Last Movie you Watched?

trevanian wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

trevanian wrote:

FourDot wrote:

Love Blanchard. I'd argue that Malcolm X is a decent pic, though. That main title is amazing.

Blanchard can do genre stuff. His Inside Man score is pretty damn good.

Agreed on INSIDE, but my fave of his is THE CAVEMAN'S VALENTINE.

EDIT ADDON: Saw ROSEMARY'S BABY today. Only third time, but it worked about a million time better than it had on previous viewings (both VHS, if that gives you an idea of how long it has been since I last tried.) Can't believe I wasn't totally wowed before, just about everything works in this thing. And the old couple really made me think that David Lynch must have been channelling this for the 'little' old couple that turn up in MULHOLLAND DRIVE..

Have you seen REPULSION and THE TENANT yet?

Yeah, they're both really something -- even bought the latter for the wife. She is extremely resistant to rewatching CHINATOWN, figuring it is going to be about as painful as opening up one's veins with the top of a soup can, but I'm still angling for that before 2011 ends ...

She doesn't like CHINATOWN? I love CHINATOWN.

She thinks it is a great movie, but the situation at the end is just too rough. Sort of like SALVADOR for me, where I can't deal with the scene with the nuns.

THOR

Adequate and sometimes superb cinematic introduction to Thor for the sake of the movie-going public. While enjoyable, it was somewhat small-in-scale in the Earth segments, and at times the CGI looked like something from Lord of the Rings or the earlier Harry Potters, say 2002 or 2003.

The only thing about it that was particularly remarkable was Tom Hiddleston, I thought. An uncommonly good villain, especially in the Marvel stable. I'm glad he's back for The Avengers.

I would agree Loki was great, but I think the entire cast came together quite well, and raised the film above a sometimes paltry script and too-often lackluster effects.

Hemsworth works, which is surprising. Portman isn't given much to do. Hopkins is actually pretty good, going by his more recent standards (which are perilously low). I don't understand why you would cast Kat Dennings if you're not going to get her ample tits out, but whatever. Skarsgard is decent. Also in the "surprisingly effective" column is Idris Elba.

I liked the design of the film, but not some of the arbitrary and stupid directorial and photographical choices (this is the same director/DP teaming from Sleuth, so I'm not entirely surprised), namely dutching the shizenhousen out of most scenes.

Personally, I thought it was a rung below Captain America and First Class in the comic book stakes this year. Streets ahead of that Green Lantern abomination, though.

Has Branagh ever seen BATTLEFIELD EARTH?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

THOR

Adequate and sometimes superb cinematic introduction to Thor for the sake of the movie-going public. While enjoyable, it was somewhat small-in-scale in the Earth segments, and at times the CGI looked like something from Lord of the Rings or the earlier Harry Potters, say 2002 or 2003.

Yeah, pretty much decent overall. While I think it did a good job with the characters and I knew nothing about Thor. Still I hope to see far more interesting adventures and less of Thor smashing coffee cups at Denny's. I do like how colorful and sometimes campy it was, it never takes itself too seriously like many of the comic book films in the previous decade which along with CAPTAIN AMERICA and FIRST CLASS was pretty refreshing for the summer.

One Day in September (1999, Macdonald)

Good. Very good. The ineptitude on part of the Germans around the whole incident is nothing short of mind-boggling. But this is a very well made doco, free of all the staid fluff that sets a lot of them back. Macdonald should stick to this kind of stuff - it blows his (hugely flawed) narrative forays out of the water.

ANONYMOUS (2011)

Caught an early screening of this last week. Pleasantly surprised, as Emmerich handled the project well, surprisingly enough. It's a costume drama through and through.

It's a little bloated and sometimes a tad convoluted, but it's a passable change-up from something like the awful "2012."

B-

I am really looking forward to ANONYMOUS. As for THOR, yeah even my girlfriend was like "why are all the shots tilted?"

