Last Movie you Watched?

Seve wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

The ending connected to the beginning, according to Schrader. I recall him saying (in the DVD commentary) that Travis gets off as the hero the first time, but when it happens again, it's not going to turn out that way. The chemtone colors of the beginning and the ending were used to connect the two.

yes, they say that in "the making of", but I don't know that that message comes across in what they filmed
one little "what if" musical queue at the end is not enough to convey that to me

You don't think so?

I think it clearly points out that Travis still has malice within him. Herrmann's score (as I've mentioned umpteen times) does a wonderful job of playing on the evil, the loneliness, and the beauty that is painted across the film. And, after all, he's still that lonely man that we met him as. Still working the same job and still acts the same around his fellow cabbies. Certainly hasn't changed much, judging by his brief appearance at the end. That look in the mirror, after he drops off Betsy, is a striking image, as well, showing off Travis' dark side (or at least that's how I interpret it).

On the other hand, I look at TAXI DRIVER as an ultimate portrait of loneliness; not just a film about some badass cabbie who wants to wipe scum off the streets of New York by killing pimps. It's really quite brilliant, in my opinion.

Supergirl (1984)

It's just so BORING.

Good things...

-Helen Slater. Good casting, and fcuking HOT.
-Goldsmith's score. Bad movie, good Goldsmith score.


"That's how I roll, bitches."

At least the main theme is cool, and I just got it from iTunes.

More good things...

-The cast is actually pretty good, with Faye Dunaway, Peter Cook, Peter O'Toole, Mia Farrow, and the guy who played in Ellis in DIE HARD. I was watching this thinking, "That guy is a hunk version of Ellis from DIE HARD. Can't be the same guy." I check on Google, and yeah, it is. Had no idea. Then you have McClure as Jimmy Olsen, who is apparently now a sexual predator having travelled hundreds of miles to get it on with a high school student. Well, he brought his camera.

The bad? The movie just doesn't work. It's boring. And what is with the Popeye's product placement?

Super-O-Meter

1. SUPERMAN
2. SUPERMAN II
3. SUPERMAN III
4. SUPERGIRL

I see a trend.

STAR TREK (2009)

As someone with no connection to the TV show or previous films whatsoever, I'll go against the grain around these parts and say I quite liked it.

For a bit of harmless sci-fi, "Star Trek" ain't a bad watch. And for someone like me who has no knowledge of the "Star Trek" world whatsoever, it is indeed quite accessible.

4/5

Jack Wade wrote:

STAR TREK (2009)

As someone with no connection to the TV show or previous films whatsoever, I'll go against the grain around these parts and say I quite liked it.

For a bit of harmless sci-fi, "Star Trek" ain't a bad watch. And for someone like me who has no knowledge of the "Star Trek" world whatsoever, it is indeed quite accessible.

4/5

Agreed. I thought it was a great film. I know the original series pretty well, ( I never bothered with the other Trek series, other than the feature films), so it was nice to see the original gang back and all young again, and looking at lot like their old selves in many ways. Keep this thing going. I like this new gang.
Too bad Bond couldn't have taken a similar cue and re-booted with a Sean look-a-like and act-a-like.
Chris Pine, I thought did a decent job of finding Shatner's Kirk. Same with the others, playing the original-cast characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

And now here I go saying good things about a bad movie.

Maybe it's because I watched the superboring SUPERGIRL earlier, but SUPERMAN IV is a fair bit better than I remember. I used to debate whether this or BATMAN & ROBIN was worse. Nah, I'll say this one is better. It's a very well meaning film. Maybe a little too well meaning. SUPERMAN III went to the wall in the farcical direction and now the pendulum swings back to the other side, when Superman should really reside in the middle. This film tries to go back to the mythos that Donner established with the Kryptonian roots, and that's admirable, but for me SUPERMAN III works better as a movie.

I'd really love to see an extended cut of this film. So much is missing, and it sorta just... ends. Well, it reaches it's denouement out of no where. Even though the whole thing is subpar, the film is well meaning and serious enough that I want to see the additional scenes put back. Okay.... NOT THE FIRST NUCLEAR MAN. That's the worst thing I have ever seen put to film. Literally.

I like the double date scene. I wish Lacy's other scenes had been in the film, I'm sure there was some scene setting it up because it comes up suddenly.

Nuclear Man is lame, but not lethal to the film like the punk version would have been.

Lacy can survive in space? WTF? And that flying scene with Lois. WTF? She can fly on her own? And I like when they fly over the Golden Gate and Supes points away from it and says, "Hey. Look at that." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLUbpaqEY_w#t=1m52s

Like the score. I have to say that I like the score.

