Last Movie you Watched?

Loomis wrote:

Seve wrote:

Too bad Bond couldn't have taken a similar cue and re-booted with a Sean look-a-like and act-a-like.

It did, more or less. Craig comes closer than any of the other post-Sean Bonds to being a Connery-a-like. He's not an exact clone, of course (but would you really want that?), but he does remind me a lot of Connery - visually, they kinda sorta look alike quite a bit of the time (the hair colour issue excepted, obviously), and there's the same sort of roughness and physicality.

Acting-wise, though, I guess Craig's rather closer to Dalton than to Connery. If you ask me, he combines the best of Sean and Tim.

actually I believe it was tiffanywint who said that
:study:

Senna

Forgot to say I saw the documentary Senna a couple of weeks back. All archival material which has been very cleverly fashioned into a traditional film narrative.

I'm not sure either Prost or Senna come out of it too well, but very compelling viewing.

Avarice wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

This film is on the whole of outrageously high quality and it is indeed incomparable.

Well, it's good, if one of his lesser works.

I've said it before, but Mann is the only director still making films that take men seriously. In everything else they're shown to be either buffoons or psychopaths.

Thank God women were around to construct civilization.

That's why I like stuff like ICE ROAD TRUCKERS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CwD7Uo_4vs

Watchmen (2009) [Director's Cut]

I fcuking LOVED it. I wanna pick up the Blu-ray. I've never read the comic, so I can't compare. I'll accept that the comic is the better item, and maybe I'll check it out. Comics just don't reach me, though. I love superheroes, but I prefer film as a medium. Comics to me are just pictures and word bubbles.

I'd say this film could have had more drive. Hearing it's very faithful to the comic, it seems the pace is suited for that medium. The film could have loosened things up a little while preserving the story and characters. Is is true that Snyder essentially just shot it like the comic looks? Film is a different medium with different rules (because none of you here know that already), and they probably should have loosened things up for the transition.

As for the relative lack of drive, the film has a feeling that things happen rather than a feeling that things are happening. If that makes any sense and isn't just rhetorical BS.

Regardless, the film works for me. It works gangbusters. It makes me think of BLADE RUNNER. Not just in the noir look feel, but in that a lot of people wrote that film off as nothing but a static exercise in amazing production design. Neither film is the most... accessible. But I find BLADE RUNNER quite deep and affecting. I'll see what happens on further viewings of WATCHMEN.

I really like the cast. The obvious standout is Jackie Earle Haley. He is EXCELLENT. I mean holy shit, this guy owns this film. One of the best comic book heroes I've seen portrayed on film. I also like Patrick Wilson as the nebbish Nite Owl, Billy Crudup as the detached blue cock man, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (the love child of Robert Downey Jr. and Javier Bardem) as Comedian (pity he's not in the film more than he is).

Malin Akerman is goregous, Carla Gugino rocks. I'd say the weak link is Matthew Goode as the ubereurogay Veidt. I hear Jude Law was in talks to do it. Wish he had. The part needed real charisma. He's gotta be screamingly gay, but still heroic. At least Law would have commanded the screen. I hear Tom Cruise was considered. THAT would have been hysterical. Goode just makes me expect him to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZR9SA5pOg

What else. Nice soundtrack. Like the use of "I'm Your Boogey Man".

Basically yes, Goode is the weakest link in the cast. In terms of look, I will say that while the framing is often taken directly from the comic, the colour palette is more BLADE RUNNER, whereas the comic's palette was much warmer colours -- specifically secondary colours like purples, yellows, etc. The comic, if anything, is probably more static and talky than the film. The ending, other than the obvious difference, also has a bit of a different (more ambiguous) tone, with less outright denunciation of Veidt (for example Nite Owl never beats on him like he does in the film). Its worth taking a look at, although it's important to realize that the book is on one hand the real ignition moment of "dark, gritty" comics of the 80s while at the same time parodying and emulating some of the look of classic 50s square jaw comics.

Loomis wrote:

HEAT is perfect in every way and one of my favourite films.

Agreed. I fucking love HEAT.