I was disappointed to hear that ANONYMOUS isn't quite the gonzo-crazy Emmerich-fest I thought it might be. Instead, it appears to be a fairly run-of-the-mill period piece. Shame.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 (2011)
directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman

There's no doubt that the formula is starting to become stale, and this film doesn't really do anything to change that. The only thing that's fresh here is the fan-mounted oscillating camera, which is a pretty effective little trick in this film, but it isn't sufficiently utilized. I also found it curious that the filmmakers decided to go in the direction of a prequel, especially after the events of PA2, which left the door wide-open for a sequel. Because of this prequel business, it's no coincidence that this film is the least plot-driven of all the films. Unfortunately, PA3 is also the least scary film in the franchise, mostly due to it's complete reliance on jump scares and it's obvious telegraphing of said jump scares.

Which isn't to say this is a bad film, because I don't think it is. The previous two films entertained the hell out of me, and PA3 is no different. There's still some great, freaky shit going on in this film.
7/10

PARANORMAL ACTICITY (2007)
directed by Oren Peli

No this is how you do a documentary-style horror film. The way the scenario is presented is practical. Every scene makes sense and feels like it needs to be there, whereas in both sequels, there will be numerous times when you just have to ask yourself "Why the hell would the characters even be filming this scene?" The sequels are also filled with jump scares, something that isn't really found that often in this film. Instead, Peli takes the time to really craft the mood of the film. He is able to make you frightened of something that isn't typically frightening (a generic, 21st century town home in a sunny Californian suburb) and slowly builds this mood until the end, when the atmosphere of claustrophobia and tension is nearly suffocating.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for these types of films, but I really think this is a good example of a classic modern horror film. And, along with THE EXORCIST, it's the only film to ever keep my awake at night.
9/10

dr. strangelove's Halloween Movie Marathon
1. The Thing (1982)
2. Paranormal Activity
3. The Exorcist
4. Rosemary's Baby
5. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
6. Repulsion
7. Paranormal Activity 3
8. [REC]
9. The Thing (2011)

Raiders of the Lost Ark - tonight in cinema and it is really a much grander experience than watching it on tv.

I really don't get all the hooplah for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Cheap scares for a cheap audience, just like its spiritual predecessor - THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

VAMPYR (1932, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer)

Where David Lynch got all his tricks. VAMPYR has the creepiest death scene I've ever encountered in a film.

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get all the hooplah for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Cheap scares for a cheap audience, just like its spiritual predecessor - THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

Saw the first fifteen minutes of PA, bored me to tears. Just yesterday I hung out with two friends, also film buffs. I thought because they like scary movies they probably liked PA, nope, they didn't like it either, even my friend said she was baffled about the box office grossing for 3. I hugged them because I swear practically EVERYONE I knew raved about it.

Harmsway wrote:

VAMPYR (1932, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer)

Where David Lynch got all his tricks. VAMPYR has the creepiest death scene I've ever encountered in a film.

I never have gotten around to seeing that. Your first sentence intrigues me. I had thought he got all his inspiration from moving his hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c13LqKZRSBI

Makeshift Python wrote:

Saw the first fifteen minutes of PA, bored me to tears. Just yesterday I hung out with two friends, also film buffs.

I think that's a testament to what kind of a film PA is. It's not constant thrills, nor is it particularly violent or gruesome. Like you said, the beginning of the film is pretty arbitrary. Nothing is really happening, it's just a guy screwing around with a camera trying to film some stuff happening around his house that he thinks is a joke. It's a slow-burn of a film. It just builds and builds and builds until the final scene, when everything explodes.

A lot coming of movies coming out of Hollywood today attempt to recreate that low-budget home video style of filming, but PA actually is just that. IMDb lists the film's budget as $15,000.

Sharky wrote:

Cheap scares for a cheap audience, just like its spiritual
predecessor - THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

Sure, I can buy that argument. But, it's not like the film is trying to be something it isn't. It's a super low-budget novelty film. The filmmakers recognized that, and deliberately made it in such a way. For me, the beauty of the film is in it's simplicity, and what Peli was able to achieve with almost no money.