Super-O-Meter

1. SUPERMAN
2. SUPERMAN II
3. SUPERMAN III
4. SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE
5. SUPERGIRL

With a handful of changes, this could have maybe trumped SUPERMAN III. It's really not quite as bad as I remember it. Or maybe I am in need of serious therapy.

For the record, I've also seen RED, which was decent - Gran Torino for a smaller audience, although I'm only judging on what I've heard about the latter, as I haven't seen it - ; Cox gives a good performance in it.
And many weeks ago, I've also seen the Mesrine stuff; quite watchable, too.

Loomis wrote:

TRUE GRIT. At last, a film from the Coens that doesn't carry the smug and irritating whiff of an elaborate private joke at the viewer's expense. Solid entertainment, with some fine cinematography, although it's never more than watchable fluff, and I'll be darned if I understood more than three or four words from Jeff Bridges throughout.

TRUE GRIT is certainly something of a Coen brothers film for people who don't like the Coens. I wasn't particularly enamored of TRUE GRIT, personally. It was fine, but nothing I'd care to see again.

Loomis wrote:

TETRO. The Buenos Aires backdrop is interesting (one wonders whether TETRO would be half as compelling were it set in New York or London), and Coppola covers it in retro visuals (I thought this flick was set in the 1940s or 1950s until a character mentioned her hatred of George W. Bush) and captures it in striking B&W images. TETRO is never less than gorgeous to look at (indeed how it failed to get a nomination for the Best Cinematography Oscar is beyond me), and much of it is a delightful display of (arguably) a master director paying affectionate tribute to those masters who inspired him - for instance, one key scene looks and feels very reminiscent of another in 8½, and without being simply a tired steal from it. It's great to see a film imbued with the spirit and visuals of directors like Antonioni, Bertolucci and Fellini, and it's also great to see Coppola in his seventies recapturing some of his CONVERSATION/GODFATHER II classic form.

We agree on this much. TETRO is a never less than stunning film. One of the very best examples of digital photography.

Loomis wrote:

It's terrific, too, that a flick like this can even get financed in this day and age.

As with YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH and the upcoming TWIXT, TETRO was actually self-financed by Coppola himself, granting himself complete creative freedom. So I'm not sure that a flick like that can get financed through the usual channels.

Loomis wrote:

But is TETRO up there with the best of Coppola's efforts from way back in the day? Well, no. Sadly, it suffers from a script that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer and, worse, offers us not a single character to care about (in spite of good supporting performances by Alden Ehrenreich and Maribel Verdú - by contrast, Vincent Gallo and Klaus Maria Brandauer are hammy and one-note). True, I failed to spot the big twist coming, so props to Coppola and co. for that, but even so TETRO more or less falls flat as a work of engaging drama. Its characters are too uninteresting and unsympathetic, and its screenplay too melodramatic and overwrought. It's more than worth seeing as an exercise in style, but ultimately it cannot hold a candle to the best of "arthouse" cinema to which it's so heavily indebted, or indeed to the best of Coppola.

[/quote]
This is where we part ways on TETRO. I would not say that TETRO is up there with the best of Coppola, but until the home stretch, I'd say it almost gets there. Of course, I have a great fondness for melodrama (something TETRO seems to continually balance with a strong sense of humor). And, more importantly, I like and care about the characters.

Perhaps the characters in TETRO (which BTW reminded me quite a bit of I AM LOVE, although I much preferred TETRO as a film) will grow on me on subsequent viewings, but right now they constitute the film's major weakness for me.

Not that characters can only be interesting if they're wonderful, charming, pleasant, heroic and selfless people, of course - and, again, maybe I'll appreciate them more next time, but Gallo struck me as simply an asshole, Ehrenreich as simply a drip, Verdú as simply the usual European arthouse flick beautiful woman who has nothing to do other than be bounced between the males and react to whatever it is they're doing, and Brandauer as simply a cartoon character version of an evil genius.

Still, maybe that's the whole point. Perhaps melodrama requires nothing more from its characters. And if Coppola was intending to do nothing more than make an old-fashioned Hollywood melodrama with the look of classic European arthouse, then he succeeded brilliantly.

Regardless of its flaws, TETRO is one of the most interesting (and certainly the best-looking) works by a major U.S. director in years. If TRUE GRIT deserved a Best Picture nomination (which I don't really think it did, although it seems mandatory to nominate the Coens whatever they come up with), then TETRO definitely deserved one too.

Quote :

Perhaps melodrama requires nothing more from its characters.

That's a big misnomer. Good cinematic melodrama is reliant on mis en scene, lighting, editing, direction, and compelling performances etc. Otherwise you might as well film a bloody primary school play. .

Quote :

If TRUE GRIT deserved a Best Picture nomination (which I don't really think it did, although it seems mandatory to nominate the Coens whatever they come up with)

Well, I think THE BIG LEBOWSKI, BURN AFTER READING and A SERIOUS MAN were a lot more deserving of a nomination.