GOLDFINGER (1964)
directed by Guy Hamilton
OCTOPUSSY(1983)
directed by John Glen

There was a time when GOLDFINGER was one of my favorite Bond movies. Then for a while there, I thought it was a little overrated. After this viewing, I look upon it a little more favorably. I love the leisurely pace of it, and how it's a very observatory experience, especially for Bond. His futile attempts to foil Goldfinger's plans keep backfiring, and it isn't really towards the end that Bond actually does something right. Personally, I prefer Connery's performances in DN and FRWL to this one, simply because he comes off a little smug here, but his chemistry with Gert Frobe is fantastic. The laser-beam sequence is one of my favorite scenes in the entire franchise. I just love how Frobe casually converses with his scientists as Bond is about to be cut in half, and the "Two words that you may have overheard that mean nothing to you." exchange. There are some redundancies in the storyline (why is Tilly in this, anyway?) and some of Hamilton's sillier additions feel a bit out of sync with what is taken from the original novel, but it's all in good fun.

As far as OCTOPUSSY goes, my feeling on it remain unchanged. Aside from the obvious deficiencies in the story, I actually think it's one of the most fun Bond adventures. There's some funny Moore-ish doalogue ("Thank heavens for hard currency!") and the whole thing doesn't take itself too seriously....until the end, that is, when it takes a strange turn into a race-against-time Cold War type of thriller. I still think it's a very fun ride, though, and is Roger's best Bond film next to FYEO.

8/10 for GOLDFINGER, and 7/10 for OCTOPUSSY.


DRIVE (2011)
directed by Nicolas Winding Refn

(minor spoilers to follow)

For a film titled DRIVE, I was really expecting, well....more driving. Outside of the introductory heist (which was excellent) and the short getaway in the Mustang (also excellent), there weren't any other chase scenes. Gosling is ice-cold in the lead. His role is mostly non-verbal, but he makes it count when he has lines. Refn really slows the pace down, and has a habit of taking a 20 second scene and extending it for another minute. Sometimes it works well, and other times it's incredibly awkward. The elevator scene was a particularly good example of this. Gosling slowly realizes the gun in the bad guys jacket, then proceeds to kiss Carey Mulligan in super slow-mo for what seems like forever. Refn does a great job of really taking you out of the scene, almost forgetting what kind of situation they're in. The scene then erupts into violence as Gosling beats the shit out of the guy and breaks his skull open with his boot.

Speaking of the violence, it's essentially what gives the film it's tension. But, it's not so much the brutality of it -or the quick and graphic nature in which it's presented- than it is it's placement in the story. The first hour of the film is pretty tame. Gosling is bonding with Mulligan and her son, and then the next thing you know, Christina Hendricks brains are splattered on the bathroom mirror. Every scene after that feels like a mafia guy is going to come out and shank someone at any second. It really comes out of left field, and Refn shows it all in it's skull crushing, artery slashing, gut stabbing, jugular slicing, hammer crushing glory. That being said, I thought the violence was really kind of over-the-top and gratuitous. I understand that it's supposed to be shocking, but at points it felt almost humorous and unnatural. I mean, these are mafia guys, why wouldn't they just shoot each other with a handgun?

Anyway, I loved the super-cool style of the film, the music, and the driving scenes. The rest of it came off a bit hollow to me. I'm not going to say I disliked the film. I really liked it for what it was. I was just left wanting more, I guess.
7.5/10

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Basically yes, Goode is the weakest link in the cast. In terms of look, I will say that while the framing is often taken directly from the comic, the colour palette is more BLADE RUNNER, whereas the comic's palette was much warmer colours -- specifically secondary colours like purples, yellows, etc. The comic, if anything, is probably more static and talky than the film. The ending, other than the obvious difference, also has a bit of a different (more ambiguous) tone, with less outright denunciation of Veidt (for example Nite Owl never beats on him like he does in the film). Its worth taking a look at, although it's important to realize that the book is on one hand the real ignition moment of "dark, gritty" comics of the 80s while at the same time parodying and emulating some of the look of classic 50s square jaw comics.

The ending, other than the obvious difference, also has a bit of a different (more ambiguous) tone, with less outright denunciation of Veidt (for example Nite Owl never beats on him like he does in the film).

Not sure what the obvious difference is, what is it? But yeah, Nite Owl beating him up. Not sure I cared for that. And it could have done with outright denunciation. Made me think of THE DARK KNIGHT, but of course on a much larger scale.

while at the same time parodying and emulating some of the look of classic 50s square jaw comics.

I was picking up on that, especially in terms of Veidt. Can't be arsed to remember that other name I saw on wiki. Everybody else is a bit run down, but he's all... whatever he is.

