Last Movie you Watched?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
:bounce:


Rollerball (original version)
70s socio political Sci Fi from the pre "Star Wars" era, when Sci Fi cinema still took itself seriously, paying homage to the irrepressible nature of the human spirit
James Caan represents the western ideal of the independent, individual nature of humanity, railing against "the system", despite being offered material comfort in return for his obedience
"the system" in this case being a world run by giant corporations, who each monopolize their field and are able provide "bread and circuses" (Rollerball) to keep the masses compliant
sounds great, except a while back one of the "executives" took a fancy to sporting hero James Caan's wife and forced him give her up
they've tried to make it up to him with a string of beautiful and complaint babes since, but Jimmy is still hung up on the original (two time James Bond girl Maud Adams)
his frustration drives him to excel at his violent profession until his individual brilliance threatens to overshadow the generic, interchangeable nature of the mass entertainment spectacle and the executives begin to feel threatened
although for people who control the world they seem strangely reticent and ineffective in their attempts to to bend James Caan to their will, a few tips from Joe Stalin would seem to be in order
Rollerball is a mix of roller derby, gridiron and crusty demons, and the action is pretty well put together for the times
however the pivotal philosophical scene with poor old Ralph Richardson roped in to deliver the psychobabble, as the keeper of the master computer, is laughable
James Caan underplays with his acting, late Steve McQueen style, as for Caan's character, he wants more "freedom" even though he's can't really articulate why (apart from the wife thing, of course)
some gratuitous nudity probably wouldn't have gone astray, given it probably already had an age restriction for violence, but the numerous opportunities offered by the party scenes with orgy couches are squandered
it's not up there with best in show, Charlton Hestons trilogy of "Planet Of The Apes", "Omega Man" and "Soylent Green" are all better IMO
perhaps it's more on a par with "Logan's Run", although it's intended "message" isn't as easy to decipher, the meaning of it's ending more obscure, which is a plus or a minus depending on how you feel about obscureness in movies
does Caan's victory in the final match represent a triumph of the human spirit or merely an animal instinct for survival?

AMERICAN PSYCHO. An almost exquisitely dull adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' novel that simultaneously manages to be overly, deadeningly literal and enormously watered down. While the source material remains deeply shocking (as well as blackly hilarious) and seems more topical than ever, this smug, mechanical, lifeless, pointless film - directed with not a flicker of flair or atmosphere by Mary Harron - seems as dated as its late-1980s setting, although it's actually only eleven years old. Not remotely as searing as the novel, or even vaguely as funny or thought-provoking, this is merely a by-the-numbers piece of "product". The only point in its favour is that Christian Bale is perfectly cast as Patrick Bateman, although no stroke of casting genius can do much for a film this poor.

Parts of that flick gives me belly laughs, whether intentionally or not. It does have a cheap 80s feel to it, heck if I didn't know anything of the flick I would have thought it was filmed in 1989. Even the cinematography looks like it intentionally mimicked that typical late 80s cinematography style. I should check out the book someday.

Dr. No (1962)

Sluggish patches mixed with great scenes. Doesn't live up to it's potential IMHO. Still has a nice Boy's Own appeal. Servicable start for the series.

To Catch a Thief (1955)

Not as exciting as some of the other Hitchcock films of this period, but it's got a lot going for it. I love Grace Kelly's character as a woman who gets hot for a thief. I was thinking that could be cool in a Bond film; a well-bred socialite whose curiosity lands her deep in the plot of the film, and interested in Bond.

