Last Movie you Watched?

Sharky wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

HALLOWEEN

Carpenter's best work, next to THE THING and ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13.

I love it, especially the final bit of dialogue. Shame that Loomis and Myers were turned into a comedy duo after this one.

I really like the look of the film, especially how the sun glares in the daylight/early evening scenes in Annie's car, and (Don't Fear) The Reaper playing on the stereo. I always found the transition to night pretty haunting too, with The Shape''s car tailing them, like some phantom presence in the frame.

Do you know what cameras and film stock it was shot on? Panaflex? Although HALLOWEEN was low budget, it doesn't look it. Nor does ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 for that matter, which has got a similar thing going on.

Can't answer your technical questions, but just to echo your points that ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and HALLOWEEN are both quite wonderful visually (as well as being terrific films).

Can you pick out the psycho whore killer?

Blow Out (1981)

Wowie. Superb flickerino. Like that French dude said, "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to." Certainly stands with BLOW-UP and THE CONVERSATION, and it may end up being my favorite of the three.

You know what undid my world? Seeing how great John Travolta is. I'm sure he was fine in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, but I haven't seen that in about 10 years. How did he go from this to talking babies and Kirstie Alley? And then to making movies where his costumes just get more and more bizarre.

That fireworks shot. Wow. One of most striking shots I've ever seen, and I was already impressed with the red, white, and blue lights on so-and-so's face. Kinda powerful and tragic and stuff.

I did wonder why he didn't just go to the TV station with his tapes. And why he wasn't arrested for plowing through the parade and nearly killing 50 people.

Vilmos Zsigmond. Love his work. There are some shots where I thought, "That's exactly how I want my hooker-superhero movie set in 1981 to look". A movie I want to make some day.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Can you pick out the psycho whore killer?

.

surely not Jane Curtin

Hilly wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Can you pick out the psycho whore killer?

.

surely not Jane Curtin

The psycho whore killer kills whores, but is not a whore.

Well, A) incredibly bad joke on my part it seems or at least misread and B) Jane Curtin, a whore well I never.

C) another bad joke there.

It actually kinda looks like JGL is garroting Jane Curtin.

Halloween was shot on Panavision Anamorphic in 2:35:1

the movie cost $320,000 to make and about $160,000 of it was spend on the Panavision Cameras

(Halloween went on to gross over $47 Million worldwide making it one of the most successful independent film of all time (adjusted to today's dollar, it would be about $160 million)

Assault on Precinct 13 was shot on Panavision Anamorphic in 2:35:1 too with a total budget of only $150,000 including actors' salaries

The White Tuxedo wrote:

You know what undid my world? Seeing how great John Travolta is. I'm sure he was fine in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, but I haven't seen that in about 10 years. How did he go from this to talking babies and Kirstie Alley? And then to making movies where his costumes just get more and more bizarre.

The one with talking dogs was the lowest of low: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-oJ1D5aZcM And he did Pulp Fiction right after that. Talk about a rebound.

I haven't seen BLOWN-UP, but I do agree about preferring De Palma's flick to THE CONVERSATION, not taking anything away from that, that's just as great, but BLOWN OUT was more moving. Travolta and Allen had the right chemistry, making the ending more tragic. The bit with him covering his ears in agony in the sound mixing room, Christ! He should have received a nom.

Makeshift Python wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

You know what undid my world? Seeing how great John Travolta is. I'm sure he was fine in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, but I haven't seen that in about 10 years. How did he go from this to talking babies and Kirstie Alley? And then to making movies where his costumes just get more and more bizarre.

The one with talking dogs was the lowest of low: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-oJ1D5aZcM And he did Pulp Fiction right after that. Talk about a rebound.

I haven't seen BLOWN-UP, but I do agree about preferring De Palma's flick to THE CONVERSATION, not taking anything away from that, that's just as great, but BLOWN OUT was more moving. Travolta and Allen had the right chemistry, making the ending more tragic. The bit with him covering his ears in agony in the sound mixing room, Christ! He should have received a nom.

BLOWN-UP? Is that related to BLOW'D UP? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4VEGiIQmk

BLOW-UP just didn't do as much for me, even though it's a highly regarded movie.

THIRST

Nowhere near as emotionally powerful as OLDBOY, but certainly the best modern variation of a vampire tale I've seen yet.
The priest's struggle to maintain his moral integrity in his new life-form as a vampire was interesting to observe, particularly his struggle with the demons of sexual desire as represented by the girl Tae-ju, who I thought was wonderfully played by sweet Ok-bin Kim. She is also pretty good in the humorous scenes, of which there are plenty, and a lot of them are truly funny. Indeed I believe the humour is the best aspect about the film (the lust to murder can be portrayed in a funny way, it works!). The movie also has several striking images, such as the last one with the priest's shoes falling down from the girl's "ash legs", if I may call it so. :) Sex and death once again prove to be good companions in a gifted director's hands. It's not an excellent film, but has enough qualities to make it really enjoyable.

Sweet Smell Of Success (1957)
Dir. Alexander Mackendrick

Absolutely loved it. It's as near to perfection as films get. It's endlessly quotable, it contains some terrific performances, James Wong Howe does a monumental job with the photography yet again (as does Elmer Bernstein with the Jazz score) and it has probably one of the best endings of all time - love how Tony Curtis lies throughout the film and gets away with it, but when he tells the truth for once he's accused of lying! Curtis and Lancaster aside, the supporting cast are great too, particularly Emile Meyer as Hunsecker's 'fat friend.' And Susan Harrison. :shock: And we get to see plenty of New York which is always cool. I'd pick my favourite quotes but there's simply too many to choose from - brilliant stuff. Superb filmmaking.