Jack Wade wrote:

STAR TREK (2009)

As someone with no connection to the TV show or previous films whatsoever, I'll go against the grain around these parts and say I quite liked it.

For a bit of harmless sci-fi, "Star Trek" ain't a bad watch. And for someone like me who has no knowledge of the "Star Trek" world whatsoever, it is indeed quite accessible.

4/5

If you called it THE LAST STARFIGHTER and kept the same script and no affiliation with TREK, I'm sure I'd give it a lot less crap.

I still wouldn't like it any more than flotsam like WING COMMANDER though, and would never stop wondering why the top half of the ship looks like the cosmetics section of TARGET and the bottom half looks like every contemporary industrial warehouse type facility you ever saw.

Moneyball

As a cinema, baseball, and sabermetrics fan; Moneyball is like putting ice cream and cake into a blender. Moneyball is entertaining even if you don't like baseball, as the personal relationships explored and acted out are more than enough to keep you occupied. Technical credits and sound design deserve praise as well. You could certainly pick some flaws out, as the script makes zero reference to the major factors behind the A's 2002 success (notably the starting pitching and the left side of the infield). They are nothing, but blips in an overall entertaining package however.

1) Moneyball
2) The Debt

In an effort to watch better movies in theaters, I'm using Metacritic as my viewing guide. Whatever movie gets top marks, regardless of genre, I'll watch. I still need to catch up with Contagion and Drive.

Just got back from TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. Not to sound like a cretin, but I thought it was a total piece of shit. I'm totally unfamiliar with the le Carré source material, and I honestly didn't have a clue what was going on half of the time. The filmmaker appears to have a raging boner for flashbacks, but has absolutely no idea how to (or at least no intention to) orientate the viewer. For a while I was enjoying it, feeling like it was going to fall into place quite nicely and enjoying the look of the film and the subtle performances, but after about an hour I realised that Alfredson was having such joy revelling in the total ignorance of his audience (sans, I assume, those with a knowledge of the book) that I just lost interest. By the end I understood what was going on, but the film presented it in such a frustratingly fragmented way that I just didn't enjoy it.

I will say that I was tired when I went in to watch it, but I doubt I'll watch it again.

2011 so far:

1. The Tree of Life (Malick)
2. Drive (Refn)
3. Heartbeats (Dolan)
4. Film socialisme (Godard)
5. Kaboom (Araki)
6. The Hangover Part II (Whogivesashit?)
7. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Alfredson)

TINKER TAILOR worse than THE HANGOVER PART II? Ouch.

Be interesting to see how TTSS plays with General Public. As I said yesterday, a fair percentage of the audience walked out before it ended.

Loomis wrote:

TRUE GRIT. At last, a film from the Coens that doesn't carry the smug and irritating whiff of an elaborate private joke at the viewer's expense.

I concluded that the Coens were a pair of cockteasers sometime ago.

HJackson wrote:

Just got back from TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. Not to sound like a cretin, but I thought it was a total piece of shit. I'm totally unfamiliar with the le Carré source material, and I honestly didn't have a clue what was going on half of the time. The filmmaker appears to have a raging boner for flashbacks, but has absolutely no idea how to (or at least no intention to) orientate the viewer. For a while I was enjoying it, feeling like it was going to fall into place quite nicely and enjoying the look of the film and the subtle performances, but after about an hour I realised that Alfredson was having such joy revelling in the total ignorance of his audience (sans, I assume, those with a knowledge of the book) that I just lost interest. By the end I understood what was going on, but the film presented it in such a frustratingly fragmented way that I just didn't enjoy it.

I've yet to see TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. It intrigues me because it looks like a James Bond film as directed by Mike Leigh, but I suspect that that's the one and only intriguing thing about it.

Your comments chime with a well-argued and fairly negative review on AICN which points out that TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY "should be crazily exciting. But it isn't. The film never seems to pick up and take you anywhere, it just sort of plays out in front of you." I felt the same way about its director's overrated LET THE RIGHT ONE IN.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51324

I've never read the novel, but I recall trying to watch the Alec Guinness TV version on DVD a few years ago and giving up after a couple of episodes because it all seemed rather.... well, boring. I gather that the new film adaptation is more streamlined than that TV version but also far less coherent - in any case, it does seem as though one needs to read the book simply in order to understand the film (which is unforgivable - the film adaptation ought to stand alone and be perfectly comprehensible by itself), so I imagine that cutting out these TV and film middlemen and going straight to the novel would be the best course of action.