ANONYMOUS

My word. I may be breaking some critical taboos by saying this, but it was actually good. I mean, not great, not perfect, it has some stumbles, particularly in the flashback scenes -- but damn, even a mediocre movie is a masterpiece coming from Emmerlich. I mean, this isn't just head and shoulders over everything he's ever done, it's the whole damn body.
It's much, much better than the ridiculously silly SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE in my opinion, and it did evoke AMADEUS in a lot of ways -- mainly in the sense that historians get a headache by the way it twists facts to tell a story. That being said, like AMADEUS, the story is actually good.
As for its historical merit, well I myself am an Oxfordian (believing Edward de Vere wrote the plays) and have been for years before this film, but even I admit the way the film presents the theory is a little incredulous -- like I said, twisted for the sake of drama. Oddly enough, the film doesn't actually highlight any of the strengths of the Oxford Theory -- it doesn't highlight the weaknesses either, but it seems less interested in making a realistic case that Oxford wrote Shakespeare than it is in telling its tale of political intrigue.
Which, frankly, probably makes it a better movie than trying to literally dramatize the facets of the Oxford theory.

Quote :

well I myself am an Oxfordian (believing Edward de Vere wrote the plays) and have been for years before this film

The fact that de Vere wasn't an actor, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this laughable theory. Not to mention the huge differences in their handwriting, or the gazillions of historical discrepancies.

Stratfordian 4 Life.

Handwriting? Nothing of Shakespeare's plays in his handwriting survives. What the hell does that prove? Also, since when do you need to be an actor to write? I mean, I don't agree with the way ANONYMOUS presents the theory (I'm more interested in the story it tells), but how does a guy who never left England write so well of Italian cities and customs? Italian cities which de Vere visited all of during his education.

Oh, dear, I just opened a can of worms by debating with you, didn't I? Nevermind, I am going to bed.

Horrible Bosses

Horrible Movie - they had a good premise and they just couldn't do anything with it

1/5

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Handwriting? Nothing of Shakespeare's plays in his handwriting survives.

Sorry I meant stylometry. I'm tired. Studies have shown that there's a gulf between their linguistic styles.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

HAlso, since when do you need to be an actor to write?

I'm not going to go into it now, but the way Shakespeare wrote - is emblematic of someone who'd performed on the stage. That is one of the reasons why The Bard has survived this long. He put himself in the shoes of his players, ha knew when to time the rests, entrances, soliloquies etc. Making the job easier for them, in other words.

The same way a composer who's has had first hand experience of the instruments in the orchestra and performing live, tends to write with a certain insight.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

mean, I don't agree with the way ANONYMOUS presents the theory (I'm more interested in the story it tells), but how does a guy who never left England write so well of Italian cities and customs? Italian cities which de Vere visited all of during his education.

You overestimate Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy, and what he had could have easily been picked up from simply the social circles he moved in and the books he read, let alone the grammar school he went to. Italian culture permeated the middle to upper classes of Elizabethan England.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It's much, much better than the ridiculously silly SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE in my opinion, and it did evoke AMADEUS in a lot of ways -- mainly in the sense that historians get a headache by the way it twists facts to tell a story. That being said, like AMADEUS, the story is actually good.

In regards to Shakespeare in Love, I think it's reminiscent in that it creates a work of fiction in which Shakespeare (or "Shakespeare") is inspired by characters and events. In Madden's film, it's romantic comedy/tragedy/whatever. For Anonymous it's political intrigue in the mold of Shakespeare's histories.

Although there are some pretty hilarious, jarring moments in terms of how Anonymous presents the plays. The biggest one being Julius Caesar ending after Caesar is assassinated.

With Amadeus, I think the similarities run deeper, namely Jonson's jealousy of both Oxford and then Shakespeare for taking the credit. To its credit, Anonymous does itself a great service by having Oxford's put down of Jonson be equally as hilarious as Mozart's of Salieri...

I can't remember what the line is, but it's the exchange where Jonson claims he didn't put his name to the plays because they weren't in his "voice," and Oxford responds with something along the lines of "You have no voice! That's why I chose you!"

The White Tuxedo wrote:

[i]To Catch a Thief (1955)

Not as exciting as some of the other Hitchcock films of this period, but it's got a lot going for it. I love Grace Kelly's character as a woman who gets hot for a thief. I was thinking that could be cool in a Bond film; a well-bred socialite whose curiosity lands her deep in the plot of the film, and interested in Bond.

