Last Movie you Watched?

Except the premise is that he abandons protecting the people he loves to go after remnants of Krypton. Let's ignore that this ends up having nothing to do with the story and is just a MacGuffin to inform the "Superman Returns" premise -- it's inherently flawed because it presumes that Krypton means more to Superman than Earth does, which is a fundamental misreading of the entire character.

The character in RETURNS is a pale shadow of the character from the Donner films, an imitation.

The biggest mistake in the whole film though is making Marsden's character more likeable than Superman. I mean, the entire "Supes and Lois' lovechild" story is a misfire, but I know that Singer wanted to discuss father/son relationships and mirror the shit with Jor-El from the first movie.

Except that's also a mistake. Superman's most significant father/son relationship isn't with Jor-El, it's with Pa Kent, the man who raised him, who instilled those middle American values into him. Superman is who he is because of his human parents.

Of course, Superman follows Jor-El's example in RETURNS by abandoning his son to a foster father who is a better person than he is depicted as.

But why am I debating any of this to you? You don't care. From what you say, they could make a Superman movie where he's got a Brazillian accent and dresses in leather boy shorts and at one point says "Fuck the world and it's problems, I'm Superman bitch!" and you'd be happy if it managed to engage some sort've semi-deep social and spiritual themes mixed with some ponderous metaphors.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

it's inherently flawed because it presumes that Krypton means more to Superman than Earth does, which is a fundamental misreading of the entire character.

Heroes can change! Nothing's written in stone.

Sharky wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

it's inherently flawed because it presumes that Krypton means more to Superman than Earth does, which is a fundamental misreading of the entire character.

Heroes can change! Nothing's written in stone.

*facepalm* So what makes him "Superman" then? Is there a point to you where what I'm trying to say makes sense, where he's fundamentally not that character anymore? Or is he still Superman so long as we call him that? Like, for you, could he eat puppies and fuck babies and as long as we still call him "Superman" there's no betrayal of the character because characters "can change" and having him act unheroically is "subversive" and therefore to be applauded?

If RETURNS featured Superman realizing that leaving the planet for no reason was a mistake, that'd be fine. But what we get instead is a movie that says "We''re better off without this guy, he doesn't really care about us, and views saving us as a burdensome cross to bear".

Quote :

Like, for you, could he eat puppies and fuck babies and as long as we still call him "Superman"

As long as there was a reasoning behind Superman becoming a raving lunatic (i.e. brain injury), I'd be fine.

Can't we have one film thread that's free of this comic book shit?

Fat chance

Jaws 2

a few minutes of nothing much with a few more minutes of blind terror as the shark circles its prey relentlessly. Early on the use of the shark theme provoked feelings of a parody but I suppose that'd be Jaws 3 and 4. Good thing John Williams was on hand for this and even Roy Scheider who had the good sense to do Blue Thunder rather than be suckered into Jaws 3

Hilly wrote:

That might well have been it. Oliver Reed used to scare the living daylights out of me.

Simpler times.

Reed has ALWAYS scared the piss out of me, his expression just seems to belong in my nightmares from about age 5. Primal Horror.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Can't we have one film thread that's free of this comic book shit?

Tell Hollywood to stop making comic book movies and we'll stop discussing them.

Gonna watch WINGS. Not the sitcom with Crystal Bernard, but the first film to win Best Picture. Silent films are a bit of a frontier to me. I've only seen a few, though I'm fascinated by visual storytelling and laud directors who came out of the silent era... so I really should get around to seeing more of these movies. The French New Wave and the Silent Era are on my list of projects in my own, self-run film school. But I have to get through all these sh*tty "Best" Pictures first.

But I'm looking at the audio options and I do a little research and find this thing by Leonard Maltin on his blog: http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/wings-takes-flighton-dvd#

Yeah, I know Maltin's a HUGE studio sycophant and big time asskisser, while he's not busy being your grandma's favorite movie critic, but I found it to be an informative piece. I guess I'll pick the audio option that has the original score for the film, rerecorded and with Ben Burtt sound effects. I think I read something about sound effects with some silent films, but I really didn't know any had sound effects.

I know this isn't supposed to be one of the great silents, but it's exciting for me to finally watch one. That's why I posted the link. No one in my peronal life would give a shit, but I thought I'd voice that excitement here.

On the subject of silents, I've owned Murnau's SUNRISE on DVD for years and have never given it a spin.

Saw a bit of Wings when they were discussing The Artist on the Beeb. Looks impressive if not for the use of real aircraft which I know was necessary in 1929 but still. Meant to be rereleased on Blu-Ray. A Wellman movie no less, man had a thing for aviation.

WINGS is very entertaining. I was lucky enough to catch it in a cinema, introduced by Kevin Brownlow, and it not only looked great but it seemed to play very well to the audience. I've never heard it referred to as “the last great silent film” though, so I have no idea what Maltin is talking about there - coming out alongside pieces like SUNRISE, STREET ANGEL, THE CROWD, THE DOCKS OF NEW YORK, and LUCKY STAR, it would be a rather absurd statement. It's a lot of fun though, and I hope you enjoy :)

You have WINGS to thank for the dogfight sequences in STAR WARS. ILM basically used scenes from the movie as animatics.

"The last great silent film"? Yeah that's a doubtable statement -- wasn't MODERN TIMES largely silent?

Island in the Sky

compared to The High and the Mighty this John Wayne aviation disaster this is a little more solid with plenty of flying around looking for Wayne and his crashed corsair. In true fashion it's not until the last few minutes that they're found. Still, who knew you could wind down a window in the cockpit with snow and ice all over the plane and manage to see something far off and at night?

.

.