The Purple Plain (1954)
Dir. Robert Parrish

An effective Burma-set World War II adventure with Gregory Peck as a Canadian RAF pilot, haunted by the death of his wife after London was caught in the blitz. Shortly upon arrival in Burma, he falls in love with nurse Win Min Than (her first and only film role) and is involved in a plane crash which puts him and his co-pilots through the most devastating test of the human spirit as they are required to survive in a Japanese-occupied desert. Decent performances all round from Peck, Maurice Denham (won a BAFTA), Brenda De Banzie and Bernard Lee, but the real standout is Win Min Than who comes across as a very accomplished actress despite her relative inexperience. Well directed bombing and dream sequences make this a very satisfying film.

:3*:



Operation Crossbow (1965)
Dir. Michael Anderson

*spoilers*
Enjoyable enough World War II thriller that looks great but the high production values can't hide the shambolic excuses for scenes of great drama. George Peppard and Tom Courtenay are agents drafted in by British Intelligence to go undercover as Dutch volunteers, taking the names of real, supposedly deceased men to investigate and ultimately stop the German progression of V-1 and V-2 bomb development. Peppard encounters his alter ego's wife (Sophia Loren) and Courtenay discovers that the man he is impersonating is wanted for by the police for murder. A well worked first act is deflated by a poorly-written second and the scenes between Peppard and Loren simply don't work. Loren is too credulous and her character comes across as totally unbelievable, Peppard is too trusting and consequently his mate is captured and killed as a result of his stupidity - and he doesn't even notice his disappearance. Loren is also killed off for no reason other than the writers (among them Emeric Pressburger) being unable to incorporate her into the ending of the piece. By the third act, the film has quickly fallen into the trap that so many War films do of showing 15 ineffective minutes of civilians being blown to smithereens to try and convey some sense of danger to the audience. Doesn't work. A star studded cast including Trevor Howard, John Mills, Richard Todd, Lilli Palmer, Robert Brown and Sylvia Simms make this worth watching, but Anthony Quayle is unconvincing as a Nazi spy, although Patrick Wymark is perhaps the best cinematic Churchill I've seen. On another day this would have been 2 stars for sure, but I enjoyed it so...

:3*:




Shalako (1968)
Dir. Edward Dmytryk

The film Sean Connery opted to make instead of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is substantially better than I expected it to be. Although the 'legendary' Shalako doesn't really do anything except fight Woody Strode and shag Brigitte Bardot, Connery looks very comfortable in the role. Not bad for a Briton in a western. The rest of the cast includes Stephen Boyd, Jack Hawkins, Peter van Eyck, Valerie French and Eric Sykes (!) as European settlers, happily blowing the wildlife away until they shoot a Native American (correct term?) instead. Bad move. It's not quite an epic western as the title song suggests (it's shot entirely in dull Spanish locations too) but the cat and mouse chase between the Indians (correct term?) and the Europeans is actually quite exciting. Drawn out and long-winded, but exciting nonetheless at times. Honor Blackman turns in the best performance and she's back rolling in hay after her antics in Goldfinger.
Not bad at all.

:3*:


Got this stuck in my head now :

I'm off to see TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER SPY. I've been prescribed Diazepam AKA Valium. .

G section wrote:

The Purple Plain (1954)

Didn't have my contacts in and read "Purple Rain".

The Son (2002, Dardenne...ses)

For whatever reason, I seem to go into every Dardenne film apprehensive, and invariable come out of them amazed. This is quite possibly the best of them, I don't know. I give Rosetta the edge for the time being, but damn... it's very difficult to talk about it without spoiling everything for anyone who hasn't seen it, but basically, everyone should see it. It's just so simple on the surface, so effortless in terms of technique and storytelling, and yet it speaks volumes.

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get all the hooplah for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Cheap scares for a cheap audience, just like its spiritual predecessor - THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

True, but the endings alone almost justify the viewing experience, I think. And hell, it beats watching "Saw 12" or "The Human Centipede."

Decided to watch TV for a change:

They Drive by Night

Decent film with an interesting female character who goes hysterical in the court (best scene). All with the typical Hollywood studio system enforced and rushed happy ending (weakest bit).


In the Electrical Mist

Run-of-the-mill with a civil war general repeatedly turning up to philosophize for TL Jones. Goodman's a bore.
Not above the average.