I'm sure I'll check this film out at some point, but probably on Blu-ray. If it's a case of plunking down my hard-earned cash at the cinema, then I'd far rather see DRIVE. TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY strikes me as this year's KING'S SPEECH, i.e. Oscar-baiting stuff from the so-called high end of the so-called British film industry, and a film that is said by all and sundry among the chattering classes to be the best thing since sliced bread, but in the end turns out to be the same old same old ponderous televisual piffle and about as novel as Judi Dench turning up in yet another costume drama and getting yet another Academy Award nomination for it.

I don't think TTSS is meant to be exciting. Its visual motif is a game of chess, and that's how it should be watched - its absorbing and demanding rather than exciting. Many of the exchanges between the characters are in the eyes and require close attention.

THE BEAVER

I would have thought that a bit more originality might have gone into this film, rather it feels like a vaguely familiar film about depression with the addition of a beaver puppet. Mel Gibson, Anton Yelchin, and Jennifer Lawrence give good performances, but it's clear that the film could have benefited from a more deliberate approach, as some aspects of the story, namely those dealing with the issues surrounding the business owned by Gibson's character, feel rushed.

I enjoyed Jodie Foster's BEAVER very much. Very tight, with some meaty pars.

Sorry, old joke I know.

I found Jodie Foster's Beaver hard going. It's very dry, though things got easier once Rave showed some pink.

Loomis wrote:

Regardless of its flaws, TETRO is one of the most interesting (and certainly the best-looking) works by a major U.S. director in years. If TRUE GRIT deserved a Best Picture nomination (which I don't really think it did, although it seems mandatory to nominate the Coens whatever they come up with), then TETRO definitely deserved one too.

Agreed.

Avarice wrote:

Its visual motif is a game of chess, and that's how it should be watched - its absorbing and demanding rather than exciting.

If that's how TTSS actually plays out, then I'm as pleased as punch.

Wow, no love for TTSS. I can't wait for that one and shall probably see it while in England next weekend. The book is fantastic but I suppose the plot of a film of that material could be confusing if you are unfamiliar with it. If it's anything like the book then it's not supposed to be about the action and I really hope it is the opposite of QoS style shaky-cam 'modern' spy films. If it were light and fluffy and could be watched with only half a mind then I would say justice would not have been done to the source material.

Thinking about TTSS again I think I did it a disservice in saying it was unexciting.

It is exciting. Visually exciting.

Which is the last thing I'd expect from such a cerebral film. Every shot is beautifully composed, with a lot of eye-catching foregrounding. BTW, I'd be very interested to know how the aircraft landing shot was achieved.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

Donner's material is wonderful. Pity we never got his full version. What he did was so buoyant and fun, and funnier than the shit Lester threw in. This cut is interesting, but problematic. It just doesn't work as a movie. I don't think it's put together all that well, especially the first part before the titles. That's bloody awful. I'd be curious to see a hybrid cut. Now, what would I do?

-Begin with the trial of Zod, with Brando. Cut out the little part before they're put into the hula hoops. And end it like Lester's version, with, "YOUR HEIRS!!!" Cue music.

-Come up with a montage title sequence that has Brando.

-Now things get tricky. Keep the original Daily Planet opening, or the Paris sequence? Not only will it determine how Zod is freed, but it will have repercussions with the Lois subplot. Donner's Daily Planet is so much more alive than Lesters, which feels like a boring Sunday afternoon at the office.

-After this I'd keep a lot of what was cut out of the Donner Cut. The DC just doesn't flow well and it has too much missing. I'd of course have Brando instead of York. Sadly, the screen test has to go.

Fcuking Salkinds. Those petty, vindictive bastards ruined this series.

Super-O-Meter

1. SUPERMAN
2. SUPERMAN II
3. SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT
4. SUPERMAN III
5. SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE
6. SUPERGIRL

Because the DC is sloppy and incomplete. Like this post.

Avarice wrote:

Thinking about TTSS again I think I did it a disservice in saying it was unexciting.

It is exciting. Visually exciting.

Which is the last thing I'd expect from such a cerebral film. Every shot is beautifully composed, with a lot of eye-catching foregrounding. BTW, I'd be very interested to know how the aircraft landing shot was achieved.

That's surprising. I often assume that films like that lack quality visuals and solely rely on dialogue. Might catch it next weekend.

Harmsway wrote:

Avarice wrote:

Its visual motif is a game of chess, and that's how it should be watched - its absorbing and demanding rather than exciting.

If that's how TTSS actually plays out, then I'm as pleased as punch.

Same here. I guess I'm being oddly negative towards this film without having seen it. Maybe it's because I've been burned by so many films that were hyped to the skies. It's almost as though I'm already trying to figure out what the catch is with TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, which I suppose is unreasonably pessimistic of me. If it really is an absorbing and demanding chess game of a film, replete with terrific performances, fine visuals, dead-on period detail of Britain in the 1970s, and so on and so forth, well, great.