise in style, even if that's all it is. DRIVE sags a bit toward the end--the climax doesn't quite match all the lovely build-up--but it is never less than engaging.

Make no mistake, though, the violence is extreme, so extreme that I'm surprised I didn't find myself thoroughly turned off by the film. So if you're gonna check it out, brace yourself.

Does the violence actually work with the film, or is it there to please kids who get boners from watching people getting their skulls caved in for no reason?

Mr. Brown wrote:

Does the violence actually work with the film, or is it there to please kids who get boners from watching people getting their skulls caved in for no reason?

I don't know how to answer this question. If you're asking, "Does the violence feel somehow out of place in the film?" I'd have to say, "No, it doesn't." But it's nevertheless so extreme that I feel as though I should have had some problem with it, even though it didn't ruin the viewing experience for me.