Wasn't that OHMSS where Tracy is a well known socialite, even married to a prince at one time and then meets James Bond, gets curious, saves his life and the rest is history!

Oxfordian thought is about as sensible as 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[quote="Sharky"]

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

mean, I don't agree with the way ANONYMOUS presents the theory (I'm more interested in the story it tells), but how does a guy who never left England write so well of Italian cities and customs? Italian cities which de Vere visited all of during his education.

You overestimate Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy, and what he had could have easily been picked up from simply the social circles he moved in and the books he read, let alone the grammar school he went to. Italian culture permeated the middle to upper classes of Elizabethan England.

Additionally people who write are generally well read, his experience may not have been first hand but all they really needed to be were sufficiently above that of his target audience to sell the environment to them.

Captain America - The first Avenger 5/10
Pirates of the Carribean - On Stranger Tides 5/10

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

A mixed bag to me. There is a lot that I like, but I think it's hampered foremost by cumbersome pacing. This is a two-hour movie, but it felt like 2 and a half to me. The first act is mostly very good, but the whole plot with Red Skull wanting to bomb the whole world just doesn't dominate like I think it maybe should have. I honestly didn't know what was really going on for a good portion of the film. We get this montage of the war going on (this may be the only WWII movie I've seen without a single actual Nazi ), but it's sorta fuzzy to me. There's no drive to the story after a while, so individual action sequences don't have much to hinge on. It's like there's no real objective here.

Secondly, the action sequences themselves didn't really impress me. They come off as awkward, and sometimes end abrubtly from my recollection. And only a few of them really have an objective that I can remember. My favorite action was after the spy dude blows up Stanley Tucci's lab and Cap is chasing him McClane style (barefoot) through the streets. He's trying to get the asshole who kilt Stanley Tucci and robbed us of seeing him in the film more (a crime worthy of death), and so we can follow Cap and root for him to get said asshole. Most of the other action sequences... I didn't know what the hell was going on. Maybe I'm just dense.

Third thing is that the film is a slave (at least to a point) to a film that will porbably be a pile of shit: THE AVENGERS. It's even in the title. THE FIRST AVENGER. I sure wish it was just CAPTAIN AMERICA. Fucking Marvel. They're castrating these films. They should also stop putting Stan Lee in all the Marvel movies. Yeah, he seems like a nice old man, but this is getting old.

On to the good. Yeah, there is a lot of good, and that's why I'm so bothered by the not-so-good. The big thing is that we get a hero who is himself actually heroic. I love that. When I first saw that Chris Evans was gonna be Captain America I thought it was a dumb idea, but he's great here. He sells the role perfectly. The rest of the cast is perfect to me. Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell (I'd tap it), Tucci, Matrix/LOTR dude, even the guy playing Tony Stark's dad (I assume dad, not granddad). I didn't mind Stark Sr. being in it because they didn't make a big fucking thing of it like having one-eyed Mace Windu popping out at the end like, "Surprise Mutha Fucka!"

I like Joe Johnston. Did I mention that I love THE ROCKETEER? Yeah, a movie of that type should have more action sequences, but the guy gets this pulp hero stuff. He doesn't try to do anything but present it in a sorta Saturday matinee style. He doesn't think he's making some Important Oscar Picture, nor does he treat it as a joke. He's a competent director. Sorta Spielberg Lite, but in the opposite direction of Ron Howard in that he makes action movies instead of horrid attempts at drama. The man knows his niche and he infuses the film with the right tone. I just think the pacing and action are off.

I dig the score, moreso the main theme. My favorite thing in the film was the end credits. That was 100% fucking awesome.

I think it needed snappier pacing, more immediate focus on Red Skull's plot with the action sequences born out of that and always being for a point.

I'm a bit late to this party but caught up with Captain America at last and agree with pretty much everything you say, the film felt too much like going through the motions, no real spark or surprise. The only character I cared about and wasn't a painful cliche was Tucci and he has far too little time onscreen. The cast is great but no of them have very much to do and the action like you say just lacks focus.