Nite Owl doesn't look like a guy who can whoop ass. These are just regular people, right? Dr. Manhattan is the only one with real "super powers"?

Love that Nite Owl ship.

That's right, Manhatten is the only superperson. Nite Owl is basically the nerd who lives out his Batman fantasy. But basically all of the cast are designed as commentaries on and analogues of common superhero archetypes. Moore's whole line of thinking was that if superheroes were real, then only really fucked up people would be superheroes. As for the ending it's basically the same, but a different Maguffin -- instead of using Manhatten's powers, Veidt creates a kind of fake giant alien squid monster through a series of convoluted schemes that convinces Earth to unite in defense against the fake alien threat. By making it Manhatten it eliminated about another hour's worth of plot clues and exposition and instead built the ending into the characters.

I haven't read the comic but I like the idea of the world thinking it was Manhattan a little better.

Anyway, love Watchmen, good to hear you were into it Tux.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I haven't read the comic but I like the idea of the world thinking it was Manhattan a little better.

Anyway, love Watchmen, good to hear you were into it Tux.

Yeah, me too. Squid monster.... no. Though trying to trick Manhatten is probably pretty folly.

I really liked the film's humor, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKKyqCVC060#t=4m55s

The riot scene is great, with Nite Owl being f-ing useless.

Got a bloody swirly.

Yeah, agreed about the characters being well done and acted. One who wasn't mentioned, Hollis Mason, the original Nite Owl. Seems like the kind of dude to hang out for a beer and listen to his stories of crime fighting. Too bad he got offed but he threw in some good hooks before biting the dust.

Nice Kissinger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8

Okay, the Nixon dude. Kinda looked like a guy in a Nixon mask. A little creepy. Made me think of this...



And I liked the scene where they screw in the ship to Leonard Cohen.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

And I liked the scene where they screw in the ship to Leonard Cohen.

Most people hate that moment.

If you don't want to bother reading WATCHMEN as a comic, you could just watch the WATCHMEN MOTION COMIC, which is the comic, panel by panel, animated and narrated. It's a bit dodgy in places (the animation is a bit stiff, and the narration is only done by one man, who then does all the voices--even the women), but on the whole, I dig it. It has a surprisingly strong original score. It comes packaged in the WATCHMEN ULTIMATE CUT set if you're going to check that out.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Watchmen (2009) [Director's Cut]

I fcuking LOVED it. I wanna pick up the Blu-ray. I've never read the comic, so I can't compare. I'll accept that the comic is the better item, and maybe I'll check it out. Comics just don't reach me, though. I love superheroes, but I prefer film as a medium. Comics to me are just pictures and word bubbles.

I don't like comics, either, but WATCHMEN ain't yer regular comic. It's the acknowledged masterpiece of the comic book genre, and I believe Time magazine cited it as one of the hundred greatest novels of the twentieth century - yep, they called it a novel, and didn't even qualify it by putting the word "graphic" before the word "novel".

I loved WATCHMEN when I saw it at the cinema, and I subsequently bought it on Blu-ray (I've never seen the director's cut, though, or the even more extended version), but I love the comic (which I'll call it for the sake of convenience) even more. I read it before seeing the film and was just completely blown away by it. I think Harmsway, for one, will be able to do a much better job of explaining why the comic is such an exceptional and must-read work, so all I'll say is that it's a serious work of art (not just visual art but also the art of dramatic storytelling), a comic book for people who don't read comic books, and a book that completely nuked my preconceptions of what comic books were and my scepticism about what they could be. I don't think there's anything else like it, not even in the Alan Moore canon, with the exception of FROM HELL.

Ah, FROM HELL. Now *there's* a comic. So brutal and dark I hesitate to recommend it to most people, but the comic book has never been more sophisticated or powerful. And I don't think you could come up with a decent cinematic version of it.

I think you'll find Fat Freddy's Cat, the Fat Slags, or R. Crumb's Devil Girl are the discerning consumer's comic characters of choice.

Crumb's Genesis bible adaptation is on my most wanted list. I understand Eve may have pubic hair. Shocking, if true.

I might have to pop over to Arts and Faith to discuss it.

Harmsway wrote:

Ah, FROM HELL. Now *there's* a comic. So brutal and dark I hesitate to recommend it to most people, but the comic book has never been more sophisticated or powerful. And I don't think you could come up with a decent cinematic version of it.