:5*:

The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
Dir. Joseph Sargent

Pretty damn good and a lot more humorous than I was expecting (the ending in particular is a hoot!) although they cheated by not explaining exactly how Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam and co were able to override the train's dead man's switch - all they seemed to do was to screw on a pole to the axis. Abracadabra (!). One critic (I forget who but we're talking Radio Times 'expert' here) observed that the passengers were such dreadful stereotypes that they deserved to perish. Bit harsh, but they were bloody awful. Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly) and Shaw and Balsam are clearly having fun hamming it up somewhat. It's paced very well too. Solid.

:4*:

Crossplot (1969)
Dir. Alvin Rakoff

Just an extended episode of The Saint really, no real surprise as it was written and directed by some of the series' veterans. Roger Moore plays an advertising executive who unwillingly hires Claudie Lange (her debut British film) for his promotional campaign, only to find that she's overheard a plot to assassinate the president of a fictional country (no doubt to avoid any political hoo-ha upon the film's release). Taking some crap model work and back-projection in tow, the pair go on the run from Francis Matthews and his goons, team up with some squatters, have a water fight, drive a classic car around a stately home whilst being shot at by a helicopter gunman and eventually save the day, and the president, at the very last second. It's all very silly but Moore and Lange make an excellent pair. Slightly tedious but quite fun at times.

:3*:

Quote :

Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly)

When? Where? How?

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly)

When? Where? How?

Just his line delivery when chopping between talking to Shaw and his colleagues is a bit flat. Guess he was concentrating on flicking the right switches.

G section wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly)

When? Where? How?

Just his line delivery when chopping between talking to Shaw and his colleagues is a bit flat. Guess he was concentrating on flicking the right switches.

I thought that worked for the character and the humour of the situation. He's clearly bored stiff by his job, and not even a hijacking is enough to make it interesting.

Sharky wrote:

G section wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly)

When? Where? How?

Just his line delivery when chopping between talking to Shaw and his colleagues is a bit flat. Guess he was concentrating on flicking the right switches.

I thought that worked for the character and the humour of the situation. He's clearly bored stiff by his job, and not even a hijacking is enough to make it interesting.

But it's enough to make him offer some sort of remorse for the death of a couple of his colleagues, surely? (Namely the Caz Dolowicz character, even if he was a bit of a tosser.)

It came across a bit like this :

Not enough love for Jerry Stiller. :evil:

G section wrote:

Sharky wrote:

G section wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Walter Matthau carries the film very well (although his performance is a bit off a few times, albeit briefly)

When? Where? How?

Just his line delivery when chopping between talking to Shaw and his colleagues is a bit flat. Guess he was concentrating on flicking the right switches.

I thought that worked for the character and the humour of the situation. He's clearly bored stiff by his job, and not even a hijacking is enough to make it interesting.

But it's enough to make him offer some sort of remorse for the death of a couple of his colleagues, surely? (Namely the Caz Dolowicz character, even if he was a bit of a tosser.)

The tosser part is important, and the fact that the film is set in New York.

Sorry Sharkster, I don't follow.

It captures the hustle and bustle and dog eat dog world of 70s NY better than other more well known flicks, such as THE FRENCH CONNECTION.

The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three is a social satire on the state of the Government and the People in the 70s when people were fed up with Vietnam, Big Government, Crime, Unemployment etc etc

That is why the remake didn't work - they totally missed the point of the original!!

I like those films where Matthau gets to be badass.

May need a Matthau avatar soon.

And then, as if by magic.... :D

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I like those films where Matthau gets to be badass.

May need a Matthau avatar soon.

have you seen Hopscotch?

Ravenstone wrote:

And then, as if by magic.... :D

It's like Walt is seeing the BS in every post I make.

j7wild wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I like those films where Matthau gets to be badass.

May need a Matthau avatar soon.

have you seen Hopscotch?

Nope, but I think it may be on Netflix Instant.

The Pink Panther
pleasant enough, but it still strikes me as an odd sort of film, for me the David Niven / Robert Wagner heist side of the film doesn't gell with the Peter Sellers slapstick comedy side of the film, however Cappucine and Claudia Cardinale are very easy on the eye...

also I'm not comfortable with the idea that Cappucine has been sleeping with Clouseau for 20 years just to supply info to the Phantom

Inner Space
starts off promisingly as a comic update on "The Fantastic Voyage" with an added "on the run odd ball buddy movie" dimension, however that added dimension ends up taking over the whole movie, populated with "Mel Brooks does James Bond villains", which soon becomes tedious, repetitive and just plain silly
there is also a special effects "face changing" sequence which has clearly been cro-barred in to show off the latest advances and is completely un neccesary and irrelevant
meanwhile the whole exploration of "Innerspace" concept is left underdeveloped, a wasted opportunity

Knight & Day (extended edition)
better, pretty damn good in fact, but still ruined by the awful comic book level CGI, which sits uncomfortably alongside Tom Crudes remarkably restrained and subtley nuianced acting performance