Similarly

Pirates of the Carribean - On Stranger Tides

Much like Captian America there's lots of action, but none of it quite works, theres no sense of excitement even amid the wildest of chases or fight scene's. Some of the humour just about raises a smile but never consistently and never for long. The cast are generally very good but no one is being stretched or challenged to to anything but deliver their lines and move on.

All in all Pirates has perhaps become the most sterile franchise still breathing, oddly although it has none of the preconcieved restrictions of something like Bond, it chooses to tread water, difficult to see how or why it stays afloat.

saint mark wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

[i]To Catch a Thief (1955)

Not as exciting as some of the other Hitchcock films of this period, but it's got a lot going for it. I love Grace Kelly's character as a woman who gets hot for a thief. I was thinking that could be cool in a Bond film; a well-bred socialite whose curiosity lands her deep in the plot of the film, and interested in Bond.

Wasn't that OHMSS where Tracy is a well known socialite, even married to a prince at one time and then meets James Bond, gets curious, saves his life and the rest is history!

Sorta. Though I wouldn't go the bird-with-a-wing-down route.

And it's been over 40 years since that, and they've repeated the "Bond's equal" thing many times anyway.

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

More than anything I like the atmosphere; it's gentle, offbeat, and surreal. A pleasantly enjoyable film. I like the cast a lot, especially the wonderful Shirley MacLaine. She's got a nice delivery on a few lines that I really liked.

come with me...

come with me...on a ...

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

a bit of fun, bit something to pass the time. Though I thought the TV series (first season anyway) was good in black and white the film revels in its colour with shots of the flaming sky (one of the better images the Seaview entering New York with the sky siliohuetting Manhattan) and Seaview herself underwater. Couldn't help but wonder how this film would've been with Basehart/Hedison, particularly if they kept the near mutinous Crane constantly it seems angry at Nelson's actions. I say this, we pretty much get this with the Season 3 episode The Sky's on Fire (the movie in two parts and with the flying sub).
Quite like Walter Pidgeon as Nelson (even if Basehart as Nelson left an impression on me when I was seven) and the addition of Peter Lorre.
And old Kowalski's along for the ride as well.


and, er, Frankie Avalon.

Thor

3/5

Kat Dennings is wasted in here

so is Jaimie Alexander

and it looks like everytime Natalie is around Chris, she is getting aroused

Insightful commentary as always.

Fair point though. If you've got Kat Dennings in your film, I don't understand why you wouldn't put her bristols to good use.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Insightful commentary as always.

from the Barry Norman Academy for Teens.

Dances With Wolves

I like it. Costner's just about bearable which is rare for me (though his narration can be pretty souless), the locations are fantastic, Mary McDonnell striking, the Buffalo Hunt extroadinary to watch at any rate and above all yes, the music. When it plays over the images of sweeping landscapes it seems to fill the landscape, to heighten the vision that we have (and weirdly, this is something that struck me, that I felt when I first saw a clip of Dances when I was about 10), the emotion that there is be it Cisco's death or Two Socks, the excitement of the Hunt or John Dunbar himself.
If a sequel is ever done which is rumoured based on the sequel book it is one thing that might hold it back (apart from say Viggo Mortensen as Dunbar) and that is the music.

Men in Black (1997)



Still full of awesome after all these years, actually reminds me from the times when summer blockbusters were superb and had some neat ideas of their own.

9/10


Johnny English Reborn (2011)



Went to see this with no actual interest (even though I liked the original), but it turned out to be pretty decent. Not as good as the original, but not a failure either. Though it needs some John Malkovich.

6/10

2046

I enjoyed the look of it and the music, but it's not in the same league as IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE; in fact, I believe it is a bit too reminiscent of it; perhaps its softcore equivalent or some such.
I liked the beginning with the Bai Ling character the most, it was pretty funny; after that, my interest gradually and continually diminished. I have to admit I was suffering of tiredness once more, during its second half, so I should rewatch it some day.
Some good stuff, but not really exciting on first viewing.