The filmmakers must have thought that too, because they didnt even fucking try. What a terrible movie. But the comic? That's Moore's masterpiece, undoubtably. If it were to be adapted in any form, it would have to be a long-form mini-series of the kind they used to do in the 70s.

Avarice wrote:

Crumb's Genesis bible adaptation is on my most wanted list. I understand Eve may have pubic hair. Shocking, if true.

For what it's worth, Crumb's GENESIS is pretty good. And yep, there's pubic hair.

He's not the first one to offer a more explicit, earthy take on the Bible, though. There's the Keith Giffen/Dave Elliott/Scott Hampton THE BIBLE: EDEN, which was produced for Penthouse, and, unsurprisingly, portrays a very sex-focused reading of the Genesis account. That said, it actually has some compelling ideas. In this one, too, Eve features pubic hair, though she's also blonde and blue-eyed.

Definitely read Watchmen sometime, Tux. There's a lot of stuff in there that can only be done in the comic book format - Moore & Gibbons deliberately made it as a vehicle to show off what the medium was capable of, as opposed to movies or novels. It's not long and is a real absorbing page-turner, anyway.

I probably will read WATCHMEN. I peeked through a copy at my local bookstore, but it was 20 bucks. Amazon has it for 10, and the Director's Cut Blu-ray for 10 as well. So I'll get 'em both the price of the comic.

Do library's have graphic novels? I'll have to look into that. If I want to read it a second time I can always buy it then. In my experience, I fly through comics. I just want the story, and I don't spend time staring at the pictures. Like I said, comics don't really reach me usually. Storywise, yes. But in terms of the medium getting that story across I find it a bit dry.

Superman Returns (2006)

Great first act. Everything up to and including the plane rescue comes off as good or great. Lex Luthor is reintroduced well, that long shot looking so much like Gene Hackman it's freaky. Clark is reintroduced pretty well. Jimmy, the Daily Planet, Mr. White. They come back pretty well too. The train set sequence is nicely whimsical. And the rescue is good.

Then the bottom drops out in the blink of an eye.

They needed a different story. They needed Superman having to prove his worth to whole world. That's a compelling story, a widely resented Superman getting his glory back. Then his seeming death at the end would REALLY mean something. This is just kitchen sink crap with a fraking kid. Ugh, I hate that damn kid.

The cast is uneven. The good includes Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey. The weak link is Kate Bosworth as teen mother Lois Lane. Too young, and next to no presence. Routh does an admirable job, but he's hampered by a frankly dull script that doesn't give much to do. He comes off as well-intentioned but a bit dull, just like the movie itself. His Clark act just doesn't have any spark, and his chemistry with Bosworth doesn't exist. Langella, virtually always a high point of any movie he's in, is half way in a coma here. And Sam Worthington as Jimmy is a little much.

A few nice moments arise here and there. There is a nice sense of humor, but not enough sense of play. That's what Donner had, and if Singer wanted to pay homage to Donner's film so much he should have emulated that.

Yeah. Too bad Superman couldn't save this film.

Super-O-Meter

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

At least SUPERMAN III isn't boring as fcuk. And it at least goes somewhere regardless of how absolutely nutty it's plot is.

Death Wish 3.

What a crock of shit. Anything done by that cheap Cannon group in the 80s sucked more ass than an enema. Was an embarassment to the first two films. PS Is Stallone still doing a remake?

Quite eloquent.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Do library's have graphic novels?

Yep.

Harmsway wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Do library's have graphic novels?

Yep.

Some of my comic-collecting colleagues frequent the libraries quite often to check out the graphic novels and other collected trades.

I prefer to go on eBay and get the 34.95 books for under 10 bucks still sealed in the polywrap.

127 Hours (2010)

Kinda dreaded seeing it. Hiker dude with his arm stuck under a rock cuts it off with a dull knife. Sounds like fun. Coulda been a hoot if written by Beckett.

The movie is alright. I'm not one for Boyle's style of direction to put it lightly. There were some nice shots, and the rain sequence really came off very well, but the music video jumping around and shit doesn't do it for me.

Franco is good. Here's a test for an actor. I studied at Playhouse West under the same teacher he had, and the way we work is very much focused on working off of the other actor(s). So to be alone (at least on screen) with a damn rock is not something many actors could pull off. Franco acquits himself well.

It's a good movie, and it portrays the situation pretty well. I just wish Boyle would stop feeding his camera so much caffeine.