,

The Exorcist (1973)

4/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/

the 132 min Director's Cut never shown in Theater

this is my first complete viewing of this film

before today, I've seen bits and pieces of it on TV, edited and cut

I am sorry to say but I was not scared, shocked, disgusted, nauseated one bit by this film

I guess I've seen too many horror films and too much real life blood and gore in my lifetime

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

You have WINGS to thank for the dogfight sequences in STAR WARS. ILM basically used scenes from the movie as animatics.

"The last great silent film"? Yeah that's a doubtable statement -- wasn't MODERN TIMES largely silent?

Actually Lucas' dogfight film was amassed from actual VietNam footage and a lot of w2 and Korean war movies;
BRIDGES AT TOKO-RI was a biggie as I recall (they actually show several clips from the film on the big laserdisc set, so I imagine it is on the DVDs as well.)

What they took from WINGS is that the Xwings and such maneuver like ww1 era craft. as if they've got all that wing action going on. That's according to Richard Edlund, who shot most of the battle stuff.

trevanian wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

You have WINGS to thank for the dogfight sequences in STAR WARS. ILM basically used scenes from the movie as animatics.

"The last great silent film"? Yeah that's a doubtable statement -- wasn't MODERN TIMES largely silent?

Actually Lucas' dogfight film was amassed from actual VietNam footage and a lot of w2 and Korean war movies;
BRIDGES AT TOKO-RI was a biggie as I recall (they actually show several clips from the film on the big laserdisc set, so I imagine it is on the DVDs as well.)

What they took from WINGS is that the Xwings and such maneuver like ww1 era craft. as if they've got all that wing action going on. That's according to Richard Edlund, who shot most of the battle stuff.

One of the WWII films I think was Battle of Britain and Dambusters another



and flipped by the same guy

Dances With Wolves

The most obvious quality of Dances with Wolves is that it is very even-handed towards its subject matter. It approaches the relationship between Native Americans and American soldiers with the same restraint. There has clearly been a lot of effort expended by Costner and the writer Michael Blake to get away from the clichéd depiction of Native Americans as a backward, violent people, who deserved everything they got from the brave, civilised white men driving them off the land.

You also have to applaud Costner's ambition as a director. There are few actors, who would have taken on such a big project first time out. Costner was shooting in mostly external locations for four months, including several elaborate sequences with hundreds of real horses and buffalo. His commitment was such that he nearly broke his back from doing his own stunts, and stumped up over $3m of his own money to cover the costs incurred by bad weather. Costner was prepared to take risks with Dances with Wolves, and that deserves praise regardless of whether the film works or not.

The biggest problem with Dances with Wolves is that it constantly tells us how important the events are without doing enough to show us why this is the case. There are many beautiful or poignant images throughout, from the hundreds of dead buffalo lying on the plains to the couple's departure from the winter camp. But these images don't carry the weight that they should because we haven't invested enough in the characters to make them any more than pretty compositions.

Fortunately, the film does pick up after the first 45 minutes and has moments where the action and characters do take flight.It's too long to adequately serve its story, but not so long that we lose all patience with it. Its respect for its characters undercuts the drama, but not to the extent that we sit there drifting into a coma. And its direction is uninvolving, but not in an artsy, egotistical way. Calling it an average or ordinary film is to belie Costner's ambition, but any higher praise is impossible in light of its flaws. John Barry's score and Dean Semler's cinematography are highlights but ultimately it's a middling film.

A Man Called Horse

Well, Richard Harris is much much better than Kevin Costner. It is maybe not the most entertaining film,but the almost documentary style depiction of Native American life is fascinating and convincing. In some ways, it's more honest than Dances With Wolves. Whereas that film had a somewhat overly 'nice' view of Sioux life that seemed simplistic, this shows the brutal side of it.

Richard Harris is quite good. The Sun Dance ceremony as portrayed in this film is very moving.The ordeal depicted in the movie was performed in an underground lodge, with the dancer hanging from ropes held from above. It seemed more like torture imposed on a captive rather than the spiritual experience willingly undertaken that it historically has been. However, Richard Harris's character does attain the ecstatic state of spiritual communion attributed to the Sun Dance, despite this detail, and is then accepted into the tribe.

It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a white man was needed to save this tribe from another tribe's attack by organizing their archery forces, but so the plot goes.

In the end, the movie is an amazing spectacle and quite moving in its re-enactment of an almost forgotten period of U.S. history, yet it retains numerous flaws most notably poor acting from the Indian actors and slow pace especially in the first half of the film.

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Absolutely superb.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Can't we have one film thread that's free of this comic book shit?

Not likely...especially since the two biggest movies this year will most likely be comic-book movies (Spidey and Batman).

Erica Ambler wrote:

Can't we have one film thread that's free of this comic book shit?

Sykes started it!

Ffolkes (1979)

4.25/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081809/



an enjoyable film but recommended only for Purist Roger Moore's Film Fans

THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR (1968)

I really enjoy it. Stylish, sexy, exciting. McQueen is beyond cool, as usual. Love the editing, too. Didn't know Hal Ashby had a part in it.

Wings (1927)

Hey, you can see Clara Bow's tits.

I thought it was an interesting movie. Well, interesting to watch. Felt a bit long in the running time, and it doesn't have much of a story to tell. Dudes fly. Dudes do stuff on the ground. Dudes fly again. Dudes do stuff on the ground again. Dude has weirdass bubble hallucinations in Paris. Dudes fly again.

Interesting on a technical level.

The rerecorded score is nice, but I'm not crazy about how it was orchestrated. Sounds... I dunno how to explain it, but it sounds more Disney than dramatic. I did like the main theme playing over the opening where we see all of the Paramound logos going back in time to the 20's. That was a thrill to see.

Gary Cooper gets a scene, and it's a shame he didn't star in the thing. He's got a lot more presense than the two guys who did star.